Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Francia M. Evers

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2003 WI 92 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
02-2147-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Francia M. Evers, Attorney at  
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Francia M. Evers,  
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDNIGS AGAINST EVERS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 2, 2003   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
WALSH BRADLEY, J., dissents.   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2003 WI 92 
 
 
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.  02-2147-D  
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Francia M. Evers, Attorney at  
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Francia M. Evers,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 2, 2003 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Court entered the following order on this date: 
 
Attorney Francia M. Evers has filed a petition for 
consensual license revocation under SCR 22.19.  She is currently 
the subject of a disciplinary proceeding commenced by the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation (OLR).  A referee has been appointed but no 
hearing has been held.  Attorney Evers submits under SCR 
22.19(2) that she cannot successfully defend against the 
allegations of the OLR complaint.   
 
The allegations of the complaint consist of the following.  
First, with reference to the conversion of approximately $4,900 
that Evers was supposed to give to a client, Eloise Frazier, 
Evers is charged with one count in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c) 
(engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and 
misrepresentation), one count in violation of SCR 20:1.15(a) 
(failure to hold property of a client in trust, separate from 
No. 02-2147-D   
 
2 
the lawyer’s own property), one count in violation of SCR 
20:1.5(c) (failing to put a contingency fee agreement in 
writing), one count in violation of SCR 20:1.15(b) (failure to 
promptly deliver to a client funds that the client was entitled 
to receive), and one count in violation of SCR 22.03(6) 
(willfully making a misrepresentation in a disclosure to OLR).  
Second, with reference to Evers’ failure to repay checks issued 
to Lura Carson, an acquaintance, for checks drawn on Evers’ 
business account which eventually bounced, even though Carson 
obtained a small claims judgment against her, Evers is charged 
with one count in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).  Third, with 
reference to a failure to properly handle bankruptcy filing fees 
for clients Joy Nellum, Eli and Joan Hollingsworth Harrington, 
and Jewel Thomas, Evers is charged with two counts in violation 
of SCR 20:8.4(c), one count in violation of SCR 20:1.15(a), and 
one count in violation of SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) (knowingly making 
false statements of fact to a tribunal). 
 
In 
addition, 
OLR 
is 
also 
investigating 
additional 
misconduct allegations against Evers which consist of the 
following.  First, violations of SCR 20:1.15(a) and SCR 
20:1.15(e) (failure to maintain complete records of trust 
account funds and other trust property).  Second, with respect 
to Evers’ role as the personal representative of the estate of 
Paula Moore Allen, violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).  Third, with 
respect to Evers’ representation of Daniel Curry regarding a 
post-divorce matter, violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).  Fourth, with 
respect to Evers’ representation of LaShawn Roscoe regarding a 
claim against a business, violation of SCR 20:8.14(c).  Fifth, 
with respect to Evers’ representation of Karl and Dawn Brien 
regarding a personal injury matter, violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).  
Sixth, with respect to Evers’ representation of Walter Gladney 
in a criminal matter, violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).  Seventh, with 
respect to Evers’ representation of James Phillips in a worker's 
compensation 
matter, 
violation 
of 
SCR 
20:8.4(c) 
and 
SCR 
20:1.15(a).  Eighth, with respect to Evers’ representation of 
Billy Stubbs in a personal injury matter, violation of SCR 
20:8.4(c).  Ninth, with respect to Evers’ failure to pay 
Professional 
Rehabilitation 
Services, 
Inc. 
for 
services 
rendered, violation of SCR 20:3.4(c) (knowingly disobeying an 
obligation under the rules of a tribunal) and SCR 20:1.15(d) 
(treating disputed property as trust property until there is an 
accounting and severance).  Tenth, with respect to Evers’ 
representation 
of 
Maurice 
Ward in 
several 
divorce-related 
matters, violation of SCR 20:8.4(c) and SCR 20:1.18(a) (entry 
into a business transaction with a client or conduct adverse to 
a client). 
No. 02-2147-D   
 
3 
 
Upon review of this matter, and notwithstanding its concern 
over Attorney Evers’ refusal to admit to the accuracy of all of 
the allegations in the pending complaint, and the qualifying 
language used in the petition, the court accepts Attorney Evers’ 
concession that she cannot successfully defend herself against 
the allegations of misconduct either in the complaint that has 
been filed or with respect to those additional matters currently 
under investigation by OLR. 
 
IT IS ORDERED that the petition for consensual license 
revocation is granted.   
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of Francia M. Evers 
to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked effective the date of 
this order. 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Evers shall comply with the 
requirements of SCR 22.26 relating to activities following 
revocation. 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pending OLR motion under SCR 
22.21(1) seeking temporary suspension of Evers’ license is 
dismissed as moot. 
 
Bradley, 
J., 
dissents. 
 
See 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against Wortley, 126 Wis. 2d 58, 62, 374 N.W.2d 898 (1985) 
(revocation by consent can occur “provided the attorney is 
willing to admit to having engaged in professional misconduct”). 
 
 
No. 02-2147-D   
 
4