Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. James F. Blask
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1997AP001233-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: February 24, 1998

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
97-1233-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against James F. Blask, Attorney at Law. 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BLASK 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
February 24, 1998 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
No. 97-1233-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. 97-1233-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against JAMES F. BLASK, Attorney at Law. 
FILED 
 
FEB 24, 1998 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM   We review the report of the referee 
recommending 
that 
Attorney 
James 
F. 
Blask 
be 
publicly 
reprimanded 
for 
professional 
misconduct. 
That 
misconduct 
consisted of his providing false information to the police in 
connection with an incident in which he was charged with and 
convicted 
of 
misdemeanor 
disorderly 
conduct, 
physically 
confronting and causing harm to an individual in a courthouse 
office, and failing to respond to requests for information 
concerning 
these 
matters 
from 
the 
Board 
of 
Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility (Board) during the course of its 
investigation.  
¶2 
We determine that the public reprimand recommended by 
the referee is the appropriate discipline to impose for Attorney 
Blask’s misconduct established in this proceeding. His two 
physical altercations, one in his private capacity and the other 
No. 97-1233-D 
 
2 
in the course of his employment as district attorney, and his 
false statements to the police constitute conduct that reflects 
adversely on the fitness of a person licensed by this court to 
represent others in our legal system. By not responding to 
requests for information from the court’s disciplinary body 
investigating those matters, Attorney Blask has demonstrated a 
disregard for his professional responsibility under the rules of 
this court.  
¶3 
Attorney Blask was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1972 and currently resides in the Milwaukee area. 
At the time relevant to his conduct considered in this 
proceeding, he served as district attorney for Lincoln county. 
He was removed from that office in August, 1996 for misconduct 
in connection with the two altercations considered here. He has 
not 
been 
the 
subject 
of 
a 
prior 
attorney 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  
¶4 
At the start of the disciplinary hearing, Attorney 
Blask served the Board and the referee with what purported to be 
a notice of appeal, intending thereby to stay the proceeding. 
The referee, Attorney Kathleen Callan Brady, had told Attorney 
Blask that the rules applicable to disciplinary proceedings make 
provision for only one appeal and that from the referee’s 
report,1 and said that the hearing would proceed. Nonetheless, 
                     
1 SCR 21.09 provides, in pertinent part: Procedure. 
 . . .  
No. 97-1233-D 
 
3 
Attorney Blask left the hearing. The referee then took testimony 
and made findings of fact consistent with the Board’s complaint.  
¶5 
Attorney Blask attempted to renew his appeal after the 
referee filed her report November 12, 1997, by a letter received 
by the office of the clerk of this court December 12, 1997. He 
did not tender the $150 filing fee for the appeal until January 
14, 1998. By motion filed January 15, 1998, the Board requested 
an order dismissing the appeal as untimely. We grant the Board’s 
motion, as the document served on the Board immediately prior to 
the commencement of the disciplinary hearing, insofar as it 
purported to be a notice of appeal in this proceeding, was a 
nullity, as the referee’s report had not yet been filed. 
Moreover, Attorney Blask’s filing of December 12, 1997 occurred 
beyond the 20-day time limit for the filing of an appeal from 
the referee’s report.  
                                                                  
(5) The referee shall, within 30 days of the conclusion of 
the hearing, file with the clerk of the supreme court a report 
stating his or her findings and disposition of the complaint or 
petition by recommendation of dismissal or imposition of 
discipline as provided in SCR 21.06 or suspension or conditions 
upon the continued practice of law for medical incapacity. The 
board or the attorney may file an appeal of the referee’s report 
with the supreme court within 20 days of the filing of the 
report. If no appeal is timely filed, the supreme court shall 
review the referee’s report and determine appropriate discipline 
in cases of misconduct and appropriate action in cases of 
medical incapacity.  . . .  
SCR 22.17 provides: Appeal. 
A party may appeal only from the report of the referee. In 
an appeal from the report, the supreme court may review all 
prior actions and rulings of the referee.  
No. 97-1233-D 
 
4 
¶6 
The referee made the following findings. On February 
8, 1996, following a high school basketball game he attended in 
Merrill, then District Attorney Blask approached one of the 
game’s referees and expressed significant displeasure with his 
officiating. District Attorney Blask shoved or pushed the 
referee into a wall near the door of the locker room, and the 
referee then went into the locker room.  
¶7 
A short time later, a police officer who had been 
called to the scene and the high school athletic director took 
District 
Attorney 
Blask 
into 
the 
locker 
room, 
where 
he 
apologized to the referee for having shoved him. During that 
apology or immediately after it, District Attorney Blask made 
additional 
derogatory 
remarks 
concerning 
the 
referee’s 
officiating. The referee then refused to accept the proffered 
apology and said he wished to file a complaint.  
¶8 
When 
questioned 
by 
the 
police officer, District 
Attorney Blask said that he had not shoved the referee, denied 
having admitted to anyone that he had done so, and denied having 
apologized to the referee for having shoved him. He gave various 
explanations of the incident, including that the referee had 
bumped into him and that he had pushed himself away from the 
referee defensively.  
¶9 
A criminal complaint 
was 
filed against District 
Attorney Blask alleging one count of disorderly conduct, one 
count of obstruction of an officer, and one count of disorderly 
conduct in connection with an unrelated incident that had 
occurred two days earlier. Pursuant to a plea agreement, 
No. 97-1233-D 
 
5 
Attorney Blask was convicted of the misdemeanor disorderly 
conduct charge in connection with the referee incident, and the 
remaining charges were dismissed but read in at sentencing.  
¶10 In the earlier incident, as a 67-year-old man was 
leaving the courthouse office of the register in probate, he 
engaged in a loud confrontation with District Attorney Blask, 
who physically placed his hands on the man, attempted to search 
him, and pushed him backwards with a clenched fist into the 
man’s chest, bending the frames of the eyeglasses that were in 
the man’s pocket. District Attorney Blask also pinned the man’s 
arms to a table, grabbed the man’s jacket collar, and released 
him only when a sheriff’s deputy appeared in response to a call 
for assistance. At the conclusion of an inquiry into allegations 
of cause to remove District Attorney Blask that followed that 
incident, the person presiding over that inquiry determined that 
Attorney Blask had acted beyond the scope of his authority as 
either a district attorney or an officer of the court in 
accosting the person in the courthouse and “misconducted himself 
in office.”  
¶11 The inquiry into District Attorney Blask’s official 
misconduct also addressed the referee incident. In that regard, 
the presiding officer found substantial evidence to support the 
conclusion 
that 
District 
Attorney 
Blask 
either 
lied 
or 
deliberately deceived himself. That officer found that his 
failure to deal in a straightforward manner with police officers 
constituted a “serious dereliction of a major duty of a district 
attorney” and constituted official misconduct.  
No. 97-1233-D 
 
6 
¶12 Based on those facts, the referee concluded that 
Attorney Blask engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c),2 by 
providing false information to the investigating officer in the 
referee incident. The referee also concluded that by his 
physical altercations, he engaged in “offensive personality,” in 
violation of the Attorney’s Oath, SCR 40.15,3 and SCR 20:8.4(g),4 
and violated SCR 22.07(2) and (3)5 and SCR 21.03(4)6 by failing 
                     
2 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;   
3 SCR 40.15 provides, in pertinent part: Attorney’s oath.  
 . . .  
I will abstain from all offensive personality and advance 
no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or 
witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which 
I am charged;  
4 SCR 20:8.4 provides, in pertinent part: Misconduct 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:  
 . . .  
(g) violate the attorney’s oath.  
5 SCR 22.07 provides, in pertinent part: Investigation. 
 . . .  
No. 97-1233-D 
 
7 
to respond to two letters from the Board requesting information 
during its investigation. As discipline for that misconduct, the 
referee recommended that the court publicly reprimand Attorney 
Blask. The referee also recommended that he be required to pay 
the costs of this disciplinary proceeding.  
¶13 We 
adopt 
the 
referee’s 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and determine that the recommended public 
reprimand is the appropriate discipline to impose for Attorney 
Blask’s professional misconduct.  
                                                                  
(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.  
(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.  
6 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.  
No. 97-1233-D 
 
8 
¶14 IT IS ORDERED that James F. Blask is publicly 
reprimanded as discipline for professional misconduct.  
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this proceeding, James F. Blask 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 the costs within that time, the license of James F. Blask to 
practice law in Wisconsin shall be suspended until further order 
of the court.  
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the notice of appeal filed 
by Attorney James F. Blask is dismissed.  
 
 
 
1