|
The Court entered the following order on
this date:
|
|
The Office of Lawyer Regulation and Attorney
James G. Wiard have stipulated, pursuant to
SCR 22.12, for reciprocal discipline under
SCR 22.22.
|
|
Attorney Wiard has been licensed to practice
law in Illinois since 1978 and was admitted
in Wisconsin in 1987. His Wisconsin license
was suspended in 1998 for noncompliance with
CLE reporting requirements and remains
suspended at present.
|
|
Pursuant to a March 26, 2002 order of the
Illinois Supreme Court, Attorney Wiard’s
license in that state has been suspended for
two years. He was found to have violated
Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct (IRPC)
1.4-failure to keep a client reasonably
informed about the status of a matter; IRPC
1.15(a)-failure to deposit client funds in
a separate and identifiable trust account;
IRPC 8.4(a)4-conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; IRPC 8.4
(a)5-engaging in conduct that is
prejudicial to the administration of
justice; and, Illinois Supreme Court Rule
771-engaging in conduct which tends to
defeat the administration of justice or to
bring the courts or the legal profession in
disrepute.
These violations arose out of an incident
that began in 1994 when Attorney Wiard
prepared a trust and property power of
attorney for a client naming himself as
successor trustee and agent should the
client die or eventually be unable to act as
trustee or should the designated agent be
unable to act. In 1997, without notifying
the client or the property power of
attorney, he requested that a bank close two
of the client’s accounts and issue the
proceeds to him as successor trustee for the
trust. He received almost $11,000 from the
bank and used virtually all of it for his
own personal purposes. He later
misrepresented to the client what had
occurred.
|
|
SCR 22.22(3) provides that this court shall
impose the identical discipline or license
suspension unless the procedure in the other
jurisdiction was so lacking in notice or
opportunity to be heard as to constitute a
due process violation; there was such an
infirmity of proof establishing the
misconduct that this court should not accept
as final the misconduct finding; or the
misconduct justifies substantially different
discipline here. Neither OLR nor Attorney
Wiard contend, nor does this court find,
that any of these three exceptions exist.
Accordingly,
|
|
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney
James G. Wiard to practice law in the state
of Wisconsin be suspended for two years from
the date of this order.
|
|
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this suspension
does not affect the existing 1998 suspension
for noncompliance with CLE reporting
requirements which would also have to be
satisfied in order for his license to
practice law in Wisconsin to be reinstated.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that he shall
comply, if he has not already done so, with
the requirements of SCR 22.26 pertaining to
activities following suspension.
|