Title: Joseph Jackson v.

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
98-1036-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Joseph Jackson, Attorney at Law. 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST JACKSON 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
October 15, 1998 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
No. 
98-1036-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. 98-1036-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against JOSEPH JACKSON, Attorney at Law. 
FILED 
 
OCT 15, 1998 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney’s 
license 
suspended.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that the license of Joseph Jackson to practice law in 
Wisconsin 
be 
suspended 
for 
one 
year 
as 
discipline 
for 
professional misconduct. That misconduct consisted of Attorney 
Jackson’s failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client, failing to cooperate in the Board’s 
investigation and subsequent prosecution of that matter, failing 
to 
respond 
to 
orders 
of 
the 
Court 
of 
Appeals, 
making 
misrepresentations to a trial court judge and to his client 
concerning actions he had taken on the client’s behalf, failing 
to protect his client’s interests upon termination of his 
representation, and failing to respond to a client’s requests for 
information and documents. The referee also recommended that as a 
condition of reinstatement of his license, Attorney Jackson be 
No. 
98-1036-D 
 
2 
required to provide a detailed accounting of work performed for 
one of his clients and proof that he has returned to that client 
any portion of the client’s retainer he did not earn. The referee 
recommended further that if at the end of the period of 
suspension Attorney Jackson has not petitioned for reinstatement 
or otherwise communicated in writing to the court or with the 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board) his 
intention to continue practicing law in Wisconsin, the court 
revoke his license.  
¶2 
We determine that the misconduct established in this 
proceeding warrants the suspension of Attorney Jackson’s license 
for one year. By that misconduct, Attorney Jackson seriously 
breached his professional duties to clients and sought to mislead 
a court and a client into believing he had pursued the client’s 
legal matter. 
We 
also determine 
that 
the 
accounting and 
restitution conditions the referee recommended are appropriate to 
impose on the reinstatement of Attorney Jackson’s license 
following the suspension. We do not, however, accept the 
referee’s recommendation to revoke his license in the event he 
fails to inform the court that he intends to continue practicing 
in this state.  
¶3 
Attorney Jackson was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1991 and practiced in Madison. At some point, he 
relocated to New York, but his current location was unknown at 
No. 
98-1036-D 
 
3 
the time the referee submitted his report in this proceeding. 
Attorney Jackson has not been the subject of a prior disciplinary 
proceeding but was suspended for nonpayment of State Bar dues 
October 31, 1996, and has not been reinstated to membership; 
consequently, he is not authorized to practice law in Wisconsin.  
¶4 
The Board was unable to obtain service of its complaint 
on Attorney Jackson at either of his addresses of record, 
including the last address on file with the State Bar. The 
referee, Attorney John Schweitzer, determined that the Board’s 
attempted service met the requirements of SCR 22.11(2)1 and, as he 
did not respond to the complaint or otherwise appear in this 
proceeding, found him in default and made findings pursuant to 
the allegations of the Board’s complaint.  
¶5 
In 1992, Attorney Jackson represented a client in a 
criminal 
matter that led 
to 
the client’s 
conviction and 
imprisonment. The client told Attorney Jackson that he wanted to 
appeal, but Attorney Jackson marked the “undecided” box on the 
court form, telling the client he would be available for further 
discussion of postconviction relief. However, he never had that 
                     
1 SCR 22.11 provides, in pertinent part: Service, filing. 
 . . .  
(2) The filing of a name and address by an attorney with 
the state bar constitutes a consent to service by certified mail 
at that address.   
No. 
98-1036-D 
 
4 
discussion with the client, and no notice of intent to pursue 
postconviction relief was filed within the prescribed period.  
¶6 
Thereafter in October, 1995, the Court of Appeals, 
responding to the client’s pro se motion for an extension of time 
to file a notice of intent to seek postconviction relief, ordered 
Attorney Jackson, as the client’s trial counsel, to respond to 
the client’s allegation that he failed to file a notice of intent 
to appeal in accordance with the client’s instructions. Attorney 
Jackson did not respond to that order or to a subsequent order of 
the Court of Appeals to respond. The court then granted the 
client’s motion for an extension of time.  
¶7 
The Board sent Attorney Jackson a letter informing him 
of the client’s grievance it had received, as well as a second 
letter, but Attorney Jackson responded to neither. Attorney 
Jackson apparently left the Madison area and could not be 
located. The Board also sent copies of the Court of Appeals 
orders to him at his Madison address in March, 1996, to which he 
responded that he had been out of the country on a research 
project. He did not, however, specify the duration of that 
research project or respond to the orders of the Court of Appeals 
or explain to that court why he had not done so.  
¶8 
The referee concluded that by failing to determine 
whether his client wished to pursue postconviction relief, 
Attorney Jackson failed to act with reasonable diligence and 
No. 
98-1036-D 
 
5 
promptness in representing that client, in violation of SCR 
20:1.3.2 By leaving the Madison area without informing the Board 
where he could be located, knowing it was investigating the 
client’s grievance, Attorney Jackson failed to cooperate in the 
Board’s investigation, prosecution and disposition of that 
grievance, in violation of SCR 21.03(4)3 and 22.07(2) and (3).4 
                     
2 SCR 20:1.3 provides: Diligence 
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client.  
3 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.  
4 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. 
98-1036-D 
 
