Case Title: James H. Dumke v.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1997AP001200-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 1998-03-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
97-1200-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against James H. Dumke, Attorney at  
Law. 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DUMKE 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
March 12, 1998 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
No. 97-1200-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. 97-1200-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against JAMES H. DUMKE, Attorney at Law. 
FILED 
 
MAR 12, 1998 
 
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 James H. Dumke to practice law in 
Wisconsin 
be 
suspended 
for 
one 
year 
as 
discipline 
for 
professional 
misconduct 
and 
that 
as 
a 
condition 
for 
reinstatement of his license, Attorney Dumke be required to show 
that he has attended continuing legal education programs in 
subjects he intends to continue practicing and demonstrate an 
understanding of the consequences of his misconduct to his 
client and its effect on the public’s perception of the legal 
profession. Attorney Dumke’s misconduct consisted of his failing 
to meet with a client following his assignment by the Public 
Defender’s office to pursue an appeal or other postconviction 
relief, failing to take any action to pursue an appeal on the 
client’s behalf, failing to communicate directly with the client 
and inform him of his conclusion that there were no appealable 
No. 97-1200-D 
 
2 
issues, failing to ensure that communications he had with the 
client’s family members were communicated to the client, 
misrepresenting to the client’s family that he had taken actions 
on behalf of the client, misrepresenting to that client’s 
attorney in a deportation matter that he had filed an appeal, 
and failing to respond timely to letters from the Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board) inquiring into his 
conduct in this matter.  
¶2 
We determine that the recommended one-year license 
suspension is the appropriate discipline to impose for Attorney 
Dumke’s professional misconduct. The recommended reinstatement 
condition is unnecessary because the referee’s concerns to which 
it is directed are adequately addressed by the requirements of 
the reinstatement rule, SCR 22.28(4).1 This is the third time 
Attorney Dumke will have been disciplined for the same or 
similar professional misconduct. His failure to act on his 
                     
1 SCR 22.28 provides, in pertinent part: Reinstatement.  
 . . .  
(4) The petition for reinstatement shall show that:  
 . . .  
(f) The petitioner has a proper understanding of and 
attitude toward the standards that are imposed upon members of 
the bar and will act in conformity with the standards.  
(g) The petitioner can safely be recommended to the legal 
profession, the courts and the public as a person fit to be 
consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise act in 
matters of trust and confidence and in general aid in the 
administration of justice as a member of the bar and as an 
officer of the courts.  . . .   
No. 97-1200-D 
 
3 
clients’ behalf, especially those who are incarcerated, and his 
misrepresentations to conceal his inaction constitute a serious 
breach of his professional responsibility to clients, the 
courts, and the legal system.  
¶3 
Attorney Dumke was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1983 and practices in Janesville. He has been 
disciplined twice previously for professional misconduct. In 
1990, he consented to a public reprimand from the Board for 
failing to release a judgment lien on behalf of a client for 
which he had been retained, failing to respond to the client’s 
numerous telephone calls and a certified letter requesting 
information about the matter, misrepresenting to the Board that 
he had forwarded the judgment satisfaction for docketing, 
failing to initiate a legal action on behalf of another client, 
failing to respond to numerous phone calls and a certified 
letter from that client seeking information in the matter, and 
misrepresenting to the client that a court date had been 
scheduled and subsequently adjourned. In 1992, the court 
suspended 
his 
license 
for 
six 
months 
as 
discipline 
for 
neglecting clients’ legal matters, failing to provide competent 
representation to clients, misrepresenting to clients the status 
of their matters and failing to keep them reasonably informed, 
failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing clients, failing to cooperate in the Board’s 
investigation 
of 
his 
conduct, 
and, 
as 
a 
prosecutor, 
communicating with a party known to be represented by counsel 
No. 97-1200-D 
 
4 
without that counsel’s consent. Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Dumke, 171 Wis. 2d 47, 489 N.W.2d 919.  
¶4 
The referee in the instant proceeding, Attorney Linda 
Balisle, made the following findings of fact following a 
disciplinary hearing. In December, 1994, Attorney Dumke was 
appointed by the State Public Defender to represent a man who 
had been convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned on drug charges. 
After reviewing the trial transcripts, Attorney Dumke concluded 
that there were no appealable issues, but he never communicated 
that determination to the client or to anyone on the client’s 
behalf. He never met personally with the client and did not 
arrange for the assistance of an interpreter, as the client did 
not speak English.  
¶5 
One year after Attorney Dumke’s appointment in this 
matter, the client wrote the Public Defender complaining that 
his attorney had done nothing in the case, although he told the 
client’s family members that he had scheduled postconviction 
proceedings. In fact, Attorney Dumke had not commenced any 
proceedings on the client’s behalf. Following receipt of the 
client’s letter, the Public Defender reminded Attorney Dumke of 
his 
responsibility 
in 
the 
matter, 
including 
acting 
with 
reasonable diligence and promptness and keeping the client 
informed.  
¶6 
At some point in 1996, the client’s brother asked 
Attorney Dumke to represent the client in a deportation 
proceeding. Attorney Dumke agreed to try to locate the client, 
who by then had been released from prison, and learned that an 
No. 97-1200-D 
 
5 
immigrant rights organization was appearing on the client’s 
behalf in the deportation matter. When he spoke with the 
deportation counsel, Attorney Dumke said he had filed an appeal 
of the client’s criminal conviction, when in fact he had not. 
Under immigration law, an appeal of a conviction has to be filed 
in order for a person to be released on bond and have the 
deportation proceedings suspended. When he did not receive a 
copy of the notice of appeal of the criminal conviction, 
deportation counsel told the immigration court that an appeal 
had been filed. Attorney Dumke ultimately filed an untimely 
motion for new trial, and the State Public Defender then filed a 
notice of appeal of the criminal conviction after obtaining an 
extension of time to do so in order to prevent the client’s 
deportation.  
¶7 
Attorney Dumke failed to cooperate with the Board in 
its investigation into this matter by not providing timely 
responses to two inquiries. While acknowledging the facts found 
by the referee, he did not believe he violated any professional 
conduct rules. The referee found that Attorney Dumke has not 
demonstrated any remorse for his conduct or for the peril in 
which 
he 
placed 
the 
client 
with 
the 
Immigration 
and 
Naturalization Service.  
¶8 
On the basis of those facts, the referee concluded 
that by failing to meet with his client or arrange for an 
interpreter to facilitate a meeting with him and by failing to 
take any action to pursue an appeal on the client’s behalf, 
No. 97-1200-D 
 
6 
Attorney Dumke violated SCR 20:1.3,2 requiring a lawyer to act 
with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a 
client. By misrepresenting to the deportation counsel that he 
had filed an appeal on the client’s behalf, leading that counsel 
to make incorrect statements to the immigration court, Attorney 
Dumke engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).3 He violated 
the same provision by misrepresenting to the client’s family 
that he had taken certain actions on the client’s behalf. By 
failing to communicate directly with the client, inform the 
client he had concluded there were no appealable issues, and 
ensure that his communications with the client’s family members 
were communicated to the client, Attorney Dumke failed to 
explain a legal matter to a client to the extent reasonably 
necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions 
regarding the lawyer’s representation, in violation of SCR 
20:1.4(b).4 Finally, by failing to respond timely to the Board’s 
                     
2 SCR 20:1.3 provides: Diligence 
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client.   
3 SCR 20:8.4 provides, in pertinent part: Misconduct 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:  
 . . .  
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation;  
4 SCR 20:1.4 provides, in pertinent part: Communication 
 . . .  
No. 97-1200-D 
 
7 
two inquiries into this matter, Attorney Dumke failed to 
cooperate in the Board’s investigation, in violation of SCR 
22.07(2) and (3)5 and 21.03(4).6  
¶9 
The referee observed that Attorney Dumke’s conduct did 
not appear to reflect his lack of knowledge about proper 
procedures to be followed but, rather, his unwillingness to 
                                                                  
(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent 
reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed 
decisions regarding the representation.  
5 SCR 22.07 provides, in pertinent part: Investigation. 
 . . .  
(2) 
During 
the 
course 
of 
an 
investigation, 
the 
administrator or a committee may notify the respondent of the 
subject being investigated. The respondent shall fully and 
fairly disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct or medical incapacity within 20 days of being 
served by ordinary mail a request for response to a grievance. 
The administrator in his or her discretion may allow additional 
time 
to 
respond. 
Failure 
to 
provide 
information 
or 
misrepresentation 
in 
a 
disclosure 
is 
misconduct. 
The 
administrator or committee may make a further investigation 
before making a recommendation to the board.  
(3) 
The 
administrator 
or 
committee 
may 
compel 
the 
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents and present 
any information deemed relevant to the investigation. Failure of 
the respondent to answer questions, furnish documents or present 
relevant information is misconduct. The administrator or a 
committee may compel any other person to produce pertinent 
books, papers and documents under SCR 22.22.  
6 SCR 21.03 provides, in pertinent part: General principles.  
 . . .  
(4) Every attorney shall cooperate with the board and the 
administrator in the investigation, prosecution and disposition 
of grievances and complaints filed with or by the board or 
administrator.  
No. 97-1200-D 
 
8 
follow those procedures and his willingness to misrepresent his 
actions to a client and to the client’s other counsel. The 
referee also noted that his misconduct in this matter and that 
for which he was disciplined on two prior occasions demonstrate 
that Attorney Dumke will not alter his conduct in the future.  
¶10 We 
adopt 
the 
referee’s 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and determine that the recommended one-year 
license suspension is the appropriate discipline to impose for 
Attorney Dumke’s professional misconduct established in this 
proceeding. We do not impose the recommended condition on 
reinstatement, as there has been no showing that Attorney Dumke 
lacks the legal knowledge necessary to represent clients and the 
requirements for reinstatement imposed by rule are sufficient to 
address the referee’s other concerns.  
¶11 IT IS ORDERED that the license of James H. Dumke to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of one year, 
commencing April 27, 1998.  
¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, James H. Dumke 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 James H. Dumke to 
practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further 
order of the court.  
No. 97-1200-D 
 
9 
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that James H. Dumke 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