|
ATTORNEY disciplinary
proceeding. Attorney publicly
reprimanded.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a
stipulation pursuant to Supreme Court Rule
(SCR) 22.12 between the Office of Lawyer
Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Leonard G.
Adent. In the stipulation, Attorney Adent
agrees with the OLR's position that his
misconduct warrants the imposition of a
public reprimand. Attorney Adent also
agrees with the OLR's position that various
conditions be imposed upon his continued
practice of law in Wisconsin.
¶2 After fully reviewing the
stipulation and the facts of this matter, we
accept the stipulation and impose the public
reprimand jointly requested by the parties.
We further find it appropriate to impose the
recommended conditions upon Attorney Adent's
practice of law. In light of the parties'
stipulation and the fact that no referee
needed to be appointed, we impose no costs
upon Attorney Adent.
|
|
¶3 Attorney Adent was admitted to
practice law in Wisconsin in 1967 and
practices in Pewaukee. Attorney Adent's
disciplinary history consists of a 2012
consensual public reprimand for a conviction
of second offense operating while
intoxicated (OWI) and for failure to provide
competent or diligent representation to a
client, failure to obey an obligation under
the rules of a tribunal, and failure to make
a reasonably diligent effort to comply with
a defendant's discovery request. In
addition, Attorney Adent failed to report
his OWI conviction to the OLR or to the
clerk of this court, and he failed to fully
answer the OLR's inquiries during the OLR's
investigation. Public Reprimand of
Leonard G. Adent, 2012-19.
|
|
¶4 On October 9, 2015, the OLR filed a
complaint alleging five counts of
professional misconduct against Attorney
Adent. On October 26, 2015, Attorney Adent
entered into a stipulation whereby he agrees
that the factual allegations contained in
the OLR's complaint are accurate and that he
committed the professional misconduct
charged in the complaint. The stipulation
states that Attorney Adent fully understands
the nature of the misconduct allegations
against him, his right to contest those
allegations, and the ramifications that
would follow from this court's imposition of
the stipulated level of discipline. The
stipulation indicates that Attorney Adent
understands his right to counsel. He
verifies that he is entering into the
stipulation knowingly and voluntarily and
that his entry into the stipulation
represents his decision not to contest this
matter.
¶5 The OLR's complaint alleged that,
since at least 2009, Attorney Adent
maintained the "Leonard G. Adent Attorney at
Law IOLTA Trust Account" at the Waukesha
State Bank. Attorney Adent used the trust
account for, among other things, holding
funds of clients and/or third parties.
Until late March 2014, Attorney Adent had
neither a business bank account nor a
personal bank account. He retained earned
fees in his trust account and used the trust
account to pay personal expenses. In July
2013, the Waukesha State Bank advised
Attorney Adent that it could no longer cash
personal checks made payable to Attorney
Adent and that he must open a personal
account. Attorney Adent opened a new
account in March 2014. The account was
identified as "Mr. Leonard G. Adent" without
reference to "Attorney," "Law
Office," "Business Account," "Office
Account," "Operating Account," or similar
words. Attorney Adent informed the OLR that
the account was a personal account and not a
business account.
¶6 The OLR's complaint also alleged
that on November 14, 2013, Attorney Adent
made a cash deposit of $260 into the trust
account and failed to record any information
identifying the client or matter on the
deposit slip, and he informed the OLR that
he was unsure as to which client the deposit
related. Attorney Adent held a $2,735 fee
in his trust account and never withdrew it.
On January 9, 2014, Attorney Adent deposited
a $1,500 loan from T.D., a client who
Attorney Adent was representing in a
foreclosure action, into his trust account.
Attorney Adent failed to record any
information identifying the client or matter
on the deposit slip. The terms of the loan
transaction were not transmitted in writing
to T.D., nor did Attorney Adent advise T.D.
in writing of the desirability of seeking
independent legal counsel. T.D. did not
give his informed written consent to the
essential terms of the loan transaction. On
or about April 26, 2014, after the OLR had
inquired about the matter, and well over
three months following the loan, T.D. signed
a written statement and promissory note with
Attorney Adent. The note was backdated to
January 8, 2014.
¶7 On February 10, 2011, Attorney Adent
was convicted of an OWI (second) conviction
in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin. On April
17, 2014, a Door County Sheriff's Department
deputy observed a vehicle operated by
Attorney Adent cross the center line and
initiated a traffic stop of the vehicle.
Attorney Adent was placed under arrest for
operating a motor vehicle while under the
influence of an intoxicant (third offense).
Attorney Adent reported his arrest to the
OLR on July 8, 2014. On November 25, 2014,
pursuant to a guilty plea, Attorney Adent
was convicted of misdemeanor OWI (third),
sentenced to 150 days in jail with Huber
privileges, and fined, and his driver
license was revoked for 33 months.
