Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. James W. Snyder

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2001 WI 17 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
01-0387-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against James W. Snyder, Attorney at Law. 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
James W. Snyder,  
 
Respondent.  
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SNYDER 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
March 9, 2001 
Submitted on Briefs: 
      
Oral Argument: 
      
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
      
 
Dissented: 
      
 
Not Participating:       
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
      
 
 
 
 
2001 WI 17 
 
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT 
 
Order - March 9, 2001 
 
 
 
 
 
01-0387-D 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against James W. Snyder, Attorney at Law. 
 
 
The Court entered the following order on this date: 
 
 
 
Upon consideration of the petition filed pursuant to 
SCR 22.19 by Attorney James W. Snyder requesting the 
consensual revocation of his license to practice law in 
this state, and upon consideration of the summary of 
misconduct 
allegations 
against 
petitioner 
being 
investigated by the Office of Lawyer Regulation, and 
that Office's recommendation in support of the request 
for consensual license revocation (documents attached 
and incorporated by reference), 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of James W. Snyder to 
practice law in this state is revoked as of the date of 
this order. 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that James W. Snyder comply with 
the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law has been revoked. 
  
BRADLEY and PROSSER, J.J., did not participate.  
 
Cornelia C. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against: 
 
 
 
JAMES W. SNYDER, 
       Attorney at Law, 
CASE CODE:  30912 
       Petitioner. 
CASE NO.: 01-0387-D 
 
 
OFFICE OF LAWYER REGULATION’S RECOMMENDATION ON  
PETITION FOR CONSENSUAL LICENSE REVOCATION 
 
 
 
TO: THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF 
THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
 
 
The 
Office of Lawyer 
Regulation 
(“OLR”) 
respectfully 
recommends that the Court grant the Petition of James W. Snyder 
(“Petitioner”), and revoke Petitioner’s license to practice law 
in Wisconsin. 
Petitioner’s Petition for Consensual License Revocation and 
the 
Director’s 
Summary 
of 
Misconduct 
Allegations 
Being 
Investigated are attached hereto and incorporated herein by 
reference. 
Petitioner was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin on May 
18, 1981 (Wisconsin State Bar No. 1014652) and practiced in the 
 
2 
Appleton area.  Petitioner’s license to practice law in 
Wisconsin has been suspended since October 12, 20001. 
Petitioner acknowledges that he cannot successfully defend 
himself against serious professional misconduct allegations that 
are summarized in an attachment to his Petition.  Petitioner has 
had the benefit of legal representation in this matter. 
Petitioner 
admits 
his 
inability 
to 
defend 
against 
misconduct allegations in an estate matter.  The misconduct 
under investigation includes allegations that Petitioner made 
more than one dishonest, deceitful filing to the probate court, 
that he offered false evidence to that court, that he lied to 
two charitable beneficiaries in the matter about funds to which 
they were entitled and that he accepted payments for his firm 
that amounted to more than a tenfold increase over the amount he 
had claimed in a filing to the court that his firm had received2. 
Petitioner filed a compliance affidavit pursuant to SCR 
22.26 in which he indicated that he discontinued the practice of 
law, effective September 5, 2000, and that he represents no 
clients in pending matters.  Petitioner’s former firm has made 
full restitution to the two beneficiaries (the American Lung 
                     
1 The Court’s October 12, 2000 temporary suspension order is provided as 
Exhibit 1 to Appendix A, as attached to Mr. Snyder’s Petition. 
 
2 The misconduct is more specifically described in the Director’s Summary of 
Misconduct Allegations Being Investigated, at paragraph 10(a)-(d). 
 
 
3 
Association and the American Cancer Society).*  The OLR is not 
requesting a restitution order in connection with the proposed 
revocation of Petitioner’s law license.  
Under the circumstances, a formal order of the Wisconsin 
Supreme Court revoking Petitioner’s license to practice law in 
Wisconsin is warranted.  The OLR respectfully files this 
Recommendation 
in 
support 
of 
Mr. 
Snyder’s 
Petition 
for 
Consensual License Revocation, and recommends to the Court that 
it grant the petition and order the immediate revocation of 
Petitioner’s license to practice law in Wisconsin. 
 
The OLR does not seek an assessment of costs in this matter. 
 
Dated this 6th day of February, 2001. 
 
 
 
OFFICE OF LAWYER REGULATION 
 
 
By: /s/ 
 
 
WILLIAM J. WEIGEL 
 
Litigation Counsel 
 
State Bar No. 1010549 
 
 
ADDRESS: 
110 East Main Street, Room 315 
Madison, WI  53703 
Telephone:  (608) 267-7274 
Fax: (608) 267-1959 
 
                     
* The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) submitted a letter dated February 27, 
2001, noting that restitution was actually made by Mr. Snyder’s family and 
not his former law firm. 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
 
IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINARY 
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST JAMES W. 
SNYDER, ATTORNEY AT LAW 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE CODE 30912 
 
OFFICE OF LAWYER REGULATION,  
 
 
CASE NO. 01-0387-D 
 
 
 
 
Complainant, 
 
JAMES W. SNYDER, 
 
 
 
 
Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
PETITION FOR CONSENSUAL 
LICENSE REVOCATION 
 
 
 
 
TO: THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF  
THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
 
Pursuant to SCR 22.19, I, Attorney James W. Snyder, hereby 
petition the Court as follows: 
 
1. 
I became licensed to practice law in the State of 
Wisconsin on May 18, 1981 (State Bar No. 1014652).  On October 
12, 2000, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered my law license 
temporarily suspended, effective October 12, 2000 (Exhibit 1 to 
Appendix A, attached).  My current address is 2942 West Hiawatha 
Drive, Appleton, Wisconsin 54914-6708. 
 
2. 
I am the subject of an Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(“OLR”) misconduct investigation.  
 
2 
3. 
A summary of the misconduct allegations is attached 
hereto as Director’s Summary of Misconduct Allegations Being 
Investigated (Appendix A). 
4. 
I acknowledge that I cannot successfully defend myself 
against the professional misconduct allegations in Appendix A. 
5. 
I am filing this Petition freely, voluntarily and with 
the benefit of the advice of  counsel. 
ACCORDINGLY, I hereby petition this Court for consensual 
license revocation, pursuant to SCR 22.19. 
Respectfully 
submitted, this 17th day of January, 2001. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JAMES W. SNYDER 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Petitioner 
 
P.O. Address: 
James W. Snyder 
c/o Atty. Joseph J. Beisenstein 
Menn, Teetaert & Beisenstein, Ltd. 
222 North Oneida Street 
P.O. Box 785 
Appleton, WI  54912-0785 
(920) 731-6631 
 
Appendix A, page 1 
STATE OF WISCONSIN 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINARY 
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST JAMES W. 
SNYDER, ATTORNEY AT LAW 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE CODE 30912 
 
OFFICE OF LAWYER REGULATION,  
 
 
CASE NO. 01-0387-D 
 
 
 
 
Complainant, 
 
JAMES W. SNYDER, 
 
 
 
 
Respondent. 
 
 
DIRECTOR’S SUMMARY OF MISCONDUCT 
ALLEGATIONS BEING INVESTIGATED 
 
 
 
BACKGROUND 
 
 
On October 12, 2000, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered 
the law license of James W. Snyder (“Petitioner”) temporarily 
suspended, effective October 12, 2000 (Exhibit 1).  That 
temporary 
suspension, 
sought 
by 
the 
Board 
of 
Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility (“BAPR”), predecessor-in-interest to 
the Office of Lawyer Regulation (“OLR”), was not opposed by 
Petitioner. 
 
Petitioner has indicated his intent to file a Petition for 
Consensual License Revocation acknowledging his inability to 
successfully defend against the misconduct allegations being 
investigated by the OLR. 
 
