Title: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. Jimmie G. Davison

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2010 WI 1 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
1992AP2445-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jimmie G. Davison, Attorney at Law: 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility , 
n/k/a Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent-Cross-
Appellant, 
     v. 
Jimmie G. Davison, 
          Respondent-Appellant-Cross-Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DAVISON 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
January 7, 2010   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
October 21, 2009   
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the respondent-appellant-cross-respondent there were 
briefs by Jimmie G. Davison. 
 
For the complainant-respondent-cross-appellant there were 
briefs by William J. Weigel and the Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
Madison. 
 
 
 
 
2010 WI 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.  1992AP2445-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jimmie G. Davison, Attorney at Law: 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, 
n/k/a Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent-Cross- 
          Appellant, 
 
     v. 
 
Jimmie G. Davison, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant-Cross- 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JAN 7, 2010 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.   Reinstatement denied. 
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   Jimmie 
G. 
Davison 
has 
appealed 
a 
referee's report recommending the denial of Attorney Davison's 
petition for reinstatement of his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin.  We agree with the referee that Attorney Davison has 
failed to demonstrate by clear, satisfactory, and convincing 
evidence that his conduct since the revocation has been 
exemplary and above reproach.  The Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) has filed a cross-appeal, asserting that the referee's 
No. 
1992AP2445-D 
 
2 
 
stated reasons for recommending against Attorney Davison's 
reinstatement are not broad enough.  We agree with the OLR and 
also conclude that Attorney Davison has failed to demonstrate by 
clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he has the 
moral character to practice law in Wisconsin and has also failed 
to prove that his resumption of the practice of law will not be 
detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of 
the public interest.  Consequently, we deny Attorney Davison's 
petition for reinstatement and direct him to pay the costs of 
the 
reinstatement 
proceeding, 
which 
are 
$8,944.03 
as 
of 
October 27, 2009.   
¶2 
Attorney Davison was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1976 and practiced in Milwaukee.  In 1989 he was 
privately reprimanded for making a misrepresentation to a 
client.   
¶3 
In May of 1992 Attorney Davison was adjudged guilty of 
first-degree sexual assault of a child, a class B felony.  
Attorney Davison, who was 55 years old, had sexual intercourse 
with his 11-year-old stepdaughter.  Attorney Davison's then-
attorney 
wrote 
to 
the 
Board 
of 
Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility (BAPR), predecessor to the OLR, saying that the 
issuance of the criminal complaint was negotiated and the number 
of counts was limited in response to Attorney Davison's 
assurance that he would plead guilty to a single charge.  
Attorney Davison pled no contest to the charge, was sentenced to 
12 years in prison, and was ordered to pay restitution for the 
victim.   
No. 
1992AP2445-D 
 
3 
 
¶4 
BAPR sought and obtained the summary suspension of 
Attorney Davison's law license.  Attorney Davison thereafter 
submitted a petition for the consensual revocation of his 
license.  A referee appointed by this court recommended 
revocation.  This court revoked Attorney Davison's license in 
February 1993.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Davison, 173 Wis. 2d 658, 495 N.W.2d 314 (1993). 
¶5 
In 1997 Attorney Davison was an inmate at the Kenosha 
Correctional Center and was assigned to a work release program 
at a farm.  He arranged for his wife to meet him for lunch at 
his work site on November 11, 1997.  When Mrs. Davison arrived, 
Attorney Davison got into her car and instructed her to drive to 
a remote area and park inside an isolated shed-type building.  
Once there, he pushed his food aside and began making sexual 
advances, which Mrs. Davison rejected. 
¶6 
According 
to 
the 
criminal 
complaint 
that 
was 
subsequently filed, Attorney Davison assaulted his wife such 
that for a period of time she feared for her life.  His wife 
said Attorney Davison made threats of rape, threatened to kill 
her if she filed for divorce, and choked and hit her in such a 
manner that she was scratched, bleeding, and had black and blue 
marks on her face and throat. 
¶7 
Attorney Davison subsequently pled guilty to one count 
of aggravated battery, one count of special circumstances 
battery (battery by a prisoner), and one count of threats to 
injure, all as a repeater.  Two additional criminal charges were 
dismissed but read in for sentencing purposes:  kidnapping as a 
No. 
1992AP2445-D 
 
4 
 
repeater and false imprisonment as a repeater.  Attorney Davison 
was sentenced to 16 years in prison, consecutive to the prison 
time he was already serving.1   
¶8 
Attorney Davison filed a petition for reinstatement of 
his license to practice law in Wisconsin in October 2007.  The 
OLR filed a response opposing Attorney Davison's petition for 
reinstatement.  The OLR pointed out that Attorney Davison had 
been convicted of criminal behavior prior to his 1992 first-
degree sexual assault conviction.  The OLR noted Attorney 
Davison was convicted of burglary in Georgia at age 18, and in 
1958, when he was 21 years old, he was charged with raping a 13-
year-old girl.  The OLR noted Attorney Davison was convicted of 
sexual assault in 1959 and served three and one-half years of a 
30-year sentence.  In 1967 Wisconsin Governor Knowles commuted 
Attorney Davison's sentence to eight years, including parole 
time already served.  In 1972, after losing a Milwaukee common 
council appointment due to his felony conviction, Attorney 
                                                 
1 The Davison criminal case was the subject of a 2003 
decision from this court.  In State v. Davison, 2003 WI 89, 263 
Wis. 2d 145, 666 N.W.2d 1, the court, with Chief Justice 
Abrahamson and Justice Bradley dissenting, reversed a court of 
appeals decision which, in turn, had reversed the judgment of 
the Kenosha County circuit court following Attorney Davison's 
negotiated guilty plea.  The court of appeals had concluded that 
the aggravated battery and battery by a prisoner punishments 
were multiplicitous, in violation of Attorney Davison's double 
jeopardy 
rights 
under 
the 
United 
States 
and 
Wisconsin 
constitutions.  The majority of this court concluded that the 
convictions for both aggravated battery and battery by a 
prisoner were in conformity with legislative intent and did not 
violate 
Attorney 
Davison's 
due 
process 
right 
against 
multiplicitous punishments. 
No. 
1992AP2445-D 
 
5 
 
Davison applied for and received a full pardon from Governor 
Lucey.  The OLR said it did not believe Attorney Davison had met 
his burden of showing that his post-revocation conduct has been 
exemplary and above reproach.  The OLR also said it was 
unconvinced that Attorney Davison had met his burden of showing 
a proper understanding of and attitude toward the standards that 
are imposed upon the members of the bar and that he will act in 
conformity with those standards.  
¶9 
Gary Olstad was appointed referee.  A hearing was held 
on June 9, 2008.  OLR's counsel cross-examined Attorney Davison 
at length regarding the incident with his wife that occurred in 
November of 1997 which led to the three additional felony 
convictions.  Attorney Davison vigorously denied virtually all 
of 
the 
allegations 
contained 
in 
the 
criminal 
complaint, 
continually saying, "Did not happen."  He said he pled guilty to 
the three felonies because he was depressed, did not want the 
matter to continue, and because his attorney had worked out a 
deal.   
¶10 A number of people submitted letters in support of 
Attorney Davison's petition for reinstatement.  The Board of Bar 
Examiners recommended Attorney Davison's reinstatement subject 
to his compliance with current continuing legal education 
requirements. 
¶11 The referee issued his report on January 21, 2009, and 
said that Attorney Davison testified about the efforts he has 
made, since his incarceration, to identify and come to grips 
about the deep-seated psychological turmoil that allowed him to 
No. 
1992AP2445-D 
 
6 
 
rape his 11-year-old stepdaughter.  The referee said were it not 
for the November 1997 incident involving his wife, the referee 
would not hesitate to recommend reinstating Attorney Davison's 
license.  The referee noted that at the hearing Attorney Davison 
testified he put his hands on his wife's neck and face to make 
her look at him when he spoke to her but said when she 
complained he was hurting her, he released her.  He testified 
she got out of the car and walked away and he followed, grabbing 
her arm.  The referee noted that while Attorney Davison claimed 
the case was still under appeal, on cross-examination he 
revealed the appeal was not based on a claim of innocence, but 
rather on his continuing assertion that it was inappropriate to 
charge him with two separate counts of battery arising out of a 
single incident. 
¶12 The referee concluded that Attorney Davison failed to 
show by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that his 
conduct since the revocation has been exemplary and above 
reproach.  The referee said:  
Even by the most generous definition, grabbing one's 
spouse by the neck in the heat of an argument cannot 
be viewed as conduct that is exemplary and above 
reproach.  By his own testimony Mr. Davison has been 
unable to show compliance with SCR 22.29(4)(e) which 
is a condition precedent to a recommendation that his 
license be reinstated. 
¶13 The referee recommended that Attorney Davison not be 
assessed 
the 
costs 
of 
the 
proceeding 
"based 
solely 
on 
compassion."  The referee noted that in his testimony Attorney 
Davison stated he is 72 years old, blind, and has few resources.  
No. 
1992AP2445-D 
 
