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

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2002 WI 117 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
01-3055-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against James W. Bannen, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
James W. Bannen,  
 
Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BANNEN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 17, 2002   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2002 WI 117 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  01-3055-D  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against James W. Bannen, Attorney at  
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
James W. Bannen,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 17, 2002 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the stipulation filed by 
Attorney James W. Bannen and the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) pursuant to SCR 22.12.  That stipulation was accepted by 
the referee appointed in this matter who then issued a report 
setting forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law 
concerning Attorney Bannen's admitted 13 separate counts of 
misconduct. 
 
The 
referee 
also 
adopted 
the 
stipulated 
recommendation that Attorney Bannen's license to practice law in 
No. 
01-3055-D   
 
2 
 
this state should be suspended for a period of three years and 
that he pay the costs of these proceedings.  
¶2 
We approve the stipulation, accept the referee's 
report and recommendation, and determine that the seriousness of 
Attorney Bannen's misconduct warrants the suspension of his 
license to practice law for three years.  We also agree that he 
should pay the costs of these proceedings totaling $3875.63.   
¶3 
Attorney James W. Bannen was admitted to practice law 
in Wisconsin in 1974 and has never before been the subject of a 
disciplinary proceeding.  He practices in La Crosse. 
¶4 
On November 15, 2001, the OLR filed a complaint 
alleging 13 separate counts of misconduct against Attorney 
Bannen.  Bannen filed an answer to that complaint on December 6, 
2001, and pursuant to SCR 22.13(3), Attorney Catherine Rottier 
was appointed to serve as referee in this matter.  Prior to a 
scheduled hearing counsel for the OLR and Attorney Bannen 
informed the referee that they had reached a stipulation by 
which Attorney Bannen conceded that there was sufficient 
evidence to sustain the OLR's burden of proof with respect to 
all 13 allegations of misconduct in the complaint: 
• Bannen engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or 
misrepresentation 
in violation of SCR 
20:8.4(c) (two counts). 
• Bannen assisted a client in conduct that Bannen knew 
was criminal or fraudulent in violation of SCR 20:1.2. 
No. 
01-3055-D   
 
3 
 
• Bannen failed to fully and fairly disclose to the 
Board of Professional Responsibility1 (BAPR) all the 
facts and circumstances pertaining to his alleged 
misconduct in violation of former SCR 22.07(2) (two 
counts). 
• Bannen failed to fully and fairly disclose to BAPR all 
facts and circumstances pertaining to his alleged 
misconduct 
and 
made 
a 
misrepresentation 
in 
a 
disclosure to BAPR in violation of former SCR 22.07(2) 
(two counts).  
• Bannen failed to hold in trust property of clients or 
third persons in his possession in connection with the 
representation in violation of SCR 20:1.15(a). 
• Bannen failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure 
that his firm had in effect measures giving reasonable 
assurance that the conduct of a non-lawyer employee 
was compatible with the professional obligations of a 
lawyer in violation of SCR 20:5.3(a). 
                                                 
1 Effective 
October 
1, 
2000, 
Wisconsin's 
attorney 
disciplinary process was substantially restructured.  The name 
of the body responsible for investigating and prosecuting cases 
involving attorney misconduct was changed from the Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation and the supreme court rules applicable to the lawyer 
regulation system were also revised in part.  Some of the 
conduct underlying this case arose prior to October 1, 2000.  
However, the complainant in this case will be referred to as the 
OLR.  All references to supreme court rules will be to the 
current version of the supreme court rules unless otherwise 
noted.  
No. 
01-3055-D   
 
4 
 
• Bannen failed to keep complete records of trust 
account funds and other trust property in violation of 
SCR 20:1.15(e). 
• Bannen represented a client while his representation 
was materially limited by Bannen's own interests in 
violation of SCR 20:1.7(b). 
• Bannen failed to keep a client reasonably informed 
about the status of a matter and explain the matter to 
the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client 
to 
make 
informed 
decisions 
regarding 
the 
representation 
in 
violation 
of 
SCR 
20:1.4 
(two 
counts).  
¶5 
Bannen concedes that the OLR has sufficient evidence 
to sustain its burden of proof with respect to all of the 
allegations contained in all 13 claims identified in the OLR 
complaint. 
¶6 
Pursuant to the parties' stipulation the referee took 
into account certain mitigating factors in recommending the 
appropriate 
discipline 
to 
be 
imposed: 
Bannen 
has 
never 
previously been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding during 
his 27 years of practice, there was no evidence that Bannen had 
benefited personally from the misconduct, and Bannen or his firm 
has made full restitution to the clients for the losses caused 
by the misconduct.   
¶7 
In addition, Bannen expressed remorse for the mistakes 
he made; while Bannen agreed that he clearly exceeded his 
authority with respect to some of the misconduct, the referee 
No. 
01-3055-D   
 
5 
 
noted that he did not do so with any venal motive or for 
personal gain.   
¶8 
Moreover, it was stipulated that Bannen had cooperated 
with authorities in an investigation which resulted in thwarting 
a fraudulent scheme that would have put a client's funds at 
risk.  
¶9 
The 
referee 
also 
recognized 
that 
many 
of 
the 
allegations against Bannen involved activities that had occurred 
several years before the BAPR investigation; consequently, 
Bannen's responses to the investigator's inquiries were compiled 
from memory and from records which were inadequate and, as 
Bannen later discovered, fraudulent.   
¶10 The referee also noted that it was stipulated that 
Bannen was unaware of his employee's criminal acts which had 
resulted in a loss of client funds. 
¶11 Other mitigating facts were taken into account by the 
referee who then adopted the stipulated recommendation that for 
Bannen's admitted misconduct, his license to practice law should 
be suspended for a period of three years and that he pay the 
costs of these proceedings. 
¶12 We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law 
set forth in the referee's report based on the parties' 
stipulation.  Bannen's admitted acts are serious failings 
warranting a suspension of his license even if he did not 
personally benefit from the misconduct.  We conclude a three-
year suspension of Bannen's license to practice law is an 
No. 
01-3055-D   
 
6 
 
appropriate discipline for this misconduct and we direct that he 
pay the costs of these proceedings.   
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that the license of James W. Bannen to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of three 
years, effective November 21, 2002.  
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that James W. Bannen comply with 
the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person 
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order James W. Bannen pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding in the amount of 
$3875.63.  If the costs are not paid within 60 days, and absent 
a showing to this court of his inability to pay the costs within 
that time, the license of James W. Bannen to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of this 
court.   
No. 
01-3055-D   
 
 
 
1