2013 WI 21
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2012AP2318-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against
John R. Dade, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
John R. Dade,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DADE
OPINION FILED: February 21, 2013
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED: Abrahamson, C.J., Bradley, J., dissent. (Opinion
filed.)
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2013 WI 21
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2012AP2318-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against John R. Dade, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant,
FEB 21, 2013
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
John R. Dade,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review the stipulation filed by the
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney John R. Dade
pursuant to SCR 22.121 regarding Attorney Dade's professional
1
SCR 22.12 provides:
(1) The director may file with the complaint a
stipulation of the director and the respondent to
the facts, conclusions of law regarding
misconduct, and discipline to be imposed. The
No. 2012AP2318-D
misconduct in the handling of one client matter. The OLR and
Attorney Dade stipulate that Attorney Dade committed
professional misconduct and that the appropriate sanction for
the misconduct is a suspension of his license to practice law in
Wisconsin for a period of 60 days. The OLR is not seeking
costs. Upon careful consideration, we adopt the stipulated
facts and agree that a 60-day suspension is an appropriate
sanction.
¶2 Attorney Dade was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 1983 and practices in Whitewater. He has been
subject to professional discipline on four prior occasions. In
1991, he was privately reprimanded for lack of diligence,
failure to communicate, and failure to cooperate in the
investigation into his misconduct. Private Reprimand, No. 1991-
24. In 2007, he was publicly reprimanded for failing to provide
competent representation, failure to communicate, and lack of
diligence. Public Reprimand of John R. Dade, No. 2007-7. In
supreme court may consider the complaint and
stipulation without the appointment of a referee.
(2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation, it
shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions
of law and impose the stipulated discipline.
(3) If the supreme court rejects the stipulation, a
referee shall be appointed and the matter shall
proceed as a complaint filed without a
stipulation.
(4) A stipulation rejected by the supreme court has
no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to
the respondent's defense of the proceeding or the
prosecution of the complaint.
2
No. 2012AP2318-D
2007 his license was suspended for 60 days for failure to
cooperate in an OLR investigation, lack of diligence, and
failure to hold in trust the property of others in his client
trust account. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Dade,
2007 WI 66, 301 Wis. 2d 67, 732 N.W.2d 433. In 2012 he was
publicly reprimanded for lack of diligence, failure to
communicate, and failure to return a client's documents. Public
Reprimand of John R. Dade, No. 2012-1.
¶3 In July 2009 N.B. filed a pro se divorce petition in
Rock County circuit court. On November 16, 2009, N.B. hired
Attorney Dade to represent her in her divorce and to obtain a
domestic abuse injunction.
¶4 On March 1, 2010, a pretrial conference was held with
Attorney Dade appearing on behalf of N.B. and N.B.'s husband
appearing pro se. The March 1, 2010 pretrial order required the
parties to file a final financial disclosure statement with the
court and with the opposing party or counsel no later than
March 31, 2010. The pretrial order also required the final
financial disclosure statement to be updated no later than
April 14, 2010. Attorney Dade failed to timely file the final
financial disclosure statement.
¶5 The March 1, 2010 pretrial order also provided that
both parties were to file with the clerk of court, the court's
judicial assistant, and each other, a trial brief no later than
April 29, 2010. Attorney Dade failed to timely file the trial
brief.
3
No. 2012AP2318-D
¶6 The pretrial order scheduled the trial for May 5,
2010. The pretrial order stated that failure to comply with the
terms of the order shall be considered cause for imposing
sanctions which may include dismissal of the action.
¶7 On March 30, 2010, N.B. told Attorney Dade's office
manager that she would be out of town on May 5, 2010, and she
requested a change of the trial date. Attorney Dade failed to
respond. N.B. left a message at Attorney Dade's office on
April 17, 2010, asking about changing the trial date and
requesting that Attorney Dade call her back. Attorney Dade
failed to respond.
¶8 On April 26, 2010, N.B. informed Attorney Dade's
office manager that she wanted to change the May 5, 2010 court
date, that she had already left two messages, that she had not
received a call back from Attorney Dade, that she declined to
schedule a telephone appointment, and that she wanted Attorney
Dade to call her back. N.B. also sent an e-mail correspondence
to Attorney Dade in regard to adjourning the trial.
¶9 On May 5, 2010, Attorney Dade appeared at the trial.
N.B. did not appear, nor did her husband, who was pro se,
appear. On the May 5, 2010 trial date, Attorney Dade offered
the final financial disclosure statement and trial brief to the
court. The court dismissed N.B.'s divorce case, saying the
matter had not been diligently prosecuted.
¶10 Attorney Dade called N.B.'s cell phone and informed
her that the court had dismissed her case for lack of attendance
and for failure to file the financial disclosure statement.
4
No. 2012AP2318-D
Attorney Dade informed N.B. she would have to file a new divorce
action.
¶11 In a meeting with N.B. in May 2010, Attorney Dade
agreed to complete the divorce action for free due to Attorney
Dade's errors that resulted in the dismissal of her case by the
court. Attorney Dade filed a new divorce petition for N.B. on
May 14, 2010.
¶12 On July 21, 2010, this court temporarily suspended
Attorney Dade's license to practice law based on his failure to
cooperate in an OLR investigation unrelated to the N.B. matter.
In a July 2010 letter to N.B., Attorney Dade stated his law
license was suspended and that N.B. would have to find new
representation for her newly filed divorce case.
¶13 N.B. obtained successor counsel to represent her in
the new divorce case. A stipulation and order for substitution
of attorney was filed in August 2010. N.B. was granted a
default judgment of divorce on March 1, 2011.
¶14 On October 24, 2012, the OLR filed a complaint
alleging that Attorney Dade engaged in three counts of
misconduct with respect to his handling of N.B.'s case:
[Count One:] By failing to file a final financial
disclosure statement and trial brief by the court-
ordered deadline set forth in the pretrial order, and
otherwise failing to diligently prosecute this case,
resulting in dismissal of [N.B.'s] divorce case on
May 5, 2010, [Attorney] Dade violated SCR 20:1.3.2
2
SCR 20:1.3 states, "A lawyer shall act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing a client."
5
No. 2012AP2318-D
[Count Two:] By failing to file a final financial
disclosure statement and trial brief by the court-
ordered deadline set forth in the pretrial order,
[Attorney] Dade also violated SCR 20:3.4(c).3
[Count Three:] By failing to respond to [N.B.'s]
telephone calls with regard to adjourning the trial
date, [Attorney] Dade violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(4).4
¶15 On October 31, 2012, the OLR and Attorney Dade filed a
stipulation whereby Attorney Dade stipulated to the allegations
contained in the OLR's complaint. The stipulation states that
Attorney Dade fully understands the misconduct allegations and
the ramifications should the court impose the stipulated level
of discipline. The stipulation also provides that Attorney Dade
understands his right to contest the matter and understands his
right to consult with counsel, and that his entry into the
stipulation was made knowingly and voluntarily and without the
benefit of any negotiations for a reduction in either charges or
sanction.
¶16 The OLR filed a memorandum in support of the
stipulation which states that in formulating the recommendation
for a 60-day suspension, the OLR director considered a number of
similar cases, including In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Ermert, 2007 WI 10, 298 Wis. 2d 622, 726 N.W.2d 250, and In re
3
SCR 20:3.4(c) says a lawyer shall not "knowingly disobey
an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except for an open
refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation
exists; . . . ."
4
SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) says a lawyer shall "promptly comply with
reasonable requests by the client for information; . . . ."
6
No. 2012AP2318-D
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Anderson, 2010 WI 39, 324
Wis. 2d 627, 782 N.W.2d 100.
¶17 After careful review of the matter, we adopt the
stipulated facts and find it appropriate to impose a 60-day
suspension of Attorney Dade's license to practice law. Because
Attorney Dade entered into a comprehensive stipulation under
SCR 22.12, thereby obviating the need for the appointment of a
referee and a full disciplinary proceeding, we accede to the
OLR's request that no costs be imposed in this matter.
¶18 IT IS ORDERED that the license of John R. Dade to
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for 60 days, effective
March 21, 2013.
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that John R. Dade shall comply
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been
suspended.
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See
SCR 22.28(2).
7
No. 2012AP2318-D.ssa
¶21 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J. (dissenting). I would
not accept the parties' stipulation of a 60-day suspension. The
attorney has been disciplined four times previously for similar
offenses, including a 60-day suspension in 2007.
¶22 This stipulation is not in keeping with the concepts
of progressive discipline or with assisting Attorney Dade in
changing his behavior to protect the public.
¶23 I am authorized to state that Justice ANN WALSH
BRADLEY joins this dissent.
1