![]()
Vol. 71, No. 11,
November 1998
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 Mario M. Martinez
On Sept. 18, 1998, the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted the motion of the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR) and ordered that the law license of Mario Martinez, 38, Milwaukee, be temporarily suspended, pursuant to SCR 22.30, effective that same date. Martinez did not contest the motion. A hearing was held before the referee presiding over pending disciplinary proceedings. The referee made findings of fact in respect to alleged trust account conversions by Martinez, concluding that his continued practice of law during the pendency of the proceeding poses a threat to the interests of the public and the administration of justice. Martinez's law license will remain suspended pending disposition of the proceeding and until further order of the court.
Petition to Reinstate Robert J. Urban
A hearing on the petition of Robert J. Urban, Milwaukee, for reinstating his law license will be held before the District 2 Professional Responsibility Committee on Dec. 16, 1998, at 6 p.m. in the Grain Exchange Room of the Mackie Building, 225 E. Michigan, Milwaukee, Wis.
Urban's law license was suspended by the Wisconsin Supreme Court for six months, effective April 27, 1998, as discipline for professional misconduct. That misconduct consisted of Urban's failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in handling four probate estates, his numerous misrepresentations to the probate court of the causes for his continued failure to timely complete one of them, and his failure to cooperate with BAPR during its investigation of his conduct. Urban is required by Supreme Court Rule 22.28 to establish by evidence that is clear and convincing, the following:
1)he desires to have his law license reinstated;
2)he has not practiced law during the suspension;
3)he has complied with the terms of the disciplinary order;
4)he has maintained competence and learning in the 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 to aid in the administration of justice as a member of the bar and as 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, his explanation of 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.
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 Jeananne L. Danner, Deputy Administrator, Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, 611 N. Broadway, Suite 102, Milwaukee, WI 53202, (414) 227-4623.
Disciplinary Proceeding
Against Terrence J. Woods
The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license of Terrence J. Woods, 57, Oconto Falls, for 60 days, effective Oct. 26, 1998. Woods' misconduct consisted of failure to provide adequate representation to a client in an employment matter. Woods failed to act with reasonable diligence in representing the client, contrary to SCR 20:1.3; failed to respond to the client's reasonable requests for information, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a); and failed to provide a client with information and a reasoned analysis concerning a settlement offer from the client's employer, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(b).
Woods has been disciplined for professional misconduct on three prior occasions. In March 1993 he received a public reprimand for failing to pursue properly the representation of two clients in criminal matters. In January 1996 Woods was privately reprimanded for having agreed to a settlement of a civil matter without his client's consent, and for failing to provide that client with information on her case and for failing to return documents and property to her.
In April 1998 Woods received a 60-day suspension for misconduct regarding three separate matters. In the first, Woods failed to keep a client informed and failed to return the client's property. In the second, Woods failed to keep a client informed, failed to act with reasonable diligence, initially failed to cooperate with BAPR's investigation, and made a misrepresentation to BAPR. In the third, Woods failed to act with reasonable diligence in the representation of a client and failed to cooperate with BAPR's investigation.
|
