Title: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. Nicholas C. Grapsas
Citation: 2001 WI 14
Docket Number: 2000AP001599-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: March 7, 2001

2001 WI 14 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
00-1599-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Nicholas C. Grapsas, Attorney at Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
Nicholas C. Grapsas,  
 
Respondent.  
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GRAPSAS 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
March 7, 2001 
Submitted on Briefs: 
      
Oral Argument: 
      
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
      
 
Dissented: 
      
 
Not Participating: BABLITCH, J., did not participate. 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
      
 
2001 WI 14 
 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 00-1599-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Nicholas C. Grapsas, Attorney at  
Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional  
Responsibility,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Nicholas C. Grapsas,  
 
          Respondent.  
 
FILED 
 
MAR 7, 2001 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
revoked.  
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM   We 
review the 
stipulation 
filed by 
Attorney Nicholas C. Grapsas and the Board of Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility (Board).1  Pursuant to SCR 21.09(3m)2 
                     
1  Effective 
October 
1, 
2000, 
Wisconsin's 
attorney 
disciplinary process underwent a substantial restructuring.  The 
name of the body responsible for investigating and prosecuting 
cases involving attorney misconduct was changed to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation and the supreme court rules applicable to the 
lawyer regulation system were also revised.  Since the conduct 
underlying this case arose prior to October 1, 2000, the body 
will be referred to as "the Board" and all references to supreme 
court rules will be to those in effect prior to October 1, 2000. 
  
No. 
00-1599-D 
 
2 
and the report and recommendations of the referee,3 Cheryl Rosen 
Weston, setting forth findings of fact and conclusions of law 
concerning Attorney Grapsas' professional misconduct for failing 
to provide competent representation to a client; failing to act 
with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a 
client; making false and misleading statements to a client; 
making false statements to Board staff; failing to promptly 
notify a court of a prior suspension of his license to practice 
law; engaging in the practice of law while suspended; and 
failing to respond to letters from the Board; the parties 
stipulated, and the referee recommended, that Attorney Grapsas' 
license to practice law be revoked as a discipline for that 
misconduct. 
                                                                  
2  Former SCR 21.09(3m) provided: 
(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. 
3  Although former SCR 21.09(3m) did not seem to contemplate 
that a stipulated matter be referred to a referee unless the 
supreme court rejected the stipulation, the stipulation entered 
into between the Board and Attorney Grapsas did provide that the 
matter be referred to a referee for entry of findings of fact 
and conclusions of law consistent with the allegations of the 
Board's complaint.  
No. 
00-1599-D 
 
3 
¶2 
We approve the stipulation and determine that the 
seriousness of Attorney Grapsas' misconduct warrants revocation 
of his license to practice law in Wisconsin.  
¶3 
Attorney Grapsas was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1970 and practiced in Madison, primarily in the 
area 
of 
immigration law. 
 
In 1993 
this 
court publicly 
reprimanded him for failing to provide prompt and diligent 
representation to a client applying for U.S. citizenship, 
failing to keep that client reasonably informed of the status of 
the application and comply with her reasonable requests for 
information concerning it, refusing to return her unearned 
retainer when she terminated his representation, misrepresenting 
to his client, the Board, and the District Professional 
Responsibility Committee that he had acted in the client's 
matter, and failing to respond timely to the Board's request for 
information concerning the client's grievance.  Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Grapsas, 174 Wis. 2d 816, 498 N.W.2d 400 
(1993). 
¶4 
In March of 1999 this court again publicly reprimanded 
Attorney Grapsas for not explaining an immigration matter to a 
client to the extent reasonably necessary to permit her to make 
informed 
decisions 
regarding 
the 
representation 
and 
not 
informing her and her employer of substantial risks to the 
client's ability to work after the expiration date of the visa, 
failing to make reasonable inquiries to the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service (INS) concerning his attempt to file a 
petition to change the client's status, not refiling the 
No. 
00-1599-D 
 
