Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Gary E. Grass

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2018AP002460-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2019-04-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
2019 WI 35 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2018AP2460-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
Gary E. Grass, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Gary E. Grass, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GRASS 
 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 16, 2019 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
      
 
 
2019 WI 35
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2018AP2460-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Gary E. Grass, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Gary E. Grass, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
APR 16, 2019 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a stipulation filed pursuant 
to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12 by the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation 
(OLR) 
and 
Attorney 
Gary 
E. 
Grass. 
 
In 
the 
stipulation, 
Attorney 
Grass 
admits 
that 
he 
committed 
professional misconduct, and he agrees with the OLR's request 
that his license to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for a 
period of 60 days. 
¶2 
After careful review of the matter, we accept the 
stipulation and impose the requested discipline.  Because 
No. 
2018AP2460-D   
 
2 
 
Attorney Grass entered into a comprehensive stipulation before 
the appointment of a referee, we do not require him to pay the 
costs of this proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney Grass was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2003.  He has no prior disciplinary history.  
Effective May 22, 2018, his Wisconsin law license was suspended 
for failure to comply with mandatory continuing legal education 
reporting requirements.  Effective October 31, 2018, his license 
was suspended for failure to pay state bar dues and provide OLR 
trust account certification.  On November 13, 2018, his law 
license was temporarily suspended by this court for failure to 
cooperate with three OLR investigations into his conduct.  His 
law license remains suspended.   
¶4 
On December 27, 2018, the OLR filed a complaint 
alleging that Attorney Grass had engaged in 14 counts of 
misconduct arising out of his representation of five clients.  
On February 15, 2019, the OLR and Attorney Grass filed their 
stipulation.  We take the following facts from that stipulation.   
Client W.H. 
¶5 
In 
or 
about 
November 
2009, 
Attorney 
Grass 
was 
appointed by the public defender's office to appear as appellate 
counsel on behalf of W.H. in a criminal matter in Waukesha 
County.  Attorney Grass filed an appeal on behalf of W.H. 
relating to modification of the original sentence and a re-
confinement 
sentence 
as 
well 
as 
raising 
an 
ineffective 
assistance of counsel claim. 
No. 
2018AP2460-D   
 
3 
 
¶6 
In June 2012, the court of appeals issued an order 
finding that W.H. was entitled to a resentencing hearing and 
remanding the matter for a hearing on the ineffective assistance 
of counsel claim.  The court of appeals held that the motion to 
modify the original sentence could not properly be decided in 
the context of that appeal. 
¶7 
In September of 2016, W.H. retained Attorney Grass to 
represent him regarding a motion to modify the original 
sentence.  Attorney Grass received a $1,000 fee from W.H., some 
of which was applied to work Attorney Grass had already 
performed and some of which was to be for future services.  
Attorney Grass did not place the $1,000 into his trust account.  
It is unclear how much of the fee was applied to work already 
performed and how much was paid in contemplation of future 
services.  Attorney Grass did not have a written fee agreement 
with W.H. 
¶8 
W.H. filed a grievance with the OLR against Attorney 
Grass on June 23, 2017.  On June 26, 2017, Attorney Grass filed 
a motion to modify the original sentence.  The circuit court 
denied that motion in March 2018. 
¶9 
In 
a 
letter 
dated 
January 
29, 
2018, 
an 
OLR 
investigator requested that Attorney Grass provide additional 
information relating to W.H.'s grievance.  The OLR gave Attorney 
Grass several extensions of time to respond to the request for 
information but he never responded.  The OLR filed a motion with 
this court seeking an order that Attorney Grass show cause why 
his Wisconsin law license should not be temporarily suspended 
No. 
2018AP2460-D   
 
4 
 
for his failure to cooperate in this and two other OLR 
investigations.  On November 13, 2018, this court issued an 
order temporarily suspending Attorney Grass' Wisconsin law 
license. 
¶10 By virtue of entering into the stipulation, Attorney 
Grass admitted the following counts of misconduct with respect 
to his representation of W.H.: 
Count 1:  By failing to place the portion of W.H.'s 
$1,000 constituting an advanced fee into his trust 
account, Attorney Grass violated SCR 20:1.5(f).1 
Count 2:  By willfully failing to respond to the OLR's 
request for additional information relating to W.H.'s 
grievance, Attorney Grass violated SCR 22.03(6),2 
enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h).3 
Client M.E. 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.5(f) provides: 
Except as provided in SCR 20:1.5(g), unearned 
fees and funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for 
payment of fees shall be held in trust until earned by 
the lawyer, and withdrawn pursuant to SCR 20:1.5(h).  
Funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for payment of 
costs shall be held in trust until the costs are 
incurred.   
2 SCR 
22.03(6) 
provides: 
 
"In 
the 
course 
of 
the 
investigation, the respondent's wilful failure to provide 
relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 
documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure 
are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted 
in the grievance." 
3 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to fail to cooperate in the investigation of a 
grievance filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required 
by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), 
or SCR 22.04(1)." 
No. 
2018AP2460-D   
 
5 
 
¶11 In 
April 
2016, 
M.E. 
hired 
Attorney 
Grass 
as 
postconviction counsel in a criminal matter in Milwaukee County.  
Attorney Grass agreed to review M.E.'s criminal conviction and 
prepare a motion challenging it.  Pursuant to the terms of the 
fee agreement, M.E. agreed to pay a $1,000 advanced fee.  
Attorney Grass agreed to provide M.E.'s mother, E.E., with 
monthly billing statements. 
¶12 Attorney Grass did not file any postconviction motions 
on behalf of M.E., nor did he provide E.E. with monthly billing 
statements.  
¶13 In November 2017, M.E. and E.E. both filed grievances 
with 
the 
OLR 
about 
Attorney 
Grass' 
handling 
of 
the 
postconviction matter.  In April 2018, Attorney Grass told M.E. 
and E.E. that a motion would be fully completed in two or three 
weeks, but he failed to follow through. 
¶14 In a letter dated May 30, 2018, M.E. wrote to the OLR 
regarding the status of his case and Attorney Grass' law 
license.  Attorney Grass had failed to notify M.E. of his 
suspension. 
¶15 In a letter dated February 2, 2018, the OLR forwarded 
the grievances of M.E. and E.E. to Attorney Grass and requested 
a response.  In spite of being given several extensions of time 
to provide a response, Attorney Grass failed to do so.  This 
court's November 13, 2018 order temporarily suspending Attorney 
Grass' law license was based in part on his failure to respond 
to the grievances filed by M.E. and E.E. 
No. 
2018AP2460-D   
 
6 
 
¶16 By virtue of entering into the stipulation, Attorney 
Grass admitted the following counts of misconduct with respect 
to his representation of M.E.: 
Count 3:  By failing to file a postconviction motion 
on 
M.E.'s 
behalf 
prior 
to 
the 
May 
22, 
2018 
administrative suspension of his law license, Attorney 
Grass violated SCR 20:1.3.4 
Count 4:  By failing to notify M.E. of the May 22, 
2018 suspension of his law license and his consequent 
inability to practice law, Attorney Grass violated 
SCR 22.26(1),5 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f).6 
                                                 
4 SCR 20:1.3 provides:  "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
5 SCR 22.26(1) provides: 
(1) On or before the effective date of license 
suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 
suspended or revoked shall do all of the following: 
(a) Notify by certified mail all clients being 
represented in pending matters of the suspension or 
revocation and of the attorney's consequent inability 
to act as an attorney following the effective date of 
the suspension or revocation.  
(b) Advise the clients to seek legal advice of 
their choice elsewhere.  
(c) Promptly provide written notification to the 
court or administrative agency and the attorney for 
each party in a matter pending before a court or 
administrative agency of the suspension or revocation 
and of the attorney's consequent inability to act as 
an attorney following the effective date of the 
suspension or revocation. The notice shall identify 
the successor attorney of the attorney's client or, if 
there is none at the time notice is given, shall state 
the client's place of residence.  
(d) Within the first 15 days after the effective 
date 
of 
suspension 
or 
revocation, 
make 
all 
(continued) 
No. 
2018AP2460-D   
 
7 
 
Count 5:  By willfully failing to respond to the OLR's 
February 2, 2018 letter seeking a response to the 
grievances by M.E. and E.E., Attorney Grass violated 
SCR 
22.03(2)7 
and 
SCR 
22.03(6), 
enforceable 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(h). 
                                                                                                                                                             
arrangements for the temporary or permanent closing or 
winding up of the attorney's practice. The attorney 
may assist in having others take over clients' work in 
progress.  
(e) Within 25 days after the effective date of 
suspension or revocation, file with the director an 
affidavit showing all of the following: 
(i) Full compliance with the provisions of the 
suspension or revocation order and with the rules and 
procedures regarding the closing of the attorney's 
practice.  
(ii) A list of all jurisdictions, including 
state, federal and administrative bodies, before which 
the attorney is admitted to practice.  
(iii) A list of clients in all pending matters 
and a list of all matters pending before any court or 
administrative agency, together with the case number 
of each matter.  
(f) Maintain records of the various steps taken 
under this rule in order that, in any subsequent 
proceeding instituted by or against the attorney, 
proof of compliance with the rule and with the 
suspension or revocation order is available.  
6 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme 
court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers." 
7 SCR 22.03(2) provides: 
Upon commencing an investigation, the director 
shall notify the respondent of the matter being 
investigated unless in the opinion of the director the 
investigation of the matter requires otherwise.  The 
(continued) 
No. 
2018AP2460-D   
 
8 
 
Client D.P. 
¶17 On or around August 31, 2016, D.P., through his 
grandmother, hired Attorney Grass as postconviction counsel in a 
Milwaukee County criminal matter.  D.P. wanted Attorney Grass to 
appeal his conviction or seek a reduction of his sentence or a 
new trial. 
¶18 On September 8, 2016, Attorney Grass appeared on 
D.P.'s behalf in the criminal matter in the court of appeals 
district I.  On October 18, 2016, Attorney Grass filed a motion 
for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal or a 
postconviction motion.  The court of appeals granted the motion 
and extended the deadline to November 17, 2016. 
¶19 Between October 18, 2016 and February 14, 2018, 
Attorney Grass filed 14 motions for an extension of time to file 
a notice of appeal or a postconviction motion.  The court of 
appeals granted all of the requests but stated, "it appears that 
counsel has not made a meaningful assessment of his ability to 
complete the postconviction motion within the requested extended 
deadline.  Multiple requests for extension which counsel is 
unable to meet are burdensome to the court." 
                                                                                                                                                             
respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts 
and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct 
within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail a 
request for a written response.  The director may 
allow additional time to respond.  Following receipt 
of the response, the director may conduct further 
investigation and may compel the respondent to answer 
questions, 
furnish 
documents, 
and 
present 
any 
information deemed relevant to the investigation.   
No. 
2018AP2460-D   
 
9 
 
¶20 Attorney Grass failed to file a notice of appeal or a 
postconviction motion by the last extended deadline.  He also 
failed to communicate with D.P. and failed to return phone calls 
from D.P.'s family.   
¶21 In May 2018, D.P. filed a pro se request for a hearing 
to discharge Attorney Grass as his counsel and appoint new 
appellate counsel.  The court of appeals denied D.P.'s request 
and directed him to address his complaint against Attorney Grass 
to the OLR and/or to the State Public Defender's office.  On 
June 11, 2018, the public defender's office notified D.P. that 
Attorney Grass' license had been suspended. 
¶22 D.P. filed a grievance with the OLR against Attorney 
Grass.  Attorney Grass failed to file a response. 
¶23 By virtue of entering into the stipulation, Attorney 
Grass admitted the following counts of misconduct with respect 
to his representation of D.P.: 
Count 6:  By failing to advance D.P.'s interests in 
the matter of an appeal or postconviction motion, 
including failing to file a notice of appeal or 
postconviction motion in D.P.'s matter by the April 5, 
2018 deadline, Attorney Grass violated SCR 20:1.3. 
Count 7:  By failing to communicate with D.P. or 
D.P.'s family from March 2017 until August 16, 2017 
regarding the status of his case, Attorney Grass 
violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3).8 
Count 8:  By failing to notify D.P. of the May 22, 
2018 suspension of his law license and his consequent 
                                                 
8 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides:  "A lawyer shall keep the 
client reasonably informed about the status of the matter." 
No. 
2018AP2460-D   
 
10 
 
inability to practice law, Attorney Grass violated 
SCR 22.26(1), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f). 
Count 9:  By willfully failing to timely respond to 
the OLR's July 26, 2018 letter seeking a response to 
D.P.'s grievance, Attorney Grass violated SCR 22.03(2) 
and SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
Client V.C. 
¶24 On October 29, 2016, V.C. hired Attorney Grass as his 
appellate counsel in a criminal matter in Milwaukee County 
regarding his conviction and conditions of confinement.  He also 
hired Attorney Grass to respond to potential harassment by 
V.C.'s alleged co-actor.  Attorney Grass told the OLR he 
received $1,000 in fees from V.C. for four hours of work with no 
expenses.  Attorney Grass also told the OLR he agreed to provide 
six hours of work without charge to V.C., but had performed over 
ten hours of work on the case.  Attorney Grass told the OLR he 
was unable to locate his written fee agreement with V.C. 
¶25 On December 5, 2016, Attorney Grass filed a motion to 
request transcripts and the circuit court record.  The court of 
appeals granted the motion and established a deadline of 
December 23, 2016 to obtain the transcripts and circuit court 
record.  Attorney Grass filed a second motion to extend the time 
to request transcripts on December 27, 2016.  The court of 
appeals granted the motion and extended the deadline to January 
6, 2017. 
¶26 On November 19, 2017, Attorney Grass wrote to the 
court of appeals saying that he had not ordered the transcripts 
and failed to realize that V.C. was indigent and was entitled to 
a waiver of the transcript fees. 
No. 
2018AP2460-D   
 
11 
 
¶27 In the meantime, on August 23, 2017, V.C. had filed a 
grievance with the OLR against Attorney Grass.  Attorney Grass 
failed to respond to the OLR's request for information about the 
grievance. 
¶28 On December 1, 2017, the court of appeals ordered that 
the deadline for requesting copies of the transcripts would be 
January 29, 2018 and directed Attorney Grass to file a status 
report no later than January 2, 2018.  Attorney Grass failed to 
meet both deadlines. 
¶29 Attorney Grass failed to respond to the OLR's repeated 
requests for information about the grievance.  This court's 
November 13, 2018 order temporarily suspending Attorney Grass' 
law license was based in part on his failure to respond to the 
OLR's investigation of V.C.'s grievance. 
¶30 By virtue of entering into the stipulation, Attorney 
Grass admitted the following counts of misconduct with respect 
to his representation of V.C.: 
Count 10:  By failing to obtain transcripts or seek a 
waiver of court reporter's fees or otherwise take 
steps to advance V.C.'s case in a timely manner, 
Attorney Grass violated SCR 20:1.3. 
Count 11:  By willfully failing to respond to the 
OLR's request for additional information relating to 
V.C.'s 
grievance, 
Attorney 
Grass 
violated 
SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
Client S.B. 
¶31 On or about May 29, 2017, S.B. hired Attorney Grass as 
his appellate counsel in a criminal matter in Milwaukee County 
to evaluate the prospect of filing a postconviction motion.  
No. 
2018AP2460-D   
 
12 
 
Attorney Grass' written fee agreement with S.B. stated that work 
would be performed according to the following pay schedule:  
$250 per hour for the first four hours, $0 for the following six 
hours, $100 per hour for the following ten hours, $50 per hour 
for the following forty hours, and $20 per hour for any further 
work until completion.  Attorney Grass agreed to provide S.B. 
monthly billing statements itemizing the work performed on 
S.B.'s behalf.  S.B. paid Attorney Grass approximately $1,500. 
¶32 On June 1, 2017, S.B.'s previous appellate counsel 
delivered S.B.'s appeal file to Attorney Grass and informed him 
that the date for filing a notice of appeal or postconviction 
motion was July 5, 2017. 
¶33 In a letter dated December 6, 2017, S.B. wrote to 
Attorney Grass identifying issues he believed relevant to his 
postconviction motion.  Attorney Grass failed to respond to the 
letter.   
¶34 Attorney Grass requested, and was granted, three 
extensions of time for filing a notice of appeal or a 
postconviction motion on S.B.'s behalf.  He never filed either a 
notice of appeal or a postconviction motion. 
¶35 In a letter dated May 9, 2018, S.B. requested that the 
public defender's office appoint new counsel for him.  Attorney 
Grass failed to notify S.B. of the May 22, 2018 suspension of 
his law license.  S.B. learned about Attorney Grass' suspension 
when he was copied on a letter from the public defender's office 
to Attorney Grass, dated May 30, 2018. 
No. 
2018AP2460-D   
 
13 
 
¶36 On May 22, 2018, S.B. filed a grievance with the OLR 
against Attorney Grass.  Attorney Grass failed to respond to the 
OLR's request for information about the grievance. 
¶37 On July 3, 2018, S.B.'s prior appellate counsel, who 
was still an attorney of record for S.B. in the Milwaukee case, 
requested an extension of time for S.B. to file a postconviction 
motion or a notice of appeal.  The court granted that request.   
¶38 On July 6, 2018, Attorney Grass informed the court of 
appeals, district I that his law license had been suspended.  In 
a letter dated August 8, 2018, Attorney Grass informed the OLR 
and the clerk of this court that he was unable to provide 
responses to the OLR's requests for information and that he was 
"in no present condition to practice." 
¶39 By virtue of entering into the stipulation, Attorney 
Grass admitted the following counts of misconduct with respect 
to his representation of S.B.: 
Count 12:  By failing to advance S.B.'s interests in 
the matter of an appeal or postconviction motion, 
Attorney Grass violated SCR 20:1.3. 
Count 13:  By failing to notify S.B. of the May 22, 
2018 suspension of his law license and his consequent 
inability to practice law, Attorney Grass violated 
SCR 22.26(1), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f). 
Count 14:  By willfully failing to timely respond to 
the OLR's June 25, 2018 letter seeking a response to 
S.B.'s grievance, Attorney Grass violated SCR 22.03(2) 
and SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶40 The parties' stipulation states that the terms of the 
stipulation were not bargained for or negotiated between the 
parties.  Attorney Grass avers that he admits the facts of the 
No. 
2018AP2460-D   
 
14 
 
misconduct alleged by the OLR and agrees to the level of 
discipline sought by the OLR, a 60-day suspension of his license 
to practice law in Wisconsin.  Attorney Grass represents that he 
fully understands the misconduct allegations, fully understands 
the ramifications should the court impose the stipulated level 
of discipline, fully understands his right to contest the 
matter, fully understands his right to consult with and retain 
counsel, and states that his entry into the stipulation is made 
knowingly and voluntarily. 
¶41 The 
OLR 
filed 
a 
memorandum 
in 
support 
of 
the 
stipulation, citing a number of cases that it claims supports 
its request for a 60-day suspension:  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Bartz, 2015 WI 61, 362 Wis. 2d 752, 864 
N.W.2d 881 (60-day suspension for five counts of misconduct 
related to one client matter; attorney had one prior private 
reprimand); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Briggs, 2014 
WI 119, 358 Wis. 2d 493, 861 N.W.2d 528 (90-day suspension for 
12 counts of misconduct related to two client matters; attorney 
had 
no 
prior 
disciplinary 
history); 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Kasprowicz, 2004 WI 151, 277 Wis. 2d 96, 690 
N.W.2d 13 (public reprimand for 16 counts of misconduct related 
to six client matters; referee found multiple mitigating 
factors, including medical and emotional problems found to have 
a causal connection with the misconduct at issue.) 
¶42 Although no two attorney disciplinary matters are 
precisely the same, we find that the misconduct at issue here is 
somewhat analogous to that at issue in Bartz.  While Attorney 
No. 
2018AP2460-D   
 
15 
 
Bartz had a prior private reprimand and Attorney Grass has no 
disciplinary history, Attorney Grass has admitted nine more 
counts of misconduct than was at issue in Bartz.  After careful 
review, we accept the stipulation and impose the jointly 
requested sanction of a 60-day suspension of Attorney Grass' law 
license.  Because Attorney Grass entered into a comprehensive 
stipulation, thus obviating the need for the appointment of a 
referee and a full disciplinary proceeding, we impose no costs 
in this matter. 
¶43 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Gary E. Grass to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective the date of this order. 
¶44 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Gary E. Grass 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. 
¶45 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this decision is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2). 
¶46 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
administrative 
suspension of Gary E. Grass' license to practice law in 
Wisconsin, due to his failure to pay mandatory bar dues, for 
failure to file Office of Lawyer Regulation trust account 
certification, and for noncompliance with continuing legal 
education requirements, will remain in effect until each reason 
for the administrative suspension has been rectified pursuant to 
SCR 22.28(1). 
No. 
2018AP2460-D   
 
16 
 
¶47 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the November 13, 2018 
temporary suspension of Gary E. Grass' license to practice law 
in Wisconsin, due to his willful failure to cooperate with the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation's investigation in this matter, is 
lifted. 
¶48 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no costs are imposed on 
Gary E. Grass. 
 
 
No. 
2018AP2460-D   
 
 
 
1