Sign In
    Wisconsin Lawyer
    September 01, 2014

    Lawyer Discipline

    These summaries are provided by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), an agency of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The OLR assists the court in supervising the practice of law and protecting 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 is at www.wicourts.gov/olr.

    Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kenneth Kratz 

    The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license of Kenneth Kratz, West Bend, for four months, effective July 11, 2014. The court also ordered Kratz to pay the cost of the disciplinary proceeding. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kratz, 2014 WI 31.

    Kratz, a former Calumet County district attorney, engaged in professional misconduct when he sent inappropriate text messages to a crime victim while prosecuting the alleged perpetrator of the crime. In the texts, Kratz asked the woman, “Are you the kind of girl that likes secret contact with an older married DA … the riskier the better?” In another text, Kratz told the woman that she was “beautiful,” “pretty,” and that “I’m the atty. I have the $350,000 house. I have the 6 figure career. You may be the tall, young, hot nymph, but I am the prize! Start convincing.” Kratz also stated to the woman, “I would not expect you to be the other woman. I would want you to be so hot and treat me so well that you’d be THE woman. R U that good?”

    Kratz also made inappropriate statements to two Calumet County social workers. In response to one social worker’s concerns about testifying in a case, Kratz stated, “he won’t cum in your mouth.” Later, Kratz told the social worker that he wanted the trial to be over because he was leaving on a trip to Las Vegas, where he could have “big boobed women serve me drinks.” In remarks to another social worker during a court proceeding, Kratz commented on a woman’s “big, beautiful breasts.”

    Kratz entered pleas of no contest to six counts of misconduct, and after argument and briefing, the referee recommended a four-month suspension of Kratz’s law license and the splitting of costs.

    Calling Kratz’s conduct “appalling,” the court accepted the referee’s conclusions that Kratz, by seeking a personal relationship with a crime victim while serving as a prosecutor of the alleged perpetrator, engaged in a concurrent conflict of interest, in violation of SCR 20:1.7(a); his conduct constituted “offensive personality,” in violation of SCR 20:8.4(g) and SCR 40.15; and Kratz harassed the victim on the basis of her sex, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(i). The court further determined that Kratz’s comments to the social workers constituted “offensive personality” in violation of the attorney’s oath as well as harassment that violated SCR 20:8.4(i). The court assessed full costs on Kratz, noting no “extraordinary circumstances” justified a reduction in costs.

    Kratz had no prior disciplinary history.

    Reinstatement of Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks

    On May 23, 2014, the supreme court reinstated the law license of Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks, Minnesota. Disciplinary Proceedings against Eichhorn-Hicks, 2014 WI 26.

    On Aug. 21, 2000, the Supreme Court of Minnesota suspended Eichhorn-Hicks’ license for one year due to professional misconduct that included misuse of his trust account, failure to maintain proper trust account records, temporary misappropriation of funds, and making false statements to the director of the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility. Effective Feb. 8, 2002, the Supreme Court of Minnesota reinstated Eichhorn-Hicks’ license to practice law in Minnesota, subject to the condition that he be placed on supervised probation for three years.

    On June 23, 2009, the Supreme Court of Minnesota publicly reprimanded Eichhorn-Hicks for professional misconduct and placed him on probation for two years with several conditions.

    Eichhorn-Hicks failed to report his 2000 suspension or 2009 public reprimand to the OLR, as required by SCR 22.22(1). The OLR learned of the suspension through other sources in June 2011.

    On March 1, 2012, the Wisconsin Supreme Court publicly reprimanded Eichhorn-Hicks as reciprocal discipline for his 2009 public reprimand in Minnesota, and ordered that his license to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for one year, effective April 2, 2012, as discipline reciprocal to that issued by the Supreme Court of Minnesota in 2000. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eichhorn-Hicks, 2012 WI 18.

    On May 13, 2013, Eichhorn-Hicks filed a petition for the reinstatement of his Wisconsin law license.

     By order dated May 23, 2014, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reinstated Eichhorn-Hicks’ license and ordered Eichhorn-Hicks to pay the cost of the proceeding.

    Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bridget Boyle

    On July 18, 2014, the supreme court granted a consensual license revocation petition filed by Bridget E. Boyle, Milwaukee, revoking Boyle’s Wisconsin law license. The court further ordered Boyle to pay $17,000 in restitution to three former clients, pay any fee arbitration awarded to a fourth former client, and pay the full cost of disciplinary proceedings that had been pending against Boyle when she filed her petition. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Boyle, 2014 WI 77.

    Boyle’s petition admitted she could not defend herself against seven OLR grievance investigations in which the Preliminary Review Committee had found cause to proceed, seven pending grievance matters currently under investigation by the OLR, 22 counts of misconduct in four grievance matters already pending before the court in one proceeding, and 15 counts of misconduct in five grievance matters pending before the court in another proceeding.

    Boyle’s misconduct over multiple matters involved violations of SCR 20:1.1, SCR 20:1.2(a), SCR 20:1.3, SCR 20:1.4(a)(2), (3), and (4), SCR 20:1.5(a) and (b)(1)-(3), SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) and (4), SCR 20:1.16(a)(2)   and (d), SCR 20:3.2, SCR 20:3.4(c), SCR 20:8.4(c), and SCR 22.03(2) and (6).

    Boyle received a private reprimand in 2008. In addition, the court suspended Boyle from the practice of law for 60 days in 2012 and six months in 2013. Also in 2012, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals disbarred Boyle from practice in that court.

    Disciplinary Proceedings Against Richard W. Voss

    On July 18, 2014, the supreme court suspended the law license of Richard W. Voss, Rhinelander, for 18 months, effective Aug. 22, 2014. The court also ordered Voss to pay restitution to the estate of a former client and to pay the full cost of the disciplinary proceeding and placed a condition on Voss’s reinstatement. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Voss, 2014 WI 75.

    In 1987, Voss was appointed as guardian of the person and estate of J.K. Between 1990 and 2008, Voss should have accumulated in his trust account at least $1,767.60 per year attributable to J.K., and in some years Voss should have accumulated more than $3,000. Ultimately, Voss converted at least $48,791.73 of J.K.’s funds either for his own use or to cover expenditures for other client matters.

    By failing to safeguard and hold in trust client and third-party funds and by converting client funds to his own use or for the use of other clients and third parties, Voss violated former SCR 20:1.15(a), current SCR 20:1.15(b)(1), and SCR 20:8.4(c).

    By failing to hold J.K.’s assets in a separate fiduciary account or to seek the court’s guidance as to whether he should do so, Voss violated former SCR 20:1.15(c)(2) (in effect before July 1, 2004) and former SCR 20:1.15(c)(2) (in effect between July 1, 2004, and Dec. 31, 2009).

    By knowingly making misrepresentations to the Oneida County Circuit Court, including misrepresentations regarding J.K.’s assets and Voss’s handling of the assets, Voss violated former SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) and (4), current SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) and (3), and SCR 20:8.4(c).

    By depositing or authorizing others to deposit into his business or personal account advanced costs paid by clients, Voss violated former SCR 20:1.15(a) and current SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).

    By taking or authorizing others to take cash withdrawals from his client trust account and from deposits to his trust account, Voss violated SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)a.

    By failing to maintain a pooled interest-bearing account and participate in the Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts program and by depositing client and third-party funds in a non-interest-bearing account, Voss violated former SCR 20:1.15(c)(1), current SCR 20:1.15(c)(1), and SCR 13.04.

    By failing to maintain rule-compliant records of trust account funds and other property, Voss violated former SCR 20:1.15(e), former SCR 20:1.15(f)(1), and current SCR 20:1.15(f)(1).

    By commingling personal funds or funds belonging to the Voss Law Office in his client trust account, Voss violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(3).

    By disbursing from his trust account the advanced payments of costs for clients, before their filing fees had been paid to the court, Voss violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(4).

    By holding out Frederick J. Voss as a partner, member, associate, or employee of the Voss Law Office, and by allowing Frederick J. Voss to do the same, Voss violated SCR 20:7.5(d).

    By making misrepresentations to the OLR during the investigation of this matter, Voss violated SCR 22.03(2) and (6), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).

    In 2004, Voss was privately reprimanded for violating SCR 20:1.1 and SCR 20:1.4(a). In 2006, Voss was publicly reprimanded for violating SCR 20:1.1, SCR 20:1.3, SCR 20:1.4(a), SCR 20:1.16(d), and SCR 20:1.5(c) and for committing various trust account violations.


Join the conversation! Log in to comment.

News & Pubs Search

-
Format: MM/DD/YYYY