6 
His failure to respond to the Court of Appeals orders constituted 
a knowing disobedience of an obligation under the rules of that 
court, in violation of SCR 20:3.4(c).5  
¶9 
A second matter considered in this proceeding concerns 
Attorney Jackson’s representation of a client in a probation 
revocation sentencing and on additional criminal charges. At the 
revocation sentencing hearing in May, 1995, Attorney Jackson told 
the court there was a writ of certiorari pending. In fact, court 
records disclosed that he never had filed a writ of certiorari 
appealing the probation revocation, such that his client lost his 
right to review of the revocation. The court sentenced the client 
to two years in prison on the probation revocation.  
¶10 In respect to the criminal charges, the client entered 
a guilty plea and was sentenced to eight years in prison 
                                                                  
(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.  
5 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;  
No. 
98-1036-D 
 
7 
consecutive to his two-year probation revocation sentence. In 
response to the client’s request, Attorney Jackson said he would 
seek postconviction relief and file the notice of intent 
accordingly. Court records disclosed, however, that the appeal 
form indicating a defendant’s intentions never was filed, nor did 
Attorney Jackson ever file a notice of intent to pursue 
postconviction relief.  
¶11 Prior to the client’s sentencing, Attorney Jackson told 
the client that he needed $1000 to complete the writ of 
certiorari and to do further investigation. After making that 
payment, the client and his family members were unable to contact 
Attorney Jackson. The client’s numerous attempts to obtain the 
legal documents in his possession regarding his case were 
unsuccessful, his certified letter was returned unclaimed, and 
his numerous telephone calls were not returned. Attorney Jackson 
apparently abandoned his law practice and did not tell the client 
where he could be reached. He did not return any portion of the 
$1000 he obtained from the client purportedly for the preparation 
and filing of a writ of certiorari.  
¶12 The 
referee 
concluded 
that 
Attorney 
Jackson’s 
misrepresentation to the court and to his client that a writ of 
certiorari was pending, his misrepresentation to the client that 
he filed a notice of intent to pursue postconviction relief, and 
his obtaining $1000 for the completion of a writ of certiorari, 
No. 
98-1036-D 
 
8 
which he never filed, constituted conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation, 
in 
violation 
of 
SCR 
20:8.4(c).6 His misrepresentation to the court concerning the writ 
of certiorari also constituted a knowingly false statement of 
fact to a tribunal, in violation of SCR 20:3.3(a)(1).7 His failure 
to prepare and file the writ of certiorari and notice of intent 
to pursue postconviction relief, contrary to his client’s 
directions, 
constituted 
a 
failure 
to 
act 
with 
reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation 
of SCR 20:1.3.  
¶13 The referee concluded further that Attorney Jackson’s 
failure to take steps reasonably practicable to protect the 
client’s interests upon termination of his representation, 
including giving reasonable notice of the termination and 
returning papers and property to the client, violated SCR 
                     
6 SCR 20:8.4 provides, in pertinent part: Misconduct 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: 
 . . .  
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation;  
7 SCR 20:3.3 provides, in pertinent part: Candor toward the 
tribunal 
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: 
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal;  
No. 
98-1036-D 
 
9 
20:1.16(d).8 His failure to respond to the client’s requests for 
information and documents and to provide the client information 
concerning where he could be reached constituted a failure to 
keep a client reasonably informed of the status of a matter and 
promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).9  
¶14 In addition to the one-year license suspension, the 
referee recommended that Attorney Jackson be required, as a 
condition of reinstatement, to provide a detailed accounting of 
the work he performed in the second of the matters set forth 
above and proof that he has returned to the client in that matter 
any portion of the $1000 retainer that he did not earn. 
Presumably because of Attorney Jackson’s absence from the state 
and his apparent abandonment of the law practice he had conducted 
                     
8 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.  
9 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.  
No. 
98-1036-D 
 
10
here, the referee recommended that Attorney Jackson’s license be 
revoked in the event that when the period of suspension expires 
he has neither petitioned for reinstatement of his license nor 
communicated otherwise in writing with the court or the Board 
that he intends to resume the practice of law in this state.  
¶15 We adopt the referee’s findings of fact and conclusions 
of law and determine that the seriousness of his misconduct 
established in this proceeding warrants the suspension of 
Attorney Jackson’s license to practice law for one year. We also 
determine that the accounting and retainer refund conditions 
recommended by the referee should be imposed on the reinstatement 
of his license. Because the provisional license revocation the 
referee recommended is not in response to Attorney Jackson’s 
professional misconduct, we decline to impose it.  
¶16 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Joseph Jackson to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of one year, 
commencing November 23, 1998.  
¶17 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
as 
conditions 
of 
reinstatement of his license to practice law following the period 
of suspension, Joseph Jackson be required to provide to the Board 
of Attorneys Professional Responsibility a detailed accounting of 
the work performed in one of the matters considered in this 
proceeding and proof that he has refunded to the client in that 
No. 
98-1036-D 
 
11
matter any portion of the retainer he had received but did not 
earn.  
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Joseph Jackson 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 Joseph Jackson to practice 
law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of 
the court.  
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Joseph Jackson comply with 
the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person 
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.  
 
 
1