Title: Robert M. Weidenbaum v.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1995AP000815-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: October 13, 1995

No. 95-0815-D 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
 
 
 
 
No.  95-0815-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN             :                IN SUPREME COURT 
                                                                   
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against ROBERT M. WEIDENBAUM, Attorney at 
Law. 
 
FILED 
 
 
OCT 13, 1995 
 
 
 Marilyn L. Graves 
  Clerk of Supreme Court 
  
Madison, WI  
 
                                                                
   
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the referee 
that the license of Attorney Robert M. Weidenbaum to practice law 
in Wisconsin be suspended for 60 days as discipline for 
professional misconduct.  That misconduct consisted of his having 
represented a client when that representation was directly adverse 
to another client, representing a client when that representation 
was materially limited by his responsibilities to another client 
and by his own interests, entering into three loan transactions 
with a client that were not fair or reasonable to the client 
without the client's consent or opportunity to consult with 
 
No. 95-0815-D 
 
 
 
2 
independent counsel, and testifying falsely during a deposition in 
a divorce proceeding and in the Board of Attorneys Professional 
Responsibility's (Board) investigation into his professional 
misconduct.  We determine that the misconduct of Attorney 
Weidenbaum in these matters is sufficiently serious to warrant the 
recommended license suspension.   
 
Attorney Weidenbaum was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin 
in 1980 and practices in St. Francis.  He has not previously been 
the subject of a disciplinary proceeding.  Upon his plea of no 
contest to the allegations of the Board's complaint, the referee, 
Attorney Jean DiMotto, made the following findings of fact.   
 
In 1988, Attorney Weidenbaum represented a business owned by 
a client whose spouse was in charge of its day-to-day operation.  
In the spring of 1989, he agreed to incorporate a new business 
entity that would be a wholly owned subsidiary of the client.  
However, the client and his spouse separated and Attorney 
Weidenbaum then incorporated the new entity with all of its shares 
in the name of the client's spouse.  He did so without the consent 
of his client, even though he was aware of the couple's separation 
and despite the fact that the client had paid all of the fees 
relating to the incorporation of the new entity.    
  
At the spouse's direction and without consulting or obtaining 
the consent of the client, Attorney Weidenbaum redrafted an 
unexecuted agreement he had previously drafted for the client, 
substituting the new entity for the client.  The redrafted 
 
No. 95-0815-D 
 
 
 
3 
agreement was executed in June, 1989 and revenue from it went to 
the new entity instead of to the original client.   
 
 
Also in the spring of 1989, while he was incorporating the 
new entity, Attorney Weidenbaum received from the client's spouse 
two personal checks, one in the amount of $7,000 and the other in 
the amount of $1,500, each of which he placed in his personal 
checking account and used the proceeds to pay personal expenses.  
He did not give the spouse any collateral for those funds or a 
writing setting forth the terms for their repayment.  During the 
Board's 
investigation 
of 
this 
matter, 
Attorney 
Weidenbaum 
testified that he merely cashed those checks for the spouse and 
gave her the proceeds.   
 
In September, 1989, the spouse loaned Attorney Weidenbaum 
$11,000 but she gave no written consent to that transaction.  
Attorney Weidenbaum gave no collateral for that loan and there was 
no requirement that he repay it by a date certain.  Further, the 
amount of the loan set forth in his letter acknowledging it was 
approximately $1,100 less than the money he actually received.   
 
In February, 1990, Attorney Weidenbaum undertook to represent 
the spouse in a divorce proceeding.  When notified by the attorney 
for her husband of a possible conflict of interest, based on his 
having represented the husband's business as well as the new 
entity, his possession of client confidences and the possibility 
that he might be called as a witness regarding the formation and 
 
No. 95-0815-D 
 
 
 
4 
ownership of various assets of the marriage, Attorney Weidenbaum 
responded that he reviewed the applicable rules of attorney 
professional conduct and concluded that his representation of the 
spouse was not substantially related to his representation of her 
husband's business.  He did not, however, discuss any possible 
conflict of interest with the husband or obtain written consent 
for the spouse's representation from either of the parties.   
 
In March, 1990, Attorney Weidenbaum vacationed with the 
spouse, using airline tickets that set forth her surname as 
Weidenbaum.  Attorney Weidenbaum did not obtain his client's 
consent to his continued representation of her in the divorce 
proceeding in light of the effect their personal relationship 
might have on the already hostile divorce proceeding.  Attorney 
Weidenbaum eventually withdrew from that representation in June, 
1990, just prior to a hearing on a motion to compel his 
withdrawal.  However, he continued to represent the spouse in 
business matters.   In July, 1991, during a deposition taken in 
the divorce proceeding, Attorney Weidenbaum testified under oath 
that he and the woman had begun dating in September, 1990 but did 
not begin living together until the following February.  That 
statement was contrary to one he had given to police officers 
investigating a domestic altercation the preceding August, in 
which he identified her as his "live-in girlfriend."  During an 
investigative meeting of the district professional responsibility 
committee in October, 1993, Attorney Weidenbaum testified under 
 
No. 95-0815-D 
 
 
 
5 
oath that he began dating the woman in August, 1990 and they began 
living together in January or February, 1991.   
 
