Title: Charles R. Koehn v.

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
95-2578-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against 
Charles R. Koehn, 
Attorney at Law. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KOEHN 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
March 12, 1997 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
No.  95-2578-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. 95-2578-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against CHARLES R. KOEHN, Attorney at Law. 
FILED 
 
MAR 12, 1997 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
Attorney 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney’s 
license 
suspended. 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that the license of Charles R. Koehn to practice law in 
Wisconsin be suspended for two months as discipline for 
professional misconduct. 
That 
misconduct consisted of his 
failure to comply with a rule of court requiring him to tender 
witness and travel fees to a person he subpoenaed, failure to 
advise a client charged with an ordinance violation that he was 
unable to obtain a reduction of the charge, prepare the client 
for trial, and inform the client that he had entered a no 
contest plea to the charge until after he had done so, 
misrepresenting to a court and a prosecutor in a matter in which 
he was seeking to withdraw his client’s no contest plea that he 
had taken steps to withdraw the appeal from the client’s 
conviction he had filed, misrepresenting to a client that he had 
 
 
No.  95-2578-D 
 
 
2 
made a demand on counsel for an adverse party, failing to act 
with reasonable diligence in pursuing that client’s claims and 
keep the client reasonably informed of the status of the matter, 
failing to refund to that client the advance payment of fees he 
did 
not 
earn, 
and 
misrepresenting 
in 
his 
testimony 
his 
whereabouts at a time when he had a conversation with his 
client.  
¶2 
We determine that the seriousness of Attorney Koehn’s 
misconduct 
established 
in 
this 
proceeding 
warrants 
the 
suspension of his license to practice law for the minimum 
period, 60 days. In 1991, he was privately reprimanded by the 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board) for some 
of the same misconduct, namely, agreeing with the prosecutor to 
enter a no contest plea on his client’s behalf to a criminal 
traffic charge without first consulting with the client and 
failing to inform his client of that agreement, with the result 
that when he appeared for the scheduled trial without Attorney 
Koehn, the client was unaware that the trial had been canceled 
and a plea hearing scheduled in its place. The court in that 
matter removed Attorney Koehn from representation of the client. 
Notwithstanding the reprimand, Attorney Koehn continued to 
engage in that and other professional misconduct detrimental to 
the interests of his clients.  
¶3 
Attorney Koehn was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in 1977 and practices in Green Bay. The referee in 
this proceeding, Attorney John E. Shannon, Jr., made findings of 
fact based on a stipulation of the parties and evidence 
presented at a disciplinary hearing.  
 
 
No.  95-2578-D 
 
 
3 
¶4 
In March, 1993, in the course of representing a 
criminal defendant in federal court, Attorney Koehn subpoenaed a 
witness to appear in the matter, but he did not tender the 
witness fee or travel allowance for that appearance, contrary to 
the federal procedural rule requiring that he do so upon service 
of the subpoena. The witness appeared as required and then made 
several requests, some by registered mail, for payment of the 
fee and travel allowance. Attorney Koehn ignored those requests 
until one year later, when he paid the fees after receiving a 
letter from the judge. The referee concluded that Attorney Koehn 
knowingly disobeyed the rules of the court, contrary to SCR 
20:3.4(c).1  
¶5 
In a second matter, Attorney Koehn was retained in 
July, 1993 to represent a man charged with municipal ordinance 
battery. The client did not appear at the hearing, and Attorney 
Koehn entered a plea of no contest on his behalf. While the 
client had authorized Attorney Koehn to enter into plea 
negotiations, including disposition of the charge, he did not 
authorize him to enter a plea of no contest and did not learn he 
had done so until the day after the hearing, when Attorney Koehn 
notified him that he had entered the no contest plea and the 
                     
1 SCR 20:3.4 provides, in pertinent part: Fairness to 
opposing party and counsel 
A lawyer shall not:  
. . . 
(c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a 
tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that 
no valid obligation exists; 
 
 
No.  95-2578-D 
 
 
4 
court fined him $145. The referee concluded that Attorney 
Koehn’s failure to advise his client he was unable to obtain a 
reduction of the charge to disorderly conduct, not contacting 
the client to prepare for trial, and failure to advise the 
client he would enter a no contest plea violated SCR 20:1.4(a),2 
which requires a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed of 
the status of a legal matter.  
¶6 
A third matter concerned Attorney Koehn’s conduct in 
representing a client in April, 1992 to obtain a reduction of 
the client’s prison sentence. After filing a notice of appeal of 
the conviction, Attorney Koehn filed a motion in the circuit 
court asking that the client’s no contest plea be withdrawn. At 
the hearing on that motion, the prosecutor questioned whether 
the trial court had jurisdiction to hear the motion, as an 
appeal was pending. In response, Attorney Koehn told the court 
and the prosecutor that the appeal was being withdrawn, 
asserting that a motion to withdraw the appeal had been faxed to 
the court and to the district attorney that day. Based on those 
representations that the appeal had been dismissed voluntarily, 
the court proceeded to hear the motion and the next day denied 
it. In fact, when the court denied the motion, the appeal had 
not been withdrawn or voluntarily dismissed; the Court of 
Appeals dismissed it several days after the motion hearing for 
Attorney Koehn’s failure to file a brief and appendix. Also, 
                     
2 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. 
 
 
No.  95-2578-D 
 
 
5 
contrary to his representation, Attorney Koehn had not faxed a 
copy of the appeal dismissal motion to either the court or to 
the prosecutor. The referee concluded that Attorney Koehn’s 
misrepresentations 
of 
fact 
to 
the 
court 
violated 
SCR 
20:3.3(a)(1).3  
¶7 
The 
fourth matter 
considered in 
this 
proceeding 
concerned Attorney Koehn’s representation of a client who 
retained him in August, 1994 to pursue collection of disputed 
bills for services. The client gave Attorney Koehn a $1500 
retainer in the matter.  
¶8 
While in the courthouse on an unrelated matter, 
Attorney Koehn met his client unexpectedly and told him he had 
sent a demand letter to the debtor’s attorney. In the ensuing 
two months, the client made numerous unsuccessful attempts to 
contact Attorney Koehn by telephone about the matter and then 
discharged him. Thereafter, the debtor’s attorney contacted the 
client seeking to resolve the dispute. When the client asked 
whether Attorney Koehn had sent a demand letter or at least had 
informed her that he was representing him, the attorney 
responded that she had received no communication from Attorney 
Koehn. The client’s continued attempt to contact Attorney Koehn 
was unsuccessful. The matter in dispute ultimately was settled 
without the assistance of counsel.  
                     
3 SCR 20:3.3 provides, in pertinent part: Candor toward the 
tribunal 
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:  
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal; 
 
 
No.  95-2578-D 
 
 
6 
¶9 
The client then filed an action in small claims court 
against Attorney Koehn for return of the retainer he had paid. 
Following trial, the client obtained a judgment for the full 
amount of the retainer, plus filing fees. Attorney Koehn 
appealed that decision and the matter was tried de novo in 
circuit court. At that trial, Attorney Koehn testified that he 
had not billed the client or his company for other work he had 
done on a traffic matter, notwithstanding that the court file 
included a bill from Attorney Koehn to the client in the amount 
of $800 for “traffic matters.” At trial, Attorney Koehn also 
attempted to show that his meeting with the client in the 
courthouse when he allegedly said he had sent a demand letter to 
the debtor’s attorney could not have occurred because on that 
day he was some distance away on two other matters. In fact, 
however, it was established that Attorney Koehn had appeared in 
person in the courthouse before a circuit judge in another 
matter on the date in question. The trial court ordered judgment 
for the client for the amount of the retainer less $125 for the 
initial conference with Attorney Koehn.  
¶10 The referee concluded that Attorney Koehn’s knowingly 
false statements of fact to the court regarding his presence in 
the courthouse violated SCR 20:3.3(a)(1); his false statement to 
his client that he had sent a demand letter to opposing counsel 
constituted dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation, in 
violation of SCR 20:8.4(c);4 his failure to act with reasonable 
                     
4 SCR 20:8.4 provides, in pertinent part: Misconduct 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: 
. . . 
 
 
No.  95-2578-D 
 
 
7 
diligence in pursuing the client’s claims violated SCR 20:1.3;5 
his failure to keep the client reasonably informed of the status 
of those claims violated SCR 20:1.4(a); and his failure to 
refund the retainer he had not earned violated SCR 20:1.16(d).6  
¶11 As discipline for the professional misconduct in these 
matters, the referee recommended a two-month license suspension, 
consistent with the 60-day license suspension urged by the Board 
at the close of the disciplinary hearing.  
¶12 We 
adopt 
the 
referee’s 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and determine that the appropriate discipline 
to impose for Attorney Koehn’s misconduct is a 60-day suspension 
of his license to practice law. In addition, we require him to 
pay the costs of this proceeding, as the referee recommended. 
                                                                  
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation; 
5 SCR 20:1.3 provides: Diligence 
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client. 
6 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.  
 
 
No.  95-2578-D 
 
 
8 
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Charles R. Koehn to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
commencing April 7, 1997.  
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Charles R. Koehn 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 Charles R. Koehn 
to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until 
further order of the court.  
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Charles R. Koehn comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended.