Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. David L. Ham

Citation: 2006 WI 30

Docket Number: 2005AP002187-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2006-04-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
2006 WI 30 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2005AP2187-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against David L. Ham, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
David L. Ham, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HAM 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 5, 2006   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2006 WI 30
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2005AP2187-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against David L. Ham, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
David L. Ham, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 5, 2006 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of referee Norman C. Anderson that Attorney David L. Ham's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin be revoked, that he be 
ordered to provide an accounting and pay restitution to certain 
clients, and that he be ordered to pay the costs of this 
proceeding following Attorney Ham's default in response to the 
complaint filed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR).   
No. 
2005AP2187-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
After our review of the matter, we adopt the referee's 
findings of fact and conclusions of law and revoke the license 
of Attorney Ham to practice law in this state.  We also order 
Attorney Ham to pay restitution to four clients, to provide an 
accounting and return all unearned retainer fees to two other 
clients, and to pay the costs of this proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney Ham was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin 
in 1994.  His license has been suspended on three prior 
occasions for failure to cooperate with the OLR's grievance 
investigations, most recently on January 11, 2005.  His 
temporary suspension remains in effect. 
¶4 
The present proceeding arises out of a complaint filed 
by the OLR on August 29, 2005, and served on Attorney Ham on 
September 7, 2005.  Attorney Ham did not respond to the original 
complaint.  On October 11, 2005, the OLR filed a 79-page amended 
complaint containing 53 separate counts of alleged wrongdoing.  
The amended complaint was personally served on Attorney Ham on 
October 17, 2005.   
¶5 
Referee Norman Anderson set a scheduling conference 
for November 10, 2005, but Attorney Ham failed to appear.  On 
that same date, because Attorney Ham had not responded to the 
original complaint or the amended complaint, the OLR filed a 
motion for default judgment against him.  Attorney Ham still did 
not respond. 
¶6 
By written order filed December 12, 2005, Referee 
Anderson granted the OLR's motion for default judgment.  The 
referee also filed his report and recommendation.  He adopted 
No. 
2005AP2187-D   
 
3 
 
the allegations of the amended complaint as his factual findings 
and concluded, based on those findings, that Attorney Ham had 
committed professional misconduct as alleged in each of the 53 
counts of the amended complaint.  Given the serious nature of 
Attorney 
Ham's 
violations 
and 
the 
pattern 
of 
repeated 
violations, the referee recommended that Attorney Ham's license 
to practice law in this state be revoked in order to protect the 
public.  He also recommended that Attorney Ham be ordered to pay 
restitution to four clients, to provide an accounting and return 
unearned fees to two other clients, and to pay the costs of this 
proceeding. 
¶7 
Attorney Ham did not appeal from the referee's report 
and recommendation.  Consequently, the matter is submitted to 
this court for its consideration pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1  In 
our review, the referee's findings of fact are to be affirmed 
unless they are clearly erroneous.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Sosnay, 209 Wis. 2d 241, 243, 562 N.W.2d 137 
(1997).  The referee's conclusions of law, however, are subject 
to de novo review.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 718. 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) provides:  Review; appeal. 
(2) 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. 
2005AP2187-D   
 
4 
 
¶8 
The OLR's amended complaint, the factual allegations 
of which were accepted as true by the referee due to Attorney 
Ham's default, details misconduct relating to 16 different 
clients.  The relevant facts and the legal conclusions they 
support will be summarized as briefly as possible below. 
¶9 
Client G.S. retained Attorney Ham in a criminal case 
to file a post-conviction motion for relief and an appeal.  
G.S.'s mother mailed checks in the total amount of $8000 to 
cover the attorney fees through appeal.  When G.S. had not heard 
from Attorney Ham in quite some time, he left multiple messages 
for Attorney Ham to the effect that if Attorney Ham was unable 
to complete the tasks, he would like a refund of his retainer.  
After failing to respond to G.S.'s messages, Attorney Ham 
finally informed G.S. that he had completed the post-conviction 
motion and would be filing it immediately.  This was false, as 
Attorney Ham had not yet drafted the motion.  After G.S. became 
concerned when he still received no copy of the motion and 
subsequently learned from the clerk of court that no motion had 
ever been filed, he again tried to reach Attorney Ham to obtain 
an explanation.  Attorney Ham failed to return the calls 
promptly.  When he finally did speak to G.S., Attorney Ham told 
him that a temporary worker must have made an error in sending 
out the motion.  This was also a false statement.  G.S. 
ultimately sent a letter to Attorney Ham terminating his 
services, requesting his case file, and seeking a refund.  It 
took Attorney Ham almost two months to complete the process of 
returning G.S.'s file and refunding the retainer. 
No. 
2005AP2187-D   
 
5 
 
¶10 When the OLR attempted to contact Attorney Ham about 
G.S.'s grievance, he initially asked for additional time to file 
his response, but then never submitted any response.  The OLR 
was forced to seek an order temporarily suspending Attorney 
Ham's license for failure to cooperate, which this court granted 
on March 11, 2004.  After Attorney Ham finally submitted a 
written response, the OLR moved for a lifting of the temporary 
suspension, which this court granted on April 7, 2004.  When the 
OLR requested additional information from Attorney Ham, however, 
he again failed to respond. 
¶11 With respect to G.S., the referee concluded that 
Attorney Ham had violated SCR 20:1.4(a)2 by failing to keep a 
client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and to 
comply 
promptly 
with 
a 
client's 
reasonable 
requests 
for 
information.  The referee also concluded that Attorney Ham's 
statements about having completed the motion and about his 
temporary employee having erred in filing the motion were false, 
constituting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or 
misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).3  Finally, the 
referee concluded that Attorney Ham's failure to provide a 
written response to the grievance until after his license had 
been temporarily suspended and his failure thereafter to respond 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides 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 20:8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit and misrepresentation." 
No. 
2005AP2187-D   
 
6 
 
to the OLR's request for additional information constituted 
violations of SCR 22.03(2),4 SCR 22.03(6),5 and SCR 21.15(4),6 
which are supreme court rules regulating the conduct of lawyers, 
thereby also violating SCR 20:8.4(f).7 
                                                 
4 SCR 22.03(2) provides:  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 
present 
any 
information 
deemed 
relevant 
to 
the 
investigation. 
5 SCR 22.03(6) provides 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." 
6 SCR 
21.15(4) 
provides 
that 
"[e]very 
attorney 
shall 
cooperate 
with 
the 
office 
of 
lawyer 
regulation 
in 
the 
investigation, 
prosecution 
and 
disposition 
of 
grievances, 
complaints filed with or by the director, and petitions for 
reinstatement.  An attorney's wilful failure to cooperate with 
the office of lawyer regulation constitutes violation of the 
rules of professional conduct for attorneys." 
7  SCR 20:8.4(f) provides that 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." 
No. 
2005AP2187-D   
 
7 
 
¶12 Count 4 of the complaint involves a grievance filed by 
client B.H., who alleged that Attorney Ham had failed to obtain 
an affidavit that the police had used as the basis for obtaining 
a search warrant, which had led to charges being filed against 
B.H.  In July and August 2004 the OLR attempted to contact 
Attorney Ham about B.H.'s grievance, but Attorney Ham failed to 
respond, even failing to claim the OLR's certified letter.  On 
September 1, 2004, the OLR personally served Attorney Ham with a 
letter requiring a response within seven days.  Attorney Ham 
again failed to respond.  Only after the OLR sent yet another 
letter, this time threatening a motion for temporary license 
suspension, did Attorney Ham provide a written response on 
September 30, 2004.  Based on these facts, the referee concluded 
that Attorney Ham had willfully failed to provide relevant 
information 
and 
documents 
to 
the 
OLR 
in 
a 
grievance 
investigation in violation of SCR 21.15(4),8 SCR 22.03(2),9 and 
SCR 22.03(6),10 thereby also violating SCR 20:8.4(f).11 
¶13 In mid-August 2003 Attorney Ham was contacted about 
representing an incarcerated person, M.H., concerning a motion 
to obtain 160 days of sentence credit, which would have resulted 
in M.H.'s release date being moved up to September 30, 2003.  
During 
an 
initial 
telephone 
conversation, 
Attorney 
Ham 
                                                 
8  See note 6. 
9  See note 4. 
10 See note 5. 
11 See note 7. 
No. 
2005AP2187-D   
 
8 
 
acknowledged the urgency of the situation and stated that he 
would either seek a stipulation or file a motion for the 
sentence credit as soon as he received a $1000 retainer.  A 
friend of M.H. mailed a $1000 check to Attorney Ham on August 
29, 2003, and M.H. mailed a signed retainer agreement on 
September 8, 2003.  When Attorney Ham failed to respond to 
multiple messages left by M.H. and his friend, M.H. terminated 
the representation on September 14, 2003, and requested the 
return of the retainer less any costs or expenses.  Attorney Ham 
has admitted that he did not earn the entire retainer fee, but 
he has not returned the money to M.H. or his friend. 
¶14 Attorney Ham again failed to respond to the OLR's 
inquiries regarding M.H.'s grievance.  After three months of 
sending and personally serving multiple letters requesting a 
reply, with no response, the OLR moved for a temporary 
suspension of Attorney Ham's license to practice law, which this 
court granted on September 16, 2004.  Attorney Ham finally filed 
a response on October 13, 2004.  The OLR then moved for 
reinstatement of Attorney Ham's license, which this court 
granted on November 17, 2004. 
¶15 The referee found that Attorney Ham's failure to 
refund the unearned retainer fee to M.H. and to return M.H.'s 
client file to him as requested constituted a violation of SCR 
20:1.16(d),12 which requires an attorney, upon termination of a 
                                                 
12 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides:  Declining or terminating 
representation. 
No. 
2005AP2187-D   
 
9 
 
representation, to take steps to the extent reasonably practical 
to protect the client's interests.  The referee also found that 
Attorney Ham had willfully failed to cooperate with the OLR's 
grievance investigation in violation of SCR 21.15(4),13 SCR 
22.03(2),14 and SCR 22.03(6),15 thereby also violating SCR 
20:8.4(f).16 
¶16 Counts 7-9 relate to Attorney Ham's representation of 
R.L. concerning charges of operating a motor vehicle while 
intoxicated (OWI) and of operating with a prohibited alcohol 
concentration (OWPAC).  After receiving a $750 retainer and 
entering not guilty pleas on R.L.'s behalf on January 29, 2004, 
Attorney Ham stopped all communications with R.L.  On March 1, 
2004, R.L. moved to Arizona.  Because Attorney Ham's license was 
temporarily suspended at the time, he did not appear at the 
March 26, 2004, scheduling conference.  At that conference, the 
prosecutor offered a plea agreement, pursuant to which R.L. 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
(d) 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 that has not been earned.  
The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to 
the extent permitted by other law. 
13 See note 6. 
14 See note 4. 
15 See note 5. 
16 See note 7. 
No. 
2005AP2187-D   
 
