Sign In
    Wisconsin Lawyer
    December 01, 2002

    Lawyer Discipline

    Wisconsin LawyerWisconsin Lawyer
    Vol. 75, No. 12, December 2002

    Lawyer Discipline

    The Office of Lawyer Regulation (formerly known as the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility), 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 persons practicing law in Wisconsin. The Office of Lawyer Regulation has offices located at Suite 315, 110 E. Main St., Madison, WI 53703, and Suite 300, 342 N. Water St., Milwaukee, WI 53202. Toll-free telephone: (877) 315-6941.

    Disciplinary proceeding against James W. Bannen

    The Wisconsin Supreme Court has suspended the law license of James W. Bannen, 53, La Crosse, for three years effective Nov. 21, 2002, for professional misconduct.

    Bannen entered into a stipulation wherein he admitted assisting a client in conduct that Bannen knew was criminal or fraudulent, contrary to SCR 20:1.2; failing to hold client funds in trust, contrary to SCR 20:1.15(a); failing to keep complete trust account records, contrary to SCR 20:1.15(e); failing to ensure that his firm had measures in place to assure that the conduct of a nonlawyer employee was compatible with the attorney's professional obligations, contrary to SCR 20:5.3(a); representing a client when the representation was materially limited by Bannen's own interests, contrary to SCR 20:1.7(b); two counts of failing to keep a client reasonably informed, contrary to SCR 20:1.4; two counts of engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c); and four counts of failing to fully and fairly disclose all the facts and circumstances pertaining to his alleged misconduct and making misrepresentations in disclosures to the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR), predecessor to the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), contrary to the former SCR 22.07(2).

    The court's order recognized several mitigating factors cited by the referee, including that Bannen did not personally benefit from the misconduct; that Bannen was unaware of an employee's criminal acts that resulted in a loss of client funds; and that Bannen or his firm made full restitution.

    The court agreed with the referee's recommendation for a three-year suspension and also ordered Bannen to pay the costs of the proceeding.

    Disciplinary proceeding against Jonathan C. Lewis

    The Wisconsin Supreme Court has suspended the Wisconsin law license of Jonathan C. Lewis, 42, Minneapolis, Minn., for 60 days effective Oct. 2, 2002. Lewis is a Minnesota lawyer who also was admitted to practice in Wisconsin in December 1996. The Wisconsin disciplinary rules applied to the situation.

    The court's order was based upon a stipulation between Lewis and the OLR and concerned Lewis' representation of two parties with conflicting interests in a complex business transaction. At no time did Lewis obtain written consent from either client regarding a conflict of interest, although a provision in a proposed settlement agreement Lewis drafted for one client would have substantially benefited the other client. It also was clear that one client was a potential defendant in any litigation filed by the other client and that both representations involved similar defendants, so that obtaining damages on behalf of one client would mean less money available to the other client. These conflicts, the stipulation agreed, were in violation of SCR 20:1.7(b).

    Lewis also neglected to file a lawsuit on behalf of one of these clients, contrary to SCR 20:1.3; led the client nevertheless to believe that the lawsuit was filed, thereby engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c); failed to comply with the client's reasonable requests for information, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a); and failed to cooperate with the BAPR, now OLR, investigation, contrary to former SCR 22.07(2) and 21.03(4) and current SCR 22.03(6).

    No costs were imposed in the case.

    Disciplinary proceeding against Terry J. Ness

    The law license of Terry J. Ness, 38, formerly of Minneapolis, Minn., and now of Hudson, Wis., has been suspended for nine months effective Nov. 6, 2002.

    Ness was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 1998. He took, but did not pass, the Minnesota bar exam. Ness nevertheless established a Minneapolis law firm in partnership with a Minnesota-licensed attorney. Ness represented to a federal court in Minnesota that he was eligible to appear pro hac vice before that court because he was admitted to a federal court in Wisconsin, which was not true. He also made misrepresentations to a Minnesota state court about his eligibility to practice before that court and about his law partner's involvement in a case. The Wisconsin Supreme Court found that Ness thereby practiced law in a jurisdiction where he was not licensed, contrary to SCR 20:5.5(a), and made false statements to a tribunal, contrary to SCR 20:3.3(a)(1).

