Find Laws Find Lawyers Free Legal Forms USA State Laws
Laws-info.com » Cases » Wisconsin » Supreme Court » 1999 » Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. John P. Louderman
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. John P. Louderman
State: Wisconsin
Court: Supreme Court
Docket No: 1998AP002497-D
Case Date: 10/26/1999
Plaintiff: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility
Defendant: John P. Louderman
Preview:SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
Case No.:                                        98-2497-D
Complete Title
of Case:
In  the  Matter  of  Disciplinary  Proceedings
Against  John  P.  Louderman,  III,  Attorney
at  Law.
Board  of  Attorneys  Professional
Responsibility,
Complainant,
v.
John  P.  Louderman,  III,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY  PROCEEDINGS  AGAINST  LOUDERMAN
Opinion Filed:                                   October  26,  1999
Submitted on Briefs:
Oral Argument:
Source of APPEAL
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
Concurred:
Dissented:
Not Participating:
ATTORNEYS:




No.                                                                          98-2497-D
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further editing and
modification.   The final version will appear in
the bound volume of the official reports.
No.                                                                          98-2497-D
                                                                             STATE  OF  WISCONSIN                                              :                       IN  SUPREME  COURT
                                                                                                                                                                       FILED
                                                                             In  the  Matter  of  Disciplinary  Proceedings
                                                                             Against  John  P.  Louderman,  III,  Attorney
at  Law.                                                                                                                                                               OCT 26, 1999
Board  of  Attorneys  Professional                                           Marilyn L. Graves
                                                                             Clerk of Supreme Court
Responsibility,                                                              Madison, WI
Complainant,
v.
John  P.  Louderman,  III,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY                                                                     disciplinary                                                      proceeding.    Public   reprimand
imposed.
¶1    PER   CURIAM      We   review   the   report   of   the   referee
recommending  that  Attorney  John  P.  Louderman,  III,  be  publicly
reprimanded  as  discipline  for  his  failure  to  send  a  document  to
the  circuit  court  for  its  approval  in  a  divorce  action  until
more  than  six  years  after  being  ordered  by  the  court  to  do  so.
We   determine   that   a   public   reprimand   is   the   appropriate
discipline  to  impose  for  that  misconduct,  in  light  of  the  fact
that  Attorney  Louderman  has  been  privately  reprimanded  on  three
prior  occasions  for  misconduct.
                                                                             ¶2    Attorney  Louderman  was  licensed  to  practice  law  in
Wisconsin   in                                                               1975   and   practices   in   Madison.                            The   Board   of
1




                                                                                                                                              No.       98-2497-D
Attorneys                                                                     Professional                            Responsibility          (Board)   privately
reprimanded  him,  with  his  consent,  three  times:  in                     1985  for
having  improperly  failed  and  refused  to  turn  over  the  file  of  a
former  client  for  almost  two  years;  in                                  1986  for  neglecting  to
execute  and  record  a  mortgage  properly  for  a  client  and  pursue
contempt  proceedings  against  the  mortgagor  after  telling  his
client  he  would  do  so;  in                                                1996  for  failing  to  consult  with
clients   and   obtain   consent   to   complete   a   Qualified   Domestic
Relations  Order  (QDRO)  in  order  to  render  their  divorce  judgment
effective   or   to   withdraw   from   their   representation,   for
neglecting  to  inform  one  of  the  clients  of  the  issues  that  had
arisen  in  regard  to  the  defective  QDRO  and  divorce  decree  and
failing  to  respond  to  her  written  inquiry  requesting  that  steps
be  taken  immediately  to  conclude  all  matters  properly,  and  for
representing   both   parties   in   a   joint   petition   for   divorce
without  obtaining  the  necessary  written  consent  of  both  parties.
¶3    Based  on  stipulations  of  the  parties,  the  referee  in
the  instant  proceeding,  Attorney  Norman  Anderson,  made  findings
of   fact   concerning   Attorney   Louderman's   representation   of   a
client  in  a  divorce  action  that  was  commenced  in                                                              1989.                   The
court's   memorandum   decision   of   October                                2,                                      1990,   divided   the
parties'   marital   estate,   awarding   the   wife   one-half   of   the
husband's   defined   retirement   benefits   through   a   QDRO.             The
decision   directed   Attorney   Louderman   to   prepare   the   QDRO
concerning   the   retirement   benefits   and,   after   approval   by
opposing  counsel,  submit  it  to  the  court  for  review.
2




No.                                                                              98-2497-D
¶4    The  attorney  for  the  wife  sent  Attorney  Louderman  a
letter  in  December                                                             1990  reminding  him  that  he  had  been  ordered
to  draft  the  QDRO  and  asking  him  to  send  a  copy  of  the  draft  as
soon  as  possible.    Attorney  Louderman  wrote  his  client's  pension
fund  in  February  1991  to  request  a  copy  of  its  preferred  form  of
a  QDRO  and  ask  the  fund's  general  counsel  to  contact  him.    The
wife's   attorney   again   wrote   Attorney   Louderman   in   May              1991
inquiring  into  the  status  of  the  QDRO,  and  Attorney  Louderman
responded  one  month  later  that  he  felt  it  was  inappropriate  for
him  to  draft  it.    The  wife's  attorney  then  reminded  him  that  the
court   had   ordered   him   to   do   so   and   asserted   that   she   was
unwilling  to  do  it  because  her  client  had  filed  bankruptcy  and
her  fees  had  been  discharged  and  because  of  the  fact  that  the
judge  had  not  directed  her  to  draft  the  document.
¶5    As  of  May                                                                8,                                                   1991,  Attorney  Louderman  still  had  not
drafted  the  QDRO,  but  he  did  retain  a  lawyer  to  do  it  for  him.
By  the  end  of  January                                                        1993,  the  QDRO  had  been  drafted,  but  the
pension  fund  would  not  accept  it  unless  a  provision  that  would
allow   the   former   wife   to   receive   benefits   while   her   former
spouse   received   disability   benefits   were   deleted,   as   such   a
provision  was  inconsistent  with  the  terms  of  the  fund.    At  some
time   prior   to   March                                                        1997,   it   came   to   Attorney   Louderman's
attention  that  the  QDRO  never  had  been  processed.      He  then
submitted  the  QDRO  to  the  court  for  its  approval  on  March              4,
1997,  more  than  six  years  and  five  months  after  he  had  been
ordered  to  draft  and  submit  it  to  the  court.    The  court  approved
the  QDRO  the  day  following  its  submission.
3




No.                                                                            98-2497-D
¶6    On  the  basis  of  those  facts,  the  referee  concluded
that  by  not  sending  the  QDRO  to  the  court  for  its  approval  until
more  than  six  years  after  being  ordered  to  do  so,  Attorney
Louderman  failed  to  act  with  reasonable  diligence  and  promptness
in   representing   a   client,   in   violation   of   SCR                    20:1.3.n.   In
recommending  a  public  reprimand  for  that  misconduct,  the  referee
explicitly  took  into  account  Attorney  Louderman's  testimony  at
the  disciplinary  hearing  that  when  he  is  required  to  draft  a
QDRO  in  a  divorce  case,  he  now  hires  another  attorney  to  do  the
work.     The  referee  also  considered  Attorney  Louderman's  three
prior  private  reprimands  for  misconduct,  as  well  as  the  fact
agreed  to  by  the  parties  that  no  one  suffered  any  financial  loss
as   a   result   of   Attorney   Louderman's   neglect,   although   the
client's  access  to  the  pension  funds  was  delayed.
¶7    We    adopt    the    referee's    findings    of    fact    and
conclusions  of  law  and  impose  the  public  reprimand  recommended.
Attorney  Louderman  has  established  a  history  of  neglecting  his
clients'  matters,  and  public  discipline  is  called  for  to  impress
upon   him   the   seriousness   of   his   professional   obligations   to
clients  and  to  deter  him  from  engaging  in  similar  misconduct  in
the  future.
¶8    IT  IS  ORDERED  that  John  P.  Louderman,  III,  is  publicly
reprimanded  for  professional  misconduct.
n. SCR  20:1.3  provides:    Diligence
A   lawyer   shall   act   with   reasonable   diligence   and
promptness  in  representing  a  client.
4




No.                                                                              98-2497-D
¶9    IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  within  60  days  of  the  date
of   this   order   John   P.   Louderman,   III   pay   to   the   Board   of
Attorneys    Professional    Responsibility    the    costs    of    this
proceeding,  provided  that  in  the  event  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
John  P.  Louderman,  III  to  practice  law  in  Wisconsin  shall  be
suspended  until  further  order  of  the  court.
5




1





Download 17429.pdf

Wisconsin Law

Wisconsin State Laws
Wisconsin Tax
Wisconsin Labor Laws
    > Wisconsin Job Search
    > Wisconsin Jobs
Wisconsin Court
Wisconsin State
    > Wisconsin State Parks
Wisconsin Agencies
    > Wisconsin DMV

Comments

Tips