Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Benjamin J. Harris

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2010 WI 9 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2009AP283-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Benjamin J. Harris, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Benjamin J. Harris, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HARRIS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 4, 2010   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2010 WI 9
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2009AP283-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Benjamin J. Harris, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Benjamin J. Harris, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 4, 2010 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review Referee Richard C. Ninneman's 
report and recommendation that Attorney Benjamin J. Harris's 
license 
to 
practice 
law 
be 
suspended 
for 
60 
days 
for 
professional misconduct.  The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
filed a four-count disciplinary complaint arising from two 
client matters.  Attorney Harris stipulated to the misconduct 
charged in Counts Three and Four.  Following an evidentiary 
hearing, the referee concluded the OLR failed to prove Counts 
No. 
2009AP283-D   
 
2 
 
One and Two.  The parties stipulated to a 60-day suspension of 
Attorney Harris's license to practice law in Wisconsin.  The 
referee approved the stipulation.  No appeal has been filed. 
¶2 
Upon our independent review, we approve and adopt the 
referee's findings and conclusions with respect to Attorney 
Harris's misconduct.  We conclude his misconduct warrants a 60-
day suspension of his license to practice law.  We order 
Attorney Harris to pay the full costs of this proceeding.   
¶3 
Attorney Harris was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1996 and practices in the Milwaukee area.  In 2007 
Attorney 
Harris 
was 
privately 
reprimanded 
for 
violations 
involving diligence and communication.  See Private Reprimand of 
Benjamin J. Harris, No. 2007-04.  In 2008 Attorney Harris was 
publicly 
reprimanded 
for 
violations 
involving 
diligence, 
communication, 
conflict 
of 
interest, 
and 
terminating 
representation.  See Public Reprimand of Benjamin J. Harris, No. 
2008-03.   
¶4 
Counts One and Two in the current proceedings arose 
from Attorney Harris's failure to appear as a witness at a 
former client's post-divorce proceeding.  After Attorney Harris 
had represented M.M. in his divorce, M.M. hired successor 
counsel to represent him at a post-divorce hearing.  M.M.'s 
former wife subpoenaed Attorney Harris to testify at the post-
divorce hearing.  A $50 witness fee check was issued to Attorney 
Harris with the subpoena.  There is no dispute that Attorney 
Harris was served with the subpoena, cashed the $50 check, and 
did not appear at the scheduled hearing.  As a result of his 
No. 
2009AP283-D   
 
3 
 
actions, 
the 
OLR 
charged 
that 
Attorney 
Harris 
knowingly 
disregarded the subpoena (Count One).  See SCR 20:3.4(c).1  The 
OLR also charged Attorney Harris with dishonesty, fraud, deceit, 
or misrepresentation due to cashing the witness fee check and 
failing to appear (Count Two).  See SCR 20:8.4(c).2   
¶5 
Following 
an 
evidentiary 
hearing, 
the 
referee 
concluded the evidence did not support Counts One and Two.  The 
referee found credible Attorney Harris's testimony that he did 
not appear at the post-divorce hearing because M.M. informed him 
the matter had been settled and the hearing would be cancelled.  
The referee believed Attorney Harris's testimony that he had 
been available at his office on the day in question and would 
have appeared at the hearing if anyone would have contacted him.  
After 
Attorney 
Harris 
learned 
the 
hearing 
had 
not 
been 
cancelled, he refunded the $50 witness fee.  The referee said 
under the circumstances, Attorney Harris did not knowingly 
disobey or disregard the subpoena, and cashing the witness fee 
check 
did 
not 
involve 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit, 
or 
misrepresentation.   
¶6 
The referee accepted Attorney Harris's stipulation 
that he committed the violations alleged in Counts Three and 
                                                 
1 SCR 
20:3.4(c) provides that an attorney 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; . . . ."  
2 SCR 20:8.4(c) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation; . . . ." 
No. 
2009AP283-D   
 
