|
On October 25, 2012, Attorney James T. Martz
was charged with one count of misdemeanor
contempt of court, in violation of Wis.
Stat. §785.04(2)(a). State v. James T.
Martz, Milwaukee County case no.
2012CM5680. According to the criminal
complaint, the factual basis for the charge
was as follows:
Martz represented a man facing charges
of
Battery, Domestic Abuse; Disorderly Conduct,
Domestic Abuse; and Resisting an
Officer.
A friend of the victim was present
during
and witnessed the alleged criminal conduct.
At some point, the victim told the witness
that neither the victim nor the witness
needed to appear at the trial. The victim
further asked the witness to call Martz.
At some point after speaking to the
victim
about the matter and receiving a subpoena to
appear at the jury trial, the witness
contacted a victim/witness specialist. It
was arranged that the witness would call
Martz and that the phone call would be
monitored by two investigators.
During his phone call with the
witness,
Martz discussed with the witness the fact
that she had received her subpoena “in the
mail.” Martz told the witness that she had
not been properly served, that she did not
have to go to court, and that there would be
no repercussions for her not attending
court. Martz went on to state that even if
the witness had been properly served,
nothing would happen to her if she did not
appear and the case against his client would
be dismissed “…and nobody cares.” At the
end of the phone call, Martz said to the
victim while laughing, “I hope, I hope I
never see you again.”
Martz was asked to appear at the
District
Attorney’s office to discuss the case
against his client and his continued
representation of his client. Martz
listened to a recording of his phone call
with the witness and acknowledged it was
accurate.
The State of Wisconsin moved the court
to
remove Martz as trial counsel based upon his
violation of the rules of professional
conduct. That motion was granted.
At a hearing on November 11, 2012,
Martz
disputed portions of the criminal complaint
filed against him. More specifically, Martz
disputed those portions of the complaint
which suggested that Martz had asked the
victim to have the witness call him (Martz)
and those portions which suggested that
Martz told the victim to tell the witness
that she did not have to appear at court.
Further, Martz disputed those portions of
the complaint which suggested he had asked
the victim not to appear at court and told
her that she did not need to appear. That
same day, the parties stipulated to portions
of the criminal complaint, along with other
factors presented by Martz in court, as the
factual basis for a no contest plea entered
by Martz. Martz was then convicted of the
single count contained in the criminal
complaint.
Martz contends that he believes his
statement to the witness that she had not
been properly served was accurate based on
the facts the witness presented to him and
his former and current understanding of the
law.
Martz asserts that his statements to the
witness that she would not face any
consequences for not appearing at the jury
trial were based on anecdotal evidence. He
admits they were “less than appropriate”
and “inartful.”
As to his statement that he hoped never to
see the witness again, Martz contends the
statement was made in “a laughing manner”
and was not intended to be a directive or a
threat.
On December 19, 2012, Martz was sentenced to
ten days in jail. That sentence was stayed
on the conditions that Martz pay a $1,000
fine plus all costs and surcharges, and that
he perform 150 hours of community service,
preferably with an agency serving domestic
violence victims.
By engaging in the conduct that led to his
criminal conviction on a charge of
misdemeanor contempt of court, Martz
violated the following Rule of Professional
Conduct:
|
|
SCR 20:3.4(a), which states, “A lawyer
shall not unlawfully obstruct another
party's access to evidence or unlawfully
alter, destroy or conceal a document or
other material having potential evidentiary
value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist
another person to do any such act.”
|
|
SCR 20:8.4(b), which states, “It is
professional misconduct for a lawyer to
commit a criminal act that reflects
adversely on the lawyer's honesty,
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in
other respects.”
|
|
SCR 20:8.4(c), which states, “It is
professional misconduct for a lawyer to
engage in conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”
Martz has no prior discipline.
In accordance with SCR 22.09(3), Attorney
James T. Martz is hereby publicly
reprimanded.
Dated this 7th day of July, 2013.
|