Case Title: Jeffrey I. Gehl v.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1997AP001333-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 1997-12-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
97-1333-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against 
Jeffrey I. Gehl, 
Attorney at Law. 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GEHL 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
December 19, 1997 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
No. 97-1333-D 
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 97-1333-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against JEFFREY I. GEHL, Attorney at Law. 
FILED 
 
DEC 19, 1997 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney’s 
license 
suspended. 
¶1 
PER CURIAM   We review the report of the referee 
recommending that the license of Jeffrey I. Gehl to practice law 
in Wisconsin be “revoked for at least three years” as discipline 
reciprocal to the discipline imposed on him by the Illinois 
Supreme Court for professional misconduct occurring in that 
jurisdiction. That misconduct consisted of his failing to 
provide competent representation, act with reasonable diligence 
and promptness, keep clients reasonably informed of the status 
of legal matters and comply with reasonable requests for 
information, deliver to clients all papers and property to which 
they were entitled, refund a part of a fee paid in advance that 
had not been earned, make reasonable efforts to expedite 
litigation consistent with the interests of clients, deliver to 
clients or third persons funds or other property they were 
entitled to receive, and deposit funds in which both he and a 
No. 97-1333-D 
 
2 
client claimed an interest into a separate account until there 
was an accounting and severance of their interests. In addition, 
Attorney 
Gehl 
engaged 
in 
conduct 
prejudicial 
to 
the 
administration of justice and brought or defended a proceeding 
or asserted or controverted an issue in it without a basis for 
doing so that was not frivolous.  
¶2 
The misconduct in which Attorney Gehl was found to 
have engaged warrants our imposition of discipline reciprocal to 
that imposed in Illinois. Under the Illinois rules, Attorney 
Gehl may petition for license reinstatement three years after 
the date of imposition of that discipline, but the Wisconsin 
rule, SCR 22.28(3),1 specifies that a petition for reinstatement 
may not be filed until five years after the effective date of 
revocation. Accordingly, we determine that a three-year license 
suspension is appropriate reciprocal discipline to impose.  
¶3 
Attorney Gehl was admitted to the Wisconsin bar in 
1987. He has not been the subject of a prior disciplinary 
                     
1 SCR 22.28 provides, in pertinent part: Reinstatement. 
 . . .  
(3) An attorney whose license is revoked or suspended for 6 
months or more for misconduct or medical incapacity shall not 
resume practice until the license is reinstated by order of the 
supreme court. A petition for reinstatement may be filed at any 
time commencing, in the case of a license suspension, 3 months 
prior to the expiration of the suspension period or, in the case 
of a license revocation, 5 years after the effective date of 
revocation. A petition for reinstatement shall be filed with the 
court and a copy shall be filed with the administrator.  
No. 97-1333-D 
 
3 
proceeding in this state. The referee, Attorney David Friedman, 
made the following findings of fact.  
¶4 
On 
September 
23, 
1996, 
the 
Illinois 
attorney 
disciplinary authorities filed a motion with the Illinois 
Supreme Court seeking to have Attorney Gehl’s name stricken from 
the Master Roll of Attorneys in that state. That motion, in 
which Attorney Gehl joined, was filed pursuant to the Illinois 
“Disbarment on Consent” rule and was accompanied by an affidavit 
in which Attorney Gehl stated that the evidence that would have 
been submitted at a hearing would establish clearly and 
convincingly 
the 
professional 
misconduct 
alleged 
in 
the 
disciplinary authority’s statement of charges. The Illinois 
Supreme Court granted the motion and struck Attorney Gehl’s name 
from the roll of attorneys November 26, 1996. 
¶5 
The misconduct alleged was the following. Between 1989 
and 1994, Attorney Gehl acted as corporate counsel to the 
Chicago Divorce Association. Starting in the summer of 1992, 
Attorney Robert Stuligross, who was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin but not in Illinois, began renting office space from 
Attorney Gehl in Chicago. Although Attorney Gehl was aware that 
Attorney Stuligross was not licensed in Illinois, in May, 1994, 
Attorney Stuligross entered into a contract with CDA by which he 
was to receive a monthly retainer fee to represent its members 
in divorce proceedings. Because Attorney Stuligross was not 
licensed in Illinois, Attorney Gehl filed a supplemental 
appearance in each case assigned to Attorney Stuligross but had 
no further involvement with those cases.  
No. 97-1333-D 
 
4 
¶6 
Attorney Gehl was aware that Attorney Stuligross was 
handling at least 40 divorce cases in Cook county, Illinois 
between June, 1992 and June, 1993.2 In many of those cases, 
Attorney Stuligross filed petitions pursuant to Illinois Supreme 
Court Rule for permission to practice as a foreign attorney in 
an isolated case, 
and Attorney Gehl 
was 
listed as the 
“sponsoring” 
attorney 
in 
those 
petitions. 
When 
Attorney 
Stuligross ceased representing CDA clients in June, 1993, 
Attorney Gehl assumed those representations. Thereafter and for 
the next 18 months, he employed Attorney Stuligross as a 
“paralegal” to draft pleadings and correspondence, conduct 
discovery, do research, and handle communications with all of is 
CDA clients. He also had Attorney Stuligross continue to make 
court appearances on behalf of certain of those clients he had 
represented prior to June, 1993. Based on that conduct, Attorney 
Gehl was found to have assisted a person not a member of the bar 
in the performance of activity constituting the unauthorized 
practice of law and to have engaged in conduct prejudicial to 
the administration of justice.  
¶7 
Between 
July, 
1993 
and 
March, 
1994, 
in 
his 
representation of four CDA clients, Attorney Gehl failed to 
provide 
competent 
representation 
and 
act 
with 
reasonable 
                     
2 We suspended the license of Attorney Stuligross for two 
years as discipline for professional misconduct, including his 
representation of Illinois divorce clients while not being 
licensed to practice law in that jurisdiction. Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Stuligross, 208 Wis. 2d 200, __ N.W.2d __ 
(1997).   
No. 97-1333-D 
 
5 
diligence and promptness, failed to keep clients reasonably 
informed of the status of their matters and comply with their 
reasonable requests for information, failed to explain matters 
to the extent reasonably necessary to permit them to make 
informed decisions regarding his representation, failed to 
segregate their funds from his own, failed to deliver to them 
all papers and property to which they were entitled, failed to 
make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with 
their interests, and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation and which was prejudicial to 
the administration of justice.  
¶8 
In an unrelated matter, Attorney Gehl failed to make 
monthly payments required by a loan consolidation agreement he 
signed in 1988 that included several student loans guaranteed by 
the Illinois Student Assistance Commission that he had used to 
finance his law school education. In August, 1992, the lending 
bank was reimbursed by the State of Illinois as guarantor of the 
loans. When Attorney Gehl made no payments after August, 1992, 
the matter was referred to a collection attorney and suit was 
commenced in June, 1994. Attorney Gehl failed to file an 
appearance or answer, and default judgment in the amount of 
$50,305 was entered against him.  
¶9 
In July, 1992, Attorney Gehl received attorney fees of 
$111,666.66 relating to his representation of a client but did 
not make any payment regarding the student loan. In the Illinois 
disciplinary proceeding, it was concluded that Attorney Gehl 
avoided in bad faith the repayment of an education loan 
No. 97-1333-D 
 
6 
guaranteed by the Illinois Student Assistance Commission, in 
violation of a specific Illinois rule for which there is no 
Wisconsin counterpart.  
¶10 During 
the 
course 
of 
the 
Board 
of 
Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility 
(Board) 
investigation 
of 
this 
matter, a member of the district professional responsibility 
committee made numerous attempts to contact Attorney Gehl and 
offered to meet with him in Chicago on a specified date. 
Attorney Gehl did not return the telephone calls or respond to 
the district committee member’s letter. He also failed to appear 
to give testimony in the investigation and respond to three 
subsequent letters from the Board requiring a response on the 
issue of his failure to cooperate in the investigation. The 
referee concluded that Attorney Gehl thereby violated SCR 
21.03(4).3 In respect to the other misconduct, the referee 
concluded that Attorney Gehl violated the Rules of Professional 
Conduct for Attorneys corresponding to the Illinois rules he 
violated.4  
¶11 As discipline for the totality of his misconduct, the 
referee recommended that Attorney Gehl’s license be revoked for 
at least three years, reciprocal to the discipline imposed in 
                     
3 General principles. (4) Every attorney shall cooperate 
with the board and the administrator in the investigation, 
prosecution and disposition of grievances and complaints filed 
with or by the board or administrator.  
4 SCR 20:1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 1.15(a), (b) and (d), 
1.16(d), 3.1(a)(3), 3.2, 5.5(b), and 8.4(c).   
No. 97-1333-D 
 
7 
Illinois. He also recommended that Attorney Gehl be required to 
pay the costs of this proceeding.  
¶12 We 
adopt 
the 
referee’s 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and suspend Attorney Gehl’s license to 
practice law in Wisconsin for a period of three years. We also 
impose as a condition of reinstatement of that license that upon 
seeking reinstatement, Attorney Gehl establish that his license 
to practice law in Illinois has been reinstated and the 
effective date of that reinstatement.  
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Jeffrey I. Gehl to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of three 
years, commencing the date of this order.  
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Jeffrey I. Gehl pay to the Board of Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility 
the costs 
of this 
proceeding, 
provided 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 that time, the license of Jeffrey I. Gehl 
to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until 
further order of the court.  
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jeffrey I. Gehl comply with 
the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person 
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
 
 
1