Professional Discipline

Public reprimand of James F. Pressentin

James F. Pressentin, Green Bay, represented a client in a Minnesota divorce action. Pressentin failed to appear at a pretrial telephone conference. The court deducted $275 from the client's final divorce judgment because of Pressentin's failure to appear.

Pressentin's file contained a copy of this judgment date-stamped as having been received in 1991, immediately after it was issued. Pressentin told his client, however, that the court had never issued the judgment. It was not until 1995 that the client obtained a copy of the final judgment and learned that she had lost $275 because of Pressentin's failure to appear. When the client filed a grievance, Pressentin misrepresented to the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR) that he attended the pretrial conference and had not received a copy of the judgment.

BAPR found that Pressentin failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, contrary to SCR 20:1.3; failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of the matter, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a); engaged in conduct involving misrepresentation, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c), and made misrepresentations in a disclosure to BAPR, contrary to SCR 22.07(2). Pressentin previously received a private reprimand in 1996 for lack of diligence, failure to communicate with a client and failure to promptly deliver trust funds belonging to a client.

Petition to reinstate Gregory K. Scott

A hearing on the petition of Gregory K. Scott for reinstatement of his law license will be held before the District 7 Professional Responsibility Committee on Wednesday, Dec. 3, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. in the Bobert Room of the Adams County Library, 101 S. Main St., Adams, Wis. Scott's license was revoked by the Wisconsin Supreme Court on July 28, 1986, following his conviction for perjury on April 17, 1986, in Dodge County circuit court.

Scott is required by SCR 22.28 to show that: 1) he desires to have his license reinstated; 2) he has not practiced law during the revocation; 3) he has complied fully with the terms of the order and will continue to comply with them until his license is reinstated; 4) he has maintained competence and learning in the law; 5) his conduct since the revocation has been exemplary and above reproach; 6) he has a proper understanding of and attitude toward the standards that are imposed upon members of the bar and will act in conformity with them; 7) 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 and in general to aid in the administration of justice as a member of the bar and as an officer of the courts; 8) he has fully complied with the requirements of SCR 22.26; 9) he indicates the proposed use of his license, if reinstated; 10) he has fully described all business activities during the revocation; and 11) he has made restitution or settled all claims from persons injured or harmed by his misconduct or, if the restitution is not complete, his explanation of his failure or inability to do so.

Scott is required to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence possession of the moral character to practice law in this state and to demonstrate that his resumption of the practice of law within this state will not be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar or the administration of justice, or subversive of the public interest.

Any interested person may appear at the hearing and be heard in support of or in opposition to the petition for reinstatement. Further information may be obtained from Melody Rader-Johnson, Investigator, Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, 110 E. Main St., Room 410, Madison, WI 53703-3383; (608) 267-7274.

Wisconsin Lawyer