Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Mary Kathleen Arthur

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2004 WI 66 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
03-3448-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Mary Kathleen Arthur, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Mary Kathleen Arthur,  
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ARTHUR 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 9, 2004   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2004 WI 66 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  03-3448-D  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Mary Kathleen Arthur, Attorney  
at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Mary Kathleen Arthur,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 9, 2004 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the stipulation filed by 
Attorney 
Mary 
Kathleen 
Arthur 
and 
the 
Office 
of 
Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR) pursuant to SCR 22.12,1 which sets forth 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.12 provides:  Stipulation.  
(1) The director may file with the complaint a 
stipulation of the director and the respondent to the 
facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and 
discipline to be imposed.  The supreme court may 
consider the complaint and stipulation without the 
appointment of a referee.  
No. 
03-3448-D   
 
2 
 
findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding Attorney 
Arthur's professional misconduct.  The parties stipulated to a 
90-day suspension of Attorney Arthur's license to practice law 
in 
Wisconsin. 
 
We 
accept 
the 
parties' 
stipulation 
and 
recommendation that a suspension of 90 days is appropriate 
discipline for Attorney Arthur's misconduct.  
¶2 
Attorney Arthur was admitted to practice in 1977.  She 
has no prior disciplinary history.  
¶3 
The OLR complaint and the terms of the stipulation 
reflect two counts of misconduct, both entailing violations of 
SCR 20:3.1(a)(3), which provides: 
In representing a client, a lawyer 
shall not: file a suit, assert a position, 
conduct a defense, delay a trial or take 
other action on behalf of the client when 
the lawyer knows or when it is obvious that 
such an action would serve merely to harass 
or maliciously injure another. 
¶4 
The facts giving rise to the first alleged violation 
of SCR 20:3.1(a)(3) requires some discussion of two underlying 
                                                                                                                                                             
(2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation, 
it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of 
law and impose the stipulated discipline.  
(3) If the supreme court rejects the stipulation, 
a referee shall be appointed and the matter shall 
proceed as a complaint filed without a stipulation.  
(4) A stipulation rejected by the supreme court 
has no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to 
the respondent's defense of the proceeding or the 
prosecution of the complaint. 
No. 
03-3448-D   
 
3 
 
cases in which either Attorney Arthur, or her husband, Attorney 
Ronald Arthur, served as counsel.   
¶5 
In 1992 Peterson Builders commenced suit against 
American Gasket Co., alleging that certain gaskets it purchased 
from American Gasket Co. and intended to install on a Navy ship 
were not made of the material required by contract.  American 
Gasket Co. impleaded David Roeming as a third-party defendant, 
claiming it purchased the gaskets from him.  Attorney Ronald 
Arthur represented Mr. Roeming.  In May 1993 the parties reached 
a settlement. 
¶6 
The next year Audrey and David Roeming, this time 
represented by Attorney Mary Kathleen Arthur, filed a lawsuit 
against many of the parties to the earlier litigation, including 
Peterson Builders, American Gasket Co., and related parties.  
This lawsuit alleged multiple causes of action, including breach 
of contract, abuse of process, injury to business, tortious 
interference with contract, frivolous action, unjust enrichment, 
fraud, and misrepresentation, all arising out of the gasket 
contract dispute.  The trial court dismissed the action, finding 
it barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, adding that 
the pleading stated no claims upon which relief could be 
granted.   
¶7 
The Roemings, still represented by Attorney Mary 
Kathleen Arthur, appealed.  The court of appeals reversed in 
part, and remanded for further consideration of some of the 
claims.  On remand, the defendants moved for summary judgment.   
No. 
03-3448-D   
 
4 
 
¶8 
In opposition to the motion for summary judgment 
Attorney Mary Kathleen Arthur submitted an affidavit executed by 
her husband, Attorney Ronald Arthur, which the court of appeals 
later found to contain "unsupported inferences" and "pure 
speculation."  The trial court granted the defendants' motion 
for summary judgment and also found the Roemings' claims 
"objectively frivolous."  Indeed, the trial court deemed 
Attorney Mary Kathleen Arthur responsible, and, after further 
proceedings, assessed frivolous costs against her, personally, 
in the amount of $24,380.59.   
¶9 
The Roemings appealed again and the court of appeals 
affirmed, agreeing that the record supported the trial court's 
finding that the lawsuit was frivolous, and that it was 
continued in bad faith for purposes of harassment.  The court of 
appeals added that Attorney Ronald Arthur's affidavit drew 
unreasonable inferences and engaged in "pure speculation and 
conjecture."  See Roeming v. Peterson Builders, Inc., No. 97-
3834-FT, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. Aug. 18, 1998).  
¶10 The stipulation provides that by filing a lawsuit 
alleging conspiracy and misconduct in plaintiff's and opposing 
counsel's prosecution of a prior civil action, when her filing 
or continuation of the suit was based upon an affidavit that 
contained speculation and unreasonable inferences, Attorney Mary 
Kathleen Arthur filed a lawsuit, asserted a position, conducted 
a defense, delayed trial or took other action on behalf of a 
client, when she knew or it was obvious that such an action 
No. 
03-3448-D   
 
5 
 
would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another, in 
violation of SCR 20:3.1(a)(3). 
¶11 The facts giving rise to the second violation of SCR 
20:3.1(a)(3) derive from a completely different set of facts. 
¶12 In 1994 Attorney Ronald Arthur purchased some timbered 
property adjacent to the homestead parcel of Barbara Doyle.  Ms. 
Doyle contended that Ronald Arthur's logging activities were 
improper and caused damage to her property.  In August 1995, 
upon learning that Ms. Doyle intended to file a lawsuit, 
Attorney Mary Kathleen Arthur, acting as her husband's attorney, 
filed a lawsuit in Dodge County, against Ms. Doyle and others, 
seeking, inter alia, a declaration that Ronald Arthur was not 
liable for damage to Ms. Doyle's property.  See Arthur v. Keefe, 
No. 98-1897, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. Nov. 4, 1999). 
¶13 A month later Ms. Doyle filed her own claim in Juneau 
County Circuit Court.  Doyle v. Arthur, No. 97-3353, unpublished 
slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. Oct. 22, 1998).  Attorney Arthur 
effectively failed to file an answer in this case and the Juneau 
County Circuit Court granted Ms. Doyle a default judgment.  The 
court later denied Attorney Arthur's motion to set aside the 
default judgment and ordered a hearing on the amount of damages 
to which Ms. Doyle was entitled. 
¶14 In a memorandum decision dated July 31, 1997, the 
Juneau 
County 
Circuit 
Court 
found 
that 
Ronald 
Arthur 
"intentionally and maliciously used his and his wife's position 
and knowledge as attorneys in an all out effort to intimidate 
[Ms.] Doyle . . . ."  In addition, the circuit court found that 
No. 
03-3448-D   
 
6 
 
Attorney Arthur had threatened to sue Ms. Doyle and her 
attorneys for conspiracy and extortion without any factual basis 
for such a complaint.  Ms. Doyle was eventually awarded $34,720 
in compensatory damages and $75,000 in punitive damages.   
¶15 Attorney Ronald Arthur then submitted this judgment as 
a claim to his insurance company.  The insurance company filed 
an action against Ronald Arthur and Ms. Doyle seeking a 
declaratory judgment that it was not liable for the judgment 
against Ronald Arthur.   
¶16 Representing 
her 
husband, 
Attorney 
Mary 
Kathleen 
Arthur filed a cross-claim against Ms. Doyle, impleaded Ms. 
Doyle's attorneys as third-party defendants, and, despite the 
circuit court's previous findings, alleged that Ms. Doyle and 
her attorneys had engaged in conspiracy and extortion.  The 
circuit court decision was later affirmed and Attorney Arthur's 
cross-claim was dismissed.  See id.  
¶17 The stipulation provides that, by filing a cross-claim 
and a third-party complaint against Ms. Doyle and her attorneys 
that alleged their purported fraud and conspiracy, despite 
previous trial court findings to the contrary, Attorney Mary 
Kathleen Arthur filed a lawsuit, asserted a position, conducted 
a defense, delayed trial or took other action on behalf of a 
client when she knew or it was obvious that such action would 
serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another, in 
violation of SCR 20:3.1(a)(3). 
¶18 In addition to stipulating to the facts as set forth 
above, the parties stipulated to discipline in the form of a 90-
No. 
03-3448-D   
 
7 
 
day suspension of Attorney Mary Kathleen Arthur's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin.  The stipulation provides further 
that it is not the result of a plea bargain and reflects neither 
a reduction of the charges nor a reduction of the level of 
discipline originally sought by OLR.  The OLR is not seeking the 
imposition of costs in this matter.   
¶19 We agree with the OLR that Attorney Mary Kathleen 
Arthur has misused the judicial process to benefit herself or 
her husband and to inflict injury upon those who opposed them in 
litigation by causing them to expend time and money defending 
against harassing claims or lawsuits.   
¶20 We turn to whether the agreed upon sanction is 
appropriate.  Attorney Arthur has no previous disciplinary 
history.  She has engaged in a significant amount of public 
service.  A 90-day suspension is consistent with discipline 
imposed in comparable cases. See, e.g., In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 
N.W.2d 686; In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Nichols, 2002 
WI 60, 253 Wis. 2d 149, 645 N.W.2d 270; In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Ratzel, 170 Wis. 2d 121, 487 N.W.2d 38 
(1992).  
We 
are 
persuaded 
that 
a 
90-day 
suspension is 
appropriate discipline for this misconduct. 
¶21 Therefore, we approve the stipulation and adopt the 
stipulated facts and conclusions of law as set forth therein.  
We also accept the parties' stipulation that a 90-day suspension 
is appropriate discipline for these offenses.  Therefore, 
No. 
03-3448-D   
 
8 
 
¶22 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Mary Kathleen Arthur 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 90 
days, effective July 14, 2004, and until reinstated by this 
court. 
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if she has not already 
done so, Attorney Mary Kathleen Arthur must 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. 
03-3448-D   
 
 
 
1