10 
 
would plead guilty to the OWI charge, pay a $175 forfeiture, and 
have his Wisconsin driver's license suspended for six months. 
¶17 In May 2004 R.L. filed a grievance with the OLR, 
complaining that Attorney Ham was not communicating with him.  
The OLR attempted to persuade Attorney Ham to contact R.L. and 
also to obtain a written response from Attorney Ham to the 
grievance, but to no avail.  During the summer months, the court 
proceedings were delayed, with the court rescheduling the 
pretrial conference for September 1, 2004.  During this time, 
the OLR continued to seek information from Attorney Ham, but he 
failed to respond.   
¶18 On September 1, 2004, Attorney Ham accepted the 
prosecutor's offer of a plea agreement with R.L. pleading 
guilty/no contest to the OWI charge.  Consequently, R.L.'s 
license was revoked for six months, he was ordered to undergo an 
alcohol assessment, and was ordered to pay the sum of $691.  
R.L. was never notified of this particular offer and was not 
given the opportunity to accept or reject it.  This resolution 
of the Wisconsin case may have impacted R.L.'s Arizona driver's 
license. 
¶19 Although Attorney Ham finally filed a written response 
to R.L.'s grievance on October 14, 2004, he failed to respond 
fully to the grievance.  The OLR continued to seek the necessary 
additional information from Attorney Ham, but he never provided 
it.  Ultimately, the OLR again moved for the temporary 
suspension of Attorney Ham's license to practice law, which this 
No. 
2005AP2187-D   
 
11 
 
court granted on January 11, 2005.  Attorney Ham's license has 
remained suspended through the date of this opinion. 
¶20 The referee concluded that by failing to inform his 
client of the status of negotiations with the State and by 
failing to respond to his client's numerous requests for 
information, except on one occasion, Attorney Ham had failed to 
keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter 
and to comply promptly with reasonable requests for information, 
contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a).17  The referee also found that for two 
separate periods of time, Attorney Ham had willfully failed to 
provide requested information to the OLR and to cooperate with 
its grievance investigation, in violation of SCR 21.15(4),18 SCR 
22.03(2),19 and SCR 22.03(6),20 thereby also violating SCR 
20:8.4(f).21 
¶21 Counts 10-12 relate to Attorney Ham's representation 
of T.L. on a criminal traffic matter.  On July 26, 2004, 
Attorney Ham met with T.L. for the first and only time.  T.L. 
paid Attorney Ham a $1000 retainer.  Nonetheless, Attorney Ham 
failed to appear at T.L.'s initial appearance on August 2, 2004.  
After finding probable cause, the circuit court bound the case 
over for trial and scheduled a status hearing for August 17, 
                                                 
17 See note 2. 
18 See note 6. 
19 See note 4. 
20 See note 5. 
21 See note 7. 
No. 
2005AP2187-D   
 
12 
 
2004.  Although T.L. placed numerous telephone calls and even 
personally left a written message for Attorney Ham at his 
office, Attorney Ham did not respond.  T.L. ultimately retained 
a different attorney to complete the traffic matter and sought 
the return of the $1000 retainer he had paid to Attorney Ham. 
¶22 After T.L. filed a grievance on September 1, 2004, the 
OLR sent multiple letters to Attorney Ham over the next several 
months seeking a response to the grievance.  Attorney Ham never 
responded, even after this court issued an order to show cause 
why his license should not be temporarily suspended.  As noted 
above, Attorney Ham's license to practice law in Wisconsin was 
temporarily suspended on January 11, 2005. 
¶23 With respect to the T.L. representation, the referee 
concluded that Attorney Ham's failure to attend the August 2, 
2004, initial appearance, or to otherwise provide any services 
on T.L.'s behalf had constituted a failure to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness, in violation of SCR 
20:1.3.22  He further concluded that by failing to respond to 
T.L.'s telephone calls or his written message, Attorney Ham had 
failed to keep the client reasonably informed about the status 
of a matter and to comply promptly with reasonable requests for 
information, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a).23  Finally, the referee 
again concluded that Attorney Ham had violated SCR 21.15(4),24 
                                                 
22 SCR 20:1.3 states that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
23 See note 2. 
24 See note 6. 
No. 
2005AP2187-D   
 
13 
 
SCR 22.03(2),25 and SCR 22.03(6),26 thereby also violating SCR 
20:8.4(f),27 when he willfully failed to respond to the OLR's 
grievance investigation. 
¶24 Counts 13-17 relate to Attorney Ham's representation 
of K.P. regarding an OWI charge.  K.P. retained Attorney Ham on 
September 13, 2004, and paid him a retainer of $1500, which 
Attorney Ham said would cover the entire representation.  
Attorney Ham also told K.P. that he would appear on her behalf 
at the initial appearance scheduled for September 30, 2004, and 
that she need not appear personally.  Over the next two weeks, 
K.P. tried to contact Attorney Ham on multiple occasions, but 
received no response. 
¶25 Attorney Ham's license was temporarily suspended on 
September 16, 2004, but he never informed K.P. of that fact.  
Despite the temporary suspension, Attorney Ham did appear in 
person at the initial appearance on September 30, 2004, and 
entered a not guilty plea on K.P.'s behalf.  At that time, the 
assistant district attorney offered a plea agreement to Attorney 
Ham, pursuant to which K.P. would have been required to serve a 
30-day jail term. 
¶26 K.P. 
telephoned 
Attorney 
Ham 
after 
the 
court 
appearance.  Attorney Ham informed her that he had accepted a 
plea agreement on her behalf.  He stated, however, that the 
                                                 
