Vol. 78, No. 6, June
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 Ronald A.
Arthur
On April 15, 2005, the Wisconsin Supreme Court revoked the law
license of Ronald A. Arthur, for having committed six counts of
professional misconduct as charged by the Office of Lawyer Regulation
(OLR). Disciplinary Proceedings Against Arthur, 2005 WI 40.
A referee and the court found that Arthur's misconduct included
violating SCR 20:1.8(a) by engaging in business transactions with a
client without having first obtained a separate written waiver;
violating SCR 20:3.1(a)(3) by filing a suit, asserting a position,
conducting a defense, delaying a trial, or taking other action when the
lawyer knew or when it is obvious that such an action would serve merely
to harass or maliciously injure another; and violating SCR 20:3.2 by not
making reasonable efforts to expedite litigation, but instead
undertaking numerous efforts to unreasonably delay and impede the course
of litigation and needlessly increase the related cost. Arthur also
violated SCR 20:3.3(a)(1), which provides that a lawyer shall not
knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal; violated
SCR 20:3.4(b), which provides that a lawyer shall not falsify evidence,
counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement
to a witness that is prohibited by law; and violated SCR 20:8.4(c),
which provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage
in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation.
The disciplinary litigation, filed by the OLR in July 2001, was
complex. It included extensive pre-hearing discovery disputes and motion
practice, admission of thousands of pages of documentary evidence, 22
days of hearing, post-hearing proceedings, and an appeal to the supreme
court with oral argument. In imposing the full $145,548.73 cost of the
proceeding against Arthur, the court stated that it was apparent that
Arthur's own litigation tactics were the primary cause of the unusually
high cost of this proceeding.
Top of page
Disciplinary Proceeding against Jeffrey A.
Reitz
On April 14, 2005, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law
license of Jeffrey A. Reitz, Milwaukee, for five months, effective May
15, 2005, for having committed 12 counts of professional misconduct
involving six grievance matters. Reitz also was ordered to pay the
$7,735.62 cost of the proceeding. Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Reitz, 2005 WI 39.
The court found that Reitz's misconduct included one count of failing
to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a
client; one count of knowingly assisting another attorney in violating
the Rules of Professional Misconduct, by drafting and having a client
sign a release of professional liability on behalf of Reitz's partner;
five counts of failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness
in representing a client; two counts of failing to keep a client
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and to promptly comply
with reasonable requests for information; one count of engaging in
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation for
sending a copy of a signed complaint to a client that had not been
filed; one count of failing to explain a matter to the extent necessary
to permit a client to make informed decisions regarding the
representation; and one count of failing to take steps to the extent
reasonably practicable to protect the client's interests, by failing to
notify the client that Reitz was withdrawing from representation.
The referee recommended a six-month suspension; however, the supreme
court imposed a five-month suspension, taking into account its dismissal
of one misconduct count and the mitigating factor that Reitz had not
previously been disciplined for professional misconduct.
Top of page
Disciplinary Proceeding against Jenelle
Glasbrenner
On April 22, 2005, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law
license of Jenelle Glasbrenner for six months. The court also ordered
Glasbrenner to pay the $12,876.70 cost of the disciplinary proceeding.
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Glasbrenner, 2005 WI 50.
Glasbrenner's misconduct consisted of overbilling the Office of the
State Public Defender (SPD) for work she had performed, contrary to SCR
20:8.4(c), which prohibits conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit,
or misrepresentation. Glasbrenner's conduct also violated SCR 20:1.5(a),
because on multiple occasions she sought payment for attorney fees that
were unreasonable. A two-day hearing was held before a referee, at which
evidence was presented that Glasbrenner billed the SPD for 2,789 hours
in 2000 and for 4,413 hours in 2001 and, further, that the bills did not
always reflect the actual time Glasbrenner had spent on the matters.
Glasbrenner, a young attorney who, testimony showed, had received
minimal instruction on billing and had sloppy billing practices,
testified that she did not intend to overbill the SPD. Glasbrenner
repaid or forfeited to the SPD the entire amount the SPD contended she
had overbilled. SPD officials testified that they believed Glasbrenner
did not intended to overbill the SPD. Other attorneys testified that
Glasbrenner had an excellent professional reputation and character.
After the hearing, the OLR and Glasbrenner stipulated to the facts and
agreed that a six-month suspension would be appropriate. The referee and
the court adopted the parties' stipulation of facts. The referee
recommended, and the court agreed, that the seriousness of Glasbrenner's
misconduct warranted a six-month license suspension.
Top of page
Disciplinary Proceeding against Mark S.
Brown
By order dated April 22, 2005, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended
the law license of Mark S. Brown, 39, for 18 months, effective the date
of the court's order. Brown, formerly of Madison, now resides in South
Carolina.
Pursuant to SCR 22.12, Brown and the OLR entered into a stipulation
whereby Brown acknowledged that between 1998 and 2004 he had converted
more than $16,000 in fees belonging to his law firm for personal use.
Brown also acknowledged that he attempted to convert another $3,000 in
fees, failed to report fee income on his personal income tax returns,
altered the retainer amount on his firm's copy of a previously-signed
retainer agreement, made multiple misrepresentations to his law firm
partner and associate, and made misrepresentations in correspondence
with the OLR, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c) and 22.03(6).
Top of page
Hearing to Reinstate Alan D.
Eisenberg
On July 25 and 26, 2005, beginning at 9 each day, in a conference
room at Halling & Cayo, 320 E. Buffalo Street, # 700, Milwaukee, a
public hearing will be held before Referee Rick Esenberg on the petition
of Alan D. Eisenberg to reinstate his Wisconsin law license. Any
interested person may appear at the hearing and be heard in support of,
or in opposition to, the petition for reinstatement.
Effective April 6, 2004, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended
Eisenberg's law license for one year, for misconduct consisting of: on
termination of representation, failing to take steps to protect a
client's interests regarding a divorce; failing to disclose all relevant
information to the OLR and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in that same matter; knowingly
making a false statement of fact to a tribunal in connection with a pro
hac vice application; engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit, or misrepresentation in that same matter; engaging in conduct
intending to disrupt a tribunal in a Department of Transportation
matter; violating the portion of the attorney's oath that requires
abstention from all offensive personality in that same matter;
improperly entering into a business transaction with a client; in a
matter involving a telephone discussion with a dispatcher, using means
that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or
burden a third person in the course of representing a client; violating
the attorney's oath in that matter; engaging in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and also knowingly
making a false statement of material fact or law to a third person in
the course of representing a client, also in that same matter. A more
detailed recitation of Eisenberg's misconduct, and his past disciplinary
history, can be found in Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.
In this reinstatement proceeding, Eisenberg has the burden of
substantiating by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that,
among other things, he has not practiced law or engaged in certain
law-related activities violative of SCR 22.26(2) during the suspension;
his conduct since the suspension has been exemplary and above reproach;
he has a proper understanding of and attitude toward the standards that
are imposed on members of the bar and will act in conformity with the
standards; 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 courts; he has fully described all of his
business activities during the suspension; and he has made restitution
to or settled all claims of persons injured or harmed by his misconduct
or, if not, has explained his failure or inability to do so. Moreover,
Eisenberg has the burden of demonstrating by clear, satisfactory, and
convincing evidence that he has the moral character to practice law in
Wisconsin and that he has fully complied with the terms of the
suspension orders and with the requirements of SCR 22.26.
Relevant information may be provided to or obtained from OLR
Investigator Sarah Peterson, 110 E. Main St., Suite 315, Madison, WI
53703, toll-free (877) 315-6941, or the OLR's retained counsel in this
matter, Attorney Robert G. Krohn, 24 N. Henry St., P.O. Box 151,
Edgerton, WI 53534, (608) 884-3391.
Top of page
Wisconsin Lawyer
