Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jevon Jones Jaconi
Citation: 2003 WI 137
Docket Number: 2003AP002039-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: November 7, 2003

2003 WI 137 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
03-2039-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jevon Jones Jaconi, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Jevon Jones Jaconi,  
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST JACONI 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 7, 2003   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2003 WI 137 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  03-2039-D  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jevon Jones Jaconi, Attorney at  
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Jevon Jones Jaconi,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
NOV 7, 2003 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the stipulation filed by 
Attorney Jevon J. Jaconi and the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) pursuant to SCR 22.12.  On July 31, 2003, the OLR filed a 
complaint 
in 
this 
court 
alleging 
20 
separate 
counts 
of 
misconduct against Jaconi.  Jaconi did not file an answer but 
instead he and the OLR filed a SCR 22.12 stipulation in which 
Jaconi admitted the facts and misconduct as alleged in the OLR's 
complaint and agreed to the level of discipline the OLR sought 
No. 
03-2039-D   
 
2 
 
in this disciplinary matter——a one-year suspension of Jaconi's 
license to practice law in this state, plus a requirement that 
Jaconi refund money to clients and an individual who paid a 
portion of his fees.  
¶2 
We approve the stipulation and adopt the stipulated 
facts and conclusions regarding Jaconi's 20 counts of misconduct 
as alleged in the OLR's complaint.  We determine that the 
seriousness of Jaconi's misconduct warrants suspension of his 
license to practice law in this state for a period of one year.  
We also agree that Jaconi should be required to make the refunds 
to his clients and the other individual in the amounts 
stipulated.  
¶3 
Attorney Jevon Jones Jaconi was admitted to practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin 
in 
1998 
and 
has 
not 
previously 
been 
disciplined.  Currently he is not practicing law; his license 
was administratively suspended on June 3, 2003, for his failure 
to comply with mandatory CLE requirements.  
¶4 
In the OLR's disciplinary complaint filed in this 
court it was alleged that Jaconi had committed 20 separate 
counts 
of 
misconduct. 
 
Those 
counts 
involved 
Jaconi's 
representation 
of 
seven 
separate 
clients. 
 
In 
partial 
explanation for his numerous acts of misconduct Jaconi has 
submitted a "personal statement" which was incorporated in that 
stipulation.  Jaconi's statement asserts that he was elected 
district attorney for Kewaunee county immediately upon his 
graduation from the University of Dayton Law School and his 
successful completion of the Wisconsin bar exam.  Prior to that 
No. 
03-2039-D   
 
3 
 
time, according to Jaconi, he had neither prosecuted nor 
defended a criminal case.  After one term as district attorney, 
Jaconi did not run for reelection and opened his own practice.  
As 
noted, 
he 
is 
no 
longer 
practicing 
law 
having 
been 
administratively suspended for failure to comply with mandatory 
CLE requirements.  
¶5 
Jaconi now admits to the facts and misconduct as 
alleged 
in 
the 
OLR 
complaint. 
 
Briefly 
summarized, 
the 
allegations are these: 
I. 
REPRESENTATION OF M.N. 
COUNTS ONE THROUGH FIVE  
¶6 
The OLR complaint alleged, and Jaconi now stipulates, 
that on August 18, 2001, M.N. hired Jaconi to represent her on a 
felony matter in Brown County Circuit Court; she agreed to pay 
him a flat fee of $1250 and paid $600 of that amount on 
September 11, 2001.  At Jaconi's request, M.N. signed an 
"Authorization to Appear" so that Jaconi could appear in court 
on her 
behalf without 
her 
being 
present. 
 
However, an 
Authorization to Appear does not apply in felony matters in 
Wisconsin; 
defendants 
charged 
with 
a 
felony 
must 
appear 
personally.  Jaconi erroneously informed M.N. that she did not 
need to personally appear at her adjourned initial appearance.  
When neither Jaconi nor M.N. appeared at that adjourned hearing, 
a bench warrant for M.N.'s arrest was issued; an additional 
complaint was then filed against her for felony bail jumping.  
¶7 
After M.N. was informed about the bench warrant, she 
repeatedly called Jaconi but he did not return her calls.  She 
No. 
03-2039-D   
 
4 
 
then personally scheduled a hearing in the circuit court seeking 
to quash the warrant.  Although Jaconi had not returned any of 
her calls he appeared at that hearing.  The circuit court 
subsequently cancelled the bench warrant but informed M.N. and 
Jaconi that additional paperwork would be needed to fully 
resolve the bail jumping issue.  Jaconi stated he would take 
care of that paperwork but failed to do so.  
¶8 
Later when M.N. was arrested on the felony bail 
jumping charge, she repeatedly called Jaconi but received no 
response from him.  She then retained substitute counsel.   
¶9 
M.N. sent Jaconi a certified letter terminating his 
services and requesting that he return her file and the $600 fee 
she had paid.  Jaconi failed to respond to that letter. However, 
he subsequently appeared at M.N.'s pretrial conference and gave 
her file back and gave her a check dated December 7, 2001, 
written on his law office account in the amount of $600.  M.N., 
however, was unable to cash that $600 check because there were 
insufficient funds in Jaconi's office account to cover it.  
Subsequently, on January 2, 2002, that account was closed.  
Although she telephoned him many times about that dishonored 
check, Jaconi never responded.  M.N. made over 25 calls to 
Jaconi but he never telephoned or wrote to her although 
ultimately she did receive a $600 refund from him.  
¶10 Based on this admitted course of conduct the OLR 
complaint charged Jaconi with five counts of misconduct, to 
which he now stipulates: 
No. 
03-2039-D   
 
5 
 
COUNT ONE: 
By incorrectly advising M.N. 
that she did not need to appear at the 
adjourned initial appearance in a felony 
criminal matter, resulting in M.N.'s failure 
to appear and in a criminal charge against 
her for felony bail jumping, for which she 
was 
arrested, 
Jaconi 
failed 
to 
provide 
competent 
representation 
to 
M.N., 
in 
violation of SCR 20:1.1. 
COUNT TWO: 
By 
failing 
to 
take 
appropriate steps after September 12, 2002, 
to fully resolve the bail jumping issue, 
such that a felony bail jumping complaint 
and arrest warrant were subsequently issued 
in the matter, Jaconi failed to act with 
reasonable 
diligence 
and 
promptness 
in 
representing a client, in violation of SCR 
20:1.3. 
COUNT THREE: 
By 
failing 
to 
keep 
M.N. 
informed about the status of her matter and 
by failing to 
promptly 
respond to 
her 
requests for information, Jaconi failed to 
respond 
to 
reasonable 
requests 
for 
information, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a). 
COUNT FOUR: 
By failing to promptly refund 
an unearned retainer, Jaconi failed to take 
steps to the extent reasonably practicable 
to protect a client's interest, in violation 
of SCR 20:1.16(d). 
COUNT FIVE: 
By writing and providing to 
M.N. his $600 check on his law firm account 
that Jaconi knew could not be cashed, Jaconi 
engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation, 
in 
violation of SCR 20:8.4(c). 
II. REPRESENTATION OF T.O. 
COUNTS SIX THROUGH NINE 
¶11 The OLR complaint alleged, and Jaconi now stipulates, 
that on November 28, 2001, T.O. hired Jaconi to represent her in 
municipal court in DePere on charges of operating while 
intoxicated, operating with a prohibited blood alcohol content, 
obstruction, and operating after suspension.  Jaconi appeared 
No. 
03-2039-D   
 
6 
 
with T.O. at her initial appearance at which she entered a not 
guilty plea.  At that time, T.O. informed Jaconi that her 
primary concern was with the OWI charge; he assured her that he 
would get that charge reduced.  T.O. paid Jaconi $250 as half 
payment of the flat fee of $500 he had agreed to accept to 
represent her.   
¶12 T.O. called Jaconi numerous times over the next two-
week period but received no response from him until December 13, 
2001, when he called and asked her to meet him that evening.  
She did so and Jaconi again assured her that he would get the 
OWI charge reduced; he also stated that he could get the other 
charges dropped.  At that meeting, T.O. wrote Jaconi a check for 
the remaining $250 on his agreed upon fee.  According to T.O., 
Jaconi promised to provide her a receipt for those payments and 
stated that he would call her with respect to the status of her 
case.  However, between December 13, 2001, and January 3, 2002, 
Jaconi failed to respond to T.O.'s numerous telephone calls.   
¶13 On January 3, 2002, Jaconi telephoned T.O. and told 
her that her trial was scheduled for that evening.  T.O. had not 
received any prior notice of that trial date; nor had she 
received anything in writing from Jaconi about the scheduled 
trial.  Jaconi told T.O. that she would be pleading no contest 
to the OWI charge.  When T.O. again told him that she did not 
want to plead no contest to the OWI count, Jaconi told her that 
he would talk to the prosecuting attorney and get back to her 
before the trial.  He did not do so.  Instead, on January 3, 
2002, Jaconi appeared in municipal court on T.O.'s behalf and 
No. 
03-2039-D   
 
7 
 
entered a plea of no contest for her to the OWI charge.  She was 
not present at that hearing. 
¶14 As part of the penalty for the OWI violation, T.O.'s 
driver's license was suspended for seven months.  Jaconi, 
however, did not inform T.O. about the seven-month suspension or 
about the disposition of her OWI case, and despite her repeated 
telephone calls to him after January 3, 2002, Jaconi never 
responded.   
¶15 On February 28, 2002, T.O. sent a certified letter to 
Jaconi dismissing him as her attorney and requesting an 
accounting for the $500 fee she had paid.  She also asked for 
copies of all the paperwork pertaining to her case.  That 
certified letter was returned unclaimed.   
¶16 After the OWI charge against her had been resolved in 
municipal court, T.O. continued to drive unaware that her 
license had been suspended for seven months.  Subsequently, she 
received a citation for operating after suspension. 
¶17 Based on this admitted course of conduct, the OLR 
complaint charged Jaconi with an additional four counts of 
misconduct, to which he now stipulates: 
COUNT SIX: 
By failing to maintain proper 
communication with T.O., Jaconi failed to 
keep a client reasonably informed about the 
status of a matter and promptly comply with 
reasonable 
requests 
for 
information, 
in 
violation of SCR 20:1.4(a). 
COUNT SEVEN: 
By 
failing 
to 
adequately 
explain to T.O. her plea options so she 
could make informed decisions regarding her 
representation, Jaconi failed to explain a 
matter to the extent reasonably necessary to 
permit the client to make informed decisions 
No. 
03-2039-D   
 
8 
 
regarding the representation, in violation 
of SCR 20:1.4(b). 
COUNT EIGHT: 
By failing to abide by T.O.'s 
decision not to plead no contest to the OWI 
charge, Jaconi failed to abide by a client's 
decisions 
concerning 
the 
objectives 
of 
representation and consult with the client 
as to the means by which they are to be 
pursued, in violation of SCR 20:1.2(a). 
COUNT NINE: 
By failing to provide T.O. 
with documents relating to the disposition 
of her case, and by failing to provide T.O. 
with an accounting of the $500 she paid him, 
Jaconi failed to take steps to the extent 
reasonably practicable to protect a client's 
interests, in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d). 
III. REPRESENTATION OF J.Y. 
COUNTS TEN THROUGH TWELVE 
¶18 The OLR complaint alleged, and Jaconi now stipulates, 
that on August 8, 2001, Jaconi agreed to represent J.Y. and 
commence a divorce action on J.Y.'s behalf for a flat fee of 
$1200.  On August 8, 2001, J.Y.'s friend paid $200 to Jaconi 
toward that fee. On November 20, 2001, J.Y. paid Jaconi $125; 
then on January 25, 2002, J.Y. paid Jaconi an additional $50.   
¶19 J.Y. also discussed with Jaconi a potential medical 
malpractice claim and gave Jaconi copies of J.Y.'s medical 
records and medication histories concerning that claim.   
¶20 After their initial August 8, 2001, conference, J.Y. 
had only one additional meeting with Jaconi.  After that second 
meeting, J.Y. had no further contact with Jaconi.  
¶21 Jaconi never prepared a petition for divorce on J.Y.'s 
behalf nor did he return J.Y.'s repeated telephone calls about 
the matter.  On March 13, 2002, J.Y. sent Jaconi a certified 
letter terminating his representation and requesting the return 
No. 
03-2039-D   
 
9 
 
of the money that had been paid toward Jaconi's fee.  After 
three attempts at delivery, J.Y.'s letter was returned by the 
post office as unclaimed. 
¶22 Jaconi subsequently informed the OLR investigators 
that he was willing to refund the money J.Y. and his friend had 
paid but Jaconi feared that might be construed as an attempt by 
him to inappropriately influence an OLR grievant.  Jaconi was 
advised by the OLR that he could refund J.Y.'s money and it 
would not be construed as an attempt by him to influence a 
grievant.  Despite that assurance, Jaconi never refunded J.Y.'s 
payments and has not returned J.Y.'s medical documents.   
¶23 Based on this admitted course of conduct, the OLR 
complaint charged Jaconi with three counts of professional 
misconduct, to which he now stipulates: 
COUNT TEN: 
By 
failing 
to 
commence 
a 
divorce action on behalf of J.Y. over the 
course of six months, Jaconi failed to act 
with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing a client, in violation of SCR 
20:1.3. 
COUNT ELEVEN: By 
failing 
to 
respond 
to 
J.Y.'s phone calls or otherwise communicate 
with J.Y. after the two initial meetings, 
and by failing to accept a certified letter 
from J.Y., Jaconi failed to keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a 
matter and promptly comply with reasonable 
requests for information, in violation of 
SCR 20:1.4(a). 
COUNT TWELVE: By failing to return J.Y.'s 
money, 
and 
by 
failing 
to 
return 
the 
materials relating to J.Y.'s malpractice 
claim, Jaconi failed to take steps to the 
extent reasonably practicable to protect a 
client's interests, in violation of SCR 
20:1.16(d). 
No. 
03-2039-D   
 
10 
 
REPRESENTATION OF D.C. 
COUNTS THIRTEEN AND FOURTEEN 
¶24 The OLR complaint alleged, and Jaconi now stipulates, 
that in November 2001 D.C. hired Jaconi to represent her in a 
divorce action for a $1200 flat fee.  She paid him $800 of that 
agreed upon fee.  D.C. was thereafter hired by Jaconi to work in 
his office; however, based on her observations there, she 
changed her mind about having him represent her in her divorce 
action.  D.C. then requested a refund of the $800 fee she had 
paid.  On December 14, 2001, she met with Jaconi and he gave her 
a check drawn on his law office account in that amount.  Jaconi 
asked her, however, to wait until December 17, 2001, to cash the 
check.  
¶25 After December 17, 2001, D.C. contacted Jaconi's bank 
on several occasions to determine if there were sufficient funds 
in his account to cover the check.  Each time she was advised 
that there were not.  Jaconi subsequently closed that account on 
January 2, 2002.  Thereafter, D.C. made several unsuccessful 
attempts to contact Jaconi about the return of her money and 
about the worthless check he had given her.  She subsequently 
filed a complaint with the Kewaunee County Sheriff's Department.  
After Jaconi was contacted by the sheriff's department, he 
returned D.C.'s $800 and also paid the handling fee charged by 
the sheriff's department.  D.C. then withdrew her complaint.   
¶26 Based on this admitted course of conduct, the OLR 
complaint charged Jaconi with an additional two counts of 
professional misconduct, to which he now stipulates: 
No. 
03-2039-D   
 
11 
 
COUNT THIRTEEN: 
By 
failing 
to 
have 
sufficient funds in his law office account 
to cover the $800 refund check he issued to 
D.C., and by not returning those funds to 
D.C. until she had filed a complaint with 
the Kewaunee County Sheriff's Department, 
Jaconi failed to take steps to the extent 
reasonably practicable to protect a client's 
interests, and failed to refund an advance 
payment of fee that had not been earned, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.16(d). 
COUNT FOURTEEN: 
By providing to D.C. his 
$800 check on his law firm account that 
Jaconi knew could not be cashed, Jaconi 
engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation, 
in 
violation of SCR 20:8.4(c). 
IV. REPRESENTATION OF R.J. 
COUNTS FIFTEEN AND SIXTEEN 
¶27 The OLR complaint alleged, and Jaconi now stipulates, 
that in June 2001 Jaconi was appointed by the state public 
defender to represent R.J. in a felony criminal matter in Brown 
County Circuit Court.  Jaconi represented R.J. until December 
12, 2001, at which time successor counsel was appointed.  Jaconi 
did not represent R.J. at the time of the disposition of the 
criminal matter.   
¶28 Between July 2001 and October 15, 2001, R.J. and/or 
his family members made numerous telephone calls to Jaconi 
attempting to discuss or learn the status of the criminal 
matter.  All of those calls were unanswered.  In addition, on 
one occasion Jaconi failed to be available for a prearranged 
conference call with R.J., and Jaconi failed to visit R.J. in 
prison.   
¶29 Jaconi appeared at R.J.'s arraignment on July 16, 
2001, and again at R.J.'s final pretrial conference on October 
No. 
03-2039-D   
 
12 
 
15, 2001.  Prior to those appearances, R.J. had informed Jaconi 
that he did not want to enter into a plea agreement; rather, 
R.J. told Jaconi that he wanted to proceed to trial on the 
criminal charge.  Despite that instruction, Jaconi wrote a 
letter to the assistant district attorney handling the criminal 
matter inquiring about the possibility of a plea bargain.  The 
prosecutor responded with a proposed plea agreement but Jaconi 
did not inform R.J. about that correspondence.   
¶30 At R.J.'s October 15, 2001, pretrial conference, 
Jaconi urged R.J. to accept the plea bargain because R.J. was 
already in prison.  Again R.J. told Jaconi that he wanted to go 
to trial on the criminal charge.  Despite R.J.'s repeated 
statements that he wanted a trial, Jaconi did not undertake 
thorough pretrial preparations.  When R.J. later told Jaconi 
that he wanted someone else to represent him, Jaconi withdrew as 
counsel.   
¶31 Based on this admitted course of conduct regarding his 
representation of R.J., the OLR complaint charged Jaconi with an 
additional two counts of professional misconduct, to which he 
now stipulates: 
COUNT FIFTEEN: By failing to prepare for a 
trial, and instead pursuing a plea agreement 
with the district attorney when his client 
was adamant from the outset that he wanted 
to go to trial, Jaconi failed to act with 
reasonable 
diligence 
and 
promptness 
in 
representing a client, in violation of SCR 
20:1.3. 
COUNT SIXTEEN: By 
failing 
to 
respond 
to 
reasonable requests for information and by 
failing to keep R.J. reasonably informed 
about the status of a matter from July 2001 
No. 
03-2039-D   
 
13 
 
to October 15, 2001, Jaconi failed to keep a 
client reasonably informed about the status 
of 
a 
matter 
and 
promptly 
comply 
with 
reasonable 
requests 
for 
information, 
in 
violation of SCR 20:1.4(a). 
V. 
REPRESENTATION OF V.S. 
COUNTS SEVENTEEN AND EIGHTEEN 
¶32 The OLR complaint alleged, and Jaconi now stipulates, 
that on September 20, 2001, V.S. hired Jaconi to represent him 
in a small claims matter and paid Jaconi $200 toward the agreed 
upon $500 flat fee.  Jaconi thereafter filed a small claims 
action on December 6, 2001, naming K Motors as the defendant.  
V.S. subsequently notified Jaconi that K Motors had not been 
served with a small claims summons and complaint because that 
defendant had changed its name to Easy Auto Sales.   
¶33 At the initial return date of December 26, 2001, 
Jaconi appeared in the small claims action; however, because an 
amended complaint was needed naming Easy Auto Sales as the 
defendant, an adjourned return date of January 14, 2002, was 
scheduled.  After December 26, 2001, however, V.S. was unable to 
reach Jaconi despite his numerous attempts to do so by telephone 
and letter.  Four subsequent return dates were adjourned because 
Jaconi failed to appear.   
¶34 V.S. 
then 
sent 
a 
letter 
to 
Jaconi 
expressing 
displeasure 
about 
the 
quality 
of 
Jaconi's 
services 
and 
complaining that Jaconi had not returned his telephone calls and 
had failed to appear on the scheduled court dates.  In that 
letter, V.S. informed Jaconi that the next court date was April 
10, 2002, and asked Jaconi to contact him before that date.  
No. 
03-2039-D   
 
14 
 
Jaconi did not do so.  On April 10, 2002, Jaconi appeared in the 
small claims matter.  However, because he had not contacted V.S. 
prior to that return date, Jaconi was unaware that V.S. would be 
unable to appear at that date because of a work conflict.  The 
small claims action was then dismissed on that date because of 
V.S.'s failure to appear.   
¶35 Based on this admitted course of conduct regarding his 
representation of V.S., the OLR complaint charged Jaconi with an 
additional two counts of professional misconduct, to which he 
now stipulates: 
COUNT SEVENTEEN: 
By failing to appear at 
several court dates and by failing to file 
and 
serve 
necessary 
amended 
pleadings, 
Jaconi 
failed 
to 
act 
with 
reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a 
client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. 
COUNT EIGHTEEN: 
By failing to respond to 
V.S.'s 
numerous 
telephone 
and 
written 
inquiries, Jaconi failed to keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a 
matter and promptly comply with reasonable 
requests for information, in violation of 
SCR 20:1.4(a). 
VII. REPRESENTATION OF V.S. 
COUNTS NINETEEN AND TWENTY 
¶36 The OLR complaint alleged, and Jaconi now stipulates, 
that in late 2001 V.S. contacted Jaconi about representing V.S. 
and J.B. in an ordinance violation matter involving V.S.'s 
alleged use of J.B.'s hunting license.  On January 8, 2002, V.S. 
paid Jaconi a flat fee of $250 for the representation.  The 
matter was scheduled for a plea hearing on January 22, 2002.  
No. 
03-2039-D   
 
15 
 
Prior to that date, V.S. left several telephone messages for 
Jaconi but received no response from him.   
¶37 On the January 22, 2002, plea-hearing date, Jaconi did 
not appear.  Instead, without informing V.S., Jaconi entered a 
written appearance and a plea of not guilty on V.S.'s and J.B.'s 
behalf.  Both J.B. and V.S. personally appeared at that January 
22 hearing.  After that hearing, V.S. left over 30 telephone 
messages for Jaconi but received no response from him.   
¶38 On February 20, 2002, V.S. filed a grievance with the 
OLR complaining about Jaconi's failure to respond to his 
repeated inquiries.  It was only after V.S. received a copy of 
Jaconi's response to that grievance that V.S. discovered that a 
trial date in the ordinance matter had been set for June 21, 
2002.  Jaconi appeared at that June 21 court trial but neither 
V.S. nor J.B. had been contacted by Jaconi prior to that trial. 
¶39 Based on admitted course of conduct regarding his 
representation of V.S. and J.B., the OLR complaint charged 
Jaconi with an additional two counts of professional misconduct, 
to which he now stipulates: 
COUNT NINETEEN: 
By failing to appear on 
the plea date when he had not informed his 
clients that he did not intend to appear, 
and by failing to contact his clients prior 
to June 21, 2002 to prepare for trial, 
Jaconi 
failed 
to 
act 
with 
reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a 
client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. 
COUNT TWENTY: By failing to return V.S.'s 
telephone calls, by failing to have any 
contact with his clients, either written or 
oral between January 8, 2002 and the trial 
on June 21, 2002, Jaconi failed to keep a 
client reasonably informed about the status 
No. 
03-2039-D   
 
16 
 
of 
a 
matter 
and 
promptly 
comply 
with 
reasonable 
requests 
for 
information, 
in 
violation of SCR 20:1.4(a). 
¶40 As noted, Jaconi has now stipulated to these 20 counts 
of misconduct as alleged by the OLR in its complaint.  He admits 
the facts and the misconduct and agrees that a one-year 
suspension of his license to practice law in this state is an 
appropriate sanction for that misconduct.  He also agrees with 
the OLR that he should be ordered to refund $500 to T.O., $175 
to J.Y., and $200 to J.Y.'s friend who paid that amount to 
Jaconi as part of the flat fee in the J.Y. matter.   
¶41 We approve the stipulation and determine that the 
seriousness of Jaconi's misconduct warrants a suspension of his 
license to practice law in this state for one year.  Jaconi's 
admitted 
acts 
are 
serious 
violations 
of 
the 
Rules 
of 
Professional Conduct governing lawyers in this state.  We also 
agree that Jaconi should make the refunds in the stipulated 
amounts.  
¶42 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Jevon Jones Jaconi 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of one 
year, effective the date of this order.  
¶43 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jevon Jones Jaconi comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 regarding the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended.  
¶44 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Jevon Jones Jaconi shall make refunds in the 
amounts and to the persons as stipulated.  If those refunds are 
No. 
03-2039-D   
 
17 
 
not paid within 60 days, and absent a showing to this court of 
his inability to make such refunds within that time, the license 
of Jevon Jones Jaconi to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain 
suspended until further order of this court.  
No. 
03-2039-D   
 
 
 
1