Lawyer 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 342 N. Water St., 3rd Floor, Milwaukee, WI
53202.
Disciplinary Proceeding against Thomas D. Baehr
On Feb. 9, 2000, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law
license of Thomas D. Baehr, 47, Stevens Point, for 90 days for
professional misconduct, effective March 20, 2000.
Baehr was appointed in June 1997 to represent an incarcerated client on
an appeal and on a claim of ineffective assistance of his previous
counsel. The client was incarcerated following revocation of his
probation. Baehr took no action in the client's case and did not
communicate in any way with the client. Baehr failed to respond to two
letters from the client requesting information about the status of the
appeal, and Baehr failed to return two calls from the client's mother
that were made at the client's request. Approximately 17 months after
Baehr had been appointed, the client retained private counsel to
represent him on appeal.
After the client filed a grievance, Baehr failed to respond to
requests from the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR)
staff and the district professional responsibility committee.
The court concluded that Baehr failed to act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing the client, in violation of SCR
20:1.3. The court further concluded that Baehr's failure to
communicate in any manner with the client violated SCR
20:1.4(a), which requires a lawyer to keep a client reasonably
informed of the status of a matter and comply promptly with reasonable
requests for information. The court determined that Baehr's failure to
discuss or evaluate appellate issues with the client violated his duty
under SCR
20:1.4(b) to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to
permit a client to make informed decisions regarding the attorney's
representation. Finally, the court found that Baehr's failure to respond
to requests from BAPR and the district committee constituted a failure
to cooperate with BAPR's investigation, in violation of SCR
21.03(4) and 22.07(2).
Baehr had no previous discipline.
Disciplinary Proceeding against Richard C. Glesner
On Feb. 23, 2000, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered a 60-day
suspension of the law license of Richard C. Glesner, 58, Madison,
effective the date of the order. The court acted pursuant to a
stipulation entered into by Glesner and BAPR.
On two occasions, Glesner added an unearned $1,500 to monthly billing
statements sent to a client. The client did not immediately pay the
second of the two periodic bills and requested an itemization of time
entries. Glesner reviewed the time entries for the invoice and adjusted
several of them upward in order to make it appear that the bill was
justified by time spent on the matter. The time entries Glesner adjusted
were not his own but those of other attorneys who had worked on the
client's matter. Glesner and BAPR stipulated that his conduct involved
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, in violation of SCR
20:8.4(c), and violated his fiduciary duty, established by case law,
to the firm at which he was employed, as well as his duty of honesty in
his professional dealings with his law firm.
Glesner was publicly reprimanded in 1993 for representing clients
with conflicting interests and giving misleading deposition testimony
intended to evade discovery of the conflict he had an affirmative duty
to disclose.
Public Reprimand of David Merriam
David Merriam, 58, Madison, has been publicly reprimanded by BAPR for
neglect of an estate and failure to cooperate with BAPR's
investigation.
Merriam was retained to probate a simple estate in 1997. When the
personal representative filed a grievance in 1998, Merriam had not done
any work on the estate for more than a year and had not filed the estate
inventory.
Merriam initially failed to respond to two requests for a written
response to the grievance, but he eventually cooperated with a district
committee investigation. In 1999, at the conclusion of the committee's
investigation, Merriam had still taken no further steps to file the
inventory or conclude probate.
Noting that Merriam had received two prior private reprimands for
neglect, failure to communicate with clients, and noncooperation, BAPR
voted to publicly reprimand Merriam on the condition that he conclude
probate of the estate. Merriam concluded the probate and consented to
the public reprimand.
Public Reprimand of Verlin H. Peckham
Verlin H. Peckham, 66, Portage, has been publicly reprimanded by the
Wisconsin Supreme Court for entering into a loan transaction with a
client, failing to pursue a small claims action, and failing to
cooperate with the grievance investigation.
A client retained Peckham in a 1995 small claims action to recover
interest on mortgage payments that had been refunded by virtue of
mortgage insurance. At the pretrial conference, Peckham asked the
client, who was also his friend and neighbor, for a $500 loan. The
client agreed, and Peckham gave her a handwritten promissory note
requiring repayment, with 12 percent interest, in 60 days. Peckham did
not respond to contacts from the client thereafter.
The client appeared at trial, but Peckham did not, and the court granted
the defendant's motion to dismiss. Peckham learned of the dismissal
shortly thereafter, but made no effort to contact the client or have the
case reopened. Peckham failed to respond to requests for information
from BAPR when the client filed a grievance. The loan the client gave
Peckham is still outstanding.
The court concluded that Peckham entered into a business transaction
with a client without appropriate disclosure and consent, contrary to SCR
20:1.8(a); failed to provide competent representation, contrary to
SCR
20:1.1; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness,
contrary to SCR
20:1.3; failed to keep a client reasonably informed and to comply
with reasonable requests for information, contrary to SCR
20:1.4(a); terminated the representation without protecting the
client's interests, contrary to SCR
20:1.16(d); and failed to cooperate with BAPR's investigation,
contrary to SCR
21.03(4) and 22.07(3).
Peckham had been reprimanded previously for similar misconduct in
1983. The court noted, however, that the client had been a long-time
friend, that poor health had caused Peckham to retire from the practice
of law in November 1998 and that Peckham does not intend to resume the
practice of law. Peckham also was ordered to repay the client's loan,
with interest, within 60 days of the court's order.
Wisconsin Lawyer