4 
petition in a timely manner, and not responding to inquiries 
from the Board concerning the client's grievance.  Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Grapsas, 225 Wis. 2d 411, 591 N.W.2d 862 
(1999).   
¶5 
In December of 1999 this court suspended Attorney 
Grapsas' license to practice law in Wisconsin for six months, 
commencing January 10, 2000, for failing to file a client's 
application with INS in a timely manner, failing to keep the 
client adequately informed of the status of that application and 
respond promptly to her reasonable requests for information 
concerning it, misrepresenting to the client on numerous 
occasions over an extended period that he had filed the 
application, altering the dates of the signature of the client 
and her employer on the application without obtaining their 
authorization to do so, failing to advise the client of the 
steps necessary to continue her daughter's non-immigrant status 
and notify the client and her daughter promptly of the denial of 
the application to extend the daughter's visa, failing to return 
the balance of the client's retainer, and failing to timely 
respond to letters from the Board inquiring into his conduct in 
the matter.  Disciplinary Proceedings Against Grapsas, 230 Wis. 
2d 751, 602 N.W.2d 526 (1999).   
¶6 
The Board's most recent complaint against Attorney 
Grapsas involves two of his former clients. In 1995 the first 
client, a native and citizen of the African nation of Cameroon, 
retained Attorney Grapsas to assist him in applying for 
political asylum in the United States.  On December 28, 1995, 
No. 
00-1599-D 
 
5 
INS granted the client's application for political asylum and, 
as a result, the client was granted status as an asylee in the 
United States.  Subsequent to INS granting the client's 
application for political asylum, Attorney Grapsas also assisted 
the client in obtaining employment authorization from INS, 
pursuant to which the client was authorized to be employed in 
the United States for a one-year period.  As an alien admitted 
to the United States under asylee status, the client could not 
lawfully be employed in the United States except under an 
employment authorization.  The unlawful employment of an alien 
such as the client, even if otherwise lawfully admitted to the 
United States, provides legal grounds for deportation.   
¶7 
In June of 1996 the client traveled to Canada to 
investigate possible employment opportunities.  Upon his re-
entry into the United States in August of 1996 INS issued an 
"Order to Appear Deferred Inspection" and admitted the client to 
return into the United States under "parolee" status.  The order 
required the client to appear before INS for a hearing in 
Milwaukee on September 16, 1996. This matter is called an 
"exclusion proceeding."  
¶8 
Attorney Grapsas appeared as counsel for the client at 
the 
September 
1996 
hearing 
in 
the 
exclusion 
proceeding.  
Following the hearing INS notified the client that a further 
hearing would be conducted before an immigration judge at a time 
and date to be set.  While this matter was pending Attorney 
Grapsas told the client he could be lawfully employed in the 
United States and assisted the client in applying to seek 
No. 
00-1599-D 
 
6 
renewal of his employment authorization.  As a result of a 
renewal application filed with Attorney Grapsas' assistance, INS 
renewed the client's employment authorization card for a one-
year period extending from February 13, 1997, to February 13, 
1998, and INS issued the client an employment authorization card 
to evidence his employment authorization for that period.  
¶9 
In December of 1997 while the exclusion proceeding was 
still pending Attorney Grapsas advised the client to apply to 
INS to renew his employment authorization.  Attorney Grapsas 
prepared an application for renewal of employment authorization, 
which the client executed in late December 1997.  In the renewal 
application, Attorney Grapsas described the client's current 
immigration status as an "asylee."  The client paid Attorney 
Grapsas for legal services rendered in connection with the 
renewal application.  Following the execution of the renewal 
application Attorney Grapsas informed the client that the 
application had been sent to INS by Federal Express.   
¶10  On January 6, 1998, the immigration judge entered an 
order terminating the exclusion proceeding.  Following the entry 
of that order, Attorney Grapsas informed the client that he was 
free to file for admission to the United States as a permanent 
resident.  In late April 1998 the client executed an application 
for permanent residence status which Attorney Grapsas had 
prepared.  The client paid Attorney Grapsas $175 for the filing 
fee and $50 for attorney fees for his services.  Attorney 
Grapsas told the client the permanent residence application 
would be filed immediately.  Beginning in the summer of 1998 the 
No. 
00-1599-D 
 
