Case Title: OLR v. Stanley Whitmore Davis

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2018AP002417-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2020-06-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
2020 WI 48 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2018AP2417-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: 
June 12, 2020   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2020 WI 48 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2018AP2417-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 
 
JUN 12, 2020 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review Referee John B. Murphy's 
recommendation that Attorney Stanley Whitmore Davis be declared 
in default and his license to practice law in Wisconsin 
suspended for one year for professional misconduct.  The referee 
also recommended that Attorney Davis pay $2,500 in restitution 
to G.P. and $3,750 to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client 
Protection ("the Fund"), and that he pay the full costs of the 
proceeding, which are $2,601.62 as of January 15, 2020. 
No. 
2018AP2417-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
We declare Attorney Davis to be in default.  We agree 
with the referee that the record establishes that Attorney Davis 
has committed 36 counts of professional misconduct, warranting a 
one-year suspension of his license to practice law in Wisconsin.  
We also agree that Attorney Davis should pay restitution to G.P. 
and to the Fund and we direct him to pay the full costs of this 
proceeding.1 
¶3 
Attorney Davis was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1998.  He practiced in the Madison area.  On 
August 15, 2018, we temporarily suspended Attorney Davis' law 
license for non-cooperation with an Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) investigation.2  On November 2, 2018, his law license was 
also administratively suspended for non-payment of state bar 
                                                 
1 Attorney 
Davis 
is 
the 
subject 
of 
another 
pending 
disciplinary matter, presently before a referee.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Stanley Whitmore Davis, Case 
No. 2019AP2405-D.  After the court finalized this decision but 
before our opinion was released, Attorney Davis filed a Petition 
for Revocation by Consent in this court.  He sought to resolve 
this disciplinary proceeding together with his other pending 
disciplinary matters.  Because the issuance of this decision was 
imminent, we dismissed the Petition for Revocation by Consent by 
separate order of this court.  The other pending disciplinary 
matters involving Attorney Davis will proceed in due course. 
2 On January 8, 2018, this court temporarily suspended 
Attorney Davis' Wisconsin law license for failure to cooperate 
with the OLR.  OLR v. Davis, No. 2017XX1617, unpublished order 
(S. Ct. Jan. 8, 2018).  That suspension was lifted on March 2, 
2018, after the OLR received Attorney Davis' response to a 
pending grievance.  Thereafter, Attorney Davis failed to respond 
to the OLR's request for additional information.  On August 15, 
2018, the court again temporarily suspended Attorney Davis' 
license to practice law for his noncooperation.  OLR v. Davis, 
No. 2018XX768, unpublished order (S. Ct. Aug. 15, 2018).  
No. 
2018AP2417-D   
 
3 
 
dues and failure to submit a trust account certification.  On 
June 5, 2019, he was administratively suspended for failure to 
complete mandatory continuing education requirements.  His law 
license remains suspended. 
¶4 
On December 20, 2018, the OLR filed its initial 
disciplinary complaint against Attorney Davis, alleging 20 
counts of professional misconduct.  The complaint was personally 
served upon Attorney Davis on January 14, 2019.  Attorney Davis 
did not file an answer.  Referee Murphy was appointed on 
February 1, 2019 and on February 9, 2019, the referee ordered 
the parties to appear by telephone for a February 26, 2019 
scheduling conference.  Attorney Davis was also ordered to 
provide a contact telephone number, in advance.  Attorney Davis 
failed to provide a telephone number and failed to appear at the 
scheduling conference.  The OLR requested and received leave to 
file an amended complaint and another scheduling conference was 
set for May 14, 2019.  
¶5 
On March 19, 2019, the OLR filed an amended complaint 
alleging 26 counts of misconduct.  Attorney Davis failed to 
answer, failed to provide a telephone number, and did not appear 
at the follow-up scheduling conference.   
¶6 
On August 6, 2019, the OLR filed a second amended 
complaint alleging 36 counts of misconduct.  Attorney Davis did 
not answer.  On September 19, 2019, the OLR filed a notice of 
motion and motion for summary judgment.  Again, Attorney Davis 
did not respond.  
No. 
2018AP2417-D   
 
4 
 
¶7 
On October 15, 2019, the referee, citing Wis. Stat. 
§ 801.11(1), directed the OLR to personally serve Attorney Davis 
with the first and second amended complaints.3  An adult woman 
with the surname Davis accepted service of the complaints on 
October 24, 2019.  Additional personal service was attempted on 
October 25, 2019.  The complaints were accepted by a person 
believed to be Attorney Davis' father.  The two amended 
complaints were also mailed to all three addresses associated 
with Attorney Davis.  The referee found that it "is undeniably 
clear that Davis has no interest in objecting to any of the 
allegations made against him by the OLR though he has been given 
many opportunities to do so."   
¶8 
On December 27, 2019, the referee issued his report, 
recommending the court grant the OLR's motion and deem Attorney 
Davis in default.  The referee found that based on the facts 
alleged in the second amended complaint and Attorney Davis' 
failure to answer the second amended complaint, or otherwise 
respond or appear in this matter, the OLR has met its burden of 
proof with respect to proving all 36 counts of misconduct 
alleged 
in 
the 
second 
amended 
complaint. 
 
The 
referee 
recommended that Attorney Davis' license to practice law in 
Wisconsin be suspended for one year, that he be ordered to pay 
restitution to one client, G.P., and to the Fund, and assessed 
the costs of this proceeding. 
                                                 
3 The OLR had served the two amended complaints by mail. 
No. 
2018AP2417-D   
 
5 
 
¶9 
Attorney 
Davis 
did 
not 
appeal 
the 
referee's 
recommendation 
so 
we 
consider 
this 
matter 
pursuant 
to 
SCR 22.17(2).4  A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless 
clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.  
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 
14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  The court may impose 
whatever sanction it sees fit, regardless of the referee's 
recommendation.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.  
¶10 We agree that reasonable diligence was exercised, 
attempting to serve Attorney Davis by personal service in the 
manner set forth in Wis. Stat. § 801.11(1) and by service under 
SCR 22.13(1), which provides that if, with reasonable diligence, 
the 
respondent 
cannot 
be 
served 
under 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 801.11(1)(a) or (b), "service may be made by sending by 
certified mail an authenticated copy of the complaint and order 
to answer to the most recent address furnished by the respondent 
to the state bar."   
¶11 As the second amended complaint reflects, Attorney 
Davis' misconduct was serious.  It involves 36 counts of 
                                                 
4 SCR 22.17(2) provides:   
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
No. 
2018AP2417-D   
 
6 
 
misconduct and eight client matters.  Attorney Davis missed 
deadlines, failed to pursue client claims, lied to clients about 
the status of cases, failed to return retainers, failed to 
advise clients when his law license was suspended, then failed 
to respond to grievances or otherwise cooperate with the OLR.  
The referee described him as "absolutely uncooperative."  As an 
example, one client lost her right to pursue a Title VII claim 
because of Attorney Davis' failure to act.  We accept the 
referee's conclusions, based on the second amended complaint, 
that Attorney Davis violated SCRs 20:1.15 (Competence, Count 27); 
20:1.36 (Diligence, Counts 1, 5, 10, 13, and 21); 20:1.4(a)(3)7 
(Communication, Count 2); 20:1.4(a)(2)8 (Communication, Count 
22); 20:1.5(b)(1)9 (Fees, Count 14); 20:1.5(c)10 (Fees, Count 
                                                 
5 SCR 20:1.1 provides:  "A lawyer shall provide competent 
representation to a client.  Competent representation required 
the 
legal 
knowledge, 
skill, 
thoroughness 
and 
preparation 
reasonably necessary for the representation." 
6 SCR 20:1.3 provides: "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
7 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides: "A lawyer shall keep the client 
reasonably informed about the status of the matter." 
8 SCR 20:1.4(a)(2) provides:  "A lawyer shall reasonably 
consult with the client about the means by which the client's 
objectives are to be accomplished." 
9 SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) provides:  
The scope of the representation and the basis or 
rate of the fee and expenses for which the client will 
be responsible shall be communicated to the client in 
writing, before or within a reasonable time after 
commencing the representation, except when the lawyer 
will charge a regularly represented client on the same 
basis or rate as in the past.  If it is reasonably 
No. 
2018AP2417-D   
 
7 
 
15); 20:1.16(d)11 (Terminating Representation, Counts 3, 11, and 
29); 20:3.4(c)12 (Fairness to Opposing Counsel and the Tribunal, 
                                                                                                                                                             
foreseeable that the total cost of representation to 
the client, including attorney's fees, will be $1000 
or less, the communication may be oral or in writing. 
10 SCR 20:1.5(c) provides: 
A fee may be contingent on the outcome of the 
matter for which the service is rendered, except in a 
matter in which a contingent fee is prohibited by par. 
(d) or other law.  A contingent fee agreement shall be 
in a writing signed by the client, and shall state the 
method by which the fee is to be determined, including 
the percentage or percentages that shall accrue to the 
lawyer in the event of settlement, trial or appeal; 
litigation and other expenses to be deducted from the 
recovery; and whether such expenses are to be deducted 
before or after the contingent fee is calculated.  The 
agreement must clearly notify the client of any 
expenses for which the client will be liable whether 
or not the client is the prevailing party. Upon 
conclusion of a contingent fee matter, the lawyer 
shall provide the client with a written statement 
stating the outcome of the matter and if there is a 
recovery, showing the remittance to the client and the 
method of its determination. 
11 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. 
12 SCR 20:3.4(c) provides:  "A lawyer shall not knowingly 
disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except for 
an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation 
exists." 
No. 
2018AP2417-D   
 
8 
 
Count 31); and 20:8.4(c)13 (Misconduct, Count 28).  In addition, 
by continuing to represent clients and provide legal advice 
while his law license was suspended, Attorney Davis violated 
SCR 10.03(6),14 SCR 22.26(2),15 and SCR 31.10(1),16 enforceable 
                                                 
13 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
14 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. 
15 SCR 22.26(2) provides: 
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. 
16 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 
No. 
2018AP2417-D   
 
9 
 
via SCR 20:8.4(f)17 (Counts 9, 17, 24, 26, 33 and 35); and, by 
failing to notify clients and/or the court and opposing counsel 
of his license suspension he violated SCR 22.26(1)(a)-(c),18 
                                                                                                                                                             
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. 
17 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." 
18 SCR 22.26(1)(a)-(c) provides: 
(1) On or before the effective date of license 
suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 
suspended or revoked shall do all of the following: 
(a) 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. 
(b) Advise the clients to seek legal advice of 
their choice elsewhere. 
(c) Promptly provide written notification to the 
court or administrative agency and the attorney for 
each party in a matter pending before a court or 
administrative agency 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.  The notice shall identify 
the successor attorney of the attorney's client or, if 
there is none at the time notice is given, shall state 
the client's place of residence. 
No. 
2018AP2417-D   
 
10 
 
enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f) (Counts 6, 8, 16, 19, 23, and 32).  
Finally, by failing to cooperate with the OLR Attorney Davis 
violated SCR 22.03(2)19 and/or SCR 22.03(6),20 enforceable via 
SCR 20:8.4(h)21 (Counts 4, 7, 12, 18, 20, 25, 30, 34, and 36). 
¶12 We next consider the appropriate sanction.  The first 
complaint 
filed 
against 
Attorney 
Davis 
sought 
a 
90-day 
suspension.  The first amended complaint reflected additional 
misconduct and requested a nine-month suspension.  The second 
amended complaint added six more counts of misconduct and sought 
a one-year suspension.  The OLR bases this recommendation on In 
                                                 
19 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.   
20 SCR 
22.03(6) 
provides: 
 
"In 
the 
course 
of 
the 
investigation, the respondent's willful failure to provide 
relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 
documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure 
are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted 
in the grievance." 
21 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. 
2018AP2417-D   
 
11 
 
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Chavez, 2015 WI 39, 361 
Wis. 2d 636, 862 N.W.2d 142.  Attorney Chavez's law license was 
suspended for one year for continuing to accept legal work after 
knowing he faced a license suspension, failing to inform clients 
of 
his 
suspension, 
abandoning 
clients, 
then 
failing 
to 
participate in or cooperate with the disciplinary proceeding.  
The OLR states that it considers Attorney Davis' misconduct less 
serious than that in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Tully, 2005 WI 100, 283 Wis. 2d 124, 699 N.W.2d 882, where the 
attorney, who had no prior discipline, was suspended for two 
years for 29 counts of misconduct, including failure to act on 
her clients' behalf, failure to respond to her clients, 
practicing while her license was suspended, lying to the Board 
of Bar Examiners in her reinstatement petition, and failing to 
cooperate in the disciplinary investigation.  Certainly, a 
lengthy suspension is appropriate.  As Attorney Davis has been 
suspended since August 15, 2018, we will accept the referee's 
recommendation, and impose a one-year suspension on Attorney 
Davis' law license. 
¶13 We further agree that Attorney Davis shall make 
restitution in the amount of $2,500 to G.P. and $3,750 to the 
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection.  We note with 
some concern that the OLR's restitution statement states there 
was "no reasonably ascertainable amount of restitution" with 
respect to Attorney Davis' representation of C.B. on the 
employment matter, or his representation of T.F., O.O., R.P., 
and T.M.  We recognize that Attorney Davis' utter refusal to 
No. 
2018AP2417-D   
 
12 
 
cooperate 
with 
the 
OLR 
may 
account 
for 
this 
troubling 
conclusion.  We emphasize that if Attorney Davis ever seeks 
reinstatement, he will be required to satisfy to this court that 
he has addressed the question of restitution.  See, e.g., SCR 
22.29(4)(c) and (4m).  Finally, we agree with the referee that 
Attorney Davis should bear the full costs of this proceeding. 
¶14 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Stanley Whitmore 
Davis to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 
one year, effective the date of this order. 
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Stanley Whitmore Davis shall pay restitution to 
G.P. in the amount of $2,500 and to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund 
for Client Protection in the amount of $3,750.  
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that restitution to client G.P. 
is to be completed prior to paying restitution to the Wisconsin 
Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection, and restitution to the 
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection is, in turn, to be 
completed 
before 
paying 
costs 
to 
the 
Office 
of 
Lawyer 
Regulation. 
¶17 IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of 
this order, Stanley Whitmore Davis shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$2,601.62, as of January 15, 2020. 
¶18 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 an attorney 
whose license to practice law has been suspended. 
No. 
2018AP2417-D   
 
13 
 
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the temporary suspension of 
Stanley Whitmore Davis' license to practice law, entered on 
August 15, 2018, is hereby lifted. 
¶20 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
administrative 
suspensions of Stanley Whitmore Davis due to his failure to pay 
mandatory 
bar 
dues, 
failure 
to 
file 
a 
trust 
account 
certification, and failure to comply 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). 
¶21 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
as 
a 
condition 
of 
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin, 
Stanley Whitmore Davis will be required to demonstrate he has 
made full restitution to or settled all claims of all persons 
harmed by the misconduct that is the subject of this proceeding, 
as set forth in the second amended complaint. 
 
No. 
2018AP2417-D   
 
 
 
1