Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. John R. Dade

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2016AP002452-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2017-05-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
2017 WI 51 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2016AP2452-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against John R. Dade, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
John R. Dade, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DADE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 23, 2017 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:     
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2017 WI 51
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2016AP2452-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against John R. Dade, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
John R. Dade, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 23, 2017 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
and Attorney John R. Dade have filed a stipulation pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12 jointly recommending that 
Attorney Dade should be publicly reprimanded for professional 
No. 
2016AP2452-D   
 
2 
 
misconduct.1  Upon careful review of the matter, we approve the 
stipulation and publicly reprimand Attorney Dade.  We impose no 
costs.  
¶2 
Attorney Dade was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin on January 11, 1983.  Attorney Dade's professional 
discipline history consists of the following: 
a. In September of 1991, Attorney Dade received a 
private reprimand for failing to communicate, failing 
to act with reasonable diligence, and failing to 
cooperate with the investigation of the Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility, the predecessor 
to the OLR.  Private Reprimand No. 1991-24 (electronic 
copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/000049.html). 
b. In April of 2007, Attorney Dade received a public 
reprimand 
for 
failure 
to 
provide 
competent 
representation, lack of diligence, and failure to 
communicate.  Public Reprimand of John R. Dade, No. 
2007-7 
(electronic 
copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/001916.html).   
c. In June of 2007, Attorney Dade's license to 
practice law was suspended for 60 days for lack of 
diligence, failure to hold in trust the property of 
others in his client trust account, and failure to 
                                                 
1 The stipulation in this matter was filed with the court on 
February 14, 2017 and was promptly taken under advisement.  On 
April 19, 2017, more than two months later, the OLR filed a 
memorandum in support of the stipulation.  Supreme Court Rule 
22.12 does not provide a formal deadline for filing such a 
memorandum but this belated submission arrived well after the 
court had deliberated and decided the matter.  Nothing in the 
memorandum explains the reason for the excessive delay in 
providing the court with this information.  Timely receipt of 
the information would have facilitated this court's review but 
does not affect the court's decision to accept the stipulation. 
 
No. 
2016AP2452-D   
 
3 
 
cooperate in an OLR investigation.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Dade, 2007 WI 66, 301 Wis. 2d 67, 
732 N.W.2d 433.   
d. In January of 2012, Attorney Dade received a public 
reprimand 
for 
lack 
of 
diligence, 
failure 
to 
communicate, failure to cooperate with the OLR's 
investigation, and failure to return a client's 
documents.  Public Reprimand of John R. Dade, No. 
2012-1 
(electronic 
copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/002427.html). 
e. In February of 2013, Attorney Dade's license to 
practice law was suspended for 60 days for lack of 
diligence, lack of communication, and failure to obey 
a court order.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Dade, 2013 WI 21, 345 Wis. 2d 646, 827 N.W.2d 86.   
f. In August of 2014, Attorney Dade's license to 
practice law was suspended for 90 days, and he was 
ordered to complete six CLE credits in law office 
management as a condition of reinstatement of his 
license, 
for 
lack 
of 
diligence 
and 
failure 
to 
cooperate with the OLR's investigation.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Dade, 2014 WI 108, __ 
Wis. 2d __, 852 N.W.2d 489. 
¶3 
On December 15, 2016, the OLR filed a complaint 
against Attorney Dade alleging two counts of professional 
misconduct based on his representation of J.Q.  In November of 
2009, J.Q. paid Attorney Dade an advanced fee of $3,000 for 
"case evaluation/possible representation."  In January of 2010, 
J.Q. formally retained Attorney Dade to represent him on eight 
felony drug charges in Walworth County and in a pending 
probation revocation proceeding. 
¶4 
The complaint alleged and the parties stipulated that 
Attorney Dade did not communicate to J.Q. in writing the scope 
of his representation or the basis or rate of his fee or 
expenses for which J.Q. would be responsible.  Attorney Dade did 
No. 
2016AP2452-D   
 
4 
 
not communicate to J.Q. in writing the purpose and effect of the 
$3,000 advanced fee that J.Q. paid.  During the course of his 
representation of J.Q., Attorney Dade made several disbursements 
from his trust account for the purpose of paying attorney fees 
he billed to J.Q., without first transmitting the requisite 
notice to J.Q. that he was going to do so. 
¶5 
The OLR alleged and the parties later stipulated that, 
by failing to communicate to J.Q. in writing the scope of his 
representation or the basis or rate of his fee or expenses for 
which J.Q. would be responsible; and by failing to communicate 
to J.Q. in writing the purpose and effect of the $3,000 advanced 
fee that J.Q. paid, Attorney Dade violated SCRs 20:1.5(b)(1) and 
(2).2 
                                                 
2 SCRs 20:1.5(b)(l) and (2) provide:  
(1) The scope of the representation and the basis 
or rate of the fee and expenses for which the client 
will be responsible shall be communicated to the 
client in writing, before or within a reasonable time 
after commencing the representation, except when the 
lawyer will charge a regularly represented client on 
the same basis or rate as in the past. If it is 
reasonably 
foreseeable 
that 
the 
total 
cost 
of 
representation to the client, including attorney's 
fees, will be $1000 or less, the communication may be 
oral or in writing. Any changes in the basis or rate 
of the fee or expenses shall also be communicated in 
writing to the client.  
(2) If the total cost of representation to the 
client, including attorney's fees, is more than $1000, 
the purpose and effect of any retainer or advance fee 
that is paid to the lawyer shall be communicated in 
writing. 
No. 
2016AP2452-D   
 
