Wisconsin
Lawyer
Vol. 81, No. 3, March
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 Stephen M. Compton
On Jan. 16, 2008, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law
license
of Stephen M. Compton, Delavan, for 60 days, and ordered Compton to pay
the cost
of the disciplinary proceeding. Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Compton, 2008 WI 3.
Compton represented criminal defendants by appointment of the Office
of
the State Public Defender (SPD). In the fall of 2000, Compton was
appointed to
represent J.M., who ultimately was incarcerated at a state
correctional
institution. In January 2002, Compton allowed J.M., who was a former
paralegal,
to assist Compton in doing legal research on Compton's cases while
J.M. was
still incarcerated.
Compton forwarded a client's case file to J.M. at the correctional
institution without his client's prior knowledge or approval. J.M.
performed
legal research on this file for Compton. The court found that during
J.M.'s
incarceration, Compton did not have effective procedures in place to
supervise J.M,
to ensure that J.M.'s conduct was compatible with Compton's
professional
obligations, or to ensure that J.M would be able to maintain the
confidentiality
of the client matter while working from prison.
The court held that by failing to adequately supervise J.M. while
J.M.
was performing legal work from prison, Compton violated former SCR
20:5.3(a)
and (b), effective before July 1, 2007.
After J.M. was released from prison in May 2002, Compton hired J.M.
as
a paralegal. From May 2002 to July 2002, J.M. worked on several case
files
for Compton.
The SPD's billing policies require that an appointed attorney submit
bills for reimbursement for "reasonable hours" the attorney
has spent working on
client matters. The policies further provide that work done by another
attorney will not be reimbursed unless specifically approved.
Despite this policy, Compton billed the SPD for approximately 120
hours
of work performed by J.M. In three cases, Compton falsely certified
that he
had done all the legal work on the cases, when in fact J.M. had done
much of
the work.
The court concluded that by billing the SPD for 120 hours of work at
the appointed attorney rate when that work actually was performed by
J.M.,
Compton engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation,
in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).
Compton had been publicly reprimanded in 2002.
Disciplinary proceeding against Jeffrey D.
Berlin
The supreme court suspended the law license of Jeffrey D. Berlin,
formerly
of Grafton, for six months effective Jan. 17, 2008. In addition, the
court
ordered that Berlin pay the full cost of the disciplinary proceeding.
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Berlin, 2008 WI 4.
Berlin's suspension was based on eight counts of professional
misconduct committed in connection with two client matters.
In the first matter, Berlin represented a client individually and in
her capacity as the purported special administrator of her deceased
husband's
estate. Berlin violated former SCR 20:1.8(g), in effect through June
30, 2007,
by participating in making an aggregate settlement of both the
client's
individual claims and the claims of her husband's estate, without
consulting with and
obtaining the informed consent of the client and someone authorized by
the
probate court to act on behalf of the estate. Berlin also violated SCR
20:8.4(c)
by engaging in a course of conduct intended to allocate the entirety
of the
aggregate settlement to the client individually, including by
concurring with
or advising his cocounsel to dismiss the probate case without advising
the
probate court that a settlement of claims belonging to the estate had
been obtained
and to distribute the entire net settlement proceeds to the client
individually, when he knew that there were outstanding claims against
the estate.
In the second matter, Berlin represented a client as a part-time
staff attorney for the Wisconsin Professional Police Association
(WPPA). Berlin
violated SCR 20:1.3 by failing to timely file a brief on behalf of his
client or
to seek the consent of opposing counsel and the court to extend the
time to
file the brief, and by failing to take any action with regard to the
court's
resulting order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed.
Berlin
violated SCR 20:1.4(a) by failing to inform the client that he had
failed to file
the brief or obtain a time extension in which to file it, and that the
court
had issued an order to show cause. Berlin violated SCR 20:8.4(c) by
making
false statements to his supervisor regarding the client's brief and by
failing
to affirmatively advise his supervisor that the court had issued the
order to
show cause. Berlin also made a misrepresentation to the Office of
Lawyer
Regulation (OLR) in the course of its investigation, in violation of
SCR 20:8.4(f) as
it relates to the requirements of SCR 22.03(6).
Additionally, in both matters Berlin violated SCR 20:8.4(f) as it
relates to the requirements of SCR 22.03(6) by failing to provide the
OLR with
information requested during the course of both investigations.
