Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. James M. Gedlen

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2007 WI 121 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2006AP901-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against James M. Gedlen, Attorney at Law. 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
James M. Gedlen, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GEDLEN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 2, 2007   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: ZIEGLER, J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2007 WI 121
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2006AP901-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against James M. Gedlen, Attorney at Law. 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
James M. Gedlen, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 2, 2007 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the referee's recommendation 
that Attorney James M. Gedlen's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin be revoked for professional misconduct.  No appeal has 
been filed.  We conclude that the seriousness of Attorney 
Gedlen's misconduct warrants license revocation. 
¶2 
Attorney Gedlen was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in 1971 and most recently practiced in Milwaukee.  In 
April 2006 the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a 28-
No. 
2006AP901-D   
 
2 
 
count amended complaint alleging misconduct with respect to 
numerous client matters.  Attorney Gedlen filed an answer.  John 
A. Fiorenza was appointed referee, and a hearing was set for 
March 19, 2007.  Attorney Gedlen did not appear and did not 
contact the referee on the date of the hearing to give any 
reason for his failure to appear.1 
¶3 
The OLR moved for default judgment.  After receiving 
testimony from the OLR witness and exhibits containing 101 
documents and their descriptions, the referee concluded that 
Attorney Gedlen committed 28 counts of misconduct as alleged in 
the amended complaint. 
¶4 
The first 16 counts of the amended complaint detail 
Attorney Gedlen's professional misconduct between 2003 and 2006 
involving nine separate clients as well as misconduct related to 
his own divorce proceeding.  Counts One and Two allege that by 
converting for his own purposes $26,756.56 belonging to his 
clients and third parties, Attorney Gedlen committed criminal 
acts that reflect adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness or 
fitness as a lawyer in other respects, contrary to former SCR 
                                                 
1 The referee noted that the day after the hearing, 
March 20, 2007, Attorney Gedlen left a voice mail message for 
the referee indicating that he could not appear at the hearing 
because of illness.  On March 21, 2007, the referee wrote to 
Attorney Gedlen and informed him that a default judgment had 
been entered and findings and recommendations would be submitted 
to the supreme court.  The referee informed Attorney Gedlen that 
if he wished to file a motion he should do so and it would be 
set for hearing.  As of the date of the report, the referee 
received no communication or motion from Attorney Gedlen. 
No. 
2006AP901-D   
 
3 
 
20:8.4(b),2 and violated former SCR 20:8.4(c),3 prohibiting 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation.  Count Three states that by failing to hold 
the $26,756.56 in trust, Attorney Gedlen violated former SCRs 
20:1.15(a) (effective through June 30, 2004)4 and 20:1.15(b)(1).5 
                                                 
2 Effective July 1, 2007, substantial changes were made to 
the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct for 
Attorneys, SCR Chapter 20.  See Supreme Court Order No. 04-07, 
2007 WI 4, 293 Wis. 2d xv; and Supreme Court Order No. 06-04, 
2007 WI 48, 297 Wis. 2d xlvii.  Because the conduct underlying 
this case arose prior to July 1, 2007, unless otherwise 
indicated, all references to the supreme court rules will be to 
those in effect prior to July 1, 2007. 
Former SCR 20:8.4(b) provides that it is professional 
misconduct for a lawyer to "commit a criminal act that reflects 
adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as 
a lawyer in other respects." 
3 Former SCR 20:8.4(c) provides that it is professional 
misconduct for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." 
4 Former SCR 20:1.15 applies to misconduct committed prior 
to July 1, 2004.  Former SCR 20:1.15(a) provided in part: 
 
(a) A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from 
the lawyer's own property, that property of clients 
and third persons that is in the lawyer's possession 
in connection with a representation or when acting in 
a fiduciary capacity. . . .  
5 Former SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) provides:  Segregation of trust 
property. 
 
