Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Benjamin J. Harris

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2020AP001082-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2021-04-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
2021 WI 31 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2020AP1082-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Benjamin J. Harris, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Benjamin J. Harris, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HARRIS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 6, 2021   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam. 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2021 WI 31
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2020AP1082-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Benjamin J. Harris, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Benjamin J. Harris, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
APR 6, 2021 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report of the referee, the 
Honorable Jeffrey A. Kremers, which recommends that the court 
suspend Attorney Benjamin J. Harris' license to practice law in 
Wisconsin for 60 days and order him to pay the full costs of 
this 
disciplinary 
proceeding, 
which 
are 
$1,616.83 
as 
of 
February 8, 2021.  Prior to the referee issuing his report, 
Attorney Harris and the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
entered into a stipulation in which Attorney Harris pled no 
contest to the four counts of misconduct alleged in the OLR's 
No. 
2020AP1082-D   
 
2 
 
complaint.  Since neither party has appealed from the referee's 
report and recommendation, our review proceeds under Supreme 
Court Rule (SCR) 22.17(2).   
¶2 
Upon our independent review, we adopt the referee's 
findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to Attorney 
Harris' misconduct.  We agree that the misconduct warrants a 60-
day suspension of Attorney Harris' license to practice law in 
Wisconsin.  The OLR did not seek restitution, and we do not 
order restitution.  As is our usual custom, we order Attorney 
Harris to pay the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding.   
¶3 
Attorney Harris was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1996 and practices in the Milwaukee area.  He has 
been previously disciplined on five prior occasions.  In 2007, 
he 
was 
privately 
reprimanded 
for 
failing 
to 
pursue 
the 
resolution of a debt collection matter; failing to keep a client 
informed of the status of the debt collection matter; failing to 
proceed with a landlord matter or file a claim on behalf of his 
client for one year; and failing to keep a client informed of 
the status of that matter.  Private Reprimand No. 07-04 
(electronic copy available at https://compendium.wicourts.gov/ 
app/raw/001931.html).  In 2008, Attorney Harris was publicly 
reprimanded for misconduct consisting of entering into a land 
contract with a client without written consent; failing to 
respond to a motion to amend a complaint and failing to attend 
the motion hearing; failing to inform his client of the status 
of the case and respond to the client's request for information; 
failing to timely act in furtherance of a resolution of a 
No. 
2020AP1082-D   
 
3 
 
client's equalization payment; failing to respond to the 
client's telephone calls or notify the client of a proposed 
stipulation and order in an upcoming hearing; and failing to 
promptly return the client's file to him or successor counsel.  
Public Reprimand of Benjamin J. Harris, No. 2008-03 (electronic 
copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/ 
raw/002029.html). 
¶4 
In 2010, Attorney Harris' license was suspended for 60 
days for misconduct consisting of failing to keep a client 
informed of the status of litigation; failing to attend a 
damages hearing and a motion hearing; failing to notify the 
client of the status of the case; failing to notify the client 
of the dismissal of the appeal; and failing to advise the client 
of an order granting a motion to enforce a judgment.  In re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Harris, 
2010 
WI 
9, 
322 
Wis. 2d 364, 778 N.W.2d 154. 
¶5 
In 2012, Attorney Harris was privately reprimanded for 
failing to have a written fee agreement and depositing a 
client's unearned advanced fee payment directly into his 
business account.  Private Reprimand No. 2012-20 (electronic 
copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/ 
raw/002515.html). 
¶6 
In 2013, Attorney Harris' license was suspended for 
five months for misconduct consisting of failing to timely file 
a judgment of divorce and promptly prepare a QDRO; failing to 
respond to a client's emails and telephone calls; failing to 
notify a client of his license suspension; failing to consult 
No. 
2020AP1082-D   
 