¶8 The OLR's complaint alleged that
Attorney Adent engaged in the following
counts of misconduct:
|
|
[Count One] By receiving trust funds
but failing to maintain a business account,
Adent violated SCR 20:1.15(e)(8).
|
|
[Count Two] By commingling his
personal funds with client funds held in his
Trust Account, for purposes other than
paying monthly bank account service charges,
Adent violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(3).
|
|
[Count Three] By accepting a $1,500
loan from a client in January 2014, without
any required written disclosures or the
client's informed consent and no
documentation of the transaction other than
a back-dated promissory note, Adent violated
SCR 20:1.8(a).
|
|
[Count Four] By failing to maintain a
transaction register, individual client
ledgers, a ledger for account fees and
charges, by disbursing checks from his trust
account without identifying the client
matter and the reason for the disbursement
on the memo line or by using the memo line
to attribute checks to a client matter when
actually disbursing his personal funds, by
failing to record the client or matter
associated with each deposit item on his
deposit slips, and by failing to perform
monthly reconciliations of his IOLTA
checking account, Adent violated SCR 20:1.15
(f)(1).
|
|
[Count Five] By engaging in conduct
leading to a criminal conviction of OWI
(3rd), Adent violated SCR 20:8.4(b).
|
|
¶9 In the stipulation, Attorney Adent
agrees that it would be appropriate for this
court to publicly reprimand him. He further
agrees that it would be appropriate for this
court to impose the following conditions
upon him:
• Within 60 days of the Court's final
order, Attorney Adent must provide to OLR
signed medical releases of confidentiality
for each treatment provider who has provided
or is providing alcohol-related or substance
abuse-related treatment, assessment or
services to Attorney Adent during the past
five years, so that OLR and each provider
can share pertinent information related to
Attorney Adent, such releases to remain in
effect for two years from the date Attorney
Adent signs the releases;
• Within 60 days of the Court's final
order, Attorney Adent must, at his own
expense, participate in an alcohol and other
drug abuse (AODA) and mental health
assessment by a person of OLR's choosing,
which shall make specific written
recommendations, if appropriate, for
Attorney Adent's treatment or maintenance.
The assessment must be provided to OLR;
• Attorney Adent must submit to
monitoring within 30 days of the date of the
assessment, as directed by OLR; and for a
period of two years beginning on the date of
his entry into a monitoring program must
comply with all monitoring requirements,
including all requirements determined to be
appropriate by the Wisconsin Lawyers'
Assistance Program (WisLAP) or OLR's
designated monitor;
• Attorney Adent must refrain from the
consumption of alcohol and any mood-altering
drugs without a valid prescription while
subject to monitoring;
• Within 90 days of the Court's final
order, Attorney Adent must establish a
business account. Attorney Adent must
provide OLR with a copy of the first bank
statement for the business account;
• For a period of one year following
his establishment of a business account,
Attorney Adent must provide OLR on a
quarterly basis with copies of the monthly
bank statements for the business
account;
• For a period of one year following
the Court's final order, Attorney Adent must
provide OLR on a quarterly basis with the
monthly bank statements, the transaction
register, all subsidiary ledgers, and the
monthly reconciliation reports relating to
the trust account[.]
|
|
¶10 Having considered this matter, we
approve the stipulation and adopt the
stipulated facts and legal conclusions of
professional misconduct. From our
independent review of the matter, we agree
that a public reprimand is an appropriate
sanction. We note that the OLR's memorandum
in support of the stipulation identifies a
number of aggravating and mitigating
factors. With respect to aggravating
factors, the OLR points out that Attorney
Adent has substantial experience in
practicing law, having been admitted in
1967. The OLR also notes that Attorney
Adent previously agreed to a consensual
public reprimand for lack of diligence and
for being convicted of OWI (second). In
addition, the OLR says that, during the
course of its investigation, Attorney Adent
represented in two letters to the OLR that
he had opened a business checking account
when in fact the account he opened was a
personal account.
|
|
¶11 With respect to mitigating factors,
the OLR noted that Attorney Adent had an
absence of dishonest or selfish motive and
that he suffered from personal or emotional
problems which he blamed for the issues with
his bank accounts. The OLR also noted that
Attorney Adent was the subject of penalties,
including jail time, driver license
revocation, and a fine, for the third
offense OWI. Finally, the OLR said that
Attorney Adent fully cooperated with the
investigation and expressed remorse for his
actions.
¶12 Although no two factual situations
are ever precisely the same, a public
reprimand is generally consistent with the
sanction this court has imposed in somewhat
similar cases, including In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against LeSieur,
2010 WI 117, 329 Wis. 2d 349, 789 N.W.2d 572
(attorney publicly reprimanded for
misconduct including a violation of SCR
20:8.4(b), which stemmed from an OWI (third)
conviction); Public Reprimand of Scott A.
