Title: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. Keith E. Halverson
Citation: 2000 WI 113
Docket Number: 2000AP000843-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: October 26, 2000

2000 WI 113 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
00-0843-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Keith E. Halverson, Attorney at Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
Keith E. Halverson,  
 
Respondent.  
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HALVERSON 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
October 26, 2000 
Submitted on Briefs: 
      
Oral Argument: 
      
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
      
 
Dissented: 
      
 
Not Participating:       
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
      
 
2000 WI 113 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 00-0843-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Keith E. Halverson, Attorney at  
Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional  
Responsibility,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Keith E. Halverson,  
 
          Respondent.  
 
FILED 
 
OCT 26, 2000 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded. 
¶1 
PER CURIAM   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that Attorney Keith E. Halverson be publicly reprimanded 
as discipline for professional misconduct. That misconduct 
consisted of failing to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in the probate of an estate, failing to keep his 
client reasonably informed of the status of that matter and 
respond to her telephone calls, failing to inform his client and 
the probate court that he had been suspended from the practice 
of law for failure to pay State Bar dues while the estate was 
No. 
00-0843-D 
 
2 
being probated and continuing to act in the matter while 
suspended, and failing to respond to the Board of Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility 
(Board) 
and 
to 
the 
district 
professional responsibility committee investigating his conduct. 
¶2 
We 
determine 
that 
a 
public 
reprimand 
is 
the 
appropriate 
disciplinary 
response 
to 
Attorney 
Halverson's 
professional 
misconduct 
established 
in 
this 
proceeding.  
Notwithstanding that his misconduct is the same as that for 
which he previously was publicly reprimanded, its seriousness 
and the severity of discipline to be imposed for it are 
mitigated by factors discussed below. 
¶3 
Attorney Halverson was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1966 and practiced in Prescott and Menomonie.  He 
closed his law offices in 1998, and there is no indication that 
he currently is practicing law.  He was publicly reprimanded in 
April 1999 for failing to keep two clients informed of the 
status of their legal matters and respond to their requests for 
information, not responding to the letter of one client 
terminating his representation and requesting the return of the 
retainer he had paid, failing to file a client's bankruptcy 
petition timely, although aware that the client's wages were 
being garnished, and not responding to letters from the Board 
and 
the 
district 
committee 
investigating 
his 
conduct. 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Halverson, 225 Wis. 2d 215, 591 
N.W.2d 821.  Attorney Halverson did not file an answer to the 
Board's complaint, and the referee, Attorney Janet Jenkins, made 
No. 
00-0843-D 
 
3 
findings of fact following a hearing on the Board's motion for 
default judgment, which Attorney Halverson did attend.  
¶4 
Attorney Halverson was retained in August 1996 to 
probate the estate of a client's mother.  He filed the probate 
that month, but there was no progress and no documents were 
filed in the estate between May 19, 1997, and February 1998. 
Attorney Halverson rarely contacted the client during the 
administration of the estate and did not respond to numerous 
requests for information from the client, as well as requests to 
complete the probate.  The estate was concluded on March 9, 
1998.  
¶5 
Attorney Halverson was suspended from the practice of 
law in Wisconsin on October 31, 1997, for failure to pay State 
Bar membership dues.  Notwithstanding that suspension, he 
continued acting as attorney for the estate and made a number of 
filings in it up to the time it was closed.  Attorney Halverson 
did not notify either his client or the probate court of his 
suspension from the practice of law.   
¶6 
Attorney Halverson did not respond to two requests 
from the Board to respond to the client's grievance concerning 
his conduct in the estate matter.  He also did not respond to a 
letter from the district professional responsibility committee 
to which the matter had been referred for investigation.   
¶7 
On the basis of those facts, the referee concluded 
that Attorney Halverson engaged in the following professional 
misconduct: 
 
No. 
00-0843-D 
 
4 
(a) His 
failure 
to 
act 
promptly 
and 
with 
reasonable diligence in probating the estate violated 
SCR 20:1.3.1   
 
(b) His 
failure 
to 
provide 
his 
client 
with 
information regarding the estate matter and failing to 
respond to the client's letters and telephone calls 
constituted failure to keep his client reasonably 
informed of the status of a legal matter and promptly 
comply with reasonable requests for information, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).2 
 
(c) His failure to inform his client and the court 
of his suspension from the practice of law while 
continuing to act in the estate matter violated SCR 
22.26(1)(a) and (b).3 
                     
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(a) provides: 
(a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about 
the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable 
requests for information.  
3 References in this opinion to chapters 21 and 22 of the 
Supreme Court Rules are to the rules in effect at the time 
relevant to this proceeding.   
Former SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b) provided: 
(1)(a) A disbarred or suspended attorney on or before the 
effective date of disbarment or suspension shall:  
 
1. Notify, by certified mail, all clients being represented 
in 
pending 
matters 
of 
the 
disbarment 
or 
suspension 
and 
consequent inability to act as an attorney after the effective 
date of the disbarment or suspension. 
 
2. Advise the clients to seek legal advice of the client's 
own choice elsewhere.  
No. 
00-0843-D 
 
5 
(d) His continuing to represent the estate after 
being suspended from the practice of law for failure to 
pay bar association dues violated SCR 10.03(4) and (6).4 
 
(e) His failure to respond to the Board and to the 
district committee seeking information concerning the 
client's grievance constituted a failure to cooperate 
in the Board's investigation, in violation of SCR 
21.03(4) and 22.07(2).5 
                                                                  
(b) A disbarred or suspended attorney with a matter pending 
before a court or administrative agency shall promptly notify 
the court or administrative agency and the attorney for each 
party of the disbarment or suspension and consequent inability 
to act as an attorney after the effective date of the disbarment 
or suspension.  The notice must identify the successor attorney 
or, if there is none at the time of the notice, state the place 
of residence of the client of the disbarred or suspended 
attorney.  
 
4 SCR 10.03(4) and (6) provide: 
(4) Only active members may practice law.  No individual 
other than an enrolled active member of the state bar may 
practice law in this state or in any manner purport to be 
authorized or qualified to practice law.  A judge in this state 
may allow a nonresident counsel to appear in his or her court 
and participate in a particular action or proceeding in 
association with an active member of the state bar of Wisconsin 
who appears and participates in the action or proceeding. 
Permission to the nonresident lawyer may be withdrawn by the 
judge granting it if the lawyer by his or her conduct manifests 
incompetency to represent a client in a Wisconsin court or by 
his or her unwillingness to abide by the rules of professional 
conduct for attorneys and the rules of decorum of the court.  
 
(6) Penalty for nonpayment of dues.  If the annual dues of 
any member remain unpaid 120 days after the payment is due, the 
membership of the member may be suspended in the manner provided 
in the bylaws; and no person whose membership is so suspended for 
nonpayment of dues may practice law during the period of the 
suspension.  
 
5 Former SCR 21.03(4) provided: 
(4) Every attorney shall cooperate with the board and the 
administrator in the investigation, prosecution and disposition 
No. 
00-0843-D 
 
6 
¶8 
As 
discipline 
for 
that 
misconduct, 
the 
referee 
recommended that Attorney Halverson be publicly reprimanded.  
The referee observed that it stemmed from the 1999 proceeding 
that resulted in a public reprimand.  Attorney Halverson became 
angry with the State Bar when that proceeding was commenced 
against him and largely ignored State Bar-related matters 
thereafter.  When his license was suspended in 1997 for failure 
to pay membership dues, he mailed his dues to the State Bar, but 
they were returned to him because he had not included the $20 
reinstatement fee.  Attorney Halverson stated that he was 
unaware the dues check had been returned because he had refused 
to open the envelope from the State Bar containing it. He 
testified that he had mistakenly believed his dues had been paid 
and that he had been reinstated to the practice of law. 
¶9 
In respect to the probate matter, Attorney Halverson 
asserted that all estate assets had been disbursed, the final 
                                                                  
of grievances and complaints filed with or by the board or 
administrator. 
 
Former SCR 22.07(2) provided: 
(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. 
00-0843-D 
 
7 
account had been filed, and the receipts and waivers had been 
sent to the heirs prior to his suspension from practice in 1997. 
 Because he was spending time in Arizona following that 
suspension, he was unaware that the personal representative had 
been attempting to contact him.  When he returned to Wisconsin, 
he learned that one of the heirs had not signed a receipt or 
waiver needed to close the estate. He obtained the necessary 
paper and filed it with the court, and the estate was closed.  
Thus, it was only his contact with the personal representative 
and the filing of the last document in the estate that 
constituted his practice of law while suspended. 
¶10 The referee also noted that Attorney Halverson's 
failure to cooperate with the Board and the district committee 
in their investigation of his conduct in the estate matter 
resulted from his "continued disenchantment" with the State Bar. 
 He felt he had been treated unfairly and elected to ignore 
those he perceived as the source of that unfairness. 
¶11 Because his continuing to practice while suspended was 
the result of his initial misapprehension regarding payment of 
his State Bar dues and because his neglect in handling the 
estate was not serious, the referee determined that the public 
reprimand sought by the Board was the appropriate discipline to 
be imposed.  In addition, the referee recommended that Attorney 
Halverson be required to pay the costs of this proceeding.  
¶12 IT IS ORDERED that Keith E. Halverson is publicly 
reprimanded as discipline 
for the 
professional 
misconduct 
established in this proceeding. 
No. 
00-0843-D 
 
8 
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Keith E. Halverson pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation 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 Keith E. Halverson to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall be suspended until further order of the court.