Wisconsin Lawyer
Vol. 84, No. 10, October 2011
Public reprimand of Jon Evenson
The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Jon Evenson, Madison, entered into an agreement for imposition of a public reprimand, pursuant to SCR 22.09(1). A supreme court-appointed referee approved the agreement, and issued the public reprimand on Aug. 5, 2011, in accordance with SCR 22.09(3).
Evenson participated in two bar fights in Madison, in 2009 and 2010. In each instance, Evenson punched a bar patron multiple times in the face, causing injuries, and then fled the scene.
On June 18, 2010, the Dane County District Attorney charged Evenson with two counts of substantial battery with intent to cause bodily harm (Class I felonies) in violation of Wis. Stat. section 940.19(2). See State v. Evenson, Dane County Circuit Court Case
No. 2010CF986.
On Dec. 20, 2010, Evenson entered a no-contest plea to two misdemeanor battery counts, in violation of Wis. Stat. section 940.19(1), and one felony count of substantial battery with intent to cause bodily harm, in violation of Wis. Stat. section 940.19(2). Based on the no-contest pleas on the two misdemeanor counts, the court sentenced Evenson to 18 months’ probation, sentence withheld. The court deferred adjudication on the substantial battery count, which the court will dismiss after Evenson successfully completes probation.
By engaging in conduct leading to his conviction on two misdemeanor counts of battery and his entering of a no-contest plea on one felony count of substantial battery with intent to cause bodily harm, Evenson violated SCR 20:8.4(b), which states, “It is professional 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.”
Although Evenson provided notice by telephone that criminal charges were filed against him, he failed to provide timely written notice of his conviction to the supreme court clerk and the OLR. Accordingly, Evenson violated SCR 21.15(5), which states, “An attorney found guilty or convicted of any crime on or after July 1, 2002, shall notify in writing the office of lawyer regulation and the clerk of the Supreme Court within 5 days after the finding or conviction, whichever first occurs.” SCR 21.15(5) is enforceable through SCR 20:8.4(f), which states, “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to violate a … supreme court rule … regulating the conduct of lawyers.”
Evenson had no prior discipline.
Public reprimand of Sandra Glodowski
The OLR and Sandra Glodowski, Madison, entered into an agreement for imposition of a public reprimand, pursuant to SCR 22.09(1). A supreme court-appointed referee approved the agreement, and issued the public reprimand on Aug. 4, 2011, in accordance with SCR 22.09(3).
In January 2009, Glodowski was arrested as a party to a crime in connection with a drug sale. Glodowski and her boyfriend participated in the sale of 8.2 grams of cocaine to undercover law enforcement officers. Following the arrest, law enforcement officers searched Glodowski’s Baraboo apartment, where they found cocaine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia.
On Jan. 26, 2009, detectives from the Sauk County Sheriff’s Department interviewed Glodowski. During the interview, Glodowski admitted that she used about a gram of cocaine per day and otherwise acknowledged both the possession and use of controlled substances.
In a criminal complaint filed on June 30, 2009, the Sauk County District Attorney charged Glodowski with three drug-related charges: possession of cocaine in violation of Wis. Stat. section 961.41(3g)(c); possession of tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) in violation of Wis. Stat. section 961.41(3g)(e); and possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of Wis. Stat. section 961.573(1). See State v. Glodowski, Sauk County Circuit Court Case No. 2009CM505.
On June 4, 2010, the Dane County District Attorney (acting through a special prosecutor) filed a criminal complaint against Glodowski for one count of manufacture/delivery of cocaine (>5 -15G), as a party to a crime (Class E felony) in violation of Wis. Stat. sections 961.41(1)(cm)2., 939.50(3)(e), and 939.05, and one count of possession of cocaine (a misdemeanor) in violation of Wis. Stat. section 961.41(3g)(c). See State v. Glodowski, Dane County Circuit Court Case No. 2010CF901.
On March 9, 2010, Glodowski entered a no-contest plea in the Sauk County case to one count of possession of THC in violation of Wis. Stat. section 961.41(3g)(e). The prosecutor dismissed the possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia charges. Glodowski was fined $462.80 for the violation.
Glodowski pleaded no contest on Feb. 23, 2011, to one count of possession of cocaine in the Dane County case, in violation of Wis. Stat. section 961.41(3g)(c). The prosecutor dismissed the count alleging that Glodowski was a party to the crime of manufacture/delivery of cocaine. The court sentenced Glodowski to 12 months’ probation, sentence withheld; imposed a fine; and ordered an alcohol and drug assessment with treatment as recommended.
Following her convictions, Glodowski failed to provide timely written notice of her convictions to the OLR and the supreme court clerk.
By engaging in conduct leading to her conviction on misdemeanor cocaine and marijuana possession charges, Glodowski violated SCR 20:8.4(b), which states, “It is professional 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.”
By failing to provide prompt written notice of her convictions, Glodowski violated SCR 21.15(5), which states, “An attorney found guilty or convicted of any crime on or after July 1, 2002, shall notify in writing the office of lawyer regulation and the clerk of the Supreme Court within 5 days after the finding or conviction, which ever first occurs.” SCR 21.15(5) is enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f), which provides, in relevant part, “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: … (f) violate a … supreme court rule, supreme court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of lawyers.”
As conditions to the imposition of a public reprimand, Glodowski agreed to 1) be referred to a State Bar assistance program, 2) comply with conditions proposed by the director regarding participation and compliance with the State Bar assistance program, and 3) pay the costs associated with her compliance with these conditions. Glodowski agreed that neither the OLR nor the State Bar assistance program will be responsible for any costs. The specific conditions proposed by the director are stated in the confidential conditions for imposition of public reprimand, incorporated by reference.
Glodowski has one prior private reprimand.
Notice of hearing to reinstate John Widule
On Monday, Dec. 5, 2011, at 9 a.m., a public hearing will be held before referee James Winiarski in the State Office Building, 819 N. Sixth St., Milwaukee, at a room to be designated, on the petition of John Widule, Elm Grove, to reinstate his Wisconsin law license. Any interested person may appear at the hearing and be heard in support of or opposition to the petition for reinstatement.
In Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d
686, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended Widule’s law license for six months, based on his violation of SCR 20:3.1(a)(2), 20:3.1(a)(3), 20:1.7(b), and 20:1.1. The court found Widule knowingly advanced a factual position without a basis for doing so that was not frivolous; represented one client while at the same time being under a retainer to another client, which may have led to a potential conflict of interest; failed to provide competent representation to a client; and failed to research issues such as accord and satisfaction, waiver, and estoppel, before filing suit on behalf of the client.
In 2003, Widule filed a petition for reinstatement, which the supreme court denied in 2004.
To be reinstated, Widule has the burden of substantiating by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he has the moral character to practice law in Wisconsin, his resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of the public interest, all his representations in his reinstatement petition are substantiated, and he has complied fully with the terms of the order of suspension and with SCR 22.26.
Relevant information may be provided to or obtained from OLR investigator Sarah Peterson or OLR litigation retained counsel Robert G. Krohn, 24 N. Henry St., Edgerton, WI 53534, (608) 884-3391.
Wisconsin Lawyer
