Walter W. Stern III, of Sturtevant, represented a client regarding a lawsuit brought by the client's former counsel, which sought payment of attorney fees. Attorney Stern pursued a counterclaim in that action, which alleged legal malpractice in the handling of a disability retirement claim.

In June 1988, Attorney Stern named a Milwaukee attorney as an expert legal witness. In a belated answer to interrogatories in the case, which Attorney Stern provided to opposing counsel, it was indicated that the Milwaukee attorney was expected to testify regarding tax free annuities, Wis. Stats. Sec. 40.65 and Sec. 66.191. The answers to interrogatories further indicated that the testimony of the Milwaukee attorney would directly and indirectly indicate that malpractice had occurred.

The Milwaukee attorney was totally unaware of having been named as an expert in this case until being subpoenaed for deposition by opposing counsel. Furthermore, the Milwaukee attorney had not been asked to review the case or to provide Attorney Stern with an opinion as to legal malpractice. Attorney Stern stated that he planned to subpoena that attorney to the trial in order to have the attorney listen to the testimony. Attorney Stern anticipated that the Milwaukee attorney would then testify that malpractice had occurred.

In January 1989, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the counterclaim. The motion was denied at that time and Attorney Stern's client was ordered to make his experts available for deposition. This was not accomplished, and in April 1989, a second motion for summary judgment was filed. Attorney Stern opposed the motion and filed various affidavits supporting his client's position. In May 1989, Attorney Stern attempted to withdraw as attorney of record, and his client stipulated to a substitution of counsel. The court would not allow Attorney Stern to withdraw because it wanted to retain jurisdiction to impose sanctions against him. In June of 1989, while still counsel of record, Attorney Stern filed an affidavit which contained his own opinion, as an expert, that negligence had occurred.

The court granted summary judgment on the counterclaim in August 1989. The plaintiff thereafter filed a motion to recover its fees and costs from Attorney Stern and his client. The motion was set for hearing on February 16, 1990. On February 12, 1990, Attorney Stern wrote to the court, advising that he would not be able to attend "because on a scale of one to ten, ten being the most important, this hearing is about a two." The court determined that an award of attorney fees and costs was appropriate and entered judgment against Attorney Stern in the amount of $4,850.82. Attorney Stern appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.

In an unrelated matter, Attorney Stern represented a client regarding a Worker's Compensation claim. Attorney Stern advised the client's doctor that he would protect the doctor's interests in the settlement to the extent that his office was able to do so, but specifically indicated that he did not guarantee payment. The client did, however, sign a lien which authorized Attorney Stern to withhold monies from the settlement to pay the doctor. Attorney Stern never received the settlement funds, which included the amount owed to the doctor, because payment was made directly to his client. The client failed to pay the doctor. When the doctor learned of the settlement, he wrote to Respondent, requesting payment of his bill and reminding him of the lien. Attorney Stern's written response to the doctor included the following statements:

I owe you nothing. Stop writing me or I will come to Madison and kick your germanic ass. You idiot I don't owe your bills.

With respect to the first matter, the Board concluded that by indicating that a Milwaukee attorney would provide expert testimony as to the existence of legal malpractice, without contacting the attorney, providing the file to the attorney for review and determining whether the attorney had an opinion regarding malpractice, Attorney Stern advanced a factual position without a basis, in violation of SCR 20:3.1(a)(2). The Board also concluded that by employing the language that he did in his February 12, 1990 letter to the court, Attorney Stern failed to maintain the respect due courts of justice and judicial officers, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(g) relating to the Attorney's Oath (SCR 40.15). Finally, with respect to the second matter, the Board concluded that the language employed by Attorney Stern in his letter to the doctor constituted offensive personality, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(g) relating to the Attorney's Oath (SCR 40.15).

Based upon the above misconduct, the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility has determined to publicly reprimand Attorney Walter W. Stern, III. In its review, the Board also considered that Attorney Stern was privately reprimanded in August 1988 for communicating, through an investigator he had hired, with a party he knew to be represented by counsel. The matter involved a divorce, and the investigator had obtained signed stipulations to a custody transfer from the party in question. Attorney Stern failed to advise opposing counsel of the stipulations and sought a temporary transfer of custody without providing opposing counsel with the moving papers.