Title: Stephen C. Solomon v.

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing 
and modification.  The final version will 
appear in the bound volume of the official 
reports. 
 
 
No. 95-3598-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :               
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against STEPHEN C. SOLOMON, Attorney at 
Law. 
FILED 
 
DEC 27, 1996 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
Attorney 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney’s 
license 
revoked. 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the referee 
that the license of Stephen C. Solomon to practice law in 
Wisconsin be revoked as discipline for professional misconduct. 
That misconduct consisted of his failure to provide clients 
competent representation in their legal matters, failure to give 
clients reasonable notice that he would not be in a position to 
complete their representation and refund unearned portions of 
advance fees he had been paid for it, initiation of personal 
contact with prospective clients detained in jail in order to 
obtain 
professional 
employment, 
failure 
to 
keep 
clients 
reasonably informed of the status of their matters and provide 
them sufficient information to permit them to make informed 
decisions regarding that representation, misrepresentation to a 
 
 
No.  95-3598-D 
 
 
2
client that he would represent him on a claim, having no 
intention 
of 
completing 
that 
representation, 
charging 
an 
unreasonable fee for his services in a client’s matter, and 
failure to hold advance fees obtained from or on behalf of 
clients separate from his own property. 
We determine that the nature and extent of his professional 
misconduct established in this proceeding, when considered with 
the fact that he has been disciplined three times previously, in 
part for similar misconduct, warrant the revocation of Attorney 
Solomon’s 
license 
to 
practice 
law. 
Attorney 
Solomon 
has 
demonstrated 
repeatedly 
his 
unwillingness 
to 
conform 
his 
professional conduct to the standards imposed on persons licensed 
by this court to practice law and again has shown his willingness 
to place his own pecuniary interests above the legal interests of 
his clients, interests he has undertaken to protect. 
Attorney Solomon was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin 
in 1974. He currently resides in Minnesota and is not practicing 
law. He has been disciplined three times previously: in 1984, he 
was privately reprimanded for neglecting a client’s legal matter 
and for improperly withdrawing from the representation of a 
client; in February, 1985, the court publicly reprimanded him for 
entering into an agreement for an illegal fee in a worker’s 
compensation matter and for making misrepresentation to a judge 
in a garnishment action against a former client, Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Solomon, 122 Wis. 2d 315, 362 N.W.2d 156; in 
October, 1985, the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility 
(Board) privately reprimanded him for collecting an illegal fee 
 
 
No.  95-3598-D 
 
 
3
and for writing a personally abusive letter to an attorney who 
had filed a grievance against him with the Board. In this 
proceeding, the referee, Attorney Marjorie Schuett, made findings 
of fact based on the parties’ stipulation. 
Two of the five matters in which Attorney Solomon engaged in 
professional misconduct occurred from July to December, 1993 and 
concerned his soliciting representation of jail inmates without 
having been contacted by them or anyone on their behalf and by 
gaining access to them in the jail by misrepresenting on the 
inmate visiting cards that his relationship to them was 
“attorney.” Attorney Solomon telephoned the mother of one of the 
inmates that he required $2000 in fees to represent her son, 
which she would have to wire to his bank before he would meet 
again with the client and begin work on the case. Attorney 
Solomon then opened a personal checking account in the bank he 
had specified and, after the requested fee was wired, wrote a 
$200 check on it.  
Attorney Solomon appeared at the client’s preliminary 
hearing but did not order a transcript of it and filed no 
discovery motions. At a subsequent pretrial conference, when the 
court told him his suppression motion was insufficient, Attorney 
Solomon asked the court for the name of the leading case 
governing searches and seizures. In August, 1993, he wrote the 
client that he was unable to complete the representation because 
he was about to accept a job in a different field, offered to 
sign a form for substitution of a new attorney, and said he would 
refund $500 of the fee he had received and turn over the file to 
 
 
No.  95-3598-D 
 
 
4
new counsel. He neither refunded any money to the client nor 
turned over the client’s file to the successor attorney.  
In the second inmate case, Attorney Solomon appeared on a 
motion seeking bail reduction and advised his client to testify 
about the factual circumstances underlying the criminal charges 
in order to obtain a reduction. The court admonished him and the 
client that the client would be ill-advised to waive his Fifth 
Amendment privilege in order to seek bail reduction.  
Another matter in which Attorney Solomon engaged in 
professional misconduct concerned his 
representation 
of a 
criminal defendant for whom he agreed to be substituted as 
counsel in February, 1994, knowing the case was scheduled for 
trial in about one week. At the hearing on his motion for a 
continuance held February 21, 1994, Attorney Solomon told the 
court he would be ready to try the case in a week to 10 days, and 
his motion was granted. However, on March 2, 1994, he filed a 
motion to withdraw as counsel. At the hearing on that motion, he 
acknowledged that he was unprepared to proceed to trial and 
stated 
that 
he 
had 
accepted 
the 
appointment 
with 
the 
understanding that the matter would be resolved by plea rather 
than by trial.  
On the day following that hearing, Attorney Solomon notified 
the court of his refusal to continue representation of the 
client, stating among other things that he was incompetent, 
unable and unwilling to continue to represent the client, had not 
completed the necessary interviews and investigation of the 
client’s alibi defense, had not completed necessary legal 
 
 
No.  95-3598-D 
 
 
5
research 
on 
evidentiary 
questions, 
and 
had 
not 
reviewed 
extradition papers. He also told the court that he would not be 
ready to 
proceed 
to trial 
as scheduled 
because of new 
developments in the case, he was in the process of changing 
careers, and he could not handle the case. 
The referee concluded that Attorney Solomon failed to 
provide these clients competent representation, in violation of 
SCR 20:1.1.
1 He also violated SCR 20:1.15(a)
2 by failing to hold 
in trust, separate from his own property, a retainer he received 
in connection with client representation. His failure to give 
clients reasonable notice that he would not complete their 
representation he had undertaken, his failure to refund the 
unearned portion of advance fees he had been paid, and his 
failure to contact a client’s successor counsel and turn over the 
                                                          
 
1 SCR 20:1.1 provides: Competence 
A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. 
Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, 
thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the 
representation. 
2 SCR 20:1.15 provides, in pertinent part: Safekeeping 
property 
(a) A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the lawyer’s 
own property, property of clients or third persons that is in the 
lawyer’s possession in connection with a representation. All 
funds of clients paid to a lawyer or law firm shall be deposited 
in one or more identifiable trust accounts as provided in 
paragraph (c) maintained in a bank, trust company, credit union 
or savings and loan association authorized to do business and 
located in Wisconsin, which account shall be clearly designated 
as “Client’s Account” or “Trust Account” or words of similar 
import, and no funds belonging to the lawyer or law firm except 
funds reasonably sufficient to pay account service charges may be 
deposited in such an account. . . . 
 
 
No.  95-3598-D 
 
 
6
client’s file violated SCR 20:1.16(d).
3 His initiation of 
personal contact with prospective clients by gaining access to 
them in the jail and suggesting he could defend them on criminal 
charges on which they were being held violated SCR 20:7.3(c).
4 
A fourth matter considered in this proceeding concerned 
Attorney Solomon’s representation of a client in June, 1994, in a 
visitation dispute with the mother of the client’s child and on a 
                                                          
 
3 SCR 20:1.16 provides, in pertinent part: Declining or 
terminating representation 
. . . 
(d) Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take 
steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s 
interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, 
allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering 
papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding 
any advance payment of fee that has not been earned. The lawyer 
may retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted 
by other law. 
4 SCR 20:7.3 provides, in pertinent part: Direct contact 
with prospective clients 
. . . 
(c) A lawyer shall not initiate personal contact, including 
telephone contact, with a prospective client for the purpose of 
obtaining professional employment except in the following 
circumstances and subject to the requirements of Rule 7.1 and 
paragraph (d): 
(1) If the prospective client is a close friend, relative or 
former client, or one whom the lawyer reasonably believes to be a 
client. 
(2) Under the auspices of a public or charitable legal 
services organization. 
(3) Under the auspices of a bona fide political, social, 
civic, fraternal, employee or trade organization whose purposes 
include but are not limited to providing or recommending legal 
services, if the legal services are related to the principal 
purposes of the organization. 
 
