Professional Discipline

Petition to Reinstate Mark J. Brunner

A hearing on the petition of Mark J. Brunner, 40, West Bend, to reinstate his law license will be held before the District 13 Professional Responsibility Committee on May 9, 1997, at 9 a.m. at the Washington County Courthouse, Room 1020, 432 E. Washington St., West Bend, Wis.

Brunner's law license was suspended by the Wisconsin Supreme Court for 18 months, effective Sept. 1, 1995, as discipline for professional misconduct. That misconduct consisted of Brunner having represented personal clients without the knowledge of the law firm at which he was employed and using the firm's name, computer system and other resources to do so. In addition to the legal fees he billed to his personal clients, Brunner retained client expenses the law firm had advanced to him and his own expenses reimbursed by the firm in those matters.

Brunner is required by Supreme Court Rule 22.28 to establish by clear and convincing evidence that:

1) he desires to have his license reinstated;
2) he has not practiced law during the suspension;
3) he has complied with the terms of the disciplinary order;
4) he has maintained competence and learning in the law;
5) his conduct since the discipline 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 the standards;
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 court;
8) he has made restitution or settled all claims from persons injured or harmed by his misconduct, or in the event such restitution is not complete, his explanation of the failure or inability to do so;
9) he has indicated the proposed use of the license after reinstatement; and
10) he has fully described all business activities during the suspension.

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 Jeananne L. Danner, Deputy Administrator, Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, 611 N. Broadway, Suite l02, Milwaukee, WI 53202, (4l4) 227-4623.

Disciplinary Proceeding Against Jack J. Hargrove

On Feb. 4, 1997, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license of Jack J. Hargrove, 44, Bloomington, Minn., for one year. At the time relevant to the disciplinary proceeding, Hargrove practiced in Cumberland, Wis. The evidentiary findings were based upon the admissions contained in Hargrove's pleading and upon the terms of a stipulation between Hargrove and the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR).

In one matter, Hargrove, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a), failed to respond to numerous client inquiries regarding the status of a deed that Hargrove had been hired to draft and record. Hargrove did not respond to a BAPR request for information about the matter and did not appear before a district professional responsibility committee, which had twice asked him to do so, in violation of SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(3).

A second matter pertained to Hargrove's 1987 retainer to represent an estate, in which no activity occurred subsequent to a May, 1992 order to show cause, and which remained open as of the filing of the referee's report in the disciplinary action. Hargrove's failure to act with reasonable diligence violated SCR 20:1.3. Hargrove failed to respond to the personal representative's repeated requests for information regarding the status of the estate, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a). He also withdrew from the representation by relocating, without telling the client how he might be contacted and without returning estate documents, in violation of 20:1.16(d). Hargrove failed to make any response to BAPR or the district professional responsibility committee in their investigation of the client's grievance, in violation of SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2).

In a third matter, Hargrove's only misconduct was a failure to respond to a BAPR request for information, for which he was found to have violated SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2).

Hargrove was publicly reprimanded in 1991 for neglecting an estate and a divorce case. In 1994 the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended Hargrove's license for 90 days for neglecting several estates, knowingly making a false statement to the probate court, neglecting a divorce case and failing to keep the client informed in the matter, and failing to cooperate with two BAPR investigations.

Public Reprimand of Ronald W. Hendree

Ronald W. Hendree, 45, Milwaukee, was retained by a union in January 1994 to represent it regarding claims of unfair labor practices against the employer. In March the employer offered settlement terms of $75,000 to the union conditioned upon termination of the union's contract. Hendree advised the union not to accept the offer but to file a federal lawsuit instead. Hendree agreed to a contingent fee arrangement with the union but did not put the agreement in writing. That month the union advanced Hendree $3,750 to cover the costs of litigation and investigation. He assured the union that it had a good case that was worth a lot of money and that he would file the suit by that November.

When Hendree had not filed by November, he promised he would file by December. In March 1995, Hendree promised a union member that he would file by April. From early in 1995 through April 1995, Hendree did not respond to repeated messages to call the union president and other members. Hendree was asked to either file the lawsuit by April 1995, or promptly return the files and advance payment. When there was no response, the union filed a grievance with BAPR in April 1995.

Hendree also was contacted by several union members as to pursuing individual claims on their behalf. Hendree did not pursue them and denied to BAPR that he had agreed to do so. However, in at least one instance, he was paid a $150 retainer to contest a discharge, and a retainer agreement was signed in November 1994. He returned the retainer six months later without having filed the claim. Hendree told a second union member that he would handle her sexual harassment claim, but after having an investigator take her statement, he never contacted her and never took further action.

The investigating committee found that the union had no viable claims against its employer, and Hendree was unable to identify what cause of action he would have filed. He told the committee that he had determined by the end of 1994 that there was no basis to sue the employer, but Hendree never told this to the union. In earlier responses to BAPR, Hendree claimed instead that he had not filed a lawsuit because the union had not advanced litigation costs and that the union had failed to turn over necessary documents. Subsequently, the union provided cancelled checks as proof of paying the $3,750, and corroboration that the union's files and documents had been turned over to Hendree. Hendree failed to return the files as the union requested and initially denied to BAPR that he had the files. However, six months after the grievance was filed, Hendree delivered a box of the union's files and documents to BAPR.

BAPR found that Hendree had failed to put a contingency fee agreement in writing, in violation of SCR 20:1.5(c). Further, Hendree did not diligently pursue the legal matters of the union and individual members, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. The Board also found that Mr. Hendree had failed to keep his clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters and to promptly comply with reasonable requests from his clients for information, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a), and he had failed to take reasonable steps to protect the union's interests by timely surrendering its files and papers and had failed to return the union's $3,750 advance, all in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d). Hendree also had failed to provide competent representation to the union by not doing the preparation reasonably necessary to handle the union's legal matter, in violation of SCR 20:1.1. The public reprimand was conditioned upon Hendree's agreement to refund the advance of $3,750 to the union.

Wisconsin Lawyer