Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Mark E. Converse

Citation: 2007 WI 42

Docket Number: 2006AP001560-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2007-04-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
2007 WI 42 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2006AP1560-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Mark E. Converse, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Mark E. Converse, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CONVERSE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 19, 2007   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: CROOKS, J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2007 WI 42
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2006AP1560-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Mark E. Converse, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Mark E. Converse, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 19, 2007 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   We 
review 
a 
referee's 
report 
and 
recommendation concluding that Attorney Mark E. Converse engaged 
in professional misconduct and recommending that his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for a period of four 
months, 
effective 
February 
23, 
2007, 
so 
as 
to 
operate 
consecutively to the one-year suspension Attorney Converse was 
already serving. 
No. 
2006AP1560-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
We conclude that the referee's findings of fact are 
supported by satisfactory and convincing evidence.  We further 
determine that the seriousness of Attorney Converse's misconduct 
warrants the suspension of his license to practice law for an 
additional period of four months.  We also agree with the 
referee that Attorney Converse should be required to make 
restitution to the client involved in this action and that the 
costs of the proceeding, which are $2569.76 as of December 14, 
2006, should be assessed against him. 
¶3 
Attorney Converse was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1973 and practiced in Green Bay.  In 1985 he 
consented to the imposition of a public reprimand for neglect of 
a client matter and representation in a conflict of interest 
situation.  In 1992 he was again publicly reprimanded for 
failing to diligently pursue a client's criminal appeal and 
failing to turn over the client's file to new counsel.  He was 
also ordered to perform 200 hours of pro bono legal work.  See 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Converse, 168 Wis. 2d 8, 
482 N.W.2d 911 (1992).   
¶4 
In 1994 Attorney Converse's license was suspended for 
60 days for failing to timely file federal and state income tax 
returns.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Converse, 
185 Wis. 2d 373, 517 N.W.2d 191 (1994).  In 2004 his license was 
suspended for 90 days for failing to act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client; engaging in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation; failing to cooperate with the Office of 
No. 
2006AP1560-D   
 
3 
 
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) in its investigation into grievances 
filed by his clients; and failing to reduce a contingent fee 
agreement to writing.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Converse, 2004 WI 10, 268 Wis. 2d 562, 675 N.W.2d 238.  
In 2006 his license was suspended for one year, effective 
February 23, 2006, for failing to diligently represent two 
clients and failing to provide them with information about their 
cases in spite of numerous requests that he do so.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Converse, 2006 WI 4, 287 
Wis. 2d 72, 707 N.W.2d 530. 
¶5 
On June 27, 2006, the OLR filed a complaint alleging 
five counts of misconduct with respect to Attorney Converse's 
handling of a criminal post-conviction matter.  The complaint 
stated that in 1984 R.S. pled guilty to first-degree and second-
degree murder in Brown County Circuit Court.  R.S. was sentenced 
to prison.  In May 2002 R.S. retained Attorney Converse to 
assist him in correcting errors in the presentence report and to 
obtain sentence relief.  Attorney Converse performed 2.5 hours 
of work between May 23, 2002, and July 2, 2002.  From July 2, 
2002, until February 18, 2003, Attorney Converse's billing 
statement reflects that no work was completed in R.S.'s case. 
¶6 
R.S. filed a grievance against Attorney Converse in 
December of 2002.  On January 28, 2003, an OLR intake 
investigator spoke with Attorney Converse about the matter.  
Attorney Converse said he owed R.S. a letter, that he had 
drafted certain motions, and that he was awaiting R.S.'s 
approval.  These statements were untrue.  On February 18 and 19, 
No. 
2006AP1560-D   
 
4 
 
2003, Attorney Converse drafted a motion and sent it to R.S.  
The OLR's grievance inquiry was closed on April 24, 2003, after 
Attorney Converse contacted R.S. and after R.S. had decided not 
to pursue the grievance. 
¶7 
On July 9, 2003, the circuit court received the motion 
in R.S.'s case, which requested that the sentence be modified 
and errors in the presentence report be corrected.  On August 
11, 2003, R.S. sent information to Attorney Converse in support 
of the motion, much of which Attorney Converse forwarded to the 
circuit court on August 28, 2003.  
¶8 
On September 3, 2003, Attorney Converse signed and 
filed a supplemental motion seeking an order to strike the 
presentence report and asking that the matter be set for 
resentencing.  A hearing was held on September 8, 2003.  R.S. 
wrote to Attorney Converse on October 5 and October 12, 2003.  
The October 5 letter forwarded information R.S. thought would be 
helpful for the brief, relayed arguments that might be made, 
mentioned that R.S.'s mother had paid Attorney Converse's bill, 
and asked for a copy of the briefs being filed.  R.S.'s October 
12, 2003 letter, provided several case citations for the brief, 
again asked for copies of the briefs, indicated that Attorney 
Converse's bill was being paid, and expressed concern about the 
amount of fees being charged to handle the matter. 
¶9 
In two subsequent letters to Attorney Converse, one 
undated and one dated December 23, 2003, R.S. complained that he 
had not received copies of any briefs or other information about 
the case.  On January 20, 2004, R.S. wrote to the clerk of court 
No. 
2006AP1560-D   
 
5 
 
saying he had heard nothing from Attorney Converse since 
September 25, 2003, and asking for information about the outcome 
of the motion.   
¶10 On February 11, 2004, the OLR received R.S.'s letter 
asking to renew his grievance against Attorney Converse.  On 
March 30, 2004, Attorney Converse wrote to R.S., apologizing for 
failing to send a copy of the court order, indicating a 
readiness to file motions to reopen and reconsider, and 
indicating he would be unable to work on the matter for three 
months. 
¶11 On May 13, 2004, the OLR wrote to Attorney Converse, 
notifying him of R.S.'s misconduct allegations which were by 
then 
under 
formal 
investigation 
and 
requesting 
Attorney 
Converse's response.  Attorney Converse failed to respond.  On 
June 15, 2004, the OLR wrote to Attorney Converse, notifying him 
that his response to the grievance had not been received, 
informing him of the duty to cooperate, and requiring his 
response by June 25, 2004.  Attorney Converse signed a certified 
mail receipt for the letter on June 16, 2004.  Although Attorney 
Converse called the OLR on June 28, 2004, to say he would be 
providing his response the next day, he did not in fact provide 
a response. 
¶12 The OLR moved this court for a temporary suspension of 
Attorney Converse's license based on his non-cooperation with 
the OLR's investigation.  On September 1, 2004, this court 
temporarily suspended Attorney Converse's license to practice 
law in Wisconsin.  On September 7, 2004, the OLR finally 
No. 
2006AP1560-D   
 
6 
 
received Attorney Converse's response to the R.S. grievance.  
Attorney Converse's license was reinstated on September 9, 2004.   
¶13 On September 8, 2004, the OLR wrote to Attorney 
Converse asking for supplemental information in the R.S. matter.  
Attorney Converse's response was due September 22, 2004.  He 
failed to respond.  The OLR wrote to him again on September 30, 
2004, informed him of his obligation to respond, and set a 
deadline for a response of October 11, 2004.  Attorney Converse 
still failed to respond.  On October 19, 2004, the OLR again 
moved this court for the temporary suspension of Attorney 
Converse's license based on his failure to provide the requested 
supplemental information in the R.S. case.  An order to show 
cause was issued.  Attorney Converse finally responded to the 
OLR on November 17, 2004.  Upon notification from the OLR that a 
temporary suspension was no longer needed, the motion was 
dismissed.  The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct:   
COUNT ONE: By failing to timely seek sentence relief 
or 
pursue 
corrections 
to 
[R.S.]'s 
presentence 
investigation, Converse failed to act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.3.1 
COUNT TWO: By failing to contact [R.S.] between July 
2002 and February 2003, and between the fall of 2003 
and March 30, 2004, and by failing to respond to 
[R.S.]'s reasonable requests for information, Converse 
failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the 
status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.3 provides that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
No. 
2006AP1560-D   
 
7 
 
requests 
for 
information, 
in 
violation 
of 
SCR 
20:1.4(a).2 
COUNT THREE: By stating to OLR's intake investigator 
on January 28, 2003, that he had drafted motions for 
[R.S.] and was waiting for [R.S.]'s approval, when he 
did not draft the motions until February 2003 and had 
not as of January 28, 2003, provided information to 
[R.S.] for approval, Converse made a misrepresentation 
in a disclosure to OLR, in violation of SCR 22.03(6),3 
and SCR 20:8.4(f).4 
COUNT FOUR: By failing to timely respond to OLR's May 
13, 2004 and June 15, 2004, investigative letters, 
Converse 
failed 
to 
disclose 
all 
facts 
and 
circumstances pertaining to alleged misconduct, in 
violation of SCRs 22.03(2)5 and 22.03(6). 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.4(a) states that "[a] lawyer shall keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly 
comply with reasonable requests for information." 
3 SCR 22.03(6) states that "[i]n the course of the 
investigation, 
the 
respondent's wilful 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." 
4 SCR 20:8.4(f) states 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." 
5 SCR 22.03(2) states:  Investigation. 
 
(2) 
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 
No. 
2006AP1560-D   
 
8 
 
COUNT FIVE: By failing to timely respond to OLR's 
requests for supplemental information of September 8, 
2004 and September 30, 2004, Converse willfully failed 
to provide relevant information in an OLR grievance 
investigation, in violation of SCR 22.03(6). 
¶14 Stanley F. Hack was appointed referee in the matter.  
On September 28, 2006, the OLR and Attorney Converse filed a 
stipulation whereby Attorney Converse agreed that each factual 
allegation in the OLR's complaint was accurate and admitted.  
Attorney Converse further admitted and stipulated to the 
commission of each of the five counts of misconduct.  A sanction 
hearing was scheduled for October 27, 2006.  R.S., who is 
incarcerated at Stanley Correctional Institution, filed a victim 
statement in advance of the hearing. 
¶15 At the sanction hearing, the parties informed the 
referee that Attorney Converse had changed his position and no 
longer wished to contest the sanction being sought by the OLR's 
director, 
which 
was 
a 
four-month 
suspension 
of 
Attorney 
Converse's license, commencing February 23, 2007, such that the 
suspension 
period 
would 
run 
consecutive 
to 
the 
one-year 
suspension imposed in the most recent disciplinary proceeding.  
At the referee's request, each party articulated its position as 
to restitution.  R.S. was contacted by telephone.   
¶16 The referee issued his findings of fact, conclusions 
of law and recommendation for discipline on December 1, 2006.  
The referee made findings of fact consistent with the facts set 
                                                                                                                                                             
present 
any 
information 
deemed 
relevant 
to 
the 
investigation. 
No. 
2006AP1560-D   
 
9 
 
forth in the OLR's complaint and the parties' stipulation.  The 
referee further concluded that the OLR had met its burden of 
proving the five counts of misconduct set forth in its complaint 
and in the stipulation.   
¶17 In discussing the appropriate discipline to impose for 
the misconduct, the referee noted that he must take into account 
the seriousness, nature and extent of the misconduct; the level 
of discipline needed to protect the public, the courts, and the 
legal system from repetition of the attorney's misconduct; the 
need to impress upon the attorney the seriousness of the 
misconduct; 
and 
the 
need 
to 
deter 
other 
attorneys 
from 
committing similar misconduct.  The referee also noted he may 
take into account the attorney's prior disciplinary history and 
this 
court's 
recognition 
of 
the 
concept 
of 
progressive 
discipline, as well as other aggravating or mitigating factors.  
Based on all of these considerations, the referee agreed that a 
four-month license suspension, commencing February 23, 2007, so 
as to operate as consecutive to the one-year suspension Attorney 
Converse was currently serving, was an appropriate level of 
discipline.  The referee also agreed that Attorney Converse 
should pay the full costs of the proceeding. 
¶18 The referee also concluded that, in addition to the 
four-month suspension and the imposition of costs, Attorney 
Converse should be ordered to return the fees paid by R.S. in 
the amount of $2825.99, without interest.  The referee noted 
that although Attorney Converse did perform some limited work 
for R.S., he did not properly represent his client and because 
No. 
2006AP1560-D   
 
10 
 
of R.S.'s incarceration, he was very limited in his ability to 
retain other counsel or otherwise proceed in the matter.   
¶19 This court will adopt a referee's findings of fact 
unless they are 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 also 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.  The referee's findings of fact in this case have 
not been shown to be clearly erroneous, and we adopt them.  We 
also agree with the referee's conclusions of law.  We further 
agree with the referee's recommendation for a four-month 
suspension of Attorney Converse's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin, effective February 23, 2007.  Finally, we agree with 
the referee's recommendation that Attorney Converse be required 
to pay the full costs of the proceeding and that he be required 
to make restitution to R.S.   
¶20 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Mark E. Converse to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of four 
months, effective February 23, 2007. 
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Mark E. Converse make restitution to R.S. in the 
amount of $2825.99.   
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Mark E. Converse pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
No. 
2006AP1560-D   
 
11 
 
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the restitution and 
costs ordered above are not paid within the time specified and 
absent a showing to this court of his inability to pay the 
restitution and/or costs within that time, the license of Mark 
E. Converse to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended 
until further order of the court. 
¶24 N. PATRICK CROOKS, J., did not participate. 
 
No. 
2006AP1560-D   
 
 
 
1