Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jordan E. Gall
On July 9, 2015, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued an order publicly reprimanding Jordan E. Gall, Minneapolis, as discipline reciprocal to a May 16, 2013, Supreme Court of Minnesota order publicly reprimanding Gall. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gall, 2015 WI 71.
The Minnesota reprimand arose from Gall’s failure to report 11 traffic citations from June 2011 to September 2012 and his submission of multiple quarterly reports to the Minnesota lawyer regulatory authorities falsely stating that he had abided by all laws and was in compliance with the conditions of a previously imposed criminal probation. The failure to report the citations and the submission of the false reports violated Gall’s conditional-admission consent agreement.
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Sarah E.K. Laux
On June 24, 2015, the supreme court revoked the law license of Sarah E.K. Laux, Mequon. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Laux, 2015 WI 59. The court further ordered Laux to pay the cost of the proceeding and to pay $626,515.02 in restitution, divided between various clients and the Wisconsin Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection. In addition, two matters covered in the revocation order are part of a federal criminal case pending against Laux. Any restitution ordered in the criminal case will also become part of Laux’s restitution obligation in the disciplinary matter.
Laux was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 2004. On Oct. 27, 2014, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a complaint, alleging 23 counts of misconduct involving four different client matters. On March 27, 2015, Laux filed a petition for consensual license revocation, stating she could not defend against numerous allegations of misconduct relating to the initial four client matters plus 28 additional client matters the OLR was investigating but had not yet formally charged.
Laux’s misconduct related to representation of clients in estate planning matters. Laux at times used targeted mailings to invite people to free educational seminars about estate planning. Laux would then communicate with attendees about her providing estate planning work.
In many cases, Laux prepared a “Transition Trust” or another instrument that she represented would protect the client’s assets but that did not have the claimed legal effect, causing potential or real financial damage to clients. Numerous clients alleged that Laux had accepted an advanced fee, failed to complete the legal work for which she was hired, and failed to further communicate.
In addition, in several estate planning matters, Laux converted funds belonging to clients or engaged in theft, fraud, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, negligence, fraudulent transfers, or conspiracy. In one matter, she converted more than $2 million from her clients’ bank account. In another matter, she misappropriated more than $1.5 million from a client’s trust.
In sum, the stipulation provided that Laux could not defend against charges that she had violated the following supreme court rules: SCR 20:1.1 (25 matters), 20:1.2(a) (3 matters), 20:1.3 (20 matters), 20:1.4(a) or (b) (21 matters), 20:1.5(a) (16 matters), 20:1.5(b) (2 matters), 20:1.7(a) (2 matters), 20:1.8(a) (2 matters), 20:1.15 (6 matters), 20:1.15(j) (1 matter), 20:1.16(d) (2 matters), 20:5.4(b) (3 matters), 20:8.4(b) (2 matters), 20:8.4(c) (27 matters), and 22.03(6), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h) (3 matters).
Laux had no prior discipline.
Disciplinary Proceedings Against James T. Runyon
In an Oct. 8, 2015 decision, the supreme court suspended the law license of James T. Runyon, Tomahawk, for 60 days, effective Nov. 7, 2015. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Runyon, 2015 WI 95. Runyon stipulated to six counts of misconduct charged in the OLR’s disciplinary complaint and to the sanction sought by the OLR. The OLR did not seek costs, and none were imposed.
A series of overdrafts in Runyon’s IOLTA trust account led to evidence that Runyon failed to hold funds in trust for some time, deposited personal funds to correct shortfalls in the account, and failed to keep accurate and complete trust account records. No clients were ultimately harmed.
By failing to hold in trust and account for at least $19,053.61 and as much as $86,850.68 between June 27, 2013, and Oct. 1, 2013, Runyon violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).
By that conduct and by, on numerous occasions, converting funds from client matters to cover checks issued in other client matters for which there were insufficient funds, Runyon violated SCR 20:8.4(c).
By depositing into his trust account eight checks totaling $18,550 that were drawn on his business account, Runyon violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(3).
By failing to maintain a transaction register that accurately reflected the activity in his trust account and that included the balance after each transaction, the source and client matter for all deposits, and the purpose for all disbursements, Runyon violated SCR 20:1.15(f)(l)a.
By failing to maintain client ledgers that accurately reflected the activity in his trust account, and by making disbursements of funds from his trust account that created final total negative balances of $53,772.73 in 14 client ledgers as of Oct. 1, 2013, and by allowing five client ledgers to become overdrawn temporarily in July and August 2013 by $6,759.36, Runyon violated SCR 20:1.15(f)(l)b.
By depositing $8,072.60 of personal funds into his new trust account on Dec. 2, 2013, Runyon violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(3).