4 
 
with a client regarding the method and means of pursing the 
client's claim; failing to advise a client of the dismissal of a 
case; and failing to respond in a timely fashion to the OLR's 
written request for information.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Harris, 2013 WI 8, 345 Wis. 2d 239, 825 N.W.2d 285. 
¶7 
On June 25, 2020, the OLR filed a complaint against 
Attorney Harris alleging four counts of misconduct arising out 
of two client matters.  The first client matter involved 
Attorney Harris' representation of T.P.  Attorney Harris was 
retained to defend T.P. in three lawsuits.  Attorney Harris' 
conduct in two of those matters formed the basis for the 
misconduct charged in the OLR's complaint.   
¶8 
On December 14, 2017, T.P. retained Attorney Harris to 
defend him and a company he owned and operated in a small claims 
lawsuit that involved claims of breach of contract and unjust 
enrichment, initiated by Ramos Drywall, LLC.  T.P. had hired 
Ramos Drywall as a subcontractor on a project, and Ramos Drywall 
claimed it had not been paid. 
¶9 
The initial return date for the small claims case was 
set for December 18, 2017.  A small claims publication summons 
and notice in the case provided that defendants may have the 
option of filing an answer before the court date to avoid the 
necessity of a personal appearance on December 18, 2017.  On 
December 
14, 
2017, 
Attorney 
Harris 
filed 
an 
answer 
and 
affirmative defenses, but he did not confirm that his filing 
obviated the need to personally appear on December 18, 2017.  
Attorney Harris did not personally appear on that date. 
No. 
2020AP1082-D   
 
5 
 
¶10 On December 18, 2017, a default judgment was entered 
against T.P. for $2,200 based on Attorney Harris' failure to 
personally appear.  T.P. learned of the entry of default 
judgment in late December 2017 when he checked Wisconsin Circuit 
Court Access.  He notified Attorney Harris that a default 
judgment had been entered. 
¶11 On January 24 and 31, 2018, T.P. messaged Attorney 
Harris asking for a response; asking for the case status; 
expressing his frustration at the lack of communication; and 
saying he felt Attorney Harris was "blowing me off."  On 
February 7, 2018, T.P. sent Attorney Harris an email saying he 
had not heard from the attorney and that he had emailed and 
texted about ten times trying to get a response. 
¶12 On February 14, 2018, T.P. emailed Attorney Harris 
again asking about the case status.  On February 20, 2018, 
Attorney Harris filed a motion to reopen the case.  On February 
27, 2018, T.P. sent Attorney Harris another message saying, "Can 
you let me know.  I've been emailing and waiting patiently for 
weeks now!!!!!" 
¶13 On June 12, 2018, Attorney Harris' motion to reopen 
the small claims case was granted.  Over the next 18 months, the 
case was adjourned several times, and pleadings were amended.  
An evidentiary hearing was ultimately held on December 3, 2019, 
and judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiffs in the 
amount of $900.  Attorney Harris continued to represent T.P. in 
the case until its conclusion. 
No. 
2020AP1082-D   
 
6 
 
¶14 On February 20, 2018, T.P. retained Attorney Harris to 
defend him and his company in a small claims lawsuit claiming 
breach of contract and unjust enrichment.  The case was 
initiated by PM Construction and Restoration, LLC.  Again, T.P. 
had hired PM Construction as a subcontractor on a project. 
¶15 On March 8, 2018, Attorney Harris filed an answer and 
affirmative defenses.  Mandatory mediation was scheduled for 
April 9, 2018.  The mediation notice warned, "Any cancelling or 
rescheduling of mediation for any reason will be at the 
discretion of the Mediation Center and will result in an 
additional fee." 
¶16 Attorney Harris alleges that he left a voice mail 
message for the Mediation Center at the end of March 2018 saying 
he had a conflict with the April 9, 2018 date.  Attorney Harris 
did not confirm that the mediation would be rescheduled nor did 
he inform opposing counsel of his alleged request to reschedule.  
Mediation Center files contain no note or other indication that 
it received a phone message from Attorney Harris.   
¶17 Neither 
Attorney 
Harris 
nor 
T.P. 
appeared 
for 
mediation on April 9, 2018, although the other parties did 
appear.  On April 10, 2018, a small claims disposition notice 
was filed by the Mediation Center, indicating the defendant had 
failed to appear for the scheduled mediation.  The court 
commissioner reviewed the notice the same day, and on April 12, 
2018, a default judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiffs. 
¶18 On April 13, 2018, T.P. emailed Attorney Harris 
informing him of the default judgment and saying, "What is going 
No. 
2020AP1082-D   
 
7 
 
on with you?  I have asked for you to represent us and respond 
to my emails.  Why are you ignoring me and not taking care of 
defending us."  Attorney Harris responded by saying he would 
work on it "this weekend." 
¶19 On April 27, 2018, T.P. emailed Attorney Harris again, 
complaining 
that 
Attorney 
Harris 
had 
not 
responded 
and 
questioning what Attorney Harris was going to do to "rectify the 
issues."  On April 30, 2018, two and a half weeks after the 
default judgment had been entered, Attorney Harris filed a 
motion to reopen the judgment.  Over the objection of opposing 
counsel, the motion was granted on June 4, 2018.  The case was 
ultimately settled in mediation, and an order for dismissal was 
entered on October 2, 2019. 
¶20 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Harris' representation of 
T.P.: 
Count 1:  By failing to respond to multiple email and 
text messages from T.P. requesting information in the 
Ramos Drywall and PM Construction cases, Attorney 
Harris violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(4).1 
Count 2:  By failing to file a motion to reopen a 
default judgment until February 20, 2018, in the Ramos 
Drywall case, and failing to appear for mandatory 
mediation on April 9, 2018, or failing to confirm that 
mediation would be rescheduled, resulting in a default 
judgment in the PM Construction case, Attorney Harris, 
in each instance violated SCR 20:1.3.2 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) provides:  "A lawyer shall promptly 
comply with reasonable requests by the client for information." 
2 SCR 20:1.3 provides:  "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
No. 
2020AP1082-D   
 
8 
 
¶21 The 
other 
client 
matter 
detailed 
in 
the 
OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney Harris' representation of J.H., who 
retained Attorney Harris to file a lawsuit on his behalf against 
two former partners who had formed HSL Holdings, LLC, to own and 
operate a tavern in Milwaukee.  
¶22 On September 23, 2013, Attorney Harris filed a summons 
and complaint for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.  The 
defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on errors or 
omissions in the complaint.  At a February 19, 2014 scheduling 
conference, the court gave Attorney Harris 30 days to amend the 
complaint.  A calendar call was scheduled for April 18, 2014.   
¶23 On April 18, 2014, the court contacted Attorney Harris 
for a status update.  A second calendar call was scheduled for 
June 13, 2014, since an amended complaint had not yet been 
filed. 
¶24 On June 13, 2014, the court unsuccessfully tried to 
reach Attorney Harris to see if the amended complaint would be 
filed.  The court set a third calendar call for June 23, 2014.  
On that date, Attorney Harris could not be reached.  The court 
contacted counsel for the defendants, who also had had no 
contact from Attorney Harris.  On June 24, 2014, the court sent 
a notice saying that the matter was being placed on the July 28, 
2014 dismissal calendar. 
¶25 On July 17, 2014, Attorney Harris wrote to the court 
asking the matter be removed from the dismissal calendar and 
saying he intended to have the amended complaint filed by 
No. 
2020AP1082-D   
 
9 
 
July 31, 2014.  Defense counsel filed an objection to removing 
the case from the dismissal calendar. 
¶26 On July 31, 2014, the court signed an order for 
dismissal of the case.  That same day, Attorney Harris filed a 
motion to file an amended complaint, a supporting affidavit, and 
an amended complaint.  The court took no action on those 
filings. 
¶27 On August 11, 2014, Attorney Harris filed a motion to 
reopen the case, citing personal reasons for his failure to file 
an amended complaint.  The court denied the motion on August 27, 
2014, finding that no good cause existed to vacate the dismissal 
order. 
¶28 On August 29, 2014, Attorney Harris refiled the 
lawsuit.  On June 10, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to 
dismiss and later a motion for summary judgment.  Due to a 
judicial transfer of the case and the rescheduling of both 
defense motions, no substantive activity took place in the case 
until February 29, 2016.  On that date, the court dismissed two 
parties from the lawsuit and denied the motion for dismissal and 
summary judgment as to other parties.  A pretrial conference was 
scheduled for September 2016 and later continued to October 18, 
2016, at which time trial was set for June 19, 2017. 
¶29 On June 14, 2017, defense counsel requested and was 
granted an adjournment of the trial.  A pretrial conference was 
scheduled for July 6, 2017.  Attorney Harris failed to appear at 
the July 6 pretrial conference. 
No. 
2020AP1082-D   
 
