2014 WI 110
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2003AP2039-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Jevon Jones Jaconi, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Jevon Jones Jaconi,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST JACONI
OPINION FILED: October 7, 2014
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2014 WI 110
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2003AP2039-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Jevon Jones Jaconi, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant,
OCT 7, 2014
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Jevon Jones Jaconi,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding. Reinstatement denied.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review the report and recommendation
of the referee, Kevin L. Ferguson, that Attorney Jevon Jones
Jaconi's petition for the reinstatement of his license to
practice law in Wisconsin be denied. After careful review of
the matter, we agree that Attorney Jaconi has not satisfied the
requirements for reinstatement, and we therefore deny his
reinstatement petition. We further agree with the referee that
Attorney Jaconi should be required to pay the full costs of the
No. 2003AP2039-D
reinstatement proceeding, which are $4,691.38 as of May 29,
2014.
¶2 The standards that apply to all petitions seeking
reinstatement after a disciplinary suspension or revocation are
set forth in Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.31(1). In particular,
the petitioning attorney must demonstrate by clear,
satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he or she has the
moral character necessary to practice law in this state, that
his or her resumption of the practice of law will not be
detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of
the public interest, and that the attorney has complied fully
with the terms of the suspension order and of SCR 22.26. In
addition, SCR 22.31(1)(c) incorporates the statements that a
petition for reinstatement must contain pursuant to
SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(4m). Thus, the petitioning attorney must
demonstrate that the required representations in the
reinstatement petition are substantiated.
¶3 Attorney Jaconi was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 1998. His license was administratively suspended
in 2003 for failure to comply with mandatory continuing legal
education (CLE) requirements. On November 7, 2003, this court
suspended Attorney Jaconi's license for one year as discipline
for 20 counts of misconduct involving seven separate clients.
The misconduct included failing to provide competent
representation; failing to act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing a client; failing to keep a client
informed about the status of a matter; failing to promptly
2
No. 2003AP2039-D
refund an unearned retainer; failing to explain a matter to the
extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make
informed decisions regarding the representation; and failing to
take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a
client's interests.
¶4 On August 7, 2013, Attorney Jaconi filed a petition
for reinstatement. The petition alleged, among other things,
that Attorney Jaconi had complied fully with the terms of this
court's suspension order, that he had maintained competence in
learning in the law, that his conduct since the revocation had
been exemplary and above reproach, and that he had fully
complied with the requirements set forth in SCR 22.26. The
petition acknowledged that in 2006 Attorney Jaconi was charged
with misdemeanor disorderly conduct after a fight with his wife.
The charge was dismissed after Attorney Jaconi complied with the
terms of a deferred prosecution agreement which required him to
participate in the Violence Intervention Program in Algoma,
Wisconsin.
¶5 The Board of Bar Examiners filed a memorandum on
November 26, 2013, stating that Attorney Jaconi was currently in
compliance with the court's CLE and ethics and professional
responsibility requirements. The Office of Lawyer Regulation
(OLR) filed a response to the reinstatement petition on
February 28, 2014. The OLR's response stated that, contrary to
statements made by Attorney Jaconi in the reinstatement
petition, Attorney Jaconi had not fully complied with the
restitution order in this court's 2003 decision. The OLR's
3
No. 2003AP2039-D
response also questioned whether Attorney Jaconi's conduct since
the suspension has been exemplary and above reproach. The OLR
noted that since the suspension, Attorney Jaconi has failed to
pay taxes owed to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue and the
Internal Revenue Service. The OLR's response also noted that
although Attorney Jaconi's petition stated he had fully complied
with the requirements set forth in SCR 22.26, he provided no
proof that he filed an affidavit of compliance as required by
that rule.
¶6 The referee was appointed on September 23, 2013.
After conducting a public hearing, the referee issued a report
on May 13, 2014, recommending that Attorney Jaconi's petition
for reinstatement be denied. The referee found that evidence
presented at the public hearing cast doubt upon Attorney
Jaconi's present qualifications to practice law. The referee
also found that Attorney Jaconi made unsubstantiated and untrue
representations in his petition for reinstatement.
Specifically, the referee said that although Attorney Jaconi
represented that he had paid all restitution ordered to former
clients, except $7,500 owed to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for
Client Protection (Fund), evidence adduced at the hearing showed
that Attorney Jaconi had failed to pay T.O. the $500 ordered by
this court. In addition, the referee stated that Attorney
Jaconi made no payments to the Fund until September 2013 after
entering into a payment plan with the Fund on July 31, 2013.
The payment plan provided for a minimum payment of $100 each
month. The referee noted that Attorney Jaconi made $100
4
No. 2003AP2039-D
payments in September and October 2013, but failed to make any
subsequent payments. The referee noted that when questioned at
the hearing about his reimbursement to the Fund, Attorney Jaconi
said he believed he was in compliance. The referee said
Attorney Jaconi's testimony in this regard was unconvincing.
¶7 The referee said the restitution payments ordered by
this court were nominal. Although Attorney Jaconi claimed that
financial issues prevented him from making restitution, the
referee said the discretionary expenditures on his books, as
well as his testimony at the hearing, contradicted that claim.
The referee found that Attorney Jaconi had the means to make
restitution and, by Attorney Jaconi's own admission, financial
difficulties did not prevent him from doing so. Attorney Jaconi
also claimed that his prior attorney caused some confusion about
whether he should pay restitution immediately or wait. The
referee said that although this may have been the reason
Attorney Jaconi failed to pay restitution, it was not an excuse
for misrepresenting in his reinstatement petition that he had in
fact paid all required restitution to his former clients.
¶8 The referee concluded that Attorney Jaconi failed to
show by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he
satisfied the requirements set forth in SCR 22.31. The referee
also found that Attorney Jaconi may not be safely recommended to
return to the practice of law.
¶9 As in disciplinary proceedings, 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
5
No. 2003AP2039-D
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Banks, 2010 WI 105, ¶16,
329 Wis. 2d 39, 787 N.W.2d 809.
¶10 After careful review of the matter, we find nothing to
indicate that the referee's findings of fact are clearly
erroneous. We therefore conclude, as did the referee, that
Attorney Jaconi has failed to meet the requirements for
reinstatement to the practice of law in Wisconsin.
¶11 We further determine, consistent with our general
practice, that Attorney Jaconi should be required to pay the
full costs of this reinstatement proceeding, which are
$4,691.38.
¶12 IT IS ORDERED that Jevon Jones Jaconi's petition for
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin is
denied.
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order, Jevon Jones Jaconi shall pay to the Office of
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this reinstatement proceeding.
6
No. 2003AP2039-D
1