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 315, 110 E. Main St., Madison, WI 53703, and Room 102, 611 N. Broadway, Milwaukee, WI 53202.

Public Reprimand of James A. Beaudry

James Beaudry, 47, Hales Corners, was retained by a woman in August 1995 to represent her regarding a "slip and fall" accident that occurred in August 1994. The client wrote a check for filing fees in February 1996, which check Beaudry cashed.

In May 1996 the client moved to Texas; she informed Beaudry of her new address several times. Beaudry admitted receiving only one phone message from the client, but the client supplied the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR) with phone records and receipts for certified and express mail to Beaudry, verifying her change of address and her repeated attempts to contact him. The client also stated she made additional calls from her place of employment, for which calls she did not have records. She also supplied records of a call that lasted 3.8 minutes to an attorney in a neighboring office, made in July 1996, leaving a message with that attorney for Beaudry.

The client filed a grievance with BAPR in October 1997, as she continued to receive no response from Beaudry. During investigation of the grievance, Beaudry denied receiving these messages from the client. He stated that he wrote to the client at her Wisconsin address in September 1996, returning her $200 and advising her that he was no longer pursuing her case. Beaudry stated that the letter was never returned and the check was never cashed. The client did not receive the letter or the refund. In December 1997 Beaudry sent her a check for $200. At that time, the statute of limitations had already run on her claim.

BAPR found that Beaudry failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing the client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3; and he failed to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of her matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).

In determining an appropriate sanction for the misconduct, BAPR considered that Beaudry had been privately reprimanded by BAPR in February 1993 for lack of diligence in handling a probate matter, and that he had been publicly reprimanded by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in October 1995 for lack of diligence in handling a bankruptcy, failing to keep a client informed of the status of the matter, and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation.

Disciplinary Proceeding Against Stephen J. Dunlap

Stephen J. Dunlap, 50, Hudson, was hired in May 1994 to serve as attorney and personal representative of an estate in excess of $700,000. The estate progressed until August 1995, when activity ceased for periods as long as one year. Dunlap failed to timely file required tax returns, respond to inquiries from estate beneficiaries and the department of revenue, or provide adequate notices and copies of documents to interested persons. Dunlap, who lacked experience in handling large estates, did not use adequate procedures to calendar the estate or to keep track of services that had been provided, including whether tax returns had been filed or distributions made. Dunlap also lacked an understanding of how to use tax deductions to the estate's best financial advantage, which resulted in the estate unnecessarily paying $25,000 in taxes. Further, in two status hearings, Dunlap made false statements to the court about having communicated with an accountant and about having scheduled a meeting with an accountant about the matter. Dunlap eventually turned the file over to successor counsel in April 1998.

BAPR concluded that Dunlap failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, contrary to SCR 20:1.3; failed to provide competent representation, as required by SCR 20:1.1; and made false statements of fact to a tribunal, contrary to SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) and SCR 20:8.4(c).

Dunlap received a private reprimand in 1991 for failing to complete two guardianship final accounts and a probate estate in a timely manner.

Public Reprimand of Roger G. Merry

Roger G. Merry, 47, Monroe, was publicly reprimanded by BAPR for a conflict of interest involving a former client.

Merry had represented a married couple in various matters, including the husband's adoption of his wife's children from a prior marriage. The couple thereafter divorced, and the ex-husband brought a post-divorce motion seeking primary placement of the children he had adopted and seeking adjustments to child support. Merry undertook representation of the ex-wife in defense of the motion. Although the ex-husband immediately notified Merry of his objections, Merry refused to step down and subsequently undertook representation of the ex-wife regarding a petition involving the children. The ex-husband eventually brought a motion asking the court to remove Merry, and more than seven months after the representation began, the court ordered Merry to step down.

BAPR found that by representing the ex-wife in a custody and child support dispute that was adverse to the ex-husband, when Merry had previously represented the ex-husband in matters that included adoption of the same children, Merry undertook representation in a matter that was substantially related to his prior representation of a client without the former client's written consent, contrary to SCR 20:1.9(a).

In aggravation, Merry had previously received two prior reprimands, one private and one public, involving other conflict of interest situations. Merry had also received another private reprimand for unrelated misconduct.

Hearing to Reinstate David A. Suemnick

A public hearing on the petition of David A. Suemnick for reinstatement of his law license will be held before the BAPR District 14 Committee on Friday, April 16, 1999, at 9 a.m. in Room 200 of the Northern Building, 305 E. Walnut St., Green Bay, Wis.

Suemnick received his law license in 1964 and practiced in Green Bay. The Wisconsin Supreme Court revoked Suemnick's law license effective Jan. 25, 1988, based upon a Petition for Voluntary Revocation filed by Suemnick in December 1987. In its order, the court indicated that Suemnick's petition admitted that in four separate matters he made several misrepresentations to his clients, including telling them that he had commenced actions on their behalf, telling them the actions had been settled, and that matters had been set for hearing or trial, contrary to SCR 20.04(4) [1987]. In each of the client matters, Suemnick also neglected the client's case and failed to carry out a contract of employment, contrary to SCR 20.32(3) [1987]. Suemnick admitted that he could not successfully defend against the allegations of the complaint by the BAPR. Prior to the revocation, Suemnick had been disciplined for similar misconduct in: Disciplinary Proceedings Against Sumenick, 112 Wis. 2d 86, 332 N.W.2d 87 (1983); Disciplinary Proceedings Against Suemnick, 108 Wis. 2d 427, 321 N.W.2d 298 (1982); and State v. Suemnick, 63 Wis. 2d 117, 216 N.W.2d 753 (1974).

Suemnick is required by SCR 22.28 to show that:

1. he desires to have his law license reinstated;
2. he has not practiced law during the license revocation;
3. he has complied fully with the terms of the order and will continue to comply with them until his license is reinstated;
4. he has maintained competence and learning in the law;
5. his conduct since the revocation 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 to aid in the administration of justice as a member of the bar and as an officer of the court;
8. he has fully complied with the requirements of SCR 22.26;
9. he indicates the proposed use of his license, if reinstated;
10. he has fully described all business activities during the revocation; and
11. he has made restitution or settled all claims from persons injured or harmed by his misconduct or, if the restitution is not complete, his explanation of his failure or inability to do so.

Suemnick must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence possession of the moral character to practice law in this state and that his resumption of the practice of law within this state will not be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar or the administration of justice, or subversive of the public interest.

Any interested person may appear at the hearing and be heard in support of or in opposition to the petition for reinstatement. Further information may be obtained from Melody Rader-Johnson, Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, 110 E. Main St., Room 315, Madison, WI 53703-3383; (608) 267-7274.

Wisconsin Lawyer