7 
 
The referee said if the recommendation to deny reinstatement of 
his license were adopted, "the added burden of paying for the 
proceedings, under the circumstances, would seem unjust." 
¶14 Attorney Davison has appealed, arguing that he has in 
fact 
demonstrated 
by 
clear, 
satisfactory, 
and 
convincing 
evidence that he has the moral character to resume the practice 
of law in Wisconsin.  He continues to assert that he was 
"overcharged in a strictly legal sense" following the 1997 
incident with his wife.  However, he also says he does not 
minimize his behavior since he recognizes the incident was 
frightening and painful to his wife. 
¶15 The 
OLR 
argues 
that 
the 
referee 
appropriately 
concluded that Attorney Davison has failed to show by clear, 
satisfactory, and convincing evidence that his conduct since the 
revocation has been exemplary and above reproach.  In its cross-
appeal, the OLR further argues that Attorney Davison has failed 
to prove he has the moral character to practice law in Wisconsin 
and he has also failed to prove that his resumption of the 
practice of law will not be detrimental to the administration of 
justice or subversive of the public interest.  The OLR says:  
[T]his Court can and should look beyond the current, 
affable Jimmie 
Davison, who survived a tortuous 
childhood, 
deals 
admirably 
with 
his 
physical 
disability, 
and 
participated 
in 
self-revelatory 
therapy.  This Court needs to weigh heavily the nature 
of Davison's past conduct, his self-serving lack of 
candor, and his history of betraying the trust placed 
in him by those who in the past provided him 
rehabilitative opportunities. 
No. 
1992AP2445-D 
 
8 
 
¶16 The OLR argues that Attorney Davison's moral character 
is shown in his extensive criminal history.  It says it is 
difficult to imagine an act more immoral than a 55-year-old 
experienced attorney who has defended hundreds of sexual assault 
cases forcing himself on the 11-year-old stepdaughter he has 
raised.  OLR says Attorney Davison also has a history of 
dishonesty.  It notes that in his first application for 
executive clemency, Attorney Davison overtly admitted perjuring 
himself, saying, "at my trial I lied about many things."  It 
notes as an attorney, Attorney Davison was privately reprimanded 
in 1989 for making a misrepresentation to a client, but during 
the reinstatement hearing he disavowed the basis for the 
reprimand.  The OLR says it is at least disconcerting that 
Attorney Davison now disagrees with owning his past conduct.  It 
says, "He has a story for everything, frequently involving an 
assertion that older records of his conduct are inaccurate.  
This 
tendency, 
perspective 
or 
whatever 
one 
calls 
it 
is 
underscored in [Attorney] Davison's denial of most of the 
unfavorable facts underlying the 1999 felony convictions."  
¶17 The OLR asserts that Attorney Davison's candor during 
the reinstatement proceeding was suspect, and although the 
referee did not make a specific credibility determination one 
way or the other, there appears to perhaps be "a veil of 
incredulity" underscoring the referee's discussion of Attorney 
Davison's disputing the facts of his criminal record, minimizing 
the incident with his wife, and his explanation about why he 
pled guilty to the three felonies in 1999.  The OLR argues the 
No. 
1992AP2445-D 
 
9 
 
record reveals a pattern of inconsistencies including admitted 
perjury at a trial; receiving professional discipline for making 
a misrepresentation to a client and now disputing the conduct 
described in the reprimand; failing to list prior criminal 
convictions; 
under-describing 
serious 
multiple-felony 
convictions; denying the acts shown in the record of the 
criminal case; borderline mischaracterizing by omission the 
nature of his appeal of that case; and presenting a confounding 
if not entirely incredible explanation for his decision to enter 
into a negotiated plea bargain.   
¶18 The OLR argues that Attorney Davison's lack of candor, 
or his at best questionable candor, supports an assessment that, 
overall, he failed to prove he has the moral character required 
for reinstatement.  The OLR also asserts that Attorney Davison 
has failed to prove his resumption of the practice of law will 
not 
be 
detrimental 
to 
the 
administration 
of 
justice 
or 
subversive of the public interest.   
¶19 This court will affirm a referee's findings of fact 
unless they are found to be clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of 
law are reviewed de novo.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against 
Jennings, 
2009 
WI 
26, 
¶22, 
316 
Wis. 2d 6, 
762 
N.W.2d 648.   
¶20 Supreme court rule 22.29(4) provides that a petition 
for reinstatement must show all of the following: 
(a) The 
petitioner 
desires 
to 
have 
the 
petitioner's license reinstated. 
No. 
1992AP2445-D 
 
10 
 
(b) The petitioner has not practiced law during 
the period of suspension or revocation. 
(c) The petitioner has complied fully with the 
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and 
will 
continue 
to 
comply 
with 
them 
until 
the 
petitioner's license is reinstated. 
(d) The petitioner has maintained competence and 
learning in the law by attendance at identified 
educational activities. 
(e) The petitioner's conduct since the suspension 
or revocation has been exemplary and above reproach. 
(f) The petitioner has a proper understanding of 
and attitude toward the standards that are imposed 
upon members of the bar and will act in conformity 
with the standards. 
(g) The petitioner can safely be recommended to 
the legal profession, the courts and the public as a 
person fit to be consulted by others and to represent 
them and otherwise act in matters of trust and 
confidence and in general to aid in the administration 
of justice as a member of the bar and as an officer of 
the courts. 
(h) The petitioner has fully complied with the 
requirements set forth in SCR 22.26. 
(j) The petitioner's proposed use of the license 
if reinstated. 
(k) A full description of all of the petitioner's 
business activities during the period of suspension or 
revocation. 
(4m) The petitioner has made restitution to or 
settled all claims of persons injured or harmed by 
petitioner's misconduct, including reimbursement to 
the Wisconsin lawyers' fund for client protection for 
all payments made from that fund, or, if not, the 
petitioner's explanation of the failure or inability 
to do so. 
¶21 Supreme court rule 22.31(1) provides that an attorney 
seeking reinstatement of his or her license has the burden of 
No. 
1992AP2445-D 
 
11 
 
demonstrating all of these requirements by clear, satisfactory, 
and convincing evidence.  We adopt the referee's findings and 
conclusions and agree that Attorney Davison has failed to meet 
his 
burden 
of 
demonstrating 
by 
clear, 
satisfactory, 
and 
convincing 
evidence 
that 
his 
post-revocation 
conduct 
was 
exemplary or above reproach.  In addition, we agree with the OLR 
that Attorney Davison has also failed to demonstrate by clear, 
satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he has the moral 
character to practice law in Wisconsin and he has failed to 
prove that his resumption of the practice of law will not be 
detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of 
the public interest.   
¶22 We do not reach this decision lightly.  It has been 16 
years since Attorney Davison agreed to the voluntary revocation 
of his license to practice law.  In his petition for 
reinstatement he indicated that if his license were reinstated 
he intended to advocate for the rights of blind persons and 
others who are disabled and also intended to appear before 
legislative bodies 
concerning issues relating to disabled 
persons.  While these are laudable goals, we are troubled by the 
fact that throughout his lifetime Attorney Davison has been 
given multiple opportunities to atone for his past behavior and 
time after time he has failed to live up to the chances he has 
been given.  We conclude that he has failed to satisfy the 
burden placed on him by supreme court rule 22.29(4). 
¶23 Although the referee recommended, "based solely on 
compassion," that no costs be assessed, we find no extraordinary 
No. 
1992AP2445-D 
 
12 
 
circumstances in this case that would warrant a deviation from 
our general policy of imposing all costs of the proceeding on 
the respondent.   
¶24 IT IS ORDERED that Jimmie G. Davison's petition for 
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin is 
denied. 
¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Jimmie G. Davison shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this reinstatement proceeding.  
 
No. 
1992AP2445-D 
 
 
 
1