Office of Lawyer Regulation v. John R. Dade
2017 WI 51
Wis.2017Background
- John R. Dade, admitted 1983, has an extensive disciplinary history including prior private and public reprimands and multiple license suspensions for similar failures (communication, diligence, trust-account issues).
- In 2009–2010 Dade represented J.Q. on felony drug charges; J.Q. paid a $3,000 advance and later formally retained Dade.
- Dade failed to communicate in writing the scope of representation, the basis/rate of his fee, or the purpose/effect of the $3,000 advance as required by SCR 20:1.5(b).
- Dade made multiple disbursements from his trust account to pay his billed fees without providing the written 5-business-day notice and accounting required by former SCR 20:1.15(g)(1).
- The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) charged two counts of professional misconduct and sought a public reprimand and costs; no restitution was sought.
- Dade stipulated to the facts and misconduct, agreed to a public reprimand under SCR 22.12, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted the stipulation and imposed a public reprimand (no costs, no restitution).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to communicate scope/fee and advance retainer in writing (SCR 20:1.5(b)) | OLR: Dade failed to provide the required written communications about scope, fees, and the $3,000 advance, violating SCR 20:1.5(b). | Dade: Did not contest the facts or violation; stipulated to misconduct. | Court: Accepted stipulation; violation established; public reprimand imposed. |
| Improper trust-account disbursements without required notice (former SCR 20:1.15(g)(1)) | OLR: Dade withdrew client funds for fees without transmitting the required itemized bill, notice, and balance at least 5 business days before withdrawal. | Dade: Stipulated to the misconduct and agreed discipline. | Court: Accepted stipulation; violation established; public reprimand imposed. |
| Appropriate discipline given extensive prior sanctions | OLR: Sought a public reprimand (no restitution); no argument for harsher discipline in record. | Dade: Agreed to public reprimand and did not contest discipline. | Court: Expressed concern about prior history but, weighing precedents, accepted the stipulated public reprimand and imposed no costs or restitution. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Dade, 301 Wis. 2d 67 (2007) (prior suspension for trust-account and diligence failures)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Dade, 345 Wis. 2d 646 (2013) (prior suspension for diligence, communication, and court-order violations)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Dade, [citation=""] (2014) (prior 90-day suspension and CLE condition; cited for disciplinary history)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Nussberger, 296 Wis. 2d 47 (2006) (discussing progressive discipline)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Crandall, 365 Wis. 2d 682 (2015) (example where public reprimand imposed despite prior suspensions)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kremkoski, 291 Wis. 2d 1 (2006) (public reprimand despite prior reprimands)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Brandt, 317 Wis. 2d 266 (2009) (public reprimand despite prior discipline)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hudec, 354 Wis. 2d 728 (2014) (public reprimand despite multiple prior reprimands)