Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Stanley Whitmore Davis

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2019AP002405-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2021-02-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
2021 WI 12 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2019AP2405-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Stanley Whitmore Davis, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Stanley Whitmore Davis, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DAVIS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 17, 2021   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam. 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2021 WI 12
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2019AP2405-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Stanley Whitmore Davis,  
Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Stanley Whitmore Davis, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
FEB 17, 2021 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Pending before the court is a report and 
recommendation filed by Referee David G. Deininger.  The report 
recommends that we accept Attorney Stanley Whitmore Davis' 
amended petition for consensual license revocation, order him to 
pay restitution, and revoke his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin.  Attorney Davis is the subject of an Office of Lawyer 
Regulation 
(OLR) 
disciplinary 
complaint 
alleging 
that 
he 
committed 11 counts of professional misconduct in two client 
No. 
2019AP2405-D   
 
2 
 
matters.  He is also the subject of two pending grievances that 
have not yet been fully investigated by the OLR. 
¶2 
We agree that both revocation and restitution are 
appropriate, and we agree that Attorney Davis shall pay the full 
costs of this proceeding, which are $1,497.67 as of October 8, 
2020. 
¶3 
Attorney Davis was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in 1998.  He currently resides in Orlando, Florida.  
His law license is presently suspended for both disciplinary and 
administrative reasons.  In June 2020 we issued a per curiam 
decision suspending Attorney Davis' law license for one year for 
36 counts of professional misconduct committed in eight client 
matters. 
 
That 
misconduct 
included 
practicing 
law 
while 
suspended, failure to inform clients of his suspensions, neglect 
of client matters, and failure to account for advanced fees or 
to refund unearned fees.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Davis, 2020 WI 48, ¶11, 392 Wis. 2d 21, 943 N.W.2d 885. 
¶4 
His law license has been administratively suspended 
for failure to pay State Bar dues and failure to provide a 
required trust account certification since November 2, 2018.  It 
has also been administratively suspended for failure to comply 
with CLE reporting requirements since June 5, 2019.  
¶5 
On December 20, 2019, while the above-referenced 
disciplinary matter was still pending, the OLR filed the 
disciplinary complaint now before us.  In it, Attorney Davis was 
charged with 11 counts of professional misconduct in two client 
matters and the OLR sought a six-month license suspension, 
No. 
2019AP2405-D   
 
3 
 
restitution, and costs.  Attorney Davis was personally served, 
but did not file an answer to the complaint.  We appointed 
Referee David G. Deininger to preside over this matter. 
¶6 
Attorney Davis attempted to resolve all of his then 
pending disciplinary matters by filing a Petition for Revocation 
by Consent on May 19, 2020.  However, by the time he filed that 
petition, our review of the first disciplinary matter was 
complete and our June 2020 opinion was awaiting release.  
Accordingly, we dismissed Attorney Davis' initial petition for 
license revocation and directed the parties to proceed in this 
matter.  We further directed the parties to advise Referee 
Deininger if Attorney Davis opted to file an amended Petition 
for Revocation by Consent.  He subsequently did so, the referee 
has issued a report, and the matter is now properly before us.  
¶7 
We first consider the pending disciplinary complaint.  
The first five counts arise from Attorney Davis' representation 
of D.R.  D.R. retained Attorney Davis in February 2017 to 
represent him regarding his employment termination from the 
Wisconsin Department of Children and Families.  D.R. paid 
Attorney Davis $3,500 in advanced fees to represent him.  Over 
the next two years, Attorney Davis repeatedly failed to notify 
D.R. when Attorney Davis' law license was suspended; continued 
his representation of D.R. during these license suspensions; 
missed the deadline for filing a Notice of Claim with the 
Wisconsin Attorney General (a prerequisite for filing suit on 
D.R.'s termination); and did not provide D.R.'s case file to him 
when requested.  After D.R. filed a grievance with the OLR, 
No. 
2019AP2405-D   
 
4 
 
Attorney Davis failed to respond to the OLR's request for a 
response.   
¶8 
Based on the forgoing, the OLR alleged that Attorney 
Davis' handling of the D.R. matter violated a number of the 
rules of professional conduct, as follows: 
Count One:  By failing to notify D.R. of the May 31, 
2017 suspension of his Wisconsin law license, or his 
subsequent suspensions, and his consequent inability 
to 
practice 
law, 
Attorney 
Davis 
violated 
SCR 22.26(1)(a),1 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f).2 
Count Two:  By continuing to represent and provide 
legal advice to D.R. following the May 31, 2017 
suspension of his Wisconsin law license, Attorney 
Davis 
violated 
SCR 10.03(6),3 
SCR 22.26(2),4 
and 
SCR 31.10(l),5 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f). 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.26(1)(a) provides:   
On or before the effective date of license 
suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 
suspended or revoked shall notify by certified mail 
all clients being represented in pending matters of 
the suspension or revocation and of the attorney's 
consequent inability to act as an attorney following 
the effective date of the suspension or revocation. 
2 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme 
court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers."  
3 SCR 10.03(6) provides:   
If the annual dues or assessments of any member 
remain unpaid 120 days after the payment is due, the 
membership of the member may be suspended in the 
manner provided in the bylaws; and no person whose 
membership is so suspended for nonpayment of dues or 
assessments may practice law during the period of the 
suspension.  
4 SCR 22.26(2) provides: 
No. 
2019AP2405-D   
 
5 
 
Count Three:  By misapprehending the deadline and 
thereby missing the 120-day deadline to file a notice 
of claim for D.R.'s termination, Attorney 
Davis 
violated SCR 20:1.1.6 
                                                                                                                                                             
An attorney whose license to practice law is 
suspended or revoked or who is suspended from the 
practice of law may not engage in this state in the 
practice 
of 
law 
or 
in 
any 
law 
work 
activity 
customarily done by law students, law clerks, or other 
paralegal personnel, except that the attorney may 
engage in law related work in this state for a 
commercial employer itself not engaged in the practice 
of law. 
5 SCR 31.10(1) provides: 
If a lawyer fails to comply with the attendance 
requirement of SCR 31.02, fails to comply with the 
reporting requirement of SCR 31.03(1), or fails to pay 
the late fee under SCR 31.03(2), the board shall serve 
a notice of noncompliance on the lawyer.  This notice 
shall advise the lawyer that the lawyer's state bar 
membership 
shall 
be 
automatically 
suspended 
for 
failing to file evidence of compliance or to pay the 
late fee within 60 days after service of the notice.  
The board shall certify the names of all lawyers so 
suspended under this rule to the clerk of the supreme 
court, all supreme court justices, all court of 
appeals and circuit court judges, all circuit court 
commissioners appointed under SCR 75.02(1) in this 
state, all circuit court clerks, all juvenile court 
clerks, all registers in probate, the executive 
director of the state bar of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin 
State Public Defender's Office, and the clerks of the 
federal district courts in Wisconsin.  A lawyer shall 
not engage in the practice of law in Wisconsin while 
his or her state bar membership is suspended under 
this rule. 
6 SCR 20:1.1 provides:  "A lawyer shall provide competent 
representation to a client.  Competent representation requires 
the 
legal 
knowledge, 
skill, 
thoroughness 
and 
preparation 
reasonably necessary for the representation." 
No. 
2019AP2405-D   
 
6 
 
Count Four  By failing to return D.R.'s case file, 
Attorney Davis violated SCR 20:1.16(d).7 
Count Five:  By failing to respond to the OLR's April 
11, 2019 request for a response to D.R.'s grievance, 
Attorney Davis violated SCR 22.03(2),8 enforceable via 
SCR 20:8.4(h).9 
¶9 
The remaining allegations in the OLR complaint relate 
to Attorney Davis' representation of the National Association to 
Stop Guardian Abuse, Inc. and related parties (collectively 
                                                 
7 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides: 
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 or expense that has not 
been earned or incurred.  The lawyer may retain papers 
relating to the client to the extent permitted by 
other law.  
8 SCR 22.03(2) provides: 
Upon commencing an investigation, the director 
shall notify the respondent of the matter being 
investigated unless in the opinion of the director the 
investigation of the matter requires otherwise. The 
respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts 
and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct 
within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail a 
request for a written response. The director may allow 
additional time to respond. Following receipt of the 
response, 
the 
director 
may 
conduct 
further 
investigation and may compel the respondent to answer 
questions, 
furnish 
documents, 
and 
present 
any 
information deemed relevant to the investigation. 
9 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to fail to cooperate in the investigation of a 
grievance filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required 
by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), 
or SCR 22.04(1)." 
No. 
2019AP2405-D   
 
