OLR Compendium > Public Reprimand of John R. Dade

Public Reprimand of John R. Dade

2012-OLR-1

The Respondent, Attorney John R. Dade (“Dade”), was admitted to the practice of law in Wisconsin on January 11, 1983 and practices in Whitewater, Wisconsin.

In correspondence dated July 5, 2008, more than ten years after his conviction and unsuccessful appeal, a man serving a prison sentence in excess of 90 years inquired of Dade as to whether Dade would review his case for purposes of evaluating possible avenues of relief. The man was motivated by the alleged recantation of one of his sexual assault victims.

Dade agreed to undertake the requested review for a fee of $800. The client informed Dade that the client’s mother would deliver to Dade a box of case materials and the requested fee. Both were received by Dade in August 2008. Following letters from the client dated September 23, 2008 and October 28, 2008, in which the client sought confirmation of Dade’s receipt of the case materials and fee, Dade provided the requested confirmation in correspondence dated November 14, 2008. Dade further informed the client at that time that he was still reviewing the case materials and that he needed a couple more weeks before he made an assessment of whether the client had viable opportunities to pursue any kind of post-conviction relief. This letter was the last communication Dade had with the client until on or about November 11, 2010.

On February 19, 2010 the client filed a grievance with the Office of Lawyer Regulation (“OLR”) alleging that for at least one year and five months Dade had failed to review his case materials and failed to provide him with an opinion regarding his options for post-conviction relief. The client further alleged that Dade failed to respond to his letters, failed to respond to his mother’s phone calls, failed to return his box of written materials and failed to refund his $800.00 attorney fee.

Following evaluation of the client’s grievance by OLR intake staff the matter was referred for formal investigation on March 29, 2010. On March 30, 2010, OLR provided Dade with written notice of the formal investigation and of his duty to cooperate with the investigation. Dade was informed that his written response to the grievance was to be submitted on or before April 22, 2010. Dade failed to respond.

On April 23, 2010, OLR sent a follow-up letter to Dade by certified mail and by first class mail, reminding him of his duty to cooperate and requiring him to postmark his response no later than May 3, 2010. This letter also informed Dade that if he did not respond to the grievance, SCR 22.03 (4) authorized the Director to pursue a license suspension based on his failure to cooperate with the investigation. The return receipt for the letter sent by certified mail was returned to OLR on April 30, 2010, bearing Dade’s own signature, and showing a delivery date of April 28, 2010. Dade failed to respond.

On May 13, 2010, OLR filed in the Wisconsin Supreme Court a Notice of Motion and Motion Requesting Order to Show Cause as to why Dade’s license should not be suspended for failing to cooperate with an OLR investigation, pursuant to SCR 22.03(4).

On May 14, 2010, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued an order requiring Dade to show cause, in writing, within 20 days of the date of the order why OLR’s motion should not be granted and his license to practice law in Wisconsin should not be temporarily suspended. Dade failed to respond to the Court’s order.

On July 21, 2010, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued an order granting OLR’s motion and suspending Dade’s license, effective the date of the order, due to his willful failure to cooperate in the investigation of the client’s grievance.

Dade finally responded to the client’s grievance in correspondence to OLR dated December 10, 2010 and received by OLR on December 14, 2010. Dade admitted that he had no direct communication with the client from November 18, 2008 until sometime subsequent to OLR’s letter to him dated March 30, 2010.

Dade further admitted the client wrote letters to him dated February 11, 2009 and October 15, 2009 directing him to return to the client’s mother the documents he had previously received, and that he failed to respond to the client’s letters as of the date of OLR’s letter to him dated March 30, 2010.

In his December 10, 2010 response to the grievance, Dade asserted that he spent many hours reviewing the client’s case materials, and that, subsequent to OLR’s March 30, 2010 notice of formal investigation, he provided the client with an opinion letter. Dade did not, at that time, provide OLR with a copy of the opinion letter or state with specificity when he provided it to the client. Enclosed with correspondence dated January 24, 2011, sent in response to a follow-up inquiry from OLR, Dade provided OLR a copy of a letter to the client, assessing the client’s post-conviction options. The letter to the client is undated, but was sent on or about November 11, 2010, and was received at the prison where the client is incarcerated on November 15, 2010. Dade shipped the client’s case materials to the client’s mother on November 10, 2010.

On December 15, 2010 OLR received Dade’s Request for Reinstatement of Suspended Law License. Also on December 15, 2010, the day after it received Dade’s response to the grievance, OLR filed in the Wisconsin Supreme Court its Report Concerning Attorney Dade’s Cooperation and OLR’s Response to Attorney Dade’s Reinstatement Request. Based upon Dade’s adequate cooperation in the grievance matter, OLR requested the Court reinstate Dade’s license to practice law in Wisconsin.

On December 29, 2010, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued an order reinstating Dade’s law license.

In failing to provide any legal opinion or analysis to his client regarding post- conviction relief options for approximately two years and two months, Attorney Dade violated SCR 20:1.3, which states, “A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.”

In failing to communicate with his client and for failing to respond to his client’s letters, Attorney Dade violated SCR 20:1.4(a) (3) and (4), which state, “A lawyer shall… (3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; (4) promptly comply with reasonable requests by the client for information.”

In failing to deliver his client’s case materials to his client’s mother, as requested to do so by his client, for at least one year and eight months, Attorney Dade violated SCR 20:1.16(d), which states in relevant part, “Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as…surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled...”

In failing to provide a written response to the grievance, which was due on or before April 22, 2010, until December 14, 2010, and only after the Wisconsin Supreme Court had issued an order temporarily suspending the license of Attorney Dade to practice law in Wisconsin for failing to cooperate in the OLR investigation, Attorney Dade violated SCR 22.03(2), which states in relevant part, “The respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail a request for a written response…” and SCR 22.03(6), which states, “In the course of the investigation, the respondent’s willful failure to provide relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish documents and the respondent’s misrepresentation in a disclosure are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted in the grievance.” Violations of SCR 22.03(2) and 22.03(6) are enforced under the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys through SCR 20:8.4(h), which states in relevant part, “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:… fail to cooperate in the investigation of a grievance filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required by…SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6)…”

In 1991, Dade received a private reprimand for failing to act with reasonable diligence, failing to communicate with his client and failing to cooperate in the OLR investigation. In 2007, Dade received a public reprimand for failing to provide competent representation, failing to act with reasonable diligence and failing to communicate with his client. In 2007, Dade received a sixty (60) day suspension for failing to act with reasonable diligence, failing to cooperate in the OLR investigation and failing to hold in trust the property of others.

In accordance with SCR 22.09(3), Attorney John R. Dade is hereby publicly reprimanded.