Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. James H. Dumke

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2001 WI 122 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
01-1338-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against James H. Dumke, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
Complainant, 
 
v. 
James H. Dumke,  
 
Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DUMKE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 21, 2001   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
2001 WI 122 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The 
final version will appear in the 
bound volume of the official 
reports.   
No.  01-1338-D  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against James H. Dumke, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
James H. Dumke,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
NOV 21, 2001 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that Attorney James H. Dumke's license to practice law 
in Wisconsin be suspended for two years for professional 
misconduct 
consisting 
of 
failing 
to 
provide 
competent 
representation to a client in violation of SCR 20:1.1.1  The 
referee also recommended that Attorney Dumke be required to pay 
the costs of this disciplinary proceeding. 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.1 provides that "[a] lawyer shall provide 
competent representation to a client.  Competent representation 
requires 
the 
legal 
knowledge, 
skill, 
thoroughness 
and 
preparation reasonably necessary for the representation." 
No. 
01-1338-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
We determine that the seriousness of Attorney Dumke's 
professional misconduct, plus his failure to respond and 
cooperate in this disciplinary investigation and proceeding, 
warrant a suspension of his license to practice law for two 
years.2   
¶3 
Attorney Dumke was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1983 and, until his license was suspended in 1998, 
practiced in Janesville.  This is the sixth time that he will be 
disciplined for breach of his professional obligations and 
violation of the court's rules governing the professional 
conduct of attorneys.3   
¶4 
On May 17, 2001, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
filed a complaint against Attorney Dumke alleging the one count 
                                                 
2 Effective 
October 
1, 
2000, 
Wisconsin's 
attorney 
disciplinary process underwent a substantial restructuring.  The 
name of the body responsible for investigating and prosecuting 
cases involving attorney misconduct was changed to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation ("OLR") and the supreme court rules applicable 
to the lawyer regulation system were also revised.  Although 
most of the conduct giving rise to this case occurred prior to 
October 1, 2000, the OLR was the investigative body that filed 
this disciplinary complaint.  References to supreme court rules 
in this opinion will be to those currently in effect unless 
specifically noted. 
3 Attorney 
Dumke 
is 
currently 
under 
a 
disciplinary 
suspension. 
 
See 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Dumke, 
227 Wis. 2d 340, 595 N.W.2d 703 (1999).  In addition, Attorney 
Dumke's disciplinary record reflects a public reprimand in 1990; 
a six-month suspension in 1992, Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Dumke, 171 Wis. 2d 47, 489 N.W.2d 919 (1992); a one-year 
suspension in 1998, Disciplinary Proceedings Against Dumke, 
216 Wis. 2d 475, 574 N.W.2d 241 (1998); and a second suspension 
later 
in 
1998, 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Dumke, 
221 Wis. 2d 252, 584 N.W.2d 539 (1998).  
No. 
01-1338-D   
 
3 
 
of professional misconduct described above.  Despite repeated 
notifications and requests, Attorney Dumke did not file an 
answer to the complaint, nor did he respond to numerous attempts 
to contact him about it.  Consequently, the OLR filed a motion 
for default judgment and served Attorney Dumke with that motion.  
In addition, the referee appointed in this matter, Attorney Rose 
Marie Baron, 
repeatedly, 
but unsuccessfully, 
attempted to 
contact Attorney Dumke by letter and telephone advising him of 
an upcoming telephonic scheduling conference and asking that he 
contact her and provide a telephone number where he could be 
reached for that conference call.  Attorney Dumke, however, did 
not do so and did not participate in the telephonic scheduling 
conference that was held.  As a result, the referee entered a 
default judgment pursuant to SCR 22.15(1),4 based on Attorney 
Dumke's failure to file an answer to the OLR complaint, his 
failure to participate in the scheduling conference and his 
failure to otherwise cooperate in the disciplinary proceedings. 
¶5 
The referee thereafter filed findings of fact and 
conclusions of law and a recommendation for disciplinary 
sanctions against Attorney Dumke.  Neither Attorney Dumke nor 
the OLR have appealed the referee's report and recommendation. 
                                                 
4 SCR 22.15(1) provides:  
(1) The referee shall hold a scheduling conference within 
20 days after the time for answer and may do so by telephone.  
Each party shall participate in person or by counsel.  If no 
answer is filed, the referee may hear any motions, including a 
motion for default, at the scheduling conference.   
No. 
01-1338-D   
 
4 
 
¶6 
The referee's findings and conclusions tracked5 the 
OLR's complaint which 
alleged Attorney 
Dumke's 
misconduct 
relating to his representation of a client, Robert P., who had 
been convicted in 1986 of first-degree sexual assault and 
sentenced to 16 years in prison.  On October 1, 1996, before 
Robert P. had reached his mandatory release date, the state 
filed a petition under Wis. Stat. ch. 980 alleging that Robert 
P. was a sexually violent person.  Robert P. then retained 
Attorney 
Dumke 
to 
represent 
him 
in 
the 
sexual 
predator 
proceedings.  Robert P.'s mother paid Attorney Dumke a retainer 
fee of $5000. 
¶7 
After a probable cause hearing on the ch. 980 
petition, Robert P. was placed in secure custody at the 
Wisconsin Resource Center.  Attorney Dumke requested a lengthy 
continuance of the matter asserting that he wanted an expert to 
review the state's report supporting the ch. 980 petition 
concerning his client.  Attorney Dumke stated that he would 
inform the court when he was ready to proceed in the matter.  
His request for a continuance was granted on November 15, 1996. 
¶8 
Circuit court records reflect that no further activity 
in the ch. 980 proceedings against Robert P. occurred during the 
                                                 
5 An allegation of professional misconduct against an 
attorney in a disciplinary proceeding may be accepted as true 
where the attorney has failed to answer or otherwise respond to 
the complaint or default motion.  Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against 
Marine, 
82 
Wis. 2d 
612, 
264 
N.W.2d 
290 
(1978); 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hamm, 79 Wis. 2d 1, 255 N.W.2d 
308 (1977); and Disciplinary Proceedings Against Corning, 76 
Wis. 2d 385, 251 N.W.2d 475 (1977). 
No. 
01-1338-D   
 
5 
 
first half of 1997.  Subsequently the Robert P. matter was 
assigned to Dane County Circuit Judge Sarah O'Brien and 
scheduled for trial to commence on October 30, 1997.  On that 
scheduled trial date Robert P. appeared represented by Attorney 
Dumke.  Robert P. then waived his right to trial and admitted 
the allegations in the sexual predator petition.  As a result, 
Robert P. was found to be subject to commitment under ch. 980.  
At 
a 
subsequent 
dispositional 
hearing, 
Robert 
P., 
again 
represented by Attorney Dumke, stipulated to being confined at a 
secure mental health facility for treatment. 
¶9 
In November 1998 Attorney Dumke withdrew from the 
Robert P. matter.  Successor counsel was appointed and an appeal 
was filed.  Robert P.'s new counsel also filed a motion asking 
the appellate court to remand the matter to the circuit court 
for a hearing on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel 
against Attorney Dumke.  That remand motion was granted and an 
evidentiary hearing on that claim was held in the circuit court 
at which Attorney Dumke, Robert P., and two experts testified. 
¶10 The OLR disciplinary complaint against Attorney Dumke 
in this matter alleged, and the referee so found, that before 
being retained by Robert P., Attorney Dumke had not previously 
represented a ch. 980 client or otherwise handled a ch. 980 
case.  Attorney Dumke knew, however, that his client was 
entitled to an expert witness in the ch. 980 proceedings and 
also knew that his client was entitled to a court-appointed 
expert.  The OLR's complaint against Attorney Dumke alleged, and 
the referee so found, that Robert P.'s mother told Attorney 
No. 
01-1338-D   
 
6 
 
Dumke that she would be willing to hire an expert on her son's 
behalf if one were needed.  Attorney Dumke, however, never 
arranged for an expert to testify on Robert P.'s behalf in the 
ch. 980 proceeding. 
¶11 The referee also found that Attorney Dumke was 
unfamiliar with the testing methods and risk analysis on which 
the state's experts in the ch. 980 proceedings had based their 
opinions 
that 
Robert 
P. 
was 
a 
sexually 
violent 
person.  
Furthermore, the referee determined that Attorney Dumke had no 
experience in cross examining experts on those subjects and that 
he never reviewed with Robert P. the risk factor analysis or 
other instruments used by the state's experts in ch. 980 cases.  
Also, the referee found that Attorney Dumke never obtained an 
expert or submitted any documents or reports to an expert to 
review either for evaluative or testimonial purposes, or to help 
him prepare for cross examination of the state's experts.  
¶12 The OLR disciplinary complaint against Attorney Dumke 
further alleged, and the referee so found, that Attorney Dumke 
had failed to adequately investigate the sexual predator 
petition against his client, Robert P.  In this respect, at the 
hearing on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Judge 
O'Brien ruled that given the nature of the ch. 980 evidence and 
in light of Attorney Dumke's inexperience with that kind of 
evidence, he could not have performed an adequate investigation 
or preparation without hiring an expert for the ch. 980 
proceeding. 
No. 
01-1338-D   
 
7 
 
¶13 In addition, the OLR alleged, and the referee so 
found, that Attorney Dumke's rationale for not hiring an expert 
in the Robert P. matter——i.e. that it was "too risky" because 
the expert might provide an unfavorable opinion——was flawed 
because if Attorney Dumke had retained an expert on behalf of 
his client, that expert would not be required to disclose 
unfavorable results unless the expert testified.  
¶14 Furthermore, the referee in this matter determined 
that Attorney Dumke had failed to adequately advise Robert P. of 
the advantages and disadvantages of proceeding to trial on the 
ch. 980 petition.  The referee noted that at the hearing on the 
ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Robert P. asserted that 
if he had been informed by Attorney Dumke that there was a basis 
upon which to challenge the state's experts' opinions and 
reports at trial, Robert P. would have elected to have a trial 
on the ch. 980 petition. 
¶15 The 
referee 
also 
observed 
that 
following 
the 
evidentiary hearing on the ineffective assistance of counsel 
claim, the state filed a post-hearing brief in the circuit court 
conceding that Robert P. should be granted a new dispositional 
hearing in the ch. 980 matter in the interest of justice. 
¶16 In addition, the referee noted that in August 1999, 
Judge O'Brien ruled that Attorney Dumke's performance in 
representing Robert P. in the ch. 980 proceedings had been 
deficient and that Robert P. had been prejudiced by the 
ineffective representation.  Accordingly, Judge O'Brien vacated 
the finding that Robert P. was a sexually violent person under 
No. 
01-1338-D   
 
8 
 
ch. 980 and set the matter for trial.  However, before that 
trial commenced, the circuit court reviewed the entire record in 
the ch. 980 proceeding against Robert P. and determined that the 
evidence failed to establish that Robert P. was a sexually 
violent person.  As a result, the state's ch. 980 petition 
against Robert P. was dismissed and he was released from 
custody.  Robert P.'s release occurred more than three years 
after his mandatory release date on his sentence imposed on the 
underlying criminal conviction. 
¶17 The OLR complaint against Attorney Dumke alleged, and 
the referee so found, that after undertaking to represent a 
client in a specialized area of law with which he was unfamiliar 
and inexperienced, Attorney Dumke had failed to gain the 
requisite knowledge, do the necessary preparation, or seek 
appropriate assistance to enable him to provide adequate 
representation 
in 
the 
matter. 
 
Accordingly, 
the 
referee 
concluded that Attorney Dumke had failed to provide competent 
representation to a client in violation of SCR 20:1.1.   
¶18 The referee rejected the OLR's recommendation that as 
an appropriate sanction, Attorney Dumke's license should be 
suspended for one year; instead, the referee determined that 
Dumke's failure to file an answer and to respond to repeated 
correspondence from the OLR should be taken into account and 
should be given great weight in assessing the appropriate 
discipline to be recommended.  Thus, the referee recommended 
that, under the circumstances, Attorney James Dumke's license to 
No. 
01-1338-D   
 
9 
 
practice law in this state should be suspended for a period of 
two years.  The referee explained: 
Mr. Dumke's failure to adequately represent 
his client [Robert P.], resulted in [Robert 
P.'s] confinement in a secure mental health 
facility for an additional three years.  The 
deprivation of a person's freedom because of 
a 
lawyer's 
incompetence 
shocks 
the 
conscience and brings public condemnation on 
the legal profession.  Such an attorney's 
behavior goes beyond failing to return phone 
calls or act with reasonable diligence in 
representing a client--actions which have 
led to [Attorney Dumke's] prior one-year 
suspensions.  The referee does not believe 
that another one-year suspension will have 
any effect on Mr. Dumke's willingness to 
abide by the rules set forth in SCR Chapter 
20. 
¶19 In addition to recommending a two-year suspension, the 
referee recommended that Attorney Dumke be required to pay the 
costs of these proceedings which total $1151.68.   
¶20 We adopt the referee's findings of fact and agree with 
the conclusions of law set forth in the referee's report.  In 
addition, we accept the referee's recommended two-year license 
suspension as an appropriate sanction reflecting the serious 
nature of Attorney Dumke's misconduct.  Attorney Dumke's 
misconduct in failing to provide competent representation to his 
client and his failure to cooperate with the OLR investigation 
and proceedings are serious failings warranting a suspension of 
his license.  We believe that a two-year suspension of Attorney 
Dumke's license to practice law is an appropriate discipline for 
his professional misconduct established in this proceeding.  It 
is also appropriate that Attorney Dumke be required to pay the 
No. 
01-1338-D   
 
10 
 
costs 
of 
this 
proceeding, 
as 
the 
referee 
recommended.  
Accordingly, 
¶21 IT IS ORDERED that the license of James H. Dumke to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for two years commencing 
this date. 
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, James H. Dumke pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding totaling $1151.68.  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. 
¶23 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. 
No. 
01-1338-D   
 
 
 
1