Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Robert L. Sherry
Citation: 2003 WI 123
Docket Number: 2003AP000263-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: August 13, 2003

2003 WI 123 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
03-0263-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Robert L. Sherry, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Robert L. Sherry,  
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SHERRY 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
August 13, 2003   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: ROGGENSACK, J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2003 WI 123 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  03-0263-D  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Robert L. Sherry, Attorney at  
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Robert L. Sherry,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
AUG 13, 2003 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the stipulation filed by 
Attorney Robert L. Sherry and the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
No. 
03-0263-D   
 
2 
 
(OLR) pursuant to SCR 22.12.1  On January 29, 2003, the OLR filed 
a complaint in this court alleging 21 separate counts of 
misconduct against Attorney Sherry.  Sherry did not file an 
answer but instead, he and the OLR filed a stipulation in which 
Sherry admitted the facts and misconduct as alleged in the OLR's 
complaint and agreed to the level of discipline the OLR sought 
in this disciplinary matter——a nine-month suspension of Sherry's 
license to practice law in this state, and an order requiring 
Sherry to make restitution to Mohamad Khan in the amount of 
$102, and to Jessica Gall in the amount of $450. 
¶2 
We approve the stipulation and adopt the stipulated 
facts and conclusions regarding Sherry's 21 counts of misconduct 
as alleged in the OLR's complaint.  We determine that the 
seriousness of Attorney Sherry's misconduct warrants suspension 
of his license to practice law for a period of nine months.  We 
also agree that he should be required to make restitution to his 
clients in the amounts stipulated.  
¶3 
Attorney Robert L. Sherry was admitted to practice law 
in 
Wisconsin 
in 
1984. 
 
His 
license 
was 
subsequently 
                                                 
1 Effective 
October 
1, 
2000, 
Wisconsin's 
attorney 
disciplinary process was substantially restructured.  The name 
of the body responsible for investigating and prosecuting cases 
involving attorney misconduct was changed from the Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation and the supreme court rules applicable to the lawyer 
regulation system were also revised in part.  Some of the 
conduct underlying this case arose prior to October 1, 2000.  
However, the complainant in this case will be referred to as the 
OLR.  All references to supreme court rules will be to the 
current version of the supreme court rules unless otherwise 
noted. 
No. 
03-0263-D   
 
3 
 
administratively suspended on June 6, 2001, for noncompliance 
with CLE requirements; then on October 30, 2001, his license was 
temporarily suspended for his failure to cooperate with an OLR 
grievance investigation.  Sherry's license remains suspended.   
¶4 
In the OLR's disciplinary complaint filed in this 
court, it was alleged that Attorney Sherry had committed 21 
separate counts of misconduct.  Those counts involved Sherry's 
representation of several clients as well as Sherry's failure to 
timely file personal income tax returns and failure to cooperate 
with the OLR in its investigations.  Sherry now admits to the 
facts as alleged in the OLR complaint.  Briefly summarized the 
allegations are these:  
I. REPRESENTATION OF WILLIAM EISEMAN——COUNTS ONE THROUGH SIX 
¶5 
The OLR complaint alleged, and Sherry now stipulates, 
that in late 1998 and 1999 Sherry represented William Eiseman, a 
real estate owner/manager in several eviction actions.  In one 
such action Eiseman's commercial tenant successfully contested 
the claimed breach of lease and that eviction complaint was 
dismissed.  Eiseman then gathered additional evidence concerning 
that commercial tenant's alleged breaches of the lease and 
Sherry agreed to file another eviction action against her.  
Subsequently, Eiseman repeatedly attempted to reach Sherry to 
determine the status of that second eviction action but Sherry 
failed to return Eiseman's calls or voice mail messages.   
¶6 
Sherry later informed Eiseman that he had commenced a 
new action against that commercial tenant and that a return date 
had been scheduled but then, according to Sherry, it had been 
No. 
03-0263-D   
 
4 
 
adjourned.  Ultimately, Sherry admitted to Eiseman that he had 
not taken any further action to evict that commercial tenant. 
¶7 
Sherry had also been asked by Eiseman to file an 
eviction action against a residential tenant.  Again, Sherry 
informed Eiseman that the eviction action had commenced and that 
a return date had been scheduled, only to subsequently inform 
Eiseman that the return date had been adjourned.  In August 1999 
Sherry assured Eiseman that a writ of restitution had been 
issued with respect to that residential tenant; however, when 
pressed by Eiseman about that writ, Sherry admitted that he had 
not obtained one.  Sherry promised Eiseman that he would then 
commence an eviction action against that residential tenant and 
secure the writ.  Eiseman later contacted the clerk of court's 
office and discovered that no action against that tenant had 
been filed.   
¶8 
In September of 1999 Eiseman repeatedly asked Sherry 
to transfer the eviction files to his new attorney.  Sherry told 
the new attorney that he would bring the files to his office 
that day but never did so.   
¶9 
When 
the 
OLR's 
district 
investigative 
committee 
subpoenaed Sherry for an interview and asked him to produce 
Eiseman's eviction files, Sherry failed to do so.  At the 
interview the committee again asked Sherry to produce and 
surrender the eviction files and Sherry agreed to locate them 
and provide them to the OLR.  A second written request from the 
investigative committee reminded Sherry of his promise to 
No. 
03-0263-D   
 
5 
 
produce the files but Sherry did not produce the files nor did 
he respond in any way to that second request.   
¶10 During the OLR's subsequent investigation of Eiseman's 
grievance against Sherry it was discovered that Sherry's license 
to practice law had been administratively suspended on June 6, 
2001, for his noncompliance with the mandatory CLE requirements.  
The OLR staff requested information from Sherry concerning this 
administrative suspension and then granted Sherry's request for 
an extension to respond to that inquiry until July 2, 2001.  
After receiving no response from Sherry, the OLR sent follow-up 
correspondence but again Sherry did not respond.   
¶11 In August 2001 the OLR staff sent two final letters to 
Sherry by certified mail and personal service requesting a 
response and informing him that if the OLR did not receive a 
response by August 23, 2001, it would seek a suspension of 
Sherry's license under SCR 22.03(4) for his failure to cooperate 
in the OLR investigation.  Sherry again requested an extension 
which the OLR granted until August 29, 2001.  However, Sherry 
failed to respond.  On October 30, 2001, at the OLR's request, 
pursuant to SCR 22.21(2), this court temporarily suspended 
Sherry's license to practice law in this state for his failure 
to cooperate with the investigation. 
¶12 This course of conduct resulted in Counts One through 
Six in the OLR's complaint.  Those counts of misconduct to which 
Sherry now stipulates are:  
A. Count One 
No. 
03-0263-D   
 
6 
 
¶13 By failing to initiate an eviction action against 
Eiseman's 
commercial 
tenant, 
Sherry 
failed 
to 
act 
with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.3. 
B. Count Two  
¶14 By failing to initiate an eviction action against 
Eiseman's 
residential 
tenant, 
Sherry 
failed 
to 
act 
with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.3. 
C. Count Three 
¶15 By informing Eiseman that an eviction action had been 
filed against the commercial tenant and that a court date had 
been scheduled and adjourned when, in fact, no action had been 
filed, Sherry engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c). 
D. Count Four 
¶16 By informing Eiseman that an eviction action had been 
filed against the residential tenant, that a court date had been 
scheduled, and that a writ of restitution had been issued when 
in fact no action had been filed, Sherry engaged in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in 
violation of SCR 20:8.4(c). 
No. 
03-0263-D   
 
7 
 
E. Count Five 
¶17 By failing to deliver Eiseman's files to successor 
counsel, Sherry failed to surrender papers and property to which 
a client is entitled, in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d). 
F. Count Six  
¶18 By failing to respond to correspondence from the OLR 
in the investigation in this matter and by failing to provide 
the eviction files to the OLR district committee investigator, 
Sherry failed to cooperate with the OLR in the investigation of 
this matter, in violation of SCR 21.15(4). 
II. TAX RETURNS——COUNTS SEVEN AND EIGHT 
¶19 The OLR complaint further alleged, and Sherry now 
stipulates, that on July 10, 2000, the Internal Revenue Service 
(IRS) informed the OLR that Sherry had failed to file quarterly 
payroll tax returns for July 1, 1997, through September 30, 
1999, and that he had failed to file individual tax returns for 
the years 1997 and 1998.  Subsequently, Sherry did not respond 
to two certified letters the OLR sent to him requesting a 
written response to the IRS report.  On January 25, 2001, the 
OLR sent Sherry a third letter requesting a response.  On 
February 5, 2001, Sherry wrote to the OLR reporting that he was 
"in the process of finalizing returns for overdue tax filings" 
and that he anticipated the returns would be completed within 28 
days.   
¶20 Subsequently, Sherry failed to respond to the OLR's 
telephone messages.  After another certified letter on April 2, 
2001, Sherry agreed to meet with the OLR staff on April 18, 
No. 
03-0263-D   
 
8 
 
2001.  During that interview Sherry admitted that he had failed 
to file his quarterly payroll tax returns beginning in mid-1997, 
and his personal income tax returns beginning in 1997.  Sherry 
stated, however, that he had an appointment with an accountant 
to prepare the necessary returns.  
¶21 Thereafter, Sherry failed to respond to the OLR's 
request that he inform the OLR when he had followed through and 
met with his accountant and filed the delinquent tax returns.  
The Wisconsin Department of Revenue (DOR) later filed a series 
of collection actions and levies against Sherry but Sherry still 
failed to file payroll tax returns for July 1997 through 
December 1998.  He also failed to timely file his individual tax 
returns for the years 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000.   
¶22 Sherry later informed the OLR that he had forwarded 
those tax returns to the IRS and the DOR in October 2001.  The 
DOR records, however, reflect that Sherry only filed his 2000 
income tax returns on October 7, 2001, and that his 1997 1998, 
and 1999 income tax returns were not filed until January 4, 
2002.   
¶23 This course of conduct as alleged in the OLR's 
complaint resulted in Counts Seven and Eight to which Sherry has 
now stipulated: 
A. Count Seven 
¶24 By failing to file quarterly payroll tax returns for 
the period of July 1, 1997, through December 31, 1998, and by 
failing to timely file quarterly payroll tax returns for 1999 
and income tax returns for 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000, Sherry 
No. 
03-0263-D   
 
9 
 
violated a statute, supreme court rule, supreme court order or 
supreme court decision regulating the conduct of lawyers (State 
v. Roggensack, 19 Wis. 2d 38, 45, 119 N.W.2d 412 (1963)), in 
violation of SCR 20:8.4(f). 
B. Count Eight  
¶25 By 
failing 
to 
provide 
a 
written 
response 
to 
correspondence 
from 
the 
OLR, 
Sherry 
willfully 
failed 
to 
cooperate with the OLR in the investigation of this matter, in 
violation of SCR 22.03(4) and SCR 21.15(4). 
III. WANDEL DIVORCE——COUNTS NINE AND TEN 
¶26 The OLR complaint alleged, and Sherry now stipulates, 
that in December 2000 he was retained by Kelly Wandel to 
initiate divorce proceedings and obtain a child support order.  
Kelly Wandel thereafter paid Sherry a $500 retainer, and in 
March 2001 authorized him to start the divorce action on her 
behalf.  Sherry did so on April 10, 2001.   
¶27 The first hearing in that divorce matter was scheduled 
for April 26, 2001, but then rescheduled to May 23, 2001, 
because Sherry had been unable to obtain service on Kelly 
Wandel's husband.  After attempting to obtain service for those 
first two hearing dates, Sherry took no further action in that 
divorce proceeding.  After May 2001 Kelly Wandel repeatedly 
attempted to contact Sherry to determine the status of her 
divorce action but he failed to respond to her phone calls.  She 
hired a new attorney to represent her in the fall of 2001. 
¶28 This course of conduct led to Counts Nine and Ten in 
the OLR complaint against Sherry to which he now stipulates. 
No. 
03-0263-D   
 
10 
 
A. Count Nine 
¶29 By taking no action in Kelly Wandel's divorce action 
after preliminary service attempts had failed, Sherry failed to 
act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a 
client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. 
B. Count Ten  
¶30 By failing to respond to Kelly Wandel's phone calls 
after May 2001 Sherry failed to keep a client reasonably 
informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with 
reasonable requests for information, in violation of SCR 
20:1.4(a).  
IV. LEONARD BRUMM COLLECTION MATTERS——COUNTS  
ELEVEN THROUGH FIFTEEN 
¶31 The OLR complaint alleges, and Sherry now stipulates, 
that Leonard Brumm who owned a remodeling business, Lake States, 
Inc., retained Sherry to represent him in several collection 
matters.  In 1997 Brumm asked Sherry to commence a collection 
action to collect $4400 that an individual owed Brumm for 
repairs and remodeling.  Sherry filed that lawsuit on behalf of 
Brumm's business on October 22, 1997. 
¶32 Sherry and the defendant's counsel then reached a 
tentative agreement to settle that lawsuit for $1350.  Sherry, 
however, never communicated that settlement to Brumm. 
¶33 Subsequently, 
the 
circuit 
court 
dismissed 
that 
collection action on September 3, 1998, on the representation 
that the case had been settled.  Sherry did not inform Brumm 
that the lawsuit had been dismissed.  In fact, the settlement 
No. 
03-0263-D   
 
