|
Respondent Attorney Jacquelyn Champagne of
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is an attorney
licensed in the State of Wisconsin since
2001.
Respondent, while a litigation
associate at a Milwaukee law firm,
represented a client in litigation arising
out of a guardianship and protective
placement matter. The original petition for
guardianship and protective placement
(the “Petition”) was not filed prior to the
transfer of the ward and a court had not
approved of the transfer, as required by
law. That happened, at least in part,
because messengers arrived at the clerk’s
office after it was closed on the day of
transfer (July 1, 2003), and returned the
next morning (July 2, 2003) to file the
petition.
Respondent was not responsible for
the initial preparation or the filing of the
Petition. In addition, Respondent was under
the supervision of other partners at the
firm who guided her in her positions before
the various tribunals before which she
appeared. Notwithstanding, Respondent knew
that the Petition had not been filed prior
to the transfer of the patient, and knew
that the statutory requirements for
transferring a patient had not been
followed. Despite this knowledge,
Respondent made several statements to courts
related to these facts that were known to be
false.
On December 1, 2003, Respondent asserted to
the court that “[the hospital’s] petition
for permanent guardianship had already been
filed at the time the transfer was made,”
and that the transfer had occurred lawfully.
On January 14, 2004, Respondent
submitted a brief to the trial court on
stating that the transfer of the patient
took place “pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 50.06.”
On June 9, 2005, Respondent filed a
brief in Milwaukee County Circuit Court in
support of a motion to dismiss a lawsuit
stating, “Prior to [the patient’s]
transfer . . . [the hospital] filed a
petition for permanent guardianship and
protective placement.”
On December 7, 2005, Respondent
appeared on behalf of her client before the
Court of Appeals and specifically informed
the court during oral argument that the
Petition had been filed on July 1, 2003,
when in fact the Petition had been filed on
July 2, 2003. Respondent even prepared a
blow-up exhibit that referenced the improper
date and referred to it during oral
argument.
On August 28, 2006, Respondent
submitted a brief to the Court of Appeals in
which she claimed, “On July 1, 2003, [the
hospital] filed a petition for permanent
guardianship and protective placement of
[the patient] . . . .”
On March 29, 2007, Respondent filed
a brief in the Court of Appeals that
referenced a procedural history that falsely
claimed the original Petition had been filed
in a timely fashion.
On September 10, 2007, Respondent
filed an additional brief to the Court of
Appeals stating, “ . . . counsel for the
[hospital] believes [the patient’s]
guardianship petition was filed on July 1,
2003 and that the July 2, 2003 courthouse
file-stamp on the petition is incorrect.”
| ![[Image of Lady Justice]](images/header_1.gif)
![[Image of columns]](images/header_3.jpg)