Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Edward G. Harris

Citation: 2003 WI 22

Docket Number: 2002AP000464-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2003-03-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
2003 WI 22 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
02-0464-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Edward G. Harris, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
Edward G. Harris,  
 
Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HARRIS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 28, 2003   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2003 WI 22 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  02-0464-D  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Edward G. Harris, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Edward G. Harris,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 28, 2003 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the referee's recommendation 
that the license of Attorney Edward G. Harris to practice law in 
Wisconsin be suspended for two years for professional misconduct 
in connection with repeated instances of unauthorized practice 
of law in violation of SCR 22.26(2).1  In addition to license 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.26(2) provides:  
 
(2) An attorney whose license to practice law is 
suspended or revoked or who is suspended from the 
practice of law may not engage in this state in the 
practice 
of 
law 
or 
in 
any 
law 
work 
activity 
No. 
02-0464-D   
 
2 
 
suspension, the referee recommended that Harris be required to 
pay the costs of this proceeding and that any reinstatement of 
his 
license 
to 
practice 
law 
be 
conditioned 
upon 
Harris 
satisfying certain civil judgments that were lodged against a 
former client and against Harris, himself, as a result of 
Harris's misconduct. 
¶2 
We agree that Harris's professional misconduct was 
serious.  We are persuaded that a two-year suspension of his 
license to practice law in Wisconsin is appropriate discipline 
for his misconduct, and we adopt the referee’s recommendation in 
this regard. In addition, we direct Harris to satisfy the civil 
judgments, lodged against his aggrieved client, Robert M. 
Trotter, and against himself, as set forth herein.  Finally, we 
order Harris to pay the costs of this proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney Harris was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in 1986.  He has no prior disciplinary history.  
However, his license to practice law in Wisconsin has been under 
suspension since 1997 for failure to complete Continuing Legal 
Education (CLE) requirements.   
¶4 
On February 18, 2002, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a complaint against Harris alleging that Harris 
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law from the date of his 
                                                                                                                                                             
customarily done by law students, law clerks, or other 
paralegal personnel, except that the attorney may 
engage in law related work in this state for a 
commercial employer itself not engaged in the practice 
of law. 
 
No. 
02-0464-D   
 
3 
 
suspension "until at least February 8, 2001."  The OLR further 
alleged certain misconduct committed by Harris related to his 
representation of three clients. 
¶5 
Harris admitted some of the allegations and denied 
others.  However, he failed to respond to requests for 
admissions and other discovery requests.  Despite proper notice, 
he also failed to appear at a hearing on a "Motion to 
Adjudicate" filed by the OLR in response to Harris's discovery 
violations.  Ultimately, Harris also declined to appear at the 
hearing on the merits of the disciplinary matter, advising the 
referee that he did not contest any of the OLR's allegations and 
would not challenge the request to suspend his license for two 
years.   
¶6 
Consequently, the evidentiary hearing on the merits of 
this disciplinary matter proceeded without Harris.  The OLR 
introduced witnesses and exhibits and provided argument in 
support of its request for a two-year suspension.  Based on the 
pleadings, Harris's admissions, and the evidence submitted at 
the hearing, the referee made findings of fact, which are 
summarized herein.  
¶7 
Beginning in October 1996 the Board of Bar Examiners 
(BBE) advised Harris that he needed to report his compliance 
with CLE attendance requirements.  Harris never responded to the 
BBE and failed to establish his compliance with CLE attendance 
requirements.  Accordingly, he was suspended, effective June 3, 
1997.  It is undisputed that he was aware of the order of 
suspension. 
No. 
02-0464-D   
 
4 
 
¶8 
Nonetheless, the evidence indicated and the referee 
found that Harris continued to practice law after the effective 
date of his suspension.   
¶9 
From June 4, 1997, until February 8, 2001, Harris 
continued to practice law at the firm of Piano, Harris & 
Tishberg in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  Harris continued to handle at 
least 60 cases in Wisconsin courts after the effective date of 
his suspension. 
¶10 On September 26, 1997, Harris advised the BBE staff 
that he had received a letter from a judge regarding his 
suspension.  He asserted that he had already filed a written 
report with the BBE establishing his compliance with CLE 
requirements.  In fact, no such report was ever received by the 
BBE.   
¶11 In October 1999 opposing counsel in a matter informed 
Harris that he had learned of Harris's suspension and that he 
would need to discuss the matter with the court.  Harris told 
the presiding judge that he believed his suspension was a 
mistake and that he would resolve it.  However, Harris did not 
attempt to resolve the matter with the BBE. 
¶12 In December 2000 the OLR wrote Harris asking him to 
respond to an allegation that he had been practicing law after 
the date of his suspension.  Harris did not respond to this 
letter.  
¶13 In January 2001 the OLR mailed a second letter to 
Harris via certified mail, again asking him to respond to the 
No. 
02-0464-D   
 
5 
 
allegation that he had practiced law while under suspension. 
Harris did not answer this letter, either. 
¶14 Based on the foregoing findings, the referee concluded 
that Harris engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in 
violation of SCR 22.26(2).   
¶15 The referee also made findings regarding the OLR's 
allegation that Harris committed misconduct in the course of his 
representation of three separate clients, over and above the 
finding that he engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. 
¶16 In August 1997 Howard McMahon, an attorney (McMahon), 
referred his cousin, Shawna Miller, and her husband, Jeremy (the 
Millers), to Harris to commence a "lemon law" action against 
Saturn of Eau Claire.  McMahon mailed Harris all of the 
documents relevant to the Millers' claim.  He asked Harris to 
review the materials and to give him an opinion regarding the 
Millers' claim.  Although his law license had been suspended, 
Harris agreed to represent the Millers and subsequently did so. 
¶17 One of the documents that McMahon sent to Harris was a 
form to request arbitration through the Better Business Bureau 
Auto Line.  Harris told McMahon and Jeremy Miller that he had 
filed for arbitration with the Better Business Bureau Auto Line.  
He further indicated that the arbitration process was subject to 
lengthy delay and that it would take some time for the Millers 
to obtain a hearing date.  In fact, Harris never filed such a 
claim. 
¶18 In early 1998 Jeremy stopped making the lease payments 
because he was continuing to experience problems with his 
No. 
02-0464-D   
 
6 
 
vehicle.  General Motors brought a small claims action against 
the Millers in the Circuit Court of Dane County, Case No. 98-SC-
2790.  Harris entered an appearance on behalf of the Millers and 
filed an answer to General Motors' complaint. 
¶19 After the General Motors' lawsuit against the Millers 
had been filed, Harris explained to the Millers and McMahon that 
he believed this new lawsuit provided an ideal means of 
bypassing the arbitration provisions of the lemon law statute.  
Harris further informed them that he would file a counterclaim 
for the lemon law violations in this Dane County action and 
thereby move the dispute to circuit court.  In fact, Harris did 
not file any such counterclaim. 
¶20 In April 1998 the Millers paid the money owed to 
General Motors, and the Dane County Circuit Court dismissed 
General Motors' lawsuit. 
¶21 On July 2, 1998, Harris signed a summons and complaint 
he had drafted on behalf of the Millers, provided them with 
copies, and informed them he would file these papers in court.  
The caption on these documents listed the case number as 98-SC-
2790, the same case number as the General Motors' small claims 
action against the Millers in Dane County, but the caption 
stated "Milwaukee County."  Harris never filed these documents. 
¶22 Harris then told the Millers and McMahon he would file 
a motion for summary judgment and had Jeremy Miller sign an 
affidavit.  The caption on the affidavit listed the case number 
as 98-SC-2790, the same case number as the General Motors' small 
claims action against the Millers in Dane County, but the 
No. 
02-0464-D   
 
7 
 
caption again stated "Milwaukee County."  Harris failed to file 
the affidavit and filed no motion for summary judgment.  
¶23 Harris then wrongly informed the Millers and McMahon 
that he had filed a motion for summary judgment and that it 
would be heard in Milwaukee County on December 20, 1999.  Jeremy 
Miller advised Harris that he would attend the hearing.  Shortly 
before the hearing, Harris informed Jeremy Miller that he had 
negotiated a settlement and that Jeremy Miller need not appear 
in court on December 20, 1999.  No such settlement was reached. 
¶24 In February 2000 Jeremy Miller asked McMahon to check 
on the status of the settlement because Harris was not returning 
his telephone calls.  Harris informed McMahon that the opposing 
attorney was not returning his telephone calls, and that he 
would have to make another motion for summary judgment to 
enforce the settlement.  Subsequently, Harris advised McMahon 
and the Millers that the renewed motion for summary judgment was 
scheduled for hearing on May 8, 2000.  No such motion was ever 
filed. 
¶25 In April 2000 McMahon attempted to find the Millers' 
case using "CCAP" (a court operated computer database that 
provides public access to circuit court records), but could not 
locate any record of the Millers' case.  McMahon called Harris 
to obtain an explanation.  Harris told McMahon that there must 
have been a mistake and he would take care of the matter. 
¶26 In April 2000 McMahon wrote to Harris and asked him to 
send copies of all papers and pleadings that were filed in the 
No. 
02-0464-D   
 
8 
 
Millers' case.  Harris never sent anything to McMahon and never 
replied to McMahon's letter. 
¶27 During the period in which he was representing the 
Millers, Harris failed to return countless phone calls made to 
him by Jeremy Miller, who was unsuccessfully attempting to 
obtain information about court proceedings and events that 
Harris had falsely claimed were happening. 
¶28 In summary, despite his representations to the Millers 
and McMahon, Harris never filed any claims or counterclaims 
against General Motors, never filed any motions for summary 
judgment, and never finalized a settlement with General Motors.  
He never filed any claim or motion in any tribunal on the 
Millers' behalf. 
¶29 The 
referee 
also 
made 
findings 
regarding 
the 
allegation that Harris committed misconduct with respect to 
another client, Robert M. Trotter (Trotter).   In June 1995 
Trotter retained Harris to represent him on a claim stemming 
from an injury that Trotter suffered while working for Paramount 
Landscape (Paramount) in May 1995. 
¶30 Initially Harris filed a claim with Heritage Mutual 
Insurance Company (Heritage), Paramount's workers' compensation 
insurance carrier.  Heritage took the position that Trotter was 
not an employee of Paramount at the time of the incident and 
therefore was not entitled to workers' compensation benefits.  
In 1997 Harris filed an application for workers' compensation 
benefits on behalf of Trotter with the Wisconsin Department of 
Workforce Development. 
No. 
02-0464-D   
 
9 
 
¶31 On June 3, 1997, Harris's law license was suspended.  
Harris never advised Trotter of his suspension and continued to 
represent him.   
¶32 Because Heritage continued to deny that Trotter was an 
employee, on June 6, 1997, Harris filed a negligence claim 
against Paramount, Anthony Pegg (Pegg), the owner of Paramount, 
and Heritage in Waukesha County Circuit Court.  Trotter also 
claimed in that action that Mr. Pegg had assaulted him by 
threatening to harm him if he attempted to file a lawsuit or an 
insurance claim. 
¶33 In July 1997 counsel for Paramount and Pegg deposed 
Trotter in the civil case.  Subsequently, in September 1997, 
they filed a motion for summary judgment in circuit court.  The 
motion sought either dismissal of the pending civil action or 
stay of the civil action pending resolution of the workers' 
compensation claim. 
¶34 Harris never advised Trotter of this motion for 
summary judgment and never filed any response to the motion for 
summary judgment.  Harris also failed to appear at the hearing 
on the motion for summary judgment. 
¶35 The circuit court granted the motion for summary 
judgment, dismissing Trotter's claim.  Harris never advised 
Trotter that the court had granted the defendants' motion for 
summary judgment and had dismissed the case. 
¶36 Paramount and Pegg then moved for an award of costs 
against Trotter and Harris on grounds of frivolousness.  In 
December 1997 the court held a hearing on this motion.  Harris 
No. 
02-0464-D   
 
10 
 
did not appear at the hearing and never advised Trotter of it.  
The court awarded Paramount and Pegg attorneys' fees and costs 
to be assessed equally between Harris and Trotter.  Harris never 
told Trotter of the award rendered against them. 
¶37 In March 1998 Paramount and Pegg's counsel wrote to 
Harris asking him whether he and his client would voluntarily 
pay the judgment entered against them.  Harris never responded 
to this letter and never told Trotter about it. 
¶38 Meanwhile, 
Trotter's 
workers' 
compensation 
case 
remained pending and was scheduled for a hearing on April 2, 
1998.  Harris advised the Department of Workforce Development 
that Trotter and Heritage had reached a compromise.  On April 4, 
1998, Attorney Richard Mueller, who represented Heritage in the 
workers' compensation action, sent Harris a draft compromise 
agreement.  The compromise provided that the defendants would 
agree to vacate the judgment against Trotter and Harris in 
Waukesha County Circuit Court in exchange for Trotter releasing 
the 
defendants 
from 
any 
liability 
under 
the 
Workers' 
Compensation Act.  Attorney Mueller signed the compromise 
agreement and asked that Harris and Trotter sign the document as 
well. 
¶39 Harris never informed Trotter of 
the 
compromise 
agreement proposed by Heritage Insurance.  He did not reply to 
several letters from Attorney Mueller seeking a response 
concerning the compromise. 
¶40 On October 27, 1998, the administrative law judge 
wrote to Harris and Attorney Mueller to inform them that he had 
No. 
02-0464-D   
 
11 
 
not received the compromise agreement.  He asked counsel to 
advise him if the matter had been compromised.  The next day 
Harris 
telephoned 
Attorney 
Mueller 
about 
the 
compromise 
agreement and informed him that it had been signed by Harris and 
Trotter and returned.  Trotter had not signed the agreement.  
Indeed, Trotter knew nothing about it.  Attorney Mueller then 
sent Harris a letter dated October 29, 1998, in which he advised 
Harris that he had never received the signed compromise 
agreement.  He provided Harris with a second copy of the 
agreement.  He asked Harris to have it executed and either 
returned to him, or forwarded to the administrative law judge.  
It was not. 
¶41 On 
May 
10, 
1999, 
the 
administrative 
law 
judge 
dismissed Trotter's claim, without prejudice.  Notice of the 
dismissal was sent to Harris's office.  Harris never advised 
Trotter that his workers' compensation claim had been dismissed.   
¶42 Ultimately, proceeding pro se and later with the 
assistance of another attorney, Trotter began and eventually 
compromised a second workers' compensation claim. 
¶43 In the Waukesha County action a judgment in the amount 
of $2716.74 was entered against Trotter, as was a separate 
judgment against Harris in the same amount.  This judgment 
against Trotter remained outstanding as of the date of the 
hearing before the referee in this matter. 
¶44 In the course of his representation of Trotter, Harris 
repeatedly failed to return calls or answer inquiries from 
Trotter and from attorneys Trotter later retained.   
No. 
02-0464-D   
 
12 
 
¶45 Finally, the referee made findings with respect to the 
allegations against Harris involving a third client.   
¶46 In April 2000 Harris's license to practice law had 
been suspended for nearly three years.  Nonetheless, Harris 
undertook the representation of Makbul Sajan in Sajan's effort 
to obtain a special use permit from the City of Milwaukee Board 
of Zoning Appeals to open a gas station at a certain location.  
Harris and Sajan met with the alderman of the potentially 
affected district, exchanged information, and discussed an 
upcoming meeting.  Harris continued to represent Sajan in this 
matter 
until 
at 
least 
September 
21, 
2000, 
when 
Sajan's 
application for a special use permit was denied.   
¶47 Based on the foregoing findings of fact the referee 
concluded that the OLR had established by clear and convincing 
evidence that: 
1. 
By practicing law on and after June 4, 1997, 
while his license to do so was suspended, Harris 
repeatedly engaged in the unauthorized practice of law 
and thereby repeatedly violated SCR 22.26(2).  He did 
so specifically in his representation of Jeremy and 
Shawna [Miller], of [Robert] Trotter, and of [Makbul] 
Sajan, as set forth in particular above, and of other 
clients as well. 
2. 
By failing to file any claims on behalf of Jeremy 
and Shawna [Miller] and by failing to respond to 
motions filed, and inquiries made, by those adverse to 
the Millers, Harris failed to act with reasonable 
diligence in representing them and thereby violated 
SCR 20:1.3.2 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.3 provides: "Diligence. A lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
 
No. 
02-0464-D   
 
13 
 
3. 
By failing to respond to numerous communications 
and requests for information from the Millers and 
their agents and by repeatedly giving them false 
information when he gave them any information at all, 
Harris failed to comply promptly with reasonable 
requests for information and failed to keep the 
Millers informed of the status of various matters.  He 
thereby violated SCR 20:1.4(a).3 
4. 
By falsely advising the Millers and their agents 
that he had filed claims and motions on their behalf 
and that he had reached a settlement of their claims 
and by repeatedly misrepresenting the existence and 
status of court proceedings, Harris engaged in conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit, 
or 
misrepresentation and thereby violated SCR 20:8.4(c).4 
5. 
By failing to respond to claims, motions, and 
offers of compromise made against and to a client, 
Robert 
M. 
Trotter, 
Harris 
failed 
to 
act 
with 
reasonable diligence and thereby violated SCR 20:1.3. 
6. 
By failing to provide Trotter with even the most 
rudimentary information about cases in which Trotter's 
interests were at stake and by failing to respond to 
numerous inquiries from Trotter and his agents, Harris 
failed to keep Trotter reasonably informed about the 
status of pending matters and failed to comply 
promptly 
with 
Trotter's 
reasonable 
requests 
for 
information.  He thereby violated SCR 20:1.4(a). 
7. 
By 
these 
same 
acts 
and 
omissions 
and 
in 
particular by failing to advise Trotter of a judgment 
against 
Trotter 
and 
of 
a 
proposed 
compromise 
agreement, Harris failed to explain matters to Trotter 
to the extent necessary to enable Trotter to make 
informed decisions about the matters involved in 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides: "(a) A lawyer shall keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly 
comply with reasonable requests for information." 
 
4 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: "It is professional misconduct for 
a lawyer to: (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
 
No. 
02-0464-D   
 
14 
 
Harris's 
representation 
and 
thereby 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.4(b).5  
Report and Recommendation of Referee Michael Ash at 14-16 
(footnotes added). 
¶48 The referee recommended that Attorney Harris's license 
to practice law be suspended for not less than two years.  The 
referee recommended further that Harris be required to pay the 
costs of this proceeding and that any reinstatement of his 
license to practice law be conditioned upon:  
 . . . his satisfying the judgments lodged against 
Robert M. Trotter in the amount of Two Thousand, six 
hundred 
seventeen 
dollars 
and 
seventy-four 
cents 
($2,617.74) and against himself in the same amount; 
and that, in the event Trotter pays any money in 
satisfaction 
of 
such 
judgments, 
Harris 
reimburse 
Trotter in full for all such amounts paid, including 
interest at the legal rate from the date or dates of 
any such payment or payments by Trotter. 
Id. at 16. 
¶49 Harris engaged in serious misconduct.  As the referee 
observed in his thorough and well-reasoned report: "It is hard 
to exaggerate how badly Harris abused [his clients'] trust and 
how reprehensible his conduct was toward these clients."  Id.  
The referee considered whether more severe discipline than a 
two-year suspension might be warranted.  Ultimately, the referee 
decided against recommending more severe discipline, explaining:  
. . . the OLR has recommended a two-year suspension 
and has cited cases indicating that something less 
than revocation might be more closely in accord with 
                                                 
5 SCR 20:1.4(b) provides: "(b) A lawyer shall explain a 
matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client 
to make informed decisions regarding the representation." 
 
No. 
02-0464-D   
 
15 
 
this 
Court's 
past 
practice." 
 
See 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Weber, 161 Wis. 2d 414, 468 N.W.2d 
12 
(1991) 
(three-year 
suspension); 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Lipske, 155 Wis. 2d 470, 455 
N.W.2d 
880 
(1990) 
(two-year 
suspension); 
and 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against McNeil, 150 Wis. 2d 
581, 441 N.W.2d 748 (1989) (one-year suspension).  
Finally, 
in 
the 
proceeding 
before 
me, 
Harris 
interposed no spurious defenses and did not needlessly 
prolong the inquiry; instead he simply laid down his 
cards and folded.   
Id. at 18-19.  
¶50 We are of the opinion that the referee carefully 
considered all the aspects of this matter in reaching his final 
conclusions and recommendations.  Accordingly, we adopt the 
referee's findings and recommendations in this matter, except 
that we direct Harris to pay the judgment against Mr. Trotter 
forthwith.  Any reinstatement of Harris’s license to practice 
law shall be further conditioned upon his satisfaction of the 
civil judgment against himself. 
¶51 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Edward G. Harris to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of two 
years, effective the date of this order.   
¶52 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Edward G. Harris comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
¶53 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Edward G. Harris shall satisfy the 
judgment lodged against Robert M. Trotter in the amount of 
$2617.74.  In the event Mr. Trotter pays or has paid any money 
No. 
02-0464-D   
 
16 
 
in 
satisfaction 
of 
this 
judgment, 
Attorney 
Harris 
shall 
reimburse Mr. Trotter in full for all such amounts paid, 
including interest at the legal rate from the date or dates of 
any such payment or payments by Mr. Trotter.  If the judgment is 
not satisfied within the time specified, and absent a showing to 
this court of his inability to satisfy the judgment within that 
time, the license of Attorney Edward G. Harris to practice law 
in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the 
court. 
¶54 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reinstatement of 
Attorney Edward G. Harris's license to practice law in Wisconsin 
shall be conditioned upon his satisfying the judgment lodged 
against Harris, himself, in the amount of $2617.74.  
¶55 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Edward G. Harris shall pay to the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding in the amount 
of $6979.26. 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 Attorney 
Edward G. Harris to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain 
suspended until further order of the court. 
No. 
02-0464-D   
 
 
 
1