|
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.
Attorney's license revoked.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review the
recommendation of the referee that Attorney
Charles R. Koehn's license to practice law
in Wisconsin be revoked for professional
misconduct. That misconduct involves
multiple rules violations with respect to
19 clients, as well as practicing law on at
least ten occasions while his license was
suspended for nonpayment of mandatory state
bar dues. The referee also recommended
that Attorney Koehn be required to pay
restitution and the costs of these
proceedings, which are $2959.58 as of
February 6, 2006. We determine that the
seriousness of Attorney Koehn's
professional misconduct warrants revocation
of his license to practice law in Wisconsin.
|
|
¶2 Attorney Koehn was admitted to
practice law in Wisconsin in 1977 and
practiced in Green Bay. He has been
subject to four previous instances of
discipline. In 1991 he was privately
reprimanded for failing to adequately
consult with and represent a client. In
1997 his license was suspended for 60 days
as a result of his failure to represent and
advise his client, his misrepresentation to
the court, to a prosecutor and a client,
his failure to act with reasonable
diligence, and his failure to refund fees.
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Koehn, 208 Wis. 2d 128, 559
N.W.2d 908 (1997). In 2000 Koehn was
publicly reprimanded for failing to respond
to a court order and file a jurisdictional
statement and brief, failing to respond to
client inquiries, and an incompetent
handling of an appeal. Koehn's license was
temporarily suspended in 2005 for failing
to cooperate with the Office of Lawyer
Regulation (OLR) investigations involving
seven matters. Due to his continuing
failure to cooperate with the OLR, his
license remains temporarily suspended.
|
|
¶3 In August 2005 the OLR filed a 61-
count complaint against Attorney Koehn.
Personal service of the initial complaint
was obtained on September 9, 2005. In
October 2005 an amended complaint alleging
30 more counts was filed. Konrad
Tuchscherer was appointed referee. He
determined that the OLR had made diligent
efforts to serve the amended complaint, and
further determined that in November 2005
service was accomplished by mailing.
Attorney Koehn did not file an answer, or
make any appearance despite adequate notice
and multiple opportunities to respond.
|
|
¶4 In December 2005 a telephonic
default motion hearing was held. The OLR
appeared and Attorney Koehn did not. The
OLR advised that three sets of motion
papers were mailed to Attorney Koehn on
December 9, 2005, and only the set
addressed to his now vacated office was
returned by the U.S. Postal Service. The
referee granted the OLR's motion for
default judgment. The referee issued his
report containing findings of fact and
conclusions of law with respect to 19
clients, as well as Attorney Koehn's
practicing of law while his license was
suspended for nonpayment of mandatory bar
dues.
¶5 Many of the rules violations
alleged in the OLR's complaint arose from
Attorney Koehn accepting retainer fees from
clients, having little or no contact with
them, failing to provide the necessary
legal services and then refusing to refund
any part of the unearned retainer fees.
Because Attorney Koehn did not contest the
complaint's allegations or challenge the
referee's findings, we deem it unnecessary
to belabor this opinion with the details
regarding his numerous instances of
misconduct. Therefore, rather than
reciting the extensive facts found in the
referee's 357 paragraph report regarding
the 19 clients and 91 counts, this opinion
limits its discussion to one client matter
as an example of the misconduct described
in the referee's report. It is sufficient
to note that the referee's findings
demonstrate Attorney Koehn's flagrant and
widespread infractions of rules of
professional conduct.
¶6 Consistent with the complaint's
allegations, the referee found that in
March 2004 D.R. hired Attorney Koehn to
represent his son, E.R., who resided out of
state and was under police investigation
for a possible homicide-related charge.
Attorney Koehn had previously told D.R., in
a different matter, that because the
assistant district attorney was Attorney
Koehn's brother-in-law, Attorney Koehn
could obtain a favorable result. D.R.
obtained a favorable result in the previous
matter and believed it was due to Attorney
Koehn's claimed familial connections.
Therefore, D.R.'s belief that Attorney
Koehn had "pull" with the authorities led
him to hire Attorney Koehn to represent his
son.
¶7 D.R. paid Attorney Koehn a retainer
of $8000 in the form of a cashier's check
that Attorney Koehn cashed approximately
two weeks later. Attorney Koehn did not
deposit any of the funds into his client
trust account. There was no retainer
agreement and Attorney Koehn did not
explain the basis or rate of the fee, nor
did he state whether E.R. would be charged
at an hourly rate for his representation.
¶8 D.R. and his wife had two brief
meetings with Attorney Koehn about E.R.'s
legal matters. During the first meeting in
March 2004 Attorney Koehn called the
district attorney's office to advise that
he was representing E.R. Attorney Koehn
then told D.R. that he would go to the out-
of-state location to speak with E.R. and to
have E.R. sign representation papers.