25 See note 4. 
26 See note 5. 
27 See note 7. 
No. 
2005AP2187-D   
 
14 
 
agreement required her to serve four days in jail and have her 
driver's license suspended for one year, contingent upon K.P. 
providing proof that she had completed an inpatient alcohol 
program.  Attorney Ham told K.P. to meet him at the courthouse 
on October 18, 2004, for a hearing in her case.   
¶27 Despite K.P.'s numerous attempts to reach Attorney Ham 
over the next several weeks, he again failed to communicate with 
her.  He also failed to appear at the October 18, 2004, hearing.  
On that date, Attorney Ham's attorney called the court to 
indicate that Attorney Ham's license had been temporarily 
suspended.  This was the first indication of that fact given to 
the court, the district attorney's office, or K.P.  In light of 
the suspension, the court continued the hearing to November 22, 
2004, and advised K.P. either to contact Attorney Ham or retain 
new counsel. 
¶28 On November 3, 2004, K.P. sent a certified letter to 
Attorney Ham, terminating his services and asking for a return 
of her case file and a refund of her retainer.  K.P. appeared at 
the November 22, 2004, hearing on her own behalf without an 
attorney, informed the court that she had sought alcohol 
treatment, and requested that her sentence be four days in jail, 
pursuant to what Attorney Ham had told her.  The assistant 
district attorney, however, informed her that the plea agreement 
required her to serve 30 days in jail and a 16-month suspension 
of her driver's license.  When Attorney Ham failed to reply to 
K.P.'s request for a return of her retainer, she applied for 
reimbursement from the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client 
No. 
2005AP2187-D   
 
15 
 
Protection (the Fund).  In April 2005 the Fund approved payment 
of $1500 to K.P.  
¶29 The OLR sent letters to Attorney Ham in December 2004 
and January 2005 seeking a response to K.P.'s grievance.  
Attorney Ham never responded. 
¶30 The referee concluded that Attorney Ham's failure to 
return K.P.'s case file and the unearned portion of her retainer 
had violated SCR 20:1.16(d).28  The referee also found that by 
failing to notify K.P. of the temporary suspension of his 
license to practice law and to advise her to seek other legal 
counsel, Attorney Ham had violated SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b),29 
thereby also violating SCR 20:8.4(f).30  Similarly, the referee 
concluded that Attorney Ham's failure to notify the circuit 
court and the district attorney's office of his license 
                                                 
28 See note 12. 
29 SCR 22.26(1) states in relevant part:  Activities 
following suspension or revocation. 
 
(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. 
30 See note 7. 
No. 
2005AP2187-D   
 
16 
 
suspension had violated SCR 22.26(1)(c),31 thereby also violating 
SCR 20:8.4(f).32  In addition, the referee found that Attorney 
Ham's appearance at the September 30, 2004, initial appearance 
while his license to practice law had been temporarily suspended 
had constituted a violation of SCR 22.26(2),33 which forbids an 
attorney whose license has been suspended from engaging in the 
practice of law in this state, thereby also violating SCR 
20:8.4(f).34  Finally, the referee again concluded that Attorney 
Ham's willful failure to cooperate with the OLR's grievance 
                                                 
31 SCR 22.26(1)(c) further states in relevant part that on 
or before the effective date of license suspension or revocation 
an attorney shall: 
 
 
(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 or the attorney's client or, if 
there is none at the time notice is given, shall state 
the client's place of residence. 
32 See note 7. 
33 SCR 22.26(2) provides: 
 
(2) 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. 
34 See note 7. 
No. 
2005AP2187-D   
 
17 
 
investigation had violated SCR 22.03(2),35 thereby also violating 
SCR 20:8.4(f).36 
¶31 Counts 18-20 also relate to Attorney Ham's failure to 
notify a client, the court, and the prosecuting attorney of one 
of his prior temporary suspensions.  In the fall of 2004 
Attorney Ham was representing J.M. in multiple misdemeanor and 
criminal traffic cases.  Although Attorney Ham's license was 
temporarily suspended on September 16, 2004, and the court's 
order explicitly required him to comply with SCR 22.26, Attorney 
Ham made none of the required notifications.  He simply failed 
to appear at a November 1, 2004, hearing on J.M.'s pending 
cases.  After the prosecuting attorney filed a grievance, the 
OLR sent letters to Attorney Ham in December 2004 and January 
2005 requesting a written response to the grievance.  Attorney 
Ham failed to respond to any of the letters. 
¶32 For this conduct, the referee concluded that Attorney 
Ham had violated SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b)37 (Count 18), when he 
failed to notify his client of his license suspension and SCR 
22.26(1)(c)38 (Count 19), when he similarly failed to notify the 
circuit court and the district attorney's office.  By violating 
these rules regulating the conduct of lawyers, Attorney Ham also 
                                                 
35 See note 4. 
36 See note 7. 
37 See note 29. 
38 See note 31. 
No. 
2005AP2187-D   
 
18 
 
violated SCR 20:8.4(f).39  The referee also concluded that 
Attorney Ham's failure to respond to the OLR's grievance 
investigation had violated SCR 22.03(2),40 thereby also violating 
SCR 20:8.4(f).41 
¶33 Counts 21-24 relate to Attorney Ham's representation 
of client S.H. in a sentencing on a reopened criminal conviction 
after a probation violation.  S.H.'s father paid Attorney Ham a 
flat fee of $500 to represent S.H.  On June 25, 2004, Attorney 
Ham spoke with S.H., who was in jail at the time.  Attorney Ham 
told S.H. that he would talk to the district attorney about 
recommending that S.H.'s sentence would consist of only time 
already served and that Attorney Ham would see S.H. at a bail 
hearing scheduled for July 9, 2004.  Attorney Ham never followed 
up with S.H. and did not appear for the July 9, 2004, hearing.  
When the court was unable to reach Attorney Ham, it appointed a 
public defender for S.H.  Ultimately, S.H. was sentenced to 110 
days in jail.  After multiple attempts, S.H. finally reached 
Attorney Ham, who told her that he would refund the $500 flat 
fee to her father.  S.H.'s father called and also sent a 
subsequent letter to Attorney Ham requesting that he complete 
the refund of the $500.  Attorney Ham never responded and never 
refunded the money.  Following the father's grievance, the OLR 
                                                 
