Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. James P. Grenisen

Citation: 2013 WI 99

Docket Number: 2012AP002727-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2013-12-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
2013 WI 99 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2012AP2727-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
James P. Grenisen, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
James P. Grenisen, 
          Respondent.   
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GRENISEN  
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 13, 2013 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2013 WI 99
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2012AP2727-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against James P. Grenisen, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
James P. Grenisen, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
DEC 13, 2013 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   We 
review 
a 
referee's 
report 
and 
recommendation concluding that Attorney James P. Grenisen 
engaged in professional misconduct and recommending that his 
license to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for a period 
of 90 days.  The referee also recommended that Attorney Grenisen 
undergo a psychological evaluation and that he provide no future 
legal representation to his former client.   
No. 
2012AP2727-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
We conclude the referee's findings of fact are 
supported by satisfactory and convincing evidence.  We further 
determine that the seriousness of Attorney Grenisen's misconduct 
warrants the suspension of his license to practice law for 90 
days.  We also agree with the referee's recommendation that 
Attorney Grenisen undergo a psychological evaluation and that 
reinstatement 
of 
his 
license 
to 
practice 
law 
should 
be 
conditioned upon the evaluating medical professional opining, to 
a reasonable degree of professional certainty, that Attorney 
Grenisen is capable of discharging the duties of a person 
licensed to practice law in Wisconsin.  We further conclude that 
Attorney Grenisen should be ordered to provide no future legal 
representation to his former client, and that the costs of this 
proceeding, which are $7,895.46 as of August 26, 2013, should be 
assessed against Attorney Grenisen. 
¶3 
Attorney Grenisen was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1958 and practices in La Crosse.  He has no prior 
disciplinary history. 
¶4 
On December 14, 2012, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a complaint alleging five counts of misconduct with 
respect to Attorney Grenisen's representation of a 66-year-old 
adult female, L.E., who had been adjudged incompetent and 
subject to guardianship of her person and estate.  Attorney 
Grenisen began representing L.E. in November 2009, challenging 
both L.E.'s guardianship and placement. 
¶5 
Pursuant to orders of the court in the guardianship 
and protective placement, and in order to qualify L.E. for 
No. 
2012AP2727-D   
 
3 
 
Medicaid, L.E.'s guardian authorized monies be expended for her 
care.  On August 25, 2010, Attorney Grenisen appealed the 
circuit court's order denying his motion to terminate L.E.'s 
protective placement and return funds that Attorney Grenisen 
alleged were illegally taken.  
¶6 
On or about August 29, 2010, Attorney Grenisen filed a 
"Notice of Claim Against La Crosse County" with the La Crosse 
County clerk, claiming that employees of La Crosse County were 
responsible for illegally authorizing the transfer of L.E.'s 
funds for her care. 
¶7 
A hearing in L.E.'s case was held on September 23, 
2010.  At the hearing, Judge Levine repeatedly suggested to 
Attorney Grenisen that he obtain more knowledgeable substitute 
counsel for L.E. 
¶8 
At a February 3, 2011 court hearing, Judge Levine 
found that affidavits and documents faxed by Attorney Grenisen 
to opposing parties were not timely.  As a result, the 
affidavits and documents were excluded.   
¶9 
During 
the 
February 
3, 
2011 
hearing, 
Attorney 
Grenisen, while questioning a witness, persisted in testifying 
when he was not a witness, and he was admonished twice by the 
court to cease testifying. 
¶10 An independent medical report ultimately obtained by 
Attorney Grenisen was not in proper form, did not address the 
relevant issues, was not usable by the court, and was not 
considered by the court. 
No. 
2012AP2727-D   
 
4 
 
¶11 On February 3, 2011, Judge Levine removed Attorney 
Grenisen as attorney for L.E. contrary to Attorney Grenisen's 
wishes.  Attorney Grenisen was allowed to continue to represent 
L.E. for purposes of appeal only because the deadline for filing 
an appellate brief was imminent.   
¶12 On February 17, 2011, the circuit court granted the 
motion of L.E.'s guardian ad litem for an ex parte temporary 
restraining order prohibiting Attorney Grenisen from having any 
contact whatsoever with L.E. until further order of the court. 
¶13 During an April 1, 2011 hearing, Judge Levine stated 
on the record, in describing Attorney Grenisen's conduct during 
the hearing, "The level of disrespect is ridiculous.  I give you 
every opportunity and you continue on."   
¶14 In an April 21, 2011 letter to the OLR, Attorney 
Grenisen said, "I am experienced in claims and insurance law, 
but not guardianship and protective placement."  The letter also 
indicated that Attorney Grenisen was representing L.E. pro bono.   
¶15 L.E. held title to a 1999 Buick Century automobile.  
In a May 7, 2012 letter to the OLR, Attorney Grenisen said there 
was no evidence that the automobile was owned by L.E. even 
though her name was on the title. 
¶16 On June 14, 2011, the court of appeals summarily 
affirmed the circuit court's order which had been appealed by 
Attorney 
Grenisen. 
 