7 
client 
attempted 
to 
contact 
Attorney 
Grapsas 
to 
request 
information about the status of the renewal application and the 
permanent residence application, but Attorney Grapsas did not 
respond to the client's requests for information. 
¶11 During 1998 because he did not have a current 
employment authorization card issued by INS, the client was 
unable to obtain employment in the United States since the card 
in his possession had expired February 13, 1998.  During the 
fall of 1998 a prospective employer of the client had contact 
with Attorney Grapsas regarding the client's immigration status. 
 In an October 1998 letter to the prospective client, Attorney 
Grapsas said the client had been granted the immigration status 
of an asylee and that any person with that status was authorized 
to work.  Attorney Grapsas also informed the prospective 
employer that the client had applied to INS for renewal of the 
document to evidence his employment authorization.   
¶12 In early November 1998 the client sent Attorney 
Grapsas a letter by certified mail inquiring about the status of 
his employment authorization application. Although Attorney 
Grapsas received the letter on November 12, 1998, he failed to 
respond.  In early December 1998 the client faxed Attorney 
Grapsas a letter saying he needed help because his employer had 
asked for proof of his employment authorization.  Attorney 
Grapsas again failed to respond.   
¶13 In 
late 
December 
1998 
Attorney 
Grapsas 
finally 
telephoned the client and told him he had filed another 
application to renew the client's employment authorization.  
No. 
00-1599-D 
 
8 
Attorney Grapsas provided no information concerning what had 
happened to the purported December 1997 renewal application.  In 
early January 1999 the client faxed Attorney Grapsas a letter 
asking for a copy of the most recent renewal application.  The 
client also inquired about the status of the permanent residence 
application.  Attorney Grapsas failed to respond.  In March of 
1999 
the 
client 
learned 
that, 
contrary 
to 
his 
prior 
representations, Attorney Grapsas had not filed the renewal 
application or the permanent residence application.   
¶14 The client was required to obtain new counsel to 
assist him in filing a new renewal application and a new 
permanent residence application.  On July 8, 1999, the client 
received 
from 
INS 
a 
one-year 
employment 
application 
authorization and employment authorization card.  Because the 
permanent residence application had not been timely filed by 
Attorney Grapsas, the client was required to incur additional 
costs of $237 for a medical examination, fingerprinting and a 
photograph. 
¶15 In his communications with the Board, Attorney Grapsas 
claimed he did not file the renewal application and permanent 
residence application because the client's immigration status 
was 
unsettled, 
despite 
the 
termination 
of 
the 
exclusion 
proceeding in January of 1998.   
¶16 The Board's complaint also alleged that Attorney 
Grapsas engaged in misconduct with respect to an immigration 
hearing that took place in January 2000.  After this court 
issued its December 3, 1999, decision suspending Attorney 
No. 
00-1599-D 
 
9 
Grapsas' license for six months, Attorney Grapsas filed a motion 
for reconsideration.  By letter dated January 12, 2000, the 
Board 
reminded 
Attorney 
Grapsas 
that 
his 
filing 
of 
the 
reconsideration motion did not stay the enforcement of this 
court's disciplinary order, pursuant to which Attorney Grapsas' 
license to practice law was suspended for six months effective 
January 10, 2000.  On January 13, 2000, this court issued an 
order denying Attorney Grapsas' motion for reconsideration.   
¶17 On January 18, 2000, Attorney Grapsas spoke by 
telephone with the Board's litigation counsel inquiring about a 
client matter scheduled for an immigration hearing in Chicago on 
January 20, 2000.  Board counsel reminded Attorney Grapsas that 
because of the suspension order he could not appear at the 
hearing, could not practice law in any way, and could not engage 
in any work activity customarily done by law students, law 
clerks, or other legal personnel.  Board counsel further advised 
Attorney Grapsas that it appeared the January 20, 2000, hearing 
would have to be adjourned and that, in any event, the court and 
his client would have to be notified of the suspension and his 
client should be given the opportunity to retain new counsel.  
¶18 Despite his conversation with Board counsel, Attorney 
Grapsas appeared before the immigration court on January 20, 
2000, as counsel representing an alien client.  At that time in 
response to a motion filed by Attorney Grapsas, the immigration 
court entered an order terminating deportation proceedings 
against the client. 
No. 
00-1599-D 
 
10
 ¶19 On February 3, 2000, the Board notified Attorney 
Grapsas 
that 
it 
had 
received 
information 
concerning 
his 
appearance before the immigration court.  Attorney Grapsas 
represented to Board counsel that his only activity before the 
immigration court had consisted of his notifying the court and 
his client of his license suspension.  By letter dated February 
18, 2000, the Board provided Attorney Grapsas with notice of the 
commencement of an investigation based upon information received 
from the immigration judge about Attorney Grapsas' appearance 
before the immigration court on January 20, 2000.  The letter 
directed Attorney Grapsas to provide a written response to the 
issues raised by the submission received from the immigration 
judge within 20 days of his receipt of the letter.  Attorney 
Grapsas failed to respond to the Board's letter.  In a certified 
letter dated March 21, 2000, the Board again notified Attorney 
Grapsas of its commencement of an investigation about his 
appearance before the immigration court and directed Attorney 
Grapsas to provide a written response no later than March 31, 
2000.  Again, Attorney Grapsas failed to respond.  
¶20 In the stipulation, Attorney Grapsas represented to 
the Board, the referee, and this court that he had retired from 
the practice of law and had no intention of resuming the 
practice of law; that he did not contest the allegations of 
professional misconduct set forth in the complaint; and that he 
knowingly and voluntarily stipulated to the revocation of his 
license to practice law. 
No. 
00-1599-D 
 
11
¶21 The referee found that by failing to take action to 
promptly 
file 
the 
renewal 
application 
and 
the 
permanent 
residence application for the first client, or by failing to 
promptly take action to resolve any issues as to that client's 
allegedly unsettled immigration status, so that the applications 
could 
be 
promptly 
filed 
and 
acted 
upon 
by 
government 
authorities, Attorney Grapsas violated SCR 20:1.1 and 20:1.3.4   
¶22 The referee also concluded that by failing to respond 
to the first client's reasonable request for information about 
the status of the renewal application and the permanent 
residence application, Attorney Grapsas violated SCR 20:1.4(a).5 
 The referee also found that by making false and misleading 
statements to the first client about the renewal application and 
permanent residence application; by falsely stating to the 
client's prospective employer that the client had filed with INS 
an application for renewal of his employment authorization; and 
                     
4  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.  
SCR 20:1.3 provides: Diligence  
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client.  
 
5  SCR 20:1.4(a) provides: 
 
(a)  A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about 
the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable 
requests for information.  
  
No. 
00-1599-D 
 
12
by falsely stating to the Board's counsel that his only activity 
before the immigration court on January 20, 2000, consisted of 
notifying the court and his client of the license suspension,  
Attorney Grapsas violated SCR 20:8.4(c).6   
¶23 The referee also found that by falsely stating to Board 
staff that the renewal application and the permanent residence 
application had been filed with INS and by failing to respond to 
the Board's letters and by falsely stating that his only 
activity before the immigration court consisted of notifying the 
court and his client of the license suspension, Attorney Grapsas 
violated SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(3).7  In addition, the referee 
found that by failing to promptly notify the immigration court 
                     
6  SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:  
 
(c)  engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation;  
 
7  Former SCR 21.03(4) provided: 
(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. 
 
Former SCR 22.07(3) provided:  
 
(3)  The 
administrator 
or 
committee 
may 
compel 
the 
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents and present any 
information deemed relevant to the investigation.  Failure of the 
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents or present 
relevant information is misconduct.  The administrator or a 
committee may compel any other person to produce pertinent books, 
papers and documents under SCR 22.22.  
 
No. 
00-1599-D 
 
13
of his suspension and of his inability to act as counsel for a 
client at the January 20, 2000, hearing, and by engaging in the 
practice of law while suspended, Attorney Grapsas violated SCR 
22.26.8   
                     
8  Former SCR 22.26 provided: Activities on revocation or 
suspension of license  
 
(1)(a)  A disbarred or suspended attorney on or before the 
effective date of disbarment or suspension shall:  
 
1.  Notify, by certified mail, all clients being represented 
in pending matters of the disbarment or suspension and consequent 
inability to act as an attorney after the effective date of the 
disbarment or suspension.  
 
2.  Advise the clients to seek legal advice of the client's 
own choice elsewhere.  
 
(b)  A disbarred or suspended attorney with a matter pending 
before a court or administrative agency shall promptly notify the 
court or administrative agency and the attorney for each party of 
the disbarment or suspension and consequent inability to act as 
an attorney after the effective date of the disbarment or 
suspension. The notice must identify the successor attorney or, 
if there is none at the time of the notice, state the place of 
residence of the client of the disbarred or suspended attorney.  
 
(2)  A suspended or disbarred attorney may not engage in the 
practice of law or in any law work activity customarily done by 
law students, law clerks or other paralegal personnel, except 
that he or she may engage in law related work for a commercial 
employer not itself engaged in the practice of law.  
 
(3)  A suspended or disbarred attorney shall make within the 
first 15 days after the effective date of disbarment or 
suspension, all arrangements for the permanent or temporary 
closing of or winding up of the attorney's practice and may only 
aid in having others take over clients' work in process. If a 
suspended or disbarred attorney disappears or dies and the 
attorney has failed to comply with this subsection and no 
partner, personal representative or other responsible party 
capable of conducting the attorney's affairs is known to exist, a 
judge of a court of record in a county in which the attorney 
No. 
00-1599-D 
 
14
                                                                  
maintained an office shall appoint an attorney to enter the 
former offices of the disbarred or suspended attorney or other 
location as may be necessary for the sole purpose of protecting 
the client's rights, the clients' files and the clients' 
property, and the delivery thereof to the clients or their 
successor counsel. The appointed attorney may be compensated out 
of the assets of the suspended or disbarred attorney in the 
amount approved by the judge.  
 
(4)  The disbarred or suspended attorney shall file with the 
administrator within 25 days after the effective date of the 
disbarment or suspension order, an affidavit showing:  
 
(a)  Full compliance with the provisions of the order and 
with the rules and procedures.  
 
(b)  All other state, federal and administrative bodies 
before which the attorney is admitted to practice.  
 
(c)  A list of all clients in pending matters, and a list of 
all matters pending before any court or administrative agency and 
the case number.  
 
(d)  A disbarred or suspended attorney shall maintain 
records of the various steps taken under the rules and these 
procedures so that, upon any subsequent proceeding instituted by 
or against the attorney, proof of compliance with the rules and 
these procedures and with the disbarment or suspension order is 
available. Proof of compliance with these procedures is a 
condition precedent to reinstatement.  
 
(5)  The administrator shall have published a notice of the 
suspension or disbarment in the Wisconsin bar bulletin and in a 
newspaper of general circulation in each county in which the 
disbarred or suspended attorney maintained an office for the 
practice of law.  
 
(6)  The administrator shall notify all judges in this state 
of the order of suspension or disbarment.  
 
(7)  Nonpermitted activities of other lawyers. A member of 
the bar of this state may not use the name of a disbarred or 
suspended lawyer and may not authorize or knowingly permit a 
disbarred or suspended lawyer to:  
 
No. 
00-1599-D 
 
15
¶24 In addition to the license revocation, the parties 
stipulated and the referee recommended the entry of an order of 
restitution to the first client in the sum of $574.  The parties 
noted that Attorney Grapsas has transmitted such funds to the 
Board's counsel and the funds are being held in the trust 
account of Lee Kilkelly Paulson & Younger, S.C., to be 
distributed to the former client from such account upon this 
court's final disposition in the matter.   
¶25 We accept the parties' stipulation and adopt the 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law.  Attorney 
Grapsas' pattern of misconduct in the handling of his client's 
immigration matters warrants the revocation of his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin. 
                                                                  
(a)  Interview clients or witnesses or participate therein, 
except that in the course of employment by a commercial employer 
he or she may interview witnesses and participate in the 
investigation of claims;  
 
(b)  Prepare cases for trial;  
 
(c)  Do any legal research or other law work activity in a 
law office;  
 
(d)  Write briefs or trial memoranda; or  
 
(e)  Perform any services for him or her either on a salary 
or a percentage or a fee-splitting basis, except that he or she 
may share attorney fees on a quantum meruit basis only for 
services performed prior to disbarment or suspension;  
 
(f)  An attorney shall not permit a disbarred or suspended 
attorney to engage in any activity prohibited by this rule.  
  
No. 
00-1599-D 
 
16
¶26 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Nicholas C. Grapsas 
to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked effective the date of 
this order.  
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Nicholas C. Grapsas comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
revoked.  
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the sum of $574 which is 
held in the trust account of Lee Kilkelly Paulson & Younger, 
S.C. be disbursed to Nicholas C. Grapsas' former client. 
¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Nicholas C. Grapsas pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the sum of $200 as the costs of this proceeding.9 
¶30 WILLIAM A. BABLITCH, J., did not participate.  
                     
9  Although the stipulation and the referee's report both 
provided that costs be waived, this court has determined that 
the seriousness of Attorney Grapsas' misconduct warrants the 
imposition of some amount of costs.  
 
 
1