|
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.
Attorney's license suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a referee's
report and recommendation concluding that
Attorney James P. Grenisen engaged in
professional misconduct and recommending
that his license to practice law in
Wisconsin be suspended for a period of 90
days. The referee also recommended that
Attorney Grenisen undergo a psychological
evaluation and that he provide no future
legal representation to his former client.
¶2 We conclude the referee's findings
of fact are supported by satisfactory and
convincing evidence. We further determine
that the seriousness of Attorney Grenisen's
misconduct warrants the suspension of his
license to practice law for 90 days. We
also agree with the referee's recommendation
that Attorney Grenisen undergo a
psychological evaluation and that
reinstatement of his license to practice law
should be conditioned upon the evaluating
medical professional opining, to a
reasonable degree of professional certainty,
that Attorney Grenisen is capable of
discharging the duties of a person licensed
to practice law in Wisconsin. We further
conclude that Attorney Grenisen should be
ordered to provide no future legal
representation to his former client, and
that the costs of this proceeding, which are
$7,895.46 as of August 26, 2013, should be
assessed against Attorney Grenisen.
¶3 Attorney Grenisen was admitted to
practice law in Wisconsin in 1958 and
practices in La Crosse. He has no prior
disciplinary history.
¶4 On December 14, 2012, the Office of
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a complaint
alleging five counts of misconduct with
respect to Attorney Grenisen's
representation of a 66-year-old adult
female, L.E., who had been adjudged
incompetent and subject to guardianship of
her person and estate. Attorney Grenisen
began representing L.E. in November 2009,
challenging both L.E.'s guardianship and
placement.
¶5 Pursuant to orders of the court in
the guardianship and protective placement,
and in order to qualify L.E. for Medicaid,
L.E.'s guardian authorized monies be
expended for her care. On August 25, 2010,
Attorney Grenisen appealed the circuit
court's order denying his motion to
terminate L.E.'s protective placement and
return funds that Attorney Grenisen alleged
were illegally taken.
¶6 On or about August 29, 2010,
Attorney Grenisen filed a "Notice of Claim
Against La Crosse County" with the La Crosse
County clerk, claiming that employees of La
Crosse County were responsible for illegally
authorizing the transfer of L.E.'s funds for
her care.
¶7 A hearing in L.E.'s case was held on
September 23, 2010. At the hearing, Judge
Levine repeatedly suggested to Attorney
Grenisen that he obtain more knowledgeable
substitute counsel for L.E.
¶8 At a February 3, 2011 court hearing,
Judge Levine found that affidavits and
documents faxed by Attorney Grenisen to
opposing parties were not timely. As a
result, the affidavits and documents were
excluded.
¶9 During the February 3, 2011 hearing,
Attorney Grenisen, while questioning a
witness, persisted in testifying when he was
not a witness, and he was admonished twice
by the court to cease testifying.
¶10 An independent medical report
ultimately obtained by Attorney Grenisen was
not in proper form, did not address the
relevant issues, was not usable by the
court, and was not considered by the court.
¶11 On February 3, 2011, Judge Levine
removed Attorney Grenisen as attorney for
L.E. contrary to Attorney Grenisen's
wishes. Attorney Grenisen was allowed to
continue to represent L.E. for purposes of
appeal only because the deadline for filing
an appellate brief was imminent.
¶12 On February 17, 2011, the circuit
court granted the motion of L.E.'s guardian
ad litem for an ex parte temporary
restraining order prohibiting Attorney
Grenisen from having any contact whatsoever
with L.E. until further order of the court.
¶13 During an April 1, 2011 hearing,
Judge Levine stated on the record, in
describing Attorney Grenisen's conduct
during the hearing, "The level of disrespect
is ridiculous. I give you every opportunity
and you continue on."
¶14 In an April 21, 2011 letter to the
OLR, Attorney Grenisen said, "I am
experienced in claims and insurance law, but
not guardianship and protective placement."
The letter also indicated that Attorney
Grenisen was representing L.E. pro bono.
¶15 L.E. held title to a 1999 Buick
Century automobile. In a May 7, 2012 letter
to the OLR, Attorney Grenisen said there was
no evidence that the automobile was owned by
L.E. even though her name was on the title.
¶16 On June 14, 2011, the court of
appeals summarily affirmed the circuit
court's order which had been appealed by
Attorney Grenisen. The court of appeals
said Attorney Grenisen's brief lacked both
legal and factual development.
¶17 On July 8, 2011, Judge Levine found
frivolous the motions filed by Attorney
Grenisen to have the guardian and guardian
ad litem for L.E. removed and ordered
reasonable attorney's fees and expenses of
$140 assessed against Attorney Grenisen.
¶18 On July 8, 2011, Attorney Grenisen
filed a motion in the court of appeals to
reconsider that court's summary affirmance
of the circuit court's ruling. The motion
was deemed untimely and was denied on that
basis on July 13, 2011.
¶19 On July 26, 2011, Attorney Grenisen
filed another motion for reconsideration in
the court of appeals. By order dated August
2, 2011, the court of appeals ordered that
Attorney Grenisen's motion and any future
correspondence relating to the closed appeal
be placed in the court's correspondence file
without action.
¶20 In a September 23, 2011 letter to
the OLR, Attorney Grenisen said, "I had no
knowledge of the guardianship and protective
placement laws. . . . I have no courtroom
experience."
¶21 In a letter dated October 5, 2011,
to Wisconsin Assisted Living's regional
director, Susan Murphy, Attorney Grenisen
admitted that staff at the adult family home
where L.E. was residing called 911 on April
16, 2011, in response to Attorney Grenisen
coming upon the premises. Police who
responded to the call informed Attorney
Grenisen he would be trespassing if he
returned to L.E.'s residence.
¶22 In a letter dated March 8, 2012, to
the La Crosse County clerk, Attorney
Grenisen claimed that counsel representing
La Crosse County had an obligation to cure
Attorney Grenisen's misfiling in the wrong
office of a claim against La Crosse County.
Attorney Grenisen asked that the letter
itself be treated as a claim against the
county.
¶23 On March 9, 2012, Attorney Grenisen
filed a Notice of Injury or Property Damage
with the La Crosse County clerk for bodily
injury damages in the amount of $50,000 on
behalf of L.E. for what he termed
L.E.'s "false imprisonment."
¶24 On May 30, 2012, Attorney Grenisen
filed a third motion for reconsideration in
the court of appeals. By order dated June
5, 2012, the court of appeals ordered that
the motion be placed in the court's
correspondence file without response.
|
|
¶25 The OLR's complaint alleged:
[COUNT ONE] By failing to
provide competent representation to his
client by failing to possess and apply the
legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and
preparation reasonably necessary for the
representation of his client, [Attorney]
Grenisen violated SCR 20:1.1.
¶26 During the September 23, 2010 court
hearing, Attorney Grenisen told the court he
was representing L.E. pro bono. However, he
prepared and sent a written statement of
services for work done for L.E., dated
August 10, 2010, in the amount of $4,230,
calculated at the rate of $100 per hour,
showing itemized charges by day, covering a
period from November 24, 2009, to May of
2010. Attorney Grenisen failed to enter
into a written fee agreement with L.E. or
her representative, as required by the
supreme court rules.
|
|
¶27 The OLR's complaint alleged:
[COUNT TWO] By failing to
enter
into a written fee agreement with client
L.E. (or L.E.'s representative) who was not
regularly represented by [Attorney]
Grenisen, in a matter where the fee was
reasonably foreseen to exceed $1,000,
[Attorney] Grenisen violated SCR 20:1.5(b)
(1) and (2).
¶28 The 1999 Buick Century automobile
titled and insured in L.E.'s name was
damaged in an accident on June 1, 2010. The
damage resulted in insurance proceeds of
$3,440. At the time of the accident and
generation of the insurance proceeds, L.E.
had been adjudged incompetent and a guardian
of her person and estate and a guardian ad
litem had been appointed for her.
¶29 During a February 3, 2011 circuit
court hearing, an insurance adjuster
testified under oath that he had told
Attorney Grenisen that since L.E. was the
named insured and the person with title to
the vehicle, payment had to be made to her.
Attorney Grenisen directed the insurance
adjuster to send the insurance proceeds
check to Attorney Grenisen's address.
Attorney Grenisen did not inform the court,
the guardian, or the guardian ad litem that
he had possession of the insurance proceeds.
¶30 Despite the existing guardianship,
Attorney Grenisen had L.E. personally
endorse and sign over the insurance proceeds
check in the amount of $3,440 without
obtaining permission of the court, the
guardian, or the guardian ad litem. In a
September 23, 2011 letter to the OLR,
Attorney Grenisen admitted, "I endorsed the
check after [L.E.] signed." Attorney
Grenisen deposited the check into his own
personal checking account.
¶31 At the February 3, 2011 circuit
court hearing, Attorney Grenisen testified
under oath that he had spent all of the
insurance proceeds on his own personal
expenses. In an April 21, 2011 letter to
the OLR, Attorney Grenisen claimed the
insurance proceeds were a nontaxable gift to
him. In a letter dated May 17, 2011, to the
State Public Defender's office, several
months after he had deposited and spent the
insurance proceeds, Attorney Grenisen said
he had represented L.E. pro bono for the
last year and a half.
