Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Mark E. Converse

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2004 WI 10 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
03-1518-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Mark E. Converse, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Mark E. Converse,  
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CONVERSE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 25, 2004   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: CROOKS, J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2004 WI 10 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This order is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The 
final version will appear in the 
bound volume of the official 
reports.   
 
 
 
No.  03-1518-D  
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Mark E. Converse, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Mark E. Converse,  
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 25, 2004 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This case is before us pursuant to a 
stipulation between the parties, Attorney Mark E. Converse, and 
the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR).  The stipulation recited 
that Attorney Converse filed an answer to the OLR's complaint in 
which he admitted every allegation contained therein.  The 
stipulation further provided that Attorney Converse was willing 
to stipulate to entry of an order by the referee making findings 
of fact and conclusions of law for all of the disciplinary 
No.03-1518-D   
 
2 
 
violations alleged in the complaint.  Only the appropriate level 
of discipline for the violations remained in dispute.  The 
referee, John E. Shannon, Jr., issued a report based upon the 
stipulation. 
¶2 
We accept the stipulation and the referee's report and 
determine that the seriousness of Attorney Converse's conduct 
warrants a 90-day suspension of his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin.  We also deem it appropriate for Attorney Converse to 
pay the costs of this proceeding.  
¶3 
Attorney Converse was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1973 and practices in Green Bay.  In 1985 he 
consented to the imposition of a public reprimand for neglect of 
a client matter and representation in a conflict of interest 
situation.  In 1992 he was again publicly reprimanded for 
failing to diligently pursue a client's criminal appeal and 
failing to turn over the client's file to new counsel.  He was 
also ordered to perform 200 hours of pro bono legal work.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Converse, 168 Wis. 2d 8, 482 
N.W.2d 911 (1992).  In 1994 Attorney Converse's license was 
suspended for 60 days for failing to timely file federal and 
state income tax returns.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Converse, 185 Wis. 2d 373, 517 N.W.2d 191 (1994).   
¶4 
In June 2003 the OLR filed a complaint alleging 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Converse's handling of two 
client matters.  The first matter involved Attorney Converse's 
handling of a criminal appeal for a client who was convicted of 
child sexual assault and sentenced to six years in prison.  The 
No.03-1518-D   
 
3 
 
client filed his own notice of appeal and then hired Attorney 
Converse to file an appellate brief.  The client paid Attorney 
Converse a $2000 retainer.  It was agreed that Attorney 
Converse's fees would be $100 per hour plus costs.  Attorney 
Converse told the client he had grounds for pursuing an appeal 
based on a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.   
¶5 
The client's appellate brief was due January 12, 1998.  
The court of appeals issued a delinquency notice on January 28, 
1998.  On February 2, 1998, Attorney Converse requested and 
received an extension until March 10, 1998.  On March 6 he 
requested an additional ten-day extension which was also 
granted.  On March 20 he requested and received a third 
extension until March 30.  Attorney Converse never filed a 
brief.   
¶6 
In mid-March 1998 the client asked Attorney Converse 
to also represent him in defending a ch. 980, Stats., petition 
seeking to have the client classified as a sexually violent 
person.  The state filed its ch. 980, Stats., petition after the 
client had been granted parole but prior to his release from 
prison.  The client continues to be held at the Wisconsin 
Resource Center in Winnebago, Wisconsin, under the ch. 980 case.   
¶7 
On April 23, 1998, the court of appeals dismissed the 
client's criminal appeal for failure to file a brief.  Attorney 
Converse continued to represent the client in the ch. 980 case 
until October 1999.  The client said he telephoned Attorney 
Converse every 60 days to ask about the status of the brief, and 
Attorney Converse caused the client to believe he was still 
No.03-1518-D   
 
4 
 
working on the brief.  Attorney Converse sent the client two 
letters representing that he was still working on the appellate 
brief after the appeal had already been dismissed.  Attorney 
Converse abandoned the appeal without the client's knowledge or 
consent.  He never filed a motion to withdraw from the case, nor 
did he file a no merit report.  
¶8 
The client stopped telephoning Attorney Converse in 
October 1999 when he fired Attorney Converse from the ch. 980 
case.  The client says he never fired Attorney Converse from the 
criminal appeal.  The client subsequently filed a petition for 
review in the criminal appeal alleging ineffective assistance of 
appellate counsel.  This court remanded the matter to the court 
of appeals with instructions that it reinstate the original 
appeal and allow the client to obtain new appellate counsel.   
¶9 
The 
client 
filed 
a 
grievance 
against 
Attorney 
Converse.  Attorney Converse initially failed to respond to 
letters from the OLR staff.  He later provided inconsistent 
accounts to the OLR regarding the scope of his representation of 
the client. 
¶10 The 
OLR's 
complaint 
also 
alleged 
that 
Attorney 
Converse 
engaged 
in 
misconduct 
with 
respect 
to 
his 
representation of a second client in two civil matters.  One 
matter involved the client's claim that a person had converted 
funds belonging to him, and the second matter was a Worker's 
Compensation case.  Attorney Converse told the second client his 
customary fee would be in the range of 20 to 25 percent of any 
recovery.  While Attorney Converse's fee in the Worker's 
No.03-1518-D   
 
5 
 
Compensation matter was determined by statute, Attorney Converse 
did not reduce to writing a contingent fee agreement for the 
civil lawsuit.  
¶11 The second client subsequently filed a grievance 
alleging dissatisfaction with Attorney Converse's representation 
in the conversion matter.  Attorney Converse again failed to 
respond to the OLR's letters requesting a reply to the second 
client's grievance. 
¶12 As noted above, Attorney Converse filed an answer 
admitting all of the allegations of the OLR's complaint.  After 
the OLR and Attorney Converse entered into the stipulation 
discussed above, a hearing was held for the sole purpose of 
arguing the appropriate discipline for the violations.  Attorney 
Converse argued that in lieu of a suspension consideration 
should be given to allowing him to perform community service.  
The OLR argued that a 90-day suspension was appropriate since 
this was the fourth instance in which Attorney Converse was 
being considered for discipline and lesser amounts of discipline 
imposed in the past did not appear to have deterred him from 
continuing to engage in professional misconduct.  
¶13 In his report the referee found that the facts set 
forth in the OLR's complaint had been established by clear, 
satisfactory, and convincing evidence.  The referee went on to 
conclude, as a matter of law, that Attorney Converse committed 
the following violations of the attorney disciplinary rules: 
1. 
By failing to file an appellate brief for the 
first client in a criminal case pending before 
No.03-1518-D   
 
6 
 
the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, after having been 
hired to do so, and allowing the time for filing 
a brief to expire, resulting in dismissal of the 
appeal, Attorney Converse violated SCR 20:1.3.1 
2. 
By making repeated assurances to the first client 
that he was working on an appellate brief from 
approximately June 1998 until October 1999 and by 
providing false explanations as to why the brief 
was not finished when, in fact, he was not 
working on the brief, Attorney Converse violated 
SCR 20:8.4(c).2 
3. 
By failing to respond to letters from the OLR 
staff 
requesting 
information 
concerning 
an 
investigation into the grievance filed by the 
first client, Attorney Converse violated SCR 
21.15(4),3 SCR 22.03(2),4 and SCR 22.03(6).5 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.3 provides: "Diligence.  A lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client."  
2 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: "It is professional misconduct for 
a lawyer to: (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
3 SCR 21.15(4) provides:  
(4) Every 
attorney 
shall 
cooperate 
with 
the 
office of lawyer regulation in the investigation, 
prosecution and disposition of grievances, complaints 
filed with or by the director, and petitions for 
reinstatement. 
An 
attorney's 
wilful 
failure 
to 
cooperate 
with 
the 
office 
of 
lawyer 
regulation 
constitutes violation of the rules of professional 
conduct for attorney. 
4 SCR 22.03(2) provides: 
(2) Upon 
commencing 
an 
investigation, 
the 
director shall notify the respondent of the matter 
being investigated unless in the opinion of the 
director the investigation of the matter requires 
otherwise. The respondent shall fully and fairly 
disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct within 20 days after being served 
by ordinary mail a request for a written response. The 
director 
may 
allow 
additional 
time 
to 
respond. 
No.03-1518-D   
 