39 See note 7. 
40 See note 4. 
41 See note 7. 
No. 
2005AP2187-D   
 
19 
 
sent multiple letters to Attorney Ham requesting a response to 
the grievance.  Attorney Ham never responded.   
¶34 The referee found that Attorney Ham's failure to 
appear at the July 9, 2004, bail hearing had constituted a 
failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, 
contrary to SCR 20:1.3.42  The referee further concluded that by 
failing to inform S.H. that he had been unable to obtain an 
agreement with the district attorney and that he would not 
appear at the bail hearing, Attorney Ham had failed to keep his 
client reasonably informed in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).43  The 
referee also held that Attorney Ham's failure to return the $500 
unearned flat fee after the termination of the representation 
had violated SCR 20:1.16(d).44  Finally, the referee concluded 
that Attorney Ham's failure to respond to the OLR had violated 
SCR 22.03(2),45 thereby also violating SCR 20:8.4(f).46 
¶35 Counts 25-30 relate to Attorney Ham's representation 
of client M.B. regarding theft charges.  M.B. paid Attorney Ham 
a $3000 fee to represent her on those charges.  After Attorney 
Ham appeared with M.B. at her initial appearance and a status 
conference, Attorney Ham's license was temporarily suspended on 
September 16, 2004.  Attorney Ham did not inform either M.B. or 
                                                 
42 See note 22. 
43 See note 2. 
44 See note 12. 
45 See note 4. 
46 See note 7. 
No. 
2005AP2187-D   
 
20 
 
the court of this fact.  Indeed, M.B. sent documents to Attorney 
Ham and attempted to contact him, but received no response from 
him.  Although Attorney Ham's license was reinstated on November 
17, 2004, Attorney Ham did not contact M.B. and failed to appear 
at M.B.'s December 14, 2004, pretrial conference.  The pretrial 
conference had to be rescheduled and M.B. was forced to obtain 
new counsel.  Attorney Ham failed to return any of the $3000 fee 
and failed to respond to the OLR's letters concerning M.B.'s 
grievance. 
¶36 The referee concluded that Attorney Ham's failure to 
attend the December 14, 2004, pretrial conference or otherwise 
to advance M.B.'s interests during the time his license was not 
suspended had constituted a failure to act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness, contrary to SCR 20:1.3.47  The referee 
also found that Attorney Ham's failure to communicate with M.B., 
other than during the temporary suspension of his license, had 
constituted a failure to keep the client reasonably informed 
about a matter, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).48  Attorney Ham's 
failure to return the unearned portion of the fee qualified as a 
failure 
to 
protect 
his 
client's 
interests 
following 
the 
termination of the representation, contrary to SCR 20:1.16(d).49  
The referee further concluded that Attorney Ham's failure to 
notify his client (Count 28) and the presiding court (Count 29) 
                                                 
47 See note 22. 
48 See note 2. 
49 See note 12. 
No. 
2005AP2187-D   
 
21 
 
had violated SCR 22.26(1)(a), (b),50 and (c)51 respectively, 
thereby also violating SCR 20:8.4(f).52  Finally, the referee 
found that Attorney Ham's failure to respond to the OLR's 
grievance investigation had violated SCR 22.03(2),53 thereby 
again violating SCR 20:8.4(f).54 
¶37 Counts 31-34 stem from a letter that a circuit judge 
wrote to the OLR regarding Attorney Ham's misconduct in two 
cases pending in the judge's court.  The first case involved 
Attorney Ham's representation of R.J. regarding a criminal 
traffic charge.  After Attorney Ham had made several appearances 
on R.J.'s behalf and had obtained the suppression of certain 
evidence, the court ordered the parties to brief an issue 
relating to the State's attempt to impose a penalty for R.J.'s 
alleged refusal to submit to a chemical test.  Attorney Ham's 
license was temporarily suspended on September 16, 2004.  
Attorney Ham failed either to notify the court or to file the 
required brief. 
¶38 Attorney Ham's license was reinstated on November 17, 
2004, but Attorney Ham still did not file the brief.  The court 
thereafter issued an amended briefing schedule that required the 
brief to be filed by December 15, 2004.  Attorney Ham again 
                                                 
50 See note 29. 
51 See note 31. 
52 See note 7. 
53 See note 4. 
54 See note 7. 
No. 
2005AP2187-D   
 
22 
 
failed to contact the court or file the necessary brief.  At 
this point, the court issued an order requiring Attorney Ham to 
appear in person on January 3, 2005.  Although Attorney Ham's 
license was still valid at that time, Attorney Ham did not 
appear and had no further communication with the court. 
¶39 The 
other 
matter 
involved 
Attorney 
Ham's 
representation of W.K. on similar traffic charges.  Attorney Ham 
attended W.K.'s initial appearance on August 25, 2004.  Because 
Attorney Ham's license was suspended on the date of W.K.'s 
pretrial hearing, another attorney appeared on his behalf at 
that hearing.  A plea hearing was subsequently scheduled for 
January 9, 2005, by which time Attorney Ham's license had been 
reinstated.  Although Attorney Ham remained counsel of record on 
that date, he did not appear.  W.K. appeared by himself and told 
the court that he had been unable to reach Attorney Ham.  W.K. 
ultimately was forced to retain another attorney. 
¶40 The OLR sent letters to Attorney Ham in February and 
March 2005 asking him to respond to the circuit judge's 
grievance.  Attorney Ham failed to submit any response.  Indeed, 
when the postal carrier attempted to deliver the OLR's certified 
letter to Attorney Ham's office, he asked the carrier to mark 
the letter as "undeliverable as addressed."  The carrier replied 
that he could not do so and marked the letter as "refused."   
¶41 With respect to the R.J. case, the referee concluded 
that Attorney Ham's failure to file the brief as required under 
the court's briefing schedule and his failure to appear in court 
on January 3, 2005, as ordered by the court, had constituted a 
No. 
2005AP2187-D   
 
23 
 
failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, 
contrary to SCR 20:1.3.55  The referee also found that by not 
appearing on January 3, 2005, Attorney Ham had knowingly 
disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, in 
violation of SCR 20:3.4(c).56   
¶42 With respect to the W.K. matter, the referee found 
that Attorney Ham's failure to appear at W.K.'s plea hearing on 
January 9, 2005, when he was counsel of record and licensed to 
practice, had violated SCR 20:1.3.57 
¶43 The referee further concluded that Attorney Ham's 
refusal to accept delivery of the OLR's letter and his willful 
failure to respond to the OLR's grievance investigation had 
violated SCR 21.15(4),58 SCR 22.03(2),59 SCR 22.03(6),60 thereby 
also violating SCR 20:8.4(f).61 
¶44 Counts 35-40 relate to Attorney Ham's representation 
of K.M. in two separate criminal cases.  In the first case, 
Attorney Ham appeared with K.M. at the initial appearance, the 
                                                 
55 See note 22. 
56 SCR 20:3.4(c) states that 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." 
57 See note 22. 
58 See note 6. 
59 See note 4. 
60 See note 5. 
61 See note 7. 
No. 
2005AP2187-D   
 
24 
 
preliminary hearing, and the arraignment.  The circuit court 
then scheduled a telephonic status conference for September 30, 
2004. 
 
As 
noted 
previously, 
Attorney 
Ham's 
license 
was 
temporarily suspended on September 16, 2004.  On September 27, 
2004, K.M. wrote to the court that he had repeatedly attempted 
to contact Attorney Ham over the previous two months, but that 
Attorney Ham had not responded.  In light of K.M.'s request for 
a continuance to find new counsel, the court continued the 
telephonic status conference until December 7, 2004. 
¶45 In the second case involving K.M., Attorney Ham 
attended K.M.'s initial appearance, but failed to attend a 
preliminary hearing scheduled for July 29, 2004.  After 
attempting, unsuccessfully, to reach Attorney Ham, and holding 
him responsible for witness fees, the court rescheduled the 
hearing for August 5, 2004, at which time Attorney Ham did 
appear.  Although Attorney Ham's license was temporarily 
suspended on September 16, 2004, he did not notify either K.M. 
or the court of that fact. 
¶46 On January 10, 2005, the court ordered that K.M.'s two 
cases be consolidated.  Attorney Ham's license was temporarily 
suspended again the following day, but he did not notify K.M., 
opposing counsel, or the court of the suspension.  Attorney Ham 
failed to appear at the scheduling conference held on January 
21, 2005.  K.M. again informed the court that Attorney Ham had 
not communicated with him.  The court called Attorney Ham's 
office, but was unable to leave a message because the answering 
machine's message storage was full. 
No. 
2005AP2187-D   
 
25 
 
¶47 On January 24, 2005, the court ordered Attorney Ham to 
appear on February 10, 2005, to show cause why he had failed to 
communicate with his client, why he had failed to appear at the 
January 21, 2005, scheduling conference, and why he should not 
be removed as counsel.  Attorney Ham failed to appear at the 
hearing on February 10, 2005.  The court then issued an order 
disqualifying Attorney Ham from K.M.'s cases, requiring Attorney 
Ham to prepare an itemized billing statement, and mandating that 
Attorney Ham return any unearned fee to K.M. by March 1, 2005.  
Attorney Ham failed to take the actions as ordered by the 
circuit court and also failed to return K.M.'s files. 
¶48 The OLR sent letters to Attorney Ham at both his home 
and office addresses regarding the K.M. representation in 
February and March 2005.  Attorney Ham refused delivery of the 
OLR's certified letter and never responded to OLR's grievance 
investigation. 
¶49 With respect to the K.M. representation, the referee 
found that Attorney Ham had failed to keep his client reasonably 
informed about the status of a matter, contrary to SCR 
20:1.4(a).62  The referee also concluded that Attorney Ham's 
failure to return the unearned portion of the $5000 fee had 
constituted a failure to protect a client's interests upon 
termination 
of 
the 
representation, 
in 
violation 
of 
SCR 
20:1.16(d).63  The referee further found that, by failing to 
                                                 
62 See note 2. 
63 See note 12. 
No. 
2005AP2187-D   
 
26 
 
appear in court on February 10, 2005, and by failing to prepare 
and distribute an itemized billing statement, Attorney Ham had 
knowingly disobeyed obligations under the rules of a tribunal, 
contrary to SCR 20:3.4(c).64  The referee also ruled that 
Attorney Ham had violated SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b),65 thereby also 
violating SCR 20:8.4(f),66 when he failed to inform his client 
that his license had been temporarily suspended on September 16, 
2004, and January 11, 2005.  Similarly, the referee concluded 
that Attorney Ham's failure to inform the circuit court and the 
prosecuting attorney of his temporary license suspensions had 
violated 
SCR 
22.26(1)(c),67 
thereby 
also 
violating 
SCR 
20:8.4(f).68  Finally with respect to the K.M. representation, 
the referee found that Attorney Ham's willful failure to accept 
delivery of the OLR's certified letter and to respond to the 
OLR's grievance investigation had violated SCR 21.15(4),69 SCR 
22.03(2),70 and SCR 22.03(6),71 thereby also violating SCR 
20:8.4(f).72 
                                                 
64 See note 56. 
65 See note 29. 
66 See note 7. 
67 See note 31. 
68 See note 7. 
69 See note 6. 
70 See note 4. 
71 See note 5. 
72 See note 7. 
No. 
2005AP2187-D   
 
