Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. John R. Dade

Citation: 2013 WI 21

Docket Number: 2012AP002318-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2013-02-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
2013 WI 21 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2012AP2318-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
John R. Dade, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
John R. Dade, 
          Respondent.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DADE     
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 21, 2013   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
Abrahamson, C.J., Bradley, J., dissent. (Opinion 
filed.)   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
2013 WI 21
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2012AP2318-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against John R. Dade, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
John R. Dade, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 21, 2013 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the stipulation filed by the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney John R. Dade 
pursuant to SCR 22.121 regarding Attorney Dade's professional 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.12 provides: 
(1) 
The director may file with the complaint a 
stipulation of the director and the respondent to 
the 
facts, 
conclusions 
of 
law 
regarding 
misconduct, and discipline to be imposed. The 
No. 
2012AP2318-D   
 
2 
 
misconduct in the handling of one client matter.  The OLR and 
Attorney 
Dade 
stipulate 
that 
Attorney 
Dade 
committed 
professional misconduct and that the appropriate sanction for 
the misconduct is a suspension of his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin for a period of 60 days.  The OLR is not seeking 
costs.  Upon careful consideration, we adopt the stipulated 
facts and agree that a 60-day suspension is an appropriate 
sanction. 
¶2 
Attorney 
Dade 
was 
admitted 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin in 1983 and practices in Whitewater.  He has been 
subject to professional discipline on four prior occasions.  In 
1991, he was privately reprimanded for lack of diligence, 
failure to communicate, and failure to cooperate in the 
investigation into his misconduct.  Private Reprimand, No. 1991-
24.  In 2007, he was publicly reprimanded for failing to provide 
competent representation, failure to communicate, and lack of 
diligence.  Public Reprimand of John R. Dade, No. 2007-7.  In 
                                                                                                                                                             
supreme court may consider the complaint and 
stipulation without the appointment of a referee. 
(2) 
If the supreme court approves a stipulation, it 
shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions 
of law and impose the stipulated discipline. 
(3) 
If the supreme court rejects the stipulation, a 
referee shall be appointed and the matter shall 
proceed 
as 
a 
complaint 
filed 
without 
a 
stipulation. 
(4) 
A stipulation rejected by the supreme court has 
no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to 
the respondent's defense of the proceeding or the 
prosecution of the complaint. 
No. 
2012AP2318-D   
 
3 
 
2007 his license was suspended for 60 days for failure to 
cooperate in an OLR investigation, lack of diligence, and 
failure to hold in trust the property of others in his client 
trust account.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Dade, 
2007 WI 66, 301 Wis. 2d 67, 732 N.W.2d 433.  In 2012 he was 
publicly 
reprimanded 
for 
lack 
of 
diligence, 
failure 
to 
communicate, and failure to return a client's documents.  Public 
Reprimand of John R. Dade, No. 2012-1. 
¶3 
In July 2009 N.B. filed a pro se divorce petition in 
Rock County circuit court.  On November 16, 2009, N.B. hired 
Attorney Dade to represent her in her divorce and to obtain a 
domestic abuse injunction. 
¶4 
On March 1, 2010, a pretrial conference was held with 
Attorney Dade appearing on behalf of N.B. and N.B.'s husband 
appearing pro se.  The March 1, 2010 pretrial order required the 
parties to file a final financial disclosure statement with the 
court and with the opposing party or counsel no later than 
March 31, 2010.  The pretrial order also required the final 
financial disclosure statement to be updated no later than 
April 14, 2010.  Attorney Dade failed to timely file the final 
financial disclosure statement. 
¶5 
The March 1, 2010 pretrial order also provided that 
both parties were to file with the clerk of court, the court's 
judicial assistant, and each other, a trial brief no later than 
April 29, 2010.  Attorney Dade failed to timely file the trial 
brief. 
No. 
2012AP2318-D   
 
4 
 
¶6 
The pretrial order scheduled the trial for May 5, 
2010.  The pretrial order stated that failure to comply with the 
terms of the order shall be considered cause for imposing 
sanctions which may include dismissal of the action. 
¶7 
On March 30, 2010, N.B. told Attorney Dade's office 
manager that she would be out of town on May 5, 2010, and she 
requested a change of the trial date.  Attorney Dade failed to 
respond.  N.B. left a message at Attorney Dade's office on 
April 17, 2010, asking about changing the trial date and 
requesting that Attorney Dade call her back.  Attorney Dade 
failed to respond. 
¶8 
On April 26, 2010, N.B. informed Attorney Dade's 
office manager that she wanted to change the May 5, 2010 court 
date, that she had already left two messages, that she had not 
received a call back from Attorney Dade, that she declined to 
schedule a telephone appointment, and that she wanted Attorney 
Dade to call her back.  N.B. also sent an e-mail correspondence 
to Attorney Dade in regard to adjourning the trial. 
¶9 
On May 5, 2010, Attorney Dade appeared at the trial.  
N.B. did not appear, nor did her husband, who was pro se, 
appear.  On the May 5, 2010 trial date, Attorney Dade offered 
the final financial disclosure statement and trial brief to the 
court.  The court dismissed N.B.'s divorce case, saying the 
matter had not been diligently prosecuted. 
¶10 Attorney Dade called N.B.'s cell phone and informed 
her that the court had dismissed her case for lack of attendance 
and for failure to file the financial disclosure statement.  
No. 
2012AP2318-D   
 
5 
 
Attorney Dade informed N.B. she would have to file a new divorce 
action. 
¶11 In a meeting with N.B. in May 2010, Attorney Dade 
agreed to complete the divorce action for free due to Attorney 
Dade's errors that resulted in the dismissal of her case by the 
court.  Attorney Dade filed a new divorce petition for N.B. on 
May 14, 2010. 
¶12 On July 21, 2010, this court temporarily suspended 
Attorney Dade's license to practice law based on his failure to 
cooperate in an OLR investigation unrelated to the N.B. matter.  
In a July 2010 letter to N.B., Attorney Dade stated his law 
license was suspended and that N.B. would have to find new 
representation for her newly filed divorce case. 
¶13 N.B. obtained successor counsel to represent her in 
the new divorce case.  A stipulation and order for substitution 
of attorney was filed in August 2010.  N.B. was granted a 
default judgment of divorce on March 1, 2011. 
¶14 On October 24, 2012, the OLR filed a complaint 
alleging 
that 
Attorney 
Dade 
engaged 
in 
three 
counts 
of 
misconduct with respect to his handling of N.B.'s case: 
 
[Count One:] By failing to file a final financial 
disclosure statement and trial brief by the court-
ordered deadline set forth in the pretrial order, and 
otherwise failing to diligently prosecute this case, 
resulting in dismissal of [N.B.'s] divorce case on 
May 5, 2010, [Attorney] Dade violated SCR 20:1.3.2 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.3 states, "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
No. 
2012AP2318-D   
 
6 
 
 
[Count Two:] By failing to file a final financial 
disclosure statement and trial brief by the court-
ordered deadline set forth in the pretrial order, 
[Attorney] Dade also violated SCR 20:3.4(c).3 
 
[Count Three:] By failing to respond to [N.B.'s] 
telephone calls with regard to adjourning the trial 
date, [Attorney] Dade violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(4).4 
¶15 On October 31, 2012, the OLR and Attorney Dade filed a 
stipulation whereby Attorney Dade stipulated to the allegations 
contained in the OLR's complaint.  The stipulation states that 
Attorney Dade fully understands the misconduct allegations and 
the ramifications should the court impose the stipulated level 
of discipline.  The stipulation also provides that Attorney Dade 
understands his right to contest the matter and understands his 
right to consult with counsel, and that his entry into the 
stipulation was made knowingly and voluntarily and without the 
benefit of any negotiations for a reduction in either charges or 
sanction. 
¶16 The 
OLR 
filed 
a 
memorandum 
in 
support 
of 
the 
stipulation which states that in formulating the recommendation 
for a 60-day suspension, the OLR director considered a number of 
similar cases, including In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Ermert, 2007 WI 10, 298 Wis. 2d 622, 726 N.W.2d 250, and In re 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:3.4(c) says a lawyer shall not "knowingly disobey 
an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except for an open 
refusal 
based 
on 
an 
assertion 
that 
no 
valid 
obligation 
exists; . . . ." 
4 SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) says a lawyer shall "promptly comply with 
reasonable requests by the client for information; . . . ." 
No. 
2012AP2318-D   
 
7 
 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Anderson, 2010 WI 39, 324 
Wis. 2d 627, 782 N.W.2d 100. 
¶17 After careful review of the matter, we adopt the 
stipulated facts and find it appropriate to impose a 60-day 
suspension of Attorney Dade's license to practice law.  Because 
Attorney Dade entered into a comprehensive stipulation under 
SCR 22.12, thereby obviating the need for the appointment of a 
referee and a full disciplinary proceeding, we accede to the 
OLR's request that no costs be imposed in this matter. 
¶18 IT IS ORDERED that the license of John R. Dade to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for 60 days, effective 
March 21, 2013. 
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that John R. Dade 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. 
¶20 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED that 
compliance 
with 
all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2). 
 
 
 
No.  2012AP2318-D.ssa 
 
1 
 
 
¶21 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.   (dissenting).  I would 
not accept the parties' stipulation of a 60-day suspension.  The 
attorney has been disciplined four times previously for similar 
offenses, including a 60-day suspension in 2007. 
¶22 This stipulation is not in keeping with the concepts 
of progressive discipline or with assisting Attorney Dade in 
changing his behavior to protect the public. 
¶23 I am authorized to state that Justice ANN WALSH 
BRADLEY joins this dissent.