Title: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. David V. Jennings
Citation: 2009 WI 26
Docket Number: 1992AP003208-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: March 24, 2009

2009 WI 26 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
1992AP3208-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against David V. Jennings III, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility 
n/k/a Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
David V. Jennings III, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST JENNINGS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 24, 2009   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
January 7, 2009   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the respondent-appellant there were briefs by David V. 
Jennings III, pro se, Cedarburg, and oral argument by David V. 
Jennings III. 
 
For the complainant-respondent there was a brief by Keith 
L. Sellen and Office of Lawyer Regulation, Madison, and oral 
argument by Keith L. Sellen. 
 
 
 
 
2009 WI 26
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  1992AP3208-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against David V. Jennings III, Attorney at Law: 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility 
n/k/a Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
David V. Jennings III, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 24, 2009 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.   Reinstatement denied.  
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   David V. Jennings III has appealed a 
referee's report recommending the denial of Attorney Jennings' 
petition for reinstatement of his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin.  We adopt the referee's report and conclude that 
Attorney 
Jennings 
has 
failed 
to 
demonstrate 
by 
clear, 
satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he has the moral 
character to practice law in Wisconsin; that his resumption of 
the 
practice 
of 
law 
will 
not 
be 
detrimental 
to 
the 
administration of justice or subversive of the public interest; 
No. 
1992AP3208-D   
 
2 
 
and that his conduct since revocation has been exemplary and 
above reproach, that he has a proper understanding of and 
attitude toward the standards that are imposed upon members of 
the bar and will act in conformity with the standards, and that 
he can safely be recommended as a person fit to be consulted by 
others and to represent them and otherwise act in matters of 
trust and confidence and in general to aid in the administration 
of justice as a member of the bar and as an officer of the 
courts.  As a result, we deny Attorney Jennings' petition for 
reinstatement 
and 
direct him to pay the costs of this 
reinstatement proceeding. 
¶2 
Attorney Jennings was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1975.  In May 1986 he was appointed to represent 
Milwaukee Cheese and Sheboygan Sausage in chapter 11 bankruptcy 
proceedings.  Between January 1989 and July 1992 Attorney 
Jennings embezzled approximately $550,000 from Milwaukee Cheese 
and Sheboygan Sausage bank accounts.  He used the money for his 
lifestyle expenses.  At the time, Attorney Jennings was a member 
of the law firm of Godfrey, Braun & Hayes in Ozaukee County. 
¶3 
At the same time he was embezzling funds from 
Milwaukee Cheese and Sheboygan Sausage, Attorney Jennings was 
also embezzling funds from his mother's living trust, of which 
he was the trustee.  He embezzled between $85,000 and $100,000 
from the trust. 
¶4 
On December 5, 1992, Attorney Jennings filed a 
petition for voluntary revocation of his license to practice 
law.  In his petition, Attorney Jennings acknowledged that he 
No. 
1992AP3208-D   
 
3 
 
could not successfully defend against allegations that he 
converted $550,000 from Milwaukee Cheese and Sheboygan Sausage.  
This court revoked Attorney Jennings' law license in January 
1993.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jennings, 172 
Wis. 2d 638, 493 N.W.2d 375 (1993). 
¶5 
In August of 1993, Attorney Jennings pled guilty and 
was convicted in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of 
Wisconsin on two counts of embezzlement and two counts of making 
false entries in bankruptcy estates.  He was sentenced to 27 
months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. 
He was also ordered to make restitution payments of $590,200 in 
installment payments established by the probation office. 
¶6 
In 1998 the federal court revoked Attorney Jennings' 
probation due to his failure to make court-ordered restitution 
payments.  He spent five days in jail and his probation term was 
extended for an additional 35 months.  
¶7 
After the discovery of his embezzlement, Attorney 
Jennings granted a mortgage on property he owned with his wife 
in favor of his parents.  The mortgage favored Attorney 
Jennings' parents over other victims of his embezzlement and 
resulted in his parents receiving 43 cents on each dollar of 
debt while his former law firm, its insurance carrier, and 
Development Specialists, Inc. (DSI), received 28 cents on the 
dollar. 
¶8 
Following the revocation of his license but prior to 
his criminal conviction, Attorney Jennings' wife filed a 
petition to compel support and maintenance but did not seek a 
No. 
1992AP3208-D   
 
4 
 
divorce or legal separation. In May 1993 the circuit court 
ordered Attorney Jennings to pay his wife $1,000 in maintenance 
and 
$510 
in 
child 
support. 
 
Members 
of 
his 
law 
firm 
unsuccessfully sought to intervene in the action, as did 
Milwaukee Cheese, Sheboygan Sausage, and DSI.  
¶9 
While Attorney Jennings was incarcerated from 1993 
through 1995, substantial arrearages of approximately $10,000 
accrued in his support and maintenance payments.  After he was 
released from prison, he began to make payments on the amounts 
due.  He and his wife entered into a stipulation that 
reinstituted support payments that were slightly in excess of 
the 17 percent required under Wisconsin law for one child.  
These support payments served to shield more of Attorney 
Jennings' income from his creditors when he was released from 
prison since he had to make payments toward his current support 
and maintenance obligations as well as the arrearages that 
accrued during his incarceration.  
¶10 The bulk of restitution to Milwaukee Cheese and 
Sheboygan Sausage has been paid by Attorney Jennings' former law 
firm, the firm's malpractice insurance carrier, and DSI, a 
company that engages in restructuring, consulting, insolvency 
workouts, and the provision of fiduciary services to bankruptcy 
courts.  Milwaukee Cheese and Sheboygan Sausage commenced an 
adversary 
proceeding in bankruptcy court against Attorney 
Jennings, his former law firm, and each of its partners.  DSI 
and Attorney Jennings' wife were subsequently added as third-
party defendants.  Attorney Jennings was ordered to pay $39,760 
No. 
1992AP3208-D   
 
5 
 
to the Employee Stock Ownership Trust of Milwaukee Cheese.  As 
of March 2008 he still owed $10,310.  Attorney Jennings 
reimbursed his former firm $152,520 and still owes it $397,680 
plus interest.  Of the funds he borrowed and embezzled from his 
mother, Attorney Jennings paid back approximately $46,000. 
¶11 In May 2005 Attorney Jennings was cited for operating 
while under the influence of alcohol, first offense, in Ozaukee 
County.  He entered a no contest plea.  In April 2006 his 
driver's license was suspended due to his failure to pay the 
forfeiture assessed as a result of the OWI conviction.  
¶12 On October 6, 1999, Attorney Jennings filed a petition 
for reinstatement of his law license.  After an investigation 
conducted by the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility 
(BAPR), the predecessor to the OLR, and after a public hearing, 
Attorney Jennings asked to withdraw his petition. This court 
granted the request.  On November 12, 2007, Attorney Jennings 
filed a second petition for reinstatement.   
¶13 The Honorable Timothy Vocke was appointed as referee.  
A hearing was held on June 19, 2008.   
¶14 A number of witnesses testified at the hearing, some 
in support of Attorney Jennings' petition and some against it.  
In addition, a number of other people submitted letters both 
opposing and supporting the reinstatement petition. 
¶15 Attorney Jennings testified that since 2000 he has 
been employed by the Furniture Clearance Center, a division of 
Porter Furniture Company, as a store manager; as part of that 
job, he has fiduciary responsibilities. 
No. 
1992AP3208-D   
 
6 
 
¶16 At the close of the hearing, the referee issued his 
report and recommendation as part of the hearing transcript.  
The referee concluded that since 1992 Attorney Jennings has not 
engaged in the practice of law, has fully complied with the 
terms of the revocation order, and has maintained competence and 
learning in the law.  The referee said the real question 
presented had to do with Attorney Jennings' moral character and 
whether or not the public was going to be injured by him 
resuming his license to practice law. 
¶17 The referee commented that Attorney Jennings was 
extremely bright, very hard-working, articulate, and capable of 
providing high-quality legal service.  However, the referee 
concluded that Attorney Jennings lacked the "moral compass" 
necessary to practice law, and as a result, could not be safely 
recommended to the legal profession, the courts, and the public 
as a person fit to be consulted by others and to represent them 
and otherwise act in matters of trust and confidence and to aid 
in the administration of justice as a member of the bar and an 
officer of the courts.   
¶18 The 
referee 
noted 
that 
Attorney 
Jennings 
stole 
approximately $550,000 and his victims included his mother as 
well as clients who were in bankruptcy.  The referee noted the 
stolen money went for Attorney Jennings' personal benefit and 
activities such as skiing.  The referee noted that Attorney 
Jennings' former law firm was still owed $397,000 and the 
president and CEO of DSI was owed $150,000 which he paid to 
No. 
1992AP3208-D   
 
7 
 
Milwaukee Cheese and Sheboygan Sausage so that the creditors of 
those companies could get their money. 
¶19 The referee also commented on the fact that in 1998, 
the U.S. District Court revoked Attorney Jennings' probation for 
failure to make court-ordered payments.  As a result, Attorney 
Jennings spent five days in jail and received an additional 35 
months probation. 
¶20 The 
referee 
also 
noted 
there 
was 
a 
documented 
allegation that Attorney Jennings failed to cooperate with his 
probation or parole officer.  In addition, the referee pointed 
to evidence that Attorney Jennings put his parents in a position 
of being preferred creditors over the other victims, and as late 
as 1998, Attorney Jennings maintained that the stolen funds had 
been loans that were not subject to income tax.  Although the 
referee said he did not give much credence to the 2005 OWI 
conviction, he did find it significant that Attorney Jennings' 
driver's license was later ordered suspended when he failed to 
pay the forfeiture of costs that arose from the OWI conviction. 
¶21 Attorney Jennings has appealed, arguing that during 
the last ten years, he has done all the right things in order to 
be reinstated.  He notes that this court has previously held 
that the inability to make full restitution should not preclude 
reinstatement.  See, e.g., In re Reinstatement of Gilbert, 2002 
WI 102, 255 Wis. 2d 311, 647 N.W.2d 845.  The OLR asserts that 
the referee appropriately found that Attorney Jennings has 
failed to prove he has the moral character to practice law in 
Wisconsin. 
No. 
1992AP3208-D   
 