    Other misconduct involved Ness's use of letterhead, Web sites, and other communications that were false or misleading. Ness failed to indicate his jurisdictional limitations on his Minnesota firm's letterhead, contrary to SCR 20:7.5(b). The letterhead also falsely stated that he was admitted in federal courts when he was not. The firm's Web site falsely asserted that the firm was a national firm that concentrated on False Claims Acts cases and had achieved significant settlements and verdicts in that area, when the law firm had never litigated such a case. The court determined that these communications were contrary to SCR 20:7.1(a).

    The court agreed with the referee's recommendation for a nine-month suspension of Ness's license and assessed costs of the proceeding against him.

    Disciplinary proceeding against Virginia Rose Ray

    The Wisconsin Supreme Court has suspended the law license of Virginia Rose Ray, 57, Dodgeville, for 60 days effective Nov. 6, 2002.

    Ray's misconduct involved multiple failures to cooperate with the investigation of BAPR, predecessor to the OLR, contrary to former SCR 22.07(2) and 21.03(4); engaging in offensive personality, contrary to SCR 40.15 and 20:8.4(g); failing to maintain the respect due to courts and judicial officers, contrary to SCR 40.15 and 20:8.4(g); failing to deposit a retainer fee to her trust account, contrary to SCR 20:1.15(a) and (d); retaining an unreasonable fee, contrary to SCR 20:1.5(a); and failing to refund an unearned fee upon termination of the representation, contrary to SCR 20:1.16(d).

    In addition to the 60-day suspension, Ray was ordered to refund a $4,000 fee to a client with 5 percent interest, and ordered to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.

    Public reprimand of Constance Traylor

    The OLR and Constance Traylor, Overland Park, Kan., entered into an agreement for 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 Oct. 23, 2002.

    After graduating from the U.W. Law School in 1974, Traylor immediately went to work for an out-of-state federal agency, where she remains employed. That position has always involved the practice of law, and, since 1997, also has involved the supervision of other lawyers in their practice of law. Traylor therefore was required to maintain an active state law license. Wisconsin is the only state in which Traylor has ever been licensed. Traylor elected to become an inactive member of the State Bar of Wisconsin in April 1988. Traylor states that she believed her inactive status affected only her eligibility to practice law in Wisconsin.

    In April 2001, Traylor's employer issued a directive requiring all its attorneys to provide evidence of active membership in the bar of at least one state. Traylor states that this directive was the first instance in which she knew that active membership in a bar was a requirement of her employment. Traylor immediately contacted Wisconsin licensing authorities to learn what was required to regain active membership. Traylor, however, continued to practice law while she sought reactivation.

    Through an administrative error in August 2001, Traylor was informed mistakenly that her Bar membership was transferred to active status, when, in fact, her license still was inactive. In March 2002, Traylor was told that a problem had occurred with converting her license to active status. Traylor immediately informed her employer of the problem and also sought reactivation of her Wisconsin license. Again, Traylor continued to practice law with an inactive license while she sought reactivation. Traylor's license was reactivated by order dated May 14, 2002.

    As to her practice of law subsequent to her transferring to inactive membership in 1988, Traylor violated SCR 10.03(4), which states, "Only active members may practice law. No individual other than an enrolled active member of the state bar may practice law in this state or in any manner purport to be authorized or qualified to practice law." SCR 10.03(4) is enforceable under the Rules of Professional Conduct through SCR 20:8.4(f), which states, "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to ... violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of lawyers." With respect to law practice subsequent to her April 1988 transfer to inactive status in jurisdictions where licensure was dependent on her maintaining an active state law license, Traylor violated SCR 20:5.5(a), which states, "A lawyer shall not ... practice law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction...".

    Disciplinary proceeding against Christopher L. O'Byrne

    On Nov. 15, 2002, the Wisconsin Supreme Court revoked the law license of Christopher L. O'Byrne, 49, Port Washington, commencing that day. In addition, the court ordered that O'Byrne pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding; that he pay $33,758.89 in restitution; and that the restitution be paid prior to the costs of the disciplinary proceeding. Prior to the revocation, the court had suspended O'Byrne's license indefinitely, effective April 16, 2001, for failing to cooperate with two OLR investigations, including one involving a trust account overdraft. He also was suspended for 60 days, effective Dec. 26, 2001, based upon his neglect of a probate matter.

