Vol. 76, No. 3, March
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.
Hearing to reinstate
John Miller Carroll
On April 15, 2003, at 11 a.m., a public hearing will take place
before referee Konrad T. Tuchscherer at the Waupaca County Courthouse,
Room LL-42, 811 Harding St., Waupaca, on the petition of John Miller
Carroll of New London to reinstate his Wisconsin law license. Carroll
formerly practiced law from Milwaukee and Racine county offices. Any
interested person may appear at the hearing and be heard in support of,
or in opposition to, the petition for reinstatement.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended Carroll's law license for one
year, effective Jan. 10, 2002, for professional misconduct consisting
of: failing to diligently pursue a client's claim, by virtue of having
permitted a lawsuit to expire without service; failing to keep a client
reasonably informed about the status of the matter and failure to
promptly comply with reasonable requests for information despite his
client's numerous requests for information during the course of
litigation; misrepresenting to the Board of Attorneys Professional
Responsibility (BAPR) the nature of his representation of a client by
failing to inform BAPR that a lawsuit was dismissed; engaging in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation by depositing
in his trust account a check that contained a forged signature; failing
to hold a client's funds in trust by moving refunded bail from his trust
account into his business operations account; failing to respond to the
client's request to return the refunded bail and to account for the
funds within a reasonable time; failing to retain the disputed bail
amount in trust pending resolution of the dispute with a client; and
failing to timely forward a refund check to a client after termination
of representation. A more detailed account of Carroll's misconduct is
recited in Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll, 2001 WI
130, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 718.
As to reinstatement, Carroll 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 the
suspension; he has maintained competence and learning in the law by
attendance at identified educational activities; 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 terms of
the suspension order and with the requirements of SCR 22.26.
Further information can be obtained from OLR investigator Mary
Ahlstrom or assistant litigation counsel Julie M. Falk, 110 E. Main St.,
Suite 315, Madison, WI 53703; (608) 267-7274 or (877) 315-6941 (toll
free).
Disciplinary proceeding against Anne
B. Shindell
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has suspended the law license of Anne B.
Shindell, age 50, Milwaukee, for one year effective Dec. 27, 2002.
Shindell's misconduct involved failures to cooperate with the
investigation of BAPR, predecessor to the OLR, contrary to former SCR
21.03(4) and 22.07(2); failing to provide diligent legal representation
on behalf of three clients, contrary to SCR 20:1.3; failing to respond
to letters and telephone calls from three clients regarding the status
of their claims, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a); failing to inform one client
about the status of negotiations and about certain consequences for not
pursuing a particular claim and failing to inform another client about
his former employer's position as to a severance agreement in a timely
manner, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(b); failing to take steps reasonably
practicable to protect clients' interests contrary to SCR 20:1.16(d);
and filing a judgment of satisfaction on her own behalf without
authority from her client and falsely asserting within the document that
the small claims judgment had been satisfied to the client's
satisfaction, contrary to SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) and SCR 20:8.4(c).
Shindell also was ordered to refund $2,800 to one client, required to
pay the small claims judgment entered in favor of another client in the
amount of the judgment plus statutory interest, and ordered to pay the
costs of the disciplinary proceedings. In another proceeding, on Oct.
21, 2002, the Wisconsin Supreme Court summarily suspended Shindell's law
license based on criminal convictions for attempted theft by fraud and
resisting or obstructing an officer.
Public reprimand of Carl
Jordan
The OLR and Carl Jordan, 36, formerly of Kenosha, agreed to an
imposition of a public reprimand pursuant to SCR 22.09(1). A referee
appointed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court thereafter approved the
agreement, and issued the public reprimand in accordance with SCR
22.09(3). The reprimand is based upon Jordan's conduct in two
matters.
On June 8, 1999, Jordan's law license was suspended for his failure
to comply with CLE requirements. At the time of his suspension, Jordan
was employed in Michigan and was not engaged in the practice of law in
Wisconsin. In January 2001, Jordan accepted a position as an assistant
district attorney in Wisconsin. Before commencing his employment, Jordan
informed his employer that he would have to reinstate his law
license.
On Jan. 16, 2001, Jordan began his employment with the DA's office in
Wisconsin. For the first several days of his employment, Jordan observed
other attorneys in court, drafted complaints, and made routine court
appearances on 12 separate cases. Jordan then informed his supervisor
that he could not make further court appearances until his license was
reinstated. On Feb. 15, 2001, Jordan's license was reinstated.
By engaging in the practice of law while his license was suspended,
Jordan violated SCR 20:8.4(f) and SCR 31.10.
In January 2002, Jordan was assigned to handle a misdemeanor battery
and disorderly conduct case. The defendant in the case was also a
witness for the prosecution in a double homicide case being handled by
the DA's office.
On Jan. 10, 2002, a hearing was held in the defendant's case. After
the hearing, Jordan met the defendant's girlfriend, who was the victim
in the misdemeanor case, and asked her to come to his office to discuss
the case against her boyfriend. During that meeting, the woman told
Jordan that she wanted the case against her boyfriend dropped. Jordan
and the woman also discussed personal matters during the meeting. Jordan
asked the woman if she would like to come over to his apartment to watch
some movies that night and gave her his home phone number. Jordan and
the woman met at a restaurant that night. After dinner, they went to two
bars and then to Jordan's apartment, where they engaged in sexual
intercourse.
The following morning, Jordan called the woman. During this phone
conversation, the woman asked Jordan if he would consider changing the
recommendation in her boyfriend's case or dismissing the case. Jordan
told the woman he would have to discuss the case further with her
boyfriend's attorney and with the assistant district attorney who was
handling the case in which the boyfriend was to serve as a prosecution
witness. Jordan did not indicate to the woman whether he would make a
change in the sentencing recommendation.
On Jan. 14, 2002, Jordan wrote some notes in the file maintained by
the DA's office regarding the case against the woman's boyfriend. The
notes indicated that, based on the victim's wishes and the fact that the
defendant was cooperating with the prosecution of the double homicide
case, Jordan would recommend probation without jail time. Jordan did not
appear in any further hearings in the case.
On Feb. 6, 2002, Jordan was suspended with pay by the DA's office. On
Feb. 8, 2002, Jordan submitted a letter of resignation. In March 2002, a
special prosecutor was appointed to prosecute the case against the
defendant.
By engaging in sexual relations with a victim in a criminal case that
Jordan was assigned to prosecute, Jordan's representation of his client,
the state of Wisconsin, may have been materially limited by his own
interests, in violation of SCR 20:1.7(b).
Wisconsin Lawyer
