2016 WI 86

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2016AP1204-D

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Harvey N. Jones, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Harvey N. Jones,

 Respondent.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST JONES

OPINION FILED: October 18, 2016

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT:

COUNTY:

JUDGE:

JUSTICES:

CONCURRED:

DISSENTED:

NOT PARTICIPATING: 

ATTORNEYS:
2016 WI 86

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2016AP1204-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Harvey N. Jones, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Harvey N. Jones,

 Respondent.

FILED

OCT 18, 2016

Diane M. Fremgen

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license 

revoked. 

¶1 PER CURIAM. The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 

and Attorney Harvey N. Jones have filed a stipulation pursuant 

to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12 that Attorney Jones' license 

to practice law in this state should be revoked, as discipline 

reciprocal to that imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court. 

After careful review of the matter, we approve the stipulation 

and impose the stipulated reciprocal discipline. The OLR does 

not seek the imposition of costs, and we do not impose costs.
No. 2016AP1204-D 

2

¶2 Attorney Jones was admitted to practice law in 

Wisconsin in August 1984. He was admitted to practice law in 

Minnesota in 1974. 

¶3 Attorney Jones' Wisconsin disciplinary history 

consists of an administrative suspension on October 31, 2011 for 

failure to pay State Bar dues, failure to comply with the OLR 

trust account certification, and failure to comply with 

continuing legal education requirements. His Wisconsin law 

license remains suspended. 

¶4 On July 31, 2013, the Minnesota Supreme Court 

disbarred Attorney Jones based on the following violations:

• Count One: Jones' misappropriation of client and 

non-client funds of at least $51,142.03 on at least 20 

occasions over a period of 20 months was in violation 

of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15(a), (c)(3) and (c)(4) 

and 8.4(c).

• Count Two: Jones' repeated failure to respond to 

requests for meetings and documentation by the 

Director during the investigation and failure to file 

a timely answer to the charges of unprofessional 

conduct was in violation of Rule 25, RLPR and Minn. R. 

Prof. Conduct 8.1(b).

• Count Three: Jones' failure to maintain subsidiary 

client ledgers and monthly trial balances and failure 

to perform monthly trust account reconciliations was 

in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15 and 

Appendix 1 and Rule 9(a)(1), RLPR. 

¶5 Attorney Jones did not notify the OLR of the Minnesota 

disbarment within 20 days of its effective date. 

¶6 On June 15, 2016, the OLR filed a two count complaint. 

Count one alleged that by virtue of his Minnesota disbarment, 

Attorney Jones should be subject to reciprocal discipline in 
No. 2016AP1204-D 

3

Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 22.22. Count two alleged by failing 

to notify the OLR of his disbarment in Minnesota within 20 days 

of the effective date of the imposition of such discipline, 

Attorney Jones violated SCR 22.22(1). 

¶7 On August 18, 2016, after the OLR's complaint had been 

served on Attorney Jones but before a referee had been 

appointed, Attorney Jones entered into a stipulation with the 

OLR whereby he agreed that the facts alleged in the OLR's 

complaint supported a revocation of his license to practice law 

in Wisconsin as reciprocal discipline to that imposed by the 

Minnesota Supreme Court. 

¶8 Under SCR 22.22(3), this court shall impose the 

identical discipline imposed in another jurisdiction unless one 

or more of three exceptions apply. In his stipulation, Attorney 

Jones states that he does not claim that any exception applies 

to his case, and he agrees that this court should revoke his 

license to practice to law in Wisconsin.

¶9 In the stipulation, Attorney Jones further avers that 

the stipulation did not result from plea-bargaining, that he 

does not contest the facts and misconduct alleged by the OLR or 

the discipline sought by the OLR director, and that the facts 

alleged in the complaint form a basis for the discipline 

requested. Attorney Jones further represents that he fully 

understands the misconduct allegations; fully understands the 

ramifications should this court impose the stipulated level of 

discipline; fully understands his right to contest the matter; 

fully understands his right to consult with counsel; that his 
No. 2016AP1204-D 

4

entry into the stipulation is made knowingly and voluntarily; 

and that the stipulation represents his decision not to contest 

the misconduct alleged in the complaint or the level and type of 

discipline sought by the OLR director.

¶10 After review of this matter, we accept the stipulation 

and impose the identical discipline imposed by the Minnesota 

Supreme Court, namely the revocation of Attorney Jones' license 

to practice law in Wisconsin. Because this matter has been 

resolved by means of a stipulation without the appointment of a 

referee and the OLR has not requested the imposition of costs, 

we do not impose any costs on Attorney Jones.

¶11 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Harvey N. Jones to 

practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this 

order.

¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 

already done so, Harvey N. Jones shall comply with the 

provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 

license to practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked.

¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 

conditions of this ordered is required for reinstatement. See

SCR 22.28(3). 
No. 2016AP1204-D 

1