Case Title: Kenneth L. Grover v.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1995AP000223-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 1995-11-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 95-0223-D 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
 
 
 
 
No.  95-0223-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN             :                IN SUPREME COURT 
                                                                   
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against KENNETH L. GROVER, Attorney at Law. 
 
FILED 
 
 
NOV 1, 1995 
 
 
 Marilyn L. Graves 
  Clerk of Supreme Court 
  
Madison, WI  
 
                                                                
   
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the referee 
that the license of Kenneth L. Grover to practice law in Wisconsin 
be 
suspended 
for 
60 
days 
as 
discipline 
for 
professional 
misconduct.  That misconduct consisted of his failing to clearly 
communicate a fee agreement with a client in a worker's 
compensation matter, charging that client an excessive fee, and 
failing to represent him competently.  In addition to the license 
suspension, the referee recommended that Attorney Grover be 
required to refund to the client that portion of the fee he 
 
No. 95-0223-D 
 
 
 
2 
collected to which he was not entitled, plus statutory interest on 
that amount.   
 
We determine that the recommended license suspension is 
appropriate discipline to impose for Attorney Grover's misconduct 
established in this proceeding.  We also order Attorney Grover to 
make the reimbursement recommended by the referee.  It appears 
from the record that Attorney Grover's failure to adequately 
communicate to his client the matter of his fee and his charging a 
fee far greater than that provided by statute resulted not from 
Attorney Grover's intent to obtain more of a fee than that to 
which he was entitled but from his inexperience and unfamiliarity 
with the worker's compensation laws.   
 
Attorney Grover was licensed to practice law in Wisconsin in 
1952 and practices in Stevens Point.  He has been disciplined for 
professional misconduct on three prior occasions:  in 1980 he was 
privately reprimanded by the Board of Attorneys Professional 
Responsibility (Board) for failing to keep adequate records of 
personal dealings with clients, thereby creating the appearance of 
impropriety; in 1981, he was privately reprimanded by the Board 
for failing to file proposed findings, conclusions and judgment in 
a divorce action within the time specified by statute; in 1988 the 
Board publicly reprimanded him for neglect of client matters.   
 
Following a disciplinary hearing, the referee, Attorney David 
Friedman, made the following findings of fact, most of which 
Attorney Grover admitted in his answer to the Board's complaint.  
 
No. 95-0223-D 
 
 
 
3 
In June, 1988, Attorney Grover was retained to represent a client 
who had sustained injuries in an industrial accident at his place 
of employment.  At the initial meeting with the client, Attorney 
Grover stated that he could receive only $100 for services in the 
worker's compensation matter but could get a fee of 20 percent of 
any recovery on a third-party claim brought in connection with the 
injury.   
 
In March, 1989, Attorney Grover wrote to the worker's 
compensation insurer mentioning his attorney's lien for his fee in 
the matter and asking whether the insurer believed there was 
third-party liability of either the client's employer or the 
manufacturer of the machine that caused his client's injury.  In 
response, the insurer began withholding 20 percent of the client's 
weekly temporary total disability benefits it was paying.  
Attorney Grover then clarified to the insurer that he was claiming 
a statutory lien only in respect to any permanent disability 
benefits his client would be entitled to receive.   
 
In July, 1989, the insurer reported to Attorney Grover that, 
based on a physician's report and according to a benefit 
calculation worksheet, the client was entitled to permanent 
partial disability benefits of just over $22,500 and that the 
insurer would withhold 20 percent of that amount for Attorney 
Grover's fees.  The insurer then paid the client some $3600 in 
accrued benefits.   
 
No. 95-0223-D 
 
 
 
4 
 
When he wrote his client asking whether he was satisfied with 
the physician's report, Attorney Grover stated that even if the 
client settled with the insurer, a third-party action could be 
brought against the manufacturer of the equipment or against the 
employer.  The client did not challenge the physician's finding 
and the worker's compensation claim was resolved on an uncontested 
basis.   
 
When Attorney Grover and the client subsequently discussed 
the fee in the matter, Attorney Grover told him he owed 20 percent 
of the recovery.  The client responded that he believed the fee 
would be only $100 but when Attorney Grover insisted, the client 
gave him a check for $3000, written on the proceeds from the 
accrued benefits check he had received.   
 
When the insurer told him it would not release the withheld 
benefits as his fee without an order of the Department of 
Industry, Labor and Human Relations, Attorney Grover asked DILHR 
to release the fees, stating that the 20 percent of the recovery 
he was charging did not apply to the client's monthly benefits 
received while recuperating off the job, for which he would charge 
the client only $100.  DILHR then asked Attorney Grover for a copy 
of a signed fee agreement and an explanation of how the client's 
benefits were in dispute, as its file did not indicate that the 
claim had been disputed.   
 
After receiving that information, Attorney Grover told his 
client that DILHR required a retainer agreement and on October 23, 
 
No. 95-0223-D 
 
 
 
5 
1989, had his client sign an agreement reciting that it had been 
entered into the preceding June and setting forth that the client 
might wish to bring a third-party action against his employer or 
its compensation insurer, for which the client agreed to pay 
Attorney Grover 20 percent of the amount at which his claim were 
compromised or of the amount collected.   
 
In July, 1990, Attorney Grover told the insurer he was 
abandoning any claim of attorney's lien on the withheld benefits 
and the insurer sent those funds to the client.  The following 
day, at Attorney Grover's request, the client signed a paper 
authorizing Attorney Grover to proceed with an action against the 
employer, specifically holding Attorney Grover harmless from any 
claim the client might have in the event he were to lose his job 
as a result of bringing that action.   
 
Several times in early 1991, Attorney Grover asked his client 
whether he wanted to bring a third-party action against the 
employer and told him that the October, 1989 retainer agreement 
was "in the nature of" an agreement for the client to obtain 
worker's compensation under the applicable statutes.  When the 
client told him he did not want to bring a third-party action 
against the employer, Attorney Grover stated that, on the basis of 
the retainer agreement, he was entitled to 20 percent of the 
amount of benefits paid by the insurer.  Accordingly, he claimed 
the client owed him $4500, acknowledging that his services 
 
No. 95-0223-D 
 
 
 
6 
rendered in the matter did not support a fee in that amount but 
insisting that the retainer agreement provided for it.   
 
As the client had already paid him $3000, Attorney Grover 
offered to split evenly the balance he claimed was owing to him, 
and the client sent him a check for some $600.  Because no third-
party claim was filed on behalf of the client and because the 20 
percent figure specified in the statute relates only to contested 
benefit claims, the referee found that Attorney Grover was not 
entitled to receive fees based on the retainer agreement 
specifying the statutory 20 percent figure.   
 
On the basis of those facts, the referee concluded that 
Attorney Grover failed to communicate the fee agreement with his 
client, in violation of SCR 20:1.5(b),1 in that he did not 
adequately explain the basis on which his fee would be calculated. 
 The referee noted that this was the first time the client 
retained an attorney.  The referee also pointed out that the 
retainer agreement did not make clear how the $100 statutory limit 
on attorney fees for uncontested claims related to the 20 percent 
fee specified in the retainer agreement.   
 
The referee further concluded that Attorney Grover charged 
the client an excessive fee in respect to the potential third-
                     
     1  SCR 20:1.5 provides, in pertinent part:  "Fees 
 
. . . 
 
(b)  When the lawyer has not regularly represented the 
client, the basis or rate of the fee shall be communicated to the 
client, preferably in writing, before or within a reasonable time 
after commencing the representation.   
 
No. 95-0223-D 
 
 
 
7 
party claim, in violation of SCR 20:1.5(a).2  As it was 
uncontested that Attorney Grover's record of time and expense on 
the matter totaled $1170 and that the client had paid Attorney 
Grover in excess of that amount, the referee concluded that 
Attorney Grover was overpaid in the amount of $2763.24.   
 
The referee also concluded that Attorney Grover failed to 
represent his client competently in respect to any third-party 
claim he may have had, in violation of SCR 20:1.1.3  In that 
respect, the referee had found that Attorney Grover did not pursue 
inquiries he had made concerning his client's injury and made no 
effort himself to locate the manufacturer of the equipment that 
                     
     2  SCR 20:1.5 provides, in pertinent part:  "Fees 
 
(a)  A lawyer's fee shall be reasonable.  The factors to be 
considered in determining the reasonableness of a fee include the 
following:   
 
(1)  the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty 
of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the 
legal service properly; 
 
(2)  the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the 
acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other 
employment by the lawyer; 
 
(3)  the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar 
legal services; 
 
(4)  the amount involved and the results obtained; 
 
(5)  the time limitations imposed by the client or by the 
circumstances; 
 
(6)  the nature and length of the professional relationship 
with the client; 
 
(7)  the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or 
lawyers performing the services; and 
 
(8)  whether the fee is fixed or contingent.   
     3  SCR 20:1.1 provides:  Competence 
 
A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. 
 Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, 
thoroughness 
and 
preparation 
reasonably 
necessary 
for 
the 
representation.   
 
No. 95-0223-D 
 
 
 
8 
had caused the injury but relied on his client and the 
compensation insurer to pursue those inquiries.   
 
The referee rejected the Board's contention that Attorney 
Grover engaged in deceit or misrepresentation in his dealings with 
the client in this matter.  While the referee acknowledged that 
the Board clearly established Attorney Grover's inability to 
effectively communicate with his client and his inexperience in 
the area of worker's compensation, he found no clear and 
satisfactory evidence that the lack of precise communication rose 
to the level of deceit or misrepresentation.   
 
We adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of 
law.  As discipline for the professional misconduct established by 
those facts and conclusions, we impose the license suspension and 
restitution recommended by the referee.   
 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Kenneth L. Grover 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
commencing December 4, 1995. 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this 
order Kenneth L. Grover make reimbursement to his client as 
recommended by the referee in this proceeding.   
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this 
order Kenneth L. Grover 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, 
 
No. 95-0223-D 
 
 
 
9 
the license of Kenneth L. Grover to practice law in Wisconsin 
shall remain suspended until further order of the court.   
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Kenneth L. Grover comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.   
 
WILLIAM A. BABLITCH, J., did not participate.   
 
No. 95-0223-D 
 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
                                                              
 
Case No.: 
 
95-0223-D 
                                                              
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary 
 
 
 
Proceedings Against  
 
 
 
Kenneth L. Grover, 
 
 
 
Attorney at Law. 
 
 
 
_______________________________ 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GROVER 
 
                                                              
 
Opinion Filed:  
November 1, 1995 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
                                                              
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
                                                              
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating: 
BABLITCH, J., did not participate 
 
                                                              
 
ATTORNEYS: