Case Title: John M. Baker v.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1997AP001154-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 1997-10-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
97-1154-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against 
John M. Baker, 
Attorney at Law. 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BAKER 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
October 1, 1997 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 97-1154-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against JOHN M. BAKER, Attorney at Law. 
FILED 
 
OCT 1, 1997 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
1 
 
 
 
Attorney 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney’s 
license 
suspended.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that the license of John M. Baker to practice law in 
Wisconsin be suspended for six months as discipline for 
professional misconduct. 
That 
misconduct consisted of his 
failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing several clients, knowingly disobeying the orders of 
a court, failing to surrender papers and property belonging to a 
client when his representation of that client was terminated, 
and failing to cooperate and respond in the investigation of the 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board) into his 
conduct. In addition to that license suspension, the referee 
recommended that conditions be imposed on Attorney Baker’s 
resumption of practice following the period of suspension.  
No. 97-1154 
 
2 
¶2 
We determine that the recommended license suspension 
is appropriate discipline for Attorney Baker’s professional 
misconduct 
established 
in 
this 
proceeding. 
Moreover, 
the 
conditions to which the parties stipulated and which the referee 
has 
recommended 
are 
appropriate 
for 
imposition 
following 
reinstatement of Attorney Baker’s license, as they address a 
possible medical condition that might have interfered and may 
continue to interfere with the proper performance of his 
professional responsibilities.  
¶3 
Attorney Baker was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1983 and practices in Milwaukee. He currently 
resides in Skokie, Illinois. In September, 1992, he consented to 
a private reprimand from the Board for failing to take action on 
a client’s wage claim matter, which resulted in the running of 
the statute of limitations on it, and failing to return any of 
the client’s numerous telephone messages over a period of three 
years. The referee in this proceeding, Attorney Stanley F. Hack, 
made findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with the 
parties’ stipulation.  
¶4 
In March, 1996, the Court of Appeals ordered Attorney 
Baker to withdraw a no merit report he had filed on behalf of a 
client in a criminal appeal and to seek resentencing of the 
client by filing a postconviction motion within 20 days and to 
inform the court that he had done so. When the Court of Appeals 
learned that he had not complied with that order without 
reasonable justification, it found his conduct egregious, fined 
him $500, and dismissed him from handling the client’s appeal. 
No. 97-1154 
 
3 
Thereafter, Attorney Baker did not turn over the client’s papers 
and file to successor counsel, despite a request to do so. The 
Court of Appeals found that noncooperation to constitute a 
violation of SCR 20:1.16(d)1 and found Attorney Baker in contempt 
for failing to pay or to make arrangements to pay the $500 
penalty previously ordered. The court also barred him from 
practice before it until the penalty were paid.  
¶5 
The referee concluded that Attorney Baker’s failure to 
withdraw the no merit report and file a postconviction motion, 
as ordered by the Court of Appeals, constituted a failure to act 
with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a 
client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3,2 and his failure to promptly 
withdraw the no merit report and file a postconviction motion 
and his failure to pay or make arrangements to pay or notify the 
court of his alleged inability to pay the monetary penalty 
levied against him constituted knowing disobedience of the rules 
                     
1 SCR 20:1.16 provides, in pertinent part: Declining or 
terminating representation 
 . . .  
(d) Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take 
steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s 
interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, 
allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering 
papers and property to which the client is entitled and 
refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been earned. 
The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the 
extent permitted by other law.   
2 SCR 20:1.3 provides: Diligence 
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client.  
No. 97-1154 
 
4 
of that court, in violation of SCR 20:3.4(c).3 His failure to 
turn over the client’s papers and file to successor counsel when 
his representation of that client was terminated violated SCR 
20:1.16(d).  
¶6 
In the fall of 1996, while representing a client in a 
criminal matter, Attorney Baker did not return to court as 
ordered and failed to appear at a pretrial conference. When he 
did not appear at the rescheduled pretrial, the court removed 
him as the client’s attorney. At about the same time, Attorney 
Baker failed to appear at another client’s preliminary hearing 
until five hours after it was scheduled to be held. He had to be 
telephoned by court staff before making two other appearances in 
that client’s matter, and he did not appear at all for a 
scheduled court appearance when court staff was unsuccessful in 
its attempt to contact him. The referee concluded that this 
failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing these clients violated SCR 20:1.3.  
¶7 
In March, 1996, after filing a personal injury action 
on behalf of a client, Attorney Baker did not respond timely to 
the defendants’ written interrogatories, did not appear at the 
                     
3 SCR 20:3.4 provides, in pertinent part: Fairness to 
opposing party and counsel 
A lawyer shall not: 
 . . .  
(c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a 
tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that 
no valid obligation exists;  
No. 97-1154 
 
5 
hearing on their motion to compel discovery, resulting in $100 
in costs being assessed against his client, and failed to file a 
witness list, list of special damages and a permanency report 
within the deadline established by the court’s scheduling order. 
The $100 check he sent to the defendants was returned for 
insufficient funds.  
¶8 
After failing to appear or have his client appear for 
a scheduled deposition in February, 1997, Attorney Baker told 
the court that he was experiencing some personal mental health 
problems, and the court adjourned the matter to allow him time 
to resolve them. Thereafter, Attorney Baker did not appear at a 
scheduled motion hearing in the matter or at the rescheduled 
hearing. The referee concluded that Attorney Baker failed to act 
with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing that 
client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.  
¶9 
When the Board contacted him concerning his conduct in 
the appellate matter, Attorney Baker did not reply to four 
letters from the Board and did not contact the investigator to 
whom the matter was referred. He did not respond to the Board’s 
notice to attend an investigative interview until he learned 
that the investigator intended to subpoena all of the attorneys 
who worked in the office suite where he practiced. Although he 
met with the investigator, Attorney Baker did not thereafter 
furnish the necessary information for medical authorizations and 
releases, as the Board had requested. The referee concluded that 
No. 97-1154 
 
6 
this failure to cooperate in the Board’s investigation violated 
SCR 21.03(4)4 and 22.07(2) and (3).5  
¶10 As 
discipline 
for 
that 
misconduct, 
the 
referee 
recommended a six-month license suspension, to which the parties 
had stipulated. In addition, the referee recommended that the 
following conditions be imposed upon reinstatement of Attorney 
Baker’s license: (1) a psychiatric evaluation to determine the 
existence of a mental illness or disorder and any causal 
                     
4 SCR 21.03 provides, in pertinent part: General principles.  
 . . .  
(4) Every attorney shall cooperate with the board and the 
administrator in the investigation, prosecution and disposition 
of grievances and complaints filed with or by the board or 
administrator.  
5 SCR 22.07 provides, in pertinent part: Investigation. 
 . . .  
(2) 
During 
the 
course 
of 
an 
investigation, 
the 
administrator or a committee may notify the respondent of the 
subject being investigated. The respondent shall fully and 
fairly disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct or medical incapacity within 20 days of being 
served by ordinary mail a request for response to a grievance. 
The administrator in his or her discretion may allow additional 
time 
to 
respond. 
Failure 
to 
provide 
information 
or 
misrepresentation 
in 
a 
disclosure 
is 
misconduct. 
The 
administrator or committee may make a further investigation 
before making a recommendation to the board.  
(3) 
The 
administrator 
or 
committee 
may 
compel 
the 
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents and present 
any information deemed relevant to the investigation. Failure of 
the respondent to answer questions, furnish documents or present 
relevant information is misconduct. The administrator or a 
committee may compel any other person to produce pertinent 
books, papers and documents under SCR 22.22.  
No. 97-1154 
 
7 
relationship 
between 
it 
and 
the 
professional 
misconduct 
established in this proceeding, (2) if diagnosed as having a 
causal psychiatric condition, verification of treatment and 
recovery prior to reinstatement, (3) for two years following 
reinstatement, supervision of his practice by an attorney 
approved by the Board.  
¶11 We 
adopt 
the 
referee’s 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and determine that the recommended license 
suspension is appropriate discipline to impose for Attorney 
Baker’s misconduct. In addition, we impose the conditions 
recommended by the referee in respect to reinstatement of his 
license following the period of suspension.  
¶12 IT IS ORDERED that the license of John M. Baker to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six 
months, commencing November 3, 1997.  
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, following the period of 
suspension, reinstatement of his license shall be conditioned as 
set forth herein.  
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order John M. Baker pay to the Board of Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility 
the costs 
of this 
proceeding, 
provided that if the costs are not paid within the time 
specified and absent a showing to this court of his inability to 
pay the costs within that time, the license of John M. Baker to 
practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further 
order of the court.  
No. 97-1154 
 
8 
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that John M. Baker comply with 
the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person 
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.