7 
 
4. 
By failing to reduce a contingent fee agreement 
to writing in a matter in which Attorney Converse 
told the second client that he would charge 
between 20 to 25 percent of any recovery, 
Attorney Converse violated SCR 20:1.5(c).6 
5. 
By failing to respond to letters from the OLR 
staff, as well as failing to respond to the 
personal service of the OLR's request that he 
respond, all requesting information concerning an 
investigation into the grievance filed by the 
second client, Attorney Converse violated SCR 
21.15(4), SCR 22.03(2), and SCR 22.03(6). 
                                                                                                                                                             
Following receipt of the response, the director may 
conduct further investigation and may compel the 
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents, and 
present 
any 
information 
deemed 
relevant 
to 
the 
investigation. 
5 SCR 
22.03(6) 
provides: 
"(6) In 
the 
course 
of 
the 
investigation, the respondent's willful failure to provide 
relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 
documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure 
are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted 
in the grievance." 
6 SCR 20:1.5(c) provides: 
(c) A fee may be contingent on the outcome of the 
matter for which the service is rendered, except in a 
matter in which a contingent fee is prohibited by 
paragraph (d) or other law. A contingent fee agreement 
shall be in writing and shall state the method by 
which the fee is to be determined, including the 
percentage or percentages that shall accrue to the 
lawyer in the event of settlement, trial or appeal, 
litigation and other expenses to be deducted from the 
recovery, and whether such expenses are to be deducted 
before or after the contingent fee is calculated. Upon 
conclusion of a contingent fee matter, the lawyer 
shall provide the client with a written statement 
stating the outcome of the matter and if there is a 
recovery, showing the remittance to the client and the 
method of its determination. 
No.03-1518-D   
 
8 
 
¶14 The referee concluded that a 90-day suspension of 
Attorney Converse's law license was appropriate.  The referee 
noted that Attorney Converse's two public reprimands and his 60-
day 
suspension 
had 
failed 
to 
deter 
him 
from 
committing 
additional misconduct.  The referee said Attorney Converse's 
proposal that he be allowed to perform community service came 
too late and without any supporting evidence or other assurances 
that a workable and feasible plan could be put in place that 
would adequately protect the public.   
¶15 We accept the stipulation of the parties and the 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law.  Attorney 
Converse's misconduct represents a serious failure to comply 
with the specified Rules of Professional Conduct.  We also 
conclude that a 90-day suspension of Attorney Converse's license 
to practice law in Wisconsin is appropriate discipline for his 
misconduct.  In spite of the fact that he has received two 
public reprimands and had his license suspended for 60 days for 
unrelated matters, Attorney Converse has again engaged in 
unprofessional conduct.  Merely requiring him to perform 
community service would depreciate the seriousness of these 
offenses.  
¶16 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Mark E. 
Converse to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period 
of 90 days commencing on March 31, 2004.  
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Mark E. Converse shall pay $3322.29 to 
the OLR representing the costs of these proceedings.  If these 
No.03-1518-D   
 
9 
 
costs are not paid within the time specified, and absent a 
showing to this court of an inability to pay the costs within 
that time, the license of Attorney Converse to practice law 
shall be suspended indefinitely until further order of the 
court.  
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Mark E. Converse 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended.  
¶19 N. PATRICK CROOKS, J., did not participate.  
 
 
 
 
 
No.   
 
2