Title: Jerry A. Session v.

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing 
and modification.  The final version will 
appear in the bound volume of the official 
reports. 
 
 
No. 96-1901-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :               
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against JERRY A. SESSION, Attorney at Law 
FILED 
 
NOV 15, 1996 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.  Attorney’s license 
suspended.  
 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that the license of Jerry A. Session to practice law 
in Wisconsin be suspended for one year as discipline for 
professional misconduct reciprocal to the discipline imposed 
upon him in New York for that misconduct.  Attorney Session 
undertook to represent a client in the sale of real estate 
and ultimately became the purchaser of that property but did 
not advise the client of their differing interests or that 
she should retain separate counsel in the matter. He also 
failed to promptly and diligently represent two clients in 
criminal matters and a client in a divorce proceeding. 
Attorney Session filed a notice of appeal from the referee’s 
report but subsequently moved to withdraw it, and we grant 
that motion.  
 
 
No. 96-1901-D 
 
 
2
 
We determine that the same discipline imposed on 
Attorney Session in New York for that misconduct should be 
imposed as reciprocal discipline here, as provided in SCR 
22.25(5).
1 There has been no claim or showing that the 
factors set forth in the reciprocal discipline rule render 
the imposition of that discipline inappropriate. Attorney 
Session’s misconduct constitutes serious breaches of his 
professional duties to clients and warrants the one-year 
license suspension determined by the New York Supreme Court 
Appellate Division to constitute appropriate discipline.  
Attorney Session was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1977 and subsequently was admitted to the New 
York bar in June, 1986.  He currently resides in Buffalo, 
New York.  He was suspended from practice in Wisconsin in 
1981 for noncompliance with continuing legal education 
requirements and in 1982 for failing to pay State Bar dues 
and assessments.  He has not been reinstated to practice 
here.  
                                                          
 
1  SCR 22.25 provides, in pertinent part: Reciprocal 
discipline. 
. . . 
(5) Upon the expiration of 20 days from service of the 
complaint issued under sub. (2), the referee shall file a 
report with the court recommending the imposition of the 
identical discipline or medical suspension unless: 
(a) The procedure was so lacking in notice or 
opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of 
due process; 
(b) There was such an infirmity of proof establishing 
the misconduct or medical incapacity that the referee could 
not accept as final, the conclusion on that subject; or 
(c) The misconduct established justifies substantially 
different discipline in this state. 
 
 
No. 96-1901-D 
 
 
3
Attorney Session pleaded no contest to professional 
misconduct allegations in a disciplinary proceeding in New 
York in 1995, and his license to practice law in that 
jurisdiction was suspended for one year as discipline for 
the following misconduct. While representing a client in the 
sale of real estate, Attorney Session offered to purchase 
the property. The client did not retain separate counsel, as 
she considered that Attorney Session was representing her 
legal interests, and he did not tell the client that his 
interests were adverse to hers and that she should retain 
separate counsel.  
Attorney Session did not prepare a separate mortgage 
instrument and a payment schedule in connection with his 
purchase of the property but incorporated payment terms into 
the warranty deed.  The person purported to have notarized 
the deed in fact had not notarized it, and the signature of 
the purported notary was not on the deed.  Attorney Session 
did not file the deed for some 10 months following the 
closing, which resulted in a municipal foreclosure on the 
client’s property.  
The referee in this proceeding concluded as follows. 
Attorney Session’s acceptance of employment in the sale of 
his 
client’s 
real 
estate 
when 
the 
exercise 
of 
his 
professional judgment was or could reasonably have been 
affected by his own interest without making full disclosure 
of that interest and without the client’s consent to that 
 
 
No. 96-1901-D 
 
 
4
representation violated SCR 20:1.7(b).
2 His failure to 
decline the proffered employment when the exercise of his 
independent professional judgment on behalf of the client 
was or was likely to be affected by his acceptance of it, 
when it involved him in representing differing interests, 
and without his making full disclosure to the client of the 
possible effect of that representation on the exercise of 
his independent professional judgment and obtaining the 
client’s 
consent 
to such 
representation 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.8(a)(2).
3 His allowing a false notarization placed on 
the warranty deed violated SCR 20:8.4(c).
4  
                                                          
 
2  SCR 20:1.7 provides, in pertinent part: Conflict of 
interest: general rule 
. . . 
(b) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the 
representation of that client may be materially limited by 
the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client or to a 
third person, or by the lawyer’s own interests, unless: 
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation 
will not be adversely affected; and 
(2) the client consents in writing after consultation. 
When representation of multiple clients in a single matter 
is undertaken, the consultation shall include explanation of 
the implications of the common representation and the 
advantages and risks involved. 
 
3  SCR 20:1.8 provides, in pertinent part: Conflict of 
interest: prohibited transactions 
(a) A lawyer shall not enter into a business 
transaction with a client or knowingly acquire an ownership, 
possessory, security or other pecuniary interest adverse to 
a client unless: 
. . . 
(2) the client is given a reasonable opportunity to 
seek the advice of independent counsel in the transaction; 
 
4  SCR 20:8.4 provides, in pertinent part: Misconduct 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: 
. . . 
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation; 
(continued  . . . ) 
 
 
No. 96-1901-D 
 
 
5
In a second matter, Attorney Session failed to prepare 
and file an application for bail for a client until 15 
months after he had received the trial transcript and two 
years after the client’s sentencing and incarceration. After 
he failed to perfect an appeal on the client’s behalf, the 
court appointed a public defender to represent the client. 
The referee concluded that this constituted neglect of a 
legal matter and failure to properly communicate with a 
client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3
5 and 1.4.
6  
A 
third 
matter 
concerned 
Attorney 
Session’s 
representation of a client in a divorce proceeding. After 
obtaining a default judgment on behalf of the client, 
Attorney Session did not contact his client regarding 
completion of the proceeding for a year. He ultimately filed 
a judgment for divorce with the court some 20 months after 
the default hearing had been held. The referee concluded 
that Attorney Session neglected this legal matter and failed 
to properly communicate the status of it to his client, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.3 and 1.4.  
                                                                                                                                                                             
 
5  SCR 20:1.3 provides: Diligence 
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing a client. 
 
6  SCR 20:1.4 provides: Communication 
(a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed 
about the status of a matter and promptly comply with 
reasonable requests for information. 
(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent 
reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed 
decisions regarding the representation. 
 
 
No. 96-1901-D 
 
 
6
The 
fourth 
matter 
considered 
in 
the 
New 
York 
disciplinary 
proceeding 
concerned 
Attorney 
Session’s 
representation of a criminal defendant. Following the 
client’s conviction, Attorney Session filed a notice of 
appeal on only one of several counts, and that was filed one 
day beyond the statutory deadline. He also failed to serve a 
copy of the notice of appeal on the prosecutor.  In 
addition, he failed to serve a notice of appeal of a 
companion conviction of the client on a probation violation. 
Attorney Session did not respond to written requests by the 
client’s successor attorney seeking specific file material 
and other information. The referee concluded that such 
conduct violated SCR 20:1.3.  
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to withdraw the notice of 
appeal is granted.  
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of Jerry A. 
Session to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a 
period of one year, effective the date of this order.  
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Jerry A. Session 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 
Jerry A. Session to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain 
suspended until further order of the court.  
 
 
No. 96-1901-D 
 
 
7
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jerry A. Session comply with 
the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
 
 
 
No. 96-1901-D 
 
 
8
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
96-1901-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against 
Jerry A. Session, 
Attorney at Law. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SESSION 
 
 
Opinion Filed: November 15, 1996 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument:  
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred:  
 
Dissented:  
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: