|
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.
|