|
William A. Boulware (“Boulware”), age 43, is
a Wisconsin-licensed attorney whose State
Bar identification number is 1022342.
Boulware was admitted to practice in
Wisconsin on June 19, 1995. On September 3,
2009, Boulware changed his status with the
Wisconsin Bar from Active to Inactive.
Boulware is not now engaged in the practice
of law.
From 2002 to 2005, Boulware acted as the
Legislative Counsel for a Native American
tribe (“the Tribe”). In that capacity,
Boulware worked with various governmental
bodies, lobbyists and private companies,
including private developers and advised the
Tribe’s legislature on matters such as land
purchases and gaming developments.
In December 2004 and again in January 2005,
Boulware informed his colleagues and
immediate supervisor of his intent to resign
his position with the Tribe. In March,
2005, Boulware offered his resignation. It
was accepted and Boulware’s last date of
employment with the Tribe was set as June
30, 2005. According to several member and
other employees of the Tribe, Boulware told
them he intended to pursue work in Europe so
that he could practice international law.
During this same period, the Tribe was
involved in discussions regarding the
potential purchase of land and the
development of a gaming facility in the
Chicago area. In his role as the Tribe’s
Legislative Counsel, Boulware was a lead
participant in the discussions surrounding
this project. One of the entities also
involved in these transactions was a private
development company that worked with other
tribes in similar projects.
Sometime before June, 2005, Boulware was in
contact with the chief operating officer of
the private development company (“the
Developer”) and possibly others about a new
development company the developer was
seeking to form (“the New Development
Company”). It appears that the purpose of
this company was to purchase land in
anticipation of future agreements with
various Native American Tribal Nations,
including the Tribe, regarding the sale of
the land to the tribal nations. On June 14,
2005, Boulware sent an email to the
Developer in which Boulware stated:
You have a meeting set for the Florida
group
for this Friday and I am unavailable. I
have managed to arrange to be in “Chicago”
Friday, June 24 and Monday, June 27, though
on Monday there is a meeting with a Vice
President of the Tribe where I have to be
accessible.
The meeting referred to was a meeting to be
held in Florida regarding a potential deal
with a different Native American tribe.
In this same email, Boulware made several
statements indicating his eagerness to begin
working at the Developer’s new company.
Boulware concluded his June 14, 2005 email
to the Developer by stating he “would
initially like to keep a low profile” for
three or four months so that there would not
be an adverse reaction from the Tribe toward
the New Development Company because of the
Company having hired Boulware away from the
Tribe.
On Friday, June 17, 2005, the Developer sent
an email to Boulware that asked if Boulware
would be available to go with the Developer
to Florida the following week. In the same
email, the Developer also asked for
Boulware’s advice regarding how the
Developer should follow up with the Tribe
regarding the Chicago area project. All of
these contacts with the Developer were made
while Boulware was still employed as the
Legislative Counsel for the Tribe.
On June 29, 2005, Boulware received an email
from the Wisconsin State Bar thanking him
for recently updating his State Bar
Membership Account. The updated account
information listed Boulware as the “Director
of Development” of the New Development
Company and gave the address of the Company
as his new business address.
June 30, 2005 was Boulware’s last day of
work for the Tribe. He then left for a
trip to Europe and returned on July 31,
2005. In responses to OLR, Boulware stated
that he had two phone conversations with the
Developer while he was in Europe about
employment with the New Development
Company. Boulware further stated that he
did not begin working at the Company until
August 2005, that he informed the Tribe
about his new position in September 2005,
and that his work with the Company did not
involve any contacts with the Tribe.
Sometime after Boulware left employment with
the Tribe, the Chicago area project came
under scrutiny by the media and governmental
agencies. In 2007, the Tribe hired an
outside attorney to investigate possible
wrongdoing by Boulware as it related to his
advice and actions regarding the project and
his subsequent employment with the New
Development Company. As part of that
investigation, the emails to the Developer
and the State Bar of Wisconsin were
recovered from the computer used by Boulware
at the Tribe by a computer forensics
investigator. After receiving the outside
attorney’s investigative report, the Tribe
filed a grievance against Boulware alleging
that he had a conflict of interest regarding
his employment with the New Development
Company and had made misrepresentations to
the Tribe regarding his seeking of
employment with the Company.
In the investigation of the grievance, OLR
requested that Boulware directly address the
content of the emails relating to his
employment with the New Development Company
and his relationship with the Developer
while still employed by the Tribe. As part
of that request, OLR twice sent Boulware a
copy of the outside attorney’s investigative
report with copies of the emails between
Boulware and the Developer, as well as a
copy of the email from the State Bar
changing his employment status.
In three separate responses to OLR, Boulware
made several positive statements to the
effect that he neither sought a position nor
worked for the New Development Company prior
to July 1, 2005, the day after his
employment with the Tribe ended. In his
initial response to OLR, Boulware stated:
I cannot identify a specific date for
which
I first discussed possible employment or an
association with any person associated with
[the New Development Company] or [the
Developer’s] other company. I was extended
an offer of employment after I left [the
Tribe] . . . I did not work for nor had I
been approached by [the Developer] to work
for or consult with or for his Companies.
(emphasis in original).
Boulware later asserted that, while “[t]he
context of the e-mails makes it look as if I
had secured gainful employment before
leaving [the Tribe],” the emails did not
contradict his earlier statements because
they involved Boulware working as
a “consultant.” Boulware did not indicate
for whom he would be working as “consultant”
nor did he address the statements in the
email that he was looking forward to
starting work with the New Development
Company.
Regarding the change in his State Bar
status, made on or before June 29, 2005, in
which he listed his position as “Director of
Development” for the New Development
Company, Boulware at first stated that while
it appeared that he had changed the Bar
status, if he did so such a change was
premature because the Company was not
created as a corporate entity until July or
September of 2005. In a subsequent response
to OLR, Boulware admitted that he had made
the change in Bar status before he left the
Tribe and that he was aware of the existence
of the New Development Company when he made
that change.
Regarding the working relationship that
appears to have been established between
Boulware and the Developer before he left
the Tribe, Boulware stated that he did not
believe the June 14 and 17, 2005 email
exchange between Boulware and the Developer
were evidence that the Developer was seeking
his legal advice. Boulware did not explain
or address the Developer’s request for
advice on how to deal with the Tribe
regarding the Chicago area project, the
Developer’s request that Boulware accompany
him on a meeting with another group in
Florida while Boulware was still employed by
the Tribe, or Boulware’s response to this
request which included the statement, “I
have managed to arrange to be in ‘Chicago’
Friday, June 24 and Monday, June 27.”
|
|
By communicating with and offering advice to
another party about matters involving his
representation of the Tribe, while still
employed by the Tribe, and doing so without
the knowledge and consent of the Tribe,
Attorney William A. Boulware violated former
SCR 20:1.7(b), applicable to conduct
occurring prior to July 1, 2007, which
stated, “A lawyer shall not represent a
client if the representation of that client
may be materially limited by the lawyer’s
responsibilities to another client or to a
third person, or by the lawyer’s own
interests, unless…(1) the lawyer reasonably
believes the representation will not be
adversely affected; and (2) the client
consents in writing after consultation.
When representation of multiple clients in a
single matter is undertaken, the
consultation shall include explanation of
the implications of the common
representation and the advantages and risks
involved.”
|
|
By negotiating for and accepting employment
with the New Development Company while still
an employee of the Tribe, Attorney William
A. Boulware violated former SCR 20:1.11(c)
(2), applicable to conduct occurring prior
to July 1, 2007, which stated, “Except as
law may otherwise expressly permit, a lawyer
serving as a public officer or employee
shall not…(2) negotiate for private
employment with any person who is involved
as a party or as attorney for a party in a
matter in which the lawyer is participating
personally and substantially.”
|
|
By telling members and employees of the
Tribe that he intended to pursue employment
in Europe and in failing to disclose to the
Tribe that he was, in fact, negotiating to
secure employment with the New Development
Company, Attorney William A. Boulware
violated SCR 20:8.4(c), which states, “It is
professional misconduct for a lawyer to…
engage in conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”
|
|
By making several statements in response to
the OLR grievance investigation that were
contradicted by contemporaneous emails, and
in failing to fully disclose all the facts
and circumstances pertaining to the alleged
misconduct, Atty. William A. Boulware
violated 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.” SCR 22.03(6) is enforced under
the Rules of Professional Conduct by SCR
20:8.4(h).
Boulware has no prior discipline.
In accordance with SCR 22.09(3), Attorney
William A. Boulware is hereby publicly
reprimanded.
|