Wisconsin
Lawyer
Vol. 81, No. 6, June
2008
Lawyer Discipline
The Office of Lawyer Regulation
(OLR), 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 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 in this column can be viewed at
www.wicourts.gov/olr.
Disciplinary proceeding against
Jeffrey L.
Elverman
In a decision dated April 8, 2008, the Wisconsin Supreme Court
suspended the law license
of Jeffrey L. Elverman, Waukesha, for nine months, effective May 12,
2008. Elverman was
further ordered to pay the cost of the disciplinary proceeding, which
totaled $24,222.99 as of
March 3, 2008. Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Elverman, 2008 WI 28.
Between 1999 and 2004, while an attorney with a Milwaukee law
firm, Elverman
received $230,000 in cotrustee fees from three trusts. Elverman turned
none of those fees over to
his firm. Further, Elverman did not timely report the trustee fees as
income; he reported the
fees as income only after his handling of them was under investigation
by the Office of
Lawyer Regulation (OLR).
By failing to report the cotrustee fees as income on state and
federal tax returns in
the applicable years, Elverman violated SCR 20:8.4(f), which states in
relevant part, "It is
professional misconduct for a lawyer to … violate a … supreme
court decision regulating the
conduct of lawyers." Applicable supreme court decisions include
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Owens, 172 Wis. 2d 54, 56-57,
492 N.W.2d 157 (1992).
Elverman had no prior discipline.
Top of Page
Disciplinary proceeding against Richard A.
Engelbrecht
By order dated April 8, 2008, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended
the law license
of Richard A. Engelbrecht, Green Bay, for two years effective the date
of the order.
Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Engelbrecht, 2008 WI 29.
The court accepted a stipulation between Engelbrecht and the OLR in
which
Engelbrecht acknowledged engaging in six counts of misconduct related
to his representation of a client
in an employment discrimination matter. Engelbrecht failed to obtain
service of a summons
and complaint, contrary to SCR 20:1.3; failed to communicate with the
client regarding the
status of the case, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a); failed to refund $1,000
in fees after the
client's lawsuit was dismissed, contrary to SCR 20:1.16(d);
misrepresented to the client that the
client was responsible for obtaining service and fabricated a letter
in support of that
misrepresentation, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c); misrepresented to the
OLR that the client was
responsible for service and submitted a copy of the fabricated letter
to the OLR during its
investigation, contrary to SCR 22.03(6); and failed to cooperate with
the OLR's investigative
committee, contrary to SCR 22.04(1).
Engelbrecht had been the subject of three prior disciplinary
orders: a consensual
private reprimand (1989); a 60-day suspension (2000); and a six-month
suspension (2007). Engelbrecht's license was still under suspension at
the time of the court's order in this case.
Top of Page
Public Reprimand of Michael W.
Steinhafel
The OLR and Michael W. Steinhafel, 45, Brookfield, agreed to
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 April
21, 2008. The reprimand was based on Steinhafel's misconduct relating to
three grievances
that were filed against him.
In the first matter, a man hired Steinhafel to recover funds
that the client
believed were owed to him by his former employer. The client paid $1,000
to Steinhafel, who said
that he would file a lawsuit. Contrary to SCR 20:1.3, Steinhafel failed
to file or prosecute
a lawsuit against the employer for the next four years.
Steinhafel violated SCR 20:1.4(a) when he failed to communicate
with the client for
extended periods of time, including failing to respond to faxes in which
the client
asked Steinhafel to provide a status update. Steinhafel made
misrepresentations to the client,
contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c), by telling the client that he had filed the
lawsuit, hearings had
been postponed, a certain hearing was scheduled, and he had filed a
summary judgment motion,
when, in fact, Steinhafel had not even commenced an action on the
client's behalf. Steinhafel
violated SCR 20:1.16(d) when he failed to timely return the case file to
the client, and
he failed to refund any portion of the $1,000 advanced fee when the
client terminated the
representation and Steinhafel had done minimal work in the case.
Following an investigation in the second matter, the OLR
determined that misconduct
could not be proven by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence.
Steinhafel, however, failed
to timely respond to the grievance, contrary to SCR 22.03(2) and (6) and
20:8.4(f).
In the third matter, a landlord hired Steinhafel to evict a
tenant. In violation of
SCR 20:1.3, Steinhafel failed to file any court proceeding for the next
five months.
