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 James H. Dumke

On June 30, 1999, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license of James H. Dumke, 50, Janesville, for one year, as discipline for professional misconduct. The suspension will commence on April 27, 2000, and run consecutive to the suspension of his license currently in effect.

In August 1996, less than two months prior to trial, Illinois counsel for the plaintiffs in a personal injury action asked Dumke for assistance. Dumke and Illinois counsel agreed to split the attorney fee, although Illinois counsel had not consulted with the clients concerning Dumke's participation. Approximately one week before trial, Dumke filed an untimely request for substitution of the judge assigned to the case and did not comply with statutory notice provisions.

Approximately five days before the scheduled trial, Illinois counsel told the clients there would be no trial because of the request for substitution. That was the first time the clients were informed of Dumke's involvement. When the clients contacted the court to confirm that the matter had been continued, they were told that the case remained on the trial calendar as scheduled. Neither Illinois counsel nor Dumke had called the court to find out whether a continuance had been granted.

On the day of trial, counsel for the defendants and his witnesses appeared for trial, but Illinois counsel, Dumke, and the clients did not appear. After being contacted by the court, Dumke went to the courthouse and opposed the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, and the court took that motion under advisement. The clients were unaware of what had occurred until almost one week later, when Illinois counsel wrote them explaining the situation.

By failing to meet the statutory requirements for the substitution of judge motion, failing to seek confirmation that the trial had been continued, and failing to appear at trial, Dumke failed to provide competent representation to the clients, in violation of SCR 20:1.1, and failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. By agreeing to divide attorney fees with Illinois counsel without first obtaining the clients' consent and giving them the opportunity to object to the participation of other attorneys in the case, Dumke violated SCR 20:1.5(e). By failing to promptly notify adverse counsel of the written request for substitution of judge, Dumke had an ex parte communication, in violation of SCR 20:3.5(b).

In another matter, Dumke was hired in October 1996 to represent a woman in post-divorce matters. Dumke told the woman that court dates had been set to address relevant issues and that he would request an extension to take an appeal. In fact, no court dates had been scheduled. The client repeatedly attempted to obtain information from Dumke without success. Dumke did not respond to two requests from the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR) for a response to the grievance.

Dumke's misrepresentation to the client that he had scheduled two court dates constituted conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c). Dumke's failure to provide any meaningful legal services to the client constituted a failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. Dumke's failure to respond to letters from BAPR concerning the client's grievance violated SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2).

Dumke previously has been disciplined for professional misconduct four times. In 1990 Dumke received a public reprimand. In 1992 the court suspended his license for six months for neglecting clients' matters, failing to provide competent representation or to communicate with clients, and as a prosecutor, communicating with a party known to be represented by counsel without that counsel's consent.

In 1998 Dumke's license was suspended for one year for neglect, failing to communicate with the client, and engaging in misrepresentation in the client's post-conviction matter. Later in 1998 the court suspended Dumke's license for one year, consecutive to the earlier one-year suspension, for his neglect of a client's post-conviction matter and failure to cooperate with BAPR's investigation into two client matters. The latter suspension commenced April 27, 1999, and continues in effect.

Summary Suspension of Clay E. Konnor

On June 16, 1999, the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted BAPR's motion for the summary suspension of Clay E. Konnor, 36, Milwaukee, pursuant to SCR 11.03, pending the outcome of the current disciplinary proceeding against Konnor. On June 3, 1998, Konnor pled no-contest to one count of misdemeanor theft, one count of felony burglary, and seven counts of misdemeanor practicing law without a license in Milwaukee County circuit court. The misdemeanor theft charge originally was issued as one count of felony forgery, but was amended to misdemeanor theft pursuant to agreement. On July 24, 1998, Konnor was sentenced on all of these charges, with an additional eight uncharged counts of practicing law without a license being read in. Konnor was sentenced to serve 30 days in jail and placed on probation for five years.

As a basis for the theft charge, in 1993 Konnor had forged the endorsement of a city treasurer's office on an escrow check and deposited the check in his own checking account. As a basis for the burglary charge, in 1997 Konnor had broken into the home of an acquaintance and removed various pieces of musical equipment. The acquaintance caught Konnor in the act and all stolen items were recovered. As a basis for the practicing law without a license charges, in 1997 Konnor had been suspended for failure to pay State Bar dues and failure to comply with continuing legal education requirements, but continued to practice law during this period. Konnor also was in possession of several stolen oil paintings from a club in Chicago in 1997; however, no charges were issued after Konnor returned the paintings when questioned by police.

By his actions, BAPR found that Konnor committed criminal acts that reflected adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(b); that Konnor engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c); and that Konnor engaged in the practice of law where doing so violated the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction, in violation of SCR 20:5.5(a).

Disciplinary Proceeding Against James H. Martin

On June 30, 1999, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended for six months the law license of James H. Martin, effective immediately. The suspension stems from findings of misconduct in several matters.

In the first matter, Martin was retained by a client to file a bankruptcy. The client paid Martin a $450 advance on fees. Martin failed to file the bankruptcy and failed to return or otherwise account for the $450. Martin also failed to respond to the client's numerous telephone calls. After failing to hear from Martin, the client went to Martin's office and found his office vacated. Martin failed to respond to letters from BAPR and the district committee regarding the client's grievance. The court found that Martin failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, contrary to SCR 20:1.3; failed to provide the client accurate information regarding the case and failed to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the case, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a); failed to return an unearned advance on fees, contrary to SCR 20:1.16(d); and failed to cooperate with BAPR's investigation, contrary to SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2) and (3).

In the second matter, Martin represented a client in a criminal matter. After Martin failed to file a notice of intent to pursue post-conviction relief, the client filed with the appeals court a motion for an extension to file a notice of intent to pursue post-conviction relief. The court of appeals issued three orders requesting that Martin provide a response to the client's motion, but Martin failed to respond to any of the orders. The third order, sent by certified mail, was return "unclaimed," and the court's further attempts to locate Martin were unsuccessful. Martin also failed to respond to letters from BAPR and the district committee requesting information regarding this client's grievance. The court found that Martin failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, contrary to SCR 20:1.3; failed to respond to orders from the court of appeals, contrary to SCR 20:3.4(c); and failed to cooperate with BAPR's investigation, contrary to SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2) and (3).

In the third matter, Martin was retained in June 1997 to handle a client's divorce. Martin informed the client that a hearing was scheduled at the end of June and that Martin had closed his office, but if the client needed to speak to Martin, the client could call Martin at his home. Martin appeared for the hearing, and the court granted a judgment of divorce. The court subsequently notified the client that the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment had not yet been filed. The client then retained other counsel to prepare and file the necessary papers with the court. Martin failed to respond to letters from BAPR seeking information regarding this client's grievance. The court found that Martin failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing the client, contrary to SCR 20:1.3; and failed to cooperate with BAPR's investigation of this matter, contrary to SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2) and (3).

In addition to the six-month sus-pension, Martin was ordered to make restitution to the bankruptcy client and to pay costs of the proceeding.

Disciplinary Proceeding Against Scott E. Selmer

The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license of Scott E. Selmer, 49, of Golden Valley, Minn., for 12 months, effective June 23, 1999, as discipline reciprocal to that imposed upon him by the Minnesota Supreme Court in 1997.

A Minnesota referee concluded that Selmer had engaged in a pattern of frivolous and harassing conduct by filing counterclaims alleging racial discrimination in actions brought against him by his creditors and by filing claims in state and federal courts alleging racial discrimination, knowingly offered false and misleading evidence in response to discovery requests, failed to supplement incomplete and misleading responses to discovery requests, failed to comply or make reasonably diligent efforts to comply with legally proper discovery requests, made false statements of fact in attempts to advance his own interests, and engaged in dishonest conduct in those actions.

Based on the Minnesota result, proceedings before a Wisconsin referee, and an appeal heard by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the Wisconsin disciplinary action resulted in conclusions that Selmer violated SCR 20:3.1 by knowingly advancing claims, defenses, or factual positions that were frivolous; SCR 20:3.3 by offering evidence he knew to be false; SCR 20:3.4 by failing to make reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party; and SCR 20:4.1 by knowingly making a false statement of fact to a third person.

The Wisconsin referee observed that the misconduct was for Selmer's personal gain and was similar to his abuse of the litigation process to harass others for which he was previously publicly reprimanded.

On appeal, the court upheld the referee's grant of summary judgment in favor of BAPR and rejected Selmer's argument that he had been improperly denied discovery. The court observed that a goal of the reciprocal discipline rule is to ensure that an attorney had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the misconduct in the foreign state's proceeding and that the outcome was supported by the evidence. A reciprocal discipline proceeding does not afford an attorney the opportunity to relitigate the underlying misconduct allegations that were heard and decided in the foreign state.

Selmer has been disciplined in Wisconsin twice previously. In 1990 BAPR privately reprimanded him for failing to provide competent representation by filing papers that reflected a lack of knowledge of Wisconsin appellate procedure and tribunals, and for filing documents while suspended from practice in this state for failure to comply with continuing legal education requirements. In 1995 the court publicly reprimanded him, reciprocal to a Minnesota reprimand for failing to promptly provide his client in a personal injury matter a full accounting of funds, charging and suing that client to collect an unreasonable fee, abusing the discovery process, failing to maintain proper trust account books and records and falsely certifying that he had done so, and commingling funds in his trust account.

In addition to the 12-month reciprocal license suspension, the court ordered that Selmer pay the costs of the Wisconsin proceeding.

Public Reprimand of Daniel F. Snyder

Daniel F. Snyder, 49, Park Falls, has been publicly reprimanded by BAPR. In 1993 Snyder was retained by three clients regarding a potential defamation or harassment claim against the clients' employer following the clients' "whistle-blowing" of alleged abuse and neglect of developmentally disabled individuals and alleged financial improprieties. One of the clients also requested that Snyder file an appeal of the denial of her unemployment claim.

Between 1993 and April 1998, when the clients inquired as to the status of their matters, Snyder told the clients he had been in contact with the U.S. Magistrate, the court, and opposing counsel regarding the case. Snyder also informed the clients that he would attempt to settle the matter through mediation.

In April 1998 the clients learned that no case had ever been filed on their behalf and that there had not been any efforts by Snyder to mediate a settlement. One client also learned that no appeal had ever been filed regarding the unemployment claim.

BAPR concluded that Snyder failed to competently represent the clients, contrary to SCR 20:1.1; neglected the clients' legal matters, contrary to SCR 20:1.3; failed to keep the clients adequately informed as to the status of their legal matters, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a); and failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the clients to make informed decisions regarding the representation, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(b). BAPR further found that in giving his clients false information concerning the status of their claims, Sndyer engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c).