Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jeffrey P. White

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2019 WI 95 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
19AP1426-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of the Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jeffrey P. White, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
v.  
 
Jeffrey P. White, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST WHITE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 22, 2019 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
      
 
 
2019 WI 95
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2019AP1426-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of the Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jeffrey P. White, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
v.  
 
Jeffrey P. White, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
OCT 22, 2019 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This is a reciprocal discipline matter.  
On August 7, 2019, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a 
two-count complaint against Attorney Jeffrey P. White.  Count 
one alleged that by virtue of Attorney White's recent nine-month 
license suspension and public reprimand by the Maine Supreme 
Judicial Court, Attorney White should be subject to reciprocal 
discipline 
in 
Wisconsin 
pursuant 
to 
Supreme 
Court 
Rule 
(SCR) 22.22.  Count two alleged that by failing to notify the 
OLR of his discipline in Maine within 20 days of its effective 
No. 
2019AP1426-D   
 
 
 
2 
date, Attorney White violated SCR 22.22(1).1  After service of 
the complaint, the parties stipulated to the imposition of a 
reciprocal nine-month suspension.  We approve the stipulation, 
and we therefore order a nine-month suspension of Attorney 
White's Wisconsin law license. 
¶2 
Attorney White's law license history is as follows.  
He was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 1986 and in 
Maine in 1988.  He has no prior Wisconsin disciplinary history.  
His Wisconsin law license was administratively suspended in 
October 2010 for failure to pay State Bar dues and failure to 
submit the required trust account certification to the State 
Bar.  His license remains administratively suspended. 
¶3 
In October 2018, a single justice of the Maine Supreme 
Judicial Court entered an order publicly reprimanding Attorney 
White and imposing a nine-month suspension of his Maine law 
license for four counts of misconduct arising out of four client 
matters.  Attorney White appealed, and the Maine Supreme 
Judicial Court affirmed in a June 11, 2019 decision. 
¶4 
According to the allegations in the OLR's complaint 
and the Maine disciplinary records attached to the complaint, 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.22(1) provides:   
An 
attorney 
on 
whom 
public 
discipline 
for 
misconduct 
or 
a 
license 
suspension 
for 
medical 
incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction 
shall promptly notify the director of the matter. 
Failure to furnish the notice within 20 days of the 
effective date of the order or judgment of the other 
jurisdiction constitutes misconduct. 
No. 
2019AP1426-D   
 
 
 
3 
Attorney White's misconduct in Maine included two client matters 
in which, among other things, Attorney White failed to provide 
legal services; failed to properly communicate with his clients; 
and returned unearned client funds only after the clients had 
filed grievance complaints.  In a third matter, Attorney White 
presented to the bankruptcy court a purported conformed copy of 
his client's affidavit.  The client then testified at a hearing 
that although she had agreed to the content of the affidavit in 
a telephone conversation with Attorney White, she had never 
received, reviewed, or signed a physical copy of the affidavit.  
In a fourth matter, Attorney White misrepresented to the 
bankruptcy 
court 
the 
amount 
of 
his 
agreed 
retainer 
and 
anticipated fee, and transferred retainer funds into his 
operating 
account 
instead 
of 
his 
trust 
account, 
without 
obtaining bankruptcy court approval or notifying the United 
States Bankruptcy Trustee.  The Maine Supreme Judicial Court 
stated that, by his conduct, Attorney White violated Rules 1.3; 
1.4(a)(2), (3), and (4); 1.5(i); 1.15(b); 1.16(d); 3.3(a); 
3.4(b); 4.1(a); 5.3; and 8.4(c) of the Maine Rules of 
Professional Conduct. 
¶5 
Attorney 
White 
did 
not 
notify 
the 
OLR 
of 
his 
discipline in Maine within 20 days of its effective date. 
¶6 
On September 9, 2019, after the OLR's complaint had 
been served on Attorney White but before a referee had been 
appointed, Attorney White entered into a stipulation with the 
OLR whereby he agreed that the facts alleged in the OLR's 
complaint supported a nine-month suspension of his Wisconsin law 
No. 
2019AP1426-D   
 
 
 
4 
license as reciprocal discipline to that imposed by the Maine 
Supreme Judicial Court.  The parties jointly maintained that it 
was unnecessary for this court to impose a public reprimand in 
addition to a nine-month suspension, as the Maine Supreme 
Judicial Court did, given that the suspension will be a matter 
of public record. 
¶7 
Supreme Court Rule 22.22(3) states as follows: 
(3) The supreme court shall impose the identical 
discipline or license suspension unless one or more of 
the following is present: 
(a) The procedure in the other jurisdiction was so 
lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to 
constitute a deprivation of due process. 
(b) There was such an infirmity of proof establishing 
the misconduct or medical incapacity that the supreme 
court could not accept as final the conclusion in 
respect to the misconduct or medical incapacity. 
(c) The misconduct justifies substantially different 
discipline in this state. 
¶8 
Attorney White does not claim that any of the defenses 
found in SCR 22.22(3) apply.  Attorney White further states that 
the stipulation did not result from plea bargaining; that he 
understands the allegations against him; that he understands the 
ramifications should the court impose the stipulated level of 
discipline; that he understands his right to contest this 
matter; that he understands his right to consult with counsel; 
that his entry into the stipulation is made knowingly and 
voluntarily; and that his entry into the stipulation represents 
his decision not to contest the misconduct alleged in the 
No. 
2019AP1426-D   
 
 
 
5 
complaint or the level and type of discipline sought by the 
OLR's director. 
¶9 
Upon 
our 
review 
of 
the 
matter, 
we 
accept 
the 
stipulation.  We agree with the parties that, by imposing a 
nine-month suspension in this published decision, we are 
imposing discipline effectively identical to that imposed by the 
Maine Supreme Judicial Court; i.e., a nine-month suspension and 
a public reprimand.  Although in a previous case we imposed both 
a license suspension and a public reprimand as reciprocal 
discipline, see In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eichhorn-
Hicks, 2012 WI 18, 338 Wis. 2d 753, 809 N.W.2d 379, that case 
concerned two out-of-state disciplinary decisions that were 
issued some nine years apart.  See id., ¶¶1-2, 14-15 (imposing 
discipline reciprocal to that imposed in Minnesota disciplinary 
cases from 2000 and 2009).  While it was important in that 
matter to make clear that the respondent-lawyer had been 
disciplined twice by another jurisdiction, this case involves a 
single out-of-state disciplinary matter.   There is no need, 
then, to both publicly reprimand and suspend Attorney White via 
this published decision.  We are satisfied that the nine-month 
suspension we impose here is identical in effect to the 
discipline imposed by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.  See 
SCR 22.22(3). 
¶10 Finally, because this matter was resolved by means of 
a stipulation, the OLR has not sought the imposition of costs, 
and we impose none. 
No. 
2019AP1426-D   
 
 
 
6 
¶11 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Jeffrey P. White to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for nine months, 
effective the date of this order, as discipline reciprocal to 
that imposed by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. 
¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Jeffrey P. White shall comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.29(4)(c). 
¶14 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
administrative 
suspension of Jeffrey P. White, due to his failure to pay State 
Bar dues and failure to submit the required trust account 
certification to the State Bar, will remain in effect until each 
reason for the administrative suspension has been rectified, 
pursuant to SCR 22.28(1).