Vol. 77, No. 2, February
2004
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.
Public Reprimand of
Donald J. Schwab
The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Donald J. Schwab, 48, River
Falls, agreed to the imposition of a public reprimand, pursuant to SCR
22.09(1). A referee appointed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court approved
the agreement and issued the public reprimand on Nov. 7, 2003, in
accordance with SCR 22.09(3).
After an overdraft occurred on Schwab's client trust account, Schwab
explained that the overdraft occurred because he had made withdrawals
from his client trust account for attorney fees that he had not yet
earned, and deposited the money into his business account to pay for
business expenses. To credit the withdrawals from the trust account,
Schwab subsequently billed multiple clients for attorney fees that he
had earned, but he did not withdraw these earned fees from the client
trust account. In some instances, Schwab did not credit these advance
withdrawals to his client trust account for more than 16 months. In
other instances, Schwab never fully credited the advance withdrawal.
A review of Schwab's client trust account bank statements disclosed
two additional withdrawals totaling $700 that were not attributed to a
client matter. Schwab did not credit either of these withdrawals to the
client trust account. In addition, one client's retainer in the amount
of $750 was not deposited in the client trust account as indicated by
Schwab's cash receipts journal, but was deposited directly into his
business account.
After the overdraft, Schwab opened a second client trust account. A
review of the records for this account disclosed two withdrawals made by
Schwab that were not attributed to a client matter. These withdrawals
totaled $1,853.87. Schwab did not refund either of these withdrawals to
the client trust account.
By withdrawing funds from his client trust accounts before earning
the funds for attorney fees and depositing these funds into his business
account, Schwab failed to hold in trust, separate from his own property,
that property of clients that was in his possession in connection with
their representations, in violation of SCR 20:1.15(a). The reprimand was
conditioned on Schwab's attendance at a trust account management seminar
and monitoring of his trust account for two years.
Public Reprimand of David A.
Bordow
David A. Bordow, 49, Milwaukee, has been publicly reprimanded,
pursuant to SCR 22.09. Bordow had represented a mother and minor
daughter regarding minor injuries they sustained in an automobile
accident. After the mother died of causes unrelated to the accident, no
probate proceedings were commenced or a successor in interest appointed.
Bordow nevertheless accepted a settlement offer that he states was in
excess of the amount the mother had authorized prior to her death. By
negotiating a settlement on behalf of a deceased client and her daughter
without any consultation with the client's successors in interest or the
daughter's father, Bordow violated SCR 20:1.2(a).
The daughter's father subsequently signed a release on behalf of the
daughter, but no one was empowered to sign on behalf of the deceased
client. Bordow took no steps to have anyone appointed, he did not return
the daughter's release to the insurer, and he made no request for
payment of the settlement amounts. Five months after signing the
release, the father appeared at Bordow's office and demanded payment of
his daughter's settlement. Although no settlement proceeds had been
received, Bordow wrote the father a trust account check for the $1,500
settlement, less the amount necessary to satisfy a medical lien and
legal fees. That check caused a shortfall in trust account funds that
Bordow should have been holding for other clients. By using other
clients' funds to cover a check to a party who had no funds on deposit
in his trust account, Bordow failed to hold client funds in trust,
contrary to SCR 20:1.15(a).
Bordow still failed to seek payment from the insurer or take steps to
empower anyone to act for the deceased client, and there continued to be
a shortfall in Bordow's trust account. Six months later, checks were
presented for payment that caused overdrafts in Bordow's trust account.
The bank honored the checks, but reported the overdrafts to the OLR.
Bordow then requested payment from the insurer and sent a fax to the
insurer representing that his office would satisfy the medical liens on
both claims prior to paying out the settlement proceeds. That statement
was not true, as Bordow had already paid out the daughter's proceeds but
had not yet satisfied the medical lien, although he had withheld funds
from the check for the purpose of paying that lien. By making a
misrepresentation to the insurer, Bordow violated SCR 20:4.1(a).
