Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. James G. Wiard
Citation: 2003 WI 5
Docket Number: 2002AP003268-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: February 19, 2003

2003 WI 5 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
02-3268-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against James G. Wiard, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
James G. Wiard,  
 
Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST WIARD 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 19, 2003   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2003 WI 5 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This order is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The 
final version will appear in the 
bound volume of the official 
reports.   
 
 
 
No.  02-3268-D  
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against James G. Wiard, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
James G. Wiard,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 19, 2003 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Court entered the following order on this date: 
 
 
The Office of Lawyer Regulation and Attorney James G. Wiard 
have 
stipulated, 
pursuant 
to 
SCR 
22.12, 
for 
reciprocal 
discipline under SCR 22.22.  
 
Attorney Wiard has been licensed to practice law in 
Illinois since 1978 and was admitted in Wisconsin in 1987.  His 
Wisconsin license was suspended in 1998 for noncompliance with 
CLE reporting requirements and remains suspended at present. 
 
Pursuant to a March 26, 2002 order of the Illinois Supreme 
Court, Attorney Wiard’s license in that state has been suspended 
for two years.  He was found to have violated Illinois Rule of 
Professional Conduct (IRPC) 1.4--failure to keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter; IRPC 1.15(a)--
failure to deposit client funds in a separate and identifiable 
No.  02-3268-D 
 
2 
trust 
account; 
IRPC 
8.4(a)4--conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; IRPC 8.4(a)5--engaging in 
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; 
and, Illinois Supreme Court Rule 771--engaging in conduct which 
tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the 
courts or the legal profession in disrepute.   
 
These violations arose out of an incident that began in 
1994 when Attorney Wiard prepared a trust and property power of 
attorney for a client naming himself as successor trustee and 
agent should the client die or eventually be unable to act as 
trustee or should the designated agent be unable to act.  In 
1997, without notifying the client or the property power of 
attorney, he requested that a bank close two of the client’s 
accounts and issue the proceeds to him as successor trustee for 
the trust.  He received almost $11,000 from the bank and used 
virtually all of it for his own personal purposes.  He later 
misrepresented to the client what had occurred. 
 
SCR 22.22(3) provides that this court shall impose the 
identical discipline or license suspension unless the procedure 
in the 
other 
jurisdiction 
was so 
lacking 
in 
notice or 
opportunity to be heard as to constitute a due process 
violation; there was such an infirmity of proof establishing the 
misconduct that this court should not accept as final the 
misconduct finding; or the misconduct justifies substantially 
different discipline here.  Neither OLR nor Attorney Wiard 
contend, nor does this court find, that any of these three 
exceptions exist. 
 
Accordingly, 
 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney James G. Wiard 
to practice law in the state of Wisconsin be suspended for two 
years from the date of this order. 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this suspension does not affect 
the 
existing 
1998 
suspension 
for 
noncompliance 
with 
CLE 
reporting requirements which would also have to be satisfied in 
order for his license to practice law in Wisconsin to be 
reinstated. 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that he shall comply, if he has not 
already done so, with the requirements of SCR 22.26 pertaining 
to activities following suspension. 
 
 
No.  02-3268-D 
 
2