 
No.  95-3598-D 
 
 
7
potential defamation claim. Attorney Solomon entered into a fee 
agreement with the client by which he agreed to represent him in 
the visitation dispute for $500 and in the defamation matter on a 
contingent fee basis, provided he would be given a $1000 advance 
as a retainer. The client’s mother gave Attorney Solomon a $1000 
check as a retainer in the defamation matter, which Attorney 
Solomon promptly cashed. 
Attorney Solomon made a $50,000 demand on the potential 
defendants in the defamation matter but never responded to their 
attorney’s rejection of that offer. Attorney Solomon did not 
appear at the hearing in the visitation dispute, even though he 
had received prior notice of it. Toward the end of July, 1994, 
Attorney Solomon wrote the client that he would be unable to 
complete his representation in those matters and said he would 
return one-half of the retainer he had received. He never 
returned any portion of that retainer. 
In the last matter, Attorney Solomon was retained in July, 
1994 to represent a client on traffic charges, entering into a 
fee agreement for $1000 for legal services and an additional $500 
if the matter were tried. The client gave Attorney Solomon a 
$1000 check, which he promptly cashed. On July 15, 1994, Attorney 
Solomon entered not guilty pleas by mail and asked that the 
matters be set for trial. By letter of July 25, 1994, he informed 
his client that he could not complete the representation in the 
traffic matters and said he would return one-half of the 
retainer. Attorney Solomon returned none of the retainer.  
 
 
No.  95-3598-D 
 
 
8
The referee concluded that Attorney Solomon’s failure to 
appear for the visitation hearing in a client’s matter violated 
SCR 20:1.3,
5 his failure to keep that client reasonably informed 
of the status of the matter and provide the client sufficient 
information to permit him to make an informed decision regarding 
representation in it violated SCR 20:1.4(a) and (b),
6 and telling 
the client he had a viable defamation claim, accepting a retainer 
to represent him in it, knowing he had no intention of completing 
that representation but would leave the practice of law prior to 
its completion, failing to perform any significant work in the 
matter, and abandoning the client without refunding any of the 
unearned retainer he had received violated SCR 20:8.4(c).
7 The 
referee also concluded that Attorney Solomon charged the client 
an unreasonable fee by accepting a $1000 retainer and providing 
                                                          
 
5 SCR 20:1.3 provides: Diligence 
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client. 
6 SCR 20:1.4 provides: Communication 
(a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about 
the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable 
requests for information. 
(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably 
necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions 
regarding the representation. 
7 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.  95-3598-D 
 
 
9
no services other than writing a letter to the court advising it 
of the client’s not guilty pleas.  
We adopt the referee’s findings of fact and conclusions of 
law concerning Attorney Solomon’s professional misconduct in 
these matters. In addition to the license revocation as 
discipline for it, the referee recommended that Attorney Solomon 
be required to make restitution to those from whom he accepted 
advance payment of fees but did not complete the representation 
undertaken in the amount of 75 percent of the advance fees, which 
the Board had suggested. We accept the referee’s recommendation 
for license revocation and restitution. 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Stephen C. Solomon to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin 
is 
revoked 
as 
discipline 
for 
professional misconduct, effective January 27, 1997. 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of 
this order Stephen C. Solomon make restitution as specified in 
the report of the referee on file in this proceeding. 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of 
this order Stephen C. Solomon pay to the Board of Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility the costs of this proceeding. 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Stephen C. Solomon comply with 
the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person 
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked. 
 
 
No.  95-3598-D 
 
 
10
 
1 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
2 
 
3 
 
Case No.: 
95-3598-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against 
Stephen C. Solomon, 
Attorney at Law. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SOLOMON 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
December 27, 1996 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
4 
 
5