Self-Representation In Bar Discipline Case Is Evidence Of Incompetence

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has revoked the license of an attorney who had a “lengthy disciplinary history.”

The court summarized the problems:

Attorney[H]s return to the disciplinary process on multiple occasions with thesame problems indicated a failure to grasp or adhere to the standards that arerequired of attorneys practicing in this state and a lack of remorse for hisprior ethical violations.  The lack ofacceptance of responsibility and lack of remorse was also demonstrated by Attorney[H]’s attempts to blame J.M. and his associate attorney for the delay infiling the new civil action.  He alsoclaimed that J.M. was withholding documents from him because he delivered morethan two boxes of file documents to J.M. upon termination of therepresentation.  The referee, however,found more credible the testimony of J.M. and his significant other thatAttorney [H] had provided only two boxes of documents that purportedlyrepresented the sum of Attorney [H]’s file on the J.M.representation…

…wedetermine that Attorney [H]’s license to practice law in Wisconsin shouldbe revoked.  We note that this is thefifth disciplinary proceeding against Attorney [H], and that he has nowbeen disciplined for the same types of misconduct on multiple occasions.  He has therefore demonstrated that he isunable to conform his conduct to the rules of professional conduct forattorneys in this state.  As the refereenoted, even when representing himself in this proceeding with his licensestatus at issue, he failed to perform as a responsible attorney, ignoring theneed to develop a defense substantiated by documentary evidence, to appear forcourt proceedings, and to file briefs, exhibit lists, etc., as requested by thereferee.  Moreover, of great importanceto our determination is the referee’s finding that Attorney [H] took$58,000 of his client’s money and produced no benefit for the client.  Indeed, he converted $28,000 of his client’smoney to his own personal uses without his client’s knowledge.  He has therefore demonstrated that he is notcurrently fit to hold a license to practice law in this state and to representmembers of the public in important legal matters.

The court also ordered payment of costs and restitution. (Mike Frisch)