Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. James M. DeGracie

Citation: 2004 WI 44

Docket Number: 2002AP002231-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2004-04-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
2004 WI 44 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
02-2231-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against James M. DeGracie, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
James M. DeGracie,  
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DeGRACIE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 23, 2004   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2004 WI 44 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  02-2231-D  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against James M. DeGracie, Attorney at  
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
James M. DeGracie,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 23, 2004 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that the license of Attorney James M. DeGracie be 
suspended for eight months as discipline for his professional 
misconduct.  That misconduct as alleged in the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation's (OLR) complaint filed against Attorney James M. 
DeGracie on August 22, 2002, involved six counts of misconduct 
with respect to his representation of two clients as well as 
DeGracie's response to the OLR investigation of grievances filed 
No. 
02-2231-D   
 
2 
 
by those clients.  Attorney David R. Friedman was appointed as 
referee in this matter.  After a telephone conference of which 
DeGracie had notice but did not participate, the referee granted 
the OLR's motion for default judgment based on DeGracie's 
failure to appear or participate.  In the report the referee has 
filed in this court, the referee concluded, that DeGracie should 
be deemed to have committed the acts of misconduct as alleged.  
The referee recommends that DeGracie's license to practice law 
in this state be suspended for eight months and that he be 
ordered to pay the costs of this proceeding which total $586.23.  
¶2 
We determine that the misconduct as established in 
this disciplinary proceeding warrants a suspension of DeGracie's 
license to practice law in this state for eight months.  We also 
agree that DeGracie should be required to pay the costs of this 
disciplinary proceeding in the amount specified.  
¶3 
The respondent, James M. DeGracie, was admitted to 
practice law in this state on July 6, 1990, and has not 
previously been the subject of professional discipline.  His 
license to practice law, however, was suspended in 2002 for his 
failure to pay bar dues and for noncompliance with continuing 
legal education requirements.  Although he initially practiced 
in Black River Falls, DeGracie subsequently moved and is 
reportedly currently residing in California.   
¶4 
After the OLR filed its complaint along with an order 
to answer in this court, Attorney David R. Friedman was 
appointed as referee in the matter.  By certified mail, return 
receipt requested, the referee sent a notice of hearing to 
No. 
02-2231-D   
 
3 
 
DeGracie's Black River Falls office as well as his California 
address.  The certified letter to the California address was 
returned but the referee thereafter received a signed certified 
mail return receipt card signed by one Nancy J. DeGracie.  Ms. 
DeGracie signed for the certified letter that contained notice 
of the telephone conference the referee had scheduled. 
¶5 
On December 18, 2002, the referee conducted the 
scheduled telephone hearing and although the OLR appeared, 
DeGracie did not call in nor otherwise appear.  Based on 
DeGracie's failure to answer OLR's complaint and his failure to 
appear at the hearing, the referee granted the OLR's motion for 
summary judgment.  
¶6 
Thereafter the referee filed his report in this court 
regarding 
DeGracie's 
misconduct 
as 
alleged 
in 
the 
OLR's 
complaint.  The OLR's complaint alleged, and the referee has now 
found, the following acts of misconduct by DeGracie involving 
two 
clients 
and 
his 
failure 
to 
respond 
to 
the 
OLR 
investigations. 
CLIENT W.O.——COUNTS ONE AND TWO  
¶7 
The OLR complaint alleged that in 1994 W.O. was 
convicted of a criminal offense in Jackson County Circuit Court 
and placed on probation; in 1999 W.O.'s probation was revoked 
and he was sentenced to two years in prison.  Subsequently, on 
April 13, 2000, DeGracie was appointed as W.O.'s appellate 
public defender.  On April 23, 2000, W.O. sent a letter to 
DeGracie asking for speedy attention to W.O.'s postconviction 
remedies and requesting that DeGracie file a motion seeking 
No. 
02-2231-D   
 
