Title: Ken Hur v.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1996AP000015-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: June 26, 1996

No. 96-0015-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.  96-0015-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN             :                IN SUPREME COURT 
                                                                   
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against KEN HUR, Attorney at Law. 
 
FILED 
 
 
JUN 26, 1996 
 
 
 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 Ken Hur to practice law in Wisconsin be 
suspended for two years as discipline for professional misconduct. 
 Attorney Hur engaged in business dealings with a client in which 
his 
own 
interests 
conflicted 
with 
those 
of 
the 
client, 
fraudulently altered and recorded legal documents relating to 
those business dealings, and handled incompetently a legal matter 
for that client.   
 
We determine that the seriousness and extent of Attorney 
Hur's professional misconduct, viewed in light of prior discipline 
 
No. 96-0015-D 
 
 
 
2 
having been imposed on him, in part, for similar misconduct, 
warrant the suspension of his license to practice law in this 
state for two years.  Attorney Hur took advantage of his 
professional relationship with a client to further his own 
pecuniary interests, to the client's disadvantage.  In addition, 
he engaged in fraud in furtherance of his own interests in his 
dealings with the client.   
Attorney 
Hur 
was 
admitted 
to 
practice law in Wisconsin in 1951 and practiced in Madison until 
relocating to Florida in 1981.  He has been disciplined twice 
previously for unprofessional conduct:  the court publicly 
reprimanded him in October, 1985 for neglect of clients' legal 
matters and failure to respond to inquiries from the Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board) concerning client 
grievances, Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hur, 126 Wis. 2d 119, 
375 N.W.2d 211; in October, 1985, the Board publicly reprimanded 
him for entering into a business transaction with a client in 
which they had differing interests without making full disclosure 
of his interest and obtaining the client's informed consent or 
advising her to obtain independent advice in the matter and for 
his failure to seek court permission to withdraw from representing 
a client and failing to take reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable 
prejudice to that client's appellate rights.   
 
In this proceeding, Attorney Hur ultimately pleaded no 
contest to the misconduct allegations in the Board's complaint.  
Accordingly, the referee, Attorney John Schweitzer, made the 
 
No. 96-0015-D 
 
 
 
3 
following findings of fact concerning Attorney Hur's conduct in 
dealings with a client he had represented in a number of real 
estate transactions.   
 
In May, 1976, Attorney Hur represented the client in the 
purchase, with another person, of a 68-acre parcel of property on 
land contract.  Early the following year, Attorney Hur sought to 
obtain a portion of that parcel and prepared and had his client 
and the other owner sign a land contract conveying 11 acres of it 
to Attorney Hur's wife for $450 cash and the $10,000 balance on 
land contract.  Attorney Hur did not record that land contract, 
and he and his wife made no payments on it and did not pay the 
real estate taxes as required by the contract.   
 
In April, 1977, Attorney Hur convinced his client and the 
other owner to convey their interest in the remaining 57 acres of 
the parcel on land contract to a limited partnership in which he 
would be included, each of them having a one-third interest as 
limited partner, with contract payments, real estate taxes and 
other expenses of the property to be shared equally.  Attorney Hur 
represented to them that the limited partnership would be a great 
advantage to them and save them money.   
 
Attorney Hur prepared and in early April, 1977 the partners 
executed a limited partnership agreement pursuant to which the 
client and the third person conveyed their interest in the 
property to the partnership.  In fact, the limited partnership 
document did not meet the statutory requirements for the formation 
 
No. 96-0015-D 
 
 
 
4 
of a limited partnership and, as a result, that partnership never 
gained legal existence.   
 
Attorney Hur prepared the land contract conveying the 
client's and other owner's interests in the property to the 
partnership and, together with the two owners, signed it.  He paid 
$3000 for his interest in the partnership property.  The land 
contract was never recorded, and the partnership never made any of 
the required monthly payments; those payments, as well as the real 
estate taxes on the property and other expenses, were paid by the 
client.   
 