5 
 
¶6 
The OLR alleged further and the parties thereafter 
stipulated that, by making several disbursements from his trust 
account for the purpose of paying his attorney fees without 
first transmitting the requisite notice to J.Q., Attorney Dade 
violated former SCR 20:1.15(g)(1).3  In its complaint, the OLR 
sought a public reprimand and costs.  The OLR did not seek 
restitution. 
¶7 
On February 14, 2017, Attorney Dade entered into a 
stipulation with the OLR in which he agreed that the facts 
alleged in the OLR's complaint establish the alleged misconduct 
and support the discipline sought by the OLR, namely a public 
                                                 
3 Effective July 1, 2016, substantial changes were made to 
Supreme Court Rule 20:1.15, the "trust account rule."  See S. 
Ct. Order 14-07, (issued Apr. 4, 2016, eff. July 1, 2016).  
Because the conduct underlying this case arose prior to July 1, 
2016, unless otherwise indicated, all references to the supreme 
court rules will be to those in effect prior to July 1, 2016. 
Former SCR 20:1.15(g)(1) provided:  At least 5 
business days before the date on which a disbursement 
is made from a trust account for the purpose of paying 
fees, with the exception of contingent fees or fees 
paid pursuant to court order, the lawyer shall 
transmit 
to 
the 
client 
in 
writing 
all 
of 
the 
following: 
a. an itemized bill or other accounting showing 
the services rendered; 
b. notice of the amount owed and the anticipated 
date of the withdrawal; and 
c. a statement of the balance of the client's 
funds 
in 
the 
lawyer 
trust 
account 
after 
the 
withdrawal. 
No. 
2016AP2452-D   
 
6 
 
reprimand.  The stipulation made no reference to restitution or 
costs. 
¶8 
In the stipulation, Attorney Dade states that the 
stipulation did not result from plea bargaining, that he does 
not contest the facts and misconduct alleged by the OLR or the 
discipline sought by the OLR director.  Attorney Dade further 
states that he agrees the facts alleged in the OLR's complaint 
may form a basis for the discipline requested by the OLR 
director.  He further avers that he fully understands the 
misconduct allegations; fully understands the ramifications 
should this court impose the stipulated level of discipline; 
fully understands his right to contest the matter; fully 
understands his right to consult with counsel and represents 
that he has in fact consulted with counsel; that his entry into 
the stipulation is made knowingly and voluntarily; and that he 
has read the OLR's complaint and the stipulation and that his 
entry into the stipulation represents his decision not to 
contest the misconduct alleged in the complaint or the level and 
type of discipline sought by the OLR director.  
¶9 
This 
is 
Attorney 
Dade's 
seventh 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Given Attorney Dade's lengthy disciplinary history 
we question whether yet another public reprimand is sufficient 
discipline for this latest incident of misconduct.  Generally, 
discipline is progressive in nature.  See, e.g., In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Nussberger, 2006 WI 111, 296 
Wis. 2d 47, 
719 
N.W.2d 501. 
 
Unfortunately, 
the 
parties' 
stipulation cites no case law in support of a public reprimand 
No. 
2016AP2452-D   
 
7 
 
and does not explain why progressive discipline is not warranted 
here.  Admittedly, there are times when progressive discipline 
is not appropriate given the nature of the subsequent violation 
or 
other 
extenuating 
circumstances. 
 
See, 
e.g., 
In 
re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Crandall, 2015 WI 111, 365 
Wis. 2d 682, 872 N.W.2d 649 (imposing public reprimand on lawyer 
with previous public reprimand and three previous disciplinary 
suspensions).  The stipulation makes no reference to any such 
extenuating circumstances.  However, at times we have imposed a 
public reprimand despite prior discipline.  See, e.g., In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kremkoski, 2006 WI 59, 291 
Wis. 2d 1, 715 N.W.2d 594 (imposing public reprimand despite 
prior 
private 
and 
public 
reprimand); 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Brandt, 2009 WI 43, 317 Wis. 2d 266, 766 
N.W.2d 194 (imposing public reprimand despite two private 
reprimands 
and 
a 
public 
reprimand); 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Hudec, 2014 WI 46, 354 Wis. 2d 728, 848 
N.W.2d 287 (imposing public reprimand despite three prior 
private reprimands and one public reprimand). 
¶10 On balance, we have decided to accept the parties' 
stipulation and we impose the stipulated discipline, namely a 
public reprimand. We are persuaded that this is appropriate as 
the misconduct in this case does not appear to warrant license 
suspension.  Because this matter was resolved without referee 
No. 
2016AP2452-D   
 
8 
 
involvement, we do not impose costs upon Attorney Dade.4  It 
appears restitution is not sought; neither the complaint nor the 
stipulation addresses restitution.  Accordingly, no restitution 
is ordered. 
¶11 IT 
IS 
ORDERED 
that 
John 
R. 
Dade 
is 
publicly 
reprimanded.
                                                 
4 Upon the OLR's filing of proof of service, Referee John B. 
Murphy was appointed.  Referee Murphy withdrew upon the filing 
of the parties' stipulation. 
No. 
2016AP2452-D   
 
 
 
1