10 
 
¶30 On July 7, 2017, J.H. emailed Attorney Harris saying, 
"What's going on with my case?  I see on ccap that you didn't 
show up in court yesterday."  Attorney Harris responded by 
saying he never received the notice.  On July 12, 2017, the 
defendants filed a motion to dismiss due, in part, to Attorney 
Harris' nonappearance. 
¶31 On July 14, 2017, J.H. asked Attorney Harris, "What 
have you done as far as a follow up?  I see that they have filed 
for a motion to dismiss."  Attorney Harris responded he would be 
filing a response by the following Monday.  In fact, Attorney 
Harris' brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss was not 
filed until August 28, 2017.  On August 31, 2017, the motion to 
dismiss was denied and trial was scheduled for November 20, 
2017. 
¶32 When J.H. had not heard from Attorney Harris since the 
August 31, 2017 hearing on the motion to dismiss, he emailed 
Attorney Harris on November 16, 2017, asking if the trial was 
still on for November 20, 2017.  Attorney Harris responded that 
same day saying they needed to meet at his office on November 
19, 2017, the day before the trial.  Attorney Harris had never 
deposed any witnesses and conducted minimal or no discovery.  
The case settled on the day of trial. 
¶33 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Harris' representation of 
J.H.: 
Count 3:  By failing to timely file an amended 
complaint and by failing to adequately prepare for 
No. 
2020AP1082-D   
 
11 
 
trial in J.H.'s cases, Attorney Harris, in each 
instance violated SCR 20:1.3. 
Count 4:  By failing to keep J.H. reasonably informed 
regarding the status of the case, Attorney Harris 
violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3).3 
¶34 The referee was appointed on August 11, 2020.  On 
December 28, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation in which 
Attorney Harris pled no contest to the four counts of misconduct 
alleged in the OLR's complaint and agreed that the referee could 
use the allegations of the complaint as an adequate factual 
basis to support the allegations of misconduct.  The parties 
agreed, subject to approval of the referee, that the appropriate 
level 
of 
discipline 
to 
be 
imposed 
for 
Attorney 
Harris' 
misconduct was a 60-day suspension of his license to practice 
law in Wisconsin. 
¶35 The referee issued his report and recommendation on 
January 21, 2021.  The referee adopted as his findings of fact 
the entire contents of the parties' stipulation and, by 
extension, those paragraphs of the OLR's complaint detailing the 
misconduct.  The referee found that the OLR had met its burden 
of proof with respect to all four counts of misconduct alleged 
in the complaint. 
¶36 As to the appropriate sanction, the referee noted 
Attorney Harris' lengthy disciplinary history and pointed out 
that in each of the prior disciplinary matters Attorney Harris 
was disciplined, at least in part, for failing to keep his 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides:  "A lawyer shall keep the 
client reasonably informed about the status of the matter." 
No. 
2020AP1082-D   
 
12 
 
clients informed about the status of their matters or for 
failing to respond to inquiries from his clients.  The referee 
said, "Here we go again." 
¶37 The referee noted that Attorney Harris repeatedly 
failed in his responsibility to maintain an appropriate level of 
communication with his clients in order to keep them apprised of 
the status of their respective matters, and in multiple 
instances default judgments were entered against his clients.  
The referee said the fact that the cases were ultimately 
reopened and settled did not change the fact that the clients 
suffered perhaps the loss of a faster resolution, and certainly, 
the angst of not knowing what was transpiring or when, or even 
if, Attorney Harris would bring the requisite motions to reopen.  
The referee said the overarching failure in this case was 
Attorney Harris' continued inability to maintain a sufficient 
level of communication with his clients and to meet basic 
requirements with respect to court filings and court dates.  The 
referee said: 
The respondent's failure to keep his clients informed 
and to engage in even a modest level of professional 
attention to the legal steps needed to protect his 
client's interests strikes at the very core of the 
attorney client relationship.  Clients trust their 
attorney to either prosecute or defend their case to 
the best of their ability.  When a lawyer fails to 
protect those rights and fails to keep their client 
informed about what is happening they harm not only 
that client but the legal profession as a whole. 
¶38 The referee said although Attorney Harris failed in 
his responsibility to his clients once again, given the 
No. 
2020AP1082-D   
 
13 
 
relatively 
minor 
nature 
of 
the 
harm 
that 
resulted, 
his 
cooperation with the OLR proceeding and his acceptance of 
responsibility, a 60-day license suspension was an appropriate 
sanction.  The OLR did not seek restitution, and the referee did 
not order restitution.4  The referee also recommended that 
Attorney 
Harris 
pay 
the 
full 
costs 
of 
the 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
¶39 We will affirm a referee's findings of fact unless 
they are clearly erroneous.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against 
Eisenberg, 
2004 
WI 
14, 
¶5, 
269 
Wis. 2d 43, 
675 
N.W.2d 747.  The court may 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. 
                                                 
4 In its restitution statement, the OLR stated that its 
policy is to seek restitution only where:  (1) There is a 
reasonably ascertainable amount; (2) The funds to be restored 
were in the respondent lawyer's direct control; (3) The funds to 
be restored do not constitute incidental or consequential 
damages; and (4) The grievant's or respondent's rights in a 
collateral proceeding will not likely be prejudiced.  We remind 
the OLR that on January 16, 2020, the OLR's Board of 
Administrative Oversight (BAO) issued a report to this court 
recommending that the OLR's restitution policy should reflect 
the approach employed in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Ruppelt, 2017 WI 80, 377 Wis. 2d 441, 898 N.W.2d 473 and In re 
Medical Incapacity Proceedings Against Muwonge, 2017 WI 12, 373 
Wis. 2d 173, 890 N.W.2d 575, and the BAO recommended that the 
OLR's restitution policy shift the burden onto the attorney to 
establish what offset, if any, is appropriate in determining the 
amount of restitution.  Although the OLR's restitution statement 
is not framed in these terms, we read the restitution statement 
to mean that the OLR has determined that Attorney Harris met his 
burden to establish that he earned the fees he collected from 
his clients. 
No. 
2020AP1082-D   
 
14 
 
¶40 There is no showing that any of the referee's findings 
of fact, based on the parties' stipulation, are clearly 
erroneous, so we adopt them.  We also agree with the referee's 
legal conclusions that Attorney Harris violated the Supreme 
Court Rules noted above.   
¶41 With respect to the appropriate sanction, after 
careful consideration, we agree that a 60-day suspension of 
Attorney Harris' law license is appropriate.  We reach this 
conclusion in spite of the fact that this is Attorney Harris' 
sixth disciplinary proceeding; the last proceeding resulted in a 
five-month license suspension; and the common theme running 
through all of the proceedings is, as the referee pointed out, 
Attorney Harris' objective failure to keep his clients informed 
and meet basic requirements with respect to court filings and 
court dates.   
¶42 We note, however, that it has been eight years since 
Attorney Harris' last suspension; that case involved ten counts 
of misconduct involving multiple clients; and involved a 
violation of SCR 20:8.4(c), dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation.  We agree with the referee that the gravity 
of the misconduct here does not rise to the level of the 
misconduct that gave rise to the 2013 suspension.  Instead, the 
misconduct in this case is very similar in nature to the 2010 
case in which a 60-day suspension was imposed.  We also note 
that Attorney Harris accepted responsibility for his actions and 
entered into a comprehensive stipulation, which obviated the 
need for a protracted disciplinary proceeding.   
No. 
2020AP1082-D   
 
15 
 
¶43 Although no two disciplinary matters are identical, 
the imposition of a 60-day suspension is similar to the sanction 
imposed in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Anderson, 2020 
WI 82, 394 Wis. 2d 190, 950 N.W.2d 191.  Attorney Anderson 
received a 60-day suspension for six counts of misconduct 
arising out of two client matters.  The misconduct included 
failing to communicate with clients and failing to timely 
respond to clients' requests for information.  Attorney Anderson 
had been the subject of four previous disciplinary proceedings, 
three reprimands and a 60-day suspension.  As in this case, a 
significant amount of time had passed since the last time the 
attorney had been sanctioned.  In addition, this case is 
somewhat analogous to In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Hudec, 2019 WI 39, 386 Wis. 2d 371, 925 N.W.2d 2d 540.  Attorney 
Hudec received a 60-day suspension for six counts of misconduct 
in two client matters.  It was his sixth disciplinary 
proceeding.  He had previously received three private reprimands 
and two public reprimands.  The misconduct included failing to 
act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a 
client and failing to keep the client reasonably informed about 
the status of the matter.  Based on the particular circumstances 
of this case, and guided by past precedent, we conclude that a 
60-day suspension of Attorney Harris' license is an appropriate 
sanction. 
¶44 As is our normal practice, we deem it appropriate to 
impose the full costs of this proceeding on Attorney Harris. 
No. 
2020AP1082-D   
 
16 
 
¶45 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Benjamin J. Harris 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 
days, effective May 18, 2021. 
¶46 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Benjamin J. Harris shall pay to the Office of 
Layer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$1,616.83 as of February 8, 2021.   
¶47 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Benjamin J. Harris shall 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended.   
¶48 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2). 
 
 
 
No. 
2020AP1082-D   
 
 
 
1