    The revocation was based upon multiple trust account conversions that were discovered during the investigation of a June 19, 2000 overdraft on O'Byrne's trust account. That overdraft led to the discovery of several problems, and ultimately resulted in an audit of O'Byrne's trust account. Due to O'Byrne's failure to produce various records, OLR was required to obtain them by subpoena from his bank. However, one day after being suspended for failing to cooperate with this investigation, O'Byrne's counsel submitted O'Byrne's explanation for the overdraft, along with various trust account records. In that response, O'Byrne misrepresented that the overdraft was due to his mistakenly withdrawing funds from his trust account rather than his business account. [SCR 20:8.4(c)]. In comparing the "original" records produced by O'Byrne with those subpoenaed from his bank, OLR discovered that four of the checks produced by O'Byrne, all of which were payable to O'Byrne, had been altered. [SCR 20:8.4(c)].

    One of the conversions related to O'Byrne's representation of a client regarding the purchase of a business. A portion of the sale proceeds, $10,000, was to be held in O'Byrne's trust account, pending the seller's compliance with various terms of the sale. On Sept. 14, 1998, O'Byrne deposited the $10,000 check into a joint personal checking account owned by O'Byrne and his wife. [SCR 20:1.15(a)]. By Dec. 8, 1998, the entire $10,000 had been converted, and the personal checking account was overdrawn. [SCR 20:8.4(b)]. The seller failed to comply with several of the sale terms, and the client advised O'Byrne of these problems. O'Byrne told the client that he would place a lien on a vehicle that was part of the purchase, so that it could not be sold. O'Byrne subsequently misrepresented to the client that he had obtained a lien when he had not.

    The client frequently asked O'Byrne about the $10,000. While he represented to the client that he could not release the funds because the seller had to sign off on them, the actual reason he was unable to release the funds was because he had misappropriated them. He further misrepresented to the client that he was working on obtaining a release. [SCR 20:8.4(c)]. In June of 2001, the client retained new counsel. That attorney obtained a conditional release of the funds. O'Byrne failed to respond to several telephone calls and letters from the new attorney and never returned the $10,000. [SCR 20:1.16(d)].

    The second matter in which conversions occurred involves collection work that O'Byrne handled for a health care group. The health care group did not allow him to deduct fees from the funds that he collected. He was required to bill the client for the fees. OLR's audit of O'Byrne's trust account revealed that O'Byrne had failed to turn over between $23,258.89 and $24,968.16 to the health care group. [SCR 20:8.4(b)].

    The third matter involved O'Byrne's representation of a client on a Class E felony charge. The client wanted the charge reduced to a misdemeanor, and O'Byrne indicated that he foresaw no problems in having the charge reduced. He also suggested that the client give him the funds to make restitution, as it would be a sign of good faith when he began talking to the district attorney. On April 5, 2000, the client gave O'Byrne two checks, one for legal fees and a second in the amount of $1,850, which was for restitution. The $1,850 check was deposited into O'Byrne's trust account; however, by June 19, 2000, the entire amount had been converted. [SCR 20:8.4(b)].

    In September 2000, the client entered a no contest plea to the felony, based upon O'Byrne's representation to him that the prosecutor had refused to discuss a reduction in the charge. However, O'Byrne never told the prosecutor that the client had given him the funds to make restitution. [SCR 20:8.4(c)]. The prosecutor indicated to OLR that, had she known the restitution had been paid up front, she would have seriously reconsidered the felony charge. In November 2000, the client was convicted of a felony, sentenced to 30 days in jail, placed on probation for three years, and ordered to pay $1,921 in restitution and costs. By continuing to represent this client after misappropriating the $1,850, thereby compromising the client's opportunity to obtain a better plea bargain, O'Byrne represented a client under circumstances where his own interests materially limited the representation. [SCR 20:1.7(b)].

    In January 2001, the client advised his probation officer that he had given O'Byrne the funds to pay restitution. The probation officer contacted O'Byrne, and O'Byrne told him that he would forward the restitution. In April 2001, O'Byrne sent the client a check for the restitution, which was drawn on his law office account. That check initially was returned due to insufficient funds, but cleared the following day. By failing to promptly deliver the $1,850 to either the client or the probation agent, O'Byrne violated SCR 20:1.15(b). In addition, O'Byrne failed to cooperate with OLR's investigation of this matter. [SCR 22.03(6)}.

    The final instance of misconduct involves O'Byrne's representation of a client regarding a visitation matter. The client gave O'Byrne $500 to commence the representation. O'Byrne deposited the funds into his personal account, but performed no work for the client. The client requested a refund, and while O'Byrne agreed to make one, he never did so. [SCR 20:1.16(d)]. O'Byrne also failed to cooperate with OLR's investigation of this matter. [SCR 22.03(6)].


Join the conversation! Log in to comment.

News & Pubs Search

-
Format: MM/DD/YYYY