Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. David V. Penn

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 1996-06-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 95-0536-D 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
 
 
 
 
No.  95-0536-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN             :                IN SUPREME COURT 
                                                                   
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against DAVID V. PENN, Attorney at Law. 
 
FILED 
 
 
JUNE 4, 1996 
 
 
 Marilyn L. Graves 
  Clerk of Supreme Court 
  
Madison, WI  
 
                                                                 
  
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney's 
license 
suspended. 
 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the referee 
that the license of David V. Penn to practice law in Wisconsin be 
suspended 
for 
two 
years 
as 
discipline 
for 
the 
following 
professional misconduct.  While serving as Vilas county district 
attorney from 1987 through 1992, Attorney Penn used marijuana and 
cocaine, for which he was subsequently convicted, and acted as 
district attorney in respect to referral and prosecution of nine 
persons who had used an illegal drug with him or had personal 
knowledge of his illegal drug use.  In late 1993 and early 1994, 
Attorney Penn's use of marijuana and cocaine resulted in a 
 
No. 95-0536-D 
 
 
 
2 
deferred prosecution arrangement.  On one occasion, Attorney Penn 
discussed a pending criminal matter with a defendant whose felony 
drug charge he was prosecuting out of the presence of the 
defendant's attorney and without his consent.   
 
We determine that the recommended two-year license suspension 
is 
appropriate 
discipline 
to 
impose 
for 
Attorney 
Penn's 
professional misconduct.  The seriousness of his criminal conduct 
in using illegal drugs is exacerbated by the fact that it occurred 
in the context of his official position as district attorney, a 
position of public trust in the legal system to which the people 
of his county elected him.  His repeated contravention of the 
criminal law, which was widely known in the community, caused 
significant and unjustified damage to the public's perception of 
the integrity of law enforcement personnel throughout the county. 
  
 
Attorney Penn was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 
1986 and practiced and served as district attorney in Eagle River. 
 He has not previously been the subject of a disciplinary 
proceeding.  He was suspended from membership in the State Bar in 
October, 1993 for failure to pay membership dues, and that 
suspension continues.  The referee in this proceeding, Attorney 
Janet A. Jenkins, made findings of fact pursuant to the 
stipulation of the parties.   
 
In January, 1993, on his guilty plea to five counts of 
possession of marijuana containing THC and an Alford plea to one 
 
No. 95-0536-D 
 
 
 
3 
count of cocaine possession, Attorney Penn was found guilty and 
convicted of six misdemeanors.  Sentence was withheld and Attorney 
Penn was placed on probation for three years, with six months in 
the county jail with Huber privileges, and ordered to perform 200 
hours of community service.   
 
While acting as district attorney, Attorney Penn was involved 
in referral and prosecution in criminal proceedings of nine 
persons who previously had used an illegal drug with him or had 
personal knowledge of his illegal drug use.  The referee concluded 
that Attorney Penn thereby represented his client, the State, when 
that representation might have been or was materially limited by 
his own interests, in violation of the conflict of interest rule, 
SCR 20:1.7(b).
1 
 
In February, 1990, while at a tavern, District Attorney Penn 
encountered the defendant in a pending felony drug case and 
discussed the case out of the presence and without the consent of 
                     
     
1  SCR 20:1.7 provides, in pertinent part:  Conflict of 
interest:  general rule 
 
. . . 
 
(b)  A lawyer shall not represent a client if the 
representation of that client may be materially limited by the 
lawyer's responsibilities to another client or to a third person, 
or by the lawyer's own interests, unless:   
 
(1)  the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will 
not be adversely affected; and 
 
(2)  the client consents in writing after consultation.  When 
representation of multiple clients in a single matter is 
undertaken, the consultation shall include explanation of the 
implications of the common representation and the advantages and 
risks involved.   
 
No. 95-0536-D 
 
 
 
4 
the defendant's attorney.  The referee concluded that his doing so 
violated SCR 20:4.2.
2 
 
In February, 1994, after he had left office as district 
attorney, Attorney Penn's blood and urine samples taken following 
a traffic stop disclosed the presence of cocaine metabolite and 
marijuana metabolite.  He then was charged with having possessed 
cocaine and he entered into a deferred prosecution agreement.   
 
In respect to the drug possession conviction and the 
subsequent charge resulting in the deferred prosecution agreement, 
the referee concluded that Attorney Penn committed criminal acts 
reflecting adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as 
a lawyer in other respects, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(b).
3 
 
As discipline for Attorney Penn's professional misconduct, 
the referee recommended a two-year license suspension.  The 
referee took into account the aggravating factor of Attorney 
Penn's position of chief law enforcement official in the county 
                     
     
2 
 
SCR 
20:4.2 
provides: 
 
Communication 
with 
person 
represented by counsel 
 
In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate 
about the subject of the representation with a party the lawyer 
knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless 
the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized by 
law to do so.   
     
3  SCR 20:8.4 provides, in pertinent part:  Misconduct 
 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:   
 
. . . 
 
(b)  commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the 
lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other 
respects; 
 
No. 95-0536-D 
 
 
 
5 
and the fact that his use of illegal drugs frequently occurred in 
the company of persons subject to prosecution by his office for 
non-drug criminal offenses.  The referee also acknowledged as 
mitigating circumstances Attorney Penn's voluntarily having ceased 
practicing law in 1992 and his acceptance of responsibility for 
his misconduct and genuine remorse for it.   
 
We adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of 
law 
concerning 
Attorney Penn's 
professional 
misconduct 
and 
determine that the recommended two-year license suspension is 
appropriate discipline to impose for it.  We emphasize that in 
order to have his license to practice law reinstated, Attorney 
Penn will have to establish, among other things, that his conduct 
since the license suspension has been exemplary and above 
reproach, that he has a proper understanding of and attitude 
toward the standards imposed on lawyers and that he will act in 
conformity with those standards, and that he safely can 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.  SCR 22.28(4).   
 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney David V. Penn to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of two years, 
commencing the date of this order.   
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this 
order David V. Penn pay to the Board of Attorneys Professional 
Responsibility the costs of this proceeding, provided that if the 
 
No. 95-0536-D 
 
 
 
6 
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 David V. Penn to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
remain suspended until further order of the court.   
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that David V. Penn comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.   
 
No. 95-0536-D 
 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
                                                              
 
Case No.: 
 
95-0536 
                                                              
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary 
 
 
 
Proceedings Against 
 
 
 
David V. Penn, 
 
 
 
Attorney at Law. 
 
 
 
_____________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PENN 
 
                                                              
 
Opinion Filed:  
June 4, 1996 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
                                                              
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
                                                              
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating: 
 
                                                              
 
ATTORNEYS: