Title: James H. Dumke v.

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
98-0530-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against James H. Dumke, Attorney at Law. 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DUMKE 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
October 8, 1998 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
No. 
98-0530-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. 98-0530-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against JAMES H. DUMKE, Attorney at Law. 
FILED 
 
OCT 8, 1998 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  License 
suspension 
imposed.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that the license of James H. Dumke to practice law in 
Wisconsin 
be 
suspended 
for 
one 
year 
as 
discipline 
for 
professional misconduct, commencing April 27, 1999, the date on 
which Attorney Dumke’s current disciplinary suspension is set to 
expire. That misconduct consisted of failing to act with 
reasonable 
diligence 
in 
representing 
a 
client 
seeking 
postconviction relief, notwithstanding a court order in the 
matter, failing to respond to requests from the Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board) and the district 
committee investigator for information in that client’s matter, 
and failing to respond to the district committee’s requests for 
information concerning his conduct in another client’s matter.  
No. 
98-0530-D 
 
2 
¶2 
In addition to the license suspension, the referee 
recommended 
that 
in 
the 
event 
he 
applies 
for 
license 
reinstatement, Attorney Dumke be required to produce proof of 
having undergone counseling or treatment specifically directed to 
correcting his lack of ability or concern to represent his 
clients promptly and diligently. In that regard, the referee 
noted that Attorney Dumke has been disciplined for professional 
misconduct on three prior occasions and that the misconduct 
considered in this proceeding is the same kind that led to his 
current one-year license suspension. The referee expressed 
serious concern that the customary reinstatement process will 
adequately address his demonstrated propensity to fail to act on 
behalf of clients in criminal matters. The referee believed a 
condition requiring counseling or treatment is necessary to 
ensure that those who might rely on Attorney Dumke in the future 
to represent them in criminal matters are not victimized by his 
failure to promptly and diligently represent their interests.  
¶3 
We 
determine 
that 
Attorney 
Dumke’s 
professional 
misconduct established in this proceeding warrants the suspension 
of his license to practice law for a period of one year, 
consecutive to the suspension to which his license currently is 
subject. This is the fourth occasion Attorney Dumke has been 
disciplined for professional misconduct, evidencing a pattern of 
failure to provide clients with the representation to which they 
No. 
98-0530-D 
 
3 
are entitled, as well as failure to respond to the disciplinary 
authorities investigating reports of his misconduct. We share the 
concern expressed by the referee concerning Attorney Dumke’s 
practice 
of 
law 
in 
the 
future 
and 
determine 
that 
the 
reinstatement condition the referee recommended should be imposed 
to afford the necessary protection to future clients, the courts, 
and the public.  
¶4 
Attorney 
Dumke 
was 
licensed 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin in 1983 and practices in Janesville. In 1990, he 
consented to a public reprimand from the Board for failing to 
release a judgment lien on behalf of a client, failing to respond 
to the client’s numerous telephone calls and a certified letter 
requesting information about the matter, misrepresenting to the 
Board that he had forwarded the judgment satisfaction for 
docketing, failing to initiate legal action on behalf of another 
client, failing to respond to numerous phone calls and a 
certified letter from that client seeking information in the 
matter, and misrepresenting to the client that a court date had 
been scheduled and subsequently adjourned. In 1992, the court 
suspended his license for six months for neglecting clients’ 
legal matters, failing to provide competent representation to 
clients, misrepresenting to clients the status of their matters 
and failing to keep them reasonably informed, failing to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing clients, 
No. 
98-0530-D 
 
4 
failing to cooperate in the Board’s investigation of his conduct 
and, as a prosecutor, communicating with a party known to be 
represented 
by 
counsel 
without 
that 
counsel’s 
consent. 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Dumke, 171 Wis. 2d 47, 489 
N.W.2d 919.  
¶5 
In 1998, the court suspended Attorney Dumke’s license 
for one year for failing to meet with a client after being 
assigned by the State Public Defender to pursue an appeal or 
other postconviction relief, failing to take any action to pursue 
an appeal on the client’s behalf, failing to communicate directly 
with the client and inform him of the conclusion he had reached 
that there were no appealable issues, failing to ensure that 
communications he had with the client’s family members were 
communicated to the client, misrepresenting to the client’s 
family that he had taken actions on behalf of the client, 
misrepresenting to that client’s attorney in a deportation matter 
that he had filed an appeal, and failing to respond timely to 
Board inquiries into his conduct in the matter. Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Dumke, 216 Wis. 2d 474, 574 N.W.2d 241. 
¶6 
In the instant proceeding, Attorney Dumke did not file 
an answer to the Board’s complaint, but during a scheduling 
conference he admitted to the allegations set forth in it. The 
referee, 
Attorney 
David 
Friedman, 
made 
findings 
of 
fact 
accordingly.  
No. 
98-0530-D 
 