In April, 1981, the third owner sought to divest himself of 
ownership interest in the property, and Attorney Hur represented 
the client and his wife in structuring the transaction and 
preparing the necessary legal documents.  The owner quitclaimed 
his interest in the 68-acre parcel to the client's wife for $5000 
cash and a $6000 promissory note from the partnership.  The client 
paid the $5000 and the partnership executed the note but made no 
payments on it.  Attorney Hur paid nothing in the transaction.   
 
In May, 1981, Attorney Hur loaned the client and his wife 
$10,000 to pay farming expenses, for which the client gave a 
$10,000 mortgage note to Attorney Hur's wife secured by a mortgage 
prepared by Attorney Hur or an employe of his law office.  The 
property securing that note was the client's undivided one-half 
interest in the 57-acre parcel as well as in a 40-acre farm the 
client had purchased three years earlier in a land contract 
 
No. 96-0015-D 
 
 
 
5 
transaction in which he was represented by Attorney Hur.  That 
contract had been paid and a warranty deed obtained the following 
year.     
 
In the summer of 1981, Attorney Hur told his client that he 
intended to close his law office and move to Florida.  He stated 
that his wife owned 11 acres of the 68-acre parcel, despite the 
fact that she had not made any payments on the land contract by 
which she purported to purchase that property, and that he was 
half-owner of the remaining 57 acres.  He asserted that the client 
was obligated to purchase his and his wife's interests in the 
property for $68,250, which Attorney Hur claimed represented the 
fair market value of their "equity" interests.   
 
In August, 1981, at Attorney Hur's instruction and direction 
and on his advice that they were obligated to do so by virtue of 
the Hurs' purported equity interest in the 68-acre parcel, the 
client and his wife gave Attorney Hur's wife a promissory note for 
$68,250 secured by a mortgage on their undivided one-half interest 
in that parcel and in the 40-acre farm they owned.  Attorney Hur, 
or a lawyer in his firm, prepared the necessary documents and 
acted as attorney for the client in this transaction.  The client 
and his wife executed the documents at Attorney Hur's instruction 
and direction and on his advice that they were obligated to do so. 
 Attorney Hur did not advise the client that he and his wife had 
no equity interest in any of that property or that the value of 
 
No. 96-0015-D 
 
 
 
6 
any equity interest they claimed to have did not approach the 
amount he asserted.   
 
The referee found that the note and the underlying mortgage 
had been procured fraudulently and without adequate consideration 
and had been executed by the client and his wife based on the 
advice of Attorney Hur, whom they regarded as their attorney in 
the matter.  The client and his wife repaid the $10,000 loan they 
had obtained from Attorney Hur for farming expenses but made no 
payments on the $68,250 promissory note.   
 
In September, 1987, with neither the knowledge nor consent of 
the client, Attorney Hur altered the mortgage underlying the 
$10,000 note executed in 1981 by crossing out part of the legal 
description and changing it to cover the entire property owned by 
the client and his wife, rather than their one-half interest 
specified in the original mortgage.  Attorney Hur then re-recorded 
the mortgage, asserting it to be a "corrective" mortgage.  At 
about the same time, again without the client's knowledge or 
consent, Attorney Hur altered the mortgage underlying the $68,250 
note in the same way and re-recorded it as a "corrective" 
mortgage.  Each of these re-recorded mortgages was returned by the 
register of deeds to Attorney Hur.   
 
In November, 1992, Attorney Hur's wife commenced a mortgage 
foreclosure action against the client and his wife seeking to 
foreclose their interest in the 68-acre parcel and the 40-acre 
farm to satisfy the debt, alleged to exceed $186,000, arising from 
 
No. 96-0015-D 
 
 
 
7 
the promissory notes executed in 1981.  It was not until that 
foreclosure action had been commenced and the client had retained 
other counsel that Attorney Hur told him of the alteration and re-
recording of the mortgages.  The foreclosure action was dismissed 
in 1995 for the plaintiffs' failure to comply with discovery.   
 
The referee found that while the documents forming the basis 
of the foreclosure action had been signed by the client and his 
wife on the advice, instruction and direction of Attorney Hur, at 
no time did Attorney Hur make full or adequate disclosure to the 
client concerning their differing, competing and adverse interests 
in the transactions or advise them to obtain independent counsel 
to represent them because of those differing interests.  As a 
result, the client and his wife never gave informed consent in any 
of those transactions.   
 
In 1993, long after the $68,250 note had been executed, 
Attorney Hur recorded the 1977 land contract for the 11-acre 
parcel.  When he did so, he knew that in 1981 he and his wife had 
purported to convey to the client and his wife their interest in 
that parcel, together with the remaining 57 acres of the original 
parcel, for $68,250, thus terminating the earlier land contract.  
Attorney Hur represented on the real estate transfer return 
submitted with the contract for recording that he was the sellers' 
attorney and agent.   
 
On the basis of the foregoing facts, the referee made the 
following conclusions of law.  By participating in the creation 
 
No. 96-0015-D 
 
 
 
8 
and execution of the $68,250 promissory note payable to his wife 
and secured by a mortgage on the client's undivided one-half 
interest in property in order to have the client and his wife buy 
out the Hurs' alleged ownership interest in the property, Attorney 
Hur violated SCR 20.27(1),1 which prohibits a lawyer from entering 
into a business transaction with a client in which they have 
differing interests if the client expects the lawyer to exercise 
professional judgment for the client's protection unless the 
client has consented after full disclosure.  By representing to 
the client and his wife that they were required to buy out his and 
his wife's interest in the property when he and his wife had no 
merchantable interest in the property because their claimed 
interest derived from an unrecorded and unperformed land contract, 
Attorney Hur engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20.04(4).2   
                     
     1  SCR 20.27 provided, in pertinent part:  Limiting business 
relations with a client.  (1)  A lawyer may not enter into a 
business transaction with a client if they have differing 
interests in that transaction and if the client expects the lawyer 
to exercise his or her professional judgment in the transaction 
for the protection of the client, unless the client has consented 
after full disclosure.   
 
The corresponding current supreme court rule is SCR 20:1.8. 
     2  SCR 20:04 provided, in pertinent part:  Misconduct. 
 
A lawyer shall not:   
 
. . . 
 
(4)  Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or 
misrepresentation.   
 
The 
corresponding 
current 
supreme 
court 
rule 
is 
SCR 
20:8.4(c). 
 
No. 96-0015-D 
 
 
 
9 
 
The referee also concluded that Attorney Hur engaged in 
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation 
by altering and re-recording two mortgages from his clients to him 
and his wife to secure promissory notes, by recording the 1977 
land contract in 1993 knowing that a prior transaction was 
intended to terminate that land contract, and by representing on a 
real estate transfer return in 1993 that he was the client's 
attorney and agent, at a time when the foreclosure action against 
them was pending and he was not their attorney and agent.   
 
Finally, the referee concluded that by drafting a document 
purporting to create a limited partnership which did not comply 
with the applicable statute and by drafting a document conveying 
the interests of two owners of the 68-acre parcel to the purported 
partnership, Attorney Hur handled a legal matter which he knew or 
should have known he was not competent to handle without 
associating with a lawyer competent to do so and handled a legal 
matter without preparation adequate in the circumstances, in 
violation of the provisions of the ABA Code of Professional 
Responsibility in effect prior to their codification as SCR 20.323 
in 1980.   
                     
     3  SCR 20:32 provided:  Failing to act competently.  A lawyer 
may not:   
 
(1)  Handle a legal matter which the lawyer knows or should 
know that he or she is not competent to handle without associating 
with a lawyer who is competent to handle it.   
 
(2)  Handle a legal matter without preparation adequate in 
the circumstances.   
 
(3)  Neglect a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer.   
 
The corresponding current supreme court rule is SCR 20:1.1. 
 