The 
court 
of 
appeals 
said 
Attorney 
Grenisen's brief lacked both legal and factual development. 
¶17 On July 8, 2011, Judge Levine found frivolous the 
motions filed by Attorney Grenisen to have the guardian and 
No. 
2012AP2727-D   
 
5 
 
guardian ad litem for L.E. removed and ordered reasonable 
attorney's fees and expenses of $140 assessed against Attorney 
Grenisen. 
¶18 On July 8, 2011, Attorney Grenisen filed a motion in 
the court of appeals to reconsider that court's summary 
affirmance of the circuit court's ruling.  The motion was deemed 
untimely and was denied on that basis on July 13, 2011. 
¶19 On July 26, 2011, Attorney Grenisen filed another 
motion for reconsideration in the court of appeals.  By order 
dated August 2, 2011, the court of appeals ordered that Attorney 
Grenisen's motion and any future correspondence relating to the 
closed appeal be placed in the court's correspondence file 
without action. 
¶20 In a September 23, 2011 letter to the OLR, Attorney 
Grenisen said, "I had no knowledge of the guardianship and 
protective 
placement 
laws. 
 . . .  
I 
have 
no 
courtroom 
experience."   
¶21 In a letter dated October 5, 2011, to Wisconsin 
Assisted Living's regional director, Susan Murphy, Attorney 
Grenisen admitted that staff at the adult family home where L.E. 
was residing called 911 on April 16, 2011, in response to 
Attorney Grenisen coming upon the premises.  Police who 
responded to the call informed Attorney Grenisen he would be 
trespassing if he returned to L.E.'s residence. 
¶22 In a letter dated March 8, 2012, to the La Crosse 
County 
clerk, 
Attorney 
Grenisen 
claimed 
that 
counsel 
representing La Crosse County had an obligation to cure Attorney 
No. 
2012AP2727-D   
 
6 
 
Grenisen's misfiling in the wrong office of a claim against La 
Crosse County.  Attorney Grenisen asked that the letter itself 
be treated as a claim against the county.   
¶23 On March 9, 2012, Attorney Grenisen filed a Notice of 
Injury or Property Damage with the La Crosse County clerk for 
bodily injury damages in the amount of $50,000 on behalf of L.E. 
for what he termed L.E.'s "false imprisonment." 
¶24 On May 30, 2012, Attorney Grenisen filed a third 
motion for reconsideration in the court of appeals.  By order 
dated June 5, 2012, the court of appeals ordered that the motion 
be placed in the court's correspondence file without response. 
¶25 The OLR's complaint alleged: 
 
[COUNT ONE]  By failing to provide competent 
representation to his client by failing to possess and 
apply the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and 
preparation 
reasonably 
necessary 
for 
the 
representation of his client, [Attorney] Grenisen 
violated SCR 20:1.1.1 
¶26 During the September 23, 2010 court hearing, Attorney 
Grenisen told the court he was representing L.E. pro bono. 
However, he prepared and sent a written statement of services 
for work done for L.E., dated August 10, 2010, in the amount of 
$4,230, calculated at the rate of $100 per hour, showing 
itemized charges by day, covering a period from November 24, 
2009, to May of 2010.  Attorney Grenisen failed to enter into a 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.1 states:  "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. 
2012AP2727-D   
 
7 
 
written fee agreement with L.E. or her representative, as 
required by the supreme court rules.   
¶27 The OLR's complaint alleged: 
 
[COUNT TWO]  By failing to enter into a written 
fee 
agreement 
with 
client 
L.E. 
(or 
L.E.'s 
representative) who was not regularly represented by 
[Attorney] Grenisen, in a matter where the fee was 
reasonably 
foreseen 
to 
exceed 
$1,000, 
[Attorney] 
Grenisen violated SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2).2 
¶28 The 1999 Buick Century automobile titled and insured 
in L.E.'s name was damaged in an accident on June 1, 2010.  The 
damage resulted in insurance proceeds of $3,440.  At the time of 
the accident and generation of the insurance proceeds, L.E. had 
been adjudged incompetent and a guardian of her person and 
estate and a guardian ad litem had been appointed for her.   
                                                 
2 SCRs 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2) state: 
 
(b) (1) The scope of the representation and the 
basis or rate of the fee and expenses for which the 
client will be responsible shall be communicated to 
the client in writing, before or within a reasonable 
time after commencing the representation, except when 
the lawyer will charge a regularly represented client 
on the same basis or rate as in the past.  If it is 
reasonably 
foreseeable 
that 
the 
total 
cost 
of 
representation to the client, including attorney's 
fees, will be $1000 or less, the communication may be 
oral or in writing. Any changes in the basis or rate 
of the fee or expenses shall also be communicated in 
writing to the client.   
 
(2) If the total cost of representation to the 
client, including attorney's fees, is more than $1000, 
the purpose and effect of any retainer or advance fee 
that is paid to the lawyer shall be communicated in 
writing. 
No. 
2012AP2727-D   
 
8 
 
¶29 During a February 3, 2011 circuit court hearing, an 
insurance adjuster testified under oath that he had told 
Attorney Grenisen that since L.E. was the named insured and the 
person with title to the vehicle, payment had to be made to her.  
Attorney Grenisen directed the insurance adjuster to send the 
insurance 
proceeds 
check 
to 
Attorney 
Grenisen's 
address.  
Attorney Grenisen did not inform the court, the guardian, or the 
guardian ad litem that he had possession of the insurance 
proceeds. 
¶30 Despite the existing guardianship, Attorney Grenisen 
had L.E. personally endorse and sign over the insurance proceeds 
check in the amount of $3,440 without obtaining permission of 
the court, the guardian, or the guardian ad litem.  In a 
September 23, 
2011 
letter 
to 
the 
OLR, 
Attorney 
Grenisen 
admitted, "I endorsed the check after [L.E.] signed."  Attorney 
Grenisen deposited the check into his own personal checking 
account. 
¶31 At the February 3, 2011 circuit court hearing, 
Attorney Grenisen testified under oath that he had spent all of 
the insurance proceeds on his own personal expenses.  In an 
April 21, 2011 letter to the OLR, Attorney Grenisen claimed the 
insurance proceeds were a nontaxable gift to him.  In a letter 
dated May 17, 2011, to the State Public Defender's office, 
several months after he had deposited and spent the insurance 
proceeds, Attorney Grenisen said he had represented L.E. pro 
bono for the last year and a half. 
No. 
2012AP2727-D   
 
9 
 
¶32 In a September 23, 2011 letter to the OLR, Attorney 
Grenisen said he did not inform the guardian or guardian ad 
litem about the insurance proceeds because "it was not their 
concern."  In the same letter he again said the insurance 
proceeds "[were] a gift for pro bono legal work for [L.E.]."   
¶33 Attorney Grenisen told L.E.'s guardian ad litem that 
the insurance settlement proceeds were properly paid to the 
heirs of a third party, who Attorney Grenisen was also 
representing.  On or about February 2, 2011, Attorney Grenisen 
drafted and had his incompetent client, L.E., sign an affidavit 
disavowing any legal interest in the Buick but instead saying 
the car belonged to Bob Ritter, who Attorney Grenisen was also 
representing.  Attorney Grenisen had L.E. sign the affidavit 
without the permission or knowledge of the court, guardian, or 
guardian ad litem.  On February 2, 2011, Attorney Grenisen 
prepared and had the heir of Bob Ritter sign an affidavit in 
opposition to a motion to return funds to L.E.'s estate. 
¶34 The OLR's complaint alleged: 
 
[COUNT THREE]  By having his incompetent client 
sign over the client's $3,440 insurance proceeds and 
depositing same in his personal account purportedly 
for the benefit of third party Ritter; failing to 
inform the court, guardian or guardian ad litem of 
[Attorney] Grenisen's possession of said funds; and 
having L.E. sign an affidavit disowning legal interest 
in 
her 
own 
car, 
all 
without 
the 
knowledge 
or 
permission of the court, guardian or guardian ad 
litem, 
[Attorney] 
Grenisen 
engaged 
in 
conduct 
No. 
2012AP2727-D   
 
10 
 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).3 
 
[COUNT 
FOUR]  By 
instructing 
his 
incompetent 
client L.E. to sign over insurance proceeds arising 
from an accident involving the incompetent client's 
car, in favor of third party Ritter, who [Attorney] 
Grenisen was also representing; by depositing said 
insurance 
proceeds 
in 
[Attorney] 
Grenisen's 
own 
personal account and having his incompetent client 
sign an affidavit disowning any interest in her own 
car, in favor of third party Ritter, who [Attorney] 
Grenisen was also representing, [Attorney] Grenisen 
was simultaneously representing two different parties 
with a concurrent conflict of interest such that the 
interest of L.E. was directly adverse to Ritter (or 
his heirs), in violation of SCR 20:1.7(a).4 
¶35 On February 3, 2011, Judge Levine, following an 
evidentiary hearing, in open court and with Attorney Grenisen 
present, ordered Attorney Grenisen to refund and return to 
L.E.'s estate the $3,440 insurance proceeds within ten days.  
Judge Levine ordered that in the event Attorney Grenisen failed 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:8.4(c) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation; . . . ." 
4 SCR 20:1.7(a) provides as follows: 
 
Except as provided in par. (b), a lawyer shall 
not represent a client if the representation involves 
a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent 
conflict of interest exists if: 
 
(1) the representation of one client will be 
directly adverse to another client; or 
 
(2) there 
is 
a 
significant 
risk 
that 
the 
representation 
of 
one 
or 
more 
clients 
will 
be 
materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to 
another client, a former client or a third person or 
by a personal interest of the lawyer. 
No. 
2012AP2727-D   
 
11 
 
to return the money within that time, he would be subject to 
contempt.  A copy of Judge Levine's written order was mailed to 
Attorney Grenisen on or about February 8, 2011. 
¶36 On April 1, 2011, Judge Levine held a hearing on the 
issue of Attorney Grenisen's ordered repayment and contempt.  
Attorney Grenisen personally appeared at the hearing.  Judge 
Levine found Attorney Grenisen in contempt of court for 
intentionally failing to comply with the court's order to repay 
the money.  Judge Levine awarded sanctions of $100 per day as a 
forfeiture 
against 
Attorney 
Grenisen 
for 
every 
day 
past 
April 11, 2011, that the $3,440 was not returned to L.E.'s 
estate.   
¶37 Attorney Grenisen obtained a bank money order in the 
amount of $3,400 payable to the clerk of court of La Crosse 
County on April 11, 2011.  This amount was $40 short of the 
amount Attorney Grenisen had deposited into his personal 
account. 
¶38 On July 1, 2011, Attorney Grenisen appealed Judge 
Levine's contempt finding to the court of appeals.  By order 
dated March 15, 2012, the court of appeals affirmed the contempt 
finding and found Attorney Grenisen's appeal frivolous and 
remanded the matter to the trial court for assessment of costs 
against Attorney Grenisen.  Attorney Grenisen filed a motion for 
reconsideration with the court of appeals.  The motion was 
denied on June 6, 2012. 
¶39 On June 22, 2011, Attorney Grenisen filed a small 
claims lawsuit in La Crosse County in his own name against the 
No. 
2012AP2727-D   
 
12 
 
guardian for L.E. in the amount of $3,440.  On the return date 
of July 15, 2011, the small claims suit was voluntarily 
dismissed. 
¶40 The OLR's complaint alleged: 
 
[COUNT FIVE]  By failing to comply with the trial 
court's order to return the $3,440 to the estate of 
L.E. within 10 days, resulting in a finding of 
contempt of court against [Attorney] Grenisen, and by 
continuing to attempt to represent L.E. at the trial 
court level after the court had ordered him removed 
from the case at the trial level, [Attorney] Grenisen 
knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a 
tribunal, in violation of SCR 20:3.4(c).5 
¶41 Attorney Grenisen filed an answer to the OLR's 
complaint on January 31, 2013.  Allan Beatty was appointed 
referee in the matter.  An evidentiary hearing was held before 
the referee on June 13, 2013.  On August 5, 2013, the referee 
filed his report and recommendation.  The referee concluded the 
OLR had met its burden of proving all counts of misconduct 
alleged in the complaint.  The referee recommended that Attorney 
Grenisen's license to practice law be suspended for 90 days and 
that, 
as 
a 
condition 
of 
reinstatement, 
he 
undergo 
a 
psychological evaluation and that he agree that he will not 
represent L.E. in any manner or form in the future.  The referee 
explained: 
 
Concerning 
the 
specific 
five 
violations, . . . [Attorney 
Grenisen] 
acknowledged 
                                                 
5 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; . . . ." 
No. 
2012AP2727-D   
 
13 
 
that he was unprepared to represent someone in a 
protective placement and guardianship.  His failure to 
provide competent representation is more aggravated 
because over a period of several years he has 
persisted in his representation of the ward, has 
reiterated his lack of knowledge about guardianship 
and protective placement, has not shown an effort to 
gain the requisite knowledge, has not completed his 
tasks in a timely manner, and has questioned the 
competence of the other lawyers involved.  Despite his 
ignorance he persists in the position that if the 
judge or another lawyer does not agree with him, they 
are wrong.   
 
Even in his sanctions brief in this case, 
[Attorney Grenisen] deviated from the issues at hand 
to criticize the guardian ad litem and to label Judge 
Levine's contempt finding "egregious" and the judge's 
remarks "slanderous."  . . .  
 
Dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation, 
as alleged in Count Four, are harsh words.  Yet they 
apply 
to 
[Attorney 
Grenisen's] 
actions 
in 
his 
representation 
of 
L.E. 
 
[Attorney 
Grenisen] 
misrepresented to the insurance adjuster . . . that 
the 
insurance 
payout 
should 
go 
to 
[Attorney 
Grenisen's] address, rather than the guardian.  He 
misrepresented to the insurance adjuster that the 
proceeds of the insurance would go to L.E.  He had 
L.E. endorse a check she was not competent to endorse 
and failed to disclose receipt of the check to the 
ward's guardian.  He prepared and had the ward sign an 
affidavit she was not competent to sign.  [Attorney 
Grenisen] has misrepresented to Judge Levine, the 
various lawyers investigating the alleged violations, 
and this referee that the $3,440 was a gift.   
 
. . .   
 
What 
is 
most 
egregious 
about 
[Attorney 
Grenisen's] conduct and perspective is his complete 
lack of respect for the authority of the circuit court 
judge.  To [Attorney Grenisen] any decision contrary 
to [his] position is so flawed that it does not 
require compliance.  Any lawyer who walks into a 
courtroom needs to know who has the last word.  If a 
lawyer is not willing to abide by the judge's 
decision, their careers are going to be marked by 
No. 
2012AP2727-D   
 
14 
 
[a lot] of frustration and conflict, and their clients 
are not going to be well served.    
 
. . .  
 
Attorney 
Grenisen 
has 
not 
expressed 
any 
comprehension of this concept.  His decisions are 
final.  Any attorney in disagreement is at least 
mistaken, if not incompetent.  It is as if [Attorney 
Grenisen] is on his own Don Quixote-esque mission and 
reality has no role.  His chivalrous quest in behalf 
of L.E. continues regardless.  
¶42 The referee also recommended that, prior to Attorney 
Grenisen's 
reinstatement, 
he 
submit 
to 
a 
psychological 
evaluation.  In addition, the referee recommended that Attorney 
Grenisen 
must 
agree 
not 
to 
provide 
any 
future 
legal 
representation to L.E.   
¶43 No timely appeal has been filed from the referee's 
report and recommendation. 
¶44 This court will adopt a referee's findings of fact 
unless they are clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law are 
reviewed de novo.  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.   
¶45 The referee's findings of fact in this case have not 
been shown to be clearly erroneous, and we adopt them.  We also 
agree with the referee's conclusions of law.  We further agree 
with the referee's recommendation for a 90-day suspension of 
Attorney Grenisen's license to practice law in Wisconsin.  
Although Attorney Grenisen has not previously been disciplined 
No. 
2012AP2727-D   
 
15 
 
for professional misconduct, his actions in this case were 
inappropriate and unprofessional.  His refusal to comply with 
the circuit court's orders not to have further contact with L.E. 
is troubling, and as a result, we concur with the referee's 
recommendation that, as a condition of Attorney Grenisen's 
reinstatement, 
he 
undergo 
a 
psychological 
evaluation 
to 
determine whether he is capable of discharging the duties of an 
attorney licensed to practice law in this state.  We further 
agree with the referee that Attorney Grenisen may not provide 
any future legal representation to L.E.   
¶46 IT IS ORDERED that the license of James P. Grenisen to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 90 days, 
effective January 17, 2014. 
¶47 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, James P. Grenisen shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
¶48 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the reinstatement of 
James P. Grenisen's license to practice law shall be conditioned 
upon his obtaining a satisfactory psychological evaluation in 
which 
the 
evaluator 
states, 
to 
a 
reasonable 
degree 
of 
professional certainty, that James P. Grenisen is capable of 
discharging the duties of a person licensed to practice law in 
this state. 
¶49 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that James P. Grenisen shall not 
provide any future legal representation to L.E. 
¶50 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that James P. Grenisen shall 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
No. 
2012AP2727-D   
 
16 
 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
¶51 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2). 
 
No. 
2012AP2727-D   
 
 
 
1