¶32 In a September 23, 2011 letter to
the OLR, Attorney Grenisen said he did not
inform the guardian or guardian ad litem
about the insurance proceeds because "it was
not their concern." In the same letter he
again said the insurance proceeds "[were] a
gift for pro bono legal work for [L.E.]."
¶33 Attorney Grenisen told L.E.'s
guardian ad litem that the insurance
settlement proceeds were properly paid to
the heirs of a third party, who Attorney
Grenisen was also representing. On or about
February 2, 2011, Attorney Grenisen drafted
and had his incompetent client, L.E., sign
an affidavit disavowing any legal interest
in the Buick but instead saying the car
belonged to Bob Ritter, who Attorney
Grenisen was also representing. Attorney
Grenisen had L.E. sign the affidavit without
the permission or knowledge of the court,
guardian, or guardian ad litem. On February
2, 2011, Attorney Grenisen prepared and had
the heir of Bob Ritter sign an affidavit in
opposition to a motion to return funds to
L.E.'s estate.
|
|
¶34 The OLR's complaint alleged:
[COUNT THREE] By having his
incompetent client sign over the client's
$3,440 insurance proceeds and depositing
same in his personal account purportedly for
the benefit of third party Ritter; failing
to inform the court, guardian or guardian ad
litem of [Attorney] Grenisen's possession of
said funds; and having L.E. sign an
affidavit disowning legal interest in her
own car, all without the knowledge or
permission of the court, guardian or
guardian ad litem, [Attorney] Grenisen
engaged in conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in
violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).
|
|
[COUNT FOUR] By instructing his
incompetent client L.E. to sign over
insurance proceeds arising from an accident
involving the incompetent client's car, in
favor of third party Ritter, who [Attorney]
Grenisen was also representing; by
depositing said insurance proceeds in
[Attorney] Grenisen's own personal account
and having his incompetent client sign an
affidavit disowning any interest in her own
car, in favor of third party Ritter, who
[Attorney] Grenisen was also representing,
[Attorney] Grenisen was simultaneously
representing two different parties with a
concurrent conflict of interest such that
the interest of L.E. was directly adverse to
Ritter (or his heirs), in violation of SCR
20:1.7(a).
¶35 On February 3, 2011, Judge Levine,
following an evidentiary hearing, in open
court and with Attorney Grenisen present,
ordered Attorney Grenisen to refund and
return to L.E.'s estate the $3,440 insurance
proceeds within ten days. Judge Levine
ordered that in the event Attorney Grenisen
failed to return the money within that time,
he would be subject to contempt. A copy of
Judge Levine's written order was mailed to
Attorney Grenisen on or about February 8,
2011.
¶36 On April 1, 2011, Judge Levine held
a hearing on the issue of Attorney
Grenisen's ordered repayment and contempt.
Attorney Grenisen personally appeared at the
hearing. Judge Levine found Attorney
Grenisen in contempt of court for
intentionally failing to comply with the
court's order to repay the money. Judge
Levine awarded sanctions of $100 per day as
a forfeiture against Attorney Grenisen for
every day past April 11, 2011, that the
$3,440 was not returned to L.E.'s estate.
¶37 Attorney Grenisen obtained a bank
money order in the amount of $3,400 payable
to the clerk of court of La Crosse County on
April 11, 2011. This amount was $40 short
of the amount Attorney Grenisen had
deposited into his personal account.
¶38 On July 1, 2011, Attorney Grenisen
appealed Judge Levine's contempt finding to
the court of appeals. By order dated March
15, 2012, the court of appeals affirmed the
contempt finding and found Attorney
Grenisen's appeal frivolous and remanded the
matter to the trial court for assessment of
costs against Attorney Grenisen. Attorney
Grenisen filed a motion for reconsideration
with the court of appeals. The motion was
denied on June 6, 2012.
¶39 On June 22, 2011, Attorney Grenisen
filed a small claims lawsuit in La Crosse
County in his own name against the guardian
for L.E. in the amount of $3,440. On the
return date of July 15, 2011, the small
claims suit was voluntarily dismissed.
|
|
¶40 The OLR's complaint alleged:
[COUNT FIVE] By failing to
comply
with the trial court's order to return the
$3,440 to the estate of L.E. within 10 days,
resulting in a finding of contempt of court
against [Attorney] Grenisen, and by
continuing to attempt to represent L.E. at
the trial court level after the court had
ordered him removed from the case at the
trial level, [Attorney] Grenisen knowingly
disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a
tribunal, in violation of SCR 20:3.4(c).
¶41 Attorney Grenisen filed an answer to
the OLR's complaint on January 31, 2013.
Allan Beatty was appointed referee in the
matter. An evidentiary hearing was held
before the referee on June 13, 2013. On
August 5, 2013, the referee filed his report
and recommendation. The referee concluded
the OLR had met its burden of proving all
counts of misconduct alleged in the
complaint. The referee recommended that
Attorney Grenisen's license to practice law
be suspended for 90 days and that, as a
condition of reinstatement, he undergo a
psychological evaluation and that he agree
that he will not represent L.E. in any
manner or form in the future. The referee
explained:
Concerning the specific five
violations, . . . [Attorney Grenisen]
acknowledged that he was unprepared to
represent someone in a protective placement
and guardianship. His failure to provide
competent representation is more aggravated
because over a period of several years he
has persisted in his representation of the
ward, has reiterated his lack of knowledge
about guardianship and protective placement,
has not shown an effort to gain the
requisite knowledge, has not completed his
tasks in a timely manner, and has questioned
the competence of the other lawyers
involved. Despite his ignorance he persists
in the position that if the judge or another
lawyer does not agree with him, they are
wrong.
Even in his sanctions brief in
this
case, [Attorney Grenisen] deviated from the
issues at hand to criticize the guardian ad
litem and to label Judge Levine's contempt
finding "egregious" and the judge's
remarks "slanderous." . . .
Dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and
misrepresentation, as alleged in Count Four,
are harsh words. Yet they apply to
[Attorney Grenisen's] actions in his
representation of L.E. [Attorney Grenisen]
misrepresented to the insurance
adjuster . . . that the insurance payout
should go to [Attorney Grenisen's] address,
rather than the guardian. He misrepresented
to the insurance adjuster that the proceeds
of the insurance would go to L.E. He had
L.E. endorse a check she was not competent
to endorse and failed to disclose receipt of
the check to the ward's guardian. He
prepared and had the ward sign an affidavit
she was not competent to sign. [Attorney
Grenisen] has misrepresented to Judge
Levine, the various lawyers investigating
the alleged violations, and this referee
that the $3,440 was a gift.
. . .
What is most egregious about
[Attorney Grenisen's] conduct and
perspective is his complete lack of respect
for the authority of the circuit court
judge. To [Attorney Grenisen] any decision
contrary to [his] position is so flawed that
it does not require compliance. Any lawyer
who walks into a courtroom needs to know who
has the last word. If a lawyer is not
willing to abide by the judge's decision,
their careers are going to be marked by [a
lot] of frustration and conflict, and their
clients are not going to be well served.
. . .
Attorney Grenisen has not
expressed
any comprehension of this concept. His
decisions are final. Any attorney in
disagreement is at least mistaken, if not
incompetent. It is as if [Attorney
Grenisen] is on his own Don Quixote-esque
mission and reality has no role. His
chivalrous quest in behalf of L.E. continues
regardless.
¶42 The referee also recommended that,
prior to Attorney Grenisen's reinstatement,
he submit to a psychological evaluation. In
addition, the referee recommended that
Attorney Grenisen must agree not to provide
any future legal representation to L.E.
¶43 No timely appeal has been filed from
the referee's report and recommendation.
|
|
¶44 This court will adopt a referee's
findings of fact unless they are clearly
erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed
de novo. See In re Disciplinary
Proceedings
Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269
Wis.
2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747. The court may impose
whatever sanction it sees fit regardless of
the referee's recommendation. See In
re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule,
2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d
686.
¶45 The referee's findings of fact in
this case have not been shown to be clearly
erroneous, and we adopt them. We also agree
with the referee's conclusions of law. We
further agree with the referee's
recommendation for a 90-day suspension of
Attorney Grenisen's license to practice law
in Wisconsin. Although Attorney Grenisen
has not previously been disciplined for
professional misconduct, his actions in this
case were inappropriate and unprofessional.
His refusal to comply with the circuit
court's orders not to have further contact
with L.E. is troubling, and as a result, we
concur with the referee's recommendation
that, as a condition of Attorney Grenisen's
reinstatement, he undergo a psychological
evaluation to determine whether he is
capable of discharging the duties of an
attorney licensed to practice law in this
state. We further agree with the referee
that Attorney Grenisen may not provide any
future legal representation to L.E.
¶46 IT IS ORDERED that the license of
James P. Grenisen to practice law in
Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 90
days, effective January 17, 2014.
¶47 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60
days of the date of this order, James P.
Grenisen shall pay to the Office of Lawyer
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.
¶48 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the
reinstatement of James P. Grenisen's license
to practice law shall be conditioned upon
his obtaining a satisfactory psychological
evaluation in which the evaluator states, to
a reasonable degree of professional
certainty, that James P. Grenisen is capable
of discharging the duties of a person
licensed to practice law in this state.
¶49 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that James P.
Grenisen shall not provide any future legal
representation to L.E.
¶50 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that James P.
Grenisen shall comply with the provisions of
SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin
has been suspended.
¶51 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that
compliance with all conditions of this order
is required for reinstatement. See SCR 22.28
(2).
|