Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Donald J. Harman

Citation: 2003 WI 45

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2003-05-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
2003 WI 45 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
99-2862-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Donald J. Harman, Attorney at Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility,  
 
Complainant-Respondent, 
 
v. 
Donald J. Harman,  
 
Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
REINSTATEMENT OF HARMAN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 22, 2003   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2003 WI 45 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  99-2862-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Donald J. Harman, Attorney at  
Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional  
Responsibility,  
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Donald J. Harman,  
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 22, 2003 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.  Reinstatement denied.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee 
that 
Donald 
J. 
Harman's 
petition 
seeking 
the 
reinstatement of his license to practice law in this state be 
denied. 
 
Donald 
Harman 
has 
not 
appealed 
from 
that 
recommendation.  After our review pursuant to SCR 22.33(3) we 
adopt the referee's findings and agree that Harman has not met 
his burden imposed by SCR 22.31 of demonstrating by clear, 
satisfactory, and convincing evidence that his resumption of the 
No. 
99-2862-D   
 
2 
 
practice of law would not be detrimental to the administration 
of justice or subversive to the public interest.  Accordingly, 
we deny Harman's petition for reinstatement.1  Furthermore, we 
direct that the costs of these reinstatement proceedings 
totaling $2243.35 be paid by Harman. 
¶2 
In an opinion filed June 26, 2001, this court 
suspended Donald J. Harman's license to practice law in this 
state for a period of six months effective August 1, 2001.  In 
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Harman, 2001 WI 71, 244 
Wis. 2d 438, 628 N.W.2d 351.  Harman's license was suspended 
based on the determination that he had committed eight separate 
counts of professional misconduct stemming from two separate 
courses of conduct.  Harman had mishandled a settlement check by 
wrongfully endorsing the check on behalf of the subrogor without 
any authorization, by failing to provide the subrogor with 
prompt written notice 
of 
his receipt 
of 
funds, and by 
unilaterally disbursing a reduced amount in purported settlement 
of the subrogor's claim without the subrogor having agreed to 
accept the reduced amount.  This court determined that this 
                                                 
1 Effective April 1, 2002, SCR 22.31 was restructured.  See 
2002 
WI 
8, 
249 
Wis. 2d 
xiii. 
 
Harman's 
petition 
for 
reinstatement was filed prior to the effective date of this 
restructuring; nevertheless, the newly reformatted SCR 22.31 
retains the requirement that a petitioner for reinstatement 
demonstrate that his or her resumption of the practice of law 
would not be detrimental to the administration of justice or 
subversive of the public interest.  Id.  The referee stated that 
her recommendation to deny Harman's petition for reinstatement 
would be the same under either version of SCR 22.31. 
No. 
99-2862-D   
 
3 
 
course of conduct constituted three separate violations of the 
rules of professional responsibility.  2001 WI 71, ¶17.  
¶3 
The second course of conduct leading to Harman's six-
month 
suspension 
involved 
his 
conflict 
of 
interest 
in 
representing two clients.  Harman represented both S.W. and her 
boyfriend and inappropriately used information obtained in the 
course of his representation of S.W. by improperly disseminating 
S.W.'s 
medical 
records 
to 
various 
sources 
without 
her 
authorization.  With respect to this conduct, this court 
determined that Harman had violated five rules of professional 
responsibility 
including 
rules pertaining to 
conflicts of 
interest and confidentiality.  2001 WI 71, ¶¶30, 35.  
¶4 
The six-month suspension of Harman's license ordered 
by this court was the fourth time he had been disciplined for 
professional misconduct.  One of his prior disciplinary cases, 
like the instant one, also involved a conflict of interest.  
[When Harman's license was suspended for six months, this court, 
as it had done in the past, ordered Harman to pay the Office of 
Lawyer 
Regulation 
(OLR) 
the 
costs 
of 
that 
disciplinary 
proceeding.]  This court's order specified that if those costs 
were not paid within 60 days, and absent a showing that Harman 
was unable to pay the costs within that time, his license to 
practice law in this state should remain suspended until further 
order of this court.  2001 WI 71, ¶38. 
¶5 
On November 20, 2001, Harman petitioned this court for 
reinstatement of his license to practice law.  Attorney Linda 
Balisle was appointed as referee to conduct a hearing on that 
No. 
99-2862-D   
 
4 
 
petition under the procedures set out in SCRs 20.30 and 22.31.  
After 
a 
public 
hearing, 
Referee 
Balisle 
filed 
a 
report 
recommending that Harman's petition for reinstatement be denied.   
¶6 
In her report, Referee Balisle made several findings 
of fact regarding Harman's inability to make payment of the 
previously 
imposed 
costs 
relating 
to 
this 
disciplinary 
proceeding and the prior proceedings.  The referee found that 
Harman had an obligation to repay over $17,000 in costs 
associated with his most recent disciplinary proceeding and a 
prior disciplinary matter; however, the referee found that the 
last payment Harman had made on that prior matter was on July 6, 
1999 and that he had paid nothing on the costs stemming from his 
most recent disciplinary proceeding that led to his six-month 
suspension.  The referee further determined that Harman's 
financial 
circumstances 
have 
made 
it 
difficult, 
if 
not 
impossible, for him to pay the costs associated with the 
disciplinary matters.  The referee detailed Harman's current 
financial situation reflecting his limited current income, 
unpaid obligations including tax liens and civil judgments, and 
other debts.  Based on those findings, the referee's first 
conclusion of law was: 
Given Harman's financial circumstances, his failure to 
continue 
to 
make 
payments 
toward 
his 
financial 
obligations incurred in this and a prior disciplinary 
matter 
should 
not 
be 
deemed 
a 
basis 
to 
deny 
reinstatement. 
(Emphasis added.) 
No. 
99-2862-D   
 
