Sign In
    Wisconsin Lawyer
    May 01, 2005

    Lawyer Discipline

    Wisconsin Lawyer
    Vol. 78, No. 5, May 2005

    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 David C. Williams

    In this proceeding, the Wisconsin Supreme Court dismissed all disciplinary charges brought against David C. Williams, Lake Geneva. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Williams, 2005 WI 15.

    Because Williams was a member of the District I Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) Committee, the grievance the OLR received was investigated under SCR 22.25, which governs misconduct and malfeasance allegations against Lawyer Regulation System (LRS) participants. The LRS filed an order to answer and a complaint alleging that various letters written by Williams and published in a newspaper violated SCR 20:3.6 and constituted "offensive personality" in violation of the attorney's oath.

    After an evidentiary hearing, the referee concluded that the letters written by Williams did not violate SCR 20:3.6, but did violate SCR 20:8.4(g) and the attorney's oath, SCR 40.15. Williams appealed.

    While the court agreed with the referee that certain statements contained in the four letters were intemperate and inappropriate, the court concluded that the statements do not meet the legal standard of offensive personality and thus do not constitute a violation of the attorney's oath.

    Top of page

    Disciplinary Proceeding against Stacy Michelle Rios

    The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license of Stacy Michelle Rios, Shorewood, for 60 days. Rios also was ordered to pay the $1,257 costs of the proceeding. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Rios, 2005 WI 22. Rios's license had been administratively suspended for nonpayment of bar dues since Oct. 31, 2001, and suspended for noncompliance with continuing legal education (CLE) requirements since June 3, 2002. The court ordered that the 60-day suspension be effective the date that all other suspensions are lifted.

    Rios represented a client in connection with a criminal proceeding. The client had been convicted in federal court in 1995 and sentenced to a lengthy term of incarceration. The client had filed an appeal that was unsuccessful, and the court subsequently appointed Rios to pursue a second appeal. That appeal was denied in August 1995.

    In the spring of 2000, the client privately retained Rios to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The deadline for filing the motion was Aug. 25, 2000. Rios had received $2,000 from the client's family to pursue the matter, but there was no written fee agreement. Rios failed to file the motion on behalf of the client before the deadline. The client attempted to contact Rios after the deadline passed, but Rios refused to take the client's telephone calls. The client's mother also was unsuccessful in attempts to reach Rios and later learned from the court that no motion had been filed by Rios.

    Rios advised the OLR that her "strategy" was to purposely not file the motion before the deadline because she intended to assist the client in filing a pro se motion claiming lawyer negligence. Rios, however, failed to inform the client of this strategy before the filing deadline. During the OLR investigation, Rios returned the $2,000 retainer to the client's family, but she failed to return the client's file. Rios also failed to cooperate with the OLR investigation by failing to respond to telephone calls and other attempts at contact made by the OLR District Committee investigators.

    During the disciplinary proceeding, Rios withdrew her answer, pleaded no contest to the five charged misconduct counts, and stipulated to the propriety of the 60-day suspension originally sought by the OLR.

    By failing to timely file a petition for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of the client, Rios failed to represent a client with the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for representation, in violation of SCR 20:1.1. By failing to respond to letters and telephone calls from the client and his family, Rios failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a). By failing to explain her purported legal strategy to the client before the filing deadline, Rios failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make an informed decision regarding the representation, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(b). Additionally, by failing to return the client's file after the client requested it, Rios failed upon termination of representation to timely surrender papers and property to which the client was entitled, in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d).

    Finally, by failing to respond to telephone calls and other attempts to contact her by the OLR District Committee investigators, Rios failed to provide relevant information in the course of an investigation, in violation of SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), and SCR 22.04(1), which thereby constituted misconduct under SCR 20:8.4(f).

    Top of page

    Disciplinary Proceeding against Chris K. Konnor

    In an order filed March 25, 2005, the Wisconsin Supreme Court publicly reprimanded Chris K. Konnor, Milwaukee. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Konnor, 2005 WI 37. A referee found that Konnor committed the eight counts of professional misconduct alleged in a complaint filed by the OLR, but the referee recommended a public reprimand rather than the 90-day suspension sought by the OLR.

    Konnor's misconduct occurred in the course of his work as personal representative of an estate. Konnor began his efforts on behalf of the estate in March 1997.

    From 1997 to 2002, Konnor failed to maintain complete records of the estate checking account, contrary to former SCR 20:1.15(a) and (e).

    In violation of SCR 20:1.3, Konnor failed to diligently track and protect rent income generated by a rooming house owned by the decedent. Konnor did not timely deposit rent checks received by him, contrary to former SCR 20:1.15(a). Konnor further violated former SCR 20:1.15(a) by failing to take steps to secure the estate checkbook, which led to the theft of the estate checkbook by Konnor's brother and the brother's issuance of checks payable to the brother. Konnor engaged in deceit and misrepresentation, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c), by failing to report the theft to the police or the heirs, and, upon replenishment of the stolen funds via checks issued by Konnor's father, by entering misleading notations on the checks as to their purpose. Only after the OLR commenced its investigation did Konnor disclose that the theft of estate funds had occurred. That disclosure was in Konnor's final account, filed May 15, 2004.

    By failing to notify the heirs of the misappropriation of estate funds, by failing to provide the heirs with a copy of the estate inventory, and by failing to notify the heirs of the penalties the estate had incurred with respect to the late tax filings, Konnor violated SCR 20:1.4(b), which requires an attorney to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit a client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

    Konnor deposited large sums of the estate's assets into a noninterest-bearing checking account for extended periods of time, contrary to SCR 20:1.15(c)(1)a. By taking more than five years to close the estate, Konnor failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.

    In addition to the reprimand, the court ordered that Konnor pay the full $11,365.06 costs of the disciplinary proceeding. Chief Justice Abrahamson wrote a concurring opinion to provide context and perspective regarding costs in disciplinary proceedings. Justice Prosser wrote separately, concurring in the imposition of a public reprimand but dissenting from the court's order that Konnor pay the full costs of the proceeding.

    Top of page

    Disciplinary Proceeding against Steve J. Polich

    On March 25, 2005, the Wisconsin Supreme Court publicly reprimanded Steve J. Polich, Iron River, Mich. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Polich, 2005 WI 36. Polich appeared in 10 cases in Wisconsin courts between 1998 and 2001 while he was suspended from the practice of law for noncompliance with CLE requirements, contrary to SCR 31.10(1) and SCR 20:8.4(f). Polich also violated SCR 20:7.5(a) and SCR 20:7.1(a) by making false and misleading communications about himself by using office letterhead in 1998 and thereafter that indicated he was licensed to practice law in Wisconsin.

    Polich was ordered to pay the full $17,498.87 costs of the proceeding, despite a referee's recommendation that costs be somehow prorated. Chief Justice Abrahamson wrote in concurrence; Justice Prosser concurred in part and dissented in part; and Justice Butler concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Justices Prosser and Roggensack.

    Top of page


Join the conversation! Log in to comment.

News & Pubs Search

-
Format: MM/DD/YYYY