Appendix A, page 2 
 
SUMMARY OF FACTS AND MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS 
 
1. 
OLR staff investigator, Melody Rader-Johnson began 
conducting an investigation of Petitioner following the filing 
of a grievance against him by successor counsel in an Outagamie 
County estate matter.  Petitioner had been the original attorney 
for the estate, but was removed by the Court after failing to 
appear at the last of a string of status hearings ordered by the 
court. 
 
The 
grievance 
investigation 
originally 
concerned 
Petitioner’s possible neglect of this and other Outagamie County 
estates.  Moreover, successor counsel in the estate informed 
BAPR that the file for the estate contained a check payable to a 
beneficiary of the estate which had been written more than a 
year earlier, but had not yet been sent, even though Petitioner 
had informed the court that the check had been forwarded to that 
beneficiary. 
2. 
In December 1998, Petitioner filed with the Register in 
Probate an Amended Final Account for the Estate of Pearl Domke 
(Outagamie County Probate Case No. 95-IN-239) which indicated 
that distributions had been paid out from the Domke Estate as 
follows:  $235,012.21 to the personal representative, $39,168.71 
to the American Cancer Society and $39,168.71 to the American 
Lung Association.  The Amended Final Account also indicated that 
Petitioner's firm had received $7,000 in attorneys fees. 
 
Appendix A, page 3 
3. 
On December 14, 1998, Petitioner filed with the 
Register in Probate, Receipts and Releases purportedly signed by 
representatives from the American Lung Association and the 
American Cancer Society indicating that each charity had received 
a distribution of $39,168.71 from the Domke Estate.  After 
receiving the executed Receipts and Releases, the Probate Court 
closed their file for the Domke Estate.  In fact, however, as of 
December 14, 1998, neither the Lung Association nor the Cancer 
Society had received any distribution from the Domke Estate. 
4. 
During 
1999, 
after 
Petitioner 
received 
several 
requests from the charities as to when they might expect to 
receive their distributions from the Domke Estate, Petitioner 
forwarded trust account checks to the charities in the amount of 
$13,968.71 each.  Petitioner informed the charities that these 
checks were for partial distributions from the estate and that 
the charities could expect to receive their final distribution 
after the remainder of the bequest was liquidated.  The 
charities, however, received no further distribution from the 
estate. 
5. 
In 
May 
2000, 
Investigator 
Rader-Johnson 
received 
information from the American Lung Association that they had not 
received their final distribution from the Pearl Domke Estate.  
The Lung Association also indicated that they had recently 
learned that the Outagamie County probate file contained a 
 
Appendix A, page 4 
Receipt and Release purportedly executed by an employee of the 
Lung Association acknowledging receipt of the final distribution. 
 The Lung Association asserted that the signature on the Receipt 
was probably forged since the Receipt contained a signature of an 
employee who left their employment in August 1998. 
6. 
On or about August 3, 2000, Investigator Rader-Johnson 
received information from the American Cancer Society alleging 
that they had not received their final distribution from the 
Pearl Domke Estate and that the Receipt and Release on file with 
the probate court acknowledging receipt of the final distribution 
contained a forged signature. 
7. 
Upon 
receiving 
this 
information 
from 
the 
Lung 
Association and the Cancer Society, Investigator Rader-Johnson 
reviewed Outagamie County probate files, met with and obtained 
sworn testimony from the Petitioner and reviewed bank records and 
other materials.  
8. 
Based on the figures contained in the Amended Final 
Account from the Domke Estate, the Lung Association and the 
Cancer Society should have received a total of approximately 
$78,300.  As of the spring of 2000, the charities had received 
only approximately $27,500, rendering the Amended Final Account 
filed by Petitioner to be grossly inaccurate by leaving 
approximately $50,700 unaccounted for. 
 
Appendix A, page 5 
9. 
Additionally, bank records from the Domke Estate show 
that between April 27, 1996 and November 24, 1998, there were 14 
checks made payable to Petitioner’s firm totaling $72,000 
purportedly written by the estate’s personal representative.  
Petitioner reported on the Amended Final Account that his firm 
had only received $7,000 in legal fees.  The Amended Final 
Account does not disclose the additional $65,000 in disbursements 
from the estate to Petitioner's firm. 
10. The investigation of Petitioner’s conduct has to date 
revealed that Petitioner engaged in the following misconduct: 
a) 
In filing the Amended Final Account for the Pearl 
Domke Estate in December, 1998, which indicated that final 
disbursements had been made from the Estate to all of the 
beneficiaries, including the American Lung Association and 
the American Cancer Society, when Petitioner knew that 
final disbursements had not been made from the Domke 
Estate to those charities, Petitioner engaged in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, 
contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c). 
b) 
In preparing and filing the Receipts and Releases 
dated December 14, 1998 which contained forged signatures 
of representatives from the American Lung Association and 
the American Cancer Society indicating that each charity 
had received their final distribution of approximately 
 
Appendix A, page 6 
$39,000 from the Pearl Domke Estate, when Petitioner knew 
that neither charity had received any distribution from 
the Domke Estate as of that date, Petitioner knowingly 
offered evidence that he knew to be false, contrary to SCR 
20:3.3(a)(4), and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation, 
contrary 
to 
SCR 20:8.4(c). 
c) 
In stating to the American Lung Association and 
the American Cancer Society in October 1999, that the 
remainder of the bequests to the charities would be 
forthcoming, when Petitioner knew the Domke Estate had 
been closed since December 1998, Petitioner engaged in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c). 
d) 
In accepting payments of $72,000 to his firm from 
the Domke Estate, but filing an Amended Final Account 
showing that the firm had received only $7,000 from the 
Domke Estate, Petitioner engaged in dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit 
 
Appendix A, page 7 
or misrepresentation, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c). 
 
 
Dated this 9th day of January, 2001. 
 
 
 
OFFICE OF LAWYER REGULATION 
 
 
 
By:  /s/  
 
 
 
 
 
KEITH L. SELLEN 
 
Director 
 
State Bar No. 1001088 
 
ADDRESS: 
110 East Main Street, Room 315 
Madison, WI  53703 
Telephone:  (608) 267-7274 
Fax: (608) 267-1959 
 
Exhibit 1 
 
 
Office of the Clerk 
SUPREME COURT 
110 E. MAIN STREET, SUITE 215 
P.O. BOX 1688 
MADISON, WISCONSIN   53701-1688 
 
TELEPHONE (608) 266-1880 
FACSIMILE (608) 267-0640 
Web Site: www.courts.state.wi.us 
 
 
To:  
 
 
 
 
 
October 12, 2000 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation 
 
 
 
James W. Snyder 
110 E. Main Street, #315  
 
 
Krause, Metz & Snyder 
Madison, WI 53703-3383 
 
 
 
15 Park Place 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appleton, WI 54915 
Joseph J. Beisenstein  
Menn Nelson Law Firm  
 
 
 
William J. Weigel 
P.O. Box 785 
 
 
 
 
 
Office of Lawyer 
Regulation 
Appleton, WI 54912-0785  
 
 
110 E. Main Street, Rm. 
315 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Madison, WI 53703 
 
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following order: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
No. XX-014062-D   Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
James W. Snyder:   
                                 BAPR v. Snyder  
 
 
On September 27, 2000, the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility filed a notice 
of motion and motion and supporting affidavit seeking the temporary suspension of the license of 
James W. Snyder to practice law in Wisconsin, pursuant to SCR 22.30(1); this court ordered a 
response on October 4, 2000 and he indicated he has no objection to the motion; 
 
 
IT IS ORDERED that the motion is granted.  The license of Attorney Snyder to practice 
law is temporarily suspended as of the date of this order and until further notice of this court.  He 
shall further comply with the requirements of SCR 22.26 relating to license suspension if he has 
not already done so.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
Exhibit 1