On the basis of those facts, the referee concluded that 
Attorney Weidenbaum engaged in professional misconduct as follows. 
 By representing the new business entity without first consulting 
with his clients about the conflict of interest and obtaining 
their written consent to his concurrent representation of the two 
entities, he represented a client when that representation was 
directly 
adverse 
to 
another 
client, 
in 
violation 
of 
SCR 
20:1.7(a).1  By representing the woman in respect to the new 
entity and in her divorce without obtaining written consent from 
the two parties, he represented a client when that representation 
was materially limited by his representation of the original 
client and by his personal relationship with the subsequent 
client, in violation of SCR 20:1.7(b).2   
                     
     1  SCR 20:1.7 provides, in pertinent part:  Conflict of 
interest:  general rule 
 
(a)  A lawyer shall not represent a client if the 
representation of that client will be directly adverse to another 
client, unless:   
 
(1)  the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will 
not adversely affect the relationship with the other client; and 
 
(2)  each client consents in writing after consultation.   
     2  SCR 20:1.7 provides, in pertinent part:  Conflict of 
interest:  general rule 
 
(b)  A lawyer shall not represent a client if the 
representation of that client may be materially limited by the 
lawyer's responsibilities to another client or to a third person, 
or by the lawyer's own interests, unless:   
 
(1)  The lawyer reasonably believes the representation will 
not be adversely affected; and 
 
(2)  the client consents in writing after consultation.  When 
representation of multiple clients in a single matter is 
 
No. 95-0815-D 
 
 
 
6 
 
The referee also concluded that by entering into the loan 
transactions without the client's written consent or opportunity 
to consult with independent counsel and when the terms of those 
loans were not fair or reasonable, Attorney Weidenbaum entered 
into business transactions with a client prohibited by SCR 
20:1.8(a).3  Finally, by testifying falsely during his deposition 
in the divorce proceeding and before the district committee 
concerning when he began dating the client and when they began 
living together and, in his testimony before the committee, what 
he did with the two checks she had given him, Attorney Weidenbaum 
engaged 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
deceit 
and 
misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c),4 and knowingly 
(..continued) 
undertaken, the consultation shall include explanation of the 
implications of the common representation and the advantages and 
risks involved.   
     3  SCR 20:1.8 provides, in pertinent part:  Conflict of 
interest:  prohibited transactions 
 
(a)  A lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction 
with a client or knowingly acquire an ownership, possessory, 
security or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client unless:   
 
(1)  the transaction and terms on which the lawyer acquires 
the interest are fair and reasonable to the client and are fully 
disclosed and transmitted in writing to the client in a manner 
which can be reasonably understood by the client; 
 
(2)  the client is given a reasonable opportunity to seek the 
advice of independent counsel in the transaction; and 
 
(3)  the client consents in writing thereto.   
     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. 95-0815-D 
 
 
 
7 
made false statements of material fact in connection with a 
disciplinary investigation, in violation of SCR 20:8.1(a).5   
 
We adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of 
law concerning Attorney Weidenbaum's professional misconduct in 
these matters.  The recommended 60-day license suspension is 
appropriate discipline to impose for that misconduct.   
 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Robert M. 
Weidenbaum to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period 
of 60 days, commencing November 6, 1995.   
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this 
order Robert M. Weidenbaum pay to the Board of Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility the costs of this proceeding, provided 
that if the costs are not paid within the time specified and 
absent a showing to this court of his inability to pay those costs 
within that time, the license of Robert M. Weidenbaum to practice 
law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the 
court.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Robert M. Weidenbaum comply 
                     
     5  SCR 20:8.1 provides, in pertinent part:  Bar admission and 
disciplinary matters 
 
An applicant for admission to the bar, or a lawyer in 
connection with a bar admission application or in connection with 
a disciplinary matter, shall not:   
 
(a)  knowingly make a false statement of material fact;   
 
No. 95-0815-D 
 
 
 
8 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person 
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.   
 
JANINE P. GESKE, J., did not participate.   
 
No. 95-0815-D 
 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
                                                              
 
Case No.: 
 
95-0815-D 
                                                              
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary 
 
 
 
Proceedings Against 
 
 
 
Robert M. Weidenbaum, 
 
 
 
Attorney at Law. 
 
 
 
_________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST WEIDENBAUM 
 
                                                              
 
Opinion Filed:  
October 13, 1995 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
                                                              
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
                                                              
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating: 
GESKE, J., did not participate 
                                                              
 
ATTORNEYS: