Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Glenn J. Blise

Citation: 2010 WI 34

Docket Number: 2007AP002604-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2010-05-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
2010 WI 34 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2007AP2604-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Glenn J. Blise , Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Glenn J. Blise, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BLISE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 12, 2010   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
February 23, 2010   
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the respondent-appellant there were briefs by Glenn J. 
Blise. 
 
For the complainant-respondent there was a brief by Robert 
G. Krohn and Roethe Pope Roethe LLP, Edgerton, on behalf of the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation. 
 
 
 
 
2010 WI 34
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2007AP2604-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Glenn J. Blise, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Glenn J. Blise, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 12, 2010 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney Glenn J. Blise appeals the 
referee's report recommending a public reprimand, together with 
restitution and costs.  The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
filed a six-count complaint against Attorney Blise alleging 
misconduct with respect to one client matter.  John R. Decker 
was appointed referee.  Referee Decker concluded the OLR met its 
burden to prove four counts, three of which involve Attorney 
Blise's failure to properly communicate with his client and a 
No. 
2007AP2604-D   
 
2 
 
fourth charging his failure to refund an unearned fee.  Referee 
Decker concluded, however, that two counts alleging failure to 
disclose 
facts 
and 
provide 
information 
during 
the 
OLR 
investigation should be dismissed due to lack of proof.   
¶2 
Attorney Blise raises one issue.  He contends the 
referee erroneously exercised his discretion in denying Attorney 
Blise's request to adjourn the disciplinary hearing when 
Attorney Blise was suffering the effects of chemotherapy.   
¶3 
Our review of the denial of an adjournment motion is 
confined to whether the record supports the referee's exercise 
of discretion.  While we may have ruled differently, we do not 
set aside the referee's decision to deny the motion, given the 
narrow scope of appellate review and the record before us.  The 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law as to 
misconduct are unchallenged; we uphold them on appeal.  We 
impose a public reprimand, restitution, and costs. 
¶4 
Attorney Glenn Blise was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1988.  He has practiced law in Kenosha.  In 2003 
Attorney 
Blise 
was 
publicly 
reprimanded 
for 
failing 
to 
communicate with clients.  See Public Reprimand of Glenn J. 
Blise, No. 2003-18.   
¶5 
The OLR's complaint charges misconduct arising from 
Attorney Blise's 2002 criminal defense of his client, S.W.  
Following the disciplinary hearing, the referee concluded the 
OLR proved four of the six alleged violations, as follows: 
• 
By failing to communicate with S.W. about the status 
of his case and failing to promptly comply with 
No. 
2007AP2604-D   
 
3 
 
reasonable requests for information with respect to 
the post-conviction relief efforts, Attorney Blise 
violated SCR 20:1.4(a);1 
• 
By failing to respond to repeated requests from S.W. 
to discuss the status of his appeal, and by assuming 
without confirmation or explanation that S.W. did not 
wish to risk further proceedings after a successful 
appeal, Attorney Blise failed to explain a matter to 
the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client 
to make informed decisions in violation of SCR 
20:1.4(b);2  
• 
By failing to give reasonable notice to S.W. that 
Attorney Blise was abandoning appellate efforts, and 
by not allowing time for other counsel to be employed 
before the appeal deadlines were missed, Attorney 
                                                 
1 Effective July 1, 2007, substantial changes were made to 
the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct for 
Attorneys, SCR Chapter 20.  See S. Ct. Order 04-07, 2007 WI 4, 
293 Wis. 2d xv, 726 N.W.2d Ct.R-45 (eff. July 1, 2007); and 
S. Ct. 
Order 
06-04, 
2007 
WI 
48, 
297 
Wis. 2d xv, 
730 
N.W.2d Ct.R.-29 (eff. July 1, 2007).  Because the conduct 
underlying this case arose prior to July 1, 2007, unless 
otherwise indicated, all references to Chapter 20 of the 
Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules will be to those in effect prior 
to July 1, 2007. 
SCR 20:1.4(a) provided, "A lawyer shall keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly 
comply with reasonable requests for information." 
2 SCR 20:1.4(b) stated, "A lawyer shall explain a matter to 
the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make 
informed decisions regarding the representation." 
No. 
2007AP2604-D   
 
