Vol. 76, No. 12, December
2003
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.
60-day suspension of
Walter A. Paget
On Oct. 7, 2003, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered a 60-day
suspension of the law license of Walter A. Paget, 37, Milwaukee,
effective Nov. 11, 2003. The court also ordered that Paget pay the costs
of the disciplinary proceeding.
Paget practiced law in 2001 while his license was administratively
suspended for his failure to comply with mandatory continuing legal
education requirements, in violation of SCR 31.10(1).
On five dates in 2001, Paget appeared as defense counsel in four
Milwaukee County court cases, all involving the same client. Further, on
unspecified dates during Paget's CLE suspension, he appeared in five
additional Milwaukee County circuit court cases involving three clients.
The supreme court approved the referee's findings and recommendation
that Paget's law license be suspended for 60 days.
Paget had received a private reprimand in 1998 for practicing law
during a prior administrative suspension of his license for failure to
comply with CLE requirements.
Disciplinary proceeding against Bruce
J. Meagher
By order dated Oct. 8, 2003, the Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted a
stipulation filed by Bruce J. Meagher, 52, Iola, and the Office of
Lawyer Regulation (OLR), and imposed a six-month retroactive suspension
of Meagher's law license.
The stipulation concerned two separate matters. In the first matter,
Meagher represented two Minnesota businessmen in setting up a joint
business venture. While negotiations were still ongoing regarding the
joint venture, Client A allegedly tried to discredit Client B, steal
away clients and employees from Client B's existing business, and
incorporate a new business to compete with Client B's existing business.
Meagher represented Client A in incorporating the new business and then
in negotiating a purchase of Client B's existing business. In the course
of that representation, Meagher threatened to bring a lawsuit against
Client B and denied that Client B was entitled to any information
regarding the joint venture, although Meagher had previously represented
Client B in setting up the joint venture. Meagher had a conflict of
interest for which he failed to seek or obtain the written consent of
either client, contrary to SCR 20:1.7(a).
In the second matter, Meagher stipulated that he had engaged in
criminal conduct that was contrary to SCR 20:8.4(b) on the basis of his
conviction for violating the federal Wire Wagering Act, 18 U.S.C. §
1084. The conviction stemmed from Meagher's ownership interest in Gold
Medal Sports, an offshore gambling operation that took sports bets from
U.S. citizens. On Nov. 12, 2002, after Meagher's sentencing, the supreme
court had summarily suspended Meagher's law license under SCR 22.20(1).
The six-month suspension was ordered retroactive to the date of the
summary suspension. Meagher has recently filed a petition for
reinstatement.
Disciplinary proceeding against
George W. Lyons
By order dated Oct. 30, 2003, the Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted a
stipulation filed by George W. Lyons, 79, and the OLR for imposition of
a six-month suspension of Lyons' law license.
In 1991 Lyons was convicted on two felony counts of second-degree
sexual assault of a child. Sentencing was withheld, and Lyons was placed
on probation for 11 years. Neither the OLR nor the court was informed of
Lyons' 1991 conviction. In 2002 Lyons' probation was revoked and he was
sentenced to two consecutive five-year prison terms upon his admission
that he had inappropriate contact with two minors. That conduct violated
SCR 20:8.4(b).
The court determined that a six-month suspension of Lyons' law
license was appropriate, in that it would require Lyons to petition for
reinstatement should he seek to practice law in the future.
60-day suspension of Albert J.
Armonda
The OLR and Albert J. Armonda, 66, Burlington, entered into a
stipulation for imposition of a 60-day suspension pursuant to SCR
22.12(1). The Wisconsin Supreme Court approved the stipulation and
ordered the 60-day suspension of Armonda's license commencing Dec. 2,
2003.
Armonda admitted to the misconduct alleged by the OLR, consisting of
nine rule violations over four separate client matters. In the first
matter, Armonda failed to respond to the OLR's request that he respond
to the grievance [SCR 22.03(6)]. In the second matter, Armonda met with
and agreed to represent a married couple when his license was suspended
for his failure to comply with mandatory continuing legal education
requirements [SCR 31.10(1), SCR 20:8.4(f)]. Armonda did not inform the
couple of his license suspension [SCR 20:8.4(c)]. After his license was
reinstated, Armonda failed to take action on the couple's claim, failed
to communicate with them, and failed to return their documents and $750
retainer [SCR 20:1.3, SCR 20:1.4(a), SCR 20:1.16(d)]. The third matter
concerned Armonda's representation of a divorce client. He failed to
appear at a pretrial conference and to comply with opposing counsel's
discovery requests [SCR 20:1.3]. In the fourth matter, Armonda
represented another married couple in a bankruptcy matter. After the
couple filed a grievance against him, he attempted to have them withdraw
the grievance. [SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.03(2)]. In addition, he failed to
forward an $800 check to their mortgage company as they requested [SCR
20:1.15(a)].
Disciplinary proceeding against
Robert J. Parent
By order dated Oct. 21, 2003, the Wisconsin Supreme Court
accepted
Robert J. Parent's petition for consensual license revocation under
SCR 22.19(3).
Parent, 49, Green Bay, wrote several forged checks to himself on an
elderly client's account. Parent was convicted of one federal charge of
depositing a forged check and is serving a one-year prison sentence.
At the time of his voluntary petition for license revocation, the OLR
had 15 pending investigations involving Parent. In addition to the
forged checks matter, the OLR was investigating allegations that while
acting as a representative payee for another client, Parent made
improper cash withdrawals from that client's account; that in multiple
instances Parent had failed to act with reasonable diligence and had
failed to adequately communicate with clients; that Parent had closed
his law office without notice to clients; and that Parent had failed to
return clients' files and refund unearned fees. Parent also failed to
cooperate with the OLR's investigations. Parent's petition acknowledged
that he was unable to successfully defend against these allegations.
Disciplinary proceeding against Susan
L. Schuster
By order dated Oct. 28, 2003, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended
the law license of Susan L. Schuster, 50, Stoughton, for 90 days
effective Dec. 2, 2003.
Schuster stipulated that she had engaged in multiple violations
regarding her client trust account, including commingling personal and
client funds, contrary to SCR 20:1.15(a); withdrawing fees without
clients' consent, contrary to SCR 20:1.15(d); writing checks on the
account that were returned for insufficient funds and writing checks to
herself and to "cash" without determining the clients to whom the
disbursements were attributable, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c); and failing
to keep required trust account records, contrary to SCR 20:1.15(e).
In a second matter, Schuster represented a client on custody and
child support issues. Schuster warned the client that she would withdraw
prior to trial if the client did not make an additional fee payment. One
week before the scheduled trial, the client met with Schuster and gave
her a $500 money order. Schuster nevertheless notified the client three
days later that she intended to withdraw. The client subsequently was
notified that a hearing on Schuster's motion to withdraw would be held
the day before the trial. Schuster claimed that the circuit court clerk
told her to appear on an earlier date, however, which she did and was
granted permission to withdraw.
Schuster made no effort to contact the client, provide the client
with a copy of her file, or request a continuance of the trial. When the
client appeared for a hearing on Schuster's withdrawal the day before
the trial, the client learned that the withdrawal had already been
granted. Also on the day preceding the trial, Schuster received a report
from the guardian ad litem that was highly relevant to the trial, but
Schuster did not contact the client or attempt to provide her with a
copy. All parties except Schuster appeared for the trial, at which time
the court rescinded the withdrawal order and granted a continuance.
Schuster's untimely withdrawal without taking steps to protect her
client's interests violated SCR 20:1.16(d).
In the course of the OLR investigation, Schuster represented that the
client failed to pay her and that she had given the client a full week's
notice of her intention to withdraw. It was only after the OLR pointed
out that the notice Schuster stated she had sent a week before the trial
was not notarized until three days after she claimed to have mailed it,
and after the OLR obtained a copy of the client's cancelled money order
that Schuster had deposited to her account, that Schuster acknowledged
she had received payment and had not given the client a full week's
notice. Schuster's misrepresentations to the OLR violated SCR
22.03(6).
The court noted that Schuster was admitted to practice in 2000,
practiced as a sole practitioner, and had no prior discipline. The court
also ordered that upon reinstatement of her law license, Schuster will
be required to submit quarterly trust account records for the OLR's
inspection for two years.
Disciplinary proceeding against
William J. Gilbert
On Oct. 7, 2003, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered a six-month
suspension of the law license of William J. Gilbert, 57, Hudson,
effective the date of the order.
Gilbert's suspension resulted from his conduct in two separate client
matters.
In the first matter, Gilbert represented a man in a divorce. Gilbert
failed to advance his client's interests in his divorce for more than
six months, in violation of SCR 20:1.3, and failed to respond to his
client's written and telephonic requests for information and to keep his
client apprised of the status of the divorce, in violation of SCR
20:1.4(a). Gilbert also failed to deposit and hold in trust his client's
$1,500 retainer until the fees were earned, and failed to provide his
client with an accounting of the funds upon request, in violation of SCR
20:1.15(a) and (d). Additionally, Gilbert failed to turn over the
client's file to successor counsel, in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d).
Finally, Gilbert failed to cooperate with the OLR, in that he failed to
file a written supplemental response to the grievance despite the OLR's
written request that he do so, in violation of SCR 22.03(2) and SCR
22.03(6).
In the second matter, Gilbert represented clients in a condemnation
proceeding in which the clients received a settlement from the Wisconsin
Department of Transportation (DOT). Gilbert lost the settlement check
and failed to diligently attempt to find it or take steps to have a
replacement check issued. He also failed to appear at a status hearing
and to respond to written requests from the DOT's attorney regarding the
lost check and a replacement check, all in violation of SCR 20:1.3.
Gilbert also violated SCR 20:1.4(a) by failing to keep his clients or
their Minnesota attorney informed about the status of the settlement
check and by failing to respond to requests for information from the
clients and the attorney. Additionally, Gilbert failed to promptly
notify his clients or their Minnesota attorney in writing of receipt of
the settlement check, failed to deliver the proceeds of the settlement
check to them, and failed to render an accounting to the Minnesota
attorney, upon request, of $2,500 the attorney had advanced to Gilbert
for payment of costs, all in violation of SCR 20:1.15(b). Gilbert also
violated SCR 20:1.15(e) by failing to retain trust account records
concerning the $2,500. Finally, by failing to send the OLR a written
response to the grievance despite notification by both ordinary and
certified mail, Gilbert failed to cooperate with the OLR's
investigation, as defined in SCR 22.001(9)(b), in violation of SCR
22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6).
The court also ordered Gilbert to pay the costs of the disciplinary
proceeding and that, should Gilbert seek to have his license reinstated
following the six-month suspension, reinstatement be subject to the
following conditions:
1) that Gilbert provide a full and complete accounting to the first
client and to the Minnesota attorney in the second matter, and make
restitution to each of amounts not earned or spent or if the required
accountings are not available;
2) that Gilbert submit a business or office management plan that
establishes a daily diary, a daily calendar, an appropriate filing
system that reflects daily entries, and an appropriate billing system;
and
3) if reinstated, that Gilbert meet with a mentor on a periodic basis
to ensure compliance with the conditions.
Disciplinary proceeding against
Warren Lee Brandt
On Oct. 30, 2003, the Wisconsin Supreme Court publicly reprimanded
Warren Lee Brandt, 52, Prescott. In issuing the reprimand, the court
adopted findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation for
discipline that were made by a court-appointed referee.
A woman retained Brandt in December 1998 to recover money in a
dispute with her credit union. The woman paid Brandt a $1,500 retainer
fee. After being rebuffed in his initial contact with the credit union,
Brandt did nothing else on the case.
Beginning in March 1999, the woman repeatedly called Brandt to ask
about the status of her case; he never returned her calls. The woman
never spoke with Brandt from March 1999 through January 2000. She
finally spoke with Brandt by telephone in April 2000, at which time he
told her that he had done some research and that she did not have a
claim against the credit union.
In June 2000, the woman filed a grievance against Brandt with the
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR), the predecessor
to the OLR. A staff investigator wrote two letters to Brandt requesting
his written response to the grievance. Brandt did not respond. In
November 2000, while the investigation was pending, Brandt returned to
the woman the $1,500 retainer fee and her file.
The court found that by making only four calls to the woman during
the one and one-half years he represented her, and by failing to respond
to her inquiries and to communicate with her, Brandt violated SCR
20:1.4(a), which requires a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed
about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable
requests for information.
The court also found that by failing to respond to two requests from
BAPR staff to respond to the grievance, Brandt violated former SCR
21.03(4) and SCR 22.07(2).
During the OLR's investigation, it was discovered that Brandt had
placed advertisements in the local telephone directories for the years
1996-97, 1997-98, and 1998-99. Those ads were entitled "Brandt &
Associates," with the name "Warren Lee Brandt, Esquire" appearing in
italics beneath the name of the firm. The ads also contained the phrases
"Former District Attorneys Pierce & St. Croix Counties,"
"Aggressive Trial Lawyers," and "Experienced Criminal Defense
Attorneys." (Emphasis added.) These ads used plurals even though
Brandt had been a sole practitioner since July 1996.
The OLR's investigation also revealed that the office stationery
letterhead used by Brandt during this period until May 2000 listed a
person as being "of counsel" to Brandt's firm. During the time Brandt
used this letterhead, the person was licensed to practice law in
Minnesota but not in Wisconsin. Brandt's stationery letterhead did not
note that fact.
The court found that by placing advertisements in the directories
suggesting that his firm included attorneys who were former district
attorneys in two counties, aggressive trial lawyers, and experienced
criminal defense attorneys, when, in fact, Brandt was the only attorney
in his firm, Brandt violated SCR 20:7.1(a), which provides that a lawyer
shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or
the lawyer's services. The court also found that by listing a lawyer as
being "of counsel" on his letterhead stationery without identifying the
jurisdictional limitation on the lawyer, who is not licensed to practice
in Wisconsin, where Brandt's office is located, Brandt violated SCR
20:7.5(a); by failing to identify on his letterhead the jurisdictional
limitation of an attorney not licensed to practice law in Wisconsin,
Brandt violated 20:7.5(b); and by falsely stating or implying that he
practices in a partnership or other type of organization, Brandt
violated SCR 20:7.5(d).
The court also ordered Brandt to pay the $9,694.19 costs of the
disciplinary proceeding.
Wisconsin Lawyer
