Title: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. Keith E. Halverson

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
98-1850-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Keith E. Halverson, Attorney at  
Law.  
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HALVERSON 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
April 27, 1999 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
No. 
98-1850-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. 98-1850-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against KEITH E. HALVERSON, Attorney at 
Law. 
FILED 
 
APR 27, 1999 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that Attorney Keith E. Halverson be publicly reprimanded 
for professional misconduct consisting of his failure to keep two 
clients informed of the status of their legal matters he had 
undertaken and to respond to their requests for information, not 
responding 
to 
the 
letter 
of 
one 
client 
terminating 
his 
representation and requesting the return of the retainer he had 
been paid, failing to file a client’s bankruptcy petition timely, 
even though he was aware that the client’s wages were being 
garnished, and not responding to letters from the Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board) and the district 
professional responsibility committee investigating his conduct 
in those matters. We determine that the public reprimand 
No. 
98-1850-D 
 
2 
recommended by the referee is the appropriate discipline to 
impose on Attorney Halverson for that professional misconduct.  
¶2 
Attorney Halverson was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1966 and practices in Prescott, but he has been 
suspended from the practice of law since October 31, 1997, for 
non-payment of State Bar dues. He has not been the subject of a 
prior disciplinary proceeding. When he did not file an answer or 
other responsive pleading after being served personally with the 
Board’s complaint and did not appear at the hearing before the 
referee on the Board’s motion for default judgment, the referee, 
Attorney Janet Jenkins, made findings of fact and conclusions of 
law based on the allegations of the complaint.  
¶3 
In May 1996 Attorney Halverson was retained by a couple 
to file a bankruptcy petition, for which he was paid a retainer 
of $1000. Attorney Halverson performed very limited services in 
the matter and did no work on it after mid-June 1996. The 
clients’ numerous attempts to contact him during June of 1996 
were unsuccessful, as he did not respond to any of their 
telephone calls or to their registered letter notifying him that 
they were terminating his representation and asking that he 
refund 
the 
retainer. 
At 
the 
Board’s 
suggestion, 
Attorney 
Halverson ultimately made restitution of the $1000 retainer but 
not until November 1997, more than 16 months after his 
representation of those clients was terminated.  
No. 
98-1850-D 
 
3 
¶4 
In 
a 
second 
matter, 
a 
client 
retained 
Attorney 
Halverson in July 1994 to represent her in a bankruptcy and paid 
him $500 of the agreed-upon fee of $975. After he was retained 
but prior to filing a bankruptcy petition on the client’s behalf, 
Attorney Halverson was aware that the client was subject to 
garnishment proceedings that resulted in $3000 being garnished 
from her wages.  
¶5 
During 1995 and 1996, the client attempted on numerous 
occasions to contact Attorney Halverson but for the most part was 
unsuccessful. He did not respond to the messages she left at his 
home and at his office or to her letters. Nonetheless, the client 
made additional payments toward his fee: $200 in May of 1996 and 
$300 in March of 1997. Attorney Halverson did not complete the 
bankruptcy petition for the client until the spring of 1997, and 
it was filed with the court in June of that year.  
¶6 
Attorney Halverson did not respond to two letters from 
the Board in each of its investigations of those two matters, and 
the Board’s certified letters informing him of the clients’ 
grievances and requesting a response were unclaimed. Attorney 
Halverson also did not respond to letters from the district 
professional responsibility committee investigator to whom the 
matters had been referred, but he appeared at a meeting of that 
committee and provided materials from his files.  
No. 
98-1850-D 
 
4 
¶7 
On the basis of those facts, the referee concluded that 
Attorney Halverson engaged in professional misconduct as follows. 
His failure to keep his clients informed of the status of their 
bankruptcy matters and respond to their requests for information 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.4(a).1 
His 
failure 
to 
respond 
to 
the 
communication terminating his representation and requesting the 
return of a retainer constituted a failure to take steps 
reasonably practicable following termination of his services to 
protect the client’s interests, in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d).2 
His failure to file a bankruptcy petition promptly on behalf of a 
client whose wages were being garnished constituted a failure to 
act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a 
client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.3 His failure to respond to 
                     
1  SCR 20:1.4 provides, in pertinent part: Communication 
(a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about 
the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable 
requests for information.  
2  SCR 20:1.16 provides, in pertinent part: Declining or 
terminating representation 
 . . .  
(d) Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take 
steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s 
interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, 
allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering 
papers and property to which the client is entitled and 
refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been earned. 
The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the 
extent permitted by other law.  
3 SCR 20:1.3 provides: Diligence 
No. 
98-1850-D 
 
5 
letters 
from 
the 
Board 
and 
the 
district 
professional 
responsibility committee investigating his conduct violated SCR 
21.03(4)4 and 22.07(2).5  
¶8 
As discipline for that professional misconduct, the 
referee recommended that the court publicly reprimand Attorney 
Halverson. In making that recommendation, the referee observed 
that Attorney Halverson has not previously been disciplined for 
professional misconduct after practicing law for more than 30 
years. Nonetheless, the referee noted the seriousness of his 
                                                                  
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client.  
4 
 
SCR 
21.03 
provides, 
in 
pertinent 
part: 
General 
principles. 
 . . .  
(4) Every attorney shall cooperate with the board and the 
administrator in the investigation, prosecution and disposition 
of grievances and complaints filed with or by the board or 
administrator.   
5  SCR 22.07 provides, in pertinent part: Investigation. 
 . . .  
(2) 
During 
the 
course 
of 
an 
investigation, 
the 
administrator or a committee may notify the respondent of the 
subject being investigated. The respondent shall fully and 
fairly disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct or medical incapacity within 20 days of being 
served by ordinary mail a request for response to a grievance. 
The administrator in his or her discretion may allow additional 
time 
to 
respond. 
Failure 
to 
provide 
information 
or 
misrepresentation 
in 
a 
disclosure 
is 
misconduct. 
The 
administrator or committee may make a further investigation 
before making a recommendation to the board.  
No. 
98-1850-D 
 
6 
failure to return the clients’ retainer promptly after his 
representation was terminated. Similarly serious was his failure 
to file the bankruptcy petition on the other client’s behalf when 
he should and could have, with resulting financial harm to his 
client by wage garnishment. In addition to the public reprimand, 
the referee recommended that Attorney Halverson be required to 
pay the costs of this proceeding.  
¶9 
We adopt the referee’s findings of fact and conclusions 
of law and determine that a public reprimand is the appropriate 
discipline to impose on Attorney Halverson for his professional 
misconduct established in this proceeding.  
¶10 IT IS ORDERED that Keith E. Halverson is publicly 
reprimanded as discipline for professional misconduct.  
¶11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Keith E. Halverson pay to the Board of Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility 
the 
costs 
of 
this 
proceeding, 
provided that if the costs are not paid within the time specified 
and absent a showing to this court of his inability to pay the 
costs within that time, the license of Keith E. Halverson to 
practice law in Wisconsin shall be suspended until further order 
of the court.  
 
 
1