Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. John R. Dade

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2014 WI 108 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2013AP1733-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against John R. Dade, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
John R. Dade, 
          Respondent.   
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DADE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
August 21, 2014 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2014 WI 108
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2013AP1733-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against John R. Dade, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
John R. Dade, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
AUG 21, 2014 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of referee 
Hannah C. Dugan that the license of Attorney John R. Dade to 
practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for a period of 90 days 
and that he be required, as a condition of the reinstatement of 
his license, to complete six continuing legal education (CLE) 
credits in law office management, to be approved in advance by 
the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR).  The referee also 
No. 
2013AP1733-D   
 
2 
 
recommends that the full costs of the proceeding, which are 
$5,420.73 as of May 7, 2014, be assessed against Attorney Dade. 
¶2 
Based upon our independent review of the matter, we 
adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law.  We 
also agree with the referee's recommendation for a 90-day 
suspension of Attorney Dade's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin.  We further agree with the referee's recommendations 
regarding CLE credits and assessment of costs.   
¶3 
Attorney 
Dade 
was 
admitted 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin in 1983 and practices in Whitewater.  In 1991 he 
received a private reprimand for failing to communicate, failing 
to act with reasonable diligence, and failing to cooperate with 
the investigation of the Board of Attorneys Professional 
Responsibility, the predecessor to the OLR.  
¶4 
In 2007 Attorney Dade received a public reprimand for 
failure to provide competent representation, lack of diligence, 
and failure to communicate.  In 2007 Attorney Dade's license to 
practice law was suspended for 60 days for lack of diligence, 
failure to hold in trust the property of others in his client 
trust account, and failure to cooperate in an OLR investigation.  
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Dade, 
2007 WI 66, 
301 Wis. 2d 67, 732 N.W.2d 433.   
¶5 
In 2012 Attorney Dade was publicly reprimanded for 
lack of diligence, failure to communicate, failure to cooperate 
in the OLR's investigation, and failure to return a client's 
documents.  In 2013 Attorney Dade's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin was suspended for 60 days for lack of diligence, lack 
No. 
2013AP1733-D   
 
3 
 
of communication, and failure to obey a court order.  In re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Dade, 
2013 
WI 
21, 
345 Wis. 2d 646, 827 N.W.2d 86.   
¶6 
On August 6, 2013, the OLR filed a complaint alleging 
two counts of misconduct with respect to Attorney Dade's 
representation of R.K., a defendant in a real estate dispute.  A 
trial in said dispute was held in Walworth County circuit court 
in late September 2006.  Attorney Dade failed to file a brief by 
November 28, 2006, as required by the court's post-trial 
briefing schedule.  In a December 11, 2006 order, the circuit 
court informed the parties that the court would make its 
decision based on the evidence at trial and the plaintiffs' 
brief.   
¶7 
In a decision issued on January 29, 2007, the circuit 
court found that the plaintiffs had met their burden of proof 
and were entitled to ownership by adverse possession of the 
piece of land at issue.  Attorney Dade filed a notice of appeal 
on behalf of R.K.  In a May 31, 2007 order, the court of appeals 
found that Attorney Dade had not filed a docketing statement and 
informed him that unless it was filed within five days, the 
appeal would be subject to dismissal or other sanctions.  
Attorney Dade did not promptly file a docketing statement.   
¶8 
In a June 27, 2007 order, the court of appeals noted 
the docketing statement had still not been filed and indicated 
that if the original and one copy of the statement was not filed 
on or before July 9, 2007, a penalty of $25 per day would be 
imposed on Attorney Dade as counsel for the appellant until such 
No. 
2013AP1733-D   
 
4 
 
time as the docketing statement was filed.  Attorney Dade failed 
to file the docketing statement by July 9, 2007. 
¶9 
On July 11, 2007, Attorney Dade filed a stipulation 
signed by R.K. substituting Attorney C. Bennett Penwell as 
attorney of record for R.K.  Attorney Penwell was in the same 
law firm as Attorney Dade. 
¶10 This court suspended Attorney Dade's law license for 
60 days, effective July 13, 2007. 
¶11 In an August 7, 2007 order, the court of appeals again 
noted the history of Attorney Dade's failure to file a docketing 
statement.  The penalty that had accrued at that point was more 
than $700.  The court of appeals again extended the time for 
filing a docketing statement to August 17, 2007, conditioned 
upon the simultaneous payment by Attorney Dade of a $50 penalty.  
The court of appeals informed Attorney Dade that if the original 
and one copy of the docketing statement were not filed by 
August 17, 2007, Attorney Dade would be required to personally 
pay the $700 penalty, and a penalty of $25 per day would begin 
running as to Attorney Penwell personally as well.  Attorney 
Penwell filed the docketing statement on August 16, 2007.  On 
July 30, 2008, the court of appeals affirmed the circuit court's 
judgment.   
¶12 R.K. filed a grievance against Attorney Dade with the 
OLR on February 1, 2012.  Despite being provided with written 
notice of the investigation and being personally served with 
letters from the OLR reminding him of his duty to cooperate and 
informing him that he was required to file a written response to 
No. 
2013AP1733-D   
 
5 
 
the grievance, Attorney Dade failed to respond until late August 
2012.   
¶13 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Dade's handling of R.K.'s 
case: 
[Count One]  By failing to file a docketing 
statement in [R.K.'s] appeal, even after receiving 
orders from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals dated 
May 31, 2007, and June 27, 2007, ordering him to do 
so, Dade violated SCR 20:1.31 and 20:3.4(c).2 
[Count Two]  By failing to provide a written 
response to the grievance, which was due by June 25, 
2012, until providing OLR with [R.K.'s] case file on 
August 8, 2012 and a written response on August 31, 
2012, and only after receiving a letter by ordinary 
mail, a letter by certified and ordinary mail, and 
being personally served, Dade violated SCR 22.03(2) 
and (6)3 as enforced via 20:8.4(h).4 
                                                 
1 Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 20:1.3 provides that "[a] lawyer 
shall 
act 
with 
reasonable 
diligence 
and 
promptness 
in 
representing a client." 
2 SCR 20:3.4(c) provides that a lawyer shall not "knowingly 
disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except for 
an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation 
exists." 
3 SCR 22.03(2) and (6) provide: 
(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.  
Following receipt of the response, the director may 
conduct further investigation and may compel the 
(continued) 
No. 
2013AP1733-D   
 
6 
 
¶14 Attorney Dade did not file a timely answer to the 
complaint.  The OLR filed a notice of motion and motion for 
default 
judgment. 
 
The 
referee 
scheduled 
the 
initial 
teleconference between the parties to be a hearing on the OLR's 
default judgment motion.  The telephonic hearing was scheduled 
for October 17, 2013.  Attorney Dade filed an answer on 
October 17, 2013, admitting the allegations in the complaint 
with the exception of the claimed violation of SCR 20:3.4(c).  
The parties appeared via telephone for the hearing on the motion 
for default judgment.  The parties agreed to proceed to a 
hearing on the sole issue of the appropriate disciplinary 
sanction.  The sanctions hearing was held on December 5, 2013.  
At the close of the hearing, the parties requested the 
opportunity to file written briefs regarding the appropriate 
sanction.  The OLR filed its brief.  Attorney Dade did not file 
                                                                                                                                                             
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents, and 
present 
any 
information 
deemed 
relevant 
to 
the 
investigation. 
. . . . 
(6)  In the course of the investigation, the 
respondent's 
wilful 
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. 
4 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "fail to cooperate in the investigation of a 
grievance filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required 
by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), 
or SCR 22.04(1)." 
No. 
2013AP1733-D   
 
7 
 
a 
response 
brief. 
 