5 
¶7 
After being appointed trial counsel by the State Public 
Defender for a person convicted in March, 1995, Attorney Dumke 
prepared a notice of intent to pursue postconviction relief, but 
the court file indicated that the notice never was filed. In mid-
April, 1995, Attorney Dumke filed a motion in the Court of 
Appeals for an extension of time to file the client’s notice of 
intent to seek postconviction relief. The court extended the time 
for filing until April 28, 1995, but Attorney Dumke did not file 
a notice of intent or any other responsive document.  
¶8 
The client then filed on his own behalf a motion 
seeking an extension of time to file a notice of intent to pursue 
postconviction relief. Noting its prior order, the Court of 
Appeals ordered Attorney Dumke to state within 10 days whether 
the prior extension had been put to good use, thereby making the 
client’s pro se motion moot, or if no notice was filed during the 
previous extension, why it was not filed. In response, Attorney 
Dumke told the court he did not receive its prior order and said 
that a notice of intent had been filed, but he did not provide a 
copy of that notice or state when it was filed. He said that if 
necessary, he would file another notice of intent. The court then 
ordered Attorney Dumke to research whether it was necessary to 
file or refile a notice of intent or, if that relief had been 
pursued, to provide the court the details regarding the notice 
and its resolution. Attorney Dumke did not respond to that order 
No. 
98-0530-D 
 
6 
or to a subsequent order of the Court of Appeals extending the 
time for a response.  
¶9 
Attorney Dumke did not respond to two written requests 
from the Board for information regarding that matter. He also did 
not respond to a letter and a telephone call from the district 
professional responsibility committee investigator.  
¶10 In another matter, Attorney Dumke was retained to 
represent a client in a divorce proceeding, for which he 
requested and received a $1500 retainer. Attorney Dumke provided 
legal services to that client for approximately two months, after 
which the client decided to retain another attorney due to 
dissatisfaction with those services. When the client asked for a 
refund of the unused portion of the retainer, Attorney Dumke said 
that it was nonrefundable. Attorney Dumke did not respond to two 
letters from the district committee investigator to whom the 
client’s grievance was referred.  
¶11 The referee concluded that Attorney Dumke failed to act 
with reasonable diligence in representing his client in the 
postconviction matter, in violation of SCR 20:1.3,1 and failed to 
                     
1 SCR 20:1.3 provides: Diligence 
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing clients.  
No. 
98-0530-D 
 
7 
cooperate with the Board’s investigation in the two client 
matters, in violation of 21.03(4)2 and 22.07(2) and (3).3  
¶12 We adopt the referee’s findings of fact and conclusions 
of law and determine that his professional misconduct established 
in this proceeding warrant the suspension of Attorney Dumke’s 
license to practice law for a period of one year following the 
suspension to which his license now is subject. Further, we 
                     
2 SCR 21.03 provides, in pertinent part: General principles. 
 . . .  
(4) Every attorney shall cooperate with the board and the 
administrator in the investigation, prosecution and disposition 
of grievances and complaints filed with or by the board or 
administrator.  
3 SCR 22.07 provides, in pertinent part: Investigation. 
 . . .  
(2) 
During 
the 
course 
of 
an 
investigation, 
the 
administrator or a committee may notify the respondent of the 
subject being investigated. The respondent shall fully and 
fairly disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct or medical incapacity within 20 days of being 
served by ordinary mail a request for response to a grievance. 
The administrator in his or her discretion may allow additional 
time 
to 
respond. 
Failure 
to 
provide 
information 
or 
misrepresentation 
in 
a 
disclosure 
is 
misconduct. 
The 
administrator or committee may make a further investigation 
before making a recommendation to the board.  
(3) 
The 
administrator 
or 
committee 
may 
compel 
the 
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents and present 
any information deemed relevant to the investigation. Failure of 
the respondent to answer questions, furnish documents or present 
relevant information is misconduct. The administrator or a 
committee may compel any other person to produce pertinent 
books, papers and documents under SCR 22.22.  
No. 
98-0530-D 
 
8 
impose as a condition of the reinstatement of his license that 
Attorney Dumke provide satisfactory evidence to the Board that he 
has received counseling or treatment specifically directed to his 
correcting his lack of ability or concern to represent clients 
promptly and diligently.  
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that the license of James H. Dumke to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for one year as discipline 
for professional misconduct, commencing April 27, 1999.  
¶14 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
as 
a 
condition 
of 
reinstatement of his license to practice law, James H. Dumke show 
the court that he has received counseling or treatment as 
specified herein.  
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, James H. Dumke 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 James H. Dumke to practice 
law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of 
the court.  
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that James H. Dumke comply with 
the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person 
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.  
 
 
1