4 
 
modification of the sentence.  In that letter W.O. stated that 
his mandatory release date would be December 12, 2000; he 
asserted that he wanted to appear before the sentencing judge as 
soon as possible.  DeGracie did not respond to W.O.'s letter.  
¶8 
Thereafter, on May 12, 2000, pursuant to a request 
from the Office of the State Public Defender (SPD), DeGracie 
received the court record and the transcripts in W.O.'s case.  
On May 29, 2000, W.O. wrote to the SPD because he had not heard 
from DeGracie.  On June 16, 2000, DeGracie met with W.O. 
DeGracie told W.O. that if they were successful on appeal, it 
was possible that W.O. could be re-sentenced for more time than 
originally imposed.  After this meeting, W.O. anticipated that 
he would soon be returned to Jackson County for a hearing on his 
motion for sentence modification.  
¶9 
During the fall of 2000 W.O. attempted to make 
numerous collect calls to DeGracie but DeGracie's telephone was 
blocked from receiving such calls.  On September 12, 2000, W.O. 
wrote to DeGracie complaining that he had heard nothing from him 
since their meeting on June 16, 2000; W.O. asked DeGracie to 
respond but again DeGracie did not reply.  
¶10 On September 26, 2000, W.O. again wrote to the SPD 
complaining about DeGracie's lack of communication with him.  
Deputy First Assistant State Public Defender (ASPD) Kenneth Lund 
then wrote to DeGracie on October 9, 2000, stating that W.O. had 
complained about DeGracie's representation; ASPD Lund asked 
DeGracie to respond to W.O. and to provide a copy of that 
No. 
02-2231-D   
 
5 
 
response to ASPD Lund.  DeGracie did not respond to ASPD Lund's 
letter.  
¶11 On October 19, 2000, W.O. wrote to ASPD Lund and asked 
him to withdraw W.O.'s appeal.  W.O. explained that he was 
approaching his mandatory release date and feared that if he 
were successful on appeal, he might be re-sentenced to the 
maximum penalty of six years in prison.   
¶12 On November 9, 2000, ASPD Lund sent a follow-up letter 
to DeGracie pointing out that DeGracie had not responded to ASPD 
Lund's October 9, 2000, letter.  Once again, ASPD Lund asked 
DeGracie to reply to W.O. and to provide a copy of that response 
to ASPD Lund; again DeGracie did not respond.  
¶13 Thereafter, W.O. filed a grievance against DeGracie.  
Although DeGracie provided an initial written response to that 
grievance, by letter dated September 10, 2001, the OLR staff 
requested additional information from DeGracie relating to 
W.O.'s grievance.  DeGracie did not reply to this request for 
additional information. 
¶14 On October 2, 2001, the OLR staff sent a follow-up 
certified letter to DeGracie requesting his response to the 
September 10, 2001, letter.  Although DeGracie signed the return 
receipt for this certified letter, he did not reply.  DeGracie 
never withdrew from representation of W.O. nor did he submit any 
closing documents to the SPD about that representation. 
¶15 In response to subsequent inquiries from the OLR 
district 
committee 
investigator, 
DeGracie 
stated 
that 
he 
intended to wrap up his remaining files, close his legal 
No. 
02-2231-D   
 
6 
 
practice in Wisconsin and move to California.  DeGracie said, 
however, that he wished to retain his Wisconsin license.  
¶16 Based on this course of conduct, the OLR complaint 
alleged, and the referee has now found, that DeGracie committed 
the following acts of misconduct: 
Count One: 
By failing to communicate in any manner 
with W.O. after June 16, 2000; by failing to respond 
to W.O.'s September 12, 2000, letter; and by failing 
to communicate with W.O. after DeGracie received 
letters from ASPD Lund in the fall of 2000 that 
indicated that W.O. had requested assistance from the 
SPD when he had been unable to reach DeGracie, 
DeGracie failed to keep a client reasonably informed 
about the status of a matter and promptly comply with 
reasonable requests for information, in violation of 
SCR 20:1.4(a). 
Count Two: 
By failing to respond to two grievance 
investigative letters sent to him by the OLR in 
September and October of 2001, DeGracie failed to 
cooperate with an OLR investigation, in violation of 
SCR 21.15(4); failed to answer further investigative 
questions, in violation of SCR 22.03(2); and willfully 
failed to 
provide relevant information 
during 
a 
grievance investigation, in violation of SCR 22.03(6). 
CLIENT R.E.——COUNTS THREE THROUGH SIX 
¶17 The OLR complaint alleged that in April 1998 R.E. was 
convicted of a criminal offense and placed on probation; later, 
following a probation violation, R.E. was sentenced in May 1999 
to five years in prison.  R.E. filed a notice of intent to 
appeal his conviction and in May 2000, DeGracie was appointed by 
the SPD to represent R.E. in his attempts to obtain sentence 
modification and postconviction relief.  
¶18 DeGracie, however, failed to file any pleadings on 
R.E.'s behalf; DeGracie also failed to respond to R.E.'s 
No. 
02-2231-D   
 
7 
 
letters, accept some of R.E.'s collect calls, or return a copy 
of R.E.'s file to him. 
¶19 On April 6, 2001, ASPD Lund wrote to DeGracie 
enclosing a copy of the letter ASPD Lund had received from R.E. 
regarding DeGracie's inaction in R.E.'s case.  ASPD Lund asked 
DeGracie to reply to R.E. and provide a copy of that response to 
ASPD Lund; DeGracie did not do so.  
¶20 On June 7, 2001, ASPD Lund sent a follow-up letter to 
DeGracie stating that he received another letter of complaint 
from R.E.; again ASPD Lund asked DeGracie to write to R.E. and 
copy ASPD Lund with the response.  
¶21 On August 1, 2001, R.E. wrote to ASPD Lund stating 
that he was "getting the same runaround" from DeGracie who had 
told R.E. that he was waiting for a court date.  R.E. also 
reported that DeGracie claimed that he had mailed a copy of the 
file to R.E.  
¶22 On August 7, 2001, ASPD Lund telephoned DeGracie.  
DeGracie told Lund that he had twice sent copies of the file to 
R.E.  DeGracie also told ASPD Lund that he had now gathered the 
information he needed and would be filing a motion for sentence 
modification on R.E.'s behalf later that week.  ASPD Lund then 
informed DeGracie that because DeGracie had allowed time 
deadlines to expire, the SPD was not authorized to pay for the 
sentence modification motion.  DeGracie replied to ASPD Lund 
that he would nevertheless file the motion and complete the work 
pro bono.  ASPD Lund then sent R.E. a letter detailing that 
conversation with DeGracie. 
No. 
02-2231-D   
 
8 
 
¶23 After three weeks had elapsed since their telephone 
conversation, ASPD Lund wrote to DeGracie on August 27, 2001, 
stating that if Lund did not receive a copy of a filed motion on 
behalf of R.E. from DeGracie within a week, Lund would take 
steps to decertify DeGracie from taking SPD cases.  
¶24 On September 10, 2001, First Assistant State Public 
Defender Joseph Ehmann telephoned DeGracie regarding R.E.'s 
case.  DeGracie told Ehmann that he had filed the sentence 
modification motion on behalf of R.E. and that he would send a 
copy of that motion to the SPD's office.  Thereafter Ehmann 
telephoned DeGracie on September 17, September 25, and October 
9, 2001, and each time DeGracie reported to Ehmann that he had 
filed the motion on behalf of R.E. 
¶25 On December 7, 2001, Ehmann wrote to DeGracie stating 
that the phone calls and letters throughout September, October, 
and November 2001, revealed that DeGracie had not followed 
through regarding his obligation to his client and that DeGracie 
had never sent a copy of any motion to the SPD as he had 
promised.  Ehmann asked DeGracie for information about what he 
had done in R.E.'s case. 
¶26 Subsequently, R.E. filed a grievance with the OLR 
against DeGracie.  An OLR intake investigator spoke by telephone 
with 
DeGracie 
on 
October 
8, 
2001. 
 
DeGracie 
told 
the 
investigator that R.E.'s case involved a motion for re-
sentencing and that the case was still pending; DeGracie also 
acknowledged that he had received a letter from ASPD Lund.   
No. 
02-2231-D   
 