4 
 
Blise failed to take steps reasonably practicable to 
protect 
a 
client's 
interests, 
contrary 
to 
SCR 20:1.16(b);3 
• 
By failing to refund the $5,000 portion of the fee not 
earned at the time he abandoned his representation of 
S.W., Attorney Blise failed to refund an advance 
payment of a fee that had not been earned, contrary to 
SCR 20:1.16(d).4 
¶6 
The referee concluded, however, the OLR had not 
established two counts alleging misconduct during the course of 
the OLR investigation.  The referee recommends dismissal of 
those two counts.  As discipline, the referee recommends a 
public reprimand.  The referee also recommends Attorney Blise 
pay $5,000 restitution to S.W. for the unearned fees and the 
costs of this proceeding. 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:1.16(b) provided, in part, "Except as stated in 
paragraph (c), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client 
if withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse 
effect on the interests of the client, . . . ." 
4 SCR 20:1.16(d) stated: 
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer 
shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable 
to protect a client's interests, such as giving 
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for 
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and 
property to which the client is entitled and refunding 
any advance payment of fee that has not been earned or 
incurred. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the 
client to the extent permitted by other law. 
No. 
2007AP2604-D   
 
5 
 
¶7 
The sole issue on appeal is whether Referee Decker 
erroneously exercised his discretion in denying Attorney Blise's 
motion to adjourn the disciplinary hearing.  Accordingly, we 
review the record to examine the events surrounding the 
scheduling of the disciplinary hearing.  
¶8 
The OLR filed the disciplinary complaint against 
Attorney Blise in November 2007.  The disciplinary hearing was 
initially set for October 6, 2008.  In September 2008 Attorney 
Blise was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor and was 
scheduled to undergo emergency surgery.  As a result, the 
referee adjourned the October 6, 2008, hearing.  The referee 
held proceedings in abeyance pending a determination of Attorney 
Blise's post-surgical condition.   
¶9 
A scheduling conference was held on January 21, 2009.  
Attorney Blise was undergoing chemotherapy at the time.  At the 
scheduling conference, Attorney Blise stated that because he 
never knows how chemotherapy will affect him, he may need 
flexibility with respect to scheduling the hearing date.5  With 
that said, the parties agreed the disciplinary hearing could be 
set for Monday, March 23, 2009.   
¶10 On March 19, 2009, the Thursday before the hearing, 
Attorney Blise alerted the OLR's counsel that his chemotherapy 
schedule had been altered and he was suffering from the effects 
                                                 
5 The parties have not provided the court with a record of 
the January 21, 2009, scheduling conference; we accept Attorney 
Blise's statement in his appellate brief that he had made this 
statement.   
No. 
2007AP2604-D   
 
6 
 
of chemotherapy.  Attorney Blise requested an adjournment of the 
March 23 hearing, anticipating he would not be feeling well 
enough to participate.  The next day, March 20, in a three-way 
telephone conference with counsel, the referee declined to rule 
on the adjournment request due to the short notice, the 
inability to make a record, and the possibility that Attorney 
Blise's condition would change by the following Monday.  
¶11 On Monday, March 23, 2009, at the outset of the 
scheduled disciplinary hearing, the referee considered the 
parties' arguments regarding adjournment.  The OLR registered 
its objection, noting that Attorney Blise had provided a medical 
update in January 2009 advising he had resumed, in some form, 
the practice of law and had agreed the disciplinary hearing 
could be scheduled.  The OLR's counsel explained he was 
sympathetic to Attorney Blise's suffering from recovery from 
cancer, yet no medical confirmation of the problems associated 
with the effects of chemotherapy had been received.  The OLR 
acknowledged Attorney Blise stated on the telephone he had been 
suffering from diarrhea, nausea, and some vertigo.  The OLR 
stated, however, it was unclear whether these symptoms affected 
Attorney Blise's ability to participate by telephone.  The OLR 
observed Attorney Blise was not hospitalized, did not seem 
disabled, and coherently articulated his position.  The OLR 
stated Attorney Blise's demeanor on the telephone indicated he 
appeared quite capable of defending himself.   
¶12 The OLR argued it had not been totally heartless and 
had suggested many accommodations.  The OLR noted it had offered 
No. 
2007AP2604-D   
 
