Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. David L. Nichols

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2002 WI 60 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
01-3032-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against David L. Nichols, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
David L. Nichols,  
 
Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST NICHOLS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 14, 2002   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2002 WI 60 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  01-3032-D  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against David L. Nichols, Attorney at  
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
David L. Nichols,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 14, 2002 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.    Attorney's license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that Attorney David L. Nichols' license to practice law 
in Wisconsin be suspended for six months and that he be required 
to pay the costs of this disciplinary proceeding. 
¶2 
We determine that the seriousness of Attorney Nichols' 
professional misconduct warrants the suspension of his license 
to practice law for six months, as recommended.  
No. 
01-3032-D   
 
2 
 
¶3 
Attorney Nichols was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1981.  His most recent practice of law has been in 
Brillion.   
¶4 
In 1993 Attorney Nichols consented to a public 
reprimand imposed by the Board of Attorneys Professional 
Responsibility1 
for 
misconduct 
consisting 
of 
failure 
to 
communicate with a client concerning legal representation, 
failure to respond to inquiries from the client, and failure to 
cooperate with the Board's investigation.2  
¶5 
In 1995 Attorney Nichols' license was suspended for 60 
days as discipline for professional misconduct consisting of the 
continued practice of law while suspended for failure to pay 
dues to the State Bar of Wisconsin and the assessment for 
supreme court boards and the Client Security Fund.3   
                                                 
1 Effective 
October 
1, 
2000, 
Wisconsin's 
attorney 
disciplinary process was substantially restructured.  The name 
of the body responsible for investigating and prosecuting cases 
involving attorney misconduct was changed from the Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation and the supreme court rules applicable to the lawyer 
regulation system were also revised in part.  Because most of 
the conduct underlying this case arose prior to October 1, 2000, 
the complainant in this case will be referred to as the "Board" 
and all references to supreme court rules will be to those in 
effect prior to October 1, 2000, except as otherwise specified. 
2 STATE BAR OF WISCONSIN, CLE BOOKS, Professional Discipline of 
Wisconsin Attorneys: A Compendium, Vol. III, Public Reprimand 
93-1 (2001). 
3 The 
disciplinary proceeding 
was 
reported 
at 
In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Nichols, 193 Wis. 2d 295, 532 
N.W.2d 712 (1995).   
No. 
01-3032-D   
 
3 
 
¶6 
Attorney Nichols' license was suspended in 2000 for 
noncompliance with continuing legal education requirements and 
that suspension remained in effect as of the date of the filing 
of the complaint in the present matter. 
¶7 
The complaint filed by the Board alleged misconduct 
with respect to Attorney Nichols' handling of two cases: the 
first a 1997 negligence/defamation action and the second a 1998 
probate of an estate.   
¶8 
In the first matter, Attorney Nichols represented the 
mother of the child that was the focus of a custody and 
placement dispute.  A psychologist testified on behalf of the 
child's father that he saw evidence of "emotional incest" or 
parental alienation syndrome attributable to Attorney Nichols' 
client.  
¶9 
Attorney Nichols subsequently filed an action on 
behalf of the mother against the psychologist and his medical 
malpractice insurer claiming that the psychologist's opinions 
were negligent and also defamatory.  Summary judgment in the 
defendant's favor was granted in 1998, the circuit court 
concluding that the suit was frivolous.4 
                                                 
4 The circuit court stated: 
A motivation, I find, for this action, was to send a 
chilling 
message 
or 
a 
chilling 
effect 
to 
[the 
psychologist] 
to pull 
out of his patient/doctor 
relationship with [the father] and thus be unavailable 
to provide opinions in court . . . That's a misuse of 
the court system . . . There was neither a basis in 
fact nor a reasonable extension of any law which could 
provide for this action. 
No. 
01-3032-D   
 
4 
 
¶10 The circuit court sent a copy of its decision to the 
Board which then investigated the matter as a possible violation 
of SCR 20:3.1(a)5 which prohibits an attorney from knowingly 
advancing a claim that is unwarranted under existing law.  
Attorney Nichols responded to the Board that he was appealing 
the circuit court's decision which prompted the Board to hold 
its investigation in abeyance.  In 1999 District III of the 
Court of Appeals issued an order upholding the circuit court's 
finding of frivolousness.  Attorney Nichols failed to respond to 
subsequent requests by the Board as to the status of his appeal 
prompting the Board to reopen the file and order a response to 
the disciplinary action.  He responded that he considered the 
circuit court's and court of appeals' decisions to be in error 
but failed to indicate why he had not responded to earlier 
                                                                                                                                                             
Board complaint against Attorney Nichols, November 14, 2001, ¶9. 
5 SCR 20:3.1(a) provides: 
(a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not:  
(1) knowingly advance a claim or defense that is 
unwarranted under existing law, except that the lawyer 
may advance such claim or defense if it can be 
supported by good faith argument for an extension, 
modification or reversal of existing law;  
(2) knowingly advance a factual position unless there 
is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous; or  
(3) 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. 
No. 
01-3032-D   
 
5 
 
inquiries from the Board as to the status of the appeal.  
Subsequent inquiries by the Board on the matter did not result 
in a further response from him.  
¶11 In the second matter, Attorney Nichols represented the 
personal representative of the estate who paid him $1640 in 
attorney's fees.  However, approximately one year after Attorney 
Nichols was retained, the personal representative determined 
that the estate was still open, although it was eventually 
closed.  Attempted inquiries of Attorney Nichols as to the 
status 
of 
the 
matter 
were 
unsuccessful, 
the 
personal 
representative being informed that he had voluntarily terminated 
his law practice in the interim.   
¶12 Based on a grievance filed against Attorney Nichols by 
the personal representative in 2000, the Board contacted him for 
a response.  He did not respond to the initial inquiry as well 
as to subsequent inquiries.   
¶13 Attorney Nichols' actions in both of these matters 
prompted the Board to file a disciplinary complaint against him 
on November 14, 2001.  The complaint alleged four counts of 
disciplinary violations with respect to his handling of these 
two matters.   
¶14 Count one alleged that Attorney Nichols' filing of the 
negligence/defamation claim against the psychologist was a 
violation of SCR 20:3.1(a)(1)6 in that he knowingly advanced a 
                                                 
6 SCR 20:3.1(a)(1) provides: 
(a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not:  
No. 
01-3032-D   
 
6 
 
claim unwarranted under existing law not supported by good faith 
argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing 
law.   
¶15 Count two alleged that Attorney Nichols' failure to 
respond to inquiries from the Board was a violation of SCR 
21.03(4),7 failure to cooperate with the Board in investigation 
of a grievance, and SCR 22.07(3),8 failure to answer questions, 
furnish 
documents, 
or 
present 
relevant 
information 
in 
a 
grievance investigation.  
¶16 Count three alleged that Attorney Nichols' failure to 
properly file the documents necessary to conclude probate of the 
estate was a violation of SCR 20:1.3,9 failure to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. 
                                                                                                                                                             
(1) knowingly advance a claim or defense that is 
unwarranted under existing law, except that the lawyer 
may advance such claim or defense if it can be 
supported by good faith argument for an extension, 
modification or reversal of existing law. 
7 Former SCR 21.03(4) provided: "(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." 
8 Former SCR 22.07(3) provided: 
(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.  
9 SCR 20:1.3 provides: "Diligence. A lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
No. 
01-3032-D   
 
7 
 
¶17 Count four alleged that in failing to answer the 
Board's 
inquiries 
regarding 
the 
estate, 
Attorney 
Nichols 
violated SCR 22.07(2),10 failure to fully and fairly disclose all 
facts and circumstances pertaining to alleged misconduct within 
20 days of receipt of an ordinary mail request, and SCR 
21.03(4), 
failure 
to 
cooperate 
in 
the 
investigation, 
prosecution, and disposition of a grievance filed with the 
Board.  In addition, the Board alleged that Attorney Nichols' 
conduct in the estate matter also violated several new supreme 
court rules in effect as of October 1, 2000: SCR 22.03(2),11 
                                                 
10 Former SCR 22.07(2) provided: 
(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.  
11 Current SCR 22.03(2) provides: 
(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 
No. 
01-3032-D   
 
8 
 
failure to fully and fairly disclose all facts and circumstances 
pertaining to alleged misconduct within 20 days after being 
served by ordinary mail a request for written response; SCR 
22.03(6),12 wilful failure to provide relevant information, 
answer questions fully or furnish documents, regardless of the 
merits of the matters asserted in the grievance; and, SCR 
21.15(4).13 
¶18 Attorney Nichols admitted service on November 28, 
2001.  Attorney Henry A. Field, Jr., was appointed referee by 
order of this court on December 12, 2001.  Attorney Nichols 
filed an answer on January 30, 2002, entering a plea of no 
contest to the complaint.  The referee subsequently adopted the 
facts for all four counts as stated in the complaint and 
concluded that the allegations of the complaint were proven by 
the requisite burden of proof.  The referee further recommended 
                                                                                                                                                             
questions, 
furnish 
documents, 
and 
present 
any 
information deemed relevant to the investigation. 
12 Current SCR 22.03(6) provides: "(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." 
13 Current SCR 21.15(4) provides:  
(4) Every 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. 
01-3032-D   
 
9 
 
to this court, based upon the recommendation of the Board and 
Attorney Nichols' agreement, that his license be suspended for 
six months.   
¶19 We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law.  Attorney Nichols' misconduct with respect 
to his handling of the negligence/defamation action and the 
estate probate, and his failure to cooperate with the Board's 
investigation of the grievances arising out of both, are serious 
failings requiring a suspension of his license.  A six-month 
suspension of his license to practice law is appropriate 
discipline for his professional misconduct.  
¶20 IT IS ORDERED that the license of David L. Nichols to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six 
months, effective July 19, 2002.  
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that David L. Nichols comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended.  
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order David L. Nichols pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding in the amount of 
$1049.65.  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 David L. Nichols to 
practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further 
order of the court. 
 
No. 
01-3032-D   
 
 
 
1