7 
 
NASGA).  On May 31, 2017, Attorney Davis' Wisconsin law license 
was administratively suspended for non-compliance with CLE 
reporting requirements.  On August 1, 2017, NASGA retained 
Attorney Davis to represent them in an ongoing dispute with 
another advocacy group.  Attorney Davis was paid $7,500 in 
advanced fees for that representation.   
¶10 Attorney Davis did not inform NASGA that his Wisconsin 
law license was suspended and he failed to advise them of a 
subsequent license suspension for failure to pay bar dues.  As 
the referee observed: 
Over the ensuing eighteen months, Davis did not inform 
his clients of his license suspensions; prepared two 
cease and desist letters but did not follow up with 
further actions regarding the opposing party's alleged 
defamation; did not respond to requests from his 
clients 
for 
status 
updates; 
and 
did 
not 
claim 
certified letters from his clients in which they had 
requested a refund of the fees they had paid him.   
The client filed a grievance and Attorney Davis then failed to 
respond to the OLR's requests for information.  
¶11  Based on the forgoing, the OLR alleged, as follows: 
Count Six:  By representing and providing legal advice 
to 
NASGA 
while 
his 
Wisconsin 
law 
license 
was 
suspended, 
Attorney 
Davis 
violated 
SCR 
10.03(6), 
SCR 22.26(2), 
and 
SCR 31.10(1), 
enforceable 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(f). 
Count Seven:  By failing to notify his clients of his 
suspensions 
during 
the 
representation, 
and 
his 
consequent inability to practice law while suspended, 
Attorney Davis violated SCR 22.26(1)(a). 
Count Eight:  By failing to advance a civil claim on 
C.F.'s and/or NASGA's behalf or timely determine 
whether a potential civil claim had merit, and by 
failing to pursue the actions agreed to during the May 
No. 
2019AP2405-D   
 
8 
 
5, 2018 conference call, Attorney Davis violated 
SCR 20:1.3.10 
Count Nine:  By failing to respond to his clients' 
requests for status updates following their May 5, 
2018 conference call or otherwise keep them informed 
as 
to 
case 
status, 
Attorney 
Davis 
violated 
SCR 20:1.4(a)(3)11 and SCR 20:1.4(a)(4).12 
Count Ten:  By failing to refund unearned fees upon 
termination of representation, Attorney Davis violated 
SCR 20:1.16(d). 
Count Eleven:  By failing to respond to the OLR's May 
1, 2019 request for a response to P.A.R.'s grievance, 
Attorney Davis violated SCR 22.03(2), enforceable via 
SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶12 On August 18, 2020, Attorney Davis filed an amended 
petition for consensual license revocation pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule (SCR) 22.19.13  In his amended petition Attorney Davis 
                                                 
10 SCR 20:1.3 provides:  "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
11 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides:  "A lawyer shall keep the 
client reasonably informed about the status of the matter." 
12 SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) provides: "A lawyer shall promptly 
comply with reasonable requests by the client for information."  
13 SCR 22.19 provides: 
(1) An 
attorney 
who 
is 
the 
subject 
of 
an 
investigation 
for 
possible 
misconduct 
or 
the 
respondent in a proceeding may file with the supreme 
court a petition for the revocation by consent or his 
or her license to practice law. 
(2) The petition shall state that the petitioner 
cannot successfully defend against the allegations of 
misconduct. 
(3) If a complaint has not been filed, the 
petition shall be filed in the supreme court and shall 
include the director's summary of the misconduct 
allegations being investigated.  Within 20 days after 
No. 
2019AP2405-D   
 
9 
 
discloses that in addition to the complaint before us now, the 
OLR is also investigating two additional grievances against 
Attorney 
Davis. 
 
Attorney 
Davis 
admits 
that 
he 
cannot 
successfully defend against the allegations of this complaint or 
the pending grievances.  He states that is aware of his right to 
legal counsel but he is freely, voluntarily, and knowingly 
giving up his right to further contest the allegations of 
misconduct in this complaint and in the pending grievances.  
Attorney Davis further agrees that he should be ordered to make 
restitution to three former clients in the amount of $7,500 to 
NASGA, $7,500 to C.F., and $4,000 to P.A.R., relating to a 
pending grievance.  
                                                                                                                                                             
the date of filing of the petition, the director shall 
file in the supreme court a recommendation on the 
petition. Upon a showing of good cause, the supreme 
court may extend the time for filing a recommendation. 
(4) If a complaint has been filed, the petition 
shall be filed in the supreme court and served on the 
director and on the referee to whom the proceeding has 
been assigned.  Within 20 days after the filing of the 
petition, the director shall file in the supreme court 
a response in support of or in opposition to the 
petition and serve a copy on the referee.  Upon a 
showing of good cause, the supreme court may extend 
the time for filing a response.  The referee shall 
file a report and recommendation on the petition in 
the supreme court within 30 days after receipt of the 
director's response. 
(5) The supreme court shall grant the petition 
and revoke the petitioner's license to practice law or 
deny the petition and remand the matter to the 
director or to the referee for further proceedings. 
No. 
2019AP2405-D   
 
10 
 
¶13 The 
OLR 
supports 
Attorney 
Davis' 
petition 
for 
consensual license revocation.  The OLR confirms that certain 
grievances against Attorney Davis remain under investigation and 
contends 
that 
Attorney 
Davis 
has 
engaged 
in 
"serious 
misconduct."  The OLR states:  "[d]avis misled his clients into 
thinking he had a valid law license, collected fees, then 
abandoned them after intermittent work."   
¶14 The referee determined, based on the disciplinary 
complaint, Attorney Davis' amended petition for consensual 
license revocation, and the OLR's response, that Attorney Davis 
has engaged in serious misconduct, and he recommends that we 
accept the petition, order restitution, and revoke Attorney 
Davis' license to practice law.  No appeal has been filed in 
this matter, so our review proceeds pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).   
¶15 As the OLR stated, and the referee agreed, we have 
accepted SCR 22.19 consent revocation petitions involving 
similar levels of misconduct in the past.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Stubbins, 2014 WI 115, 358 
Wis. 2d 358, 854 N.W.2d 682 (granting petition where previously 
undisciplined attorney faced 17 potential counts of misconduct 
in three matters including lack of diligence, failure to 
communicate, and where the attorney repeatedly lied to cover up 
his lack of diligence); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Whitnall, 2003 WI 146, 267 Wis. 2d 28, 673 N.W.2d 674 (granting 
petition where attorney faced six counts including failure to 
act diligently for clients, failure to communicate with clients, 
and failure to return their files).  
No. 
2019AP2405-D   
 
11 
 
¶16 The OLR alleged, and the referee agreed that, Attorney 
Davis "misled his clients into thinking he had a valid law 
license, collected fees, then abandoned them after intermittent 
work.  The result was a lack of diligence, communication and 
follow through similar to Stubbins and Whitnall."  Indeed, the 
referee describes Attorney Davis as "an attorney who has lost 
all interest, let alone diligence . . . in advocating for his 
clients or protecting their interests."  The referee added that 
in addition to his failure to diligently and competently pursue 
legal matters his clients entrusted to him and to timely 
communicate relevant information to them, Attorney Davis has 
also repeatedly shirked his obligations as a member of the bar.  
¶17 We agree that the seriousness of Attorney Davis' 
misconduct demonstrates a need to protect the public, the 
courts, and the legal system from repetition of this misconduct, 
to 
impress 
upon 
Attorney 
Davis 
the 
seriousness 
of 
his 
misconduct, and to deter other attorneys from engaging in 
similar misconduct.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Arthur, 2005 WI 40, ¶78, 279 Wis. 2d 583, 694 N.W.2d 910.  
Accordingly, 
we 
accept 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact, 
conclusions of law, and recommendation.  We order Attorney Davis 
to pay restitution in the amount of $7,500 to NASGA, $7,500 to 
C.F., and $4,000 to P.A.R., we grant Attorney Davis' petition 
for revocation by consent, and we revoke Attorney Davis' 
Wisconsin law license effective the date of this order. 
¶18 Finally, we direct Attorney Davis to pay the costs of 
this proceeding, which are $1,497.67 as of October 8, 2020.  
No. 
2019AP2405-D   
 
12 
 
Attorney Davis has provided no reason for this court to deviate 
from its usual practice of imposing full costs.  SCR 22.24(1m). 
¶19 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for revocation by 
consent is granted and the license of Stanley Whitmore Davis to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this 
order. 
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent he has not 
already done so, Stanley Whitmore Davis 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. 
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Stanley Whitmore Davis is 
ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $7,500 to NASGA, 
$7,500 to C.F., and $4,000 to P.A.R. 
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as a condition of any 
future petition for reinstatement of his license to practice law 
in Wisconsin, Stanley Whitmore Davis will be required to prove 
that he has made restitution to or settled all claims of all 
persons 
injured 
or 
harmed 
by 
his 
misconduct, 
including 
reimbursement 
to 
the 
Wisconsin 
Lawyers' 
Fund 
for 
Client 
Protection for all payments made by that fund, or, if 
restitution has not been made, Stanley Whitmore Davis will need 
to 
explain 
his 
failure 
or 
inability 
to 
do 
so. 
 
See 
SCR 22.29(4m). 
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Stanley Whitmore Davis shall pay the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$1,497.67 as of October 8, 2020. 
No. 
2019AP2405-D   
 
13 
 
¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified 
above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation. 
¶25 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
administrative 
suspension of Stanley Whitmore Davis' license to practice law in 
Wisconsin, due to his failure to pay mandatory bar dues, for 
failure to file Office of Lawyer Regulation trust account 
certification, and for noncompliance with continuing legal 
education requirements, will remain in effect until each reason 
for the administrative suspension has been rectified pursuant to 
SCR 22.28(1). 
 
No. 
2019AP2405-D   
 
 
 
1