Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Terry J. Ness

Citation: 2002 WI 114

Docket Number: 2001AP002007-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2002-10-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
2002 WI 114 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
01-2007-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Terry J. Ness, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, f/k/a Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
Terry J. Ness,  
 
Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST NESS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 2, 2002   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2002 WI 114 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  01-2007-D  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Terry J. Ness, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, f/k/a Board 
of Attorneys Professional Responsibility,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Terry J. Ness,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 2, 2002 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended. 
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   We 
review 
the 
findings 
of 
fact, 
conclusions of law, and recommendation for discipline of the 
No. 
01-2007-D   
 
2 
 
referee, Timothy L. Vocke,1 pursuant to former SCR 21.09(5).2  
Attorney Terry J. Ness was found to have engaged in numerous 
violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct in the course of 
his practice of law.  The referee has recommended that Attorney 
Ness's license to practice law be suspended and that he pay the 
costs of these proceedings.  
                                                 
1 Effective 
October 
1, 
2000, 
Wisconsin's 
attorney 
disciplinary process underwent a substantial restructuring.  The 
name of the body responsible for investigating and prosecuting 
cases involving attorney misconduct was changed from the Board 
of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board) to the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation, and the Supreme Court rules applicable to 
the lawyer regulation system were also revised.  Since the 
conduct underlying this case arose prior to October 1, 2000, all 
references will be to the Board and to the Supreme Court rules 
in effect prior to October 1, 2000.   
2 Former SCR 21.09(5) provided: 
(5) The referee shall, within 30 days of the 
conclusion of the hearing, file with the clerk of the 
supreme court a report stating his or her findings and 
disposition 
of 
the 
complaint 
or 
petition 
by 
recommendation 
of 
dismissal 
or 
imposition 
of 
discipline as provided in SCR 21.06 or suspension or 
conditions upon the continued practice of law for 
medical incapacity. The board or the attorney may file 
an appeal of the referee's report with the supreme 
court within 20 days of the filing of the report.  If 
no appeal is timely filed, the supreme court shall 
review the referee's report and determine appropriate 
discipline in cases of misconduct and appropriate 
action in cases of medical incapacity and may, on its 
own motion, within 30 days of the expiration of the 
time for appeal, order the parties to file briefs in 
the matter or extend the time in which it may order 
briefs.  The supreme court's final disposition of 
disciplinary and medical incapacity proceedings shall 
be published in the official publications specified in 
SCR 80.01.  (Emphasis added.) 
No. 
01-2007-D   
 
3 
 
¶2 
We 
approve 
the 
findings, 
conclusions, 
and 
recommendations 
of 
the 
referee 
and 
determine 
that 
the 
seriousness of Attorney Ness's conduct warrants the imposition 
of these sanctions. 
¶3 
Attorney Ness was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in 1998.  He also took, but did not pass, the 
Minnesota bar exam.  At all times material to this matter 
Attorney Ness worked for a Minneapolis law firm, Halunen & Ness.  
He has no prior attorney disciplinary history.  
¶4 
On July 27, 2001, the Board issued a complaint against 
Attorney Ness ordering him to answer within 20 days.  He filed 
an answer, and subsequently entered into a stipulation with the 
Board, by which he admitted most of the factual allegations of 
the complaint, which consisted of six counts.  However, he did 
not stipulate to whether those facts amounted to a violation of 
the supreme court rules.  The referee conducted a disciplinary 
hearing on March 14, 2002, and subsequently issued his findings, 
conclusions, and recommendation for discipline on April 12, 
2002.   
¶5 
Count one, practicing law in a jurisdiction where 
doing so violated the regulation of the legal profession in that 
jurisdiction, in violation of SCR 20:5.5(a),3 and counts two 
through four, knowingly making a false statement of fact or law 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:5.5(a) provides: "Unauthorized practice of law. A 
lawyer shall not: (a) practice law in a jurisdiction where doing 
so violates the regulation of the legal profession in that 
jurisdiction." 
No. 
01-2007-D   
 
4 
 
to a tribunal, in violation of SCR 20:3.3(a)(1),4 arose out of 
Attorney Ness's appearances in a Minnesota state court and 
federal court.  He represented to the federal court that he 
could appear pro hac vice because he was admitted in a Wisconsin 
federal court, which was not true.  However, in reliance on his 
statement, the federal court admitted him.  He told the 
Minnesota state court that he was admitted in that particular 
county on a pro hac vice basis and also implied to that court 
that his partner, who was admitted to practice in Minnesota, was 
involved in all aspects of the particular case, when neither was 
true.  He also later indicated to the state court that he 
thought 
the 
federal 
pro 
hac 
vice 
admission, 
which 
he 
fraudulently obtained, would suffice for state court as well.   
¶6 
The referee found that the supreme court rules were 
violated with respect to these four counts.  He found that 
Attorney Ness had deceived both courts by portraying that he had 
been admitted in the Wisconsin federal court when that was not 
true, by claiming that he was admitted in the county on a pro 
hac vice basis when that was not true, and by claiming that his 
partner was actually involved in the state case when in fact it 
was entirely his own.  The referee further indicated that 
Attorney Ness had attempted to deceive the state court by 
initially claiming that he was newly admitted and that was why 
his name did not appear on the state computer database, and then 
                                                 
