Case Title: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. K. Richard Wells

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1999AP001750-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2000-01-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
2000 WI 1 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
99-1750-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against K. Richard Wells, Attorney at  
Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional  
Responsibility,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
K. Richard Wells,  
 
Respondent.  
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST WELLS 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
January 4,2000 
Submitted on Briefs: 
      
Oral Argument: 
      
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
      
 
Dissented: 
      
 
Not Participating:       
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
      
 
2000 WI 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. 99-1750-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against K. Richard Wells, Attorney at  
Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional  
Responsibility,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
K. Richard Wells,  
 
          Respondent.  
FILED 
 
JAN 4, 2000 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended; conditions imposed.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that the court suspend the license of K. Richard Wells 
to practice law in Wisconsin for 90 days as discipline for 
professional misconduct.  That misconduct consisted of his 
notarizing the signature of a person who did not appear and sign 
the document in front of him, not responding to a client's 
telephone inquiries and providing information about the status 
of the matter he was retained to pursue, failing to appear at a 
client's pretrial conference, with the result that the client 
was found guilty in absentia, not responding to that client's 
telephone inquiries and providing information about the status 
No. 
99-1750-D 
 
2 
of the matter, and failing to respond to inquiries from the 
Board of 
Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility 
(Board) in 
respect to the foregoing and two additional matters. 
¶2 
We determine that the recommended 90-day license 
suspension is the appropriate discipline to impose for Attorney 
Wells' professional misconduct.  He previously received a 
private reprimand from the Board in February 1998 as discipline 
for substantially similar misconduct.  Yet, he has persisted in 
failing to meet his responsibilities to clients and fulfill his 
most basic duty of informing them of the status of their legal 
matters. 
 
In 
addition, 
he 
has 
violated 
his 
notarial 
responsibility and ignored requests for information from the 
board we have charged with investigating and, where warranted, 
prosecuting allegations of attorney professional misconduct.  
With 
the 
license 
suspension, 
we 
impose 
conditions 
on 
reinstatement 
of 
Attorney 
Wells' 
license 
that 
have 
been 
recommended by the referee, as set forth below.   
¶3 
Attorney Wells was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1983 and practices in Kenosha.  When he refused to 
participate in the telephonic hearing conducted by the referee 
on the Board's motion for default judgment, the referee granted 
that motion and made the following findings of facts. 
¶4 
In early 1998, Attorney Wells was retained to assist a 
client in obtaining records of counseling the client had 
undergone in order to qualify for an occupational operator's 
license.  Attorney Wells asked the client to sign and return an 
authorization for release of the records, which the client did, 
No. 
99-1750-D 
 
3 
and then notarized the client's signature on the authorization 
without the client's having appeared before him and without 
witnessing the client's signing the document.  The referee 
concluded that Attorney Wells thereby engaged in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in 
violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).1  When the client asserted that 
Attorney Wells had not sent him the counseling records and did 
not respond to his numerous telephone calls, the Board asked 
Attorney Wells for a response.  Attorney Wells did not respond 
to any of the three letters from the Board and gave no 
explanation 
to 
the 
district 
professional 
responsibility 
committee for his failure to respond.  He promised the district 
committee investigator that he would turn over the file, but he 
never did.  The referee concluded that by failing to respond to 
the Board's letters, Attorney Wells failed to cooperate in the 
Board's investigation, in violation of SCR 21.03(4)2 and 22.07(2) 
and (3).3   
                     
1 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:  
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation; 
2 SCR 21.03(4) provides: 
(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. 
3 SCR 22.07(2) and (3) provide: 
No. 
99-1750-D 
 
4 
¶5 
The private reprimand the Board imposed on him in 
February 1998 was conditioned on Attorney Wells' returning file 
materials to a client.  When he signed his acceptance of the 
reprimand, Attorney Wells indicated that the file materials had 
been returned to the client, but the client told a district 
professional responsibility committee member that he never 
received those materials.  The Board ultimately commenced an 
investigation into the matter and wrote Attorney Wells two 
letters in late 1998 asking for a response, but Attorney Wells 
did not respond or provide an explanation for his failure to do 
so.  The referee concluded that he thus violated SCR 21.03(4) 
and 22.07(2) and (3). 
¶6 
In April 1998, a client paid Attorney Wells a $3,000 
retainer to represent her minor son.  The client heard nothing 
                                                                  
(2) During 
the 
course 
of 
an 
investigation, 
the 
administrator or a committee may notify the respondent of the 
subject being investigated. The respondent shall fully and 
fairly disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct or medical incapacity within 20 days of being 
served by ordinary mail a request for response to a grievance. 
The administrator in his or her discretion may allow additional 
time 
to 
respond. 
Failure 
to 
provide 
information 
or 
misrepresentation 
in 
a 
disclosure 
is 
misconduct. 
The 
administrator or committee may make a further investigation 
before making a recommendation to the board. 
(3) The 
administrator 
or 
committee 
may 
compel 
the 
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents and present 
any information deemed relevant to the investigation.  Failure 
of the respondent to answer questions, furnish documents or 
present relevant information is misconduct.  The administrator 
or a committee may compel any other person to produce pertinent 
books, papers and documents under SCR 22.22. 
 