The 
referee 
issued 
her 
report 
and 
recommendation on March 27, 2014. 
¶15 The referee concluded that the OLR failed to meet its 
burden of proof establishing that Attorney Dade violated 
SCR 20:3.4(c).  The referee noted that the court of appeals' 
orders mentioned in the complaint were not made part of the 
record.  As a result, the referee said it was difficult to 
determine whether Attorney Dade's failure to timely submit the 
docketing 
statement 
was 
a 
violation 
of 
the 
successive 
communications from the court of appeals that rises to the level 
of a SCR 20:3.4(c) violation.  The referee said that a review of 
prior case law involving SCR 20:3.4(c) violations reveals cases 
involving clear court orders and deliberate, egregious, and 
sometimes even arrogant, violations of SCR 20:3.4(c).  The 
referee concluded that, although failing to file the docketing 
statement was not acceptable practice, and while Attorney Dade 
acknowledged that his failure to file the docketing statement 
was a violation of the lack of diligence rule, the OLR failed to 
carry its burden of proof that Attorney Dade knowingly disobeyed 
an obligation under the rules of a tribunal.   
¶16 The referee concluded that the OLR did meet its burden 
of proof with respect to the other allegations in the OLR's 
complaint.   
¶17 With respect to the appropriate sanction, the referee 
noted that the OLR sought a five-month suspension of Attorney 
Dade's license to practice law in Wisconsin.  The referee 
concluded that a 90-day suspension was appropriate.  The referee 
No. 
2013AP1733-D   
 
8 
 
agreed with the OLR that Attorney Dade's disciplinary history 
demonstrates a troubling pattern of lack of diligence, failure 
to obey court orders, and failure to cooperate in OLR 
investigations.  On the other hand, the referee pointed to 
Attorney Dade's willingness to acknowledge the wrongful nature 
of his conduct.  The referee also noted that the underlying 
facts in this case occurred in 2007 and the grievance was not 
filed until five years later.  The referee pointed out that in 
the ensuing five years, this court disciplined Attorney Dade 
with two public reprimands and two 60-day license suspensions.  
The referee said this unusual disciplinary pattern complicated 
the recommendation with respect to this court's standard of 
progressive discipline.   
¶18 The referee also said that the OLR did not establish 
that Attorney Dade's violations of supreme court rules "harmed" 
his client in a specific, tangible way.  The referee said that 
Attorney Dade's conduct requires a sanction that clearly signals 
to Attorney Dade and to the practicing bar that repeated 
failures to respond to the OLR are unacceptable breaches of 
professional ethics.  On balance, the referee concluded that a 
90-day suspension was an appropriate sanction.  The referee also 
recommends, as a requirement of the reinstatement of his 
license, that Attorney Dade be required to complete six CLE 
credits in law office management, to be approved by the OLR, and 
that he be assessed the full costs of this proceeding.   
¶19 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless 
clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.  
No. 
2013AP1733-D   
 
9 
 
See 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Eisenberg, 
2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  The court may 
impose whatever sanction it sees fit, regardless of the 
referee's recommendation.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.   
¶20 There is no showing that any of the referee's findings 
of fact are erroneous.  Accordingly, we adopt them.  We also 
agree with the referee's conclusions of law that Attorney Dade 
violated the supreme court rules set forth above.  
¶21 Given the referee's factual findings, we further agree 
with the referee that Attorney Dade's professional misconduct 
requires that his license to practice law in Wisconsin be 
suspended for a period of 90 days.  Attorney Dade has not 
objected to the statement of costs filed by the OLR, and we 
conclude that he should be required to pay the full amount of 
costs in this disciplinary proceeding.  Finally, we agree with 
the referee's recommendation that, as a condition of the 
reinstatement of his license to practice law, Attorney Dade be 
required to complete six CLE credits in law office management, 
to be approved by the OLR. 
¶22 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney John R. 
Dade to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 
90 days, effective September 25, 2014. 
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of the 
reinstatement of his license to practice law, John R. Dade shall 
be required to complete six continuing legal education credits 
No. 
2013AP1733-D   
 
10 
 
in law office management, to be approved by the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation.  
¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, John R. Dade shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that John R. Dade shall comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended.  
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2). 
 
 
No. 
2013AP1733-D   
 
 
 
1