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

Citation: 2005 WI 89

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2005-06-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
2005 WI 89 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
1999AP2862-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Donald J. Harman, Attorney at Law. 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation f/k/a Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Donald J. Harman, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HARMAN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 24, 2005   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2005 WI 89
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  1999AP2862-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Donald J. Harman, Attorney at Law. 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation f/k/a Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Donald J. Harman, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 24, 2005 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
Attorney reinstatement proceeding.  Reinstatement granted 
upon conditions.   
 
¶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.  Although the referee found that Harman's conduct since 
denial of his prior petition for reinstatement had been 
exemplary 
and 
above 
reproach, 
the 
referee 
nevertheless 
recommended against granting this petition for reinstatement 
because Harman had not complied with various orders requiring 
No. 
1999AP2862-D   
 
2 
 
him to pay the costs of prior disciplinary and reinstatement 
proceedings. 
¶2 
Donald Harman has not appealed from the referee's 
report or that recommendation.  Accordingly, our review proceeds 
pursuant to SCR 22.33(3).1  We adopt the referee's findings but 
conclude that Harman's petition for reinstatement should be 
granted upon conditions as described below.  We also direct that 
the costs of these current reinstatement proceedings, totaling 
$2396.12, be paid by Harman. 
¶3 
Donald Harman's license to practice law in this state 
was suspended 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 was ordered to pay 
the costs of those disciplinary proceedings; if such costs were 
not paid within 60 days and absent a showing that Harman was 
unable to pay the costs within that time, this court directed 
that his license to practice law in this state would remain 
suspended until further order of this court.  Prior to that 2001 
suspension, Harman had been publicly reprimanded; at that time, 
he had also been ordered to pay the costs of those proceedings.   
¶4 
Harman's subsequent petition for reinstatement was 
denied.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Harman, 2003 WI 
45, 261 Wis. 2d 322, 661 N.W.2d 403.  Again, Harman was assessed 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.33(3) provides: Review, appeal. "(3) If no appeal 
is timely filed, the supreme court shall review the referee's 
report, order reinstatement, with or without conditions, deny 
reinstatement, or order the parties to file briefs in the 
matter." 
No. 
1999AP2862-D   
 
3 
 
and directed to pay the costs of that reinstatement proceeding; 
again, he was warned that if the costs were not paid within the 
time specified, and absent a showing to the court of his 
inability to pay the costs within that time, his license to 
practice law would remain suspended until further order of this 
court. 
¶5 
Harman thereafter filed this current — his second — 
petition for reinstatement.  Pursuant to SCR 22.30,2 Attorney 
Russell L. Hanson was appointed as referee and a public hearing 
was held on this petition for reinstatement.  The referee 
subsequently issued his report setting forth his findings which 
included specific findings that since July 6, 1999, Harman has 
paid nothing toward the accumulated costs assessed against him 
in the prior proceedings.  Thus, Harman currently has an 
outstanding balance of prior assessed costs in the amount of 
$18,781.76, exclusive of interest.  As noted, Referee Hanson 
recommended that Harman's petition for reinstatement be denied 
because Harman had not complied with the terms of the prior 
orders since he had paid nothing toward these accumulated costs.  
The referee also noted that the financial statement filed by 
                                                 
2 SCR 22.30 provides in pertinent part:  Reinstatement 
procedure.   
(1) The clerk of the supreme court shall select a 
referee from the panel provided in SCR 21.08, based on 
availability 
and 
geographic 
proximity 
to 
the 
petitioner's place of residence, and the chief justice 
or, in his or her absence, the senior justice shall 
appoint the referee to conduct a hearing on the 
petition for reinstatement. . . . 
No. 
1999AP2862-D   
 
