Title: Harold E. Krause, Jr. v.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1997AP000915-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: May 1, 1997

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
97-0915-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Harold E. Krause, Jr., Attorney  
at Law.  
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KRAUSE 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
May 1, 1997 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
No.  97-0915-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. 97-0915-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against HAROLD E. KRAUSE, JR., Attorney at 
Law. 
FILED 
 
MAY 1, 1997 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
Attorney 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney’s 
license 
suspended. 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the stipulation filed by the 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board) in which 
it and Attorney Harold E. Krause, Jr. stipulated, pursuant to 
SCR 21.09(3m),1 to the imposition of a one-year suspension of 
Attorney Krause’s license to practice law in Wisconsin as 
                     
1 SCR 21.09 provides, in pertinent part: Procedure. 
. . . 
(3m) The board may file with a complaint a stipulation by 
the board and the respondent attorney to the facts, conclusions 
of law and discipline to be imposed. The supreme court may 
consider the complaint and stipulation without appointing a 
referee. If the supreme court approves the stipulation, it shall 
adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law and impose the 
stipulated 
discipline. 
If 
the 
supreme 
court 
rejects 
the 
stipulation, a referee shall be appointed pursuant to sub. (4) 
and the matter shall proceed pursuant to SCR chapter 22. A 
stipulation that is rejected has no evidentiary value and is 
without prejudice to the respondent’s defense of the proceeding 
or the board’s prosecution of the complaint.  
 
 
No.  97-0915-D 
 
 
2 
discipline for professional misconduct in his handling of two 
clients’ personal injury settlements reciprocal to the license 
suspension imposed on him in Rhode Island for that misconduct. 
We determine that the license suspension to which the parties 
have stipulated is appropriate discipline to impose in this 
jurisdiction for Attorney Krause’s professional misconduct in 
another jurisdiction where admitted to the practice of law.  
¶2 
Attorney Krause was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1970 and has been suspended from practice since 
October, 1988 for failure to pay dues to the State Bar, in which 
he currently is registered as an inactive member. He has not 
been 
the 
subject 
of 
a 
prior 
disciplinary 
proceeding 
in 
Wisconsin.  
¶3 
In May, 1996, the Rhode Island Supreme Court suspended 
Attorney Krause’s license to practice law there as discipline 
for 
professional 
misconduct. 
It 
was 
established 
in 
a 
disciplinary proceeding that he had transferred the balance of a 
personal injury settlement belonging to his client into his 
personal checking account. Five months later he sent the client 
a check for the amount to which the client was entitled but put 
a stop payment order on that check. Five weeks later he gave the 
client a check and cash totaling the amount to which she was 
entitled.  
¶4 
In a second matter, Attorney Krause deposited a 
settlement made on behalf of a client into his business checking 
account. The check he subsequently gave the client for her 
portion of the settlement proceeds was dishonored when presented 
for payment. The following day, he gave her a good check for 
 
 
No.  97-0915-D 
 
 
3 
$8000 of the $9620 to which she was entitled and paid her the 
balance 10 days later. However, he did not pay that client’s 
medical 
bills 
until 
several 
months 
after 
receiving 
the 
settlement proceeds. Some of those bills were not paid until 
more than 18 months after settlement.  
¶5 
The 
parties 
stipulated 
that 
the 
professional 
misconduct established in the Rhode Island proceeding violated 
the following Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys in 
Wisconsin. His deposit of funds belonging to clients into an 
account other than a client trust account and failure to 
promptly disburse them to the clients entitled to them violated 
SCR 20:1.15(a) and (b).2 That conduct also violated SCR 
                     
2 SCR 20:1.15 provides, in pertinent part: Safekeeping 
property 
(a) A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the 
lawyer’s own property, property of clients or third persons that 
is 
in 
the 
lawyer’s 
possession 
in 
connection 
with 
a 
representation. All funds of clients paid to a lawyer or law 
firm shall be deposited in one or more identifiable trust 
accounts as provided in paragraph (c) maintained in a bank, 
trust company, credit union or savings and loan association 
authorized to do business and located in Wisconsin, which 
account shall be clearly designated as “Client’s Account” or 
“Trust Account” or words of similar import, and no funds 
belonging to the lawyer or law firm except funds reasonably 
sufficient to pay account service charges may be deposited in 
such an account. . . . 
(b) Upon receiving funds or other property in which a 
client or third person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly 
notify the client or third person in writing. Except as stated 
in this rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with 
the client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or 
third person any funds or other property that the client or 
third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the 
client or third person, shall render a full accounting regarding 
such property.  
 
 
No.  97-0915-D 
 
 
4 
20:8.4(c),3 which proscribes conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation.  
¶6 
We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions to which 
the parties stipulated. As discipline for that misconduct, we 
impose a one-year license suspension.  
¶7 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Harold E. Krause, 
Jr. to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for one year, 
commencing 
the 
date 
of 
this 
order, 
as 
discipline 
for 
professional misconduct.  
¶8 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Harold E. Krause, Jr. 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
                     
3 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; 
 
 
No.  97-0915-D 
 
 
5 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended.  
 
 
No. 17234.rtf 
 
6 
 
1 
 
2