Title: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. Verlin H. Peckham

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2000 WI 17 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
98-3171-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Verlin H. Peckham, Attorney at Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional  
Responsibility,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
Verlin H. Peckham,  
 
Respondent.  
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PECKHAM 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
February 23, 2000 
Submitted on Briefs: 
      
Oral Argument: 
      
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
      
 
Dissented: 
      
 
Not Participating:       
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
      
 
2000 WI 17 
 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 98-3171-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Verlin H. Peckham, Attorney at  
Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional  
Responsibility,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Verlin H. Peckham,  
 
          Respondent.  
FILED 
 
FEB 23, 2000 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Acting Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Public 
reprimand 
imposed.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that Attorney Verlin Peckham be publicly reprimanded as 
discipline for failing to appear at trial on behalf of a client 
in a small claims action, not pursuing reconsideration of the 
resulting judgment against the client, not having communicated 
with the client to prepare for the trial or discussing 
alternatives available to challenge the judgment, borrowing 
money from that client without advising her to seek independent 
advice or obtain her written consent to the loan, and failing to 
cooperate in the investigation of the Board of Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility (Board) into his conduct.  In 
No. 
98-3171-D 
 
2 
addition to the public reprimand, the referee recommended that 
Attorney Peckham be required to repay the loan to the client, 
together with interest. 
¶2 
We determine that the public reprimand recommended by 
the referee is the appropriate discipline to impose for Attorney 
Peckham's professional misconduct.  After initially considering 
that recommendation, we ordered Attorney Peckham and the Board 
to show cause why more severe discipline should not be imposed, 
as this is the second time that Attorney Peckham is facing the 
imposition of discipline for professional misconduct.  In its 
response to that order, the Board presented information that was 
not in the record before us, including that the client from whom 
he borrowed money was a long-time friend and neighbor of 
Attorney Peckham, that Attorney Peckham has been suspended from 
the practice of law for nonpayment of State Bar membership dues 
and assessments and failure to comply with continuing legal 
education requirements, and that poor health caused him to 
retire from the practice of law in November 1998 and he does not 
intend to resume practice.  
¶3 
Attorney Peckham was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1968 and most recently practiced in Portage.  He 
was disciplined previously for professional misconduct in 1983, 
when the court suspended his license for six months as 
discipline for neglect of several client matters, failure to 
return a client's telephone calls and respond to inquiries 
concerning his legal matter, withdrawing client funds from his 
trust account and placing them in his office account without 
No. 
98-3171-D 
 
3 
making an accounting to the client, depositing a client's income 
tax refund into his office account rather than his trust account 
and issuing a check to his client from his office account that 
was dishonored for insufficient funds, making payments to 
himself from his trust account in respect to two estates in 
excess of the fees to which he was entitled, failing to maintain 
a formal record of his trust account or a client ledger, and 
failing to respond to inquiries from the Board into his conduct 
in those matters.  Disciplinary Proceedings Against Peckham, 115 
Wis. 2d 494, 340 N.W.2d 198. 
¶4 
The referee in the instant proceeding, Attorney Judith 
Sperling Newton, adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of 
law to which the parties had stipulated concerning Attorney 
Peckham's representation of a client in a small claims action.  
The client retained Attorney Peckham in April 1995 to recover 
interest on mortgage payments she had made that were refunded to 
her by virtue of mortgage insurance.  Attorney Peckham appeared 
at the pretrial conference in July 1997 but had no contact with 
the client concerning the case between that conference and the 
trial date, August 29, 1997, and did not appear at the trial.  
The client's numerous attempts to contact him during that time 
were unsuccessful.   
¶5 
The client appeared for trial, and after she gave 
testimony, the court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. 
 Attorney Peckham thereafter learned of the judgment adverse to 
his client but made no effort to contact her and took no action 
to have the judgment reopened.   
No. 
98-3171-D 
 
4 
¶6 
The referee concluded that Attorney Peckham thereby 
failed to provide competent representation, in violation of SCR 
20:1.1,1 failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing the client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3,2 failed 
to keep his client reasonably informed of the status of her 
matter and respond to her requests for information, in violation 
of SCR 20:1.4(a),3 and effectively terminated his representation 
of 
her 
without 
taking 
appropriate 
steps 
to 
protect 
her 
interests, in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d).4 
                     
1 SCR 20:1.1 provides:  Competence.  
A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a 
client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, 
skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the 
representation.  
2 SCR 20:1.3 provides:  Diligence. 
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client.  
3 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides: 
(a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about 
the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable 
requests for information. 
4 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides: 
(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. 
98-3171-D 
 
5 
¶7 
On the date of the pretrial conference in the small 
claims matter, Attorney Peckham told his client he was short of 
cash and asked for a $500 loan.  The client agreed, and Attorney 
Peckham gave her a handwritten promissory note calling for 
payment, with annual interest of 12%, by September 5, 1997. 
Attorney Peckham did not advise the client to seek independent 
legal advice in connection with the loan and has not repaid any 
principal or interest.  The referee concluded that Attorney 
Peckham violated SCR 20:1.8(a)5 by entering into a business 
transaction with the client without giving her a reasonable 
opportunity to seek the advice of independent counsel or 
obtaining her written consent.  
¶8 
During its investigation of his conduct, the Board 
sent Attorney Peckham a letter December 1, 1997, asking for 
information.  After several extensions to respond, Attorney 
Peckham failed to provide the Board with any information or 
materials.  The referee concluded that he thereby failed to 
                     
5 SCR 20:1.8(a) provides: 
(a) A lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction 
with a client or knowingly acquire an ownership, possessory, 
security or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client unless: 
(1) the transaction and terms on which the lawyer acquires 
the interest are fair and reasonable to the client and are fully 
disclosed and transmitted in writing to the client in a manner 
which can be reasonably understood by the client; 
(2) the client is given a reasonable opportunity to seek 
the advice of independent counsel in the transaction; and 
(3) the client consents in writing thereto.  
No. 
98-3171-D 
 
6 
cooperate in the Board's investigation, in violation of SCR 
21.03(4) and 22.07(3).6 
¶9 
As discipline for that professional misconduct, the 
referee recommended imposition of the public reprimand to which 
the parties had stipulated.  In addition, she recommended that 
the court order Attorney Peckham to repay the client the $500 he 
borrowed from her, together with annual interest of 12%, within 
90 days.  Finally, the referee recommended that Attorney Peckham 
pay the costs of this proceeding. 
¶10 We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and impose the discipline recommended.  Under 
the circumstances present, a public reprimand is a sufficient 
disciplinary response to Attorney Peckham's failure to meet his 
professional obligations to his client from the outset of his 
representation of her in the small claims action and to act in 
obtaining relief from the adverse judgment that resulted from 
his nonperformance.  It also will suffice to deter other 
                     
6 SCR 21.03(4) provides: 
(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. 
SCR 22.07(3) provides: 
(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.  
No. 
98-3171-D 
 
7 
attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct.  We also require 
Attorney Peckham to repay the loan he obtained from the client, 
with interest, as the referee recommended. 
¶11 IT IS ORDERED that Verlin H. Peckham is publicly 
reprimanded as discipline 
for the 
professional 
misconduct 
established in this proceeding. 
¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Verlin H. Peckham repay the loan he obtained from 
his client, with interest, as set forth in this opinion. 
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Verlin H. Peckham pay to the Board of Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility 
the costs 
of this 
proceeding, 
provided that in the event 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 
Verlin H. Peckham to practice law in Wisconsin shall be 
suspended until further order of the court.   
 
 
1