Steinhafel failed to respond to numerous phone inquiries from the client
relating to case status and
gave inaccurate information as to case status, contrary to SCR
20:1.4(a). Steinhafel violated
SCR 20:8.4(c) when he: 1) advised the client to have her son pose as an
insurance inspector
to gain access to the apartment; 2) told the client that he had tried to
achieve service of
an eviction notice on the tenant although he had not done so; 3) told
the client that he
had filed an eviction action although he had not done so; 4) told the
client that a hearing
had been held in the eviction case and that the tenant had been ordered
to vacate the
apartment, when no action had even been filed; and 5) told the client
that the sheriff's department
would evict the tenant on a certain date, although no action had been
filed.
As a prior condition of imposition of the consensual public
reprimand, Steinhafel
refunded $1,000 to his client in the first matter.
Top of Page
Public reprimand of Patrick J. Hudec
The OLR and Patrick J. Hudec, 53, East Troy, agreed to 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 March 27, 2008.
In one matter, Hudec represented the plaintiffs in a personal
injury case that was
filed in 2002. Hudec violated SCR 20:1.3 by failing to advance the
client's lawsuit, including
failing to respond to discovery requests, which led to delays and the
imposition of
sanctions. Hudec also failed to keep his clients reasonably informed
about the status of the case,
including failing to return numerous phone calls from one of the
clients, in violation of
SCR 20:1.4(a). The clients eventually received a nominal recovery.
Hudec experienced a medical condition during his representation
of the plaintiffs
that caused him to frequently miss work. A circuit court appointed a
trustee attorney for
Hudec's law practice in September 2005, pursuant to SCR 12.02, at
Hudec's request. In March
2006, Hudec's doctor gave him clearance to return to practicing law.
After receiving this
clearance, however, Hudec failed to timely respond to the OLR's letters
and phone calls or to
produce information requested by the OLR, in violation of SCR 21.15(4),
22.03(6), and 20:8.4(f).
The OLR considered Hudec's medical condition and his voluntary
petition for a trustee
to be mitigating factors relating to allegations of neglect and failure
to communicate in
the personal injury case.
During a second OLR investigation, Hudec, after having received
clearance from his
doctor, similarly failed to timely respond to letters from the OLR or to
return the OLR's
phone calls, contrary to SCR 21.15(4) and 20:8.4(f).
Top of Page
Public reprimand of Benjamin J. Harris
The OLR and Benjamin J. Harris, Milwaukee, 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 in
accordance with SCR 22.09(3)
on April 21, 2008. The public reprimand stemmed from three matters
investigated by the OLR.
In the first matter, a woman hired Harris to represent her in
foreclosing on a land
contract for the sale of the woman's real property. The contract was due
in May 2005. By
failing to file a foreclosure action against the buyer on the land
contract between August 2005
and October 2006, Harris violated SCR 20:1.3. Instead of pursing the
foreclosure or assisting
the client in selling the property to another buyer, Harris entered into
a land contract to
purchase the real property directly from his client. By entering into a
land contract with
his client without obtaining the requisite written consent from the
client, Harris violated
former SCR 20:1.8(a) (effective through June 30, 2007).
In the second matter, the owners of an out-of-state merchandise
exporting company
hired Harris to represent it in defending an action brought by a credit
card processing
company seeking to collect on credit card charge backs that the
merchandise exporting company
disputed and refused to pay. By failing to respond to the plaintiff's
motion to amend its complaint
and by failing to attend a motion hearing in May 2006, Harris violated
SCR 20:1.3. By failing
to consistently inform the clients about the status of their case and
respond to their
numerous attempts to contact him, Harris violated former SCR 20:1.4(a)
(effective through June
30, 2007).
In the third matter, a man hired Harris in 2003 to represent him
in a divorce. By
failing to timely resolve the equalization payment disputed by the
parties, and by failing to attend
a contempt hearing, resulting in a finding of contempt against his
client, Harris violated
SCR 20:1.3. By failing to respond to the client's telephone calls,
failing to notify the client
of a proposed stipulation and order regarding the property equalization
issues, and failing
to notify the client of upcoming hearings, an order for contempt, and an
execution issued
against him, Harris violated former SCR 20:1.4(a) (effective through
June 30, 2007). By failing
to promptly provide the client's file to the client or successor
counsel, despite numerous
requests, Harris violated former SCR 20:1.16(d) (effective through June
30, 2007).
Top of Page
Wisconsin
Lawyer
