Crimes, Not Skin Condition, Necessitated Delay Request

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has accepted findings of misconduct but rejected a referee’s proposed public censure in favor of a sixty-day suspension.

The court concluded that the nature of the violations and attorney’s prior discipline merited a period of suspension.

One count involved the attorney’s misdemeanor domestic battery convictions.

The other count involved misrepresentations made to an Illinois court to delay a trial.

The court here found that the attorney made claims that concealed his true reason for a postponement — his own criminal sentence:

…Attorney G. provided the Illinois court with an affidavit in which he averred that he suffered from severe psoriasis (a skin condition) that had been manageable up until August 11, 2010, but thereafter substantially interfered with his normal day-to-day functioning and ability to render competent representation to his client.  Attorney G. further averred that on the advice of his treating doctors, he needed to “abstain from his professional pursuits for a brief period of time” and undergo “treatment which in [the] opinion of his treating medical professionals will take several months.”  Attorney G. averred that his client would be “severely prejudiced if this Honorable Court [does] not grant a short period of stay of this matter until December 6, 2010 to allow your affiant to undergo . . . required medical treatment to rectify his health impediment and to protect his health and well-being.”  In his affidavit, Attorney G. did not reveal the fact of his criminal convictions in Wisconsin, nor did he refer to the sentence imposed or the fact that the sentence was stayed pending appeal.

As to sanction

A 60-day suspension is required by the serious nature of the misconduct and Attorney G.’s previous disciplinary history.  Attorney G. stands convicted of two counts of battery and one count of disorderly conduct, all as acts of domestic abuse.  Domestic violence is an undisputedly serious crime that reflects adversely on Attorney G.’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.  See SCR 20:8.4(b) cmt. [2].  In addition, Attorney G. made intentionally false, deceitful statements to the Illinois court.  While it may have been true that Attorney G. was suffering from an outbreak of psoriasis during the relevant time period, this outbreak was not so debilitating as to require him to refrain from participating “in any litigation-related activities,” as he told the Illinois court.  Attorney G.’s litigation efforts in other cases, including his own, contradicted his representation to the Illinois court. 

The court noted that it generally imposes “progressive” discipline, i.e., greater than imposed for the last violation on repeat offenders. (Mike Frisch)