A Hazardous Waste

A 90-day suspension has been imposed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court for an attorney’s criminal conviction and client-related misconduct.

The crime

On April 18, 2012, the OLR filed a complaint alleging the nine counts of misconduct that underlie this appeal.  The complaint alleges that on July 20, 2005, Attorney Hammis was convicted in the Court of Common Pleas, Tuscarawas County, Ohio of the crime of reckless endangering, a first degree misdemeanor under Ohio law.  Attorney Hammis did not report his conviction to the OLR or to the clerk of this court as required by supreme court rules.  Attorney Hammis was to pay all court costs in the Ohio criminal matter.  The Tuscarawas County Clerk of Court prepared an itemized bill of costs and sent it to Attorney Hammis on August 24, 2005.  The itemized bill of costs was repeatedly mailed to Attorney Hammis—at least 26 times—but Ohio court records indicated he had not paid the costs, which totaled $232.16 as of September 13, 2010.

The Ohio criminal matter arose while Attorney Hammis was the president, operator, and sole member of ST&E Fabrication, LLC (ST&E).  The OLR’s complaint alleged that ST&E was charged in a separate companion criminal case in which Attorney Hammis pled guilty on behalf of ST&E to two felony counts of illegal transportation of hazardous waste and illegal disposal of hazardous waste. 

As to sanction

With respect to the appropriate level of discipline, after careful review of the matter, we conclude that a 90-day suspension is appropriate.  This is not the first time that Attorney Hammis has been found to have committed professional misconduct.  Some of the behavior in this case mirrors the misconduct that resulted in his four-month license suspension back in 2011.  Although Attorney Hammis argues that the referee was biased against him, the referee found Attorney Hammis’s version of events to be incredible.  Credibility determinations are particularly within the province of the trier of fact, and we find no basis to second-guess them. 

In addition, as an inmate, I.B. was a particularly vulnerable client.  All of these factors weigh against imposing a public reprimand.  On the other hand, it is arguable that there may be some overlap between some of the counts alleged in the OLR’s complaint. On balance, we conclude that a 90-day suspension, which was the level of discipline originally sought by the OLR, rather than the four-month suspension recommended by the referee, will sufficiently protect the public from similar misconduct and impose upon Attorney Hammis the gravity of the misconduct.  We further agree with the referee’s recommendation that Attorney Hammis be ordered to make restitution to I.B. in the amount of $995 and that he bear the full costs of this proceeding.

(Mike Frisch)