Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Joshua F. Stubbins

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2014 WI 115 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2014AP1622-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
Joshua F. Stubbins, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Joshua F. Stubbins, 
          Respondent.   
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST STUBBINS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 14, 2014 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2014 WI 115
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2014AP1622-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Joshua F. Stubbins, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Joshua F. Stubbins, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 14, 2014 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
revoked.  
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   In this matter, we consider the petition 
of Attorney Joshua F. Stubbins for the consensual revocation of 
his license to practice law in Wisconsin pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule (SCR) 22.19.  Attorney Stubbins is the subject of 
ongoing investigations by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
regarding four separate client matters.  He acknowledges in his 
petition 
that 
he 
cannot 
successfully 
defend 
against 
the 
No. 
2014AP1622-D   
 
2 
 
misconduct 
allegations 
that 
have 
arisen 
out 
of 
those 
investigations. 
¶2 
Attorney Stubbins was admitted to the practice of law 
in this state in January 2007.  During the time period relevant 
to the investigations, Attorney Stubbins was employed as an 
associate attorney with a Milwaukee law firm, where he worked 
primarily in the areas of defending consumer protection and 
products liability claims.  Attorney Stubbins has not previously 
been the subject of professional discipline.  On October 31, 
2013, Attorney Stubbins's license was administratively suspended 
for failure to pay bar dues and assessments and for failure to 
submit an annual trust account certification.  His license was 
also subsequently suspended for failure to comply with mandatory 
continuing legal education reporting requirements.  His license 
has remained administratively suspended up to the date of this 
opinion. 
¶3 
The OLR's summary of the pending investigations 
involving Attorney Stubbins that is attached to the petition for 
consensual revocation indicates that the OLR has received three 
grievances regarding four separate client matters.  They will be 
briefly summarized below. 
¶4 
The first investigation involves E.W., who was a 
partner in the law firm where Attorney Stubbins worked.  E.W. 
requested that the firm represent him in foreclosing on a land 
contract for a piece of real property that E.W. and his wife 
owned.  In approximately the spring of 2009, the firm assigned 
No. 
2014AP1622-D   
 
3 
 
Attorney Stubbins to work on the foreclosure of the land 
contract.   
¶5 
After Attorney Stubbins began working on the first 
foreclosure, E.W. and his wife entered into a second land 
contract for the property.  The buyers under this second 
contract also defaulted.  Consequently, Attorney Stubbins was 
directed to begin pursuing another foreclosure action against 
these second buyers. 
¶6 
Attorney Stubbins was to have filed the foreclosure 
complaints by October 2009.  He did not do so, however, until 
July 2011.  During the intervening nearly two years, Attorney 
Stubbins made multiple misrepresentations regarding the status 
of the matters, including falsely suggesting that certain 
actions, such as the service of a complaint, had been 
accomplished.  By his evasion of certain questions and his 
misrepresentations, Attorney Stubbins led E.W. to believe that 
foreclosure actions had been initiated and were proceeding.  
Attorney Stubbins, however, filed the two foreclosure complaints 
in July 2011 only after E.W. had made numerous requests for 
information about the status of the foreclosure actions.  
Shortly after the complaints were filed, E.W. terminated the law 
firm's representation on both foreclosure matters and retained 
other counsel.1 
                                                 
1 At some point during the time Attorney Stubbins was 
working on the foreclosure matters, E.W. left the law firm. 
No. 
2014AP1622-D   
 
4 
 
¶7 
The OLR's investigation summary indicates that it is 
investigating possible violations of SCRs 20:1.3, 20:1.4(a)(3), 
20:1.4(a)(4), and 20:8.4(c) in this matter. 
¶8 
The second and third client representations at issue 
have been addressed in a consolidated OLR investigation.  Both 
of those matters were brought to the OLR's attention by the 
former general counsel of the law firm. 
¶9 
In the second client representation, the law firm 
represented a company that was a holdover tenant on a commercial 
lease.  The firm assigned Attorney Stubbins to terminate the 
tenancy, return the keys to the landlord, and assist with the 
computation of damages connected to rent payments during the 
holdover period.  Attorney Stubbins failed to return the keys to 
the landlord, which led to the client being held responsible for 
seven months of double rent charges and the law firm having to 
make a claim on its malpractice insurance policy.  In addition 
to not doing everything that he was tasked to do, Attorney 
Stubbins also billed the client for work that he never 
performed.  This ultimately caused the law firm to reduce the 
client's bill by $11,000. 
¶10 In the third client representation, the firm assigned 
Attorney Stubbins to defend an auto finance company against a 
claim that the finance company had improperly seized the 
plaintiff's vehicle and then had sold it at auction.   
¶11 During the pretrial phase of the litigation, the 
plaintiff's counsel served on Attorney Stubbins a notice of 
deposition for a finance company representative.  After the 
No. 
2014AP1622-D   
 
5 
 
plaintiff's 
counsel 
sent 
a 
subsequent 
confirming 
letter, 
Attorney Stubbins responded that he had lost the deposition 
notice and would be unable to appear on the scheduled date.  The 
plaintiff's counsel thereafter scheduled the representative's 
deposition for three separate subsequent dates.  Each time 
Attorney Stubbins falsely told plaintiff's counsel that the 
client representative was ill and could not be deposed.  On the 
last occasion, Attorney Stubbins went so far as to claim that 
the client representative was seriously ill and required kidney 
dialysis.  When the deposition finally took place, the client 
representative testified that she had been unaware of the 
previously scheduled dates for her deposition, that she did not 
have any kidney-related health problems, and that she was not on 
dialysis. 
¶12 Attorney Stubbins also made other misrepresentations 
to opposing counsel.  For example, he told opposing counsel that 
he would produce certain information in discovery but that he 
could not do so yet because the client had not yet provided that 
information to him.  The client subsequently acknowledged that 
it had provided the information at issue to Attorney Stubbins 
prior to his statement regarding the inability to produce. 
¶13 The circuit court denied a summary judgment motion 
drafted by Attorney Stubbins and granted partial summary 
judgment as to liability to the plaintiff, leaving only the 
issue of damages to be tried.  Attorney Stubbins failed to 
advise his client of these rather significant developments in 
the client's case.  
No. 
2014AP1622-D   
 
6 
 
¶14 In addition to filing the partial summary judgment 
motion, the plaintiff also filed a motion for sanctions against 
Attorney Stubbins.  The circuit court granted the motion, which 
ultimately resulted in a sanction of $9,600 being paid by 
Attorney Stubbins personally.  Attorney Stubbins also failed to 
advise his client that he had been sanctioned by the circuit 
court.  
¶15 Finally, Attorney Stubbins filed a notice of appeal 
from the grant of partial summary judgment to the plaintiff 
without having obtained the client's consent to do so.  The 
appeal was subsequently dismissed by the court of appeals. 
¶16 The OLR states that for the second and third client 
matters, 
it 
is 
investigating 
potential 
violations 
of 
SCRs 20:1.3, 
20:1.4(a), 
20:3.4, 
20:4.1(a), 
20:8.4(c), 
and 
20:8.4(f). 
¶17 In the final client representation, the law firm 
represented a defendant in a civil action.  A mediation session 
was scheduled, but Attorney Stubbins failed to advise the client 
of that fact.  He attended the mediation session on the client's 
behalf without being accompanied by a client representative.  
The mediation resulted in a written settlement agreement, which 
Attorney Stubbins signed on the client's behalf even though he 
had no authority from the client to enter into a settlement 
agreement. 
 
Although 
Attorney 
Stubbins 
had 
a 
number 
of 
subsequent email communications with the client over the next 
couple of weeks, he failed to inform the client that the 
mediation session had occurred and that he had entered into a 
No. 
2014AP1622-D   
 
7 
 
settlement agreement on behalf of the client.  Indeed, Attorney 
Stubbins led the client to believe that the mediation had not 
yet occurred. 
¶18 Attorney Stubbins's employment with the law firm ended 
several weeks after the mediation.  The law firm and the client 
subsequently learned that Attorney Stubbins had settled the case 
without the client's knowledge or consent.  The law firm was 
able to re-open the case and to settle the matter at a second 
mediation session on terms acceptable to the client. 
¶19 The OLR states that potential violations arising out 
of this matter include violations of SCRs 20:1.2, 20:1.3, 
20:1.4(a), 20:4.1(a), 20:8.4(c), and 20:1.16(a)(2). 
¶20 In 
its 
recommendation 
in 
support 
of 
Attorney 
Stubbins's petition, the OLR acknowledges that Attorney Stubbins 
has never been disciplined previously, but it emphasizes that 
Attorney Stubbins repeatedly lied to clients, to opposing 
counsel, and to members of his own law firm.  He also engaged in 
a course of billing that was misleading and unethical.  The OLR 
also points to two consensual revocation petitions that it 
contends involved misconduct that was similar or proportionate 
to the misconduct committed by Attorney Stubbins.  See, e.g., 
In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Erlandson, 2005 WI 143, 
286 Wis. 2d 53, 704 N.W.2d 910 (granting consensual revocation 
petition involving allegations of ten potential violations); 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Whitnall, 2003 WI 146, 
267 Wis. 2d 28, 673 N.W.2d 674 (granting consensual revocation 
petition involving six potential ethical violations).  The OLR 
No. 
2014AP1622-D   
 
8 
 
asserts that Attorney Stubbins's behavior was a reflection of 
his character and demonstrates that he is not fit to engage in 
the practice of law in Wisconsin. 
¶21 The OLR further states that it is not seeking 
restitution for any of Attorney Stubbins's misconduct.  While it 
did find evidence that Attorney Stubbins had overbilled a client 
in one of the four matters, there was no evidence that Attorney 
Stubbins himself had ever been in possession or control of 
client funds, and the law firm subsequently reduced the client's 
bill. 
¶22 As noted above, Attorney Stubbins's petition states 
that 
he 
cannot 
successfully 
defend 
himself 
against 
the 
misconduct 
allegations 
that 
have 
arisen 
from 
the 
OLR's 
investigations.  In the petition Attorney Stubbins asserts that 
he is freely, voluntarily, and knowingly (1) giving up his right 
to contest the OLR's allegations of misconduct and (2) asking 
for the revocation of his license to practice law in this state.  
He also acknowledges that he has the right to retain counsel in 
this matter, but states that he has chosen to represent himself.  
Finally, Attorney Stubbins states that he is aware of the 
consequences of the revocation of his license, including his 
obligation to follow the requirements of SCR 22.26 and the need 
to complete the formal reinstatement process outlined in 
SCRs 22.29 through 22.33 in the event that he would ever seek 
the reinstatement of his license. 
¶23 After reviewing the petition, the OLR's summary of 
misconduct allegations under investigation, and the OLR's 
No. 
2014AP1622-D   
 
9 
 
recommendation, we conclude that the petition should be granted.  
As shown by the OLR's summary of its investigations, Attorney 
Stubbins's repeated misrepresentations to his clients, to his 
law firm, and to opposing counsel; his billing for work that he 
never performed; his lack of diligence; and his multiple 
decisions to take legally significant actions (e.g., filing an 
appeal, settling a lawsuit, etc.) on behalf of his clients 
without their knowledge or consent demonstrates that Attorney 
Stubbins does not possess the necessary character to hold a 
license to practice law in this state.  These were not one or 
two isolated instances, but rather a pattern of deceitful 
statements and unethical conduct. 
¶24 Consistent with the OLR's recommendation, we do not 
impose any restitution obligation on Attorney Stubbins.  While 
his conduct certainly harmed his clients, there is not a proper 
basis in this matter for an order requiring him to return money 
or property that he received from his clients. 
¶25 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for consensual license 
revocation is granted. 
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of Joshua F. 
Stubbins is revoked, effective the date of this order. 
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Joshua F. Stubbins shall comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked. 
 
No. 
2014AP1622-D   
 
 
 
1