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 Thomas J. Awen

The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license of Thomas J. Awen, 33, Brookfield, for 90 days, effective Aug. 4, 1997. Awen also was ordered to pay the cost of the disciplinary proceedings.

Between July 1991 and July 1993 much of Awen's law practice involved appointments from the State Public Defender to represent indigent defendants. An audit of Awen's billing statements from this period disclosed that Awen billed and was paid for many hours of work that either had not been performed or had been mischaracterized. In numerous cases he billed the SPD for work in excess of 24 hours in a single day; billed time for court appearances when court records did not show that a hearing was held or indicated that a hearing was held but for a shorter time than claimed; billed several cases for the same hours he spent waiting in court; and regularly billed more than 18 hours per day for work on several cases. The court found that Awen's billing practices violated SCR 20:8.4(c), which proscribes conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, and constituted charging unreasonable fees, violating SCR 20:1.5(a).

In determining the appropriate sanction, the court noted that the seriousness and extent of Awen's misconduct would warrant discipline substantially more severe than the six-month suspension sought by the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility were it not for the presence of mitigating factors to which the referee gave great weight. The court noted that, during the relevant time, Awen was a salaried associate of a law firm and the payment for his SPD work did not go directly to him. Thus, he did not benefit directly from the fees charged. Awen accepted responsibility for his conduct and demonstrated sincere remorse. In a civil action commenced by the SPD, Awen agreed to make restitution of $99,672, of which he has made partial payment and continues to be obligated to make periodic payments through March 1, 2000. The reinstatement of Awen's license is conditioned upon his compliance with the terms of the restitution agreement.

Awen had no prior discipline.

Disciplinary proceeding
against Mary P. Donovan

On July 1, 1997, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license of Mary P. Donovan, 29, Beloit, for six months, effective immediately. Donovan, the former Beloit assistant city attorney, had forged documents in two municipal cases in which she was the prosecutor. In August 1996 Donovan pleaded no-contest to two misdemeanor counts of forgery and was placed on two years' probation.

Donovan entered into a stipulation with BAPR in which she acknowledged that she had engaged in misconduct and agreed that a six-month suspension was an appropriate sanction. The supreme court adopted the facts and conclusions as stipulated by the parties and imposed a six-month suspension.

In one matter, Donovan moved to dismiss a charge of furnishing alcohol to a minor on false grounds that the defendant, Donovan's acquaintance, had completed a deferred prosecution program. In fact, the defendant had never been referred to the program. The dismissal was granted pending receipt of certification that the defendant had completed deferred prosecution. Donovan altered a certificate of completion of deferred prosecution from another case to use in the defendant's case and submitted the forged form to the court. The charge was dismissed but has since been reinstated.

In the second case, Donovan's former boyfriend was charged with a city ordinance violation for failure to report an accident in which he had been involved. The matter was referred to Donovan for prosecution. Donovan prepared a letter requesting a trial on the forfeiture matter, signed the defendant's name to it and submitted it to the municipal court. Donovan subsequently moved to dismiss the ticket, and the matter was dismissed. The case was reopened after the municipal judge became aware of Donovan's past relationship with the defendant, who eventually pleaded no-contest and was convicted.

The court found that Donovan violated SCR 20:8.4(b) and 20:1.7(b). The court noted mitigating factors recited in the stipulation, including that Donovan was an inexperienced attorney, having practiced approximately four years; had no prior criminal or disciplinary record; did not benefit financially from the conduct that led to her misdemeanor convictions; when confronted with her misconduct, immediately admitted to wrongdoing; fully cooperated with BAPR; and voluntarily refrained from practicing law during the disciplinary proceedings, thereby demonstrating remorse for her actions.

Voluntary revocation
of Trygve Inderberg

On June 11, 1997, the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted Trygve Inderberg's petition for voluntary revocation of his law license. In his petition, Inderberg, 44, Neillsville, stated that he could not successfully defend against allegations that he prepared wills and gift documents for a client that gave him substantial gifts, contrary to SCR 20:1.8(c); had a conflict of interest in continuing to represent the client and act as her power of attorney while giving himself substantial gifts of her assets, contrary to SCR 20:1.7(b); commingled personal funds with client funds in his trust account, contrary to SCR 20:1.15(a); failed to hold client property in a trust account, contrary to SCR 20:1.15(a) and 20:8.4(c); failed to promptly deliver funds held in trust to the person entitled to receive them, contrary to SCR 20:1.15(b); misrepresented the reason a check written on his trust account was dishonored, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c); failed to keep complete trust account records, contrary to SCR 20:1.15(e); and made misrepresentations to and failed to cooperate with BAPR, contrary to SCR 22.07(2) and 21.03(4). Inderberg's revocation was effective July 1, 1997.

Disciplinary proceeding
against Harold E. Krause Jr.

On May 1, 1997, the Wisconsin Supreme Court imposed a one-year suspension upon the law license of Harold E. Krause Jr., 53, Providence, R.I., as reciprocal discipline for his handling of two personal injury settlements in Rhode Island. In May 1996 the Rhode Island Supreme Court had suspended Krause's law license for one year. The Wisconsin proceedings involved a stipulation, which was approved by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, as to the imposition of a one-year Wisconsin law license suspension as appropriate discipline for violating SCR 20:1.15(a) and (b), and SCR 20:8.4(c).

In the first matter, Krause transferred the balance of a client's personal injury settlement amount into his personal checking account. Five months later he sent the client a check for the client's entitled amount but put a stop payment order on that check. Five weeks later he gave the client a check and cash totalling the amount to which she was entitled.

In the second matter, Krause deposited a client's settlement into his business checking account. The check he subsequently gave the client for her portion of the settlement proceeds bounced. He paid the client the entire settlement to which she was entitled within the next 10 days. He did not pay the client's medical bills until several months after receiving the settlement proceeds and some of those bills were not paid until more than 18 months after settlement.

Krause had no previous discipline in Wisconsin.

Petition to reinstate
Michael F. Roe

Michael F. Roe, Rhinelander, has filed a petition for reinstatement of his law license. The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended Roe's license for six months, effective Dec. 5, 1996, for failing to act diligently and promptly in representing a client, failing to keep the client informed of the status of her legal matter, endorsing the client's name to a money order without authority to do so, failing to advise the client in writing of his receipt of funds belonging to her and failing to cooperate with BAPR in its investigation.

A public hearing on the reinstatement petition will be held before the District 16 Professional Responsibility Committee on Friday, Sept. 26, 1997, at 1:15 p.m. at the Claridge Motor Inn, 70 N. Stevens St., Rhinelander, Wis.

Roe has the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that he has the moral character to practice law in this state and that his resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar or the administration of justice or subversive of the public interest. Roe also must demonstrate that he has settled all claims from persons harmed by his misconduct.

Any interested person may appear at the hearing and be heard in support of or in opposition to the petition. Further information may be obtained from Elsa P. Greene, Deputy Administrator, Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, 110 E. Main St., Room 410, Madison, WI 53703-3383, (608) 267-7274.