No. 96-0015-D 
 
 
 
10 
 
As discipline for that misconduct, the referee recommended 
that Attorney Hur's license to practice law be suspended for two 
years, as the Board had urged.  The referee emphasized the 
seriousness of the misconduct and Attorney Hur's two prior 
reprimands, one for discipline similar to that involved here -- 
entering into a business transaction with a client in which their 
interests were adverse without notifying the client of that fact 
and advising consultation with an independent attorney.   
 
In 
addition 
to 
the 
license 
suspension, 
the 
referee 
recommended that, as a condition of reinstatement, Attorney Hur be 
required to successfully write the Wisconsin bar examination.  
That recommendation addressed the referee's concern that the 
public needs to be protected from Attorney Hur until he has 
acquired more competence in the practice of law and a greater 
appreciation of his ethical responsibilities.  The referee noted 
that Attorney Hur has not actively practiced law for some 14 years 
and that merely requiring him to attend continuing legal education 
courses would not afford the public sufficient protection.   
 
We adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of 
law 
and 
determine 
that 
a 
two-year 
license 
suspension 
is 
appropriate discipline to impose for Attorney Hur's professional 
misconduct considered here.  We determine further that the 
requirements for reinstatement following that suspension set forth 
in the court's rule, SCR 22.28(4),4 are sufficient to ensure 
                     
     4  SCR 22.28 provides, in pertinent part:  Reinstatement. 
 
No. 96-0015-D 
 
 
 
11 
Attorney Hur's competence and fitness before his license to 
practice law is restored.   
 
We also determine that Attorney Hur is to be assessed the 
costs of this disciplinary proceeding.  While he had claimed 
indigency in the proceeding before the referee, he made no showing 
to warrant relieving him of the payment of costs.  Further, he did 
not heed the referee's urging that he file with the court a simple 
financial statement of his and his wife's assets, income and 
(..continued) 
 
(4)  The petition for reinstatement shall show that:   
 
(a)  The petitioner desires to have the petitioner's license 
reinstated.   
 
(b)  The petitioner has not practiced law during the period 
of suspension or revocation.  
 
(c)  The petitioner has complied fully with the terms of the 
order and will continue to comply with them until the petitioner's 
license is reinstated.   
 
(d)  The petitioner has maintained competence and learning in 
the law, including a list of specific activities pursued.   
 
(e)  The petitioner's conduct since the suspension or 
revocation has been exemplary and above reproach.   
 
(f)  The petitioner has a proper understanding of and 
attitude toward the standards that are imposed upon members of the 
bar and will act in conformity with the standards.   
 
(g)  The petitioner can safely be recommended to the legal 
profession, the courts and the public as a person fit to be 
consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise act in 
matters of trust and confidence and in general to aid in the 
administration of justice as a member of the bar and as an officer 
of the courts.   
 
(h)  The petitioner has fully complied with the requirements 
of SCR 22.26.   
 
(i)  The petitioner indicates the proposed use of the license 
if reinstated.   
 
(j)  The petitioner has fully described all business 
activities during the period of suspension or revocation.   
 
(k)  The petitioner has made restitution or settled all 
claims from persons injured or harmed by petitioner's misconduct 
or, if the restitution is not complete, petitioner's explanation 
of the failure or inability to do so. 
 
No. 96-0015-D 
 
 
 
12 
expenses to support his indigency claim.  Absent that information, 
the referee recommended that Attorney Hur be required to pay the 
costs of the proceeding.   
 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Ken Hur to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of two years, 
effective the date of this order.   
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this 
order Ken Hur 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 Ken Hur to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain 
suspended until further order of the court.   
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ken Hur comply with the provisions 
of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.   
 
No. 96-0015-D 
 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
                                                              
 
Case No.: 
 
96-0015-D 
                                                              
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary 
 
 
 
Proceedings Against  
 
 
 
Ken Hur, 
 
 
 
Attorney at Law. 
 
 
 
__________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HUR 
 
                                                              
 
Opinion Filed:  
June 26, 1996 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
                                                              
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
                                                              
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating: 
 
                                                              
 
ATTORNEYS: