Vol. 78, No. 2, February
2005
Lawyer Discipline
The Office
of Lawyer Regulation (formerly known as the Board of Attorneys
Professional Responsibility), an agency of the Wisconsin Supreme Court
and component of the lawyer regulation system, assists the court in
carrying out its constitutional responsibility to supervise the practice
of law and protect the public from misconduct by persons practicing law
in Wisconsin. The Office of Lawyer Regulation has offices located at
Suite 315, 110 E. Main St., Madison, WI 53703, and Suite 300, 342 N.
Water St., Milwaukee, WI 53202. Toll-free telephone: (877) 315-6941.
Disciplinary Proceeding against John A.
Birdsall
On Nov. 23, 2004, the Wisconsin Supreme Court publicly reprimanded
John A. Birdsall, Milwaukee, for professional misconduct consisting of
committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on Birdsall's honesty,
trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(b);
and counseling a client to engage, or assisting a client, in conduct
that Birdsall knew was criminal or fraudulent, in violation of SCR
20:1.2(d). Disciplinary Proceedings Against Birdsall, 2004 WI
143.
Birdsall defended a client on various felonies relating to domestic
abuse, including an incident in which the victim reported to police that
Birdsall's client repeatedly choked her, hit her head against the
steering wheel of a car, and pointed a gun at her head and pulled the
trigger but the gun did not fire. Despite being aware that his client
was under a circuit court order to have no contact with the victim,
Birdsall scheduled a meeting with the victim which Birdsall knew could
not be concluded prior to his own client's planned arrival. Birdsall
then allowed the victim's interview to continue after his own client
arrived, stating to his client, "I think it is clearly more useful for
you to be here." During the meeting, which Birdsall surreptitiously
videotaped and recorded through a third person, Birdsall encouraged the
victim to change or recant her statements to the police, even after the
victim informed him that the district attorney advised her that she
could not change her story because that would be perjury.
Birdsall was charged with two counts of being a party to the crime of
violating court orders, contrary to Wis. Stat. section 940.48(1). The
charges were amended later to allege that Birdsall violated the court
orders, contrary to Wis. Stat. section 940.48(2) (contempt of court).
Meanwhile, Birdsall's client was charged and convicted of felony bail
jumping for violating the no-contact provisions of his bail. He was
sentenced to five years in prison.
Birdsall contested the Office of Lawyer Regulation's (OLR)
disciplinary complaint, and the matter was tried before a referee for
four days. The referee concluded that Birdsall, as a party to a crime,
aided and abetted his client in the act of bail jumping, thereby
committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on Birdsall's honesty,
trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, in violation
of SCR 20:8.4(b); and that Birdsall assisted his client in conduct
Birdsall knew was criminal, in violation of SCR 20:1.2(d). Birdsall
appealed, but later withdrew his appeal. The supreme court adopted the
referee's misconduct conclusions.
With regard to discipline, the court, although ultimately accepting
the referee's (and OLR's) recommendation to publicly reprimand Birdsall,
stated that it was "greatly troubled" by Birdsall's misconduct, that it
"condemn[s] it in the strongest terms possible," that "engaging in
similar behavior in the future on the theory that he is simply
`zealously' representing his client will result in more stringent
sanctions," and that "this kind of misconduct cannot and will not be
condoned."
In addition to publicly reprimanding Birdsall, the court ordered him
to pay the $19,540.82 cost of the disciplinary proceeding.
Disciplinary Proceeding against John A.
Krueger
The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the Wisconsin law license of
John A. Krueger, Minnesota, for 30 days effective Nov. 17, 2004, as
discipline reciprocal to a 30-day suspension imposed on Krueger by the
Minnesota Supreme Court, effective July 26, 2004.
The Minnesota suspension resulted from Krueger's failure to supervise
a nonlawyer employee, thus enabling the employee to negotiate and settle
personal injury claims on behalf of a deceased client and secure forged
client signatures on settlement checks and a release; notarize a client
release that contained a forged client signature; endorse settlement
checks that contained a forged client signature and withdraw attorney
fees from settlement proceeds; and fail to timely file state and federal
income tax returns in 1996 and 1997. Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Krueger, 2004 WI 141.
Public Reprimand of Chris J. Trebatoski
The OLR and Chris J. Trebatoski, age 45, Milwaukee, entered into an
agreement for imposition of a public reprimand, pursuant to SCR
22.09(1). A referee appointed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court thereafter
approved the agreement and issued the public reprimand on Dec. 6,
2004.
Trebatoski reported to the police that on returning from a casino, he
encountered a burglar in his home. While investigating the burglary, the
police learned that several unsuccessful attempts had been made at the
casino to obtain cash using Trebatoski's credit/ATM cards. Trebatoski
told the police that he had not made the attempts himself, and the
police therefore investigated the possible cloning of Trebatoski's
cards. After obtaining a surveillance camera tape from the casino,
however, the police learned that it was Trebatoski who made each
attempted cash withdrawal. Trebatoski nevertheless signed six affidavits
averring that he had not made the credit card/ATM transactions. He
subsequently pleaded no contest to one misdemeanor count of obstructing
a police officer.
By engaging in criminal conduct that reflects adversely on his
honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects,
Trebatoski violated SCR 20:8.4(b). By signing six affidavits that
averred that he had not made credit card/ATM transactions that he had in
fact attempted to make, Trebatoski engaged in conduct involving
misrepresentation, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c).
Wisconsin
Lawyer