8 
 
¶22 This court will affirm a referee's findings of fact 
unless they are found to be clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of 
law are reviewed de novo.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 
N.W.2d 718.   
¶23 Supreme Court Rule 22.29(4) provides that a petition 
for reinstatement must show all of the following: 
(a) 
The 
petitioner 
desires 
to 
have 
the 
petitioner's license reinstated. 
(b) The petitioner has not practiced law during 
the period of suspension or revocation. 
(c) The petitioner has complied fully with the 
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and 
will 
continue 
to 
comply 
with 
them 
until 
the 
petitioner's license is reinstated. 
(d) The petitioner has maintained competence and 
learning in the law by attendance at identified 
educational activities. 
(e) The petitioner's conduct since the suspension 
or revocation has been exemplary and above reproach. 
(f) The petitioner has a proper understanding of 
and attitude toward the standards that are imposed 
upon members of the bar and will act in conformity 
with the standards. 
 
(g) The petitioner can safely be recommended to 
the legal profession, the courts and the public as a 
person fit to be consulted by others and to represent 
them and otherwise act in matters of trust and 
confidence and in general to aid in the administration 
of justice as a member of the bar and as an officer of 
the courts. 
(h) The petitioner has fully complied with the 
requirements set forth in SCR 22.26. 
No. 
1992AP3208-D   
 
9 
 
(j) The petitioner's proposed use of the license 
if reinstated. 
(k) A full description of all of the petitioner's 
business activities during the period of suspension or 
revocation. 
(4m) The petitioner has made restitution to or 
settled all claims of persons injured or harmed by 
petitioner's misconduct, including reimbursement to 
the Wisconsin lawyers' fund for client protection for 
all payments made from that fund, or, if not, the 
petitioner's explanation of the failure or inability 
to do so. 
¶24 Supreme Court Rule 22.31(1) provides that an attorney 
seeking reinstatement of his or her license has the burden of 
demonstrating all of these requirements by clear, satisfactory, 
and convincing evidence.  We adopt the referee's findings and 
conclusions and agree that Attorney Jennings has failed to meet 
his 
burden 
of 
demonstrating 
by 
clear, 
satisfactory, 
and 
convincing evidence that resuming the practice of law would not 
be detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of 
the public interest. 
¶25 We do not reach this decision lightly.  It has been 16 
years since Attorney Jennings agreed to the voluntary revocation 
of his license to practice law.  Sixteen years is a long time.  
In the interim, Attorney Jennings has taken some significant 
steps to turn his life around and atone for his bad behavior.  
He has maintained steady employment.  He has been making court-
ordered restitution payments to the Employee Stock Ownership 
Trust of Milwaukee Cheese.  He has attended legal educational 
programs to maintain competence and learning in the law.  In 
spite of these positive steps, we are troubled, as was the 
No. 
1992AP3208-D   
 
10 
 
referee, by the fact that Attorney Jennings' former law firm and 
the president and CEO of DSI are still owed large sums of money.  
We recognize that Attorney Jennings may lack the financial 
resources to ever make full restitution.  What we find far more 
troubling than his failure to make restitution is his apparent 
failure not to have ever tried to determine exactly how much he 
owes his former law firm.  When pressed on this issue at oral 
argument, Attorney Jennings first seemed to skirt the issue, and 
only when directly pressed on the subject did he admit that he 
has made no direct payments to his former law firm since 1997 
and he did not know——and apparently never made a real effort to 
figure out——how much he owes the firm.  This seeming failure to 
completely face up to his obligations gives us pause and tips 
the balance against granting the reinstatement petition.  
¶26 The OLR has filed a statement of costs incurred in the 
reinstatement proceedings in the amount of $6,967.14.  We deem 
it appropriate to impose the full costs of this proceeding on 
Attorney Jennings. 
¶27 IT IS ORDERED that David V. Jennings III's petition 
for reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin is 
denied. 
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, David V. Jennings III shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this reinstatement proceeding.  
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 David V. Jennings III to practice law 
No. 
1992AP3208-D   
 
11 
 
in Wisconsin shall remain revoked under further order of this 
court. 
No. 
1992AP3208-D   
 
 
 
1