Professional Discipline
The Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, an arm of the
Wisconsin Supreme Court, assists the court in discharging its exclusive
constitutional responsibility to supervise the practice of law in this
state and to protect the public from acts of professional misconduct by
attorneys licensed to practice in Wisconsin. The board is composed of
eight lawyers and four nonlawyer members, and its offices are located at
Room 410, 110 E. Main St., Madison, WI 53703, and Room 102, 611 N.
Broadway, Milwaukee, WI 53202.
Disciplinary proceeding against Kevin M. Jereczek
On May 20, 1998, the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted the petition of
Kevin M. Jereczek for revocation of his law license by consent.
Jereczek, 35, Green Bay, filed the petition in the course of a
disciplinary action filed by the Board of Attorneys Professional
Responsibility (BAPR). In the petition, Jereczek stated that he could
not defend against the allegations of misconduct contained in BAPR's
complaint. Jereczek has been ineligible to practice law since May 27,
1996, the starting date of a 60-day suspension from which Jereczek never
obtained reinstatement because he failed to file the affidavit of
compliance required under the terms and conditions of the suspension.
Jereczek also was publicly reprimanded in 1996.
The proceeding leading to Jereczek's revocation stemmed from three
grievance matters. In the first, Jereczek remained attorney of record in
a federal court case after his May 27, 1996 suspension, and, in
violation of SCR 22.26(1)(b), failed to provide notice of his license
suspension to the court. In violation of SCR 21.03(4) and 2.07(2), which
require attorneys to cooperate with BAPR investigations, Jereczek
submitted nothing in response to notices requiring him to address the
allegations of misconduct.
In the second matter, Jereczek agreed to provide post-conviction
representation to a criminal defendant who already had representation
through the State Public Defender's office. Jereczek's representation
was arranged through the client's sister. In violation of SCR 20:1.3,
Jereczek did nothing to advance the client's interests. In violation of
SCR 20:8.4(c), Jereczek made misrepresentations to the sister, a friend
of the sister, and other members of the client's family as to work
purportedly done. In violation of SCR 22.26(1)(a), Jereczek failed to
inform the client of his May 27, 1996 license suspension, which
commenced during the period of representation. Jereczek failed to return
any portion of the retainer paid by the sister, violating SCR
20:1.16(d). In violation of SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07, Jereczek did not
cooperate with the grievance investigation.
In the third matter, prior to the May 27, 1996 suspension of his law
license, Jereczek failed to advance his clients' interests in a
bankruptcy, violating SCR 20:1.3. Jereczek failed to inform the clients
of his license suspension, in violation of SCR 22.26(1)(a). Subsequent
to his license suspension, Jereczek appeared on behalf of one of the
clients in a small claims case, violating SCR 22.26(2), and failed to
inform the court of his suspension, in violation of SCR 22.26(1)(b). In
further violation of SCR 22.26(2), Jereczek prepared certain bankruptcy
forms for the clients subsequent to his license suspension. In violation
of SCR 20:1.16(d), Jereczek failed to return the $650 retainer provided
by the clients, issuing them a check in that amount that never cleared
because of insufficient funds in his office account. Jereczek did not
cooperate with the grievance investigation, in violation of SCR 21.03(4)
and 22.07.
Hearing to reinstate Anthony M. Marick
On March 16, 1998, Anthony M. Marick filed a petition with the
Wisconsin Supreme Court seeking the reinstatement of his law license
pursuant to SCR 21.11 and 22.28.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered Marick's law license suspended
for nine months, effective Oct. 2, 1996. The court based its order upon
review of the record and a stipulation between Marick and BAPR.
Marick and BAPR stipulated that the director of the Minnesota Office
of Lawyers Professional Responsibility had alleged Marick:
- used a client confidence or secret for his or a third person's
advantage, contrary to Minnesota Rule of Professional Responsibility
1.6(a)(3), which is equivalent to Wisconsin SCR 20:1.6(a);
- engaged in conduct that constituted a criminal act that reflected
adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a
lawyer in other respects, contrary to Minnesota Rule of Professional
Responsibility 8.4(b), which is equivalent to Wisconsin SCR 20:8.4(b);
and
- engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation, contrary to Minnesota Rule of Professional
Responsibility 8.4(c), which is equivalent to Wisconsin SCR
20:8.4(c).
Marick and BAPR also stipulated that these allegations were based
upon Marick's use of confidential client information for his personal
profit.
Marick and BAPR agreed that the Minnesota Supreme Court had suspended
Marick's law license for nine months. They also agreed that Marick
admitted the aforementioned allegations in a stipulation between him and
the director of the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional
Responsibility.
Marick and BAPR agreed that a nine-month suspension of his Wisconsin
law license would be appropriate reciprocal discipline.
Marick is required by SCR 22.28 to show that:
- nine months have elapsed since the denial of his previous
petition;
- he has not practiced law since Nov. 1, 1989;
- he has fully complied with the terms of the revocation order;
- he has maintained competence and learning in the law;
- his conduct since the discipline has been exemplary and above
reproach;
- 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;
- 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;
- he has fully complied with the requirements of SCR 22.26;
- he indicates the proposed use of his law license if reinstated;
- he has fully described all business activities during the
revocation;
- he has made restitution or settled all claims from persons injured
or harmed by his misconduct or, if the restitution is not complete, has
explained the failure or inability to do so.
A public hearing on the petition will be held at 7 p.m. on Thursday,
Sept. 24, 1998, at 110 E. Main St., Fourth Floor Conference Room,
Madison, Wis. Persons wishing to give testimony or evidence in support
of or in opposition to the petition should contact Peter Sammataro,
Investigator, Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, 110 E.
Main St., Suite 315, Madison, WI 53730-3383, (608) 267-7274, by Sept. 5,
1998.
Persons who require special accommodations to participate at the
hearing also should contact Peter Sammataro.
Wisconsin Lawyer