27 
 
¶50 Count 41 relates to Attorney Ham's representation of 
S.K. in a criminal matter and the subsequent grievance filed by 
S.K. and her parents.  The OLR sent Attorney Ham a letter on 
November 18, 2004, requesting a written response to the 
grievance, but Attorney Ham did not respond.  The OLR sent a 
second letter, by regular and certified mail, on December 16, 
2004.  Although the certified letter was unclaimed, the letter 
sent by regular mail was not returned, indicating that it had 
been delivered.  The OLR's district committee made two more 
unsuccessful attempts to contact Attorney Ham in May 2005.  
Attorney 
Ham 
never 
responded 
to 
the 
OLR's 
requests 
for 
information.  Consequently, the referee concluded that Attorney 
Ham had violated SCR 21.15(4),73 SCR 22.03(2),74 and SCR 
22.03(6),75 thereby also violating SCR 20:8.4(f).76 
¶51 Counts 42-48 relate to Attorney Ham's representation 
of C.L. in a criminal matter.  After entering an appearance in 
C.L.'s case on August 31, 2004, Attorney Ham's license was 
temporarily suspended on September 16, 2004.  Attorney Ham 
failed to notify C.L., the prosecutor, or the court of his 
suspension.  Although a final pretrial conference had been 
scheduled for October 28, 2004, Attorney Ham told C.L. that the 
hearing had been cancelled.  Consequently, C.L. did not appear 
                                                 
73 See note 6. 
74 See note 4. 
75 See note 5. 
76 See note 7. 
No. 
2005AP2187-D   
 
28 
 
at the conference.  Attorney Ham also failed to appear.  Another 
attorney, who was not representing C.L., did show up at the 
conference and stated that Attorney Ham had asked him to notify 
the court of his license suspension and to request that the 
court leave the case on the trial schedule. 
¶52 The court held another pretrial conference on November 
11, 2004.  Attorney Ham again did not appear.  C.L. did appear 
and told the court that he had again been unable to reach 
Attorney Ham despite having left many messages at his office.  
C.L. also informed the court that on November 2, 2004, he had 
delivered a $7500 cashier's check to Attorney Ham that was to be 
used to pay restitution.   
¶53 The court continued the case until December 1, 2004, 
when it conducted another status conference.  Although C.L. 
appeared, Attorney Ham did not, despite having been notified of 
the conference by the court.  At that hearing, C.L. stated that 
Attorney Ham had previously told him that he was working out a 
deal with the assistant district attorney for the payment of 
restitution in the present case and another case in return for 
C.L.'s release from jail on an electronic monitoring device.  
The assistant district attorney denied having had any such 
conversations with Attorney Ham and stated that no restitution 
had been paid on C.L.'s behalf. 
¶54 At a further hearing on December 17, 2004, C.L. 
informed the court that he could not afford to hire another 
attorney because he had scraped together all of his money to pay 
the $7500 in restitution and Attorney Ham's retainer of $1750.   
No. 
2005AP2187-D   
 
29 
 
¶55 At 
that 
point, 
the 
assistant 
district 
attorney 
subpoenaed Attorney Ham's trust account records.  The records 
showed that Attorney Ham had deposited the $7500 into his client 
trust account on November 8, 2004.  The records also showed that 
Attorney Ham had made 32 disbursements from his trust account 
from November 2, 2004, through December 12, 2004.  Included 
among those disbursements were 23 withdrawals for cash, totaling 
more than $5000.  Attorney Ham had also issued a trust account 
check for $815 to the company that managed his apartment 
building and two trust account checks each for $454 to the owner 
of the building in which his law office was located.  Attorney 
Ham had also used a trust account check in the amount of $404.66 
to pay his annual dues and assessments to the State Bar of 
Wisconsin.  Ultimately, because of questions concerning the 
source of C.L.'s $7500 cashier's check, the district attorney 
obtained a freeze on the $7500 in Attorney Ham's client trust 
account. 
¶56 The OLR sent letters to Attorney Ham in December 2004 
and January 2005 requesting information on the grievance that 
had been filed in this matter.  Attorney Ham failed to submit 
any response. 
¶57 Based 
on 
these 
facts 
concerning 
the 
C.L. 
representation, the referee concluded that Attorney Ham had 
violated 
SCR 
22.26(1)(a) 
and 
(b)77 
(Count 
42), 
and 
SCR 
                                                 
77 See note 29. 
No. 
2005AP2187-D   
 
30 
 
22.26(1)(c)78 (Count 43), thereby also violating SCR 20:8.4(f),79 
when he failed to notify C.L., the prosecuting attorney, and the 
court of his temporary license suspension.  The referee also 
concluded that by retaining the $7500 from his client instead of 
promptly using those funds to provide restitution in C.L.'s 
criminal matters, Attorney Ham had violated SCR 20:1.15(d)(1).80  
The referee also found that Attorney Ham's failure to appear at 
the December 1, 2004, status conference, after he had received 
notice from the court and his license had been reinstated, had 
constituted a failure to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness, contrary to SCR 20:1.3.81  The referee further 
concluded that Attorney Ham had violated SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)a.,82 
                                                 
78 See note 31. 
79 See note 7. 
80 SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) states:  Prompt notice and delivery of 
property. 
 
(1) Notice and disbursement.  Upon receiving 
funds or other property in which a client has an 
interest, or in which the lawyer has received notice 
that a 3rd party has an interest identified by a lien, 
court order, judgment, or contract, the lawyer shall 
promptly notify the client or 3rd party in writing.  
Except as stated in this rule or otherwise permitted 
by law or by agreement with the client, the lawyer 
shall promptly deliver to the client or 3rd party any 
funds or other property that the client or 3rd party 
is entitled to receive. 
81 See note 22. 
82 SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)a. states that "[n]o disbursement of 
cash shall be made from a trust account or from a deposit to a 
trust account, and no check shall be made payable to 'Cash.'" 
No. 
2005AP2187-D   
 
31 
 
when he had made cash disbursements from his client trust 
account.  The referee also ruled that by disbursing client trust 
account funds to pay his office rent, his apartment rent, and 
his annual bar dues and assessments, Attorney Ham had failed to 
hold client property in trust, separate from his own property, 
contrary to SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).83  Finally, the referee again 
concluded that Attorney Ham's willful failure to respond to the 
OLR's grievance investigation had violated SCR 22.03(2),84 and 
SCR 22.03(6),85 thereby also violating SCR 20:8.4(f).86 
¶58 Attorney Ham's client P.B. also filed a grievance 
against him.  As it had done on other occasions, the OLR sent a 
copy of the grievance to Attorney Ham's home and office address 
and asked for a written response.  Approximately a month later, 
the OLR sent another letter to Attorney Ham asking for a 
response.  Attorney Ham never responded.  Accordingly, the 
                                                 
83 SCR 
20:1.15(b)(1) 
provides: 
 
Segregation 
of 
trust 
property. 
 
(1) Separate account.  A lawyer shall hold in 
trust, separate from the lawyer's own property, that 
property of clients and 3rd parties that is in the 
lawyer's 
possession 
in 
connection 
with 
a 
representation.  All funds of clients and 3rd parties 
paid to a lawyer or law firm in connection with a 
representation shall be deposited in one or more 
identifiable trust accounts. 
84 See note 4. 
85 See note 5. 
86 See note 7. 
No. 
2005AP2187-D   
 
32 
 
referee concluded that Attorney Ham had violated SCR 22.03(2),87 
and SCR 22.03(6),88 thereby also violating SCR 20:8.4(f).89 
¶59 Counts 50-53 relate to Attorney Ham's representation 
of G.H. in a federal criminal matter.  Attorney Ham represented 
G.H. through trial and sentencing.  Shortly thereafter, on 
August 2, 2004, G.H.'s wife delivered a $7000 retainer fee to 
Attorney Ham to cover G.H.'s appeal.  After delivering the 
retainer, neither G.H. nor his wife heard from Attorney Ham, 
despite multiple voicemail messages and a letter from G.H.'s 
wife.  After nothing had been done on the appeal, in March 2005 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued an 
order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed.  
Ultimately, the Seventh Circuit discharged Attorney Ham as 
counsel and appointed new counsel for G.H.  Attorney Ham never 
refunded the $7000 retainer to G.H. or his wife. 
¶60 In April and May 2005 the OLR sent letters to Attorney 
Ham's home address and post office box requesting a response to 
the grievance concerning his representation of G.H.  Attorney 
Ham never responded. 
¶61 The referee concluded that Attorney Ham's failure to 
take any action on G.H.'s appeal had violated SCR 20:1.3.90  The 
referee also found that Attorney Ham had failed to keep the 
                                                 
87 See note 4. 
88 See note 5. 
89 See note 7. 
90 See note 22. 
No. 
2005AP2187-D   
 
33 
 
client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and to 
promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).91  By failing to return the $7000 
retainer, the referee concluded that Attorney Ham had violated 
SCR 20:1.16(d).92  Finally, the referee again concluded that 
Attorney 
Ham's 
failure 
to 
respond 
to 
the 
OLR 
grievance 
investigation had violated SCR 22.03(2),93 and SCR 22.03(6),94 
thereby also violating SCR 20:8.4(f).95 
¶62 In light of the 53 separate counts of professional 
misconduct 
concerning 
16 
different 
clients, 
the 
referee 
recommended that the court revoke Attorney Ham's license to 
practice law in this state.  The referee emphasized the clear 
pattern of repeated violations.  He also noted the serious 
nature of the misconduct, especially the misuse of trust account 
funds to pay Attorney Ham's personal expenses.  The referee also 
recommended that Attorney Ham be required to pay restitution to 
four clients in the total amount of $10,000.  The referee 
further recommended that, for two clients for whom Attorney Ham 
had done some work, he be required to provide an accounting to 
them and return the unearned retainer fees.  Finally, the 
                                                 
91 See note 2. 
92 See note 12. 
93 See note 4. 
94 See note 5. 
95 See note 7. 
No. 
2005AP2187-D   
 
34 
 
referee recommended that Attorney Ham be ordered to pay the 
costs of the proceeding. 
¶63 After our independent review of the matter, we approve 
and adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law.  
We agree that the serious nature and obvious pattern of Attorney 
Ham's professional misconduct requires that his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin be revoked in order to protect the 
public.  We also agree with the referee's recommendation that 
Attorney Ham be required to pay restitution to clients M.H., 
S.H. (or her father), and G.H and to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund 
for Client Protection (for its payment to K.P.).  We also agree 
that Attorney Ham must be required to provide a full accounting 
to clients M.B. and K.M., and to return any unearned fees to 
them.  Finally, we agree that Attorney Ham should be required to 
pay the costs of this proceeding, which were $2431.55 as of 
December 29, 2005. 
¶64 IT IS ORDERED that the license of David L. Ham to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked effective the date of this 
order. 
¶65 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that David L. Ham comply with 
the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person 
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked. 
¶66 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, David L. Ham make restitution payments to the 
following clients and the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client 
Protection in the following amounts: 
M.H.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
$1000 
No. 
2005AP2187-D   
 
35 
 
S.H. (or her father) 
 
 
 
 
$ 500 
G.H.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
$7000 
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund 
for Client Protection (K.P.)  
 
 
$1500 
¶67 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, David L. Ham provide an itemized invoice and full 
accounting to clients M.B. and K.M. and return any unearned 
retainer fees to them. 
¶68 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, David L. Ham pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
¶69 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that restitution to clients 
M.H., S.H., and G.H. and to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for 
Client Protection and the return of unearned retainer fees to 
clients M.B. and K.M. is to be completed prior to paying costs 
to the Office of Lawyer Regulation. 
No. 
2005AP2187-D   
 
 
 
1