Title: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. Curt M. Weber

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
98-1339-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Curt M. Weber, Attorney at Law. 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST WEBER 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
June 24, 1998 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
No.  98-1339-D 
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 98-1339-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against CURT M. WEBER, Attorney at Law. 
FILED 
 
JUN 24, 1998 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  License 
revocation 
continued.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM   We review the stipulation of the Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board) and Curt M. Weber 
to a six-month suspension of his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin as discipline for Mr. Weber’s having continued to 
practice law while his license was revoked. We accept the 
parties’ stipulation and determine that the discipline to which 
they stipulated, which will have the effect of extending for six 
months the time during which Mr. Weber will not be permitted to 
petition for reinstatement of his license, is the appropriate 
disposition of this proceeding.  
¶2 
Mr. Weber was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 
1982 and practiced in Milwaukee. He has been disciplined for 
professional misconduct on four prior occasions. In 1985, he 
consented to a private reprimand from the Board for neglect of a 
client’s legal matter and misrepresentation to the client. In 
No.  98-1339-D 
 
2 
1989, the court suspended his license for 90 days as discipline 
for 
neglect 
of 
three 
client 
matters, 
dishonesty 
and 
misrepresentation in one of them, and failure to cooperate in 
the Board’s investigation. Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Weber, 151 Wis. 2d 788, 446 N.W.2d 281. The court suspended his 
license for three years in 1991 as discipline for failing to 
perform services for which he had been retained, misrepresenting 
to his clients what he had done on their behalf, continuing to 
practice law after his license was suspended in 1989, and 
failing to cooperate in the Board’s investigation. Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Weber, 161 Wis. 2d 414, 468 N.W.2d 12.  
¶3 
In 1992, the court revoked Attorney Weber’s license to 
practice law with his consent as discipline for misconduct that 
included misrepresenting to a client that he had reached a 
settlement with an insurer on the client’s claim and that 
settlement funds would be sent forthwith, failure to notify the 
client that his license to practice law had been suspended and 
of his resultant inability to represent the client, failure to 
keep a client reasonably informed of the status of that client’s 
matter, failure to deliver papers and property to which a client 
was entitled upon termination of his representation, and failure 
to cooperate 
with 
the Board’s investigation. 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Weber, 166 Wis. 2d 372, 480 N.W.2d 25. 
Although eligible under SCR 22.28(3)1 to do so as of February 19, 
                     
1 SCR 22.28 provides, in pertinent part: Reinstatement. 
 . . .  
No.  98-1339-D 
 
3 
1997, Mr. Weber has not petitioned for reinstatement of his 
license following revocation, as a result of which his license 
has remained revoked.  
¶4 
The parties stipulated that while his license was 
revoked, Mr. Weber partially completed various legal forms 
regarding termination of parental rights on behalf of a former 
client, communicated with opposing counsel on several occasions 
regarding the termination and accompanying adoption matters, and 
communicated with opposing counsel on letterhead stationery of 
his former law office, all in violation of SCR 20:5.5(a)2 and 
22.26(2).3 The person on whose behalf Mr. Weber engaged in the 
                                                                  
(3) An attorney whose license is revoked or suspended for 6 
months or more for misconduct or medical incapacity shall not 
resume practice until the license is reinstated by order of the 
supreme court. A petition for reinstatement may be filed at any 
time commencing, in the case of a license suspension, 3 months 
prior to the expiration of the suspension period or, in the case 
of a license revocation, 5 years after the effective date of 
revocation. A petition for reinstatement shall be filed with the 
court and a copy shall be filed with the administrator.    
2 SCR 20:5.5 provides, in pertinent part: Unauthorized 
practice of law 
A lawyer shall not:  
(a) practice law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates 
the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction;   
3 SCR 22.26 provides, in pertinent part: Activities on 
revocation or suspension of license.  
 . . .  
No.  98-1339-D 
 
4 
practice of law ultimately retained counsel to complete the 
termination and adoption matters.   
¶5 
We accept the parties’ stipulation and, rather than 
suspend Mr. Weber’s license as the parties had stipulated, we 
continue the revocation currently in force for a period of six 
months, thereby extending the time during which Mr. Weber will 
be prohibited from petitioning for reinstatement.  
¶6 
IT IS ORDERED that the revocation of the license of 
Curt M. Weber to practice law in Wisconsin currently in effect 
shall continue for a period of six months, commencing the date 
of this order.  
¶7 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Curt M. Weber comply with 
the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person 
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked.   
 
                                                                  
(2) A suspended or disbarred attorney may not engage in the 
practice of law or in any law work activity customarily done by 
law students, law clerks or other paralegal personnel, except 
that he or she may engage in law related work for a commercial 
employer not itself engaged in the practice of law.   
 
 
1