Attorney Koehn told D.R. that it was good
that E.R. had left the state and that he
should not come back. Other than having
one other brief meeting with D.R. and his
wife, Attorney Koehn performed no work on
E.R.'s matter and never contacted him.
¶9 D.R. called Attorney Koehn's office
several times to learn what was happening
in his son's case but never received a
response. In July 2004 D.R. finally got
through to Attorney Koehn and asked him to
return the retainer fee because Attorney
Koehn had not done what he said he would
do. Attorney Koehn responded that E.R.
still needed Attorney Koehn's
representation. When D.R. said that he
would ask the district attorney about the
matter himself, Attorney Koehn threatened
to tell the authorities exactly where his
son was.
¶10 Thereafter, D.R. called Attorney
Koehn's office many more times to request a
refund but never received a response. In
February 2005 D.R. asked the sheriff about
the investigation concerning his son and
was told that no charges were going to be
brought due to lack of evidence.
¶11 Previously, in October 2004 D.R.
had learned that his other son, A.R., who
was on probation, was facing a possible one-
year probation extension. D.R. had decided
to ask Attorney Koehn to earn some of the
$8000 already paid by representing A.R.
concerning the probation matter. Attorney
Koehn said that he would represent A.R. for
$2000 and subtract that amount from the
$8000 already paid for E.R.'s matters.
¶12 In December 2004 a petition to
extend A.R.'s probation was filed and D.R.
delivered a copy of the petition to
Attorney Koehn's office. When Attorney
Koehn read the petition and saw who the
prosecutor was, he told D.R., "[a]t least
they put it in the right hands, I'm having
Christmas dinner with [him]."
Additionally, Attorney Koehn told D.R. that
the prosecutor's brother, a judge, was also
his brother-in-law, and that Attorney Koehn
was "connected." However, neither the
prosecutor nor the judge was Attorney
Koehn's brother-in-law.
¶13 Attorney Koehn never met with A.R.
after their initial conference in October
2004 despite repeated unsuccessful attempts
by D.R. to contact Attorney Koehn to
discuss the case. The motion to extend
A.R.'s probation was scheduled for a
hearing in February 2005. D.R. took
letters of recommendation and other
supporting documents for A.R. to Attorney
Koehn's office prior to the scheduled
hearing date. Attorney Koehn did not
appear at the February 4 hearing. When the
district attorney called Attorney Koehn,
Attorney Koehn stated he was in court on
another matter. The court allowed Attorney
Koehn to appear by telephone. Attorney
Koehn, however, never told A.R. that he
would be unable to attend the hearing
personally.
¶14 The court granted the motion to
extend A.R.'s probation for one year. A.R.
did not get a chance to testify as he had
hoped, nor have the court review the
supporting documents, which were in
Attorney Koehn's possession.
¶15 Subsequently, A.R. terminated
Attorney Koehn's representation and
requested the court reconsider his
probation request. The court granted
A.R.'s request and after a new hearing in
March 2005, at which A.R. represented
himself, the court approved a proposal to
change A.R.'s probation extension from one
year to six months.
¶16 In January 2005 D.R. had been
served with a petition for a temporary
restraining order and an injunction. D.R.
decided to ask Attorney Koehn to earn some
of the $8000 already paid by having
Attorney Koehn represent him in the
restraining order matter. Attorney Koehn
entered an appearance in the matter but did
not consult with D.R. or prepare D.R. for
the hearing. Attorney Koehn went to the
hearing unprepared and with none of the
relevant paperwork. The court granted the
injunction.
¶17 In February 2005 D.R. send Attorney
Koehn a letter stating that Attorney Koehn
was discharged as the attorney for all
matters concerning his family and
requesting a refund of the $8000. Attorney
Koehn did not respond to the request and
has not refunded any portion of the $8000
paid.
¶18 In March 2005 the OLR mailed a
letter regarding D.R.'s grievance to
Attorney Koehn's office and informed him
that he was required to provide a written
response by April 22, 2005. Attorney Koehn
failed to respond. On April 22, 2005, the
OLR staff mailed a letter by both certified
and first-class mail to Attorney Koehn
reminding him of his duty to cooperate with
the grievance investigation and of the
consequences for failing to do so.
Attorney Koehn did not respond.
¶19 Based on these facts, the referee
determined that Attorney Koehn was in
violation of numerous rules as alleged in
the complaint. The referee determined that
Attorney Koehn failed to act with
reasonable diligence, failed to respond to
reasonable requests for information, failed
to adequately communicate the basis or rate
of a fee, failed to hold the property of
his clients in trust, and represented a
client when the representation may have
been materially limited by his own
pecuniary interest.
¶20 In addition, the referee found that
by telling his client that he was the
brother-in-law of an assistant district
attorney and a judge, Attorney Koehn
engaged in dishonesty, fraud or deceit. By
stating that he had the ability to receive
favorable treatment for his clients as a
result of his claimed familial
relationship, he stated or implied an
ability to improperly influence a
government official. In addition, Attorney
Koehn failed to take steps to protect his
client's interest upon termination of
representation, including the refunding of
an unearned fee. Also, by failing to
respond to the OLR, Attorney Koehn failed
to fully and fairly disclose all facts
pertaining to the alleged misconduct.
