Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Robert L. Sherry

Citation: 2006 WI 119

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2006-10-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
2006 WI 119 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2003AP263-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Robert L. Sherry, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Robert L. Sherry, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SHERRY 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 31, 2006   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2006 WI 119
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2003AP263-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Robert L. Sherry, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Robert L. Sherry, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 31, 2006 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.   Reinstatement denied.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Robert L. Sherry has petitioned for 
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin.  We 
review the referee's recommendation to deny the petition.  
Attorney Sherry has not appealed the referee's recommendation.  
Pursuant to SCR 22.33(3),1 we adopt the referee's report and 
conclude Attorney Sherry has failed to demonstrate by clear, 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.33(3) states "[i]f no appeal is timely filed, the 
supreme 
court 
shall 
review 
the 
referee's 
report, 
order 
reinstatement, with or without conditions, deny reinstatement, 
or order the parties to file briefs in the matter." 
No. 
2003AP263-D   
 
2 
 
satisfactory, and convincing evidence that resuming law practice 
would not be detrimental to the administration of justice or 
subversive of the public interest.  See SCR 22.31.  As a result, 
we deny Attorney Sherry's petition for reinstatement and direct 
him to pay the costs of this reinstatement proceeding.   
¶2 
Robert L. Sherry was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1984.  His license was administratively suspended 
on June 6, 2001, for noncompliance with continuing legal 
education (CLE) requirements.  On October 30, 2001, his license 
was temporarily suspended for his failure to cooperate with an 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) grievance investigation.   
¶3 
Attorney Sherry's license remained suspended and, on 
August 13, 2003, this court suspended his license to practice 
law for nine months based on stipulated facts and conclusions 
regarding 21 counts of misconduct.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Sherry, 2003 WI 123, 265 Wis. 2d 391, 667 
N.W.2d 348.  This court also ordered Attorney Sherry to make 
restitution to M.K. in the amount of $102 and to J.G. in the 
amount of $450.   
¶4 
The disciplinary complaint alleged 21 counts involving 
his representation of several clients as well as Attorney 
Sherry's failure to timely file personal income tax returns and 
failure to cooperate with the OLR in its investigations. Id., 
¶¶1-4.  The counts involving client matters included failing to 
act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a 
client; engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, 
or misrepresentation; failing to surrender papers and property 
No. 
2003AP263-D   
 
3 
 
to which a client is entitled; failing to comply with reasonable 
requests 
for 
information; 
failing 
to 
inform 
clients 
of 
settlement offers and abide by the client's decision whether to 
accept it, and failing to promptly deliver to a third person 
funds that the person was entitled to receive.   
¶5 
On July 25, 2005, Attorney Sherry petitioned this 
court for reinstatement of his law license.  Attorney Kathleen 
Callan Brady was appointed referee.  The OLR advised Attorney 
Sherry and the referee that it had submitted a questionnaire 
regarding Attorney Sherry's reinstatement petition and had 
requested answers to this questionnaire by September 7, 2005.   
¶6 
On February 27, 2006, following a telephone scheduling 
conference at which both Attorney Sherry and the OLR appeared, 
the referee issued a scheduling order.  The order required 
Attorney Sherry to file his responses to the questionnaire on or 
before March 15, 2006.  The referee set another telephone 
scheduling conference for June 5, 2006.  The scheduling order 
required the parties to adhere to the deadlines absent the 
referee's approval.  The order advised that failure to comply 
with the deadlines may result in sanctions.   
¶7 
Attorney Sherry received notice of the June 5, 2006, 
scheduling conference and advised the referee that he would 
timely respond to the questionnaire.  However, the OLR advised 
the referee that Attorney Sherry had not responded to the 
questionnaire, and filed a notice of motion and motion to deny 
Attorney Sherry's petition based on his failure to respond.  The 
No. 
2003AP263-D   
 
4 
 
OLR's motion was heard at the scheduling conference held by 
telephone on June 5, 2006.   
¶8 
Despite having received notice, Attorney Sherry did 
not appear by telephone at the June 5, 2006, conference to 
respond to the OLR's motion to deny reinstatement.  The 
conference proceeded as scheduled.  Following the conference, 
the referee issued a report recommending Attorney Sherry's 
petition for reinstatement be denied and that Attorney Sherry be 
ordered to pay the costs of the reinstatement proceeding.   
¶9 
We adopt the findings contained in the referee's 
report. As noted, Attorney Sherry has not appealed the referee's 
report, findings, or recommendation.  Attorney Sherry did not 
respond to the OLR's questionnaire, despite having advised the 
referee that he would respond in a timely fashion.  Attorney 
Sherry did not appear at the final scheduling conference despite 
his receiving notice of the conference.  We determine that 
Attorney Sherry has failed his burden under SCR 22.31 to 
demonstrate by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that 
resuming 
law 
practice 
would 
not 
be 
detrimental 
to 
the 
administration of justice or subversive of the public interest.  
Accordingly, we deny Attorney Sherry's reinstatement petition 
and order him to pay the costs of the reinstatement proceeding. 
¶10 The OLR has filed a statement of costs incurred in the 
reinstatement proceeding in the sum of $941.44.  The record 
indicates Attorney Sherry has been served with the statement of 
costs.  No objection to the statement of costs has been 
received.  The statement of costs is reasonable and costs are 
No. 
2003AP263-D   
 
5 
 
warranted under the circumstances.  We impose the costs in the 
amount sought. 
¶11 IT IS ORDERED that Robert L. Sherry's petition for 
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin is 
denied. 
¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Robert L. Sherry shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this reinstatement proceeding.  If the 
costs are not paid within the time specified, and absent a 
showing to this court of his inability to pay the costs within 
that time, the license of Robert L. Sherry to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of this 
court.   
 
No. 
2003AP263-D   
 
 
 
1