Title: Jack J. Hargrove v.

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
96-0355-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against 
Jack J. Hargrove, 
Attorney at Law. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HARGROVE 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
February 4, 1997 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
No.  96-0355-D 
 
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 96-0355-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against JACK J. HARGROVE, Attorney at Law. 
FILED 
 
FEB 4, 1997 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
Attorney 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney’s 
license 
suspended. 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report of the referee 
recommending that the license of Attorney Jack J. Hargrove to 
practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for one year as discipline 
for professional misconduct. That misconduct consisted of his 
failure to complete the probate of an estate with reasonable 
diligence, failing to respond to the personal representative’s 
requests for information regarding the status of the probate, and 
withdrawing from representation in the estate matter without 
taking reasonably practicable steps to protect the estate’s 
interests, his failure to comply with another client’s reasonable 
requests for information concerning the status of his legal 
matter and failing to respond to inquiries of the Board of 
Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility 
(Board) 
during 
its 
 
 
No.  96-0355-D 
 
 
2 
investigation of the matter, and failing to respond in the 
Board’s investigation of another client’s grievance.  
¶2 
We determine that the seriousness of that misconduct, 
the nature of which is similar to that for which Attorney 
Hargrove has been disciplined twice previously, warrants the one-
year license suspension recommended by the referee. Attorney 
Hargrove has followed a pattern of failing to protect and promote 
the interests of his clients and has shown his continued 
willingness to ignore his professional obligation to respond to 
the disciplinary authority of this court.  
¶3 
Attorney Hargrove was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin 
in 
1978 
and 
currently 
resides 
in 
Bloomington, 
Minnesota. At the time relevant to this proceeding, he practiced 
law in Cumberland, Wisconsin. He has been disciplined twice for 
professional misconduct. In 1991, the Board publicly reprimanded 
him for neglecting a probate matter and a divorce matter. In 
1994, the court suspended his license to practice law for 90 days 
as discipline for neglecting the probate of several estates and 
knowingly making a false statement to the probate court in one of 
them, failing to keep a divorce client informed of the status of 
her legal matter and respond to her reasonable requests for 
information and neglecting that matter, and failing to cooperate 
with the Board in its investigation of two matters. Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Hargrove, 182 Wis. 2d 611, 514 N.W.2d 418.  
 
 
No.  96-0355-D 
 
 
3 
¶4 
In this proceeding, the facts found by the referee, the 
Hon. Timothy L. Vocke, reserve judge, were those to which 
Attorney Hargrove and the Board had stipulated or which Attorney 
Hargrove had admitted in his pleading. The first matter concerns 
his conduct representing a client who retained him in January, 
1994, to draft two deeds, for which he paid $120 for the 
attorney’s services and the recording fees. The client executed 
the deeds on March 4, 1994, and when he did not receive the 
recorded deeds in the time Attorney Hargrove told him to expect 
them, the client made several telephone calls to Attorney 
Hargrove.  
¶5 
The client received one of the deeds the last week of 
May, 1994 and  over the next six months attempted to learn the 
status of the other deed. On the few occasions he was able to 
reach him, Attorney Hargrove said he would check on the matter 
and contact the client, but he did not give the client any 
further information about it. The client ultimately received the 
deed from the register of deeds office in April, 1995. The 
register of deeds noted that she had attempted to return the deed 
to Attorney Hargrove because he had failed to pay the recording 
fee, but after some eight months, her letter was unclaimed.  
¶6 
The client filed a grievance with the Board in 
November, 1994, and the Board asked Attorney Hargrove for a 
written response. In his response, Attorney Hargrove claimed to 
have received a note from the register of deeds but not the deed 
 
 
No.  96-0355-D 
 
 
4 
itself, asserting that apparently it had been lost in the mail. 
When the Board asked him for additional information about his 
handling of that deed, Attorney Hargrove did not respond. A 
second letter from the Board, sent certified mail, was returned 
unclaimed. Attorney Hargrove twice was asked by the district 
professional responsibility committee to appear for questioning 
in the matter but did not appear.  
¶7 
The referee concluded that Attorney Hargrove’s conduct 
in this matter violated the following rules of professional 
conduct. His failure to respond to numerous inquiries from his 
client regarding the status of the deed that was to be recorded 
violated SCR 20:1.4(a),1 which requires an attorney to comply with 
a client’s reasonable requests for information. His failure to 
respond to the Board’s letter and to the district committee 
investigating the client’s grievance violated SCR 21.03(4)2 and 
22.07(3).3  
                     
1  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.  
2 
 
SCR 
21.03 
provides, 
in 
pertinent 
part: 
General 
principles.  
. . . 
(4) Every attorney shall cooperate with the board and the 
administrator in the investigation, prosecution and disposition 
of grievances and complaints filed with or by the board or 
administrator.  
3  SCR 22.07 provides, in pertinent part: Investigation. 
. . . 
 
