Vol. 77, No. 9, September
2004
Lawyer Discipline
The Office
of Lawyer Regulation (formerly known as the Board of Attorneys
Professional Responsibility), an agency of the Wisconsin Supreme Court
and component of the lawyer regulation system, assists the court in
carrying out its constitutional responsibility to supervise the practice
of law and protect the public from misconduct by persons practicing law
in Wisconsin. The Office of Lawyer Regulation has offices located at
Suite 315, 110 E. Main St., Madison, WI 53703, and Suite 300, 342 N.
Water St., Milwaukee, WI 53202. Toll-free telephone: (877)
315-6941.
Disciplinary Proceeding against Michael G.
Trewin
By order dated July 27, 2004, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended
the law license of Michael G. Trewin, 44, New London, for five months
effective Aug. 31, 2004. The conduct involved a series of financial
transactions in which Trewin had loaned money to clients, purchased
clients' property, and acquired various security interests in clients'
assets. The court found that Trewin engaged in the following
misconduct:
- by depositing a check belonging to a client into his business
account rather than his client trust account, Trewin violated SCR
20:1.15(a);
- by entering into lender-debtor relationships with clients without
advising them in writing about the possible adverse effects on his
continued legal representation, Trewin violated SCR 20:1.7(b);
- by entering into lender-debtor or business relationships with at
least seven clients without securing written, informed consent waivers
from the clients, Trewin violated SCR 20:1.8(a). The court rejected
Trewin's argument that by signing the loan documents the clients had
given their written consent to the transaction and found that a separate
written conflict waiver was required to comply with the requirements of
SCR 20:1.8(a)(3);
- by virtue of errors made on his loan accountings to clients that
resulted in over-charges for interest and some billings for
disbursements that either were never made or were made at dates well
after interest started to accrue, Trewin's business transactions with
clients were unfair and unreasonable, in further violation of SCR
20:1.8(a);
- by failing to include information regarding a client's ownership
interest in a company on the client's bankruptcy schedules, and by
assigning various loan interests to Trewin's brother-in-law, Trewin
engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c); and
- by failing to timely file his own income tax returns, Trewin
violated a supreme court decision regulating the conduct of lawyers in
State v. Roggensack, 19 Wis. 2d 38, 45, 119 N.W.2d 412
(1963).
The court noted that Trewin had entered into loan transactions with
clients who were experiencing serious financial problems and were in a
vulnerable position. The fact that some of the clients thought Trewin
was doing them a favor by loaning them money, the court stated, did not
exonerate him from any misconduct findings. The court agreed with the
referee that a five-month suspension was an appropriate sanction for
Trewin's misconduct and assessed him the costs of the prosecution
($25,879.82). Justice Prosser concurred in the discipline imposed but
would have adjusted the assessment of costs. Disciplinary
Proceedings against Trewin, 2004 WI 116.
License Revocation of Jeffrey D.
Knickmeier
By order dated July 21, 2004, the Wisconsin Supreme Court revoked the
law license of Jeffrey D. Knickmeier, 49, McFarland/Madison, on finding
that Knickmeier had engaged in 21 separate counts of misconduct. The
court imposed the revocation order retroactive to June 14, 2001, the
date that Knickmeier's law license was temporarily suspended under SCR
22.21.
In a 49-page opinion, the court found that Knickmeier violated:
- SCR 20:1.8(a) and 20:8.4(c) by borrowing $12,000 from a client to
purchase an airplane without obtaining the required written consent,
without disclosing his checkered financial history to the client, and
without making payments pursuant to the terms of the loan;
- SCR 20:8.4(c) and 20:1.15(b), (d), and (e) by depleting and failing
to account for $45,785 of client funds deposited to Knickmeier's client
trust account, which funds were used, among other things, for
Knickmeier's personal and office expenses, for alleged "principal
advances" on a prior loan, and for the purchase of a motorcycle and
athletic tickets;
- SCR 20:1.15(a) and (b) and SCR 20:8.4(c) by failing to deposit
refunds of a client's bail and evidence money into his attorney trust
account and instead putting those client funds to personal use;
- SCR 20:1.7(b), 20:1.3, 20:1.15(a), and 20:1.15(b) regarding
Knickmeier's handling of a client's rental property wherein Knickmeier
rented the client's home to a second client to whom Knickmeier also was
indebted, failed to deposit rental payments to his trust account, used
part of a rental payment to reduce his indebtedness to the second
client, and failed to pay property taxes, telling the county treasurer
that the client was experiencing "liquidity problems" when the client's
cash shortage was in fact caused by Knickmeier's own failure to repay
his indebtedness to the client;
- SCR 20:1.4(a) by failing to provide a client with a requested
accounting and timely billing statements;
- SCR 22.30(2) for failing to timely respond to the Office of Lawyer
Regulation's requests for information; and
- SCR 20:1.15(a) and (e) for using his client trust account for
personal purposes and failing to keep required trust account
records.
The referee described Knickmeier as being unrepentant as demonstrated
by his claim that he was the "victim" and had "suffered enough."
Knickmeier appealed the referee's report and argued that Office of
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) staff had failed to report exculpatory
information, that Knickmeier's constitutional rights had been violated
by the temporary suspension, that the referee improperly failed to
dismiss counts, that the referee was constrained from finding dishonest
and fraudulent conduct on the basis of omissions rather than
commissions, and that the recommended sanction of revocation was
excessive. The court rejected Knickmeier's arguments in all respects,
clarifying, in the process, that the rule prohibiting an attorney from
"engaging in conduct including dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation" is to be read in the disjunctive, such that neither
intent nor fraud must be proved, and that deceitful omissions of
relevant information constitute dishonest conduct within the scope of
the rule.
The court imposed a retroactive revocation and ordered Knickmeier to
pay the costs of the proceeding ($27,085.04). Justice Prosser concurred
and Justice Bradley dissented, but neither filed a separate opinion.
Disciplinary Proceedings against Knickmeier, 2004 WI 115.
Disciplinary Proceeding against Anthony Irby
Moree
On Aug. 2, 2004, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the Wisconsin
law license of Anthony Irby Moree, Mundelein, Ill., for three months and
ordered him to comply with probation conditions imposed in Illinois, as
discipline reciprocal to that imposed upon Moree by the Illinois Supreme
Court in January 2004. In Illinois, Moree's license was suspended for 18
months, with all but the first three months of that suspension stayed by
a two-year period of probation, subject to conditions.
Moree's suspension resulted from his misconduct consisting of
conversion; entering into an agreement with a client or former client
limiting or purporting to limit the right of the client or former client
to file or pursue any complaint before the Attorney Registration and
Disciplinary Commission; failure to deposit funds of a third person in a
separate and identifiable trust account; failure to promptly pay or
deliver to a client or third person funds that the client or third
person was entitled to receive; conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit, or misrepresentation; conduct prejudicial to the administration
of justice; and conduct that tends to defeat the administration of
justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute,
all in violation of various Illinois Supreme Court Rules.
The Illinois suspension order included elements not generally present
in Wisconsin disciplinary proceedings. In approving the stipulation of
Irby and the OLR, the Wisconsin Supreme Court concluded that the
parties' proposal effectuates "identical discipline" under the terms of
SCR 22.22(3) because it replicated the practical effect of the Illinois
suspension order. Justice Bradley dissented. OLR v. Moree, 2004
WI 118.
Wisconsin Lawyer
