Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jenelle London Joset

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2008 WI 41 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2007AP150-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jennelle London Joset, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Jennelle London Joset, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST JOSET 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 16, 2008   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2008 WI 41
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2007AP150-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jennelle London Joset, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Jennelle London Joset, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 16, 2008 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a referee's report finding 
that Attorney Jennelle Joset engaged in professional misconduct 
with respect to her handling of three client matters.  The 
referee recommended that Attorney Joset's license to practice 
law in Wisconsin be suspended for six months.   
¶2 
We conclude that the referee's findings of fact are 
supported by satisfactory and convincing evidence.  We further 
determine that the seriousness of Attorney Joset's misconduct 
No. 
2007AP150-D   
 
2 
 
warrants the suspension of her license to practice law for six 
months.  We also agree with the referee's recommendation that 
Attorney Joset pay the costs of the proceeding, which are 
$993.89 as of February 18, 2008. 
¶3 
Attorney Joset was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1996 and most recently practiced in Milwaukee.  On 
June 6, 2005, Attorney Joset's law license was suspended for 
failure 
to 
comply 
with 
continuing 
legal 
education 
(CLE) 
reporting requirements.  On January 20, 2006, this court 
temporarily suspended her license based on her failure to 
cooperate in an Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) investigation.  
Her license remains suspended.   
¶4 
On January 17, 2007, the OLR filed an order to answer 
and a complaint alleging ten counts of misconduct with respect 
to Attorney Joset's handling of three client matters.  In all of 
the client matters, Attorney Joset was appointed by the State 
Public Defender (SPD) to represent defendants in criminal 
matters. 
¶5 
The 
first 
client 
matter 
detailed 
in 
the 
OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney Joset's handling of postconviction 
matters for I.W., who had been sentenced to prison in February 
2003.  Attorney Joset was appointed as I.W.'s postconviction 
counsel on April 17, 2003.  Attorney Joset wrote to I.W. and 
said she would visit with him after she had received the court 
record and transcripts.  I.W. wrote to Attorney Joset on 
multiple occasions, but she failed to respond.  On April 9, 
2004, I.W. wrote to Attorney Joset saying that because of her 
No. 
2007AP150-D   
 
3 
 
failure to communicate with him, he was going to represent 
himself.  I.W. asked Attorney Joset to send him the transcripts 
and other documentation in his case.   
¶6 
On May 2, 2004, I.W. wrote to First Assistant SPD 
Patricia Flood ("Flood") complaining about Attorney Joset's lack 
of communication and her failure to file an appeal on his 
behalf.  I.W. asked Flood to have new counsel appointed for his 
appeal or else direct Attorney Joset to deliver her file to him 
and allow him to proceed pro se.  On May 12, 2004, Flood wrote 
to Attorney Joset asking her to respond to I.W.  Attorney Joset 
failed to respond.   
¶7 
On June 5, 2004, I.W. wrote to SPD Nicholas Chiarkas 
and complained about Attorney Joset's failure or refusal to 
communicate with him.  On June 18, 2004, I.W. filed a grievance 
against Attorney Joset with the OLR.  On July 7, 2004, Flood 
again wrote to Attorney Joset saying she had received another 
complaint from I.W. and asked Attorney Joset to send her 
complete file to Flood so she could give it to successor 
counsel.  
¶8 
During the OLR's preliminary investigation of I.W.'s 
grievance, Attorney Joset provided copies of three letters she 
purported to have sent to I.W.  I.W. never received any 
correspondence from Attorney Joset, nor did he receive any 
transcripts or file materials from her.  Flood was only able to 
receive I.W.'s case file from Attorney Joset in August of 2004 
when Flood went to Attorney Joset's office to retrieve it.   
No. 
2007AP150-D   
 
4 
 
¶9 
An OLR District 2 committee investigator had one 
conversation with Attorney Joset and scheduled a meeting with 
her, but the meeting was rescheduled and then never took place.  
Attorney Joset failed to respond to three letters from the OLR 
investigator. 
¶10 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Joset's representation of 
I.W.:   
   
