Title: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. James H. Dumke
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1999AP000126-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: June 30, 1999

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
99-0126-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against James H. Dumke, Attorney at Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional  
Responsibility,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
James H. Dumke,  
 
Respondent.  
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DUMKE 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
June 30, 1999 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
No. 
99-0126-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. 99-0126-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against James H. Dumke, Attorney at Law. 
Board of Attorneys Professional 
Responsibility,  
 
 
Complainant,  
 
v.  
James H. Dumke,  
 
 
Respondent.  
FILED 
 
JUN 30, 1999 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney’s 
license 
suspended.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that the court suspend the license of Attorney James H. 
Dumke to practice law in Wisconsin for one year, consecutive to 
the suspension of his license currently in effect, as discipline 
for 
professional 
misconduct. 
That 
misconduct 
consisted 
of 
Attorney Dumke’s failure to provide competent representation and 
act with reasonable diligence and promptness in a client’s civil 
action, agreeing to divide attorney fees with other counsel 
without obtaining client consent and engaging in an ex parte 
communication 
with 
the 
court 
in 
that 
matter, 
making 
No. 
99-0126-D 
 
2 
misrepresentations to a client in another matter and failing to 
act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing her, 
and failing to respond to inquiries from the Board of Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility 
(Board) 
regarding 
that 
client’s 
grievance.  
¶2 
We determine that the recommended license suspension is 
appropriate 
discipline 
to 
impose 
for 
Attorney 
Dumke’s 
professional misconduct established in this proceeding. This is 
the fifth time that he will be disciplined for breach of his 
professional obligations and violation of the court’s rules 
governing the professional conduct of attorneys. It is also the 
second occasion we have had to extend an existing suspension of 
his license.  
¶3 
Attorney 
Dumke 
was 
admitted 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin in 1983 and, until his license was suspended in 1998, 
practiced in Janesville. He previously has been disciplined for 
professional misconduct four times. In 1990 he consented to a 
public reprimand from the Board for failing to release a judgment 
lien on behalf of a client, failing to respond to the client’s 
numerous telephone calls and a certified letter requesting 
information about the matter, misrepresenting to the Board that 
he had forwarded a judgment satisfaction for docketing, failing 
to initiate legal action on behalf of another client, failing to 
respond to numerous phone calls and a certified letter from that 
No. 
99-0126-D 
 
3 
client seeking information in the matter, and misrepresenting to 
the client that a court date had been scheduled and subsequently 
adjourned.  
¶4 
In 1992 his license was suspended for six months for 
neglecting clients’ legal matters, failing to provide competent 
representation to clients, misrepresenting to clients the status 
of their matters and failing to keep them reasonably informed, 
failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing clients, failing to cooperate in the Board’s 
investigation 
of 
his 
conduct, 
and, 
while 
a 
prosecutor, 
communicating with a party known to be represented by counsel 
without that counsel’s consent. Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Dumke, 171 Wis. 2d 47, 489 N.W.2d 919.  
¶5 
In 1998 his license was suspended for one year for 
failing to meet with a client after being assigned by the state 
public defender to pursue an appeal or other postconviction 
relief, failing to take any action to pursue an appeal on the 
client’s behalf, failing to communicate directly with the client 
and inform him of the conclusion he had reached that there were 
no appealable issues, failing to ensure that communications he 
had with the client’s family members were communicated to the 
client, misrepresenting to the client’s family that he had taken 
actions on behalf of the client, misrepresenting to that client’s 
attorney in a deportation matter that he had filed an appeal, and 
No. 
99-0126-D 
 
4 
failing to respond timely to Board inquiries into his conduct in 
the matter. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Dumke, 216 Wis. 2d 
475, 574 N.W.2d 241.  
¶6 
Later in 1998 the court suspended his license for one 
year, 
consecutive 
to 
the 
earlier 
one-year 
suspension, 
as 
discipline for his failure to act with reasonable diligence in 
representing a client in a postconviction matter and failure to 
cooperate with the Board’s investigation into two client matters. 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Dumke, 221 Wis. 2d 252, 584 
N.W.2d 539. That suspension commenced April 27, 1999, and 
continues in effect.  
¶7 
Attorney Dumke did not file a responsive pleading to 
the Board’s complaint in the instant proceeding, and at the 
hearing on the Board’s motion for default judgment, he stated 
that he did not oppose entry of judgment based on the complaint 
or the imposition of a one-year suspension of his license 
consecutive to the suspension currently in force. Accordingly, 
the referee, Attorney Cheryl Rosen Weston, made findings of fact 
pursuant to the Board’s complaint.  
¶8 
In August 1996, less than two months prior to trial 
scheduled on a personal injury action in circuit court, Illinois 
counsel for the plaintiffs asked Attorney Dumke for assistance in 
the matter. Attorney Dumke and Illinois counsel agreed to split 
the fees to be paid in that action, although Illinois counsel had 
No. 
99-0126-D 
 
5 
not consulted with the clients concerning Attorney Dumke’s 
participation in the matter.  
¶9 
Approximately one week before trial, Attorney Dumke 
sent a request for substitution of the judge assigned to the case 
but did not send a copy to the judge or to counsel for the 
defendants, as required by statute. The substitution request also 
violated the statute that requires a request for substitution of 
judge to be made within 24 hours of receiving the judicial 
assignment notice when the trial is less than 10 days away.  
¶10 Approximately five days before the scheduled trial, 
Illinois counsel contacted the clients and told them there would 
be no trial because of the request for substitution. That was the 
first time the clients were informed of Attorney Dumke’s 
involvement in the case. When the clients contacted the court to 
confirm that the matter had been continued, they were told that 
the case remained on the trial calendar as scheduled. Neither 
Illinois counsel nor Attorney Dumke had called the court to 
confirm the continuance they expected to receive.  
¶11 On the day of trial, counsel for the defendants and his 
witnesses appeared for trial but Illinois counsel, Attorney 
Dumke, and the clients did not appear. After being contacted by 
the court on that day, Attorney Dumke went to the courthouse and 
opposed the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to 
prosecute, and the court took that motion under advisement. The 
No. 
99-0126-D 
 
6 
clients were unaware of what had occurred until almost one week 
later, when Illinois counsel wrote them a letter explaining the 
situation.  
¶12 The referee concluded that by failing to meet the 
statutory requirements for the substitution of judge motion, 
failing to seek confirmation that the trial had been continued, 
and failing to appear at trial, Attorney Dumke failed to provide 
competent representation to the clients, in violation of SCR 
20:1.1,1 and failed to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.2 By agreeing to divide 
attorney fees with Illinois counsel in the matter without first 
obtaining the clients’ consent and giving them the opportunity to 
object to the participation of other attorneys in the case, he 
violated SCR 20:1.5(e).3 By failing to promptly notify adverse 
                     
1  SCR 20:1.1 provides: Competence 
A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a 
client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, 
skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the 
representation.  
2  SCR 20:1.3 provides: Diligence 
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client.  
3  SCR 20:1.5 provides, in pertinent part: Fees 
 . . .  
(e) A division of fee between lawyers who are not in the 
same firm may be made only if:  
No. 
99-0126-D 
 
7 
counsel of the written request for substitution of judge, he had 
an ex parte communication, in violation of SCR 20:3.5(b).4  
¶13 In another matter, Attorney Dumke was hired in October 
1996 to represent a woman in post-divorce matters. He assured the 
client that court dates had been set to deal with the relevant 
issues and told the client that he would request an extension of 
time to take an appeal. In fact, no court dates in the matter had 
been scheduled. The client’s repeated calls and attempts to meet 
him at his office were unsuccessful. Attorney Dumke did not 
respond to two written requests from the Board for a response to 
the client’s grievance.  
                                                                  
(1) the division is in proportion to the services performed 
by each lawyer or, by written agreement with the client, each 
lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation;  
(2)the client is advised of and does not object to the 
participation of all the lawyers involved and is informed if the 
fee will increase as a result of their involvement; and 
(3) the total fee is reasonable.  
4  SCR 20:3.5 provides, in pertinent part: Impartiality and 
decorum of the tribunal 
A lawyer shall not:  
 . . .  
(b) communicate ex parte with such a person except as 
permitted by law or for scheduling purposes if permitted by the 
court. If communication between a lawyer and judge has occurred 
in order to schedule a matter, the lawyer involved shall 
promptly notify the lawyer for the other party or the other 
party, if unrepresented, of such communication;  
No. 
99-0126-D 
 
8 
¶14 The 
referee 
concluded 
that 
Attorney 
Dumke’s 
misrepresentation to his client that he had scheduled two court 
dates constituted conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).5 His failure to 
provide any meaningful legal services to the client constituted a 
failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. His failure to 
respond to letters from the Board concerning the client’s 
grievance violated SCR 21.03(4)6 and 22.07(2).7  
                     
5  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;   
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.   
7  SCR 22.07 provides, in pertinent part: Investigation. 
 . . .  
No. 
99-0126-D 
 
9 
¶15 As 
discipline 
for 
that 
misconduct, 
the 
referee 
recommended that Attorney Dumke’s license to practice law be 
suspended for one year, consecutive to the one-year suspension 
currently in effect. The referee noted that the misconduct 
established in the instant proceeding is not dissimilar to that 
for which Attorney Dumke has been disciplined previously. 
Moreover, when he undertook representation in the two matters 
considered 
in 
this 
proceeding, 
Attorney 
Dumke 
was 
under 
investigation by a district professional responsibility committee 
for acts of neglect and misrepresentation that ultimately led to 
the imposition of the first one-year suspension in 1998. The 
referee considered that Attorney Dumke thus had sufficient notice 
of the need to be mindful of his professional responsibilities.  
¶16 We adopt the referee’s findings of fact and conclusions 
of law and determine that the recommended one-year consecutive 
license suspension is the appropriate discipline to impose for 
Attorney Dumke’s professional misconduct established in this 
                                                                  
(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. 
99-0126-D 
 
10
proceeding. It is also appropriate that Attorney Dumke be 
required to pay the costs of this proceeding, as the referee 
recommended.  
¶17 IT IS ORDERED that the license of James H. Dumke to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for one year, commencing 
April 27, 2000.  
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, James H. Dumke 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 H. Dumke to practice 
law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of 
the court.  
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that James H. Dumke comply with 
the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person 
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.  
 
 
1