Professional 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 Room 102, 611 N.
Broadway, Milwaukee, WI 53202.
Disciplinary proceeding against Ronald W. Hendree
The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license of Ronald W.
Hendree, 46, Milwaukee, for one year, effective Aug. 4, 1997. Hendree's
suspension was based upon numerous counts of misconduct involving many
different matters. Hendree stipulated to the sanction and to the
underlying violations. The court accepted the stipulation, which
included restitution to several clients.
Hendree mishandled his trust account by commingling his personal
funds in the trust account and allowing the account to become overdrawn,
violating SCR 20:1.15(a). Hendree also failed to keep the records
required by SCR 20:1.15(e) and filed false certifications with the State
Bar that he had complied with recordkeeping requirements, violating SCR
20:1.15(g).
In one client matter, a fugitive's family retained Hendree to
represent him on federal drug charges. Hendree arranged for the client
to surrender himself and return $25,000 of the government's money from
an undercover drug buy. In exchange, the client was to receive a reduced
sentence. Hendree returned $17,000 of the $25,000, but reported that
$7,500 of the government's money was stolen from his car trunk before he
could return it. Due to Hendree's failure to safeguard the money, his
client lost the benefit of the agreement with the government. Hendree's
failure to safeguard the funds violated SCR 20:1.15(a). Hendree withdrew
from the representation due to the conflicts of interest created by the
alleged theft and Hendree's acceptance of a car from the client in lieu
of fees. The car, which had been used in the crimes allegedly committed
by the client, was seized by the government. During the investigation,
Hendree misrepresented to the Board of Attorneys Professional
Responsibility (BAPR) about accepting the car and its seizure, and about
the dates he claimed to have communicated with his client, violating SCR
20:8.1(a) and SCR 22.07(2).
In a second matter, Hendree represented a client in a misdemeanor
battery case. The client paid Hendree $750 to represent him at trial,
but Hendree did not appear for trial due to a scheduling conflict. The
client proceeded on his own and obtained a dismissal of the case. The
client requested return of the $750 paid for trial. Hendree failed to
return it, violating SCR 20:1.16(d). The client eventually obtained a
binding arbitration award of $750 in February 1996, but Hendree did not
pay the award, thus he disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a
tribunal in violation of SCR 20:3.4(c).
In a third client matter, Hendree failed to appear at several
probation revocation hearings and failed to respond to several inquiries
from the Division of Hearings and Appeals as to his status in the
revocation matter. By failing to respond to the Division's inquiries,
Hendree disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, violating
SCR 20:3.4(c).
In a fourth matter, Hendree represented a client regarding several
legal matters, including "collections, money judgment/consultation for
visitation and child support." Hendree failed to communicate with the
client regarding the status of these matters, violating SCR 20:1.4(a).
And, a provision in the fee agreement allowing Hendree to keep the
client's file until all fees were paid violated SCR 20:8.4(a) in that
the provision was an attempt to violate SCR 20:1.16(d).
In a fifth matter, a client informed Hendree that he wished to pursue
an appeal of his criminal conviction. Hendree neglected to file a Notice
of Intent to Pursue Postconviction Relief, violating SCR 20:1.3. Even
though he had failed to file a notice, Hendree misrepresented to the
client that he had done so, violating SCR 20:8.4(c). Hendree also
misrepresented to BAPR that the notice had been filed, violating SCR
20:8.1(a) and SCR 22.07(2).
In a sixth matter, Hendree began representation of a client in a
defamation action in March 1996. In late April 1996, Hendree failed to
file a response to a motion for summary judgment and failed to timely
file a request for adjournment, resulting in the dismissal of the
client's case. Hendree's failure to respond to the motion violated SCR
20:1.3. Subsequent to the dismissal of her case, the client requested
that Hendree return her file materials to her, which she required to
defend against a counterclaim that was still pending. Although a hearing
had been scheduled for September 1996, Hendree failed to surrender the
file until November 1996, violating SCR 20:1.16(d).
In a seventh matter, Hendree accepted funds from a man for a
representation that never occurred. Hendree failed to refund the
unearned fees to the man for six months after it was clear there would
be no representation, violating SCR 20:1.16(d).
In an eighth matter, Hendree represented a client on drug charges.
Hendree accepted $500 from the client to retain a drug abuse expert.
Hendree did not deposit the funds into his trust account, violating SCR
20:1.15(a). Hendree claimed that the money was immediately disbursed to
several experts, but no experts were ever paid. Hendree's
misrepresentation in that regard violated SCR 20:8.1(a) and SCR
22.07(2). When the representation ended, Hendree returned no funds to
the client, violating SCR 20:1.16(d). In a seizure action filed against
his client, Hendree never filed an answer, and a default judgment was
entered. This conduct violated SCR 20:1.3.
Hendree's prior discipline consisted of a public reprimand to which
he consented in February 1997. The reprimand was based upon Hendree's
misconduct during representation of a union. Pursuant to the reprimand,
Hendree agreed to return the $3,750 advance from the union for costs of
litigation he never pursued. However, Hendree failed to comply with the
terms of repayment to which he agreed. The order suspending Hendree's
license, therefore, included an order for restitution to the union, and
to other clients to whom Hendree owed money. The court ordered that the
payment of restitution be a condition of reinstatement.
Wisconsin Lawyer