By 
failing 
to 
either 
advance 
I.W.'s 
postconviction interests or resolve with him the 
course that his postconviction matters would take, by 
never meeting personally with I.W. and failing to show 
up for several appointments that she had made to meet 
with him, and by failing to respond to SPD inquiries 
in the matter, Attorney Joset failed to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a 
client, in violation of former SCR 20:1.3.1 
   
By failing to timely communicate with [I.W.] 
despite his November 25, 2003, January 7, 2004, 
February 19, 2004, and April 9, 2004 letters, Attorney 
Joset failed to keep a client reasonably informed 
about the status of a matter and promptly comply with 
                                                 
1 Effective July 1, 2007, substantial changes were made to 
the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct for 
Attorneys, SCR Chapter 20.  See S. Ct. Order 04-07, 2007 WI 4, 
293 Wis. 2d xv, 726 N.W.2d Ct.R-45 (eff. July 1, 2007); and 
S. Ct. 
Order 
06-04, 
2007 
WI 
48, 
297 
Wis. 2d xv, 
730 
N.W.2d Ct.R.-29 (eff. July 1, 2007).  Because the conduct 
underlying this case arose prior to July 1, 2007, unless 
otherwise indicated, all references to the supreme court rules 
will be to those in effect prior to July 1, 2007. 
Former SCR 20:1.3 provides that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
No. 
2007AP150-D   
 
5 
 
reasonable requests for information, in violation of 
SCR 20:1.4(a).2 
   
By failing to respond to three letters that were 
hand-delivered to her home by OLR's District 2 
committee investigator and failing to respond to 
telephone calls made by the investigator, Attorney 
Joset failed to provide relevant information, to 
answer questions fully, or to furnish documents, in 
violation of SCR 22.03(6),3 actionable through SCR 
20:8.4(f).4 
¶11 The second client matter detailed in the OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney Joset's representation of J.R. 
following his felony conviction in Ozaukee County circuit court.  
Attorney Joset was appointed as J.R.'s appellate counsel on 
June 4, 2002.  Trial court transcripts were filed from August to 
November 2002.  Between February and June 2003 Attorney Joset 
requested and received multiple extensions of time from the 
court of appeals to file a notice of appeal or postconviction 
motion.  Attorney Joset filed a motion for postconviction relief 
and supporting brief requesting a new trial in Ozaukee County 
circuit court on July 3, 2003.  The circuit court conducted a 
                                                 
2 Former SCR 20:1.4(a) states, "A lawyer shall keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly 
comply with reasonable requests for information." 
3 SCR 
22.03(6) 
provides, 
"In 
the 
course 
of 
the 
investigation, 
the 
[attorney's] wilful failure to provide 
relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 
documents and the [attorney's] misrepresentation in a disclosure 
are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted 
in the grievance." 
4 Former SCR 20:8.4(f) states it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme 
court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers, . . . ." 
No. 
2007AP150-D   
 
6 
 
two-day hearing on the motion and denied it in mid-September 
2003.   
¶12 On December 5, 2003, J.R. wrote to Attorney Joset 
asking for information about the status of his case.  J.R. said 
although Attorney Joset had told him she was going to file a no-
merit report, he wanted her to file an appeal.  Attorney Joset 
failed 
to 
respond 
to 
J.R.'s 
letter. 
 
J.R. 
subsequently 
repeatedly tried to contact Attorney Joset by phone and mail 
without success. 
¶13 On February 24, 2004, J.R. filed a pro se motion in 
the court of appeals called "Motion to Order Counsel to Complete 
Defendant's Appeal."  The motion asserted that Attorney Joset 
had not sought extensions of time in which to file an appeal nor 
had she filed a no-merit report, nor had the circuit court 
permitted her to withdraw as appellate counsel.  The motion said 
J.R. had not heard from Attorney Joset since September of 2003 
despite his repeated attempts to contact her, and she had not 
informed him what she was going to do regarding his appeal.   
¶14 On February 25, 2004, the court of appeals issued an 
order requiring Attorney Joset to inform it of the status of the 
case.  Attorney Joset responded by saying she had told J.R. she 
could not file an appeal that she believed had no merit and that 
his options were to file a pro se appeal, hire other counsel, 
permit Attorney Joset to close the case without any further 
action or instruct her to file a no-merit report.   
¶15 On April 6, 2004, J.R. filed a pro se motion called 
"Motion to Determine Status of Appeal" asking the court of 
No. 
2007AP150-D   
 
7 
 
appeals to inform him about the status of his appeal and of 
Attorney Joset's representation of him.  J.R. asked the court of 
appeals to order Attorney Joset to file a no-merit report and to 
send J.R. copies of the circuit court file and all transcripts.   
¶16 On April 14, 2004, the court of appeals issued an 
order saying that the circuit court records did not show an 
order had been entered memorializing J.R.'s postconviction 
motion hearing or that a transcript of the hearing had been 
prepared.  The court of appeals ordered that no later than 
April 30, 2004, Attorney Joset was to submit a proposed order to 
the circuit court denying the postconviction motion that was 
decided in September of 2003.  The court also ordered her to 
timely file a notice of appeal and a no-merit report. 
¶17 On June 21, 2004, the court of appeals received a 
letter from J.R. asking what had happened in his case.  On 
June 24, 2004, the court of appeals issued an order saying that 
Attorney Joset had not submitted a proposed order to the circuit 
court.  The court of appeals ordered Attorney Joset to take 
action or face a $25 per day penalty for each day after July 2, 
2004, that she failed to comply with the court's order.  On 
July 15, 2004, the court of appeals issued an order saying that 
Attorney Joset had failed to comply with the court's orders of 
April 14 and June 24 and ordering her to appear before the 
presiding judge to answer for her noncompliance.  The order 
stated that Attorney Joset owed an accrued fine of $200 and that 
she could avoid appearing if she submitted a postconviction 
order to the circuit court and paid the accrued fine to the 
No. 
2007AP150-D   
 
8 
 
court of appeals, with both actions to be taken no later than 
July 23, 2004.  The court of appeals sent the OLR a copy of its 
July 15 order.   
¶18 On July 27, 2004, the court of appeals received a 
letter from Attorney Joset in which she enclosed the $200 
payment and said she had filed the required postconviction order 
with the circuit court.  On July 28, 2004, the court of appeals 
issued an order saying Attorney Joset had not complied with the 
court's July 15 order because neither the fine nor the 
submission to the circuit court had reached them by July 23.  
The court further ordered Attorney Joset to turn over her case 
file to the SPD no later than August 11. 
¶19 On July 30, 2004, the Ozaukee County clerk of court 
received a letter from Attorney Joset dated July 23 enclosing a 
proposed order relating to the postconviction motion hearings 
that concluded in mid-September 2003.  On August 4 the circuit 
court entered an order denying the postconviction motions. 
¶20 Between late October 2004 and mid-March 2005 the OLR 
sent repeated letters to Attorney Joset asking for information 
about the J.R. case and also requesting information about her 
medical condition and her law practice.  While Attorney Joset 
provided some information, she failed to follow up with the OLR 
and never provided her file for J.R.'s case. 
¶21 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Joset's representation of 
J.R.: 
No. 
2007AP150-D   
 
9 
 
   
By failing to advance J.R.'s appeal or file a 
no-merit report, and by failing to prepare a required 
order denying the postconviction motion or to respond 
to orders from the court of appeals, Attorney Joset 
failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. 
   
By failing to inform J.R. of the status of his 
case while requesting and receiving four extensions 
from the court of appeals to file a notice of appeal 
or postconviction motions, and by failing to inform or 
respond to J.R. between September 2003 and February 
2004, 
Attorney 
Joset 
failed 
to 
keep 
a 
client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and 
promptly 
comply 
with 
reasonable 
requests 
for 
information, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a). 
   
By failing to comply with court of appeals' 
orders that were issued on April 14, 2004, June 24, 
2004, and July 15, 2004, Attorney Joset knowingly 
disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, 
in violation of SCR 20:3.4(c).5 
   
By failing to respond to OLR's December 28, 
2004, letter requesting her case file in the J.R. 
matter and failing to respond to OLR's March 11, 2005, 
follow-up letter, Attorney Joset failed to provide 
relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to 
furnish documents, in violation of SCR 22.03(6), 
actionable through SCR 20:8.4(f). 
¶22 The 
final 
client 
matter 
detailed 
in 
the 
OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney Joset's representation of J.M., who 
was sentenced in Milwaukee County circuit court to 30 years in 
prison and five years extended supervision following his 
conviction of two felony counts.  Attorney Joset was appointed 
as J.M.'s appellate counsel on or about August 6, 2002.  
                                                 
5 Former SCR 20:3.4(c) provides that a lawyer shall not 
"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. 
2007AP150-D   
 
10 
 
Attorney Joset filed a motion for postconviction relief which 
was denied by the circuit court on February 18, 2003.   
¶23 On March 11, 2003, Attorney Joset filed a notice of 
appeal.  She later filed a statement on transcript.  On June 3, 
2003, the court of appeals issued a notice of delinquency in 
regard to the filing of J.M.'s brief.  Attorney Joset filed a 
motion to extend the time to file the brief, and the court of 
appeals extended the deadline to July 7.  On July 3, 2003, 
Attorney Joset filed another motion to extend the time to file 
J.M.'s brief and she eventually filed it on July 8.  The court 
of appeals deemed it timely filed.  The state filed its 
responsive brief on August 6, 2003.  Attorney Joset did not file 
a reply brief.  Attorney Joset never informed J.M. she filed a 
brief on his behalf or that the state filed a response brief. 
¶24 On January 25, 2004, J.M. wrote to the clerk of the 
court of appeals asking if Attorney Joset or the state had filed 
briefs and when.  The clerk responded.  On April 20, 2004, the 
court of appeals issued a summary disposition order affirming 
J.M.'s judgment of conviction and also affirming the denial of 
his postconviction motion.  Attorney Joset did not inform J.M. 
of the court of appeals' order.  On May 20, 2004, Attorney Joset 
filed a petition for review.  Her cover letter indicated she had 
sent copies of the petition to appellate counsel for the state 
and to J.M.  On May 21, 2004, J.M. wrote to the clerk of the 
court of appeals complaining of poor communication with Attorney 
Joset and asking if she had filed a petition for review.  The 
clerk responded.  On June 2, 2004, appellate counsel for the 
No. 
2007AP150-D   
 
11 
 
state filed an affidavit of no service saying the petition for 
review had never been served on the attorney general.  This 
court denied the petition for review on September 16, 2004.  
J.M. did not learn of the court's decision until February 14, 
2005, when he again called the clerk's office. 
¶25 J.M. subsequently filed a grievance against Attorney 
Joset with the OLR.  The OLR mailed Attorney Joset a copy of 
J.M.'s grievance and sent various follow-up letters.  Attorney 
Joset failed to respond.  On December 6, 2005, Attorney Joset 
was ordered to show cause why her license should not be 
temporarily suspended for her failure to cooperate with the 
OLR's investigation of the J.M. matter.  Attorney Joset did not 
respond, and on January 20, 2006, this court issued an order 
temporarily suspending her license to practice law in Wisconsin.   
¶26 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Joset's representation of 
J.M.: 
   
By failing to inform J.M. of case developments, 
including that Attorney Joset had filed a brief with 
the court of appeals on July 8, 2003, that she had not 
filed a reply brief, and that she had filed a petition 
for review on May 20, 2004, Attorney Joset failed to 
keep a client reasonably informed about the status of 
a matter, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).  
   
By failing to timely file a written response to 
OLR's investigative letters dated April 13, 2005, May 
19, 2005, and June 17, 2005, Attorney Joset failed to 
fully and fairly disclose all facts and circumstances 
pertaining to the alleged misconduct within twenty 
days after being served by ordinary mail with OLR's 
request for a response, and failed thereafter to 
timely respond to OLR's investigative efforts, and 
No. 
2007AP150-D   
 
12 
 
thus failed to cooperate with an OLR investigation, in 
violation of SCR 22.03(2), actionable pursuant to SCR 
20:8.4(f). 
   
By failing to respond to OLR's investigative 
letter dated September 25, 2005, or to this court's 
order to show cause why her license should not be 
suspended 
for 
failing 
to 
cooperate 
in 
OLR's 
investigation in the J.M. matter, Attorney Joset 
willfully failed to provide relevant information and 
to 
answer 
questions 
fully, 
or 
to 
furnish 
documentation, and thus failed to cooperate with an 
OLR investigation, in violation of SCR 22.03(6), 
actionable pursuant to SCR 20:8.4(f). 
¶27 Attorney Joset never filed an answer to the OLR's 
complaint.  Curry First was appointed referee in the matter.  On 
May 21, 2007, the OLR filed a notice of motion and motion for 
default judgment.  The OLR also filed a memorandum regarding 
sanctions and asked the referee to recommend that Attorney 
Joset's license to practice law be suspended for six months.  
The OLR pointed out that the case involved a number of 
aggravating factors. These included a pattern of misconduct, 
multiple offenses, intentionally failing to comply with rules or 
orders of the OLR, the vulnerability of the victims, since all 
were incarcerated individuals, harm to clients due to the delay 
in processing their cases, and Attorney Joset's substantial 
experience, since she had practiced law for ten years.  The OLR 
noted the case also presented a number of mitigating factors 
including the absence of a prior disciplinary record, absence of 
a dishonest or selfish motive, possible personal or emotional 
problems, and the fact that the OLR's district committee 
investigator 
opined 
that 
Attorney 
Joset's 
misconduct 
was 
atypical of her usual character.   
No. 
2007AP150-D   
 
13 
 
¶28 The 
OLR 
said 
if 
Attorney 
Joset's 
license 
were 
suspended for a shorter period of time than six months there was 
no assurance she would be fit to resume practice since her 
communications with the OLR were sporadic at best, and in order 
to protect the public a six-month suspension would require her 
to 
affirmatively 
prove 
her 
fitness 
to 
practice 
law 
by 
successfully petitioning for reinstatement.  The OLR also noted 
that in May of 2005 Attorney Joset had indicated she was 
finishing up on a limited number of cases and intended to leave 
the practice of law for a while in order to get some health 
issues resolved.  The OLR said its more recent information was 
that Attorney Joset was actively teaching multiple courses at a 
local college relative to their paralegal degree program. 
¶29 The referee's report and recommendation were filed on 
January 29, 2008.  The referee granted the OLR's motion for 
default judgment and found that all of the allegations alleged 
in the OLR's complaint had been proven.  The referee further 
agreed with the OLR's request for a six-month license suspension 
and recommended that Attorney Joset pay the costs of this 
proceeding.   
¶30 This court will adopt a referee's findings of fact 
unless they are clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law are 
reviewed de novo.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  The 
court may impose whatever sanction it sees fit regardless of the 
referee's recommendation.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.  
No. 
2007AP150-D   
 
14 
 
The referee's findings of fact have not been shown to be clearly 
erroneous, and we adopt them.  We also agree with the referee's 
conclusions of law.  We further agree with the referee's 
recommendation for a six-month suspension of Attorney Joset's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin.  Finally, we agree with 
the referee's recommendation that Attorney Joset be required to 
pay the costs of this proceeding. 
¶31 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Jennelle London 
Joset to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 
six months, effective the date of this order. 
¶32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Jennelle London Joset pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If the costs are not 
paid within the time specified and absent a showing to this 
court of her inability to pay the costs within that time, the 
license of Jennelle London Joset to practice law in Wisconsin 
shall remain suspended until further order of the court. 
¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent she has not 
already 
done 
so, 
Jennelle 
London 
Joset 
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. 
2007AP150-D   
 
 
 
1