Title: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. Ronald W. Hendree

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2005 WI 142 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
1997AP1746-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Ronald W. Hendree, Attorney at Law: 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility 
n/k/a Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Ronald W. Hendree, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HENDREE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 19, 2005   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: BUTLER, J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2005 WI 142
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This order is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The 
final version will appear in the 
bound volume of the official 
reports.   
 
 
 
No.  1997AP1746-D  
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Ronald W. Hendree, Attorney at Law: 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility 
n/k/a Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Ronald W. Hendree, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 19, 2005 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Court entered the following order on this date: 
 
We review the recommendation of the referee, Kathleen 
Callan Brady, that Ronald W. Hendree’s petition seeking the 
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin be 
denied. 
 
Ronald 
Hendree 
has 
not 
appealed 
from 
that 
recommendation.  After our review pursuant to SCR 22.33(3), we 
adopt the referee’s findings and agree that Hendree has not met 
his burden imposed by SCR 22.31 of demonstrating by clear, 
satisfactory, and convincing evidence that his resumption of the 
practice of law would not be detrimental to the administration 
of justice or subversive to the public interest.  Accordingly, 
we deny Hendree’s petition for reinstatement.  Furthermore, we 
direct that the costs of the reinstatement proceedings, which 
are $6123.29 as of August 19, 2005, be paid by Hendree. 
 
No.  1997AP1746-D 
 
2 
Hendree’s 
license 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin 
was 
suspended 
for 
one 
year 
effective 
August 4, 
1997. 
 See 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hendree, 211 Wis. 2d 440, 565 
N.W.2d 119 (1997).  Hendree and the Board of Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility (BAPR), the predecessor to the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a stipulation in which 
Hendree admitted the allegations in BAPR’s complaint and further 
stipulated that a one-year suspension was appropriate discipline 
for his misconduct, which included failing to return a client’s 
advance fee payment upon request; disobeying an obligation under 
the rules of a tribunal; failing to keep a client reasonably 
informed about the status of a matter; failing to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; 
engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or 
misrepresentation; failing to properly safeguard money belonging 
to a third person; and making misrepresentations to BAPR in the 
course of its investigation.  As part of this court’s suspension 
order, Hendree was ordered to make restitution to various 
parties and was required to comply with the provisions of SCR 
22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
 
Hendree had previously 
been 
publicly 
reprimanded for 
misconduct with respect to his representation of a labor union 
and its members.  That public reprimand was conditioned on his 
refunding $3750 to the labor union. 
 
Hendree first petitioned for reinstatement of his license 
to practice law in August 1999.  That petition was subsequently 
dismissed 
due 
to 
Hendree’s 
failure 
to 
comply 
with 
the 
restitution terms of his suspension.   
 
Hendree filed another petition for reinstatement in August 
2004.  The OLR opposed the petition.  A hearing was held before 
the referee in May 2005.  Various witnesses testified on 
Hendree’s behalf.  One witness testified in opposition to 
Hendree’s petition for reinstatement, and other people wrote 
letters opposing the petition.  On August 1, 2005, the referee 
issued a report recommending that the petition be denied.   
 
In her report, the referee noted that various witnesses 
testified in support of Hendree’s petition for reinstatement and 
commented about his wide range of community service to various 
groups and individuals.  The referee said, however, those 
witnesses were not knowledgeable about the specifics of the 
facts 
surrounding 
Hendree’s 
suspension 
and 
although 
the 
witnesses testified that Hendree was remorseful as to the loss 
No.  1997AP1746-D 
 
3 
of his license to practice law and its impact on his personal 
life, there was no testimony as to how his misconduct affected 
others.   
 
The referee noted that one witness, Keith C., testified in 
opposition to the reinstatement of Hendree’s license.  Keith C. 
testified he had hired Hendree and paid him a retainer fee and a 
week later when he returned to Hendree’s office he found it 
closed.  Keith C. testified that Hendree “defied the public 
trust.”  The referee noted that other former clients of Hendree 
wrote letters objecting to the reinstatement of his license to 
practice law.   
 
The referee noted that Hendree was called as a witness 
adversely by the OLR and did not testify directly on his own 
behalf.  Hendree testified that he disagreed with this court’s 
conclusions in the public reprimand imposed on him in 1997 and 
he also disagreed with this court’s findings in the 1997 
suspension of his license to practice law.  Hendree testified he 
stipulated to the one-year suspension because he had no money. 
 
The referee found Hendree failed to make restitution to all 
persons injured or harmed by his misconduct as required by this 
court’s previous orders.  She noted Hendree testified the reason 
he failed to comply with the restitution orders was that he has 
no money, but he failed to file the financial information 
repeatedly requested by the OLR to substantiate his claim that 
it would be a hardship for him to make restitution at this time.  
The referee also noted that while Hendree furnished her and the 
OLR with copies of some income tax returns, the OLR noted that 
Hendree provided no evidence that the tax returns were in fact 
ever filed with the Internal Revenue Service and the Wisconsin 
Department of Revenue has no tax returns on file for him from 
1996 to the present. 
 
The referee noted that Hendree admitted he did not notify 
all clients, courts and tribunals of his suspension as required 
by SCR 22.26.  She further noted that the Board of Bar Examiners 
(BBE) has not issued a recommendation concerning Hendree’s 
petition for reinstatement because Hendree failed to submit all 
of 
the 
information 
requested 
by 
the 
BBE 
concerning 
his 
attendance at various continuing legal education programs.  The 
referee also noted that an OLR investigator testified she 
received a letter from the Wisconsin Lawyers Fund advising that 
Hendree owes the Fund $6230 for 17 former clients and that he 
has not paid any of those clients.   
 
No.  1997AP1746-D 
 
4 
The referee noted that SCR 22.31 provides that in a 
reinstatement proceeding the petitioner has the burden of 
demonstrating, by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence: 
(a) that he or she has the moral character to practice law in 
Wisconsin; (b) that his or her resumption of practice of law 
will not be detrimental to the administration of justice or 
subversive to the public interest; (c) that his or her 
representations in the reinstatement petition are substantiated; 
and (d) that he or she has complied fully with the terms of the 
order of suspension and with the requirements of SCR 22.26.   
 
The referee concluded that Hendree failed to meet his 
burden of demonstrating by clear, satisfactory and convincing 
evidence that his representations were substantiated.  The 
referee further found that Hendree failed to make restitution to 
or settle all claims of persons injured or harmed by his 
misconduct, including reimbursement to the Wisconsin Lawyers 
Fund for Client Protection.  The referee also found that Hendree 
failed to demonstrate by clear, satisfactory and convincing 
evidence that he lacked the financial resources to make 
restitution.   
 
The referee further concluded that Hendree failed to 
demonstrate by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence that 
he has a proper understanding of and attitude towards the 
standards that are imposed upon members of the bar and that he 
will act in conformity with those standards.  The referee also 
found that Hendree failed to timely respond to OLR’s requests 
for information.  The referee also concluded that Hendree failed 
to demonstrate by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence 
that he has complied fully with the terms of the order of 
suspension and that he will continue to comply with them until 
his license is reinstated. 
 
While the referee noted that the suspension of Hendree’s 
license has had a profound effect on him, she said unfortunately 
Hendree failed to comply with this court’s order of suspension.  
The referee said most troubling was Hendree’s testimony that he 
disagreed with the findings of the court’s orders in the 
disciplinary proceeding.  The referee noted that while Hendree 
indicated he plans to practice criminal law and represent 
immigrants accused of crimes under the Patriot Act, there was no 
testimony as to how he intends in the future to avoid the types 
of situations that resulted in his current suspension.   
 
The referee said Hendree continues to have problems with 
timeliness and that he failed to fully cooperate with the OLR in 
No.  1997AP1746-D 
 
5 
its investigation.  She said his testimony does not indicate he 
has an understanding of the Rules of Professional Conduct and 
that he will act in conformity with those rules.  The referee 
recommended that Hendree demonstrate the corrective effect that 
the suspension has had on him by complying with the suspension 
order and meeting the requisite burden of proof required by SCR 
22.31.   
 
As noted, Hendree has not appealed from the referee’s 
report, findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendation 
that his petition for reinstatement be denied.   
 
We determine that the record supports the referee’s 
findings with respect to Hendree’s petition for reinstatement 
and we adopt them.  We also agree that Hendree has not met his 
burden 
imposed 
by 
SCR 
22.31 
of 
demonstrating 
by 
clear, 
satisfactory and convincing evidence that his resumption of the 
practice of law would not be detrimental to the administration 
of justice or subversive to the public interest.  Accordingly, 
we deny his petition for reinstatement.  We further conclude 
that Hendree should be responsible for the costs of this 
proceeding.   
 
IT IS ORDERED that Ronald W. Hendree’s petition for 
reinstatement of his license to practice law in this state is 
denied.   
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of 
this order Ronald W. Hendree shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this reinstatement proceeding.  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 Ronald W. Hendree to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the 
court.   
 
Butler, J., did not participate.   
 
 
No.  1997AP1746-D 
 
6