Title: Kevin M. Jereczek v.

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

No. 96-0795-D 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
 
 
 
 
No.  96-0795-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN             :                IN SUPREME COURT 
                                                                   
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against KEVIN M. JERECZEK, Attorney at Law. 
 
FILED 
 
 
APR 18, 1996 
 
 
 Marilyn L. Graves 
  Clerk of Supreme Court 
  
Madison, WI  
 
                                                                 
  
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney's 
license 
suspended. 
 
PER CURIAM.   We review, pursuant to SCR 21.09(3m),
1 the 
complaint 
filed 
by 
the 
Board 
of 
Attorneys 
Professional 
                     
     
1  SCR 21.09 provides, in pertinent part:  Procedure. 
 
. . . 
 
(3m)  The board may file with a complaint a stipulation by 
the board and the respondent attorney to the facts, conclusions of 
law and discipline to be imposed.  The supreme court may consider 
the complaint and stipulation without appointing a referee.  If 
the supreme court approves the stipulation, it shall adopt the 
stipulated facts and conclusions of law and impose the stipulated 
discipline.  If the supreme court rejects the stipulation, a 
referee shall be appointed pursuant to sub. (4) and the matter 
shall proceed pursuant to SCR chapter 22.  A stipulation that is 
rejected has no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to the 
respondent's defense of the proceeding or the board's prosecution 
of the complaint.   
 
No. 96-0795-D 
 
 
 
2 
Responsibility (Board) alleging that Attorney Kevin M. Jereczek 
engaged in professional misconduct and the parties' stipulation to 
those allegations and to the imposition of a 60-day license 
suspension as discipline for it.  The misconduct consists of 
Attorney Jereczek's having acted in the presence of a conflict of 
interest 
without 
a 
former 
client's 
written 
consent 
after 
consultation, his neglect of two client legal matters and failure 
to contact the client in one of them, his continuing to practice 
law while ineligible for failure to comply with continuing legal 
education requirements, and his misrepresentation to a court 
concerning his eligibility to appear in a proceeding.   
 
We determine that the professional misconduct to which the 
parties have stipulated warrants the suspension of Attorney 
Jereczek's license to practice law in Wisconsin for 60 days.  This 
is the second time he is being subjected to discipline for 
misconduct, and the misconduct established in this proceeding 
constitutes a serious breach of his professional obligations to 
clients and to the courts.   
 
Attorney Jereczek was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin 
in 1988 and practices in Green Bay.  He was suspended from 
practice June 6, 1995 for failure to comply with continuing legal 
education requirements and reinstated August 23, 1995.  He was 
disciplined previously by the Board, which privately reprimanded 
him in February, 1993 for having drafted and presented to a third 
person a document he misrepresented as a conformed copy of a court 
 
No. 96-0795-D 
 
 
 
3 
order in his divorce action when in fact no such order existed and 
no divorce action had been filed.   
 
The parties stipulated in this proceeding to the following 
misconduct.  In February, 1993, Attorney Jereczek was associated 
with a law firm whose principal lawyer previously had represented 
a person in various business matters.  When, on February 5, 1993, 
that person's business partner asked the law firm for legal 
assistance, the firm's principal referred him to Attorney 
Jereczek.   
Attorney Jereczek met with the new client for 
approximately one hour, during which he was given a detailed 
history of the real estate transactions between that client and 
his partner.  Shortly before that meeting, the client had received 
a notice from the owners of the property where the partnership's 
business was conducted that they intended to sell it to a third 
party, and the client sought legal assistance concerning his 
rights and options.  The client told Attorney Jereczek of various 
difficulties he was having with his partner concerning the 
business and stated that the partnership eventually would be 
dissolved.  Attorney Jereczek then discussed the need for the 
client to send a letter to his partner notifying him of the 
receipt of an option to purchase and related matters.  The meeting 
resulted in an attorney-client relationship.  
 