4 
 
Four.  These counts arose from Attorney Harris's professional 
misconduct in representing his former client, T.N., who had 
hired him in August 2005 to defend an action seeking specific 
performance of a real estate contract and the subsequent appeal.  
Count Three alleged Attorney Harris failed to keep himself 
informed of the status of the litigation at both the trial and 
appellate levels, failed to attend a damages hearing, and failed 
to attend a motion hearing seeking enforcement of the judgment, 
in violation of SCR 20:1.3.3 
¶7 
Count Four alleged that by failing to notify T.N. of 
the status of her case, by failing to notify her of the upcoming 
hearings, by failing to advise her of a December 2006 order 
dismissing her appeal, and by failing to advise her of a July 
2007 order granting a motion to enforce a judgment, Attorney 
Harris violated former SCR 20:1.4(a)4 and SCRs 20:1.4(a)(3) and 
(4).5 
¶8 
The referee determined Attorney Harris prevailed on 
Counts One and Two and that he committed the misconduct charged 
in Counts Three and Four.  The referee concluded the misconduct 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:1.3 provides "[a] lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client."   
4 Former SCR 20:1.4(a) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
provided that "[a] lawyer shall keep a client reasonably 
informed and promptly comply with reasonable requests for 
information."   
5 SCRs 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4) (effective July 1, 2007) state a 
lawyer shall "(3) keep the client reasonably informed about the 
status of the matter;" and "(4) promptly comply with reasonable 
requests by the client for information; . . . ." 
No. 
2009AP283-D   
 
5 
 
did not involve major violations.  Given Attorney Harris's 
previous 
discipline, 
the 
referee 
accepted 
the 
parties' 
stipulation that a 60-day suspension of Attorney Harris's law 
license was appropriate discipline.  The referee recommended 
that in the event this court agrees with the referee's findings 
and conclusions, the court should consider dividing the costs 
proportionately between the two parties.   
¶9 
A referee's findings of fact will not be overturned 
unless clearly erroneous.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 
N.W.2d 718.  We independently review the referee's legal 
conclusions.  Id.  Also, it is our independent responsibility to 
determine appropriate discipline.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Reitz, 2005 WI 39, ¶74, 279 Wis. 2d 550, 694 
N.W.2d 894.  We must 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.   
¶10 No appeal has been filed and the record supports the 
referee's findings and conclusions regarding Attorney Harris's 
misconduct.  We therefore adopt the referee's findings and 
conclusions. 
 
We 
accept 
the 
parties' 
stipulation 
as 
to 
discipline.  We are satisfied a 60-day license suspension will 
impress upon Attorney Harris the seriousness of his misconduct 
No. 
2009AP283-D   
 
6 
 
and serve to deter him and other attorneys from engaging in 
similar misconduct.   
¶11 The OLR filed a statement seeking full costs of 
$3,442.26.  The OLR notes the preliminary review committee found 
cause to proceed on each of the four counts.  The OLR asks this 
court 
to 
consider 
Attorney Harris's previous disciplinary 
history.  Also, the OLR points out, it had sought a 60-day 
license suspension and both the referee and Attorney Harris 
agreed a 60-day suspension was warranted.   
¶12 We impose full costs.  Supreme court rule 22.24 
governs the assessment of costs in this proceeding.6  Under SCR 
22.24(1m), the court's general policy is to impose costs on the 
respondent, Attorney Harris.  To award less than full costs, the 
court must find "extraordinary circumstances."  Id.  Attorney 
                                                 
6 SCR 22.24 reads in part: Assessment of costs. 
(1) The supreme court may assess against the 
respondent all or a portion of the costs of a 
disciplinary proceeding in which misconduct is found, 
a medical incapacity proceeding in which it finds a 
medical incapacity, or a reinstatement proceeding and 
may enter a judgment for costs.  The director may 
assess 
all 
or 
a 
portion 
of 
the 
costs 
of 
an 
investigation when discipline is imposed under SCR 
22.09.  Costs are payable to the office of lawyer 
regulation. 
(1m) 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. 
2009AP283-D   
 
7 
 
Harris has not objected to the costs and does not claim 
extraordinary circumstances to justify the imposition of less 
than full costs.  We conclude Attorney Harris shall bear the 
entire costs of the proceeding. 
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Benjamin J. Harris 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 
days, effective March 8, 2010. 
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 90 days of the date 
of this order, Benjamin J. Harris 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 of his inability 
to pay the costs, Benjamin J. Harris's license to practice law 
in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the 
court. 
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent he has not 
yet done so, Benjamin J. Harris shall comply with SCR 22.26 
regarding the duties of a person whose license to practice law 
in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
 
No. 
2009AP283-D   
 
 
 
1