(1) Separate account.  A lawyer shall hold in 
trust separate from the lawyer's own property, that 
property of clients and 3rd parties that is in the 
lawyer's 
possession 
in 
connection 
with 
a 
representation.  All funds of clients and 3rd parties 
paid to a lawyer or law firm in connection with a 
representation shall be deposited in one or more 
identifiable trust accounts. 
No. 
2006AP901-D   
 
4 
 
¶5 
Counts Four and Five state that by paying business 
expenses directly from his trust account in July 2004 with 
$2175.78 in fees that had been advanced by clients but not yet 
earned, Attorney Gedlen converted money belonging to clients for 
his own purposes, contrary to former SCR 20:8.4(b), and violated 
former SCR 20:8.4(c) by conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation.  Count Six alleges that by 
converting fee advances paid by three clients to pay six 
disbursements from his trust account for business expenses prior 
to earning the fees, Attorney Gedlen failed to hold the unearned 
fees and advanced payments of fees in trust until earned, 
contrary to former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4).6 
¶6 
Counts Seven and Eight charge that by converting to 
his own purposes $5825 in fees advanced by two clients, Attorney 
Gedlen engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or 
misrepresentation, contrary to former SCR 20:8.4(c), and by 
failing to deposit this sum into his trust account, Attorney 
Gedlen violated former SCRs 20:1.15(a) (effective through 
June 30, 2004) and 20.1.15(b)(4).  
¶7 
Count Nine states that by withdrawing fee advances 
from his trust account between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 
                                                 
6 Former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) provides: 
 
(4) Unearned fees and cost advances.  Unearned 
fees and advanced payments of fees shall be held in 
trust until earned by the lawyer, and withdrawn 
pursuant to SCR 20:1.15(g).  Funds advanced by a 
client or 3rd party for payment of costs shall be held 
in trust until the costs are incurred. 
No. 
2006AP901-D   
 
5 
 
2005, prior to earning those fees or notifying his clients the 
fees had been earned, Attorney Gedlen failed to abide by 
requirements for handling disbursements for fees, contrary to 
former SCRs 20:8.4(f)7 and 20:1.15(g).8   
¶8 
Counts Ten and Eleven allege that by failing to 
maintain an individual ledger for each client or third party for 
whom he received funds in trust, including a monthly schedule of 
the subsidiary ledgers, and failing to perform the required 
monthly trust account reconciliation between January 1, 2003, 
                                                 
7 Former SCR 20:8.4(f) provides that it is professional 
misconduct for a lawyer to "violate a statute, supreme court 
rule, supreme court order or supreme court decision regulating 
the conduct of lawyers." 
8 Former SCR 20:1.15(g) provides:  Withdrawal of fees from 
trust account. 
 
(1) Notice to client.  At least 5 business days 
before the date on which a disbursement is made from a 
trust account for the purpose of paying fees, with the 
exception of contingent fees, the lawyer shall deliver 
to the client in writing all of the following: 
 
a.  an itemized bill or other accounting 
showing the services rendered; 
 
b.  notice of the amount owed and the 
anticipated date of the withdrawal; and 
 
c.  a statement of the balance of the client's 
funds 
in 
the 
lawyer 
trust 
account 
after 
the 
withdrawal. 
 
(2) Objection to disbursement.  If a client 
objects to the disbursement described in sub. (g)(1), 
the funds shall remain in the trust account until the 
dispute is resolved.  If the client objects after the 
funds have been withdrawn, the disputed portion shall 
be returned to the trust account. 
No. 
2006AP901-D   
 
6 
 
and December 31, 2005, Attorney Gedlen failed to maintain 
complete records of funds held in trust, contrary to former SCRs 
20:1.15(e)(iii) and (iv) (effective through June 30, 2004)9 and 
20:1.15(f)(1)b and g.10  
                                                 
9 Former SCR 20:1.15(e) provides in relevant part: 
 
(e) Complete records of trust account funds and 
other trust property shall be kept by the lawyer and 
shall be preserved for a period of at least six years 
after termination of the representation.  Complete 
records shall include . . . .(iii) a subsidiary ledger 
containing a separate page for each person or company 
for whom funds have been received in trust, showing 
the date and amount of each receipt, the date and 
amount of 
each disbursement, and any unexpended 
balance, (iv) a monthly schedule of the subsidiary 
ledger, indicating the balance of each client's 
account at the end of each month,  . . .  
10 Former SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)b and g provide: 
 
(1)  Demand accounts.  Complete records of a 
trust account that is a demand account shall include a 
transaction register; individual client ledgers; a 
ledger for account fees and charges, if law firm funds 
are held in the account pursuant to sub. (b)(3); 
deposit 
records; 
disbursement 
records; 
monthly 
statements; and reconciliation reports, subject to all 
of the following: 
 
 . . .  
 
b.  Individual client ledgers.  A subsidiary 
ledger shall be maintained for each client or matter 
for which the lawyer receives trust funds, and the 
lawyer shall record each receipt and disbursement of 
that client's funds and the balance following each 
transaction.  A lawyer shall not disburse funds from 
the trust account that would create a negative balance 
with respect to any individual client or matter. 
 
 . . .  
No. 
2006AP901-D   
 
7 
 
¶9 
Count Twelve charges that by disbursing funds from 
trust in twelve client matters on the same date as he deposited 
the funds relating to those matters, Attorney Gedlen failed to 
hold in trust funds belonging to other clients and disbursed 
funds from a trust account before the deposit had cleared and 
the funds were available, contrary to former SCRs 20:1.15(a) 
(effective through June 30, 2004) and 20:1.15(e)(5)a.11 
¶10 Count Thirteen states that by failing to identify the 
client matter and the reason for the disbursement on the memo 
line 
of 
each 
check 
disbursed 
from 
his 
trust 
account, 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
g.  Reconciliation reports.  For each trust 
account, the lawyer shall prepare and retain a printed 
reconciliation report on a regular and periodic basis 
not less frequently than every 30 days.  Each 
reconciliation report shall show all of the following 
balances and verify that they are identical: 
 
(1) the balance that appears in the transaction 
register as of the reporting date; 
 
(2) the total of all subsidiary ledger balances 
for 
IOLTA 
accounts 
and 
other 
pooled 
accounts, 
determined by listing and totaling the balances in the 
individual client ledgers and the ledger for account 
fees and charges, as of the reporting date; and  
 
(3) the adjusted balance, determined by adding 
outstanding deposits and other credits to the balance 
in the financial institution's monthly statement and 
subtracting outstanding checks and other deductions 
from the balance in the monthly statement. 
11 Former SCR 20:1.15(e)(5)a states:  "Standard for trust 
account transactions.  A lawyer shall not disburse funds from 
any trust account unless the deposit from which those funds will 
be disbursed has cleared, and the funds are available for 
disbursement." 
No. 
2006AP901-D   
 
8 
 
particularly those that he disbursed to himself or his firm, 
Attorney 
Gedlen 
failed 
to 
comply 
with 
recordkeeping 
requirements, contrary to former SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)e.1.12 
¶11 Counts Fourteen and Fifteen allege two instances of 
violating former SCRs 20:8.4(f) and 22.03(2)13 and (6).14  They 
                                                 
12 Former 
SCR 
20:1.15(f)(1)e.1 
states: 
 
Disbursement 
records. 
 
1. Checks.  Checks shall be pre-printed and pre-
numbered.  The name and address of the lawyer or law 
firm, and the name of the account shall be printed in 
the upper left corner of the check.  Trust account 
checks shall include the words "Client Account," or 
"Trust Account," or words of similar import in the 
account name.  Each check disbursed from the trust 
account shall identify the client matter and the 
reason for the disbursement on the memo line. 
13 SCR 22.03(2) states:  Investigation. 
 
(2) 
Upon 
commencing 
an 
investigation, 
the 
director shall notify the respondent of the matter 
being investigated unless in the opinion of the 
director the investigation of the matter requires 
otherwise.  The respondent shall fully and fairly 
disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct within 20 days after being served 
by ordinary mail a request for a written response.  
The director may allow additional time to respond.  
Following receipt of the response, the director may 
conduct further investigation and may compel the 
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents, and 
present 
any 
information 
deemed 
relevant 
to 
the 
investigation. 
14 SCR 22.03(6) provides that "[i]n the course of the 
investigation, 
the 
respondent's wilful failure to provide 
relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 
documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure 
are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted 
in the grievance." 
No. 
2006AP901-D   
 
9 
 
allege that by failing to respond to multiple letters from the 
OLR requesting information regarding real estate proceeds with 
respect to Attorney Gedlen's own divorce, and by altering six 
trust 
account 
stubs 
he 
provided 
to 
the 
OLR 
during 
an 
investigation to obscure information on those stubs, Attorney 
Gedlen willfully failed to provide relevant information in the 
course of an investigation and made misrepresentations.  Count 
Sixteen states that Attorney Gedlen engaged in conduct involving 
dishonesty contrary to former SCR 20:8.4(c) by altering the six 
trust account check stubs to obscure them. 
¶12 Next, Counts Seventeen through Twenty-five relate to 
client G.K., who retained Attorney Gedlen to represent him in 
divorce proceedings.  On November 17, 2003, Attorney Gedlen 
deposited $66,093.97 into his trust account, constituting G.K.'s 
portion of the family home sale proceeds.  On December 2, 2003, 
before disbursing a check totaling $72,547.65 to another client, 
Attorney 
Gedlen's 
trust 
account 
balance 
was 
$125,310.45.  
Following the $72,547.65 disbursement, the trust account balance 
was reduced to $52,762.80.  By making this other client's 
disbursement, 
Attorney 
Gedlen 
improperly 
utilized 
funds 
belonging to G.K.  Between December 2, 2003, and April 30, 2004, 
Attorney Gedlen disbursed 30 checks totaling $15,270.37 to 
either himself or his law firm from funds in trust attributable 
to G.K.  By April 21, 2004, Attorney Gedlen converted all, or 
virtually all, of G.K.'s funds for his own purposes and his 
trust account balance fell to $145.37.   
No. 
2006AP901-D   
 
10 
 
¶13 In August 2004 Attorney Gedlen obtained a loan from 
S.L.K., which he used to deposit $65,000 into his trust account.  
G.K. had made several unsuccessful attempts to recover his funds 
and obtain an accounting before Attorney Gedlen eventually 
delivered funds and provided an accounting.  In January 2005 
S.L.K. filed a civil action against Attorney Gedlen due to 
Attorney Gedlen's failure to repay the $65,000 loan and was 
granted judgment against him. 
¶14 Counts Seventeen, Eighteen, and Nineteen allege that 
by converting to his own purposes the $66,093.97 held in trust 
for G.K., Attorney Gedlen violated three supreme court rules:  
he committed a criminal act reflecting adversely on his honesty, 
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer, contrary to former SCR 
20.8.4(b); 
he 
engaged 
in 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation, contrary to former SCR 20:8.4(c); and he 
failed to hold the property of his client in trust, contrary to 
former SCR 20:1.15(a) (effective through June 30, 2004).   
¶15 Count Twenty states that by failing to disburse funds 
to which G.K. was entitled from June 14, 2004, to August 19, 
2004, despite G.K.'s repeated requests, Attorney Gedlen violated 
former SCRs 20:1.15(b) (effective through June 30, 2004)15 and 
                                                 
15 Former SCR 20:1.15(b) provides:  Safekeeping property. 
 
(b)  Upon receiving funds or other property in 
which a client or third person has an interest, a 
lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third 
person in writing.  Except as stated in this rule or 
otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the 
client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client 
or third person any funds or other property that the 
No. 
2006AP901-D   
 
11 
 
20:1.15(d)(1).16  Count Twenty-one alleges that by failing to 
respond to G.K.'s request for an accounting and for information 
regarding his funds, Attorney Gedlen violated former SCR 
20.1.15(d)(2).17  Count Twenty-two states that by depositing a 
$65,000 personal loan from S.L.K. into his trust account, 
Attorney Gedlen deposited funds belonging to him into his trust 
account, contrary to former SCR 20:1.15(b)(3).18   
¶16 Count Twenty-three alleges that by misrepresenting to 
G.K. the reason for his failure to make timely payment to G.K., 
                                                                                                                                                             
client or third person is entitled to receive and, 
upon request by the client or third person, shall 
render a full accounting regarding such property. 
16 Former SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) provides: Prompt notice and 
delivery of property. 
 
(1) Notice and disbursement.  Upon receiving 
funds and other property in which a client has an 
interest, or in which the lawyer has received notice 
that a 3rd party has an interest identified by a lien, 
court order, judgment, or contract, the lawyer shall 
promptly notify the client or 3rd party in writing.  
Except as stated in this rule or otherwise permitted 
by law or by agreement with the client, the lawyer 
shall promptly deliver to the client or 3rd party any 
funds or other property that the client or 3rd party 
is entitled to receive. 
17 Former SCR 20:1.15(d)(2) states that "[u]pon final 
distribution of any trust property or upon request by the client 
or a 3rd party having an ownership interest in the property, the 
lawyer shall promptly render a full written accounting regarding 
the property." 
18 Former 
SCR 
20:1.15(b)(3) 
states 
that 
"[n]o 
funds 
belonging to the lawyer or law firm, except funds reasonably 
sufficient to pay monthly account service charges, may be 
deposited or retained in a trust account." 
No. 
2006AP901-D   
 
12 
 
Attorney Gedlen engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit 
and 
misrepresentation 
in 
violation 
of 
former 
SCR 
20:8.4(c).  Count Twenty-four charges that by misrepresenting to 
the OLR that G.K.'s funds had always been held in trust, 
Attorney Gedlen violated former SCRs 20:8.4(f) and 22.03(2) and 
(6).  Count Twenty-five states that by failing to respond to 
multiple letters from the OLR requesting a response to the G.K. 
grievance, Attorney Gedlen willfully failed to provide relevant 
information and answer questions during the course of an 
investigation, contrary to former SCRs 20:8.4(f) and 22.03(2) 
and (6). 
¶17 Counts Twenty-six through Twenty-eight involve client 
A.G., who retained Attorney Gedlen in May 2004 to represent him 
in a divorce action.  A.G. paid Attorney Gedlen a $2000 
retainer.  In January 2005 A.G. received an invoice from 
Attorney Gedlen indicating a credit balance of $200 and $600 
owing for future services.  A.G. paid the $600 and requested an 
itemized bill.  Attorney Gedlen failed to provide an itemized 
bill. 
¶18 Following A.G.'s complaint to the OLR, the OLR's 
investigation revealed that Attorney Gedlen's trust account 
balance in July 2004 was inadequate to cover the unearned 
portion of A.G.'s fees.  An OLR audit disclosed that Attorney 
Gedlen never deposited A.G.'s $2000 advance fee into his trust 
account. The itemization provided to the OLR showed that 
Attorney Gedlen had performed only 4.35 hours of work relating 
to A.G.'s divorce as of July 2004, and owed A.G. a balance of at 
No. 
2006AP901-D   
 
13 
 
least $1011.14.  Attorney Gedlen failed to respond to the OLR's 
request for a response to the A.G. grievance. 
¶19 Count Twenty-six alleges that by converting for his 
own purposes A.G.'s advance fee, Attorney Gedlen engaged in 
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation 
contrary to former SCR 20:8.4(c).  Count Twenty-seven states 
that by failing to deposit the advance fee into his trust 
account, Attorney Gedlen failed to hold his client's property in 
trust separate from his own property, contrary to former SCR 
20:1.15(a) (effective through June 30, 2004).  Count Twenty-
eight alleges that by failing to respond to the OLR's letters 
between November 22, 2005, and January 3, 2006, requesting a 
response regarding the A.G. grievance, Attorney Gedlen willfully 
failed to provide relevant information and answer questions in 
the course of the investigation as required by former SCRs 
20:8.4(f) and 22.03(2) and (6). 
¶20 Based on the testimony and exhibits presented at the 
hearing, the referee found that Attorney Gedlen had made out at 
least 69 unauthorized checks from his client trust account to 
himself, and that the trust account showed insufficient funds on 
four occasions.  The referee found Attorney Gedlen converted 
$103,826.41 of trust account funds to his own use.  Based on the 
finding that Attorney Gedlen committed 28 counts of misconduct 
as alleged in the amended complaint, the referee recommended 
revocation of Attorney Gedlen's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin.   Attorney Gedlen has not appealed.  
No. 
2006AP901-D   
 
14 
 
¶21 This court upholds the referee's findings of fact 
unless clearly erroneous and independently reviews the referee's 
legal conclusions.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 718.  
This court approves and adopts the referee's unchallenged 
findings of fact and conclusions of law. 
¶22 It is this court’s responsibility to determine the 
appropriate discipline.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Reitz, 2005 WI 39, ¶74, 279 Wis. 2d 550, 694 N.W.2d 894.  
This court considers the seriousness of the misconduct, the need 
to protect the public, courts and the legal system from 
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, 634 N.W.2d 910.  This court agrees with the referee 
that the seriousness of Attorney Gedlen's misconduct warrants 
the revocation of his license to practice law.  We conclude that 
Attorney Gedlen should be responsible for the costs the OLR 
incurred in this disciplinary proceeding.  The sum of $4005.82 
costs are imposed against Attorney Gedlen.  We further conclude 
that as a condition of reinstatement Attorney Gedlen is required 
to demonstrate that restitution is not owed.  
¶23 IT IS ORDERED that the license of James M. Gedlen to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this 
opinion.  It is a condition of reinstatement that James M. 
Gedlen is required to demonstrate that restitution is not owed. 
No. 
2006AP901-D   
 
15 
 
¶24 IT IS ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this 
opinion James M. Gedlen pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
the costs of this proceeding in the sum of $4005.82.  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 James M. Gedlen will remain revoked 
until further order of the court.   
¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent he has not 
done so, James M. Gedlen comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 
concerning the duties of a person whose license to practice law 
in Wisconsin has been revoked. 
¶26 ANNETTE K. ZIEGLER, J., did not participate. 
 
No. 
2006AP901-D   
 
 
 
1