Jackman, 2010-9 (attorney publicly
reprimanded for convictions of OWI (second)
and (third) and failure to report
convictions to the OLR). We further find it
appropriate to impose the recommended
conditions upon Attorney Adent. Because
Attorney Adent entered into a comprehensive
stipulation under SCR 22.12, thereby
obviating the need for the appointment of a
referee and a full disciplinary proceeding,
we do not impose any costs in this matter.
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that Leonard G. Adent
is publicly reprimanded.
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the
following conditions are hereby imposed upon
Leonard G. Adent:
• Within 60 days of the date of this
order, Attorney Adent shall provide the
Office of Lawyer Regulation with signed
medical releases of confidentiality for each
treatment provider who is providing or has
provided to Attorney Adent within the last
five years treatment, assessment, or
services related to alcohol or substance
abuse, such releases to remain in effect for
two years from the date of signature.
• Within 60 days of the date of this
order, Attorney Adent shall, at his own
expense, participate in an alcohol and other
drug abuse and mental health assessment by a
person of the Office of Lawyer Regulation's
choosing; the assessment shall make specific
written recommendations, if appropriate, for
Attorney Adent's treatment or maintenance
and shall be provided to the Office of
Lawyer Regulation.
• Within 30 days of the date of the
assessment specified above, Attorney Adent
shall submit to monitoring as directed by
the Office of Lawyer Regulation, and he
shall comply with all monitoring
requirements, including all requirements
deemed appropriate by the Wisconsin Lawyers'
Assistance Program or other monitor
designated by the Office of Lawyer
Regulation, for a period of two years from
his entry into a monitoring program.
• Attorney Adent shall refrain from
the consumption of alcohol and any mood-
altering drugs without a valid prescription
while subject to monitoring.
• Within 90 days of the date of this
order, Attorney Adent shall establish a
business account and shall provide the
Office of Lawyer Regulation with a copy of
the first bank statement for said
account.
• For a period of one year following
the establishment of the business account
specified above, Attorney Adent shall
provide to the Office of Lawyer Regulation,
on a quarterly basis, copies of the monthly
bank statements for said account.
• For a period of one year from the
date of this order, Attorney Adent shall
provide to the Office of Lawyer Regulation,
on a quarterly basis, copies of the monthly
bank statements, transaction register, all
subsidiary ledgers, and monthly
reconciliation reports related to his trust
account.
|
|
¶15 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON,
J. (dissenting). I would not accept
the stipulation. Although I agree with the
order for restitution, payment of costs, and
conditions, I conclude that a public
reprimand is an insufficient sanction.
¶16 Five counts of professional
misconduct were charged in the complaint and
admitted by Attorney Adent, including trust
account violations, criminal conviction of
operating while intoxicated (OWI) (third),
and a transaction with a client without
informed consent or written disclosures.
These are serious offenses and in and of
themselves require a more severe sanction
than a public reprimand.
¶17 The third OWI offense stands out.
Drunk driving is a major public safety issue
in Wisconsin and across the country. All
drivers are aware, or should be held to be
aware, of the dangers of drunk driving.
That drunk driving may be prosecuted as a
crime is also common knowledge.
¶18 A criminal conviction for OWI by a
Wisconsin licensed lawyer does not in and of
itself automatically constitute professional
misconduct. But the record demonstrates
that Attorney Adent has alcohol-related
problems. His three OWI offenses and his
numerous other violations of the Rules of
Professional Conduct for Attorneys reflect
on his honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness
as a lawyer.
¶19 Although Attorney Adent has been
sober for a number of months, his record is
not sufficient to warrant a public reprimand
rather than a suspension.
¶20 In addition, a public reprimand in
the instant case does not properly take into
account this court's commitment that
discipline be generally progressive in
nature. See In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Nussberger, 2006 WI
111, 296 Wis. 2d 47, 719 N.W.2d 501.
¶21 Attorney Adent has a disciplinary
history that supports the imposition of
progressive discipline. In 2012, Attorney
Adent consented to a public reprimand for a
number of violations, including conviction
of second offense OWI, failure to provide
competent or diligent representation, and
failure to obey an obligation under the
rules of the tribunal.
¶22 I recognize that several cases have
imposed a public reprimand for OWI
violations. On reflection, I think some of
these sanctions were not adequate and should
not be followed in the instant case.
¶23 For the reasons set forth, I
disagree that the imposition of a public
reprimand is an appropriate level of
discipline in the instant case. I would
impose a suspension for a minimum of 60 days.
¶24 I am authorized to state that
Justice ANN WALSH BRADLEY joins this opinion.
|