Wisconsin Lawyer: Lawyer Discipline:

State Bar of Wisconsin

Sign In

Top Link Bar

    RACIAL EQUITY: It’s Time to Step Up. We Need Your Help. Click Here.​

    Wisconsin LawyerWisconsin Lawyer

News & Pubs Search

-
Format: MM/DD/YYYY
    January
    09
    2020

    Lawyer Discipline

    The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), an agency of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, provides these summaries for educational purposes.


    Share This:

    The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), an agency of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, provides these summaries for educational purposes. The OLR assists the court in supervising the practice of law and protecting the public from misconduct by lawyers. Find the full text of these summaries at www.wicourts.gov/olr.

    Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gary E. Grass

    On April 16, 2019, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license of Gary E. Grass, Milwaukee, for 60 days. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Grass, 2019 WI 35. The case was resolved pursuant to a stipulation between Grass and the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) before a referee was appointed, and therefore no costs were imposed. The court lifted a temporary suspension imposed pursuant to SCR 22.03(4) due to Grass’s willful noncooperation with underlying grievance investigations. Grass continues to be subject to administrative suspensions imposed due to noncompliance with mandatory dues, trust account certification, and continuing legal education requirements.

    Grass engaged in misconduct in five client matters. In the first, Grass failed to place an advanced fee in his trust account, in violation of SCR 20:1.5(f); and willfully failed to respond to an OLR request for information, in violation of SCR 22.03(6), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).

    In the second matter, Grass violated SCR 20:1.3 by failing to file a postconviction motion on behalf of a client; and SCR 22.26(1), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f), by failing to notify the client of his administrative suspension and consequent inability to practice law. Grass willfully failed to cooperate with the OLR’s investigation of the matter, contrary to SCR 22.03(2) and (6), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).

    In the third matter, Grass failed to advance the client’s interests at the appellate level of a criminal case, in violation of SCR 20:1.3; failed to properly communicate with the client, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a)(3); failed to notify the client of his administrative suspension and consequent inability to practice law, in violation of SCR 22.26(1), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f); and willfully failed to cooperate with the OLR’s investigation, in violation of SCR 22.03(2) and (6), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).

    In the fourth matter, Grass failed to take steps to advance the client’s interests at the appellate level in a criminal case, contrary to SCR 20:1.3; and willfully failed to respond to an OLR request for information in the matter, in violation of SCR 22.03(6), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).

    In the fifth matter, Grass again failed to advance a client’s interests at the appellate level of a criminal case, in violation of SCR 20:1.3; failed to notify the client of his administrative suspension and consequent inability to practice law, in violation of SCR 22.26(1), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f); and willfully failed to cooperate with the OLR’s investigation of the matter, in violation of SCR 22.03(2) and (6), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).

    Grass had no prior discipline.




Server Name