|
Lawyer Discipline
The Office of Lawyer
Regulation (formerly known as the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility),
an agency of the Wisconsin Supreme Court and component of the lawyer regulation
system, assists the court in carrying out its constitutional responsibility
to supervise the practice of law and protect the public from misconduct
by persons practicing law in Wisconsin. The Office of Lawyer Regulation
has offices located at Suite 315, 110 E. Main St., Madison, WI 53703, and
Suite 300, 342 N. Water St., Milwaukee, WI 53202. Toll-free telephone: (877)
315-6941.
Disciplinary
Proceeding Against Nicholas C. Grapsas
Pursuant to a stipulation entered into by the Board of Attorneys Professional
Responsibility (BAPR, the predecessor to the Office of Lawyer Regulation,
OLR) and Nicholas C. Grapsas, 62, Madison, the Wisconsin Supreme Court
revoked Grapsas' law license, effective March 7, 2001.
The order of revocation stemmed from misconduct in two matters. In the
first matter, Grapsas represented a citizen of Cameroon on applications
for renewal of employment authorization and permanent residence status.
Contrary to SCR 20:1.1 and 20:1.3, Grapsas failed, over approximately
one year, to promptly take action to ever file the applications or resolve
any issues concerning the client's immigration status in the U.S. Grapsas
also failed to respond to the client's reasonable requests for information
concerning the status of the applications, violating SCR 20:1.4(a). Grapsas
also made false and misleading statements to the client concerning the
status of the applications, and he misrepresented to a prospective employer
of the client that the client had filed an application for renewal of
employment authorization, violating SCR 20:8.4(c). In an initial written
response to the client's grievance, Grapsas falsely stated to BAPR staff
that he had filed the client's applications for renewal of employment
authorization and permanent residence status, violating former SCR 21.03(4)
and 22.07(3).
In the second matter, Grapsas appeared at a hearing before an immigration
judge on Jan. 20, 2000, 10 days after the effective date of a six-month
disciplinary suspension to which he was subject, and two days after being
told by BAPR litigation counsel that he could not appear on behalf of
the client at the hearing, that the hearing likely would have to be adjourned,
and that, in any event, the court and client would have to be notified
of the disciplinary suspension, and the client should be given an opportunity
to retain new counsel. The immigration judge, unaware at that time of
Grapsas' suspension in the only state jurisdiction in which he was licensed,
granted Grapsas' motion to terminate deportation proceedings against the
client.
By failing to notify the immigration court of his license suspension
and by practicing after suspension, Grapsas violated former SCR 22.26.
Grapsas thereafter misrepresented to BAPR litigation counsel that his
only activity before the immigration court consisted of providing notice
of his suspension to his client and the court, violating SCR 20:8.4(c).
Grapsas' misrepresentation to BAPR litigation counsel, and his failure
to provide any response in an investigation commenced in the matter, provided
evidence of violations of former SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(3), which pertained
to cooperation with investigations into alleged misconduct.
In addition to license revocation, the court ordered restitution to
the client in the first matter in the amount of $574.
Grapsas was publicly reprimanded by the supreme court in 1993 and 1999.
In December 1999, the court suspended Grapsas' law license for six months,
effective Jan. 10, 2000. Grapsas never sought reinstatement from that
suspension.
Medical
Incapacity Proceeding Against John F. Kerscher
On Jan. 23, 2001, John F. Kerscher filed a request pursuant to SCR 22.34(11)
for the indefinite suspension of his Wisconsin law license. Kerscher's
filing acknowledged that he could not successfully defend against medical
incapacity allegations summarized in a filing by OLR.
On March 9, 2001, the Wisconsin Supreme Court indefinitely suspended
Kerscher's law license due to his medical incapacity.
Petition
to Reinstate Robert T. Malloy
A public hearing on the petition of Robert T. Malloy, Oconomowoc, to
reinstate his law license will be held before Referee Michael Ash on Friday,
June 29, 2001, at 9:30 a.m., in the large conference room on the 13th
floor at 780 N. Water St., Milwaukee. Any interested person may appear
at the hearing in support of or in opposition to the petition for reinstatement.
