Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Harvey N. Jones

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2016AP001204-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2016-10-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
2016 WI 86 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2016AP1204-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Harvey N. Jones, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Harvey N. Jones, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST JONES 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 18, 2016 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
 
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2016 WI 86
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2016AP1204-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Harvey N. Jones, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Harvey N. Jones, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 18, 2016 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
and Attorney Harvey N. Jones have filed a stipulation pursuant 
to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12 that Attorney Jones' license 
to practice law in this state should be revoked, as discipline 
reciprocal to that imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court.  
After careful review of the matter, we approve the stipulation 
and impose the stipulated reciprocal discipline.  The OLR does 
not seek the imposition of costs, and we do not impose costs. 
No. 
2016AP1204-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Attorney Jones was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in August 1984.  He was admitted to practice law in 
Minnesota in 1974.   
¶3 
Attorney 
Jones' 
Wisconsin 
disciplinary 
history 
consists of an administrative suspension on October 31, 2011 for 
failure to pay State Bar dues, failure to comply with the OLR 
trust 
account 
certification, 
and 
failure 
to 
comply 
with 
continuing legal education requirements.  His Wisconsin law 
license remains suspended.  
¶4 
On 
July 
31, 
2013, 
the 
Minnesota 
Supreme 
Court 
disbarred Attorney Jones based on the following violations: 
• Count One: Jones' misappropriation of client and 
non-client funds of at least $51,142.03 on at least 20 
occasions over a period of 20 months was in violation 
of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15(a), (c)(3) and (c)(4) 
and 8.4(c). 
• Count Two: Jones' repeated failure to respond to 
requests 
for 
meetings 
and 
documentation 
by 
the 
Director during the investigation and failure to file 
a timely answer to the charges of unprofessional 
conduct was in violation of Rule 25, RLPR and Minn. R. 
Prof. Conduct 8.1(b). 
• Count Three: Jones' failure to maintain subsidiary 
client ledgers and monthly trial balances and failure 
to perform monthly trust account reconciliations was 
in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15 and 
Appendix 1 and Rule 9(a)(1), RLPR.  
¶5 
Attorney Jones did not notify the OLR of the Minnesota 
disbarment within 20 days of its effective date.   
¶6 
On June 15, 2016, the OLR filed a two count complaint.  
Count one alleged that by virtue of his Minnesota disbarment, 
Attorney Jones should be subject to reciprocal discipline in 
No. 
2016AP1204-D   
 
3 
 
Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 22.22.  Count two alleged by failing 
to notify the OLR of his disbarment in Minnesota within 20 days 
of the effective date of the imposition of such discipline, 
Attorney Jones violated SCR 22.22(1).  
¶7 
On August 18, 2016, after the OLR's complaint had been 
served on Attorney Jones but before a referee had been 
appointed, Attorney Jones entered into a stipulation with the 
OLR whereby he agreed that the facts alleged in the OLR's 
complaint supported a revocation of his license to practice law 
in Wisconsin as reciprocal discipline to that imposed by the 
Minnesota Supreme Court.   
¶8 
Under SCR 22.22(3), this court shall impose the 
identical discipline imposed in another jurisdiction unless one 
or more of three exceptions apply.  In his stipulation, Attorney 
Jones states that he does not claim that any exception applies 
to his case, and he agrees that this court should revoke his 
license to practice to law in Wisconsin. 
¶9 
In the stipulation, Attorney Jones further avers 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, and that the facts 
alleged in the complaint form a basis for the discipline 
requested.  Attorney Jones further represents 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; that his 
No. 
2016AP1204-D   
 
4 
 
entry into the stipulation is made knowingly and voluntarily; 
and that 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. 
¶10 After review of this matter, we accept the stipulation 
and impose the identical discipline imposed by the Minnesota 
Supreme Court, namely the revocation of Attorney Jones' license 
to practice law in Wisconsin.  Because this matter has been 
resolved by means of a stipulation without the appointment of a 
referee and the OLR has not requested the imposition of costs, 
we do not impose any costs on Attorney Jones. 
¶11 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Harvey N. Jones to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this 
order. 
¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Harvey N. Jones shall comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked. 
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this ordered is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(3).  
 
 
No. 
2016AP1204-D   
 
 
 
1