9 
 
¶27 DeGracie told the OLR investigator that he was 
planning to withdraw from the practice of law in Wisconsin in 
the near future and that R.E.'s matter had been set aside and 
that DeGracie's secretary had copied R.E.'s file and the file 
would be sent to R.E. soon.  DeGracie also told the investigator 
that he would complete the sentence modification motion and then 
move to withdraw from R.E.'s case.  DeGracie also said he would 
fax copies of the motion for sentence modification to the OLR 
when the motion was filed along with a cover letter to R.E. 
returning his file.  The OLR did not receive the items as 
promised from DeGracie. 
¶28 On October 31, 2001, the OLR sent a copy of R.E.'s 
grievance to DeGracie and requested his written response on or 
before November 23, 2001; again DeGracie did not respond.  Then 
on November 27, 2001, the OLR sent letters to DeGracie by first-
class mail and by certified mail requesting that his response be 
postmarked no later than December 7, 2001; these letters 
reminded DeGracie of his duty to cooperate with the OLR 
investigation.  Again DeGracie did not reply.   
¶29 The OLR's investigation of the R.E. grievance was 
thereafter assigned to an OLR district committee and on March 6, 
2002, DeGracie told the district committee investigator that he 
was wrapping up his practice and that he would not deny any of 
the misconduct allegations relating to R.E.'s grievance. 
¶30 Subsequently, on March 12, 2002, the attorney who 
shared office space with DeGracie in Black River Falls told the 
OLR that DeGracie had closed his practice on March 6, 2002, and 
No. 
02-2231-D   
 
10 
 
had moved to California leaving no forwarding address or 
telephone number.  Several months later, that attorney's office 
informed the OLR of a forwarding address for DeGracie in 
California.  
¶31 Based on this course of conduct, the OLR complaint 
alleged, and the referee has now found, that DeGracie committed 
the following acts of misconduct: 
Count Three: 
By failing to take any action 
on R.E.'s behalf, despite receiving numerous 
inquiries from R.E. and the SPD, DeGracie 
failed to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing a client, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.3. 
Count Four: 
By 
failing 
to 
respond 
to 
letters 
from 
R.E., 
and 
by 
failing 
to 
communicate 
with 
R.E. 
after 
receiving 
letters from the SPD indicating that R.E. 
had requested assistance from that agency 
regarding his case, DeGracie failed to keep 
a 
client 
reasonably 
informed 
about 
the 
status of a matter and failed to promptly 
comply 
with 
reasonable 
requests 
for 
information, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a). 
Count Five: 
By telling ASPD Ehmann by 
telephone on September 10, September 17, 
September 25, and October 9, 2001, that he 
had filed a motion on R.E.'s behalf, when in 
fact, DeGracie had not done so, DeGracie 
engaged in conduct involving dishonestly, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation, 
in 
violation of SCR 20:8.4(c). 
Count Six: 
By failing to respond to two 
grievance investigative letters sent to him 
by the OLR in October and November 2001, 
DeGracie willfully failed to cooperate with 
the OLR in the investigation of grievances, 
in violation of SCR 21.15(4); failed to 
answer further investigative questions, in 
violation of SCR 22.03(2); and willfully 
failed 
to 
provide 
relevant 
information 
during 
a 
grievance 
investigation, 
in 
violation of SCR 22.03(6). 
No. 
02-2231-D   
 
11 
 
¶32 Based on this course of misconduct, the referee 
concluded 
that 
the 
OLR's 
recommendation 
for 
a 
six-month 
suspension of DeGracie's license to practice law in this state 
was an inadequate sanction for his misconduct.  The referee 
reasoned that because the liberty of two of DeGracie's clients 
was at stake, and because the clients and public had the right 
to expect DeGracie to be honest and to perform his duties, an 
eight-month 
suspension 
of 
DeGracie's 
license 
was 
a 
more 
appropriate sanction in order to "impress on DeGracie what his 
lies did to the clients." 
¶33 We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law 
set forth in the referee's report and we agree with the referee 
and determine that the seriousness of DeGracie's misconduct as 
established in this proceeding warrants a suspension of his 
license to practice law in this state for a period of eight 
months.  We also agree and direct that DeGracie be ordered to 
pay the costs of this disciplinary proceeding now totaling 
$586.23. 
¶34 IT IS ORDERED that the license of James M. DeGracie to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of eight 
months commencing as of the date of this opinion.  
¶35 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this opinion, James M. DeGracie pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding totaling $586.23, 
providing 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 the time, the license of James M. DeGracie 
No. 
02-2231-D   
 
12 
 
to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until 
further order of this court.  
¶36 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if he has not already done 
so, James M. DeGracie must comply with the provisions of SCR 
22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law has been suspended.   
 
No. 
02-2231-D   
 
 
 
1