11 
 
had never been consummated because Sherry had not prepared the 
settlement documents.  Brumm repeatedly attempted to contact 
Sherry to determine the status of that lawsuit and, after a 
series of unsuccessful attempts, Brumm hired another attorney in 
June 2001.  That second attorney then discovered that the 
lawsuit had been dismissed.  
¶34 Brumm had also retained Sherry in late 1997 to 
foreclose on a $1850 construction lien.  Thereafter Brumm 
repeatedly attempted to contact Sherry about the status of that 
foreclosure action but Sherry failed to respond or take any 
action to foreclose the construction lien. 
¶35 In March 2001 Brumm retained Sherry to collect a 
$12,500 judgment that Brumm's business had obtained in an 
arbitration proceeding.  Brumm gave Sherry a $250 check to 
commence execution on that judgment; the sheriff's department, 
however, has no record of any attempted execution on the 
judgment.  
¶36 Sherry later informed Brumm that he would conduct a 
supplemental examination of that judgment debtor but Sherry 
never conducted that supplemental examination.  Brumm repeatedly 
attempted to obtain a status report from Sherry about the 
$12,500 collection matter but without success.   
¶37 This course of conduct led to Counts Eleven through 
Fifteen in the OLR complaint to which Sherry now stipulates.   
A. Count Eleven 
¶38 By failing to communicate the offer of settlement to 
Brumm in the 1997 collection matter, Sherry failed to inform his 
No. 
03-0263-D   
 
12 
 
client of all offers of settlement and abide by a client's 
decision whether to accept the offer of settlement of a matter, 
in violation of SCR 20:1.2(a).   
B. Count Twelve 
¶39 By failing to take appropriate steps toward finalizing 
the settlement, including failing to reduce the settlement 
agreement to writing in the 1998 matter after the court 
dismissed the case upon assurances of counsel that it had been 
settled, Sherry failed to act with reasonable diligence in 
representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. 
C. Count Thirteen 
¶40 By failing to perform work to foreclose on Lake 
State's construction lien, Sherry failed to act with reasonable 
diligence in representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. 
D. Count Fourteen 
¶41 By 
failing 
to 
collect 
on 
Lake 
State's 
$12,500 
judgment, Sherry failed to act with reasonable diligence in 
representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. 
E. Count Fifteen 
¶42 By not informing Brumm that the 1997 collection matter 
had been dismissed and by failing to respond to Brumm's repeated 
correspondence requesting status reports, Sherry failed to keep 
his client reasonably informed about the status of the matter 
and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.4(a). 
No. 
03-0263-D   
 
13 
 
V. PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR FALKNER——COUNT SIXTEEN 
¶43 The OLR complaint alleges, and Sherry now stipulates, 
that Sherry hired Gerald Falkner, a private investigator, to 
perform investigative work in three public defender cases in 
which Sherry had been appointed as defense counsel.  Sherry and 
Falkner agreed that Falkner would wait to receive payment for 
his services until after Sherry had been paid Falkner's costs by 
the state public defender's office. 
¶44 Sherry 
thereafter 
received 
payments 
for 
the 
investigations from the state public defender's office in those 
three cases in the amount of $316.81, $187.33, and $519, 
respectively.  Sherry cashed those checks but failed to forward 
the money to Falkner despite Falkner's numerous attempts to 
obtain the money.  Falkner did not receive his payments until 
late 2001.   
¶45 This course of conduct led to count 16 in the OLR 
complaint to which Sherry now stipulates.  
A. Count Sixteen 
¶46 By failing to promptly deliver to Falkner the funds 
from the state public defender's office that Falkner was 
entitled to receive, Sherry failed to promptly deliver to a 
third person funds that that person was entitled to receive, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.15(b). 
VI. CLIENT KHAN——COUNT SEVENTEEN 
¶47 The OLR complaint alleges, and Sherry now stipulates, 
that in March 1999 Mohamad S. Khan retained Sherry to represent 
Khan in collecting a security deposit purportedly wrongly 
No. 
03-0263-D   
 