The insurer thereafter issued settlement checks in the amounts of
$1,500 for the daughter and $6,000 for the mother. Bordow still did not
take action to commence a special administration of the mother's estate,
and the $6,000 check grew stale. After the OLR contacted Bordow, he
returned the stale check to the insurer, filed a petition to appoint
himself as special administrator of the deceased client's estate,
received a replacement check from the insurer, and distributed the
proceeds to the heirs. By failing to take timely steps to determine the
deceased client's successors in interest and to obtain and distribute
the proceeds of a settlement he had negotiated, Bordow failed to act
with reasonable diligence and promptness, contrary to SCR 20:1.3.
In the course of its investigation, the OLR also discovered that
Bordow failed to create and maintain required trust account records
other than individual client ledgers. As a result, Bordow was unable to
identify the ownership of $753 on deposit in his trust account. Even
after the OLR identified those problems, Bordow still failed to make
changes that would bring him in compliance with trust account
record-keeping requirements. By failing to create and maintain required
trust account records, Bordow violated SCR 20:1.15(e). Bordow also
failed to file the required overdraft notification agreement until the
OLR had made repeated requests for the agreement, contrary to SCR
20:1.15(n). Finally, Bordow provided the OLR with an incomplete and
misleading explanation regarding the cause of the initial overdraft in
his trust account and failed to timely and fully comply with requests
for trust account records and other information, contrary to SCR
22.03(6).
Public Reprimand of Thomas A.
Plein
The OLR and Thomas A. Plein, 63, formerly of Neenah, agreed to the
imposition of a public reprimand pursuant to SCR 22.09. A referee
appointed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court approved the agreement and
issued the public reprimand on Nov. 17, 2003. On Sept. 29, 2000, Plein
pleaded guilty to three counts of engaging in sexual intercourse with a
child age 16 or older, in violation of Wis. Stat. section 948.09, all
Class A misdemeanors. According to the conviction judgment, Plein was
required to pay fines and costs by Jan. 15, 2001. Plein was no longer
engaged in the active practice of law when he was charged and
convicted.
Plein's conviction provided evidence of three instances of conduct
violating SCR 20:8.4(b), which states, "It is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to ... commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the
lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other
respects." Plein had no prior discipline.
Disciplinary Proceeding against
Gricel S. Echavarria
On Nov. 17, 2003, the Wisconsin Supreme Court summarily suspended
Gricel S. Echavarria's law license based on her criminal conviction of
conspiracy to produce and transfer false identification documents,
counterfeit resident alien cards, and counterfeit Social Security cards,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1028(a) and 1546(a) and 42 U.S.C.
section 408(a)(7)(c). The suspension was effective the date of the
order.
Disciplinary Proceeding against
Michael H. Grady
The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the Wisconsin law license of
Michael H. Grady, 46, Shorewood, for 90 days, effective Nov. 20, 2003.
The court approved an SCR 22.12 stipulation between Grady and the OLR,
and found that Grady engaged in the practice of law while his State Bar
membership was suspended, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(f) in conjunction
with SCR 31.10(1), and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit, or misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).
While Grady's law license was administratively suspended for failing
to comply with mandatory continuing legal education requirements, he
continued to practice law for almost two years. Grady entered
appearances or filed pleadings in at least 20 cases during his
suspension. During the grievance investigation, Grady also
misrepresented that he could recall only one case in which he appeared
or filed pleadings after his law license was suspended and that he could
not recall any cases pending at the time of his suspension.
Grady had no prior discipline.
Disciplinary Proceeding against
William D. Whitnall
The Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted William D. Whitnall's petition
for voluntary revocation of his law license and revoked his law license
effective Nov. 17, 2003. In his petition, Whitnall, 61, Racine,
acknowledged that he could not successfully defend against six counts of
misconduct that were under investigation by the OLR in two separate
matters.
In the first matter, by failing to respond to defense counsel's
discovery requests, which resulted in court sanctions that severely
restricted the client's claims for damages, Whitnall failed to act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in
violation of SCR 20:1.3; by failing to consult with the client regarding
a settlement offer and by accepting the settlement offer without the
client's authorization, Whitnall failed to inform a client of a
settlement offer and to abide by his client's decision whether to accept
a settlement offer, in violation of SCR 20:1.2(a); and by failing to
forward his client's file to successor counsel for eight months,
Whitnall failed to surrender papers and property to which the client was
entitled, in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d).
In the second matter, by failing to file a lawsuit or settle a
client's claim within the statute of limitation as he advised the client
he would do, Whitnall failed to act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3; by
failing to respond to a client's inquiries regarding the status of her
lawsuit, Whitnall failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the
status of a matter and to promptly comply with reasonable requests for
information, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a); and by failing to inform a
client of the applicable statute of limitation so the client could make
an informed decision about retaining other counsel before the statute of
limitation expired, Whitnall failed to explain a matter to the extent
reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions
regarding the representation, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(b).
Whitnall has been previously disciplined for similar conduct and his
law license was still under suspension at the time of the instant
revocation. Whitnall's prior disciplinary history includes a 1986
private reprimand; a 1994 18-month suspension; a 1994 60-day suspension;
a 1999 60-day suspension; and a 2000 two-year suspension. The
proceedings in the last four matters are reported at Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Whitnall, 167 Wis. 2d 702, 482 N.W.2d 648
(1992); Disciplinary Proceedings Against Whitnall, 181 Wis. 2d
1, 511 N.W.2d 584 (1994); Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Whitnall, 230 Wis. 2d 194, 600 N.W.2d 910 (1999); and
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Whitnall, 239 Wis. 2d 721, 619
N.W.2d 926 (2000).
Disciplinary Proceeding against Jevon
Jones Jaconi
On Nov. 7, 2003, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law
license of Jevon Jones Jaconi, 30, for one year. Jaconi's suspension was
based on 20 counts of misconduct in seven different client matters. In
addition, the court's order required Jaconi to give refunds to clients
in two matters within 60 days of the order date.
In the first matter, Jaconi represented a client charged with a
felony. Jaconi violated SCR 20:1.1 by erroneously informing his client
that she need not appear at an adjourned initial appearance. Neither
Jaconi nor his client appeared, a bench warrant for the client's arrest
was issued, and an additional complaint was filed against her for bail
jumping. Jaconi failed to take the necessary steps to get the
bail-jumping charge dismissed, contrary to SCR 20:1.3, which caused his
client to be arrested. Jaconi failed to respond to numerous telephone
calls from the client, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a). Additionally, Jaconi
failed to timely refund unearned fees, wrote a refund check that could
not be cashed because he did not have sufficient funds, and closed his
account while the check was outstanding, contrary to SCR 20:1.16(d) and
SCR 20:8.4(c). The client ultimately received a refund from Jaconi.
In the second matter, Jaconi failed to abide by his client's decision
not to plead no contest to an OWI charge. In her absence, Jaconi entered
a plea of no contest on his client's behalf, in violation of SCR
20:1.2(a). Jaconi also violated SCR 20:1.4(a) and (b) by failing to
respond to numerous phone calls from his client, failing to give his
client adequate notice about her court date, and failing to adequately
explain her plea options so she could make informed decisions regarding
the representation. Jaconi also failed to tell his client about the
disposition of her case, which included a seven-month suspension of her
driver's license, failed to provide her with the documents pertaining to
the disposition of her case, and failed to provided her with a requested
accounting of the $500 she paid him, all contrary to SCR 20:1.16(d). The
client, unaware of the suspension, continued to drive and subsequently
received a citation for operating after suspension.
In the third matter, Jaconi failed to commence his client's divorce
action for six months, contrary to SCR 20:1.3. Jaconi also failed to
respond to numerous telephone calls from the client and failed to accept
a certified letter from him, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a). Additionally,
Jaconi failed to refund unearned fees and failed to return, upon
request, documents relating to a separate malpractice claim of the
client's, contrary to SCR 20:1.16(d).
In the fourth matter, a client retained Jaconi to represent her in a
divorce action and she paid Jaconi $800 of an agreed upon flat fee of
$1,200. Within a few weeks, the client changed her mind about having
Jaconi represent her and requested a refund of the $800. Jaconi wrote
the client a refund check that could not be cashed because he did not
have sufficient funds, and he closed his account while the check was
outstanding. Despite several attempts to contact Jaconi about the return
of her money and the worthless check, the client did not receive her
money until after she filed a complaint with the sheriff's department.
Jaconi's conduct in this matter violated SCR 20:1.16(d) and SCR
20:8.4(c).
In the fifth matter, Jaconi accepted a State Public Defender
appointment to represent a client on felony charges. Jaconi, contrary to
SCR 20:1.3, failed to advance his client's interests and prepare for
trial, even though his client insisted he did not want to plead guilty.
Between July and October 2001, Jaconi also failed to respond to numerous
requests for information from his client, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a). The
client told Jaconi that he wanted someone else to represent him, and
Jaconi withdrew before the disposition of the case.
In the sixth matter, Jaconi represented a client in a small claims
matter. Jaconi violated SCR 20:1.3 by failing to appear at four
adjourned return dates and failing to file and serve amended pleadings.
Jaconi also failed to respond to his client's numerous requests for
information, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a).
In the final matter, Jaconi agreed to represent a client and his
friend in an ordinance violation matter involving the friend's use of
the client's hunting license. Jaconi failed to appear on the plea date
without informing his clients that he did not intend to appear, and
failed to engage in trial preparation with his clients, contrary to SCR
20:1.3. Jaconi also failed to respond to several requests for
information from his clients and failed to have any contact with them
between January 2002 and the June 2002 trial date, in violation of SCR
20:1.4(a).
Jaconi had no prior discipline.
Summary Suspension of Eric A.
Stearn
On Sept. 2, 2003, the OLR filed a motion requesting that the court
enter an order summarily suspending the law license of Eric A. Stearn,
or alternatively, for an order that Stearn show cause why his Wisconsin
law license should not be summarily suspended. The motion was based on
Stearn's pleas of guilty to a serious crime, namely homicide by
intoxicated use of a vehicle and causing great bodily harm by
intoxicated use of a vehicle.
On Sept. 4, 2003, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered Stearn to show
cause by Sept. 24, 2003 why the OLR's motion should not be granted.
Stearn filed no response. On Nov. 7, 2003, the Wisconsin Supreme Court
granted the OLR's motion and summarily suspended Stearn's law
license.
Disciplinary Proceeding against Kevin
M. Kelsay
The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license of Kevin M.
Kelsay, 44, Milwaukee, for six months effective Nov. 12, 2003, for
practicing law while his law license was under suspension, in violation
of SCR 20:5.5(a) and SCR 22.26(2). Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Kelsay, 2003 WI 141.
While suspended, Kelsay provided legal services to an acquaintance,
A.S., who had been injured in an automobile accident while working for
his employer. Kelsay advised A.S. to inform the insurance claims
adjuster that A.S. would only communicate with the insurance company in
writing, so that Kelsay would be able to monitor and manage A.S.'s claim
without directly communicating with the insurance company. For
approximately two years, Kelsay drafted most, if not all, of the letters
that A.S. sent to the insurance company concerning the claim. Eventually
A.S. received a settlement of $40,000, and he paid Kelsay approximately
$5,000 as a fee. Kelsay also assisted A.S. with filing a worker's
compensation claim, including drafting letters to the worker's
compensation insurance carrier on A.S.'s behalf. A.S. paid Kelsay
approximately 10 percent of his monthly worker's compensation
payments.
Initially, the OLR and Kelsay entered into an agreement for the
imposition of a consensual public reprimand. A referee, appointed
pursuant to SCR 22.09 to review the reprimand agreement, rejected the
proposed discipline as inadequate. Thereafter, the OLR and Kelsay
requested that the supreme court review an SCR 22.12 stipulation for a
public reprimand. The court rejected the stipulation and directed the
matter proceed before another referee. The second referee held a
disciplinary hearing and filed a report recommending a public reprimand.
The court adopted the second referee's factual findings and conclusions
of law, but concluded that Kelsay's misconduct warranted a six-month
suspension. Kelsay was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Kelsay's prior discipline history includes a three-year license
suspension imposed in 1990 (see Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Kelsay, 155 Wis. 2d 480, 455 N.W.2d 871 (1990)), and a 1991
private reprimand (now a matter of public record, as a result of the
disciplinary prosecution that resulted in the instant six-month
suspension).
When the court imposed the six-month suspension, Kelsay's
reinstatement petition from the earlier suspension was pending. That
matter remains pending.
Hearing to Reinstate Bruce J.
Meagher
On April 19, 2004, at 10 a.m., a public hearing will be held before
Referee John E. Shannon Jr., in Conference Room E of the County-City
Building, 1516 Church St., Stevens Point, on the petition of Bruce J.
Meagher, Iola, to reinstate his Wisconsin law license. Any interested
person may appear at the hearing and be heard in support of, or in
opposition to, the reinstatement petition.
On Oct. 8, 2003, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended Meagher's law
license for six months, effective Nov. 12, 2002, the date Meagher's law
license was previously summarily suspended. Meagher had pleaded guilty
to one count of violating the federal Wire Wagering Act, by virtue of
his ownership interest in an offshore gambling operation that took
sports bets from U.S. citizens via wire communications. The six-month
suspension resulted from a stipulation by which Meagher acknowledged his
professional misconduct, consisting of his commission of a criminal act
that reflected adversely upon his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness
as a lawyer in other respects. See Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Meagher, 2003 WI 132, 669 N.W.2d 733.
As to reinstatement, Meagher is required to demonstrate by clear,
satisfactory, and convincing evidence that, among other things, he has
not practiced law or engaged in certain law-work activity during his
suspension; his conduct since the suspension has been exemplary and
above reproach; he has a proper understanding of and attitude towards
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; he has fully described all of his business activities;
he has the moral character to practice law in Wisconsin; and he has
fully complied with the suspension order and applicable court rules.
Further information may be obtained from OLR Investigator Nancy
Warner or from OLR Litigation Counsel William J. Weigel, 110 E. Main
St., Suite 315, Madison, WI 53703, (877) 315-6941 (toll-free).
Hearing to Reinstate Leslie J.
Webster
On April 16, 2004, at 9 a.m., a public hearing will be held before
Judge Timothy L. Vocke, Referee, at the Pierce County Courthouse, 414 W.
Main St., Ellsworth, on the petition of Leslie J. Webster, Ellsworth, to
reinstate his Wisconsin law license. Any interested person may appear at
the hearing and be heard in support of, or in opposition to, the
reinstatement petition.
Webster's law license was suspended for two years, effective Jan. 21,
1998, based on his federal felony conviction of aiding and abetting the
fraudulent concealment of a debtor's property from a bankruptcy trustee,
thus committing a criminal act that reflected adversely on his honesty,
trustworthiness, and fitness as a lawyer, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(b).
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Webster, 217 Wis. 2d 371, 577
N.W.2d 21 (1998).
Webster's first reinstatement petition was denied by the Wisconsin
Supreme Court based upon his failure to comply with requirements
governing the conduct of suspended or revoked attorneys, including
Webster's continued practice of law during his suspension; his use of an
IOLTA trust account while suspended; and his improper telephone listing
and improper use of office checks while suspended.
As to reinstatement, Webster is required to demonstrate by clear,
satisfactory, and convincing evidence that, among other things, he has
not practiced law or engaged in certain law-work activity during his
suspension; his conduct since the suspension has been exemplary and
above reproach; he has a proper understanding of and attitude towards
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; he has fully described all of his business activities;
he has the moral character to practice law in Wisconsin; and he has
fully complied with the suspension order and applicable court rules.
Further information may be obtained from OLR Investigator Nancy
Warner, 110 E. Main St., Suite 315, Madison, WI 53703, (877) 315-6941
(toll free), or from OLR Retained Counsel Marc T. McCrory, Brennan,
Steil & Basting S.C., One E. Milwaukee St., Janesville, WI 53545,
(608) 756-4141.
Public Reprimand of Thomas A.
Ryan
The OLR and Thomas A. Ryan, 63, Beloit, agreed to an 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 in accordance with SCR 22.09(3) on Dec. 11, 2003.
In July 2003, Ryan pleaded guilty to issuing a worthless check in
violation of Wis. Stat. section 943.24(2), and was sentenced to
probation for three years. No restitution was ordered because Ryan had
already repaid the amount at issue. Ryan, who owns and operates a family
oil business, had run a kite between two banks in April 2001 and in
doing so had deposited checks drawn on the first bank into the account
at the second bank. In particular, Ryan presented a check drawn on the
first bank for $202,000 when the account did not have sufficient funds
to cover the check. The check for $202,000 gave rise to the worthless
check charge. Ryan promptly admitted to the misconduct and repaid the
amount owed to the second bank.
By issuing a worthless check Ryan committed a criminal act that
reflects adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a
lawyer, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(b).
Public Reprimand of Glenn J.
Blise
The OLR and Glenn J. Blise, 48, Kenosha, 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 Dec. 17, 2003, in accordance with SCR
22.09(3).
The reprimand was based upon Blise's misconduct in four matters. In
the first matter, Blise agreed to handle a worker's compensation matter
for an incarcerated client. The client had previously entered into a
limited compromise agreement that allowed him to pursue additional
permanency benefits. Blise initially pursued the matter by petitioning
in October 1998 to modify the compromise agreement. However, Blise
agreed, after a prehearing in June 2000, that filing an application for
hearing was the more appropriate channel to obtain additional benefits.
Given his client's incarceration, Blise agreed to wait until the
client's release before seeking the benefits. Once the client was
released, however, Blise failed to pursue the matter and did not respond
to his client's inquiries about the status of the matter. Blise thereby
violated SCR 20:1.3 and SCR 20:1.4(a). Blise also violated SCR 22.03(2)
by failing to respond within 20 days to OLR's request for a written
response to the grievance.
In the second matter, Blise represented a client on several ordinance
violations, including operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Blise was
paid $2,000 by the client's mother. After an initial appearance in
January 2001, Blise did little further work for the client. Blise
received a settlement proposal from the town attorney but did not
communicate the offer to his client. He thereby violated SCR 20:1.2(a).
Blise also violated SCR 20:1.3 by neglecting the matter and SCR
20:1.4(a) by failing to respond to requests for information or otherwise
keep his client informed about the status of the matter. Blise failed to
respond within 20 days to OLR's request for a written response to the
grievance, violating SCR 22.03(2).
Based upon Blise's failure to cooperate with the OLR in the first and
second matters, the court granted the OLR's motion for a suspension of
his license pursuant to SCR 22.03(4). Blise then cooperated fully with
the investigations and made a full refund in the second matter. His
license was reinstated within 20 days.
In the third matter, Blise represented a husband and wife who were
involved in a car accident. Blise settled the wife's claim. After much
urging from the clients, Blise filed suit on behalf of the husband just
before the statute of limitation ran. Blise, however, did not prosecute
the case and it was dismissed nine months later. Blise did not learn of
the dismissal until a year later. Blise admitted that he had not
adequately communicated with his clients during the representation.
Blise, by his neglect of the matter and by his failure to communicate
with his clients, violated SCR 20:1.3 and SCR 20:1.4(a).
In the fourth matter, a client retained Blise in April 2001 to
explore an appeal or other postconviction relief. The client's mother
paid Blise $7,500. Blise met with the client in April 2001, but
thereafter did not communicate with him. When the client filed a
grievance in November 2001, Blise indicated that his communication with
the client had been lax, but he was prepared to follow through with the
appeal. In April 2002, however, the client hired new counsel, because
Blise had not responded to his requests for information. Blise then
refunded the entire retainer. By failing to advance the man's
postconviction matter, Blise violated SCR 20:1.3. By failing to
communicate with his client, Blise violated SCR 20:1.4(a).
Blise had no prior discipline.
Public Reprimand of Gary J.
Schmidt
Gary J. Schmidt consented to the imposition of a public reprimand in
connection with his misconduct in three separate matters. On Dec. 12,
2003, a referee appointed by the supreme court imposed the reprimand,
pursuant to SCR 22.09.
In the first matter, Schmidt represented a client facing criminal
charges. After the client's conviction, Schmidt failed to file the
statutorily required notice of intent to seek postconviction relief,
despite the client's expressed desire to pursue such relief, in
violation of SCR 20:1.3. After the client subsequently filed a pro se
motion with the court of appeals, Schmidt failed to respond, in
violation of SCR 20:3.4(c), to that court's order that he explain his
failure to file the notice.
In the second matter, Schmidt again failed to file a notice of intent
to seek postconviction relief on behalf of a criminal client, in
violation of SCR 20:1.3; failed to respond to inquiries from the client
as to the status of the client's appeal, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a);
and again, after the client filed a pro se motion with the court of
appeals, failed to respond to an order, in violation of SCR 20:3.4(c),
from the court of appeals that he explain his failure to file the
notice.
In the third matter, Schmidt was appointed by the State Public
Defender to represent a client in civil contempt proceedings in
connection with a paternity action. Despite his client's desire to seek
appellate relief, Schmidt was more than one month late in filing the
notice of intent to pursue postconviction relief. Schmidt was late in
filing the notice because he failed to research the relevant filing
deadline, in violation of SCR 20:1.1. Schmidt subsequently failed to
file a motion to extend the time for filing the notice, despite being
informed on three separate occasions by the SPD's office that the motion
was necessary in order to appoint appellate counsel. This conduct
violated SCR 20:1.3. Schmidt had no prior discipline.
Disciplinary Proceeding against
Lauren Brown-Perry
By order dated Dec. 12, 2003, the Wisconsin Supreme Court adopted a
referee's report accepting a stipulation filed by Lauren Brown-Perry,
Madison, and the OLR, for findings of professional misconduct and
imposition of a one-year retroactive suspension of Brown-Perry's law
license.
Brown-Perry had represented a member of a legal services plan
regarding a buyer who backed out of a real estate sale. The matter was
settled for $4,000. Brown-Perry informed the client she would receive
the full $4,000, as the $1,500 advance fee the client had already paid
Brown-Perry would cover all legal expenses. In fact, $1,500 was in
excess of the $749 Brown-Perry was entitled to receive at the legal
services rate of $70 per hour.
Brown-Perry had no client trust account and deposited the client's
$4,000 to her business account. The funds were soon expended without any
payment to the client. Eventually Brown-Perry issued a $2,028 check to
the client, which the client refused to cash because it was not in the
full amount. Brown-Perry failed to respond to numerous entreaties by the
client, who had to retain another attorney to sue Brown-Perry. Their
dispute was finally settled with Brown-Perry paying the client $5,000.
During the course of the OLR's investigation, Brown-Perry failed to
provide the OLR with requested accounting records, and she acknowledged
that she had not filed personal income tax returns since 1995.
Brown-Perry violated SCR 20:1.15(a) for failing to deposit client
funds to a trust account; SCR 20:1.15(d) for taking client trust funds
without an accounting and severance of interests; SCR 20:1.16(d) for
failing to promptly return an unearned retainer; SCR 20:1.15(b) for
failing to promptly deliver the client's funds; SCR 20:1.4(a) for
failing to respond to the client's requests; SCR 20:8.4(c) for engaging
in dishonest conduct; SCR 20:1.15(f) for failing to provide the OLR with
requested records; and SCR 20:8.4(f) for failing to file income tax
returns, constituting misconduct under State v. Roggensack, 19
Wis. 2d 38, 119 N.W.2d 412 (1963).
During the disciplinary proceeding, the court indefinitely suspended
Brown-Perry's license pending assessment of a medical issue raised by
Brown-Perry. The indefinite suspension continued for two years.
The one-year license suspension for misconduct was imposed
retroactive to April 26, 2001, the date on which the indefinite
suspension had commenced. Brown-Perry was also ordered to pay the
$6,740.53 costs of the proceeding. Brown-Perry's Wisconsin law license
will remain suspended until she successfully petitions the court for
reinstatement.
Wisconsin Lawyer