¶21 In numerous other client matters,
the referee determined that Attorney Koehn
engaged in similar acts of misconduct.
Consistent with the allegations of the 91-
count amended complaint, the referee found
violations with respect to the 19 clients
as follows:
|
|
• Practicing law while suspended;
contrary to SCR 10:03(6) (2 counts); SCR
20:8.4(f) (34 counts).
|
|
• Failing to fully and fairly
disclose facts regarding misconduct;
contrary to SCR 22.03(2) (12 counts); SCR
20:8.4(f).
|
|
• Failing to take steps to protect
client interests upon termination of
representation, including refunding
unearned fees; contrary to SCR 20:1.16(d)
(15 counts).
|
|
• Misrepresentations to the OLR;
contrary to SCR 22.03(6) (8 counts); SCR
20:8.4(f).
|
|
• Willful failure to cooperate with
OLR investigation; contrary to SCR 22.03
(2) and (6) (5 counts); SCR 20:8.4(f).
|
|
• Failure to act with reasonable
diligence; contrary to SCR 20:1.3 (13
counts).
|
|
• Failure to keep client reasonably
informed and respond to reasonable requests
for information; contrary to SCR 20:1.4
(a) (13 counts).
|
|
• Failure to consult with client
and abide by client's decisions; contrary
to SCR 20:1.2(a) (2 counts).
|
|
• Failure to hold property of
clients in trust; contrary to former SCR
20:1.15(a), effective through June 2004
and, contrary now to SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) (2
counts).
|
|
• False statement to a tribunal;
contrary to SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) (2 counts).
|
|
• Failure to explain to permit
client
to make informed decision; contrary to
SCR
20.1.4(b) (1 count).
|
|
• Failure to provide competent
representation; contrary to SCR 20:1.1 (1
count).
|
|
• Failure to notify client, courts
and parties' attorneys of suspension for
nonpayment of dues; contrary to SCR 22.26
(1)(a), (b), and (c) (3 counts); SCR 20:8.4
(f).
|
|
• Offensive personality; contrary
to SCR 40.15 (1 count); SCR 20.8.4(g) (1
count).
|
|
• Failure to communicate basis or
rate of fee; contrary to SCR 20.1.5(b) (3
counts).
|
|
• Representation of client when
representation may have been materially
limited by pecuniary interest; contrary
to SCR 20:1.7(b) (1 count).
|
|
• Dishonesty, fraud, deceit;
contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c) (2 counts).
|
|
• Stated or implied ability to
improperly influence government official;
contrary to SCR 20:8.4(d) (1 count).
|
|
• Failure to cooperate with
district committee investigation;
contrary to SCR 22.04(1) (4 counts); SCR
20.8.4(f).
¶22 The referee determined that the
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client
Protection (Fund) approved the applications
and issued payment for many clients whose
matters were the basis of the amended
complaint's allegations. The Fund reported
making numerous payments due to Attorney
Koehn's dishonesty. The total of sums paid
related to client matters within this
disciplinary proceeding came to $29,582.50.
¶23 In addition, the OLR brought three
client matters to the referee's attention
because it appeared to the OLR that
Attorney Koehn owed restitution. These
three client matters were included in the
amended complaint but had not been included
on the payment list provided by the Fund.
They included payment to three clients:
K.W. in the amount of $984, K.K. in the
amount of $800, and R.A. in the amount of
$1500. The referee determined that
Attorney Koehn's conduct in these client
matters violated numerous supreme court
rules. The referee recommended that
Attorney Koehn's license be revoked, that
he pay the costs of these proceedings, and
that he be ordered to pay restitution to
the Fund and to the three clients.
¶24 We adopt the findings of fact and
conclusions of law set forth in the
referee's report and the referee's
recommendation. Attorney Koehn's extensive
and egregious rules violations, in 91
counts with respect to 19 client matters,
along with his practicing law while his
license was suspended for nonpayment of
mandatory state bar dues, warrant the
revocation of his license.
¶25 IT IS ORDERED that the license of
Charles R. Koehn to practice law in
Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of
this opinion.
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney
Koehn comply with the provisions of SCR
22.26 concerning the duties of a person
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin
is revoked.
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within
60 days of the date of this order, Attorney
Koehn shall pay restitution of $29,582.50
to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client
Protection, $984 to K.W., $800 to K.K., and
$1500 to R.A., the clients identified in
the referee's report.
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within
60 days of the date of this order Attorney
Koehn pay to the Office of Lawyer
Regulation the cost of this proceeding.
¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that
restitution to the three clients identified
above and the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for
Client Protection shall be paid prior to
paying costs to the Office of Lawyer
Regulation.
|