Case Title: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsiblity v. John W. Sheka

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1998AP002550-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 1999-04-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
98-2550-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against John W. Sheka, Attorney at Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional  
Responsiblity,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
John W. Sheka,  
 
Respondent.  
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SHEKA 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
April 27, 1999 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
No. 
98-2550-D 
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 98-2550-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against John W. Sheka, Attorney at Law. 
Board of Attorneys Professional 
Responsibility,  
 
 
Complainant,  
 
v.  
John W. Sheka,  
 
 
Respondent.  
FILED 
 
APR 27, 1999 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney’s 
license 
suspended.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that the license of John W. Sheka to practice law in 
Wisconsin be suspended for six months as discipline for 
professional misconduct in his handling of five client matters. 
That misconduct consisted principally of neglect, failure to 
keep 
clients 
informed 
of 
the 
status 
of 
their 
matters, 
misrepresentation to clients, and failure to cooperate with the 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board) in its 
investigation into his conduct.  
No. 
98-2550-D 
 
2 
¶2 
We determine that the nature and extent of Attorney 
Sheka’s misconduct warrants the suspension of his license to 
practice law for six months. He abandoned his professional duty 
to pursue client matters he had undertaken, leaving those 
clients without representation on 
personal 
injury claims, 
criminal charges, and appeal. The six-month license suspension 
we impose will ensure that he is not again licensed to practice 
law in this state without first satisfying this court that he 
has 
gained 
a 
proper 
understanding 
of 
his 
professional 
obligations to clients and the courts.  
¶3 
Attorney Sheka was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1986 and practiced in Green Bay. He has not been 
the subject of a prior disciplinary proceeding, but he is 
suspended from the practice of law for failure to pay for fiscal 
year 1998 State Bar membership dues and assessments. After 
numerous unsuccessful attempts by the Board to contact Attorney 
Sheka prior to mailing its complaint to him, the referee, 
Attorney John E. Shannon, Jr., found that service of that 
complaint was made properly and granted the Board’s motion for 
default judgment. The referee determined, based on the record, 
that Attorney Sheka had closed his law practice and that the 
Board was unable to locate him. Accordingly, the referee made 
findings of fact as set forth in the Board’s complaint.  
¶4 
In the first of five matters considered in this 
proceeding, Attorney Sheka was retained to represent a client in 
a personal injury matter in July 1994. The client spoke with him 
several times concerning the status of her claim, and in her 
No. 
98-2550-D 
 
3 
last contact with him, Attorney Sheka stated that the insurance 
company wanted to review her medical records. When the client 
planned to relocate to Texas, she called him and wrote him a 
letter informing him of her new address in June of 1996. The 
client was unable to contact him directly and received no 
response to her subsequent attempts to reach him from Texas. The 
client ultimately learned from a Green Bay attorney who had been 
assisting Attorney Sheka in winding up his practice that the 
statute of limitations on her claim had expired.  
¶5 
The 
second 
matter 
concerned 
Attorney 
Sheka’s 
representation of a client on a personal injury claim in early 
1996. After being instructed by the client to settle the claim 
in late 1996, Attorney Sheka told her that the case had been 
settled and that the check from the insurer was in the mail. 
Soon thereafter he told her that he had asked the insurer to put 
a trace on the client’s check, as he had not received it. 
Thereafter, Attorney Sheka did not keep any of the appointments 
he had scheduled with the client and did not return her 
telephone calls. When the client encountered Attorney Sheka in 
the courthouse January 6, 1997, he told her that she would have 
to commence legal action to recover on her claim.  
¶6 
Soon after that encounter, the client’s file was 
delivered to the office of another attorney in Green Bay, and 
the client was told she could pick it up. When she reviewed the 
file, the client discovered that the only documents in it were a 
police report, one letter to the client, and some handwritten 
notes. There were no medical records or any letters to or from 
No. 
98-2550-D 
 
4 
the insurer. The client later verified that the insurer never 
had heard from Attorney Sheka in the matter.  
¶7 
In the third matter, Attorney Sheka was retained in 
January of 1996 to pursue a personal injury claim. The following 
month, he advised the client he had submitted the claim and 
medical documentation to the insurer. Over the following 10 
months, the client made numerous appointments with Attorney 
Sheka to discuss the status of her claim, but Attorney Sheka 
canceled at least four of them. In mid-August 1996 he wrote the 
client a check for $100 and told her not to tell anyone he had 
given 
her 
money. 
The 
memo 
portion 
of 
the 
check 
noted 
“investigation services.” The following month, he gave the 
client $100 in cash to help her with personal expenses while she 
was waiting to hear from the insurer on her claim.  
¶8 
In November 1996 Attorney Sheka told the client the 
insurer had increased its settlement offer from $10,000 to 
$12,000 and advised the client to wait until the following 
January, as the insurer needed to close out old cases by the end 
of the current calendar year, and he thought it might offer as 
much as $18,000 thereafter. The client told Attorney Sheka in 
the first week of December 1996 that she was willing to accept 
the $12,000 offer. The following week, Attorney Sheka told her 
everything had been done and that the insurer already had sent a 
check and release forms to him for the client’s signature.  
¶9 
When the client went to Attorney Sheka’s office 
several days later, as arranged, to sign the releases and obtain 
the settlement check, Attorney Sheka was not there. He had, 
No. 
98-2550-D 
 
5 
however, left an envelope with the client’s name on it taped to 
his office door, inside of which was a check for $350 from 
Attorney Sheka with a letter stating that the insurer’s check 
had not arrived and that his check was to help her with 
Christmas. The letter also stated that it appeared Attorney 
Sheka would have to “front” the client more money for her 
impending trip out of state. After discussing the matter with 
her husband, the client returned the check to Attorney Sheka’s 
office with a note stating that she did not want his money but 
would wait for the insurer’s check.  
¶10 Two days later, when the client spoke with Attorney 
Sheka about the status of the insurer’s check, he told her the 
company had processed the check but it had been lost within one 
of the company’s departments. Attorney Sheka told the client he 
was going to tell the insurer to stop payment on the lost check, 
issue a new check, and have it delivered by express mail to his 
office. When the client’s husband went to Attorney Sheka’s 
office the following day to ascertain the status of the 
insurer’s check, the husband told him he suspected someone was 
lying. Thereafter, neither the client nor her husband had 
contact with Attorney Sheka, despite the client’s numerous 
visits to his office and repeated telephone calls.  
¶11 The 
fourth 
matter 
concerned 
Attorney 
Sheka’s 
representation of a man who pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor 
charge in December 1996. The court placed the client on 
probation for two years and required that he receive sexual 
perpetrator counseling, have no contact with the victim or the 
No. 
98-2550-D 
 
6 
victim’s 
family, 
and 
make 
restitution 
for 
the 
victim’s 
counseling. When the client told Attorney Sheka that he did not 
agree with the result and wanted to consider an appeal, Attorney 
Sheka told him to call after the first of the year. In January 
1997 the client repeatedly attempted to contact Attorney Sheka 
regarding an appeal, but Attorney Sheka did not return his 
telephone calls. The client stated that as a result of the 
sentence, he lost his job and has not been able to gain full-
time 
employment. 
The 
client 
had 
paid 
Attorney 
Sheka 
approximately $2500 for his services.  
¶12 The 
fifth 
matter 
considered 
in 
this 
proceeding 
involved Attorney Sheka’s representation of a client in a 
criminal matter that commenced in 1996. Attorney Sheka failed to 
appear at the scheduled final conference prior to jury trial 
without explanation to the court or to his client. The court was 
unable to locate Attorney Sheka and told the client it would be 
necessary for him to retain other counsel. Thereafter, Attorney 
Sheka appeared before the court with the client on the date of 
the scheduled jury trial, and the client entered a plea that 
resulted in his conviction.  
¶13 Attorney 
Sheka 
did 
not 
appear 
at 
the 
client’s 
sentencing hearing and had given no notification to the court or 
to his client that he would not be there. He also had not shared 
with his client the copy of the presentence report he had 
received. As a result, the court again told the client the 
appropriate method to obtain other counsel. By letter of July 
29, 1997, the court reminded Attorney Sheka of his failure to 
No. 
98-2550-D 
 
7 
appear at the sentencing hearing and of his failure to provide 
the client a copy of the presentence report. The court also told 
him that the matter had been rescheduled and asked him to 
contact the court by a date certain to advise whether he would 
appear. Attorney Sheka did not respond to the court’s letter.  
¶14 In each of these five matters, Attorney Sheka did not 
respond to the Board’s letters inquiring into the clients’ 
grievances. He also did not respond to the district professional 
responsibility committee’s investigator to whom the matter had 
been referred.  
¶15 The referee concluded that Attorney Sheka’s conduct in 
these matters violated the following Rules of Professional 
Conduct for Attorneys:  
 
SCR 20:1.1 –- Failure to provide competent representation. 
 
SCR 20:1.2(a) –- Failure to abide by a client’s decision 
concerning the objectives of the representation.  
 
SCR 20:1.3 -- Failure to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing a client.  
 
SCR 20:1.4(a) –- Failure to keep a client reasonably 
informed about the status of a matter.  
 
SCR 20:1.4(b) –- Failure to explain a matter to the extent 
necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions 
regarding representation.  
 
SCR 20:1.8(e) -– Providing prohibited financial assistance 
to a client in connection with pending or contemplated 
litigation.  
 
SCR 20:1.16(d) -– Failure to take steps upon termination of 
representation 
reasonably 
practicable 
to 
protect 
the 
client’s interests.  
 
No. 
98-2550-D 
 
8 
SCR 20:8.4(c) -– Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.  
 
SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07 -– Failure to cooperate with the 
Board’s investigation.  
¶16 As discipline for that professional misconduct, the 
referee recommended that Attorney Sheka’s license to practice 
law be suspended for six months. He recommended further that 
Attorney Sheka be required to pay the costs of this proceeding.  
¶17 We 
adopt 
the 
referee’s 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and determine that a six-month license 
suspension is appropriate discipline to impose for Attorney 
Sheka’s professional misconduct in these matters. Pursuant to 
the court’s rules, he will not be entitled to reinstatement of 
his license until he has established to the satisfaction of the 
court that, among other things, he has the proper understanding 
of and attitude toward standards imposed on members of the bar, 
that he will act in conformity with those standards, and that he 
has made restitution to or settled all claims of persons harmed 
by his misconduct. SCR 22.28.  
¶18 IT IS ORDERED that the license of John W. Sheka to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for six months, effective 
the date of this order.  
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, John W. Sheka 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, the license of John W. Sheka to 
No. 
98-2550-D 
 
9 
practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further 
order of the court.  
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that John W. Sheka comply with 
the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person 
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
 
 
1