Title: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. Ronald W. Hendree

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
97-1746-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against 
Ronald W. Hendree, 
Attorney at Law. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HENDREE 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
July 1, 1997 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
No.  97-1746-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. 97-1746-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against RONALD W. HENDREE, Attorney at 
Law. 
FILED 
 
JULY 1, 1997 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
Attorney 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney’s 
license 
suspended.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the complaint of the Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board) filed June 10, 
1997 alleging that Attorney Ronald W. Hendree engaged in 
numerous acts of professional misconduct. With the complaint 
there was filed a stipulation, pursuant to SCR 21.09(3m),1 in 
                     
1 SCR 21.09 provides, in pertinent part: Procedure 
. . . 
(3m) The board may file with a complaint a stipulation by 
the board and the respondent attorney to the facts, conclusions 
of law and discipline to be imposed. The supreme court may 
consider the complaint and stipulation without appointing a 
referee. If the supreme court approves the stipulation, it shall 
adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law and impose the 
stipulated 
discipline. 
If 
the 
supreme 
court 
rejects 
the 
stipulation, a referee shall be appointed pursuant to sub. (4) 
and the matter shall proceed pursuant to SCR chapter 22. A 
stipulation that is rejected has no evidentiary value and is 
without prejudice to the respondent’s defense of the proceeding 
or the board’s prosecution of the complaint.  
 
 
No.  97-1746-D 
 
 
2 
which Attorney Hendree admitted the allegations and in which he 
and the Board stipulated to the Rules of Professional Conduct 
for Attorneys that misconduct violated. The parties further 
stipulated that a one-year suspension of Attorney Hendree’s 
license to practice law be imposed as discipline for it.  
¶2 
We accept the stipulation and adopt the findings of 
fact and conclusions of law set forth in it and impose the 
stipulated 
one-year 
license 
suspension 
as 
discipline 
for 
Attorney 
Hendree’s 
professional 
misconduct. 
On 
several 
occasions, Attorney Hendree knowingly disobeyed professional 
obligations under the rules of a tribunal in which he was 
appearing, failed to return advance payment of fees that he did 
not earn, misrepresented to clients actions he had taken on 
their 
behalf, 
misrepresented 
facts 
to 
the 
Board 
in 
its 
investigation into his conduct, failed to act promptly and 
diligently in representing clients, and failed to comply with 
the record-keeping requirements in respect to his client trust 
account and commingled his personal property with that of his 
clients in that account. In addition to the license suspension, 
we order Attorney Hendree to make restitution to clients whose 
advance fee payments he failed to return, as the parties had 
stipulated. 
¶3 
Attorney Hendree was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in June, 1991 and practices in Milwaukee. In February, 
1997, he consented to a public reprimand imposed by the Board 
for the following misconduct: failing to put a contingency fee 
arrangement in writing, failing to diligently pursue the legal 
matter of a union and its individual members, keep those clients 
 
 
No.  97-1746-D 
 
 
3 
reasonably informed of the status of their matters, and promptly 
comply with their reasonable requests for information, failing 
to take reasonable steps to protect the union’s interests by 
timely returning its files and papers, failing to return the 
$3750 advance fee from the union for costs of litigation he 
never pursued, and failing to provide competent representation 
in the matter by not doing the preparation reasonably necessary 
to handle it. The parties stipulated to the following facts 
concerning Attorney Hendree’s professional misconduct considered 
in this proceeding.  
¶4 
In the summer of 1995, Attorney Hendree did not appear 
on the date scheduled for a client’s trial on a misdemeanor 
battery charge, although he knew he would not be available on 
that date because he was appearing in a felony jury trial for 
another client. Nonetheless, he did not return the client’s $750 
advance fee payment when the client requested it, thus violating 
SCR 20:1.16(d).2 Thereafter, he did not pay the client the $750 
notwithstanding an agreement he signed to abide by the decision 
                     
2 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.  
 
 
No.  97-1746-D 
 
 
4 
of the arbitrator to which the matter was referred, thereby 
violating SCR 20:3.4(c).3  
¶5 
In 1995, Attorney Hendree was retained to represent a 
client on an armed robbery charge but did not appear at the 
client’s probation revocation hearing or respond to letters from 
Division of Hearings and Appeals notifying him of his failure to 
appear and rescheduling the hearing. Attorney Hendree also 
failed to appear at rescheduled hearings, thus knowingly 
disobeying his obligation under the rules of that hearing 
tribunal, in violation of SCR 20:3.4.(c).  
¶6 
When retained to represent a client in November, 1995 
in several matters, Attorney Hendree had the client sign a fee 
agreement containing a provision that Attorney Hendree would not 
have to return the client’s papers upon discharge unless all 
fees and costs had been paid, thus violating SCR 20:8.4(a),4 as 
it included a provision violating his professional obligation to 
return 
a 
client’s 
file 
materials 
upon 
termination 
of 
                     
3 SCR 20:3.4 provides, in pertinent part: Fairness to 
opposing party and counsel 
A lawyer shall not:  
. . . 
(c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a 
tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that 
no valid obligation exists;  
4 SCR 20:8.4 provides, in pertinent part: Misconduct 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:  
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional 
Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so 
through the acts of another;  
 
 
No.  97-1746-D 
 
 
5 
representation. Attorney Hendree never told the client of any 
legal work he was pursuing on the client’s behalf, failed to 
return several telephone messages, did not send the client any 
billing statements, and never corresponded with him. Attorney 
Hendree thus violated SCR 20:1.4(a)5 by failing to keep his 
client reasonably informed of the status of his matters and 
promptly 
comply 
with 
reasonable 
requests 
for 
information 
concerning them.  
¶7 
In June, 1996, Attorney Hendree told his client, who 
had been convicted of several felonies and sentenced to prison 
and had said he wanted to appeal the conviction, that he had 
filed the requisite notice of intent to pursue postconviction 
relief. In fact, Attorney Hendree had not filed that notice, 
thus failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing the client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.6 His false 
statement to the client that he had filed the notice constituted 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of 
SCR 20:8.4(c).7 In the course of the Board’s investigation of 
                     
5 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.  
6 SCR 20:1.3 provides: Diligence 
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client.  
7 SCR 20:8.4 provides, in pertinent part: Misconduct 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: 
. . . 
 
 
No.  97-1746-D 
 
 
6 
this matter, Attorney Hendree furnished a copy of a notice of 
intent he said he had filed, claiming that it was a copy 
generated from his computer, as he did not retain copies of 
those kinds of documents as filed. His misrepresentation to the 
Board in that regard violated SCR 22.07(2).8  
¶8 
Attorney Hendree failed to file a response to a 
summary judgment motion or a request for an adjournment in a 
matter for which he was retained in the spring of 1995. His 
failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in the 
matter violated SCR 20:1.3. He did not respond to the client’s 
request for the return of her files in order to defend a 
counterclaim in the matter, in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d). He 
ultimately returned the file by giving it to the Board after the 
client had filed a grievance and the Board commenced an 
investigation.  
¶9 
In 
another 
matter, 
Attorney 
Hendree 
agreed 
to 
represent a client who was criminally charged but required a 
                                                                  
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation;  
8 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.  97-1746-D 
 
 
7 
$1500 retainer before he would appear in court on the client’s 
behalf. Although the client made payments totaling $400, 
Attorney Hendree never obtained a copy of the client’s file from 
prior counsel and did not appear for the trial. At a hearing on 
the court’s order to show cause why sanctions should not be 
imposed for his failure to appear, Attorney Hendree contended 
that because of his client’s failure to meet the retainer terms, 
he was under no obligation to do so and asserted that he did not 
represent the client. Nonetheless, he did not return the 
client’s $400 until five months later, thus violating SCR 
20:1.16(d).  
¶10 In May of 1996, Attorney Hendree was retained to 
represent a fugitive on federal drug charges who had eluded 
arrest after selling cocaine base to an undercover officer. 
After negotiating with federal law enforcement for his client’s 
surrender and the return of the money used in the undercover 
operation, Attorney Hendree received partial payments of that 
money and turned it over to the authorities. However, he placed 
the final payment of $7500 in his briefcase in the trunk of his 
automobile and subsequently reported that his car had been 
broken into and his briefcase stolen. As a result of the alleged 
theft, the client lost the benefit of a sentence reduction 
agreement, and the federal authorities did not recover the 
$7500. Attorney Hendree’s failure to properly safeguard that 
money belonging to a third person violated SCR 20:1.15(a).9 In 
                     
9 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 
 
 
No.  97-1746-D 
 
 
8 
the Board’s investigation of this matter, Attorney Hendree 
knowingly made false statements to the Board concerning times 
and 
places 
he 
had 
contact 
with 
his 
client. 
He 
also 
misrepresented to the Board that he had disclosed to the federal 
authorities that he was accepting from the client in payment of 
his fee an automobile used in his client’s commission of drug 
crimes. Those false statements of material fact knowingly made 
in the course of the disciplinary investigation violated SCR 
20:8.1(a)10 and 22.07(2).  
¶11 In the course of his representation of a client in 
May, 1996, Attorney Hendree was paid $500 to retain a drug abuse 
expert to refute an intent to deliver charge against the client. 
He did not deposit that money in a client trust account, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.15(a), and did not return the money to the 
client upon termination of his representation, in violation of 
SCR 20:1.16(d). During the Board’s investigation, he falsely 
                                                                  
