Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Mark E. Converse

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2006 WI 4 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2004AP2374-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Mark E. Converse, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Mark E. Converse, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CONVERSE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
January 12, 2006   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
December 13, 2005   
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: CROOKS, J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the respondent-appellant there was a brief by Mark E. 
Converse and Mark E. Converse Law Offices, Green Bay. 
 
For the complainant-respondent there was a brief by Richard 
P. Mozinski and Radosevich, Mozinski, Cashman & Olson, LLP, 
Manitowoc. 
 
 
2006 WI 4
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2004AP2374-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Mark E. Converse, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Mark E. Converse, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
JAN 12, 2006 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney Mark E. Converse has appealed 
from 
a 
referee's 
report 
concluding 
that 
he 
engaged 
in 
professional misconduct and recommending that his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for a period of one year. 
¶2 
We conclude that the referee's findings of fact are 
supported by satisfactory and convincing evidence.  We further 
determine that the seriousness of Attorney Converse's misconduct 
warrants the suspension of his license to practice law for a 
No. 
2004AP2374-D   
 
2 
 
period of one year.  We also agree with the referee that the 
costs of the proceeding, which are $4056.34, as of December 12, 
2005, should be assessed against Attorney Converse.   
¶3 
Attorney Converse was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1973 and practices in Green Bay.  In 1985 he 
consented to the imposition of a public reprimand for neglect of 
a client matter and representation in a conflict of interest 
situation.  In 1992 he was again publicly reprimanded for 
failing to diligently pursue a client's criminal appeal and 
failing to turn over the client's file to new counsel.  He was 
also ordered to perform 200 hours of pro bono legal work.  See 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Converse, 168 Wis. 2d 8, 
482 N.W.2d 911 (1992).  In 1994 Attorney Converse's license was 
suspended for 60 days for failing to timely file federal and 
state income tax returns.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Converse, 185 Wis. 2d 373, 517 N.W.2d 191 (1994).  In 
2004 his license was suspended for 90 days for failing to act 
with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a 
client; engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation; failing to cooperate with the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) in its investigation into grievances 
filed by his clients; and failing to reduce a contingent fee 
agreement to writing.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Converse, 2004 WI 10, 268 Wis. 2d 562, 675 N.W.2d 238. 
¶4 
On September 9, 2004, the OLR filed a complaint 
alleging six counts of misconduct with respect to Attorney 
Converse's handling of two client matters.  The first matter 
No. 
2004AP2374-D   
 
3 
 
involved Attorney Converse's representation of R.K. and M.K. who 
had contracted to have renovations made to their home.  A 
dispute arose between the K.s and the contractors regarding 
payment for the work performed and the quality of the work.  The 
contractors sued the K.s for breach of contract.  A different 
attorney represented the K.s through the first day of trial.  
The K.s then fired that attorney and retained Attorney Converse 
to represent them, agreeing to pay Attorney Converse $120 per 
hour, plus out-of-pocket costs.  The K.s paid Attorney Converse 
an initial retainer fee of $2500.  They were not asked to sign a 
fee agreement.  At the conclusion of the trial on June 1, 2001, 
the court awarded judgment in favor of the contractors and 
against the K.s in the amount of $8104.52, plus 5 percent 
interest from July 5, 1999, to the date of judgment.  The 
judgment was filed with the clerk of circuit court on June 29, 
2001.   
¶5 
Immediately after the trial, the K.s told Attorney 
Converse they wanted to appeal, and Attorney Converse agreed to 
represent them.  The K.s paid Attorney Converse an additional 
$3500.  Attorney Converse asserts this payment was for work done 
through the trial, while the K.s assert the money was a retainer 
to pursue the appeal.  
¶6 
Attorney Converse filed the notice of appeal on August 
30, 2001, and filed the docketing statement on September 12, 
2001.  He met with the K.s on September 22, 2001, to discuss 
their appeal and requested an additional retainer fee.  The K.s 
asked for an itemized statement of fees and costs through the 
No. 
2004AP2374-D   
 
4 
 
trial.  Attorney Converse never provided an itemized statement.  
On December 3, 2001, Attorney Converse filed a motion requesting 
additional time to file his appellate brief.  The motion was 
granted and he was given until December 21, 2001, to file the 
brief.  He never filed it.   
¶7 
On January 8, 2002, the court of appeals issued an 
order dismissing the appeal because no brief had been filed.  
Attorney Converse received notice of the dismissal on January 
10, 2002.  On February 15, 2002, the court of appeals entered a 
remittitur to the circuit court confirming the dismissal of the 
appeal.  Attorney Converse did not tell the K.s about the 
dismissal and did not mail them copies of either court of 
appeals order.  
¶8 
The K.s telephoned Attorney Converse several times 
between September 2001 and February 2002 to discuss the status 
of their appeal and scheduled several meetings with Attorney 
Converse, all of which were cancelled.  Although the K.s had 
more than ten contacts with Attorney Converse after January 8, 
2002, Attorney Converse never told them the appeal had been 
dismissed or that he never filed an appellate brief.  On 
February 7, 2002, Attorney Converse met with the K.s to discuss 
the appeal.  Even though the appeal had already been dismissed, 
Attorney Converse told the K.s he was still working on the 
brief.  He asked for additional money to pursue the appeal, but 
the K.s did not pay him any additional money and again asked for 
an itemized statement of fees and costs, which was never 
provided. 
No. 
2004AP2374-D   
 
5 
 
¶9 
On April 18, 2002, the K.s sent Attorney Converse a 
certified letter expressing surprise that they had not received 
copies of the appellate brief.  They requested copies of the 
brief and information about the status of the appeal.  Attorney 
Converse failed to reply to the letter.  On May 9, 2002, R.K. 
telephoned Attorney Converse and talked with him about the 
status of the appeal.  Attorney Converse did not tell R.K. that 
the appeal had been dismissed and represented he was still 
working on the brief.  On June 30, 2002, the K.s again wrote to 
Attorney Converse asking for information about the status of the 
appeal.  Attorney Converse failed to reply.   
¶10 On August 8, 2002, R.K. was at the Shawano County 
courthouse and learned from the clerk of court that the appeal 
had been dismissed.  R.K. telephoned Attorney Converse and 
expressed outrage over the dismissal.  Attorney Converse said he 
would get the appeal reopened or file a new action. 
¶11 R.K. reported Attorney Converse's conduct to the OLR 
on May 21, 2003.  On July 7, 2003, the OLR sent Attorney 
Converse a letter asking for a written response.  Attorney 
Converse failed to respond.  The OLR sent a second request, by 
both regular and certified mail, on August 7, 2003, informing 
Attorney Converse that his response must be postmarked by August 
18, 2003.  On August 18, Attorney Converse telephoned the OLR 
and said he would send a response the next day.  He sent the 
response on August 22, 2003.  In the response, Attorney Converse 
admitted he had failed to complete the appeal and had failed to 
communicate with the K.s.   
No. 
2004AP2374-D   
 
6 
 
¶12 On August 27, 2003, the OLR sent Attorney Converse 
another letter asking him to provide additional information 
about the K. matter on or before September 10, 2003.  On 
September 10, Attorney Converse telephoned the OLR and advised 
he would mail his response on September 15.  The response was 
not sent.  On September 30, 2003, the OLR sent Attorney Converse 
another letter, by both regular and certified mail, informing 
him that his response must be postmarked by October 10, 2003.  
Attorney Converse's employee signed the certified mail receipt 
on October 1, 2003, but Attorney Converse failed to reply.  On 
October 22, 2003, Attorney Converse was personally served with a 
letter informing him that he had seven days to provide a written 
response to the OLR's request for additional information.  
Attorney Converse again failed to reply.  
¶13 This court issued an order requiring Attorney Converse 
to show cause why his license should not be suspended for his 
failure to cooperate with the OLR's grievance investigation.  
Attorney Converse failed to file a response and on January 23, 
2004, this court suspended his license.  Attorney Converse 
finally sent a response to the OLR on January 27, 2004, and 
Attorney Converse's license was reinstated on January 30, 2004. 
¶14 The second client matter detailed in the OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney Converse's representation of M.H., 
who was convicted of various criminal charges in 1985 and 
sentenced to 50 years in prison.  M.H. appealed, but the appeal 
was dismissed.  His postconviction proceedings were reinstated 
in May 2000. 
No. 
2004AP2374-D   
 
7 
 
¶15 On September 21, 2000, the Brown County Circuit Court 
appointed Attorney Converse to represent M.H. in postconviction 
proceedings. 
 
