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
Wisconsin Lawyer