4 SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) provides: "Candor toward the tribunal. 
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of 
fact or law to a tribunal." 
No. 
01-2007-D   
 
5 
 
later fabricating the claim that he was admitted pro hac vice 
for purposes of that case.   
¶7 
Count 
five, 
failing 
to 
indicate 
jurisdictional 
limitations 
while 
not 
licensed 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
the 
jurisdiction in which the office is located, in violation of SCR 
20:7.5(b),5 arose because Attorney Ness did not adequately 
disclose to potential clients that he was not licensed in 
Minnesota.  In addition, he claimed a Wisconsin office which was 
merely his father's home.  
¶8 
Counts six and seven, making a false or misleading 
communication about himself and his services, in violation of 
SCR 20:7.1(a),6 involved the use of a letterhead that falsely 
                                                 
5 SCR 20:7.5(b) provides: "(b) A law firm with offices in 
more than one jurisdiction may use the same name in each 
jurisdiction, but identification of the lawyers in an office of 
the firm shall indicate the jurisdictional limitations on those 
not licensed to practice in the jurisdiction where the office is 
located." 
6 SCR 20:7.1(a) provides: 
(a) A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading 
communication 
about 
the 
lawyer 
or 
the 
lawyer's 
services. A communication is false or misleading if 
it:  
(1) contains a material misrepresentation of fact 
or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the 
statement 
considered 
as 
a 
whole 
not 
materially 
misleading;  
(2) is 
likely 
to 
create 
an 
unjustified 
expectation about results the lawyer can achieve, or 
states or implies that the lawyer can achieve results 
by means that violate the Rules of Professional 
Conduct or other law;  
No. 
01-2007-D   
 
6 
 
stated Attorney Ness was admitted in federal courts and in 
Minnesota when that was not true.  In addition, these counts 
involved Attorney Ness's references to his firm as a "national 
law firm" concentrating on federal False Claims Acts cases, and 
implying that the firm had achieved significant settlements and 
verdicts in the successful prosecution of hundreds of such 
claims, when none of this was true.  
¶9 
With respect to these three counts, the referee found 
that Attorney Ness had repeatedly used letterheads, websites, 
fax transmission cover 
sheets, and 
similar 
communications 
suggesting that there were no jurisdictional limits to his 
practice and that he was admitted both in Minnesota and in 
federal courts.  In addition, the referee found that Attorney 
Ness had repeatedly claimed he was an expert in False Claims 
Acts cases when that was not accurate; indeed, neither Attorney 
Ness nor his firm had ever litigated such a case.   
¶10 We find that Attorney Ness violated the relevant 
supreme court rules with reference to the seven counts with 
which he was charged and thereby adopt the referee's findings 
and conclusions concerning these counts.  
                                                                                                                                                             
(3) compares the lawyer's services with other 
lawyers' 
services, unless 
the 
comparison 
can be 
factually substantiated; or  
(4) contains any paid testimonial about, or paid 
endorsement of, the lawyer without identifying the 
fact that payment has been made or, if the testimonial 
or endorsement is not made by an actual client, 
without identifying that fact.   
No. 
01-2007-D   
 
7 
 
¶11 The Board asked for a nine-month suspension which 
would require Attorney Ness to apply for reinstatement and 
convince this court that he had learned something about the 
ethics and practice of law.  He sought a suspension of less than 
six months so that he could automatically start his practice 
after the suspension.  The referee concluded: 
Attorney Ness simply doesn’t get it; he is basically 
dishonest.  He doesn’t see anything wrong with what he 
has done.  He has done nothing to correct any of the 
misinformation that he has provided to either the 
Federal or State Courts in Minnesota.  He has 
attempted to deflect and mislead OLR during its 
investigation.  He was less than honest in the 
disciplinary proceeding.   
His 
approach 
throughout 
the 
course 
of 
the 
proceeding was to try to deny the obvious and concede 
a point only when it was impossible not to do so.  
This Referee and the Supreme Court has to decide 
whether Attorney Ness engaged in the activities that 
he did because he was incredibly incompetent or 
whether he did so because he was dishonest. 
Based upon his appearance before me, I have 
concluded that the latter is true. 
The referee recommended a nine-month suspension along with costs 
of $5952.40.   
¶12 We agree with the referee's comments and adopt the 
referee's recommendation for discipline which is appropriate for 
the professional misconduct demonstrated in this case.  Attorney 
Ness's misconduct was both repeated and serious, warranting the 
substantial sanction involved here.  
¶13 Accordingly, it is appropriate that the license of 
Attorney Ness to practice law in this state be suspended for a 
No. 
01-2007-D   
 
8 
 
period of nine months and that he pay the costs of this 
proceeding in the amount of $5952.40. 
¶14 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Terry J. 
Ness to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for a period of 
nine months, effective November 6, 2002. 
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Terry J. Ness 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
an attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended. 
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Terry J. Ness shall pay $5952.40 to the 
Board, representing the costs of this proceeding.  If these 
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 Attorney Terry J. Ness to practice law 
shall remain suspended indefinitely until further order of the 
court.   
No. 
01-2007-D   
 
 
 
1