Berlin was publicly reprimanded in August 2005 for three counts of
failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client,
three counts of failing to keep a client reasonably informed of the
status of a
matter, two trust account violations, and three counts of failing to
refund
unearned advanced fees. Public Reprimand of Jeffrey D. Berlin. 2005-4
Disciplinary proceeding against George H. Losby
In a Jan. 29, 2008 decision, the supreme court suspended the law
license
of George H. Losby, Eau Claire, for 18 months, effective March 3, 2008.
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Losby, 2008 WI 8.
The court accepted the referee's conclusion that Losby had engaged
in
10 counts of misconduct involving three probate estates. Losby failed
to file
fiduciary income tax returns and failed to act with reasonable
diligence in
closing the estates, contrary to SCR 20:1.3. In two of the estates, he
filed final
accounts that falsely reported the amount of fees he had taken and the
amount
of certain income and tax liabilities, contrary to SCR 20:3.3(a)(1).
In the
same two estates, he took more fees than he was entitled to receive,
contrary to
SCR 20:8.4(c), and failed to cooperate with the OLR's investigation,
contrary to
SCR 20:8.4(f) as it relates to SCR 22.03(6). In one of the estates,
Losby
also failed to appear at hearings and meet court-imposed filing
deadlines,
contrary to SCR 20:3.4(c).
Losby was ordered to pay restitution in two of the estates. He had
no
prior discipline.
Public reprimand of Joseph C. Crawford
The OLR and Joseph C. Crawford, La Pointe, 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 on Dec. 27, 2007, in accordance with SCR 22.09(3). The public
reprimand
stemmed from a single matter investigated by the OLR.
Crawford represented a client pro bono in misdemeanor criminal
matters
in Bayfield County. Crawford and the district attorney entered into an
extrajudicial agreement under which the defendant would leave the
state for three
years, after which time the district attorney would seek dismissal of
the charges.
The client appeared in court, pleaded no contest to initial charges,
and left
the state before the sentencing hearing.
Crawford and the district attorney did not advise the court of the
arrangement during either the plea hearing or the subsequent
sentencing hearing.
Knowing that his client would not appear at the sentencing hearing
because of
the arrangement with the district attorney, Crawford encouraged his
client to
commit the crime of bail jumping, in violation of former SCR
20:1.2(d), effective
before July 1, 2007. By failing to advise the court at the plea
hearing or
sentencing hearing of the facts associated with the arrangement with
the
district attorney, Crawford engaged in conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit,
or misrepresentation in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c). Furthermore,
Crawford
allowed his client to testify falsely during the plea colloquy
regarding the absence
of promises or inducements and failed to take reasonable remedial
measures to
correct the false testimony in violation of former SCR 20:3.3(a)(4),
effective before July 1, 2007.
Crawford had no prior disciplinary history.
Public reprimand of Sallie L. Rubenzer
The OLR and Sallie L. Rubenzer, West Bend, 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 on Dec. 27, 2007, in accordance with SCR 22.09(3).
Rubenzer was found guilty on Dec. 13, 2006, of her fourth operating
while intoxicated (OWI) offense. Her conduct violated SCR 20:8.4(b),
which
provides that it is misconduct for a lawyer to commit a criminal act
that reflects
adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a
lawyer
in other respects. In addition, Rubenzer failed to report the guilty
finding to
the OLR and to the clerk of the supreme court and thereby violated SCR
21.15(5), which states that it is misconduct for an attorney who is
found guilty or
convicted of a crime to fail to report the finding or conviction
within five
days to the clerk of the supreme court and to the OLR.
The OWI charge on which the reprimand is based arose out of an
incident
that occurred Aug. 19, 2006. Rubenzer was seen driving erratically,
including
driving in the wrong direction on city streets. A person whose vehicle
was nearly hit
by Rubenzer's contacted police. The officer responding to the call
determined
that Rubenzer was impaired and arrested her. A blood test showed
Rubenzer's
blood alcohol concentration to be .298.
Rubenzer pleaded no contest. At sentencing on Jan. 25, 2007, the
court
ordered Rubenzer to serve eight months in jail commencing on that day.
The
court also suspended Rubenzer's driver's license for 33 months and
fined her $2,400.
Rubenzer had prior discipline, including a 2004 private reprimand
for
violating SCR 20:8.4(b) by committing her third OWI offense.
Wisconsin
Lawyer
