Title: Bruce Scott Johnson v.

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
97-3220-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Bruce Scott Johnson, Attorney at Law. 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST JOHNSON 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
October 15, 1998 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
No. 
97-3220-D 
 
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. 97-3220-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against BRUCE S. JOHNSON, Attorney at Law. 
FILED 
 
OCT 15, 1998 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney’s 
license 
revoked.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that the license of Bruce S. Johnson to practice law in 
Wisconsin be revoked as discipline for professional misconduct. 
That misconduct consisted of failing to pursue the claims of two 
clients, giving them inaccurate information regarding their 
matters, and failing to keep one of them reasonably informed, 
failing to probate an estate properly and make distributions and 
give an accounting to the beneficiaries, misrepresenting to 
another client that he had filed an action on her behalf and that 
the court had scheduled hearings and taken action in the matter, 
failing to file timely an inventory in another estate and respond 
to 
the 
client’s 
requests 
for 
information 
concerning 
it, 
misappropriating funds of that estate, and failing to respond to 
requests from the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility 
No. 
97-3220-D 
 
2 
(Board) 
and 
from 
the 
district 
professional 
responsibility 
committee for information in each of those matters. In addition 
to license revocation, the referee recommended that Attorney 
Johnson be required to make restitution and provide an accounting 
of his trust account dealing in one of the estates.  
¶2 
We determine that the serious nature and the extent of 
his professional misconduct warrant the revocation of Attorney 
Johnson’s license to practice law. In addition to his repeated 
failure to provide clients the professional services he had 
agreed to provide, Attorney Johnson intentionally misled a client 
into believing that he had commenced an action on her behalf and 
obtained a favorable judgment and violated his fiduciary duty to 
an estate he was representing by taking for his own use funds of 
that estate to which he was not entitled.  
¶3 
Attorney Johnson was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1992 and practiced in Luck, Wisconsin. The records 
of the State Bar of Wisconsin indicate that his current address 
is in St. Paul, Minnesota. Attorney Johnson has not been the 
subject of a prior disciplinary proceeding, but since June, 1997, 
he has been suspended from practice for failure to comply with 
continuing legal education requirements.  
¶4 
Attorney Johnson was personally served with the Board’s 
complaint in this proceeding, but he did not answer or otherwise 
appear until the hearing on the Board’s motion for default 
No. 
97-3220-D 
 
3 
judgment. At that hearing, he stated that he did not contest the 
allegations of the complaint or the disciplinary sanctions sought 
by the Board. The referee, Attorney Janet Jenkins, made findings 
of fact and conclusions of law consistent with the Board’s 
complaint 
in 
respect 
to 
Attorney 
Johnson’s 
professional 
misconduct in four matters.  
¶5 
In the first of those matters, in 1995, Attorney 
Johnson was retained by a client to file a complaint with the 
Equal Rights Division of the Wisconsin Department of Industry, 
Labor and Human Relations. He intended to file an amended 
complaint, but did not do so, despite urging by ERD and 
notification that his failure to do so would result in the 
dismissal of his client’s complaint. As a result, the client’s 
complaint was dismissed. While that matter was pending, Attorney 
Johnson did not give the client accurate information concerning 
the status of the case in response to requests from the client.  
¶6 
Attorney Johnson also represented a relative of that 
client on a claim for Social Security disability payments. After 
the claim was denied, Attorney Johnson was notified of the time 
to request a hearing on the denial. He did not file a request for 
hearing timely or in any other way respond to the directive he 
had received from the Social Security Administration. He also did 
not provide the client with accurate information concerning the 
No. 
97-3220-D 
 
4 
status of the claim in response to requests from the client’s 
family for information.  
¶7 
In a second matter, Attorney Johnson was retained in 
1994 to probate an estate in which he agreed to serve as special 
administrator for purposes of conveying the decedent’s real 
estate. That property was sold in May, 1995, but none of the 
beneficiaries received any distribution or an accounting from 
Attorney Johnson, and it appears the estate remains open, as 
there was nothing done in it since the recording of the deed 
conveying the property. One of the beneficiaries repeatedly 
telephoned 
Attorney 
Johnson’s 
office 
requesting 
information 
regarding the distribution of the sale proceeds from the property 
but received no response.  
¶8 
In a third matter, Attorney Johnson was hired in 
December 1994 to foreclose on a land contract. The following 
April, he told his client that he had obtained a court date in 
the matter, when in fact he had not done so; indeed, he never 
commenced the action. When the client traveled from another state 
to attend the purported foreclosure hearing, Attorney Johnson 
told her that the proceeding had been postponed because of a 
heavy court caseload and had been rescheduled. He said that it 
was not necessary for her to attend the proceeding but told her 
to be available by telephone on that day, as the court would 
include her in a conference call. The client did as instructed, 
No. 
97-3220-D 
 
5 
but she received no call from anyone in connection with any 
proceeding, as no action had been filed. When she telephoned him, 
Attorney Johnson told her the court had ruled in her favor and 
that papers would be sent to her after the judge had signed them.  
¶9 
The client then telephoned Attorney Johnson several 
times to learn why she had received no papers concerning the 
purported judgment. On one occasion Attorney Johnson told her 
that he had tried to call the judge the preceding evening but he 
was out of town. Attorney Johnson did not return the client’s 
numerous telephone calls that followed. In March, 1996, the 
client learned from the court that no action had been filed in 
her behalf.  
¶10 The fourth matter concerned Attorney Johnson’s probate 
of an estate that was opened in late 1995. Pursuant to the 
decedent’s 
will, 
Attorney 
Johnson 
was 
appointed 
personal 
representative, 
and 
he 
filed 
an 
application 
for 
informal 
administration, together with consent and waiver forms signed by 
the beneficiaries, proof of heirship, and the appropriate 
statement of informal administration. He did not, however, file 
the inventory timely. In fact, he never filed an inventory or 
took any other action in the estate, despite a request from the 
register in probate to file the inventory.  
¶11 In that matter, Attorney Johnson retained another law 
firm to pursue a claim the decedent had on a loan she had made, 
No. 
97-3220-D 
 
6 
and that firm obtained a settlement of $10,100 on that claim, of 
which the estate was to receive $9330.66. The law firm then 
issued a check in the appropriate amount payable to Attorney 
Johnson’s trust account and sent it to him. Upon learning that 
the check had not been negotiated, the law firm telephoned 
Attorney Johnson, who said that the check had not been received. 
The law firm then issued a second check, which Attorney Johnson 
also failed to negotiate, although he told the law firm that he 
would do so on a certain date. The firm ultimately stopped 
payment on the check and disbursed the funds to the register in 
probate.  
¶12 Some of the beneficiaries of the estate made repeated 
efforts to obtain information from Attorney Johnson while he 
continued as personal representative for the estate but were 
unsuccessful. In January, 1996, without any inventory having been 
filed, Attorney Johnson made a partial distribution of $14,000 to 
one beneficiary and subsequently made distributions of $14,000 to 
another beneficiary. He did not obtain a release or receipt from 
either of those beneficiaries and did not provide notice of those 
distributions to the other beneficiaries. In July, 1996, he paid 
$1650 of estate funds to his law firm for fees and costs, but he 
provided no bill or itemized statement of services provided and 
costs incurred. In April of 1996, he disbursed to himself for his 
No. 
97-3220-D 
 
7 
own purposes $4495 of estate funds that were in his trust 
account.  
¶13 In each of the foregoing matters, Attorney Johnson did 
not respond to repeated requests from the Board for information. 
He 
also 
did 
not 
respond 
to 
requests 
from 
the 
district 
professional responsibility committee and did not appear at a 
meeting scheduled by the investigating member of that committee.  
¶14 Based on the foregoing, the referee concluded as 
follows. Attorney Johnson’s failure to pursue the Equal Rights 
Division matter constituted a failure to act with reasonable 
diligence, in violation of SCR 20:1.3,1 and his giving the client 
inaccurate 
information 
regarding 
the 
matter 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.4(a).2 His failure to pursue the social security claim and 
return the necessary forms to request a hearing on its denial 
violated SCR 20:1.3, and his failure to provide the client 
accurate information regarding the matter violated SCR 20:1.4(a). 
His failure to pursue the first probate matter violated SCR 
20:1.3, his failure to make distributions or provide accountings 
                     
1 SCR 20:1.3 provides: Diligence 
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client.   
2 SCR 20:1.4 provides, in pertinent part: Communication 
(a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about 
the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable 
requests for information.  
No. 
97-3220-D 
 
8 
to the beneficiaries in that estate violated SCR 20:1.15(b),3 and 
his failure to provide the special administrator in that estate 
with accurate information violated SCR 20:1.4(a).  
¶15 The referee concluded further that Attorney Johnson’s 
misrepresentations to the client regarding the foreclosure action 
purportedly filed on her behalf and the hearings purportedly 
scheduled in it constituted dishonesty, in violation of SCR 
20:8.4(c),4 and his failure to provide the client accurate 
information regarding the case violated SCR 20:1.4(a). In the 
second probate matter, his failure to file an inventory timely 
and otherwise act to complete the probate of that estate violated 
SCR 20:1.3, his failure to provide beneficiaries with accurate 
                     
3 SCR 20:1.15 provides, in pertinent part: Safekeeping 
property 
 . . .  
(b) Upon receiving funds or other property in which a 
client or third person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly 
notify the client or third person in writing. Except as stated 
in this rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with 
the client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or 
third person any funds or other property that the client or 
third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the 
client or third person, shall render a full accounting regarding 
such property.  
4 SCR 20:8.4 provides, in pertinent part: Misconduct 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: 
 . . .  
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation;  
No. 
97-3220-D 
 
9 
information regarding the status of the matter and respond to 
their requests for information violated SCR 20:1.4(a), and his 
misappropriation of at least $4495 of estate funds constituted 
dishonesty, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c). Attorney Johnson’s 
failure to respond to inquiries from the Board and from the 
district committee and his failure to appear at the scheduled 
investigative meeting constituted a failure to cooperate in the 
Board’s investigation, in violation of SCR 21.03(4)5 and 22.07(2) 
and (3).6  
                     
5 SCR 21.03 provides, in pertinent part: General principles.  
 . . .  
(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.  
6 SCR 22.07 provides, in pertinent part: Investigation. 
 . . .  
(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.  
No. 
97-3220-D 
 
10
¶16 As discipline for that professional misconduct, the 
referee recommended that Attorney Johnson’s license to practice 
law be revoked and that he be ordered to pay restitution to one 
of the estates in the amount of $4495, the amount he disbursed to 
himself from estate funds and used for his own purposes. In 
addition, the referee recommended that Attorney Johnson be 
required to provide an accounting of the trust account used for 
that estate.  
¶17 We adopt the referee’s findings of fact and conclusions 
of law and determine that the professional misconduct established 
in this proceeding warrants the revocation of Attorney Johnson’s 
license to practice law. We accept the referee’s recommendation 
that Attorney Johnson be ordered to pay restitution and provide 
an 
accounting 
in 
respect 
to 
the 
matter 
in 
which 
he 
misappropriated funds belonging to an estate.  
¶18 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Bruce S. Johnson to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this 
order.  
                                                                  
(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.  
No. 
97-3220-D 
 
11
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Bruce S. Johnson make restitution and furnish an 
accounting to the estate as recommended by the referee.  
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Bruce S. Johnson pay to the Board of Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility the costs of this disciplinary 
Proceeding.  
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bruce S. Johnson comply with 
the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person 
whose license to practice law has been revoked.  
 
 
1