Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jevon Jones Jaconi

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2014 WI 110 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2003AP2039-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jevon Jones Jaconi, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Jevon Jones Jaconi, 
          Respondent.   
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST JACONI 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 7, 2014 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2014 WI 110
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2003AP2039-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jevon Jones Jaconi, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Jevon Jones Jaconi, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 7, 2014 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.  Reinstatement denied.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of the referee, Kevin L. Ferguson, that Attorney Jevon Jones 
Jaconi's petition for the reinstatement of his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin be denied.  After careful review of 
the matter, we agree that Attorney Jaconi has not satisfied the 
requirements for reinstatement, and we therefore deny his 
reinstatement petition.  We further agree with the referee that 
Attorney Jaconi should be required to pay the full costs of the 
No. 
2003AP2039-D   
 
2 
 
reinstatement proceeding, which are $4,691.38 as of May 29, 
2014. 
¶2 
The standards that apply to all petitions seeking 
reinstatement after a disciplinary suspension or revocation are 
set forth in Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.31(1).  In particular, 
the 
petitioning 
attorney 
must 
demonstrate 
by 
clear, 
satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he or she has the 
moral character necessary to practice law in this state, that 
his or her resumption of the practice of law will not be 
detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of 
the public interest, and that the attorney has complied fully 
with the terms of the suspension order and of SCR 22.26.  In 
addition, SCR 22.31(1)(c) incorporates the statements that a 
petition 
for 
reinstatement 
must 
contain 
pursuant 
to 
SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(4m).  Thus, the petitioning attorney must 
demonstrate 
that 
the 
required 
representations 
in 
the 
reinstatement petition are substantiated. 
¶3 
Attorney Jaconi was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1998.  His license was administratively suspended 
in 2003 for failure to comply with mandatory continuing legal 
education (CLE) requirements.  On November 7, 2003, this court 
suspended Attorney Jaconi's license for one year as discipline 
for 20 counts of misconduct involving seven separate clients.  
The 
misconduct 
included 
failing 
to 
provide 
competent 
representation; failing to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing a client; failing to keep a client 
informed about the status of a matter; failing to promptly 
No. 
2003AP2039-D   
 
3 
 
refund an unearned retainer; failing to explain a matter to the 
extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make 
informed decisions regarding the representation; and failing to 
take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a 
client's interests.   
¶4 
On August 7, 2013, Attorney Jaconi filed a petition 
for reinstatement.  The petition alleged, among other things, 
that Attorney Jaconi had complied fully with the terms of this 
court's suspension order, that he had maintained competence in 
learning in the law, that his conduct since the revocation had 
been exemplary and above reproach, and that he had fully 
complied with the requirements set forth in SCR 22.26.  The 
petition acknowledged that in 2006 Attorney Jaconi was charged 
with misdemeanor disorderly conduct after a fight with his wife.  
The charge was dismissed after Attorney Jaconi complied with the 
terms of a deferred prosecution agreement which required him to 
participate in the Violence Intervention Program in Algoma, 
Wisconsin. 
¶5 
The Board of Bar Examiners filed a memorandum on 
November 26, 2013, stating that Attorney Jaconi was currently in 
compliance with the court's CLE and ethics and professional 
responsibility requirements.  The Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a response to the reinstatement petition on 
February 28, 2014.  The OLR's response stated that, contrary to 
statements 
made 
by 
Attorney 
Jaconi 
in 
the 
reinstatement 
petition, Attorney Jaconi had not fully complied with the 
restitution order in this court's 2003 decision.  The OLR's 
No. 
2003AP2039-D   
 
4 
 
response also questioned whether Attorney Jaconi's conduct since 
the suspension has been exemplary and above reproach.  The OLR 
noted that since the suspension, Attorney Jaconi has failed to 
pay taxes owed to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue and the 
Internal Revenue Service.  The OLR's response also noted that 
although Attorney Jaconi's petition stated he had fully complied 
with the requirements set forth in SCR 22.26, he provided no 
proof that he filed an affidavit of compliance as required by 
that rule.   
¶6 
The referee was appointed on September 23, 2013.  
After conducting a public hearing, the referee issued a report 
on May 13, 2014, recommending that Attorney Jaconi's petition 
for reinstatement be denied.  The referee found that evidence 
presented at the public hearing cast doubt upon Attorney 
Jaconi's present qualifications to practice law.  The referee 
also found that Attorney Jaconi made unsubstantiated and untrue 
representations 
in 
his 
petition 
for 
reinstatement.  
Specifically, the referee said that although Attorney Jaconi 
represented that he had paid all restitution ordered to former 
clients, except $7,500 owed to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for 
Client Protection (Fund), evidence adduced at the hearing showed 
that Attorney Jaconi had failed to pay T.O. the $500 ordered by 
this court.  In addition, the referee stated that Attorney 
Jaconi made no payments to the Fund until September 2013 after 
entering into a payment plan with the Fund on July 31, 2013.  
The payment plan provided for a minimum payment of $100 each 
month.  The referee noted that Attorney Jaconi made $100 
No. 
2003AP2039-D   
 
5 
 
payments in September and October 2013, but failed to make any 
subsequent payments.  The referee noted that when questioned at 
the hearing about his reimbursement to the Fund, Attorney Jaconi 
said he believed he was in compliance.  The referee said 
Attorney Jaconi's testimony in this regard was unconvincing.   
¶7 
The referee said the restitution payments ordered by 
this court were nominal.  Although Attorney Jaconi claimed that 
financial issues prevented him from making restitution, the 
referee said the discretionary expenditures on his books, as 
well as his testimony at the hearing, contradicted that claim.  
The referee found that Attorney Jaconi had the means to make 
restitution and, by Attorney Jaconi's own admission, financial 
difficulties did not prevent him from doing so.  Attorney Jaconi 
also claimed that his prior attorney caused some confusion about 
whether he should pay restitution immediately or wait.  The 
referee said that although this may have been the reason 
Attorney Jaconi failed to pay restitution, it was not an excuse 
for misrepresenting in his reinstatement petition that he had in 
fact paid all required restitution to his former clients.   
¶8 
The referee concluded that Attorney Jaconi failed to 
show by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he 
satisfied the requirements set forth in SCR 22.31.  The referee 
also found that Attorney Jaconi may not be safely recommended to 
return to the practice of law. 
¶9 
As in disciplinary proceedings, this court will affirm 
a referee's findings of fact unless they are found to be clearly 
erroneous.  Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.  See In re 
No. 
2003AP2039-D   
 
6 
 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Banks, 2010 WI 105, ¶16, 
329 Wis. 2d 39, 787 N.W.2d 809.   
¶10 After careful review of the matter, we find nothing to 
indicate that the referee's findings of fact are clearly 
erroneous.  We therefore conclude, as did the referee, that 
Attorney Jaconi has failed to meet the requirements for 
reinstatement to the practice of law in Wisconsin.  
¶11 We further determine, consistent with our general 
practice, that Attorney Jaconi should be required to pay the 
full 
costs 
of 
this 
reinstatement 
proceeding, 
which 
are 
$4,691.38. 
¶12 IT IS ORDERED that Jevon Jones Jaconi's petition for 
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin is 
denied. 
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Jevon Jones Jaconi shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this reinstatement proceeding.  
 
 
No. 
2003AP2039-D   
 
 
 
1