 
No.  96-0355-D 
 
 
5 
¶8 
In a second matter, Attorney Hargrove was retained in 
November, 1987 to represent an estate. He performed services for 
the estate in 1987 and in 1989, but no further activity occurred 
in the estate after an order to show cause was issued May 19, 
1992. The personal representative tried repeatedly to contact 
Attorney Hargrove to obtain the estate’s papers and retain other 
counsel to complete the probate but was unable to get a response 
from Attorney Hargrove. Attorney Hargrove also did not respond to 
letters from the Board during its investigation of the matter and 
was unresponsive to the investigators acting on behalf of the 
district professional responsibility committee.  
¶9 
The referee concluded that Attorney Hargrove’s failure 
to complete the probate of the estate, which was opened in 
December, 1987 and had not been completed at the time of the 
filing of the referee’s report, constituted a failure to act with 
reasonable diligence in representing a client, in violation of 
SCR 
20:1.3.4 
His 
failure 
to 
respond 
to 
the 
personal 
representative’s requests for information regarding the status of 
the estate violated SCR 20:1.4(a), and his withdrawal from 
                                                                  
(3) The administrator or committee may compel the respondent 
to 
answer 
questions, 
furnish 
documents 
and 
present 
any 
information deemed relevant to the investigation. Failure of the 
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents or present 
relevant information is misconduct. The administrator or a 
committee may compel any other person to produce pertinent books, 
papers and documents under SCR 22.22.  
4  SCR 20:1.3 provides: Diligence 
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client.  
 
 
No.  96-0355-D 
 
 
6 
representation of the estate by relocating without telling the 
client how he might be contacted and without returning estate 
documents to the personal representative violated SCR 20:1.16(d),5 
which requires an attorney who withdraws from representation to 
take steps reasonably practicable to protect the client’s 
interests. Also, Attorney Hargrove’s failure to make any response 
to the Board or to the district professional responsibility 
committee in their investigation of the client’s grievance 
violated SCR 22.07(2)6 and 21.03(4).  
¶10 The third matter considered in this proceeding was 
Attorney Hargrove’s failure to respond when, in September, 1994, 
                     
5  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.  
6  SCR 22.07 provides, in pertinent part: Investigation.  
. . . 
(2) During the course of an investigation, the administrator 
or a committee may notify the respondent of the subject being 
investigated. The respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all 
facts and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct or 
medical incapacity within 20 days of being served by ordinary 
mail a request for response to a grievance. The administrator in 
his or her discretion may allow additional time to respond. 
Failure to provide information or misrepresentation in a 
disclosure is misconduct. The administrator or committee may make 
a further investigation before making a recommendation to the 
board.  
 
 
No.  96-0355-D 
 
 
7 
he was sent a real estate abstract and asked to update it, for 
which he was given a $50 payment. Neither the bank involved in 
the matter nor the client received a response from Attorney 
Hargrove, and neither was able to contact him, as his law office 
telephone had been disconnected. Attorney Hargrove did not 
respond to letters from the Board investigating the matter and 
did not respond to communications from the district professional 
responsibility committee. It was ascertained that Attorney 
Hargrove did not negotiate the $50 payment that was sent to him 
with the abstract. The referee concluded that Attorney Hargrove’s 
failure to respond to the Board’s request for information 
violated SCR 22.07(2) and 21.03(4).  
¶11 As discipline for his professional misconduct, the 
referee recommended that Attorney Hargrove’s license to practice 
law be suspended for one year. Rejecting the parties’ proposed 
six-month license suspension, the referee noted that the prior 
discipline imposed on Attorney Hargrove for similar misconduct 
has not been effective to encourage Attorney Hargrove to correct 
the deficiencies in his law practice. The referee also expressed 
concern that the facts Attorney Hargrove admitted suggest that he 
had not ceased the practice of law when the court suspended his 
license for 90 days, commencing May 16, 1994. In that respect, 
the referee noted that Attorney Hargrove had implied to his 
client in the deed matter that he was still practicing law by 
 
 
No.  96-0355-D 
 
 
8 
promising to look into the matter of the missing deed and report 
to the client.  
¶12 We adopt the referee’s findings of fact and conclusions 
of law concerning Attorney Hargrove’s professional misconduct. 
The recommended one-year license suspension is appropriate, as 
Attorney Hargrove has continued to engage in the same misconduct 
for which he has been disciplined.  
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Jack J. Hargrove to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of one year, 
commencing the date of this order.  
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Jack J. Hargrove 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, the license of Jack J. Hargrove to 
practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further 
order of the court.  
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jack J. Hargrove 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. 17091.rtf 
 
9 
 
1 
 
2