Shortly after that meeting, the client learned that the law 
firm had done legal work for his partner and told Attorney 
Jereczek he did not believe it would be in his or Attorney 
 
No. 96-0795-D 
 
 
 
4 
Jereczek's best interests to continue the representation in these 
matters because of the firm's prior representation of his partner. 
 The attorney-client relationship then terminated.   
 
The following month, the man's partner went to the law firm 
for advice concerning his rights in the partnership and the option 
to purchase the business property.  Attorney Jereczek assisted 
that client in writing a letter to his partner, the former client, 
claiming a right of first refusal regarding the sale or purchase 
of that property and claiming that, under the general partnership 
agreement, he should have been consulted.  The letter further put 
the former client on notice that the client claimed a one-third 
ownership interest in the property the former client was 
attempting to acquire.   
 
The business relationship between the partners deteriorated 
and Attorney Jereczek drafted the summons and complaint commencing 
an action by the client against the former client in January, 
1994.  The former client objected to that representation on the 
ground that he had met with Attorney Jereczek previously and had 
disclosed confidential information to him.  Even after the former 
client filed a grievance with the Board, Attorney Jereczek 
continued representing the client against him.   
 
The parties stipulated that Attorney Jereczek's conduct in 
this matter violated SCR 20:1.9(a),
2 as a conflict of interest 
                     
     
2  SCR 21.09 provides, in pertinent part:  Conflict of 
interest:  former client 
 
No. 96-0795-D 
 
 
 
5 
resulting from representing a person in a matter in which the 
lawyer formerly represented a client in which their interests are 
materially adverse, without the former client's written consent 
after consultation.   
 
In a second matter, Attorney Jereczek was retained in March, 
1993 to represent a client in a divorce action.  Prior to the 
commencement of that action and while it was pending, the client 
asked Attorney Jereczek to obtain for him as much child visitation 
as possible.  The temporary visitation order was unsatisfactory to 
the client in that respect and he tried unsuccessfully many times 
to have Attorney Jereczek petition to have it amended, but 
Attorney Jereczek did not do so.  The final hearing in the action 
was postponed several times and as of one week prior to the final 
hearing date, Attorney Jereczek had done no preparation.  He also 
failed to notify the client of the date of the hearing and 
prepared no financial disclosures, with the result that the client 
had to retain other counsel to proceed with the hearing.   
 
The divorce client had suffered a personal injury prior to 
retaining Attorney Jereczek and spoke with him about representing 
him on that claim.  Although he denied ever having agreed to 
represent 
the 
client 
in 
the 
matter, 
Attorney 
Jereczek 
(..continued) 
 
A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter 
shall not:   
 
(a)  represent another person in the same or a substantially 
related matter in which that person's interests are materially 
adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former 
client consents in writing after consultation; 
 
No. 96-0795-D 
 
 
 
6 
misrepresented in a letter of September 13, 1993 that he was 
acting on behalf of the client in the personal injury case, which 
he expected to be resolved within three to six months.   
 
The parties stipulated that the foregoing conduct constituted 
failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing 
a 
client, 
in 
violation 
of 
SCR 
20:1.3,
3 
and 
misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).
4   
 
A third matter concerned Attorney Jereczek's conduct in a 
foreclosure for which he was retained in October, 1993 and given a 
$500 retainer.  The client had sold real estate on a land contract 
and sought to have it foreclosed against the purchaser's assignee. 
 The client repeatedly tried to contact Attorney Jereczek 
regarding the status of the foreclosure but he would not return 
her calls.  Attorney Jereczek never commenced a foreclosure action 
but told the client he had, stating that the reason it was taking 
so long to get a hearing date was because of a backlog in the 
court.  When the client told the purchaser that a foreclosure 
action had been commenced, she was told that he had never been 
served with foreclosure papers.   
                     
     
3  SCR 20:1.3 provides:  Diligence 
 
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client.   
     
4  SCR 20:8.4 provides, in pertinent part:  Misconduct 
 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:   
 
. . . 
 
(c)  engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or 
misrepresentation; 
 
No. 96-0795-D 
 
 
 
7 
 
On May 30, 1994, the client wrote Attorney Jereczek that she 
had been unable to reach him by telephone and wanted a court date 
set immediately, asking to be notified of the date and when she 
could expect to get her property back.  Still unable to reach 
Attorney Jereczek, she contacted his prior law firm, which located 
the client's file in the matter, with only a copy of the land 
contract and a list of back taxes in it.  Attorney Jereczek was 
able to produce only three time slips in the matter showing 
contact with the client and review of the file totaling 1.2 hours. 
  
 
The property was subsequently sold and the client was paid in 
full without having to commence a foreclosure action.  The client 
pursued fee arbitration with the State Bar and obtained the refund 
of her retainer.   
 
The parties stipulated that Attorney Jereczek's conduct 
constituted a failure to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing this client, in violation of SCR 
20:1.3, his failure to respond to the client's request for 
information and keep her informed of the status of her legal 
matter 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.4(a),
5 
and 
his 
misrepresentations 
concerning the commencement of a foreclosure action and the 
                     
     
5  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. 96-0795-D 
 
 
 
8 
reasons for the delay in obtaining a court date constituted 
misrepresentations, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).   
 
The last matter concerned Attorney Jereczek's continued 
practice of law while ineligible to do so because of his failure 
to comply with continuing legal education requirements.  That 
ineligibility commenced June 6, 1995, and the Board of Bar 
Examiners notified him and the circuit court in Brown county of 
that fact.  Attorney Jereczek was reinstated August 22, 1995, 
having complied with the education requirements.    
 
While ineligible to practice law, Attorney Jereczek appeared 
in circuit court for Brown county on behalf of a defendant in a 
civil action.   On July 21, 1995, before proceeding further, the 
court asked him whether he had been reinstated to practice, 
Attorney Jereczek told the court he had been reinstated and was in 
compliance as of the preceding week.  The court then proceeded 
with the hearing, at which the parties stipulated to dismissal of 
the action and submission of the matter to arbitration.   
 
The parties stipulated that Attorney Jereczek's conduct in 
this matter constituted the practice of law in violation of the 
regulation of the legal profession, contrary to SCR 20:5.5(a)
6 and 
                     
     
6  SCR 20:5.5 provides, in pertinent part:  Unauthorized 
practice of law 
 
A lawyer shall not:   
 
(a)  practice law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates 
the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction; 
 
No. 96-0795-D 
 
 
 
9 
SCR 22.26(2),
7 and his knowingly false statement of fact to the 
court violated SCR 20:3.3(a)(1).
8   
 
We approve the stipulation filed with the complaint and adopt 
the facts set forth in it concerning Attorney Jereczek's 
professional misconduct.  We also adopt the stipulated conclusions 
concerning the violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct for 
Attorneys.  The 60-day license suspension to which the parties 
agreed is appropriate discipline to impose on Attorney Jereczek 
for that professional misconduct.   
 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Kevin M. Jereczek 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
commencing May 27, 1996.   
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this 
order Kevin M. Jereczek 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, 
                     
     
7  SCR 22.26 provides, in pertinent part:  Activities on 
revocation or suspension of license. 
 
. . . 
 
(2)  A suspended or disbarred attorney may not engage in the 
practice of law or in any law work activity customarily done by 
law students, law clerks or other paralegal personnel, except that 
he or she may engage in law related work for a commercial employer 
not itself engaged in the practice of law.   
     
8  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. 96-0795-D 
 
 
 
10 
the license of Kevin M. Jereczek to practice law in Wisconsin 
shall remain suspended until further order of the court.   
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Kevin M. Jereczek 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. 96-0795-D 
 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
                                                              
 
Case No.: 
 
96-0795-D 
                                                              
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary 
 
 
 
Proceedings against 
 
 
 
Kevin M. Jereczek, 
 
 
 
Attorney at Law. 
 
 
 
__________________________ 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST JERECZEK 
 
                                                              
 
Opinion Filed:  
April 18, 1996 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
                                                              
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
                                                              
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating: 
 
                                                              
 
ATTORNEYS: