|
NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and
modification. The final version will
appear in the bound volume of the official reports. |
|
|
No.
95-0933-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
|
|
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against RICHARD LEE
WINTER, Attorney at Law. |
FILED NOV
1, 1995 Marilyn L. Graves Clerk of Supreme Court Madison, WI |
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license suspended.
PER
CURIAM. We review the recommendation of the referee that the
license of Richard Lee Winter to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for 90
days as discipline for professional misconduct. That misconduct consisted of his having continued to practice law
and make court appearances while suspended from the practice of law for failure
to pay State Bar dues and his failure to respond to numerous requests from the
disciplinary authorities in the course of their investigation of his
conduct. We determine that the
recommended license suspension is appropriate discipline to impose for Attorney
Winter's misconduct established in this proceeding.
Attorney
Winter was licensed to practice law in Wisconsin in 1989 and practices in
Shawano. He has not previously been the
subject of an attorney disciplinary proceeding. He has been suspended from practice since June 7, 1994 for
failure to comply with continuing legal education requirements.
Soon
after this proceeding was commenced, the referee, Attorney John Schweitzer,
unsuccessfully attempted to contact Attorney Winter to conduct a scheduled
telephone conference. Attorney Winter
did not return the referee's call and did not appear for his scheduled
deposition by the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board). Consequently, the referee granted the
Board's motion to strike Attorney Winter's answer to its complaint and found
him in default. Thereafter, Attorney
Winter did not respond to the referee's order that he show cause why the
Board's proposed findings, conclusions and disciplinary recommendation should
not be adopted as the referee's report.
The
referee made the following findings of fact.
Attorney Winter was suspended from the practice of law, effective
November 2, 1992, for failure to pay State Bar dues and the assessments for the
court's attorney boards. On August 26,
1993, while still suspended from practice, Attorney Winter appeared in circuit
court for Portage county as attorney for the respondent in a divorce
proceeding. Attorney Winter made full
payment of dues and assessments by September 17, 1993 and was reinstated to
practice. In a September 29, 1993 letter to the Board during its
investigation, Attorney Winter said he had engaged in the practice of law since
November, 1992 on various occasions and in numerous counties. He asserted that he was unaware he had been
suspended from practice until a complaint was made to the court in the divorce
proceeding. Attorney Winter claimed
that mail addressed to him at his post office apparently had been delivered to
a relative with a similar name.
However, certified receipts showed that the notice the State Bar mailed
to him October 1, 1992 regarding his impending suspension and its subsequent
notice of the actual suspension were delivered directly to his law office and signed
for by his wife and sister.
Continuing
its investigation into his misconduct, the Board wrote to Attorney Winter
requesting additional information concerning the manner in which his
professional correspondence was handled during the fall of 1992. Attorney Winter did not respond to that
request nor to the Board's second inquiry, made by certified letter for which
he personally signed. He also did not
respond to a subsequent inquiry from the Board.
After
the Board referred the matter to the district professional responsibility
committee for further investigation, the committee's investigator made numerous
unsuccessful attempts to contact Attorney Winter by letter and telephone. Ultimately, the investigator had Attorney
Winter personally served with a notice of hearing and subpoena. At that hearing, Attorney Winter continued
to contend that he had never received notice of his suspension from practice
and asserted that his mother and sister occasionally would sign for certified
mail delivered to his law office but insisted that neither gave him the notices
concerning his suspension.
The
referee concluded that by engaging in the practice of law on various occasions
while suspended from practice for nonpayment of dues, Attorney Winter engaged
in the practice of law in violation of SCR 20:5.5(a).[1] By failing to respond to the Board and to
the district committee in their investigation, Attorney Winter violated SCR
22.07(3).[2] As discipline for that misconduct, the
referee recommended that the court suspend Attorney Winter's license to
practice law for 90 days.
We
adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law. We impose the recommended license suspension
as discipline for Attorney Winter's professional misconduct. By his conduct in the course of this
proceeding, Attorney Winter has established his
unwillingness to comply with the court's
rules regulating attorneys and requiring them to cooperate with the
disciplinary authorities. IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney
Richard Lee Winter to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 90
days, commencing December 4, 1995.
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order Richard Lee
Winter pay to the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility the costs of
this proceeding, provided that if the costs are not paid within the time
specified and absent a showing to this court of his inability to pay the costs
within that time, the license of Richard Lee Winter to practice law in
Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the court.
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Richard Lee Winter comply with the provisions of SCR
22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to practice law in
Wisconsin has been suspended.
ANN
WALSH BRADLEY, J., did not participate.
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
Case No.: 95-0933-D
Complete Title
of Case: In the Matter of Disciplinary
Proceedings Against
Richard Lee Winter,
Attorney at Law.
________________________________
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST WINTER
Opinion Filed: November 1, 1995
Submitted on Briefs:
Oral Argument:
Source of APPEAL
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
Concurred:
Dissented:
Not Participating: BRADLEY, J., did not participate
ATTORNEYS:
[1] SCR 20:5.5 provides: Unauthorized practice of law
A lawyer shall
not:
. . .
(a) practice law in a jurisdiction where doing
so violates the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction;
[2] SCR 22.07 provides, in pertinent part: Investigation.
. . .
(3) The administrator or committee may compel
the respondent to answer questions, furnish documents and present any
information deemed relevant to the investigation. Failure of the respondent to answer questions, furnish documents
or present relevant information is misconduct.
The administrator or a committee may compel any other person to produce
pertinent books, papers and documents under SCR 22.22.