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. . . . 
10 SCR 20:8.1 provides, in pertinent part: Bar admission and 
disciplinary matters 
An applicant for admission to the bar, or a lawyer in 
connection with a bar admission application or in connection 
with a disciplinary matter, shall not:  
(a) knowingly make a false statement of material fact;  
 
 
No.  97-1746-D 
 
 
9 
stated that he had disbursed the money to three designated 
experts on the client’s behalf, thereby violating SCR 20:8.1(a) 
and 22.07(2). Although retained by the client also to challenge 
a forfeiture action concerning the automobile the client was 
driving when arrested, Attorney Hendree did not file an answer, 
as a result of which default judgment was granted. His failure 
to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in that matter 
violated SCR 20:1.3.  
¶12 In the course of the Board’s investigation of these 
matters, Attorney Hendree was asked to produce records of his 
client trust account. From those records, it was learned that he 
failed to keep many of the specific records required by the 
trust account rules, including a cash receipts journal, a 
disbursements journal, and a monthly balance of each client’s 
account. His failure to do so violated SCR 20:1.15(e) and his 
false statements on his annual State Bar dues statements for 
1996 and 1997 certifying that he had complied with the record-
keeping trust account requirements violated SCR 20:1.15(g).11 It 
                     
11 SCR 20:1.15 provides, in pertinent part: Safekeeping 
property 
. . . 
(e) Complete records of trust account funds and other trust 
property shall be kept by the lawyer and shall be preserved for 
a period of at least six years after termination of the 
representation. Complete records shall include: (i) a cash 
receipts journal, listing the sources and date of each receipt, 
(ii) a disbursements journal, listing the date and payee of each 
disbursement, with all disbursements being paid by check, (iii) 
a subsidiary ledger containing a separate page for each person 
or company for whom funds have been received in trust, showing 
the date and amount of each receipt, the date and amount of each 
disbursement, and any unexpended balance, (iv) a monthly 
schedule of the subsidiary ledger, indicating the balance of 
 
 
No.  97-1746-D 
 
 
10
was also learned that when he opened his client trust account, 
Attorney Hendree deposited $1000 of his own money into it. Also, 
he made disbursements from that account to clients and to his 
daughter, none of whom appeared to have funds on deposit in it. 
His commingling of personal property with that of his clients 
violated SCR 20:1.15(a).  
¶13 Finally, when the Board issued the public reprimand in 
February, 1997 for his conduct in representing a union of 
security guards, it was conditioned upon Attorney Hendree’s 
refunding to that client the $3750 it had paid in advance for 
the costs of litigation he never pursued. Although he had agreed 
to make that repayment, Attorney Hendree has not made any of the 
monthly installment payments to which he agreed and has not 
contacted the Board to explain his failure to comply with that 
agreement or responded to the Board’s written inquiry. Thus, 
                                                                  
each client’s account at the end of each month, (v) a 
determination of the cash balance (checkbook balance) at the end 
of 
each 
month, 
taken 
from 
the 
cash 
receipts 
and 
cash 
disbursement journals and a reconciliation of the cash balance 
(checkbook balance) with the balance indicated in the bank 
statement, and (vi) monthly statements, including canceled 
checks, vouchers or share drafts, and duplicate deposit slips. . 
. . 
. . . 
(g) A member of the State Bar of Wisconsin shall file with 
the State Bar annually, with payment of the member’s State Bar 
dues or upon such other date as approved by the Supreme Court, a 
certificate stating whether the member is engaged in the private 
practice of law in Wisconsin and, if so, the name of each bank, 
trust company, credit union or savings and loan association in 
which the member maintains a trust account, safe deposit box, or 
both, as required by this section. . . . 
 
 
No.  97-1746-D 
 
 
11
Attorney Hendree has failed again to return property to which a 
client is entitled, in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d).  
¶14 The seriousness and extent of Attorney Hendree’s 
professional misconduct in these matters requires discipline 
sufficiently severe to impress upon him and upon other attorneys 
the need to adhere to the obligations of the legal profession 
and to the rules regulating an attorney’s professional conduct. 
The one-year license suspension to which the parties have 
stipulated is appropriate to that purpose. In addition, Attorney 
Hendree is required to make restitution as soon as practicable 
to three of the clients in the matters set forth in this opinion 
and, in any event, before his license can be reinstated 
following the period of suspension.  
¶15 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Ronald W. Hendree to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of one year, 
commencing August 4, 1997.  
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Ronald W. Hendree 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 Ronald W. Hendree 
to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until 
further order of the court.  
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of 
reinstatement of his license to practice law, Ronald W. Hendree 
shall make restitution as set forth in the stipulation of the 
parties on file in this proceeding.  
 
 
No.  97-1746-D 
 
 
12
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ronald W. Hendree 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. 17278.rtf 
 
13 
 
1 
 
2