Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Earl A. Charlton

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2002 WI 128 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
87-1021-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Earl A. Charlton, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation f/k/a Board  
of Attorneys Professional Responsibility,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
Earl A. Charlton,  
 
Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
REINSTATEMENT OF CHARLTON 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 27, 2002   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2002 WI 128 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  87-1021-D  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Earl A. Charlton, Attorney at  
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation f/k/a Board  
of Attorneys Professional Responsibility,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Earl A. Charlton,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
NOV 27, 2002 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
PETITION for reinstatement.  Reinstatement granted.    
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that Earl A. Charlton's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin be reinstated.  The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
and the Board of Bar Examiners join in that recommendation. 
¶2 
We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and agree with his recommendation that Earl 
A. Charlton's license to practice law be reinstated, subject to 
compliance 
with 
current 
Continuing 
Legal 
Education 
(CLE) 
No. 
87-1021-D   
 
2 
 
requirements.  In addition, Mr. Charlton shall be required to 
pay the costs of the reinstatement proceeding. 
¶3 
Earl 
Charlton 
was 
admitted 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin in 1950 and engaged in private practice in Milwaukee.  
In 1993 Mr. Charlton's license to practice law was revoked based 
on 
professional 
misconduct 
involving 
complex 
conflict 
of 
interest matters with respect to business ventures in which he 
was involved both as a lawyer representing clients and as an 
investor. 
 
The 
misconduct 
included 
engaging 
in 
misrepresentations to parties in business transactions in which 
he was professionally and personally involved, attempting to 
settle a client's case in exchange for a favorable letter to the 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR) (the 
predecessor to OLR), failing to maintain complete trust account 
records, making misrepresentations to BAPR, and practicing law 
under the name of a firm suggesting a partnership or service 
corporation when there was none.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Charlton, 174 Wis. 2d 844, 498 N.W.2d 380 
(1993).   
¶4 
Mr. Charlton filed a petition for reinstatement in 
August 1998.  After conducting public hearings BAPR recommended 
against reinstating Mr. Charlton's license at that time.  This 
court denied his petition for reinstatement by order dated May 
8, 2001.  This court also waived the waiting period for filing a 
new petition for reinstatement and provided that Mr. Charlton 
could immediately file a new petition for reinstatement. 
No. 
87-1021-D   
 
3 
 
¶5 
On July 6, 2001, Mr. Charlton filed a second petition 
for reinstatement of his license under SCR 22.28.1  Attorney 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.28 provides: License reinstatement. 
(1) An attorney suspended from the practice of 
law for nonpayment of state bar membership dues or 
failure to comply with the trust account certification 
requirement or continuing legal education requirements 
may seek reinstatement under the following rules, as 
applicable: 
(a) An attorney whose suspension for nonpayment 
of state bar membership dues has been for a period of 
less than 3 consecutive years may seek reinstatement 
under SCR 10.03(6m)(a). 
(b) An attorney whose suspension for failure to 
comply 
with 
the 
continuing 
legal 
education 
requirements has been for a period of less than 3 
consecutive years may seek reinstatement under SCR 
31.11(1).  
(c) An attorney whose suspension for nonpayment 
of state bar membership dues has been for a period of 
3 or more consecutive years may seek reinstatement 
under SCR 10.03(6m)(b). 
(d) An attorney whose suspension for failure to 
comply 
with 
the 
continuing 
legal 
education 
requirements has been for a period of 3 or more 
consecutive years may seek reinstatement under SCR 
31.11(1m). 
(e) An attorney 
who 
has 
been 
suspended for 
failure to comply with the trust account certification 
requirement 
under 
SCR 
20:1.15(g) 
may 
seek 
reinstatement under SCR 10.03(6m)(c). 
(2) The license of an attorney suspended for 
misconduct 
for 
less 
than 
six 
months 
shall 
be 
reinstated by the supreme court upon the filing of an 
affidavit with the director showing full compliance 
with all the terms and conditions of the order of 
suspension and the director's notification to the 
supreme court of the attorney's full compliance. 
No. 
87-1021-D   
 
4 
 
Timothy C. Vocke was assigned as referee.  The referee held a 
public hearing on the reinstatement petition in August 2002.  
Various witnesses testified at the hearing.  The referee issued 
his report and recommendation on September 11, 2002. 
¶6 
The referee found that no evidence was presented at 
the public hearing to cast doubt upon Mr. Charlton's present 
qualifications to practice law and that Mr. Charlton had 
satisfactorily 
addressed 
all 
of 
the 
requirements 
for 
reinstatement set forth in SCR 22.29(4).2   
                                                                                                                                                             
(3) The license of an attorney that is revoked or 
suspended for misconduct for six months or more shall 
be reinstated pursuant to the procedure set forth in 
SCR 22.29 to 22.33 and only by order of the supreme 
court.  
2 SCR 22.29(4) provides: 
(4) The petition for reinstatement shall show all 
of the following: 
(a) The 
petitioner 
desires 
to 
have 
the 
petitioner's license reinstated. 
(b) The petitioner has not practiced law during 
the period of suspension or revocation. 
(c) The petitioner has complied fully with the 
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and 
will 
continue 
to 
comply 
with 
them 
until 
the 
petitioner's license is reinstated. 
(d) The petitioner has maintained competence and 
learning in the law by attendance at identified 
educational activities. 
(e) The petitioner's conduct since the suspension 
or revocation has been exemplary and above reproach. 
(f) The petitioner has a proper understanding of 
and attitude toward the standards that are imposed 
No. 
87-1021-D   
 
5 
 
¶7 
The referee's report indicates that Mr. Charlton said 
he fully understood that his license to practice law was revoked 
because of various conflicts of interest that arose when he was 
trying to represent himself, his businesses, and various 
partners.  Mr. Charlton said he not only understood why his 
license was revoked but agreed that revocation was appropriate, 
and he said he knows what he has to do in the future to avoid 
conflicts.  He said if his license to practice law is reinstated 
he will not provide legal services to any of his various 
businesses.  He said the reason he wants his license reinstated 
is so he can be "of counsel" with his son's law firm providing 
mentoring and assistance to the various attorneys in the firm.  
                                                                                                                                                             
upon members of the bar and will act in conformity 
with the standards. 
(g) The petitioner can safely be recommended to 
the legal profession, the courts and the public as a 
person fit to be consulted by others and to represent 
them and otherwise act in matters of trust and 
confidence and in general to aid in the administration 
of justice as a member of the bar and as an officer of 
the courts. 
(h) The petitioner has fully complied with the 
requirements set forth in SCR 22.26. 
(j) The petitioner's proposed use of the license 
if reinstated. 
(k) A full description of all of the petitioner's 
business activities during the period of suspension or 
revocation. 
(m) The petitioner has made restitution to or 
settled all claims of persons injured or harmed by 
petitioner's misconduct or, if not, the petitioner's 
explanation of the failure or inability to do so. 
No. 
87-1021-D   
 
6 
 
He said he has no desire to start his own law practice and would 
like an opportunity to handle cases on a pro bono basis. 
¶8 
After a review of the record we conclude that Earl A. 
Charlton has established by clear, satisfactory, and convincing 
evidence 
that 
he 
has 
satisfied 
all 
the 
criteria 
for 
reinstatement.  Accordingly, we adopt the referee's findings of 
fact and conclusions of law and we agree with the referee's 
recommendation that Mr. Charlton's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin be reinstated. 
¶9 
IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement of 
the license of Earl A. Charlton to practice law in Wisconsin is 
granted, effective the date of this order, subject to compliance 
with current CLE requirements. 
¶10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within six months of the 
date of this order Earl A. Charlton pay to the OLR the costs of 
this proceeding.  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 Earl A. 
Charlton to practice law in Wisconsin shall be suspended until 
further order of the court.  
No. 
87-1021-D   
 
 
 
1