By failing to identify the client matter on his trust account deposit slips submitted to the bank, Runyon violated 20:1.15(f)(l)d. Further, by issuing checks from his new trust account without including the client matter and purpose on the memo lines, Runyon violated 20:1.15(f)(l)e.l. By failing to obtain, and maintain with his trust account records, imaged checks or copies of the trust account checks, Runyon violated 20:1.15(f)(l)e.2.
Runyon received a one-year disciplinary suspension in 1984 and a private reprimand in 2006.
Public Reprimand of Terry Nussberger
The OLR and Terry Nussberger, Ladysmith, entered into an agreement for imposition of a public reprimand, pursuant to SCR 22.09(1). A supreme court-appointed referee approved the agreement, and issued the public reprimand on Oct. 20, 2015, in accordance with SCR 22.09(3).
Nussberger represented a client in a property dispute regarding the location and existence of a driveway easement. After the filing of a lawsuit against Nussberger’s client, Nussberger answered the suit and raised a counterclaim. During discovery, opposing counsel served Nussberger with interrogatories, requests to produce, and requests to admit on both the underlying claims, as well as Nussberger’s client’s counterclaim.
Although Nussberger forwarded the discovery requests to his client, he never informed the client of applicable deadlines, nor did he communicate the significance of the discovery requests and the consequences for not responding to them. Nussberger did not submit any responses to the discovery requests, and based on the failure to respond to the requests to admit, the circuit court entered summary judgment against Nussberger’s client on both the original claims as well as the counterclaim. In addition, Nussberger did not inform the client that the court had dismissed his counterclaim.
By failing to respond to two sets of interrogatories, requests to produce, and requests to admit, resulting in summary judgment in favor of the opposing party on all claims, Nussberger violated SCR 20:1.1, SCR 20:1.3, and SCR 20:3.4(d). SCR 20:1.1 states that a lawyer must provide “competent representation to a client.” SCR 20:1.3 requires that a lawyer act with “reasonable diligence and promptness” in representing a client. SCR 20:3.4(d) mandates that a lawyer make “a reasonably diligent effort to comply” with discovery requests.
By failing to keep the client reasonably informed regarding the status of his case, including the entry of a judgment that dismissed his counterclaim in the case, Nussberger violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3), which provides that a lawyer must keep the client “reasonably informed” regarding the status of a case.
By sending the client interrogatories, requests to produce, and requests to admit received from opposing counsel, without explaining to the client the significance of the discovery requests, what the client’s responsibilities were with respect to the discovery requests, what the applicable deadlines were, and the consequences for failing to respond to the discovery requests in a timely fashion, Nussberger violated SCR 20:1.4(b).
Nussberger was suspended from the practice of law for 60 days in 2006, and received two public reprimands, in 2003 and 2009.
Public Reprimand of Nam Dao
The OLR and Nam Dao, Seattle, entered into an agreement for imposition of a public reprimand, pursuant to SCR 22.09(1). A supreme court-appointed referee approved the agreement, and issued the public reprimand on Oct. 27, 2015, in accordance with SCR 22.09(3). The public reprimand stemmed from two matters investigated by the OLR.
In the first matter, Dao agreed to represent a client in a patent matter before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The client paid Dao $3,500 for the representation. Dao did not deposit the advanced fees into a client trust account. By failing to hold advanced fees in trust until earned (with no evidence he intended to use the alternative fee placement permitted by SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m)), Dao violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(4).
In August 2009, Dao prepared and submitted the patent application. After submission of several items to the assigned examiner, the application was rejected and ultimately abandoned. Dao did not inform the client of available options to continue the examination or that the application was abandoned. By failing to explain matters to the client so that he could make informed decisions about the representation, Dao violated SCR 20:1.4(b).
In January 2014, the OLR asked Dao to provide relevant trust account and accounting information, to forward a copy of his file, and to confirm his licensure status. Dao failed to provide the requested information and made a misrepresentation to the OLR. By failing to provide relevant information to the OLR in a timely fashion, and, in addition, by making a misrepresentation to the OLR in the course of an investigation, Dao violated SCR 22.03(2) and (6), enforceable under the Rules of Professional Conduct through SCR 20:8.4(h).
In the second matter, Dao filed a trademark/service mark application with the USPTO on behalf of a pro bono client. In that application, Dao represented that he was the “Attorney for Applicant (USPTO and WI).” When Dao filed the trademark application, he was no longer an attorney in “good standing” in any state because his law license had been administratively suspended. For a lawyer to practice before the USPTO in a trademark or other nonpatent matter, federal regulations require that the lawyer be “a member in good standing of the highest court of any State….” See 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.1, 11.14.
By appearing before the USPTO in a trademark matter when his law license was no longer in “good standing” in any state, Dao engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, in violation of SCR 20:5.5(a)(1). By representing to the client, as well as the USPTO, that he was authorized to act as an attorney before the USPTO in a trademark matter, Dao made a false or misleading communication about his ability to provide legal services, in violation of SCR 20:7.1(a) and SCR 20:8.4(c).
Dao had no prior disciplinary history.