7 
 
Attorney Blise the choice of the hearing location and a delayed 
starting time.  Also, the OLR said, Attorney Blise should be 
afforded whatever breaks he needed.  In addition, the OLR agreed 
to forego questioning Attorney Blise if he would agree his 
deposition transcript could be received as evidence.  The OLR 
said Attorney Blise showed no interest in the suggested 
accommodations and simply stated he would not participate in the 
hearing.   
¶13 The OLR pointed out that two witnesses had traveled 
from the Kenosha and Chicago areas to attend the hearing, had 
been waiting for the hearing for some time and, because of the 
claim for restitution, the hearing encompassed more than simply 
discipline.  The OLR argued that Attorney Blise's position——that 
he would need to choose the day to schedule the hearing 
according to his chemotherapy schedule——essentially afforded him 
the power to veto any day that would be scheduled.  The OLR 
suggested the matter should proceed and, if Attorney Blise 
wished to cross-examine witnesses by telephone, the OLR had no 
objection.   
¶14 Attorney Blise responded he would obtain a doctor's 
excuse for not participating in the hearing that day.  Attorney 
Blise said it had been six months since his surgery and he would 
be undergoing chemotherapy until the end of the year.  He 
advised he would never know beforehand how chemotherapy would 
affect his ability to participate.  He stated he had telephoned 
the OLR the previous week to advise he was not feeling well, in 
No. 
2007AP2604-D   
 
8 
 
order to avoid witnesses having to travel unnecessarily from out 
of town.   
¶15 Attorney Blise explained that while he may have felt 
well enough to participate for a short time, he was concerned 
with the length of the hearing, which could last the whole 
morning.  He noted he had the right to testify on his own behalf 
and intended to exercise that right.  He explained that due to 
his symptoms, he anticipated he would need frequent breaks and 
would be distracted by his discomfort.  He requested the hearing 
be rescheduled for sometime in April 2009, and wished to have 
flexibility with respect to setting the hearing date due to his 
chemotherapy regimen. 
¶16 The referee determined the record was inadequate to 
justify the type of adjournment Attorney Blise had proposed.  
The referee ruled that Attorney Blise should proceed on the 
speakerphone and, if he needed breaks, he should not hesitate to 
take them.  Attorney Blise replied he would not proceed and 
would obtain medical verification that he was not fit to 
participate that morning.  The referee proceeded to conduct the 
hearing in Attorney Blise's absence.   
¶17 The following day, Attorney Blise submitted a letter 
requesting the referee excuse his absence from the hearing, and 
stating he would be able to proceed in the future as long he 
could have two weeks after his chemotherapy to deal with its 
unpleasant side effects.  His letter was accompanied by his 
doctor's medical verification, dated March 23, stating: 
No. 
2007AP2604-D   
 
9 
 
This is to certify that Glenn Blise is currently under 
my care for treatment of his brain tumor.  He is 
receiving monthly chemotherapy, the last cycle of 
which was delayed related to low blood counts.  Please 
excuse him from the hearing that he had scheduled on 
March 23, 2009.  Please work with Glenn in regards to 
scheduling 
required 
hearings 
around 
his 
monthly 
chemotherapy schedule. 
¶18 On April 6, 2009, the OLR submitted a post-hearing 
brief and cover letter, noting its brief was in keeping with the 
referee's directions following the March 23 hearing.  The OLR 
provided copies of the letter and brief to Attorney Blise.  
Attorney Blise did not submit a post-hearing brief.   
¶19 On May 27, 2009, this court requested the referee to 
provide a status update.  Copies of the request for a status 
update were sent to the parties.  The next docket entry is 
August 12, 2009, at which time the referee filed his report and 
recommendation.   
¶20 In his report, Referee Decker concluded that Attorney 
Blise had not provided a medical justification for his absence 
from the hearing.  The referee found, "The doctor's letter did 
not advise that [Attorney] Blise's medical condition precluded 
his participation in that day's hearing or otherwise describe 
medical limitations on his activities."  The referee noted 
Attorney Blise had appeared pro se throughout the disciplinary 
proceedings.  The referee concluded Attorney Blise's absence 
from the hearing was not justified.  The referee made findings 
and conclusions in support of the four counts of professional 
misconduct and recommended a public reprimand be imposed.   
No. 
2007AP2604-D   
 
10 
 
¶21 On appeal, Attorney Blise argues his medical condition 
warranted an adjournment.  He states that during his treatment 
he experiences the side effects often suffered by cancer 
patients, such as nausea, diarrhea, weakness, fatigue, and 
vomiting.  He contends his chemotherapy in March 2009 had been 
rescheduled, which meant he would be experiencing the side 
effects during the week of March 23, 2009.   
¶22 Attorney Blise says that after the March 20 telephone 
conference, he understood the purpose of the March 23 hearing 
would be to make a record for the adjournment.  He believed that 
by securing a doctor's explanation for his absence, a future 
hearing date could be set.  Attorney Blise states his discomfort 
after chemotherapy causes him to lose focus and to be unable to 
participate effectively during the hearing.  As a result, he 
argues, the OLR's accommodations offered little in the way of 
realistic alternatives, given the circumstances. 
¶23 Attorney Blise objects to proceeding without the 
opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or testify on his own 
behalf.6  He argues that cross-examination in person, as opposed 
to by telephone, is significant.  He says he offered an 
alternative date as early as April 2009 but, instead, counsel 
and 
the 
referee 
plowed 
forward 
without 
allowing 
him 
to 
participate.  He asks the record be reopened to permit him to 
cross-examine the witnesses and to testify on his own behalf.  
                                                 
6 The referee accepted Attorney Blise's deposition testimony 
into evidence.   
No. 
2007AP2604-D   
 
11 
 
¶24 In reviewing a referee's decision on an adjournment 
request, we apply the same standards an appellate court employs 
when reviewing a circuit court's decision.  The referee's role 
is the same as that of a trial judge in a civil action.  See In 
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Haberman, 128 Wis. 2d 390, 
382 N.W.2d 439 (1986).  The referee has the powers of a judge 
trying a civil case and conducts the hearing as a trial of a 
civil action to the court.  See SCR 22.16(1).  The rules of 
civil procedure and evidence apply.  Id. 
¶25 As in a civil trial, the grant of an adjournment in an 
attorney disciplinary hearing is a matter of discretion and, to 
overturn the referee's ruling, prejudice must be shown. 
A continuance delaying a trial is not a matter of 
course. An adjournment must be warranted, and a 
request 
for 
such 
adjournment 
is 
". . . always 
addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, 
and prejudice must be made to appear in order to set 
aside its ruling thereon."  
Smith v. Plankinton de Pulaski, 71 Wis. 2d 251, 257, 238 
N.W.2d 94, 98 (1976) (citations omitted).   
¶26 Appellate 
review of a discretionary decision is 
deferential: "We will sustain a discretionary decision so long 
as the circuit court has examined the relevant facts, applied a 
proper standard of law, and, using a demonstrated rational 
process, reached a conclusion that a reasonable judge could 
reach."  Indus. Roofing Serv., Inc. v. Marquardt, 2007 WI 19, 
¶84, 299 Wis. 2d 81, 726 N.W.2d 898.   
¶27 There 
is 
no dispute that at the time of his 
adjournment request, Attorney Blise was undergoing chemotherapy 
No. 
2007AP2604-D   
 
12 
 
for cancer.  There is no dispute he could not anticipate how he 
would respond to his treatments.  As Attorney Blise stated, the 
effects of chemotherapy cause discomfort, including diarrhea, 
nausea, and vertigo.  Attorney Blise was certainly entitled to 
accommodations as well as understanding with respect to the 
challenges he faces while making his recovery.  We sympathize 
with the challenges Attorney Blise faces with treatment and very 
well may have ruled differently.  Our role on appeal, however, 
is not to substitute our discretion for that of the referee.  
See SCR 22.16(1).  We must examine the record to determine 
whether a rational basis exists for the referee's decision to 
proceed.   
¶28 The record reflects the referee's understanding that 
Attorney Blise was undergoing treatment of a very dangerous 
disease 
and 
experiencing 
the 
discomfort 
and 
difficulties 
associated with chemotherapy.  The referee had postponed the 
disciplinary hearing from October 6, 2008, to March 23, 2009, 
when 
it 
was 
rescheduled 
with 
Attorney 
Blise's 
cautious 
agreement.  We conclude the referee was entitled to find that 
the medical verification did not address whether Attorney Blise 
was medically incapacitated and unable to participate in the 
March 23 hearing.  Also, we conclude the referee was entitled to 
conclude the medical verification did not support Attorney 
Blise's proposal to adjourn subject to postponement due to the 
unpredictable treatment schedule and its effects.  The record 
indicates the referee understood the effects of chemotherapy 
would cause discomfort, be distracting, and were unpredictable.  
No. 
2007AP2604-D   
 
13 
 
However, 
the 
record 
also 
demonstrates 
the 
referee's 
consideration of the obligation to balance the needs of Attorney 
Blise with those of the lawyer regulation system, the grievant, 
and the witnesses.  The record shows the OLR and the referee 
were willing to accommodate Attorney Blise's discomfort by 
permitting a choice of hearing location, a delayed starting 
time, frequent breaks as requested, and participation by 
telephone.  We conclude the record fails to reveal the referee 
erroneously exercised his discretion. 
¶29 Attorney Blise argues the proposed accommodation of a 
telephone hearing was prejudicial, however, because it would 
eliminate his opportunity to cross-examine witnesses in person.  
Attorney Blise does not, however, identify what fact-finding is 
disputed.  He does not indicate what defense he would have 
raised.  He submitted no post-hearing brief challenging the 
OLR's arguments.  He made no offer of proof and does not suggest 
any evidence he would submit if granted a new hearing.  In the 
absence of a demonstrated factual dispute, we conclude Attorney 
Blise does not show prejudice by the referee's order denying a 
second adjournment.  See Smith v. Plankinton de Pulaski, 71 
Wis. 2d at 257 ("prejudice must be made to appear in order to 
set aside" the court's denial of an adjournment).  As a result, 
we decline to set aside the referee's determination.  We approve 
and adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law 
as to four counts of misconduct, which are unchallenged on 
appeal.  
No. 
2007AP2604-D   
 
14 
 
¶30 We independently determine the appropriate discipline.  
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Reitz, 2005 WI 39, 
¶74, 279 Wis. 2d 550, 694 N.W.2d 894.  We consider the 
seriousness of the misconduct, the need to protect the public, 
courts, and legal system from the repetition of misconduct, the 
need to impress upon the attorney the seriousness of the 
misconduct, and the need to deter other attorneys from engaging 
in similar misconduct.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Arthur, 2005 WI 40, ¶78, 279 Wis. 2d 583, 694 
N.W.2d 910.  Upon our independent review, we are satisfied the 
recommended sanction of a public reprimand is appropriate 
discipline for the four counts of misconduct.  We further 
conclude the record supports the referee's recommendation of 
$5,000 restitution for unearned attorney fees.   
¶31 We determine Attorney Blise shall pay the costs of 
this proceeding.  Under SCR 22.24(1m),7 the court's general 
policy is to impose costs on the respondent.  To award less than 
full costs, the court must find "extraordinary circumstances."  
Id.  Attorney Blise has not objected to costs, has not claimed 
                                                 
7 SCR 22.24(1m) reads, in part:  
The court's general policy is that upon a finding 
of misconduct it is appropriate to impose all costs, 
including the expenses of counsel for the office of 
lawyer regulation, upon the respondent.  In cases 
involving extraordinary circumstances the court may, 
in the exercise of its discretion, reduce the amount 
of costs imposed upon a respondent.  
No. 
2007AP2604-D   
 
15 
 
extraordinary circumstances to justify a reduction, and has not 
requested a deferment of his obligation to pay costs.8   
¶32 IT IS ORDERED that Glenn J. Blise be publicly 
reprimanded for his professional misconduct. 
¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Glenn J. Blise pay 
restitution in the total sum of $5,000 to S.W.  If the 
restitution is not paid within 60 days of this order, Glenn J. 
Blise's license to practice law in Wisconsin shall be suspended 
until further order of the court. 
¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 90 days of the date 
of this order, Glenn J. Blise pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If 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, Glenn J. 
Blise's license to practice law in Wisconsin shall be suspended 
until further order of the court. 
¶35 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution is to be 
paid in full prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation. 
 
                                                 
8 On February 25, 2010, the OLR filed a statement seeking 
costs of $12,308.38.  Attorney Blise has filed no objection as 
to costs.  
No. 
2007AP2604-D   
 
 
 
1