Sign In
    Wisconsin Lawyer
    May 01, 2002

    Lawyer Discipline

    Wisconsin Lawyer
    Vol. 75, No. 5, May 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.

    Private Reprimand Summaries

    Disciplinary Proceedings against Sharon A. Davison

    The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the Wisconsin law license of Sharon A. Davison, Milwaukee, for six months, effective April 26, 2002. Davison's professional misconduct consisted of submitting false vouchers to the State Public Defender's Office (SPD) for parking expenses not actually incurred, thereby engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).

    Between 1992 and 1996, two salaried attorney-employees in Davison's office received numerous SPD appointments. Davison's internal office procedures required the attorneys to provide pre-signed, undated SPD payment vouchers and their time/expense sheets to Davison. Davison completed and submitted these vouchers to the SPD, without review by the attorneys whose names appeared on the vouchers. The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Davison stipulated, and the referee and the supreme court found, that on between 99 to 210 occasions, Davison submitted for reimbursement of parking expenses that had not actually been incurred, and that the aggregate amount of the improper submissions totaled between $868 and $2,249.

    In addition to suspending Davison's law license, the court ordered Davison to make restitution to the SPD in an amount to be determined by the OLR. Davison also was ordered to pay the $8,717.21 costs of the disciplinary proceeding.

    Disciplinary Proceedings against Kathryn P. Karlsson

    On Nov. 29, 2001, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license of Kathryn P. Karlsson, 55, Milwaukee, for nine months, effective Jan. 4, 2002. In addition, the court ordered Karlsson to refund $800 to one client and $100 to another client. The court ordered Karlsson to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings, and further ordered that, upon reinstatement of her law license, Karlsson arrange for another attorney to monitor her cases and submit quarterly status reports to the OLR.

    The court found that Karlsson had committed 12 counts of professional misconduct involving seven of her clients, as alleged in the complaint; in addition, the court found Karlsson had committed seven counts of noncooperation with the OLR in its disciplinary investigation, as alleged in the complaint.

    In the first matter, the court found that Karlsson had failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness (SCR 20:1.3) in representing her client, T.S., who had retained Karlsson to represent her in a divorce action. T.S. made numerous unsuccessful attempts to contact Karlsson during the representation (SCR 20:1.4(a)).

    In a second matter, Karlsson was retained in the spring of 1997 to represent E.G. in a custody and visitation dispute. Karlsson agreed that E.G. could make installment payments toward the retainer fee and that if E.G. ultimately chose not to file suit, the payments would be returned. E.G. thereafter made at least three $50 payments to Karlsson for the prepayment of legal fees. In addition, E.G.'s mother also made four payments to Karlsson on behalf of E.G. The court found that Karlsson performed no services for E.G. and that, in fact, E.G. appeared pro se at a subsequent hearing, where she was able to resolve the custody issue herself. In addition, Karlsson did not respond to E.G.'s and her mother's letters requesting refunds of the retainer payments. Although Karlsson eventually returned some of the money, she had failed to return $100 to E.G. (SCR 20:1.16(d)).

    In a third matter, Karlsson had been retained by P.M. to represent her in a post-judgment divorce matter in May 1997, and P.M. paid Karlsson a $1,500 fee advance. After P.M. provided certain material to Karlsson at her office, Karlsson had no further contact with P.M. for the next year. Although P.M. subsequently sent Karlsson three letters between June and September 1998 requesting the return of her divorce file and a return of a portion of the advance fee, Karlsson did not reply (SCR 20:1.16(d)). In April 1999, P.M. obtained a $1,500 small claims judgment against Karlsson; however, Karlsson did not pay that judgment until March 2000, after the OLR's investigator had contacted Karlsson about this grievance.

    In a fourth matter, in July 1994 Karlsson was retained by C.M. to represent her in a personal injury claim stemming from a July 7, 1994, automobile accident. In March 1997, nearly four months before the statute of limitations on C.M.'s personal injury claim was to expire, C.M. forwarded the final medical bill related to the accident to Karlsson along with a letter requesting information on the status of the case. Karlsson did not respond to that letter or to C.M.'s follow-up letters in July 1997 and October 1997. C.M. and her husband thereafter made a series of telephone calls to Karlsson and sent her another letter in May 1998; again Karlsson made no response to the calls or letters (SCR 20:1.4(a)). Karlsson had failed to send a demand letter to the insurance company involved in C.M.'s claim before the statute of limitations on that claim expired or to file suit before the statute of limitations expired (SCR 20:1.3).

    In a fifth matter, in February 1993 Karlsson was retained by D.C. to represent him in a bankruptcy matter; D.C. paid Karlsson $800 as a retainer. The retainer agreement provided that it was "for bankruptcy ... flat fee." Thereafter, D.C. met with Karlsson three times to complete the necessary paperwork. Subsequently, D.C. made what he estimated to be 30 to 40 phone calls to Karlsson seeking information about the bankruptcy matter. Karlsson's own message slips in her office file for the D.C. bankruptcy reflect that she had failed to respond to at least four or five of D.C.'s calls (SCR 20:1.4(a)). After six years, D.C.'s bankruptcy still had not been filed (SCR 20:1.3). Karlsson never filed the bankruptcy matter on behalf of D.C. and never refunded the $800 retainer fee to him (SCR 20:1.16(d)).

    In a sixth matter, in October 1993 P.M. retained Karlsson to represent him in a personal injury action stemming from injuries P.M. had sustained on Oct. 2, 1993. Karlsson subsequently filed a personal injury action on behalf of P.M. on Oct. 2, 1996. The defendant in that personal injury action then moved to dismiss it for failure to prosecute and for failure to answer written discovery requests, failure to appear at scheduled depositions, and failure to file a witness list. Even though the motion to dismiss the personal injury action had been denied, the circuit court had assessed $498 in costs against P.M. Karlsson, however, never notified P.M. of that assessment of costs. The circuit court in the personal injury action ultimately granted summary judgment against P.M. as to all but one of the defendants, and entered judgment against P.M. for costs in the amount of $412.34.

    Although default judgment in favor of P.M. against the remaining defendant in the amount of $5,000 was later granted, Karlsson never prepared an order for the circuit court's signature and that judgment was never entered (SCR 20:1.3), nor did she inform P.M. about that judgment. When P.M. later received information that his personal injury action had been resolved, he and his father made numerous telephone calls to Karlsson in May and June 1999 seeking information about the status of his case. P.M. also sent Karlsson a certified letter asking for information, but she did not respond (SCR 20:1.4(a)).

    In a seventh matter, in January 1996 Karlsson was retained by D.D. to represent her in a partition action involving real estate D.D. had purchased with a friend. After she was retained by D.D., Karlsson contacted the parties in the real estate transaction and discovered that the land contract had never been recorded. Karlsson, on behalf of her client, D.D., recorded the land contract and wrote several letters to opposing parties, but the matter was not resolved at that time. More than three years after she had been retained, Karlsson met with D.D. to review the summons and complaint Karlsson had drafted in the partition action. Several months later Karlsson informed D.D. that she was winding down her law practice and that she would refer the partition matter to another attorney. However, Karlsson never referred the partition case to another attorney and never filed the summons and complaint she had drafted on D.D.'s behalf (SCR 20:1.3).

    In each of the seven matters, Karlsson failed to respond to several letters from OLR staff requesting a response to the grievance. Karlsson also failed to appear at an investigative interview, failed to respond to phone calls from a district committee investigator, and failed to ever provide a written response to any of the seven grievances (SCR 21.03(4) and SCR 22.07).


Join the conversation! Log in to comment.

News & Pubs Search

-
Format: MM/DD/YYYY