No. 
99-1750-D 
 
5 
from Attorney Wells, notwithstanding her numerous telephone 
calls, from mid-May to October 1998, when she filed a grievance 
with the Board.  Attorney Wells did not provide the client or 
her son any information regarding the status of the matter.  The 
referee concluded that Attorney Wells failed to keep the client 
reasonably informed of the status of the legal matter for which 
he was retained, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).4  The referee 
also concluded that he violated SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2) and 
(3) by not responding to three letters from the Board asking for 
a response to the client's grievance. 
¶7 
In January 1998, Attorney Wells was hired by a client 
and paid a retainer of $750 to represent him on a municipal 
traffic citation.  Attorney Wells attended a court appearance 
with the client at which a pretrial conference was scheduled, 
but he did not appear for the pretrial, as a result of which the 
client was found guilty in absentia.  The client did not receive 
notice of the guilty finding until he received two letters from 
the municipality in June 1998 advising him that he had been 
found guilty, that he owed a forfeiture of $719, and that his 
driving privileges had been suspended for nine months.  The 
referee concluded that Attorney Wells neglected this client's 
legal matter and failed to act with reasonable diligence and 
                     
4 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides: 
(a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about 
the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable 
requests for information.  
 
No. 
99-1750-D 
 
6 
promptness in representing the client, in violation of SCR 
20:1.3.5  His failure to respond to the client's repeated 
attempts to contact him for an explanation violated SCR 
20:1.4(a), and his failure to respond to two letters from the 
Board seeking information about the client's grievance violated 
SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2) and (3).   
¶8 
Attorney Wells did not respond to inquiries from the 
Board concerning another client's grievance filed in November 
1998.  The referee concluded that he thereby violated SCR 
21.03(4) and 22.07(2) and (3). 
¶9 
As discipline for that professional misconduct, the 
referee recommended that the court suspend Attorneys Wells' 
license to practice law for 90 days.  In making that 
recommendation, the referee explicitly took into account his 
repeated 
pattern of non-cooperation, 
his prior 
discipline 
involving substantially similar misconduct, and his repeated 
violations of professional obligations in respect to direct 
dealings with clients.  Responding to his unexplained refusal to 
participate in this disciplinary proceeding either by filing an 
answer to the Board's complaint or by taking part in the hearing 
on the Board's default judgment motion, the referee suggested 
that Attorney Wells may be in need of "significant professional 
                     
5 SCR 20:1.3 provides: Diligence  
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client.  
 
No. 
99-1750-D 
 
7 
help with respect to his mental health."  Accordingly, the 
referee recommended that as a condition of reinstatement of his 
license following the period of suspension, Attorney Wells be 
required to obtain at his own expense a psychological evaluation 
and to follow any treatment plan that may be recommended as a 
result.  
¶10 We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and determine that the recommended license 
suspension and imposition of the reinstatement condition are 
appropriate under the circumstances.  The referee's report did 
not address the issue of restitution to clients of retainers 
they had paid Attorney Wells for services he did not provide.  
In that regard, we expect the Board to ensure that appropriate 
restitution to persons harmed by Attorney Wells' misconduct has 
been made prior to reinstatement under SCR 22.28(2).6  Finally, 
we require Attorney Wells to pay the costs of this proceeding, 
as the referee recommended.   
¶11 IT IS ORDERED that the license of K. Richard Wells to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for 90 days, commencing 
February 11, 2000. 
                     
6 SCR 22.28(2) provides: 
(2) An attorney's license suspended for misconduct for less 
than 6 months is automatically reinstated upon the attorney's 
filing 
with 
the 
administrator 
an 
affidavit 
showing 
full 
compliance with all the terms and conditions of the order of 
suspension. 
 
No. 
99-1750-D 
 
8 
¶12 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
as 
a 
condition 
of 
reinstatement of his license to practice law, K. Richard Wells 
obtain at his own expense a psychological evaluation, furnish 
the results of it to the Board of Attorneys Professional 
Responsibility, and establish to the satisfaction of the Board 
that he has followed all treatment recommended.  
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order K. Richard Wells 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 K. Richard Wells 
to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until 
further order of the court.  
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that K. Richard Wells 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