14 
 
retained by the buyer of rental property previously owned by one 
Noreen Khan.  Mohamad Khan paid Sherry an advance of $102 for 
costs; Sherry, however, did not file a lawsuit on Khan's behalf.  
¶48 Despite Khan's request Sherry failed to return the 
$102 and failed to deliver Khan's file to Khan's new attorney.   
¶49 This course of conduct led to Count Seventeen in the 
OLR's complaint against Sherry to which he now stipulates.   
A. Count Seventeen 
¶50 By failing to return the $102 in advance costs and by 
failing to deliver Khan's file to his new attorney, Sherry 
failed to surrender papers and property to which a client was 
entitled and refund any advance payment of fees that had not 
been earned, in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d).  
VII. GALL DIVORCE ACTION——COUNTS EIGHTEEN THROUGH TWENTY-ONE 
¶51 The OLR complaint alleges, and Sherry now stipulates, 
that in December 2000 Jessica Gall retained Sherry to represent 
her in a divorce action.  She paid Sherry a retainer of $850.   
¶52 The initial hearing in that divorce action was held on 
March 21, 2001; thereafter, Sherry failed to perform any work on 
that divorce action.  He also did not return Gall's phone calls 
and failed to keep her informed about the divorce action.  He 
did, however, have five telephone conversations with Jessica 
Gall, some of which occurred after Sherry's law license had been 
administratively 
suspended 
on 
June 
6, 
2001, 
due 
to 
his 
noncompliance with CLE requirements.   
¶53 Specifically, in August and September 2001, Sherry 
provided legal advice to Gall over the telephone concerning her 
No. 
03-0263-D   
 
15 
 
divorce action; however, he never informed her that his law 
license had been suspended.  
¶54 In October 2001 Sherry informed Gall that he could not 
complete her divorce action because of depression.  Sherry 
agreed to refund to Gall $425 of her retainer fee by October 26, 
2001, but he failed to do so.   
¶55 This course of conduct led to Counts Eighteen through 
Twenty-One in the OLR's complaint to which Sherry has now 
stipulated.   
A. Count Eighteen 
¶56 By failing to take action in Gall's divorce after the 
initial hearing on March 21, 2001, Sherry failed to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.3. 
B. Count Nineteen 
¶57 By 
failing 
to 
respond 
to 
Gall's 
attempts 
to 
communicate with him regarding the status of the divorce action, 
Sherry failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the 
status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests 
for information, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a). 
C. Count Twenty 
¶58 By failing to refund Gall $425 of her retainer fee, as 
promised, Sherry failed to surrender papers and property to 
which a client was entitled and refund any advance payment of 
fees that had not been earned, in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d). 
No. 
03-0263-D   
 
16 
 
D. Count Twenty-One 
¶59 By providing legal advice to Gall while his license 
was suspended, Sherry violated a statute, supreme court rule, 
supreme court order or supreme court decision regulating the 
conduct of lawyers, SCR 31.10, which prohibits the practice of 
law while the lawyer's state bar membership is suspended for 
noncompliance with CLE requirements, in violation of SCR 
20:8.4(f). 
¶60 As noted, Sherry has now stipulated to these 21 counts 
of misconduct as alleged by the OLR in its complaint.  He admits 
the facts and the misconduct as alleged and agrees with the OLR 
that a nine-month suspension of his license to practice law in 
this state is an appropriate sanction for that misconduct.  He 
also agrees with the OLR that he should make restitution to 
Mohamad Khan in the amount of $102, and to Jessica Gall in the 
amount of $450.  
¶61 We approve the stipulation and determine that the 
seriousness 
of 
Attorney 
Sherry's 
misconduct 
warrants 
the 
suspension of his license to practice law for nine months.  
Sherry's admitted acts are serious violations of the Rules of 
Professional Conduct governing lawyers in this state.  We also 
agree that Sherry should make restitution in the stipulated 
amounts.   
¶62 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Robert L. Sherry to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for period of nine 
months, effective the date of this order.  
No. 
03-0263-D   
 
17 
 
¶63 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Robert L. Sherry comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
¶64 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Robert L. Sherry shall make restitution in the 
amount of $102 to Mohamad Khan and in the amount of $450 to 
Jessica Gall.  If that restitution is not paid within 60 days, 
and absent a showing to this court of his inability to pay such 
restitution within that time, the license of Robert L. Sherry to 
practice law in this state shall remain suspended until further 
order of this court.  
¶65 PATIENCE D. ROGGENSACK, J., did not participate. 
 
No. 
03-0263-D   
 
 
 
1