5 
 
¶7 
The referee further concluded, however, that Harman 
had not met his burden imposed by SCR 22.31 of demonstrating by 
clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that his resumption 
of the practice of law would not be detrimental to the 
administration of justice or subversive to the public interest.  
The referee determined that  
• Harman's petition and testimony at the hearing did not 
reveal a 
proper 
understanding of 
or 
appropriate 
attitude toward the standards imposed on members of 
the bar and that he would in the future act in 
conformity with those standards. 
• Harman's petition and testimony at the hearing did not 
reflect that he could safely be recommended to the 
legal profession, the courts and the public as a 
person fit to be consulted by others and to represent 
them or otherwise act in matters of trust and 
confidence and in general to aid the administration of 
justice as a member of the bar of this state.2 
• Since his suspension Harman had made only minimal 
efforts to educate himself on the ethical rules 
applicable to the practice of law, and that failure 
                                                 
2 The referee was particularly concerned that it was likely 
that Harman would not act in conformity with the ethical 
standards in the future given his inability to appreciate the 
scope and gravity of the attorney/client relationship and the 
need for attorney/client confidentiality as demonstrated by his 
actions in this case and by his testimony at the public hearing 
on his reinstatement petition.  
No. 
99-2862-D   
 
6 
 
reinforced the conclusion that he does not have a 
proper understanding or attitude toward the standards 
imposed on members of the bar. 
• Harman's continued tendency to blame some of his 
misconduct on others supports the conclusion that he 
does not properly understand the standards imposed on 
members of the bar, that he would be unlikely to act 
in conformity with the ethical standards in the 
future, and that he could not be trusted to conform 
with those standards in representing future clients.  
¶8 
As noted, Harman has not appealed from the referee's 
report, findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendation 
that his petition for reinstatement be denied.  He has, however, 
filed an objection to the statement of costs subsequently filed 
by OLR with respect to this reinstatement proceeding.  Harman 
maintains that the imposition of such costs would constitute an 
undue burden on him.  He notes that the referee determined that 
he is unable to pay costs now or in the foreseeable future given 
his lack of funds.3 
                                                 
3 Harman initially objected on two bases to the OLR's 
statement of costs: First, he complained that the OLR had not 
provided sufficient detail as to allow him to determine the 
reasonableness of the requested costs.  OLR in its response to 
Harman's objection has now provided a detailed itemization of 
the costs including a breakdown of hourly counsel fees, 
referee's fees, court reporter's fees, and the costs of the 
newspaper notice of the hearing.  Harman's objection on that 
basis is no longer valid.  His second objection is discussed 
above in this opinion. 
No. 
99-2862-D   
 
7 
 
¶9 
Harman's objection to the imposition of costs focuses 
on his claim that he should not now be assessed costs in these 
reinstatement proceedings because the referee concluded that he 
is unable to pay the already incurred costs now or in the 
future.  As OLR correctly points out, however, the referee's 
report in this case is silent with respect to the issue of 
imposition 
of 
costs 
for 
these 
reinstatement 
proceedings.  
Instead, the referee simply noted that given Harman's current 
financial 
circumstances, 
the 
denial 
of 
his 
petition 
for 
reinstatement should not be based upon his failure to pay the 
previously imposed costs for disciplinary proceedings, including 
the one which resulted in the six-month suspension of his 
license.  Nowhere in her report did the referee find or suggest 
that Harman should be absolved from being required to pay the 
costs of this current reinstatement proceeding.  In the past 
this court has assessed costs in reinstatement proceedings where 
the respondent has been denied reinstatement.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 122 Wis. 2d 627, 
632, 363 N.W.2d 430 (1985).  This court has specific authority 
under SCR 22.24 to assess costs against the respondent in a 
reinstatement proceeding.4 
¶10 We determine that the record supports the referee's 
findings with respect to Harman's petition for reinstatement and 
                                                 
4 SCR 22.24 provides in pertinent part: "Assessment of 
costs. (1) The supreme court may assess against the respondent 
all 
or 
a 
portion 
of 
the 
costs 
of 
a . . . reinstatement 
proceeding and may enter a judgment for costs. . . . Costs are 
payable to the office of lawyer regulation."  
No. 
99-2862-D   
 
8 
 
we adopt them.  We also agree and conclude that Harman has not 
met his burden imposed by SCR 22.31 of demonstrating by clear, 
satisfactory, and convincing evidence that his resumption of the 
practice of law would not be detrimental to the administration 
of justice or subversive to the public interest.  Accordingly, 
we deny his petition for reinstatement.  
¶11 We further determine that OLR's request for costs in 
the amount of $2243.35 incurred in this reinstatement proceeding 
should 
be 
granted. 
 
Reinstatement 
proceedings——even 
if 
unsuccessful——should not be free.  OLR's detailed itemization of 
the requested costs demonstrates that the costs are reasonable 
and warranted under the circumstances.  Accordingly we impose 
the costs in the amount requested. 
¶12 IT 
IS 
ORDERED 
Donald 
J. 
Harman's 
petition 
for 
reinstatement of his license to practice law in this state is 
denied.  
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Donald J. Harman shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this reinstatement proceeding.  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 Donald J. Harman to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the 
court.  
No. 
99-2862-D   
 
 
 
1