|
Vol. 71, No. 7,
July 1998
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 Kevin M. Jereczek
On May 20, 1998, the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted the petition of
Kevin M. Jereczek for revocation of his law license by consent. Jereczek,
35, Green Bay, filed the petition in the course of a disciplinary action
filed by the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR). In the
petition, Jereczek stated that he could not defend against the allegations
of misconduct contained in BAPR's complaint. Jereczek has been ineligible
to practice law since May 27, 1996, the starting date of a 60-day suspension
from which Jereczek never obtained reinstatement because he failed to file
the affidavit of compliance required under the terms and conditions of the
suspension. Jereczek also was publicly reprimanded in 1996.
The proceeding leading to Jereczek's revocation stemmed from three grievance
matters. In the first, Jereczek remained attorney of record in a federal
court case after his May 27, 1996 suspension, and, in violation of SCR 22.26(1)(b),
failed to provide notice of his license suspension to the court. In violation
of SCR 21.03(4) and 2.07(2), which require attorneys to cooperate with BAPR
investigations, Jereczek submitted nothing in response to notices requiring
him to address the allegations of misconduct.
In the second matter, Jereczek agreed to provide post-conviction representation
to a criminal defendant who already had representation through the State
Public Defender's office. Jereczek's representation was arranged through
the client's sister. In violation of SCR 20:1.3, Jereczek did nothing to
advance the client's interests. In violation of SCR 20:8.4(c), Jereczek
made misrepresentations to the sister, a friend of the sister, and other
members of the client's family as to work purportedly done. In violation
of SCR 22.26(1)(a), Jereczek failed to inform the client of his May 27,
1996 license suspension, which commenced during the period of representation.
Jereczek failed to return any portion of the retainer paid by the sister,
violating SCR 20:1.16(d). In violation of SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07, Jereczek
did not cooperate with the grievance investigation.
In the third matter, prior to the May 27, 1996 suspension of his law
license, Jereczek failed to advance his clients' interests in a bankruptcy,
violating SCR 20:1.3. Jereczek failed to inform the clients of his license
suspension, in violation of SCR 22.26(1)(a). Subsequent to his license suspension,
Jereczek appeared on behalf of one of the clients in a small claims case,
violating SCR 22.26(2), and failed to inform the court of his suspension,
in violation of SCR 22.26(1)(b). In further violation of SCR 22.26(2), Jereczek
prepared certain bankruptcy forms for the clients subsequent to his license
suspension. In violation of SCR 20:1.16(d), Jereczek failed to return the
$650 retainer provided by the clients, issuing them a check in that amount
that never cleared because of insufficient funds in his office account.
Jereczek did not cooperate with the grievance investigation, in violation
of SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07.
Hearing to reinstate Anthony M. Marick
On March 16, 1998, Anthony M. Marick filed a petition with the Wisconsin
Supreme Court seeking the reinstatement of his law license pursuant to SCR
21.11 and 22.28.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered Marick's law license suspended for
nine months, effective Oct. 2, 1996. The court based its order upon review
of the record and a stipulation between Marick and BAPR.
Marick and BAPR stipulated that the director of the Minnesota Office
of Lawyers Professional Responsibility had alleged Marick:
- used a client confidence or secret for his or a third person's advantage,
contrary to Minnesota Rule of Professional Responsibility 1.6(a)(3), which
is equivalent to Wisconsin SCR 20:1.6(a);
- engaged in conduct that constituted a criminal act that reflected adversely
on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other
respects, contrary to Minnesota Rule of Professional Responsibility 8.4(b),
which is equivalent to Wisconsin SCR 20:8.4(b); and
- engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation,
contrary to Minnesota Rule of Professional Responsibility 8.4(c), which
is equivalent to Wisconsin SCR 20:8.4(c).
Marick and BAPR also stipulated that these allegations were based upon
Marick's use of confidential client information for his personal profit.
Marick and BAPR agreed that the Minnesota Supreme Court had suspended
Marick's law license for nine months. They also agreed that Marick admitted
the aforementioned allegations in a stipulation between him and the director
of the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility.
Marick and BAPR agreed that a nine-month suspension of his Wisconsin
law license would be appropriate reciprocal discipline.
Marick is required by SCR 22.28 to show that:
- nine months have elapsed since the denial of his previous petition;
- he has not practiced law since Nov. 1, 1989;
- he has fully complied with the terms of the revocation order;
- he has maintained competence and learning in the law;
- his conduct since the discipline has been exemplary and above reproach;
- he has a proper understanding of and attitude toward the standards
that are imposed upon members of the bar and will act in conformity with
the standards;
- he can safely be recommended to the legal profession, the courts and
the public as a person fit to be consulted by others and to represent them
and otherwise act in matters of trust and confidence and in general to
aid in the administration of justice as a member of the bar and as an officer
of the court;
- he has fully complied with the requirements of SCR 22.26;
- he indicates the proposed use of his law license if reinstated;
- he has fully described all business activities during the revocation;
- he has made restitution or settled all claims from persons injured
or harmed by his misconduct or, if the restitution is not complete, has
explained the failure or inability to do so.
A public hearing on the petition will be held at 7 p.m. on Thursday,
Sept. 24, 1998, at 110 E. Main St., Fourth Floor Conference Room, Madison,
Wis. Persons wishing to give testimony or evidence in support of or in opposition
to the petition should contact Peter Sammataro, Investigator, Board of Attorneys
Professional Responsibility, 110 E. Main St., Suite 315, Madison, WI 53730-3383,
(608) 267-7274, by Sept. 5, 1998.
Persons who require special accommodations to participate at the hearing
also should contact Peter Sammataro.
|