4 
 
Harman in this reinstatement proceeding was inaccurate because 
it did not reflect a monthly rental of $325 that Harman 
admittedly has continued to pay for office space during his 
suspension.  Referee Hanson in his report wrote: 
At the hearing in this matter, the petitioner 
testified that he has maintained an office since his 
[suspension] and paid the sum of $325.00 per month.  
If the petitioner had paid that sum towards the costs 
of his prior discipline, he would by this time have 
paid $12,350.00.  This is particularly significant 
since the petitioner gave no profit related reason for 
maintaining the office.  It is therefore clear that 
the petitioner had the ability to pay a substantial 
portion of the costs he caused, but chose not to.  At 
the hearing, the petitioner volunteered to pay $10.00 
per month towards prior costs.  That proposal is 
totally unreasonable. 
¶6 
The referee concluded his report by noting that Harman 
had submitted impressive recommendations from others in support 
of his petition for reinstatement; nevertheless, the referee 
said that although he would "like to be able to recommend his 
reinstatement," he could not do so because of Harman's "total 
failure to be concerned and responsible about the costs . . . ."   
¶7 
Upon 
receipt 
of 
the 
referee's 
report 
and 
recommendation, this court, on December 16, 2004, issued an 
order holding Harman's petition for reinstatement in abeyance; 
we informed Harman that to achieve reinstatement, he must 
"establish a realistic schedule agreed to by the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) for the payment of accumulated costs in 
the initial disciplinary 
and the 
subsequent 
reinstatement 
proceedings."  Harman was instructed to report back to this 
court indicating whether he and OLR had reached an agreement 
No. 
1999AP2862-D   
 
5 
 
regarding a payment schedule.  On February 22, 2005, an 
extension for additional time to negotiate with OLR was granted 
to Harman and the OLR was then directed to file a response to 
Harman's report.   
¶8 
Thereafter, Harman filed a letter/report dated March 
17, 2005, stating that he had been unable to reach an agreement 
with OLR regarding repayment of costs, but would agree to a 
payment schedule of $100 per month, however, because of his 
financial circumstances, he could only guarantee a payment of 
$25 per month toward the prior costs.   
¶9 
The OLR responded and acknowledged that Harman's 
ability to make payments on the accumulated costs was limited; 
according to the OLR calculations, Harman currently owes nearly 
$19,500 on those prior costs, exclusive of interest.  The OLR 
reported that it would agree to a payment plan of $100 per month 
and that as long as Harman complied with that payment schedule, 
the OLR would "be amenable to waiving post-judgment interest 
. . . ."  The OLR further suggested that if this court were to 
grant this petition and reinstate Harman's license to practice 
law, that reinstatement should be conditioned upon Harman 
continuing to pay $100 per month on the accumulated costs. 
¶10 On April 7, 2005, Harman made a $100 payment to the 
OLR on the accumulated costs. 
¶11 While we are concerned with Harman's past record and 
failure to make substantial payments on the accumulated costs 
that have been assessed against him, we also note the referee's 
specific 
finding 
that 
since 
his 
suspension, 
Harman 
has 
No. 
1999AP2862-D   
 
6 
 
maintained competence in learning in the law by attendance at 
various educational activities,3 and that there is no evidence 
that Harman's conduct has been other than "exemplary and above 
reproach."   
¶12 We determine that the referee's findings are not 
clearly erroneous and we adopt them.  However, after our de novo 
review of 
the referee's 
conclusions 
of law, 
see 
In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 
Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 718, we conclude that Harman has met his 
burden imposed by SCR 22.31(1) 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 of the public interest.  
Accordingly we grant Harman's petition 
for 
reinstatement.  
However, we condition that reinstatement on the specific 
requirement that he continue to pay $100 per month on the costs 
previously assessed against him in the prior disciplinary and 
reinstatement proceedings.  We also direct that Harman be 
assessed the $2396.12 in costs in this current reinstatement 
proceeding.  Those costs, like all the costs assessed against 
                                                 
3 The Board of Bar Examiners (BBE) has submitted a statement 
dated May 31, 2005, extending until August 1, 2005, its previous 
recommendation 
in 
support 
of 
Harman's 
petition 
for 
the 
reinstatement of his license to practice law in this state.  In 
this recommendation, the BBE explains that because Harman was 
admitted in an even numbered year (1960) he will be required to 
comply with the current continuing legal education (CLE) 
requirement by reporting an additional 30.0 hours EPR; or by 
electing the exemption available at SCR 31.04(2) on the CLE Form 
1 that will be due for the 2005-2006 reporting period.  
No. 
1999AP2862-D   
 
7 
 
Harman in the prior proceedings, are reasonable and warranted 
under the circumstances. 
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that Donald J. Harman's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin is reinstated upon the specific 
condition that he continue to make $100 per month payments to 
the Office of Lawyer Regulation as payment of the accumulated 
costs assessed against him in this and prior proceedings.  If, 
during any month, Donald J. Harman fails to make the required 
payment to the Office of Lawyer Regulation by the 15th day of 
that month, the Office of Lawyer Regulation is directed to 
immediately inform this court of that fact and to request 
further appropriate action from this court. 
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Donald J. Harman comply 
with the continuing legal education requirements as set forth in 
footnote 3 of this opinion. 
No. 
1999AP2862-D   
 
 
 
1