Wisconsin
Lawyer
Vol. 81, No. 5, May
2008
Lawyer Discipline
The Office of Lawyer Regulation
(OLR), 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 lawyers. The OLR has offices at
110 E. Main St., Suite 315, Madison, WI 53703; toll-free (877) 315-6941.
The full text of items summarized in this column can be viewed at
www.wicourts.gov/olr.
Disciplinary proceeding against Gary R.
George
On March 26, 2008, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law
license of Gary
R. George, 54, Milwaukee, for four years and three months, retroactive
to April 1, 2004,
the effective date of a previous summary suspension ordered by the
court. In addition,
the court ordered that George pay the $14,064.72 cost of the
disciplinary proceeding.
Disciplinary Proceedings Against George, 2008 WI 21.
The earlier summary suspension was based on George's entering a
guilty plea to
one count of conspiracy to commit offenses involving federal program
funds.
The supreme court determined that George's conduct violated SCR
20:8.4(b).
Although the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) sought, and the referee
in the matter
recommended, that George's license be revoked, the court concluded that
a 51-month suspension
was appropriate. The court found persuasive the OLR's argument that,
because at the time
of his misconduct George was acting not only as an attorney but also as
an elected
official, the misconduct "not only involved dishonesty, it violated
the public's trust and
served to undermine the public's confidence in its elected
officials." The court
nevertheless concluded that, because this was the only disciplinary
complaint ever filed
against George, because of George's public service, and because his
"prospects for
rehabilitation are real," George's misconduct "does not
warrant the harshest penalty of revocation."
Top of Page
Disciplinary proceeding against Linda C.
Smith
On March 21, 2008, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law
license of Linda
C. Smith, Atlanta, Ga., for two years. The court also ordered Smith to
pay restitution
of $425.69 plus interest to an estate's creditor and to pay the
$3,504.07 cost of the
disciplinary proceeding. Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Smith, 2008 WI 17.
Smith engaged in 17 counts of misconduct, first alleged in
grievances filed by
three individuals who were all involved with Smith in a failed business
transaction to
purchase and operate a restaurant. Smith twice violated former SCR
20:1.15(a) (effective
before July 1, 2007) by failing to hold client funds in trust, and she
violated former
SCR 20:1.15(b) (effective before July 1, 2007) by failing to timely
disburse funds to a
client.
Smith twice violated former SCR 20:1.7(b) (effective before July
1, 2007) by
representing two clients when her representation was materially limited
by her own
interests, without obtaining written consent from the clients. Smith
also personally paid an
outstanding lien in an estate she was representing, thereby providing
financial
assistance to a client in connection with pending litigation, in
violation of former SCR
20:1.8(e) (effective before July 1, 2007).
Additionally, Smith used client funds held in trust to pay a
lien on the
estate's truck, used trust account funds to pay for expenditures of the
restaurant business,
and misrepresented the financial condition of the business venture to
the co-owner and to
the seller, resulting in four violations of SCR 20:8.4(c) for conduct
involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Smith also violated
former SCR 20:3.3(a)(1)
(effective before July 1, 2007) because one of her false statements was
made to a court.
Smith twice violated SCRs 20:8.4(a) and (b) for conduct related to her
handling of the
liquor license for the restaurant. SCR 20:8.4(a) states it is misconduct
for a lawyer to
attempt to violate the professional conduct rules, to induce another to
do so, or to do
so through the acts of another, and SCR 20:8.4(b) prohibits the
commission of a criminal
act that reflects adversely on a lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or
fitness as a
lawyer. Finally, Smith's misconduct included five instances of failing
to cooperate with
the OLR's investigation, in violation of SCR 22.03(6). Smith had no
prior discipline.
Top of Page
Disciplinary proceeding against Eric L.
Crandall
In a March 4, 2008 decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court imposed a
public reprimand
on Eric L. Crandall, New Richmond. Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Crandall,
2008 WI 14.
A married couple hired Crandall to remove errors from their
credit report.
Crandall noticed that a company had accessed the male client's credit
report. Although the
man said he had no account with the company, he was mistaken.
Crandall sued the company, which provided proof of the account
to Crandall, but
he refused to dismiss the lawsuit. The company moved for summary
judgment. Crandall
failed to file an affidavit signed by the male client or any other
response in opposition to
the motion. The court dismissed the case. Crandall failed to tell his
clients that the
case was dismissed.
When the company renewed a request for sanctions, Crandall filed
a brief and the
man's affidavit that opposed the summary judgment motion. Crandall
failed to inform the
couple when the court entered against the man a sanctions judgment of
more than $4,700.
The couple later reached an agreement to pay $1,600 to the company. On
three occasions,
the couple requested the case file from Crandall, but he did not comply
for eight months.
During the OLR's investigation, the supreme court temporarily
suspended
Crandall's license until he provided information requested by the OLR.
After being reinstated,
he again ignored an OLR request for information.
During the disciplinary proceeding, Crandall stipulated to
having committed the
six counts of misconduct alleged by the OLR. When the referee
recommended a public
reprimand and the imposition of costs, Crandall made an untimely attempt
to appeal the
referee's recommendation, which the court denied.
The court concluded that Crandall violated former SCR
20:3.1(a)(1) and (2)
(advancing a meritless claim), former 20:1.3 (lack of diligence), former
20:1.4(a) (failing to
keep a client informed), former 20:1.16(d) (failing to return a file),
and 21.15(4)
and 22.03(2) and (6) (noncooperation with the OLR). The former rules
were in effect
before July 1, 2007. The court ordered Crandall to pay partial
restitution of $1,000 to
his clients within 60 days of the discipline order and to pay the cost
of the
disciplinary proceeding.
Crandall's license previously was suspended for three months in
February 2006 as
discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court for
misconduct
involving neglect and failure to communicate, to comply with discovery
rules, and to
cooperate with disciplinary authorities.
Top of Page
Public reprimand of James Moldenhauer
The OLR and James Moldenhauer, Eau Claire, agreed to the imposition
of a public
reprimand pursuant to SCR 22.09(1). A referee appointed by the supreme
court thereafter
approved the agreement and issued the public reprimand on March 25,
2008, in accordance with
SCR 22.09(3).
Moldenhauer represented a client in a probate matter.
Moldenhauer failed to
advance the client's interests in closing the estate of the client's
father by taking almost
a year to close the estate. He also failed during that time to take
steps to obtain a
closing certificate from the Wisconsin Department of Revenue so the
estate could be
closed, in violation of SCR 20:1.3, which requires a lawyer to act with
reasonable diligence
and promptness in representing a client. Additionally, by failing to
respond to the
client's numerous requests for information about the status of the
estate and why it had not
been closed, Moldenhauer violated former SCR 20:1.4(a) (effective before
July 1, 2007).
Finally, by failing to appear at three hearings after having been
ordered by the court
to appear and show cause on three separate dates, and by failing to
timely respond to
an additional court order, Moldenhauer disobeyed obligations under the
rules of a
tribunal, in violation of former SCR 20:3.4(c) (effective before July 1,
2007).
Moldenhauer has prior discipline. In 2006, Moldenhauer received
a public reprimand
for violating SCR 20:1.3 and SCR 20:1.16(d) in two matters and for
failing to cooperate
in both matters. In 1996, Moldenhauer received a private reprimand for
violations of
SCR 20:1.3, 20:1.4(a,) and 20:1.15(b) in a probate matter.
Top of Page
Hearing to reinstate David V. Jennings
On June 19, 2008, at 9 a.m., a public hearing will be held before
referee Tim Vocke
in Room 45, Milwaukee State Office Building, 819 N. 6th St., Milwaukee,
on the petition
of David V. Jennings III, Cedarburg, to reinstate his Wisconsin law
license. Any
interested person may appear at the hearing and be heard in support of,
or in opposition to,
the petition for reinstatement.
In Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Jennings, 172 Wis. 2d 638, 493 N.W.2d 375
(1993), the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted Jennings' petition for the
revocation of his license
by consent as discipline for professional misconduct. In his petition,
Jennings stated that
he could not successfully defend against allegations of professional
misconduct under
investigation by the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility
concerning his
unauthorized distributions of approximately $550,000 from bank accounts
of two companies he
represented in bankruptcy; he deposited in his personal accounts most of
the funds, including a
$200,000 settlement he received on behalf of one of those companies that
he failed to report.
To be reinstated, Jennings must substantiate by clear,
satisfactory, and convincing
evidence that: he has the moral character to practice law in Wisconsin;
his resumption
of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the administration of
justice or
subversive of the public interest; all of his representations in his
reinstatement petition
are substantiated; and he has complied fully with the terms of the order
of suspension
or revocation and with SCR 22.26.
Relevant information may be provided to or obtained from OLR
investigator
Travis Stieren or OLR director Keith L. Sellen, 110 E. Main St., Suite
315, Madison, WI
53703; toll-free (877) 315-6941.
Private Reprimand Summaries
The Wisconsin Supreme Court permits the Office of Lawyer Regulation
(OLR) to publish, for educational purposes, in an official State Bar
publication a summary of
facts and professional conduct rule violations in matters in which the
OLR imposed private reprimands. The summaries do not disclose
information identifying the
reprimanded attorneys. The following summaries of selected private
reprimands, imposed by the OLR, are printed to help attorneys avoid
similar misconduct problems. Some of
the summaries may indicate violations of the rules that were in effect
prior to July 1, 2007. The current rules proscribe the same types of
misconduct. Under the new
rules of lawyer regulation, a court-appointed referee will impose
private reprimands with consent of the attorney. See SCR 22.09 (2000).
Top of Page
Wisconsin Lawyer