M.H. 
wanted 
Attorney 
Converse 
to 
file 
a 
postconviction motion to modify his sentence.  M.H., Attorney 
Converse and M.H.'s prior counsel exchanged correspondence from 
May to December 2000.  M.H. sent Attorney Converse a summary of 
issues, a court decision and other information.  On December 19, 
2000, Attorney Converse wrote to M.H. and acknowledged receipt 
of the case file.   
¶16 On February 22, 2001, Attorney Converse met with M.H. 
in prison.  In May and June 2001 M.H. wrote to Attorney Converse 
inquiring about the status of the case.  On June 19, 2001, 
Attorney Converse wrote to M.H. saying he would prepare a rough 
draft motion for M.H.'s review.   
¶17 On July 19, 2001, M.H. wrote to Attorney Converse 
asking him to block M.H.'s transfer to an out-of-state prison so 
the 
postconviction 
proceedings 
would 
not 
be 
interrupted.  
Attorney Converse submitted a letter requesting a hold on M.H.'s 
transfer.  On August 2, 2001, Attorney Converse wrote to M.H. 
informing him that the request to hold the transfer had been 
denied.  On August 31, 2001, Attorney Converse wrote to M.H. 
inquiring about his placement status.  During September 2001 
Attorney Converse and M.H. exchanged correspondence in which 
M.H. gave Attorney Converse permission to discuss the case with 
his prior counsel and certain other persons. 
¶18 On October 2, 2001, M.H. wrote to Attorney Converse 
enclosing a chronology of the postconviction case to date.  M.H. 
No. 
2004AP2374-D   
 
8 
 
said he was anxious to get the postconviction motion prepared 
and filed.  He also told Attorney Converse he wanted to file a 
dual motion seeking both sentence modification and a new trial 
and that he would waive the new trial request if the sentence 
modification was granted.  M.H. offered to perform research and 
prepare motions and other documents.   
¶19 On October 15, 2001, Attorney Converse wrote to M.H. 
accepting his offer of assistance.  Attorney Converse asked M.H. 
to send him a copy of any affidavits he received and to keep in 
regular contact so Attorney Converse could keep the court 
informed about the case and obtain a hearing date as soon as 
possible after the notice, motions, affidavits and supporting 
briefs were completed. 
¶20 From mid-October to the end of December 2001 M.H. and 
an 
inmate 
named 
Richards, 
who 
was 
apparently 
providing 
assistance to M.H. in the case, exchanged correspondence with 
Attorney Converse in which M.H. authorized Attorney Converse to 
discuss the case with Richards and in which M.H. and Richards 
asked Attorney Converse to send them a copy of the case file.  
On December 25, 2001, Richards wrote to Attorney Converse and 
acknowledged receipt of the file.  Richards asked Attorney 
Converse to order transcripts and exhibits.  Attorney Converse 
wrote to M.H. on January 14, 2002, describing the exhibits that 
had been ordered.  On January 30, 2002, the court issued an 
order for a copy of transcripts.   
¶21 On January 30, 2002, Attorney Converse wrote to M.H. 
saying Attorney Converse had picked up the certified transcripts 
No. 
2004AP2374-D   
 
9 
 
and had sent the only copies of them to M.H.  Attorney Converse 
wrote to M.H. in February and March 2002 regarding M.H.'s 
receipt of the transcripts.  On March 17, 2002, Richards wrote 
to Attorney Converse saying Richards was being transferred to 
another institution and would no longer be daily involved in 
M.H.'s case.  On March 22, 2002, Attorney Converse wrote to M.H. 
acknowledging receipt of Richards's letter and expressing hope 
that Attorney Converse would be able to file the motion the next 
month.  On March 25, 2002, Richards sent Attorney Converse and 
M.H. a draft motion and brief asking for a new trial or sentence 
modification, notes on transcripts and case law, and original 
affidavits and other documents.  Richards told Attorney Converse 
he would still need to obtain testimony and statements, along 
with a supplemental pre-sentence investigation report. 
¶22 On April 12, 2002, Attorney Converse wrote to M.H. and 
Richards acknowledging receipt of the documents Richards had 
sent.  Attorney Converse said he would try to obtain any 
existing transcripts of the additional witnesses' testimony or 
would attempt to have them prepared.  On May 17, 2002, Attorney 
Converse visited M.H. and picked up the transcripts.  On May 20, 
2002, Attorney Converse wrote to M.H. and returned two documents 
he had received from M.H. during their May 17 meeting.  Attorney 
Converse said he would redraft an affidavit and send it to M.H. 
for his review and signing before a notary public.  This letter 
was 
the 
last 
correspondence 
M.H. 
received 
from 
Attorney 
Converse.   
No. 
2004AP2374-D   
 
10 
 
¶23 On August 25, 2002, Richards wrote to Attorney 
Converse asking why he continued to delay in finishing and 
filing the documents.  Richards said if the case did not begin 
to make some progress he would advise M.H. to contact the judge 
to make him aware of the delays.  Attorney Converse never 
replied to Richards's letter.  On October 3, 2002, M.H. wrote to 
the presiding judge concerning Attorney Converse's promises that 
he would soon be in a position to file a motion for sentence 
modification or postconviction relief, the fact that no motion 
had been filed, and the fact that the last correspondence M.H. 
had received from Attorney Converse was dated May 20, 2002.  
M.H. requested the court's assistance in moving the case along.   
¶24 M.H. filed a grievance with the OLR complaining about 
Attorney Converse's lack of diligence in representing him.  
Attorney Converse submitted a written response to the grievance 
on July 8, 2003, admitting he had not had contact with M.H. 
since May 2002 and saying he was extremely sorry.  On July 9, 
2003, the OLR wrote to Attorney Converse asking him to describe 
in detail why he had not had any contact with M.H. since May 
2002.  On July 24, 2003, Attorney Converse submitted his 
response but failed to provide a detailed answer to the OLR's 
question.  Attorney Converse offered to continue to serve as 
M.H.'s attorney if M.H. wanted him to do so but also said he 
would be willing to contact the court if M.H. wanted new 
counsel. 
¶25 Attorney Converse enclosed a copy of a letter from 
M.H. dated July 13, 2003, confirming M.H.'s desire to have 
No. 
2004AP2374-D   
 
11 
 
Attorney Converse remain his counsel.  M.H.'s letter said he had 
been transferred to Fox Lake Minimum Correctional Institution in 
April 2003 and that he had received work release privileges.  
M.H.'s letter also said he wanted Attorney Converse to proceed 
with the case since Attorney Converse was more familiar with it 
than a new attorney would be.  In his letter to the OLR of July 
24, 2003, Attorney Converse said he had completed a rough draft 
of the motion, would forward a copy of it to M.H. by July 29, 
would put it in final form and hoped to file it no later than 
August 10, 2003. 
¶26 On August 14, 2003, the OLR telephoned Attorney 
Converse to inquire about the status of the motion.  Attorney 
Converse said the motion was 90 percent done but was not all 
typed yet.  He said he would send the motion to the OLR early 
the next week.  On September 10, 2003, Attorney Converse 
telephoned the OLR and said the motion was not yet in final form 
but that he would send it shortly.  When asked why it had taken 
a month to complete the motion, Attorney Converse said it was 
because of the volume of work he had to do.   
¶27 On September 14, 2003, M.H. wrote to the OLR and said 
as of that date he had not received the motion or other 
documents Attorney Converse had promised to prepare.  Attorney 
Converse never completed a postconviction motion to modify 
M.H.'s sentence, and the OLR never received any information to 
demonstrate that Attorney Converse sent a draft of the motion to 
M.H.  On March 10, 2004, the circuit court appointed a different 
attorney to represent M.H.   
No. 
2004AP2374-D   
 
12 
 
¶28 John N. Schweitzer was appointed referee in the 
matter.  A hearing was held on February 1, 2005.  The referee 
issued his report on February 28, 2005.  The referee concluded 
that by failing to file an appellate brief for the K.s after 
having been hired to do so, and by allowing the time for filing 
a brief to expire resulting in dismissal of the appeal, Attorney 
Converse violated SCR 20:1.3.1  The referee also found that by 
failing to respond to the K.s' requests for information, failing 
to return telephone calls and respond to letters concerning the 
status of their appeal, failing to respond to the K.s' request 
for an itemized statement of fees and costs, and failing to 
inform the K.s that their appeal had been dismissed, Attorney 
Converse violated SCR 20:1.4(a).2  The referee further found that 
by misrepresenting to the K.s that their appeal was still 
pending and that he was still working on the appellate brief 
when in fact he knew the appeal had already been dismissed, 
Attorney Converse violated SCR 20:8.4(c).3  In addition, the 
referee found that by failing to timely respond to the OLR's 
request for a written response in a grievance investigation and 
by failing to timely respond to the OLR's request for additional 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.3 provides that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
2 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides that "[a] lawyer shall keep a 
client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and 
promptly comply with reasonable requests for information." 
3 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
No. 
2004AP2374-D   
 
13 
 
information, Attorney Converse violated SCR 22.03(2) and (6)4 and 
SCR 21.15(4).5   
¶29 With respect to the M.H. matter, the referee found 
that by failing to diligently complete and file a motion to 
modify M.H.'s sentence, Attorney Converse violated SCR 20:1.3.  
The referee also found that by failing to communicate with M.H. 
                                                 
4 SCR 22.03 provides in relevant part:  Investigation. 
 
(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 
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.  
5 SCR 
21.15(4) 
provides 
that 
"[e]very 
attorney 
shall 
cooperate 
with 
the 
office 
of 
lawyer 
regulation 
in 
the 
investigation, 
prosecution 
and 
disposition 
of 
grievances, 
complaints filed with or by the director, and petitions for 
reinstatement.  An attorney's wilful failure to cooperate with 
the office of lawyer regulation constitutes violation of the 
rules of professional conduct for attorneys."  
No. 
2004AP2374-D   
 
14 
 
concerning his case from May 20, 2002, until approximately July 
2003 Attorney Converse violated SCR 20:1.4(a).  
¶30 In discussing the appropriate discipline to impose for 
this misconduct, the referee noted that Attorney Converse had 
been disciplined on four prior occasions.  The referee also 
noted that counsel for the OLR enumerated a number of mitigating 
and aggravating factors present in the case.  Aggravating 
factors 
included 
Attorney 
Converse's 
prior 
disciplinary 
offenses, a pattern of misconduct, intentionally failing to 
comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, Attorney 
Converse's substantial experience as a legal practitioner, and 
harm to his clients.  The referee noted the only mitigating 
factors identified by OLR counsel were the absence of a 
dishonest or selfish motive and Attorney Converse's remorse.  
The 
referee 
noted 
that 
the 
OLR's 
counsel 
said 
in 
his 
interactions with Attorney Converse he found Attorney Converse 
to be cooperative, decent, and a nice guy.   
¶31 The referee noted that the OLR sought a one-year 
suspension of Attorney Converse's license, and he said that 
Attorney Converse offered no case law to rebut the OLR's 
position or to suggest that this court has departed from the 
general approach of progressive discipline.  Instead, Attorney 
Converse argued that the primary objective of discipline is 
deterrence and he asserted that the conduct that formed the 
basis for this action all took place prior to October 2003, 
which was when the hearing was held for the discipline imposed 
in early 2004.  Attorney Converse argued that the salutary 
No. 
2004AP2374-D   
 
15 
 
effect of the earlier disciplinary proceeding was sufficient to 
deter him from any further misconduct and that he is now able to 
better exercise judgment regarding the number and types of cases 
he will take on.  In lieu of a suspension, Attorney Converse 
proposed a mentoring program whereby a reserve judge would serve 
as a mentor for him.  He also said to address the problems he 
had with time management he could seek counseling and he 
suggested the local OLR board could monitor his compliance.  He 
also offered to perform uncompensated community service for 
agencies such as Wisconsin Judicare or Legal Services of 
Northeastern Wisconsin.   
¶32 The referee stated that in rebuttal to Attorney 
Converse's proposal the OLR pointed out that even though the 
violations in this case occurred before October 2003, some of 
them were committed after Attorney Converse had received notice 
he was being investigated by the OLR for very similar violations 
and even during October 2003 Attorney Converse failed to 
cooperate with the OLR in its investigation of these grievances.   
¶33 The referee said that Attorney Converse had taken no 
steps to flesh out his proposal for mentoring or counseling.  
The referee specifically noted that community service and a 
public reprimand were used as an alternative to suspension in 
1992 but those were insufficient to cause Attorney Converse to 
conform his practice to the rules of professional responsibility 
and since that time Attorney Converse has caused additional harm 
to clients and the legal community.  The referee concluded that 
a one-year suspension of Attorney Converse's license was 
No. 
2004AP2374-D   
 
16 
 
reasonable and he also recommended that Attorney Converse pay 
the costs of the proceeding. 
¶34 In his appeal, Attorney Converse does not contest the 
referee's findings of fact or conclusions of law with respect to 
the misconduct.  The only issue he raises on appeal is the 
reasonableness of the one-year suspension.  He notes that he was 
suspended from the practice of law for 90 days beginning March 
31, 2004, and was reinstated effective July 1, 2004.  He 
complains that after being back in practice for a little more 
than one month, he received a letter from counsel for the OLR 
saying that neither the charges to be brought, nor the sanction 
sought in this proceeding were subject to negotiation and 
informing him that the sanction sought by the OLR was a one-year 
suspension of his license.  Attorney Converse argues that 
because he was serving a 90-day suspension at the same time the 
OLR made the determination to seek an additional one-year 
suspension, an additional suspension period is not appropriate. 
¶35 The OLR argues that a one-year suspension is in fact 
appropriate.  It says disciplinary sanctions for repeat attorney 
offenders 
are 
frequently 
predicated 
on 
offenses 
committed 
earlier in time than the most recent disciplinary action.   
¶36 This court will adopt a referee's findings of fact 
unless they are clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law are 
reviewed de novo.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  The 
court may also impose whatever sanction it sees fit regardless 
of the referee's recommendation.  See In re Disciplinary 
No. 
2004AP2374-D   
 
17 
 
Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 
N.W.2d 686.  The referee's findings of fact in this case have 
not been shown to be clearly erroneous, and we adopt them.  We 
also agree with the referee's conclusions of law.  We further 
agree 
with 
the 
referee's 
recommendation 
for 
a 
one-year 
suspension of Attorney Converse's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin and a requirement that Attorney Converse pay the costs 
of this proceeding. 
¶37 Over 
the 
past 
20 
years 
Attorney 
Converse 
has 
repeatedly been found to have engaged in misconduct with respect 
to his handling of various client matters.  This is the fifth 
time that he is the subject of a disciplinary action.  As the 
referee noted, Wisconsin has long adhered to a system of 
progressive discipline.  The fact that the frequency of Attorney 
Converse's misconduct has resulted in multiple disciplinary 
proceedings should not be a basis for imposing a more lenient 
level of discipline.   
¶38 The misconduct at issue here was serious, and Attorney 
Converse offers no excuse for failing to diligently represent 
the K.s and M.H., or for failing to provide them with 
information about their cases in spite of their numerous 
requests that he do so.  The fact that he now expresses remorse 
for his conduct rings hollow, especially in light of his 
previous disciplinary history.  Under the circumstances it is 
reasonable to impose a one-year suspension of his license to 
practice law and to require him to pay the costs of the 
proceeding.   
No. 
2004AP2374-D   
 
18 
 
¶39 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Mark E. Converse to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for one year, effective 
February 23, 2006. 
¶40 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Mark E. Converse pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation 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 Mark E. Converse to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the 
court. 
¶41 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mark E. Converse comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
¶42 N. PATRICK CROOKS, J., did not participate. 
 
No. 
2004AP2374-D   
 
 
 
1