Professional Discipline
Disciplinary proceeding against Donald J. Harman
On Oct. 8, 1998, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered a public
reprimand of Donald J. Harman, 68, La Crosse. The reprimand is based on
misconduct by Harman while he was representing a client on a claim
against a county and certain of its officials concerning the client's
arrest and incarceration.
More than 18 months after he was retained, Harman filed a federal
civil rights action on behalf of the client. It ultimately was
determined by the federal court that the filing occurred roughly one
year after the statute of limitations had terminated the client's cause
of action. When the defendants moved to dismiss, Harman filed nothing in
response, nor did he request an extension of time to file a brief or
other materials in response to the dismissal motion. Harman never
notified his client of the motion to dismiss.
Harman's failure to file the lawsuit within the statute of
limitations constituted a violation of SCR 20:1.3, which requires a
lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness on behalf of a
client; Harman's failure to respond at all to the motion to dismiss also
violated SCR 20:1.3. Harman's failure to communicate with the client
regarding the existence of the motion to dismiss constituted a failure
to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter, in
violation of SCR 20:1.4. The court stated that Harman has demonstrated a
lack of understanding of his professional duties and an unwillingness to
take responsibility for his misconduct.
Harman has prior discipline, in the form of a public reprimand
imposed by the court in 1987, and a public reprimand imposed by BAPR,
with Harman's consent, in 1989.
Disciplinary proceeding against Joseph Jackson
On Oct. 15, 1998, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered a one-year
suspension of the law license of Joseph Jackson, 34, who formerly
practiced in Madison. The suspension is based on misconduct by Jackson
in two separate matters.
In one matter, Jackson represented a client at the trial level in a
criminal case. After the client was convicted, the client informed
Jackson that he wanted to appeal, but Jackson checked "undecided" on the
court form and told the client that Jackson would be available for
further discussion of post-conviction relief. Contrary to SCR 20:1.3,
Jackson never pursued such discussions with the client, and no notice of
intent to pursue post-conviction relief was filed within the prescribed
period.
In responding to the client's subsequent pro se motion for an
extension of time to file a notice of intent to seek post-conviction
relief, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals twice ordered Jackson to respond
to the client's allegation that Jackson had failed to file a notice of
intent to appeal in accordance with the client's instructions. Jackson
failed to respond to either order, in violation of SCR 20:3.4(c).
Jackson left the Madison area during the pendency of the client's
grievance, without informing BAPR where he could be located, in
violation of SCR 21.03(4), and 22.07(2) and (3), which require
cooperation with BAPR investigations.
In a second matter, Jackson represented a client at sentencing in a
probation revocation case and on additional criminal charges. At the
revocation sentencing hearing, in violation of SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) and
20:8.4(c), Jackson misrepresented to the court that a writ of certiorari
appealing the probation revocation was pending. Following conviction in
the criminal case, but prior to sentencing, Jackson, in violation of SCR
20:8.4(c), sought and obtained $1,000 for the claimed purpose of
completing the writ of certiorari and doing further investigation, acts
which were never accomplished.
After sentencing, in further violation of SCR 20:8.4(c), Jackson
misrepresented to the client that he would seek post-conviction relief
and file the notice of intent accordingly. By failing to prepare and
file the writ of certiorari and notice of intent to pursue
post-conviction relief, Jackson violated SCR 20:1.3, which requires an
attorney to act with reasonable diligence and promptness on behalf of a
client. In violation of SCR 20:1.4(a), Jackson did not respond to the
client's requests for information and documents, nor did he provide the
client with information as to where he could be reached. Having failed
to act on his client's behalf, Jackson, in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d),
then apparently abandoned his practice, without providing reasonable
notice to the client, without telling the client where he could be
reached, and without returning papers and property to the client,
including the additional $1,000 he obtained.
In addition to imposing a one-year license suspension, the court
ordered, as a condition of reinstatement, that Jackson be required to
provide BAPR with a detailed accounting of work performed in the second
matter and proof that he refunded to the client any unearned portion of
the retainer.
Disciplinary proceeding against James H. Dumke
On Oct. 8, 1998, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law
license of James H. Dumke, 50, Janesville, for one year, commencing
April 27, 1999, the date on which Dumke's current disciplinary
suspension is set to expire.
After being appointed counsel by the public defender for a person
convicted in March 1995, Dumke prepared a notice of intent to pursue
post-conviction relief, but the court file indicated that the notice was
never filed. In mid-April 1995 Dumke filed a motion in the court of
appeals for an extension of time to file the client's notice of intent
to seek post-conviction relief. The court extended the time for filing,
but Dumke did not file a notice of intent or any other document.
The client subsequently filed on his own behalf a motion seeking an
extension of time to file a notice of intent to pursue post-conviction
relief. The court of appeals ordered Dumke to state within 10 days
whether the prior extension had been put to good use or, if no notice
was filed during the previous extension, why it was not filed. In
response, Dumke told the court he did not receive its prior order and
said that a notice of intent had been filed, but he did not provide a
copy of that notice or state when it was filed. He said that if
necessary, he would file another notice of intent. The court ordered
Dumke to research whether it was necessary to file or re-file a notice
of intent or, if that relief had been pursued, to provide the court the
details regarding the notice and its resolution. Dumke did not respond
to that order or to a subsequent order of the court of appeals extending
the time for a response.
Dumke did not respond to two written requests from the Board of
Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR) for information regarding
the matter. He also did not respond to requests from the district
professional responsibility committee investigator.
In another case, Dumke was retained to represent a client in a
divorce case, for which Dumke received a $1,500 retainer. Dumke
represented the client for approximately two months, after which the
client decided to retain another attorney. When the client asked for a
refund of the unused portion of the retainer, Dumke said the retainer
was nonrefundable. Dumke did not respond to two letters from the
district committee investigator to whom the client's grievance was
referred.
The court concluded that Dumke failed to act with reasonable
diligence in representing his client in the post-conviction matter, in
violation of SCR 20:1.3, and failed to cooperate with BAPR's
investigation in the two client matters, in violation of 21.03(4) and
22.07(2) and (3). The court suspended Dumke's law license for one year
following the suspension to which his license now is subject. The court
further imposed as a condition of the reinstatement of his license that
Dumke provide satisfactory evidence to BAPR that he has received
counseling or treatment specifically directed to correcting his lack of
ability or concern to represent clients promptly and diligently.
Dumke has been disciplined three times previously for professional
misconduct. In 1990 Dumke received a public reprimand. In 1992 the court
suspended his law license for six months for neglecting clients'
matters, failing to provide competent representation, misrepresenting to
clients the status of their matters, failing to keep clients informed,
failing to act with reasonable diligence, failing to cooperate with
BAPR, and, as a prosecutor, communicating with a party known to be
represented by counsel without that counsel's consent. In March 1998 the
court suspended Dumke's law license for one year, commencing April 27,
1998, for neglecting a client's matter, engaging in misrepresentations,
failing to keep a client informed, and failing to cooperate with
BAPR.
Disciplinary proceeding against Bruce S. Johnson
On Oct. 15, 1998, the Wisconsin Supreme Court revoked the law license
of Bruce S. Johnson, 32, who formerly practiced in Luck, Wis. The
revocation stemmed from findings of misconduct in four matters.
In the first matter, in violation of SCR 20:1.3, Johnson failed to
timely file an amended complaint in a matter before the State Equal
Rights Division, resulting in dismissal of the case; and, in violation
of SCR 20:1.4(a), failed to provide the client with accurate information
regarding case status. Johnson also represented a relative of the client
on a Social Security claim, and, in violation of SCR 20:1.3, failed to
timely request a hearing or in any other way respond to a directive
received from the Social Security Administration. Johnson again violated
SCR 20:1.4(a) by failing to provide accurate information to the client
regarding case status.
In a second matter, Johnson was retained to probate an estate in
which he also agreed to serve as special administrator for purposes of
conveying the decedent's real estate. The property was sold, but
Johnson, in violation of SCR 20:1.15(b), failed to make distributions or
provide accountings to the beneficiaries. In violation of SCR 20:1.3,
Johnson failed to pursue the probate beyond recording the deed conveying
the property. In violation of SCR 20:1.4(a), Johnson provided no
response to a beneficiary who repeatedly telephoned Johnson's office
requesting information about the distribution of the sale proceeds.
In a third matter, Johnson was hired to foreclose on a land contract.
Johnson never commenced a court action; but, in violation of SCR
20:8.4(c), made a series of misrepresentations to the client regarding a
purported court action, including: that a court date had been obtained;
upon the client's arrival from another state to attend the purported
foreclosure hearing, that the proceeding had been rescheduled; that the
client should make herself available to be included via telephone for
the purported rescheduled hearing; that the court had ruled in the
client's favor; and that papers would be sent to the client after they
were signed by the judge. The client telephoned Johnson several times to
learn why she had received no papers concerning the purported judgment,
and Johnson made the further misrepresentation that he had tried to call
the judge the preceding evening but that the judge was out of town. The
client later discovered that no action had been commenced on her behalf.
By failing to respond to numerous telephone inquiries from the client
and by otherwise failing to provide the client with accurate information
regarding the status of the matter, Johnson violated SCR 20:1.4(a).
The fourth matter concerned Johnson's probate of an estate. Johnson
failed to timely file an inventory or otherwise act to complete the
estate, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. Johnson failed to respond to the
beneficiaries' requests for information or otherwise provide them with
accurate information regarding the status of the matter, in violation of
SCR 20:1.4(a). Johnson misappropriated at least $4,495 of estate funds,
in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).
In each of the four matters, Johnson failed to respond to inquiries
from BAPR and the district professional responsibility committee to
which the cases had been referred, in violation of SCR 21.03(4) and
22.07(2) and (3).
In addition to license revocation, the court ordered Johnson to make
restitution and provide an accounting to the estate from which he
misappropriated funds.
Wisconsin Lawyer