Title: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. John P. Louderman

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
98-2497-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against John P. Louderman, III, Attorney  
at Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional  
Responsibility,  
 
Complainant, 
 
 
v. 
 
John P. Louderman, III,  
 
Respondent.  
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST LOUDERMAN 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
October 26, 1999 
Submitted on Briefs: 
      
Oral Argument: 
      
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
      
 
Dissented: 
      
 
Not Participating:       
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
      
 
No. 
98-2497-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. 98-2497-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against John P. Louderman, III, Attorney  
at Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional  
Responsibility,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
John P. Louderman, III,  
 
          Respondent.  
FILED 
 
OCT 26, 1999  
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Public 
reprimand 
imposed. 
¶1 
PER CURIAM   We review the report of the referee 
recommending that Attorney John P. Louderman, III, be publicly 
reprimanded as discipline for his failure to send a document to 
the circuit court for its approval in a divorce action until 
more than six years after being ordered by the court to do so.  
We determine that a public reprimand is the appropriate 
discipline to impose for that misconduct, in light of the fact 
that Attorney Louderman has been privately reprimanded on three 
prior occasions for misconduct. 
¶2 
Attorney Louderman was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1975 and practices in Madison.  The Board of 
No. 
98-2497-D 
 
2 
Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility 
(Board) 
privately 
reprimanded him, with his consent, three times: in 1985 for 
having improperly failed and refused to turn over the file of a 
former client for almost two years; in 1986 for neglecting to 
execute and record a mortgage properly for a client and pursue 
contempt proceedings against the mortgagor after telling his 
client he would do so; in 1996 for failing to consult with 
clients and obtain consent to complete a Qualified Domestic 
Relations Order (QDRO) in order to render their divorce judgment 
effective 
or 
to 
withdraw 
from 
their 
representation, 
for 
neglecting to inform one of the clients of the issues that had 
arisen in regard to the defective QDRO and divorce decree and 
failing to respond to her written inquiry requesting that steps 
be taken immediately to conclude all matters properly, and for 
representing both parties in a joint petition for divorce 
without obtaining the necessary written consent of both parties. 
  
¶3 
Based on stipulations of the parties, the referee in 
the instant proceeding, Attorney Norman Anderson, made findings 
of fact concerning Attorney Louderman's representation of a 
client in a divorce action that was commenced in 1989.  The 
court's memorandum decision of October 2, 1990, divided the 
parties' marital estate, awarding the wife one-half of the 
husband's defined retirement benefits through a QDRO.  The 
decision directed Attorney Louderman to prepare the QDRO 
concerning the retirement benefits and, after approval by 
opposing counsel, submit it to the court for review. 
No. 
98-2497-D 
 
3 
¶4 
The attorney for the wife sent Attorney Louderman a 
letter in December 1990 reminding him that he had been ordered 
to draft the QDRO and asking him to send a copy of the draft as 
soon as possible.  Attorney Louderman wrote his client's pension 
fund in February 1991 to request a copy of its preferred form of 
a QDRO and ask the fund's general counsel to contact him.  The 
wife's attorney again wrote Attorney Louderman in May 1991 
inquiring into the status of the QDRO, and Attorney Louderman 
responded one month later that he felt it was inappropriate for 
him to draft it.  The wife's attorney then reminded him that the 
court had ordered him to do so and asserted that she was 
unwilling to do it because her client had filed bankruptcy and 
her fees had been discharged and because of the fact that the 
judge had not directed her to draft the document. 
¶5 
As of May 8, 1991, Attorney Louderman still had not 
drafted the QDRO, but he did retain a lawyer to do it for him.  
By the end of January 1993, the QDRO had been drafted, but the 
pension fund would not accept it unless a provision that would 
allow the former wife to receive benefits while her former 
spouse received disability benefits were deleted, as such a 
provision was inconsistent with the terms of the fund.  At some 
time prior to March 1997, it came to Attorney Louderman's 
attention that the QDRO never had been processed.  He then 
submitted the QDRO to the court for its approval on March 4, 
1997, more than six years and five months after he had been 
ordered to draft and submit it to the court.  The court approved 
the QDRO the day following its submission.  
No. 
98-2497-D 
 
4 
¶6 
On the basis of those facts, the referee concluded 
that by not sending the QDRO to the court for its approval until 
more than six years after being ordered to do so, Attorney 
Louderman failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.n. In 
recommending a public reprimand for that misconduct, the referee 
explicitly took into account Attorney Louderman's testimony at 
the disciplinary hearing that when he is required to draft a 
QDRO in a divorce case, he now hires another attorney to do the 
work.  The referee also considered Attorney Louderman's three 
prior private reprimands for misconduct, as well as the fact 
agreed to by the parties that no one suffered any financial loss 
as a result of Attorney Louderman's neglect, although the 
client's access to the pension funds was delayed.   
¶7 
We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and impose the public reprimand recommended. 
 Attorney Louderman has established a history of neglecting his 
clients' matters, and public discipline is called for to impress 
upon him the seriousness of his professional obligations to 
clients and to deter him from engaging in similar misconduct in 
the future.  
¶8 
IT IS ORDERED that John P. Louderman, III, is publicly 
reprimanded for professional misconduct. 
                     
n. SCR 20:1.3 provides:  Diligence 
 
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing a client.  
 
No. 
98-2497-D 
 
5 
¶9 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order John P. Louderman, III 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 
John P. Louderman, III to practice law in Wisconsin shall be 
suspended until further order of the court.  
 
 
 
1