Professional Discipline
The Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, an arm of the
Wisconsin Supreme Court, assists the court in discharging its exclusive
constitutional responsibility to supervise the practice of law in this
state and to protect the public from acts of professional misconduct by
attorneys licensed to practice in Wisconsin. The board is composed of
eight lawyers and four nonlawyer members, and its offices are located at
Room 410, 110 E. Main St., Madison, WI 53703, and Room 102, 611 N.
Broadway, Milwaukee, WI 53202.
Disciplinary proceeding against Thomas J. Awen
The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license of Thomas J.
Awen, 33, Brookfield, for 90 days, effective Aug. 4, 1997. Awen also was
ordered to pay the cost of the disciplinary proceedings.
Between July 1991 and July 1993 much of Awen's law practice involved
appointments from the State Public Defender to represent indigent
defendants. An audit of Awen's billing statements from this period
disclosed that Awen billed and was paid for many hours of work that
either had not been performed or had been mischaracterized. In numerous
cases he billed the SPD for work in excess of 24 hours in a single day;
billed time for court appearances when court records did not show that a
hearing was held or indicated that a hearing was held but for a shorter
time than claimed; billed several cases for the same hours he spent
waiting in court; and regularly billed more than 18 hours per day for
work on several cases. The court found that Awen's billing practices
violated SCR 20:8.4(c), which proscribes conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, and constituted charging
unreasonable fees, violating SCR 20:1.5(a).
In determining the appropriate sanction, the court noted that the
seriousness and extent of Awen's misconduct would warrant discipline
substantially more severe than the six-month suspension sought by the
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility were it not for the
presence of mitigating factors to which the referee gave great weight.
The court noted that, during the relevant time, Awen was a salaried
associate of a law firm and the payment for his SPD work did not go
directly to him. Thus, he did not benefit directly from the fees
charged. Awen accepted responsibility for his conduct and demonstrated
sincere remorse. In a civil action commenced by the SPD, Awen agreed to
make restitution of $99,672, of which he has made partial payment and
continues to be obligated to make periodic payments through March 1,
2000. The reinstatement of Awen's license is conditioned upon his
compliance with the terms of the restitution agreement.
Awen had no prior discipline.
Disciplinary proceeding against Mary P. Donovan
On July 1, 1997, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law
license of Mary P. Donovan, 29, Beloit, for six months, effective
immediately. Donovan, the former Beloit assistant city attorney, had
forged documents in two municipal cases in which she was the prosecutor.
In August 1996 Donovan pleaded no-contest to two misdemeanor counts of
forgery and was placed on two years' probation.
Donovan entered into a stipulation with BAPR in which she
acknowledged that she had engaged in misconduct and agreed that a
six-month suspension was an appropriate sanction. The supreme court
adopted the facts and conclusions as stipulated by the parties and
imposed a six-month suspension.
In one matter, Donovan moved to dismiss a charge of furnishing
alcohol to a minor on false grounds that the defendant, Donovan's
acquaintance, had completed a deferred prosecution program. In fact, the
defendant had never been referred to the program. The dismissal was
granted pending receipt of certification that the defendant had
completed deferred prosecution. Donovan altered a certificate of
completion of deferred prosecution from another case to use in the
defendant's case and submitted the forged form to the court. The charge
was dismissed but has since been reinstated.
In the second case, Donovan's former boyfriend was charged with a
city ordinance violation for failure to report an accident in which he
had been involved. The matter was referred to Donovan for prosecution.
Donovan prepared a letter requesting a trial on the forfeiture matter,
signed the defendant's name to it and submitted it to the municipal
court. Donovan subsequently moved to dismiss the ticket, and the matter
was dismissed. The case was reopened after the municipal judge became
aware of Donovan's past relationship with the defendant, who eventually
pleaded no-contest and was convicted.
The court found that Donovan violated SCR 20:8.4(b) and 20:1.7(b).
The court noted mitigating factors recited in the stipulation, including
that Donovan was an inexperienced attorney, having practiced
approximately four years; had no prior criminal or disciplinary record;
did not benefit financially from the conduct that led to her misdemeanor
convictions; when confronted with her misconduct, immediately admitted
to wrongdoing; fully cooperated with BAPR; and voluntarily refrained
from practicing law during the disciplinary proceedings, thereby
demonstrating remorse for her actions.
Voluntary revocation of Trygve Inderberg
On June 11, 1997, the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted Trygve
Inderberg's petition for voluntary revocation of his law license. In his
petition, Inderberg, 44, Neillsville, stated that he could not
successfully defend against allegations that he prepared wills and gift
documents for a client that gave him substantial gifts, contrary to SCR
20:1.8(c); had a conflict of interest in continuing to represent the
client and act as her power of attorney while giving himself substantial
gifts of her assets, contrary to SCR 20:1.7(b); commingled personal
funds with client funds in his trust account, contrary to SCR
20:1.15(a); failed to hold client property in a trust account, contrary
to SCR 20:1.15(a) and 20:8.4(c); failed to promptly deliver funds held
in trust to the person entitled to receive them, contrary to SCR
20:1.15(b); misrepresented the reason a check written on his trust
account was dishonored, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c); failed to keep
complete trust account records, contrary to SCR 20:1.15(e); and made
misrepresentations to and failed to cooperate with BAPR, contrary to SCR
22.07(2) and 21.03(4). Inderberg's revocation was effective July 1,
1997.
Disciplinary proceeding against Harold E. Krause Jr.
On May 1, 1997, the Wisconsin Supreme Court imposed a one-year
suspension upon the law license of Harold E. Krause Jr., 53, Providence,
R.I., as reciprocal discipline for his handling of two personal injury
settlements in Rhode Island. In May 1996 the Rhode Island Supreme Court
had suspended Krause's law license for one year. The Wisconsin
proceedings involved a stipulation, which was approved by the Wisconsin
Supreme Court, as to the imposition of a one-year Wisconsin law license
suspension as appropriate discipline for violating SCR 20:1.15(a) and
(b), and SCR 20:8.4(c).
In the first matter, Krause transferred the balance of a client's
personal injury settlement amount into his personal checking account.
Five months later he sent the client a check for the client's entitled
amount but put a stop payment order on that check. Five weeks later he
gave the client a check and cash totalling the amount to which she was
entitled.
In the second matter, Krause deposited a client's settlement into his
business checking account. The check he subsequently gave the client for
her portion of the settlement proceeds bounced. He paid the client the
entire settlement to which she was entitled within the next 10 days. He
did not pay the client's medical bills until several months after
receiving the settlement proceeds and some of those bills were not paid
until more than 18 months after settlement.
Krause had no previous discipline in Wisconsin.
Petition to reinstate Michael F. Roe
Michael F. Roe, Rhinelander, has filed a petition for reinstatement
of his law license. The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended Roe's license
for six months, effective Dec. 5, 1996, for failing to act diligently
and promptly in representing a client, failing to keep the client
informed of the status of her legal matter, endorsing the client's name
to a money order without authority to do so, failing to advise the
client in writing of his receipt of funds belonging to her and failing
to cooperate with BAPR in its investigation.
A public hearing on the reinstatement petition will be held before
the District 16 Professional Responsibility Committee on Friday, Sept.
26, 1997, at 1:15 p.m. at the Claridge Motor Inn, 70 N. Stevens St.,
Rhinelander, Wis.
Roe has the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence
that he has the moral character to practice law in this state and that
his resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the
integrity and standing of the bar or the administration of justice or
subversive of the public interest. Roe also must demonstrate that he has
settled all claims from persons harmed by his misconduct.
Any interested person may appear at the hearing and be heard in
support of or in opposition to the petition. Further information may be
obtained from Elsa P. Greene, Deputy Administrator, Board of Attorneys
Professional Responsibility, 110 E. Main St., Room 410, Madison, WI
53703-3383, (608) 267-7274.
Wisconsin Lawyer