|
Attorney Lori S. Eshleman, Respondent,
practices in the area of Social Security law
with a Milwaukee law firm. At the close of
business on May 29, 2007, Eshleman was
suspended and became ineligible to practice
law in Wisconsin because of noncompliance
with her 2005-2006 mandatory legal education
requirements. Eshleman acknowledges that
she received the notices sent to her by the
Board of Bar Examiners (“BBE”) and was aware
of the suspension. Although Eshleman had
taken the required courses to satisfy the
requirements, she did not report those
courses for a period of seven months, while
she continued to routinely practice law.
Eshleman did not give any notice to clients,
administrative law judges or opposing
counsel regarding her suspension status.
Eshleman’s law partner discovered her
suspension in December 2007 and confronted
Eshleman about the problem. As a result of
that confrontation, Eshleman submitted a
Petition for Reinstatement that the BBE
received on December 27, 2007. The petition
acknowledged that Eshleman had practiced
law, stating:
All instances of my practice of law
during
the period of ineligibility consisted of
exclusively practice [sic] in the
administrative courts of the Social Security
Administration. I have practiced
consistently since May 29, 2007 only in
those courts. I have not practiced in any
other courts or venues, nor have I counseled
clients other than those Social Security
claimants. I appear with clients at their
administrative hearings, submit medical
records and write letters to the ALJs
advocating for my clients’ disability
benefits.
Eshleman acknowledges that she is required
to have state licensure in order to
represent Social Security claimants in the
administrative courts and that she was not
licensed in any other state jurisdiction.
Even after Eshleman submitted her petition
for reinstatement, she never ceased
practicing law and practiced for another 1½
months while her petition for reinstatement
was under consideration by the BBE. She was
reinstated on February 15, 2008,
approximately 8½ months after her suspension
took effect.
After the BBE reported Eshleman’s conduct to
the Office of Lawyer Regulation (“OLR”),
Eshleman was also slow in responding to
OLR. In a letter from OLR dated April 21,
2008, Eshleman was advised that her response
had to be postmarked no later than May 14,
2008. Because no response had been received
by May 29, 2008, OLR sent a second request
by both certified and first class mail
advising Eshleman that if she did not
respond by June 9, 2008, SCR 22.03(4)
authorized OLR’s Director to seek a
temporary suspension for willfully failing
to cooperate with the investigation.
Eshleman did not respond by the June 9, 2008
deadline, but did submit a response on June
16, 2008. In that response Eshleman
acknowledged her misconduct, stating that
she was embarrassed and ashamed, and
acknowledging that she had no reasonable
defense to her actions. Eshleman stated
that she had now put in place a good system
for recording and reporting continuing legal
education courses, and she was certain the
problem would never arise again.
|
|
By practicing law for a period of 8½ months
when she knew that her law license had been
suspended, including a period of 1½ months
while her petition for reinstatement was
pending before BBE, Eshleman violated SCR
31.10(1), which states that a lawyer shall
not engage in the practice of law in
Wisconsin while his or her state bar
membership is suspended for failure to
complete with CLE attendance and reporting
requirements. SCR 31.10(1) is enforceable
as a disciplinary rule pursuant to SCR 20:8.4
(f). By failing to notify clients,
administrative courts and opposing counsel
of her suspension and consequent inability
to act as an attorney, Eshleman violated SCR
22.26(1), which describes the notices a
suspended attorney must give at the time of
his or her suspension, and which the
Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled is
applicable in both disciplinary and
administrative suspensions. Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Scanlan, 2006 WI 38,
290
Wis.2d 30, 712 N.W.2d 877 (2006). Eshleman
has no prior discipline.
In accordance with SCR 22.09(3), Attorney
Lori S. Eshleman is hereby publicly
reprimanded.
|