On May 1, 1997, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended Malloy's law license
for one year, effective June 10, 1997. The suspension was based upon several
counts of misconduct involving many different clients. Malloy failed to
handle his client trust account properly by using funds deposited by one
client to pay for the court costs of another client and by commingling
his own personal and business funds with his clients' funds, violating
SCR 20:1.15(a). In addition, Malloy's trust account records were filled
with discrepancies and missing information, violating SCR 20:1.15(e).
While Malloy's mishandling of his trust account was not intended for his
own personal gain, the trust account violations were substantially similar
to the misconduct for which he received a public reprimand in July 1994.
In several separate matters, Malloy neglected his clients' legal matters
and failed to communicate with his clients, violating SCR 20:1.3 and SCR
20:1.4. For example, in a divorce case, Malloy did not file final divorce
papers and a deed until six months after the divorce was granted and did
not inform his client of the filing. When the client discovered that the
documents had been filed incorrectly, she requested that he amend the
findings. Malloy failed to respond to this request, and the client eventually
retained a new attorney. In a separate matter, a client retained Malloy
in a modification of custody case. Malloy failed to appear at a meeting
with the client, and then he never contacted the client again, despite
the client's repeated telephone calls and letters. In a bankruptcy matter,
Malloy failed to respond to his client's weekly telephone calls for six
months and never filed the bankruptcy. In two instances, Malloy failed
to promptly refund unearned fees, violating SCR 20:1.16(d). Finally, he
failed to cooperate in the BAPR grievance investigations into these matters,
violating SCR 21.03(4) and SCR 22.07(2).
While Malloy's law license was under suspension, the Wisconsin Supreme
Court suspended Malloy's law license for another 90 days, commencing June
10, 1998. The second suspension was based upon professional misconduct
in the handling of four matters and Malloy's failures to respond to BAPR's
attempts to investigate the matters, violating SCR 21.03(4) and SCR 22.07(2)
and (3). In the first matter, a court ordered Malloy to prepare findings
of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment of divorce. Malloy submitted
the document, and it was returned to him for corrections. One week later
Malloy submitted another document that the court again returned for corrections.
Despite communications from the court, Malloy failed to file the divorce
papers with the necessary changes for 18 months, violating SCR 20:1.3,
and ultimately the court commissioner made the corrections.
In the second matter, Malloy failed to appear in court on two criminal
matters with which his client was charged, violating SCR 20:1.3, and failed
to return an unearned fee, violating 20:1.16(d). In the third matter,
Malloy represented a client in a civil matter. He failed to respond to
opposing counsel's discovery requests, failed to respond to his client's
inquiries about a court date, and failed to inform his client of a deposition
date, violating SCR 20:1.4(a).
In the fourth matter, Malloy was retained to obtain the return of a car
belonging to his client's brother that had been seized upon his client's
arrest. He failed to timely file the necessary documents, violating SCR
20:1.3, and the car was not returned. Malloy also failed to respond to
more than 20 attempts by his client to contact him, violating SCR 20:1.4.
Malloy is required by Supreme Court Rule 22.29 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 suspension;
4) he has maintained competence and learning in 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
aid in the administration of justice as a member of the bar and 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, has explained 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.
Further information may be obtained from Rachel Nadel, Investigator,
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 342 N. Water St., Suite 300, Milwaukee, WI
53202, (414) 227-4623 or toll-free (877) 315-6941; or OLR's retained counsel,
Robert G. Krohn, P.O. Box 151, Edgerton, WI 53534, (608) 884-3391.
Disciplinary
Proceeding Against James W. Snyder
On March 9, 2000, the Wisconsin Supreme Court revoked the law license
of James W. Snyder, effective on the date of the order. The court entered
the order after considering the petition filed pursuant to SCR 22.19 by
Snyder requesting the consensual revocation of his law license and the
summary of misconduct allegations against Snyder being investigated by
the OLR.
Snyder's law license had been temporarily suspended by the Wisconsin
Supreme Court since Oct. 12, 2000.
|
