Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Janet L. Heins
2017 WI 93
| Wis. | 2017Background
- Janet L. Heins, admitted 1991, practiced in Mequon; OLR filed a six-count complaint alleging misconduct in three client matters; no prior discipline.
- Heins accepted advanced fees from client J.R. under a written agreement requiring a final accounting and submission of fee disputes to binding arbitration; her final statement omitted required notices and she did not participate in the State Bar Fee Arbitration Program after J.R. disputed the fees.
- In a separate matter, settlement funds for client M.I. were deposited to Heins’ trust account; Heins delayed payment, issued a check that initially bounced (causing bank fees for M.I.), and only paid after subsequent deposits.
- Another client, M.J., received a trust-account check for $600 that was returned for insufficient funds; Heins later deposited funds and the check later cleared.
- Heins failed to timely and fully cooperate with OLR investigative requests, prompting an order to show cause (later withdrawn after she responded).
- Heins stipulated to the complaint shortly before the scheduled hearing, admitted the factual allegations, and agreed that a public reprimand plus mandatory arbitration of the J.R. fee dispute was appropriate; the referee and Supreme Court accepted the stipulation, imposed a public reprimand, ordered arbitration compliance, and assessed costs of $2,378.02.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Heins failed to provide required termination notices and accounting to J.R. | OLR: Heins omitted the notices and final accounting required by former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m)b. | Heins: Initially characterized failures as technical; later stipulated to allegations. | Court: Violation proven; adequate factual basis; misconduct found. |
| Whether Heins failed to submit J.R. fee dispute to binding arbitration | OLR: Heins did not respond to arbitration program and refused to submit dispute. | Heins: No defense in stipulation; admitted non-participation. | Court: Violation of former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m)c.; arbitration required. |
| Whether Heins mishandled client trust funds (M.I. and M.J.) | OLR: Trust account was insufficient when obligations arose; checks bounced/delayed payment. | Heins: No contest entered; admitted the facts in stipulation. | Court: Violations of SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) and former 20:1.15(d)(1) established. |
| Whether Heins failed to cooperate with OLR investigation | OLR: Heins delayed or refused to produce requested trust records and responses. | Heins: Eventually provided response after court order to show cause; no prior discipline. | Court: Willful failure to timely cooperate found; violation of SCR 22.03(2) and (6) enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h). |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hammis, 331 Wis. 2d 19, 793 N.W.2d 884 (Wis. 2011) (framework for sanction analysis in lawyer discipline).
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Halverson, 225 Wis. 2d 215, 591 N.W.2d 821 (Wis. 1999) (public reprimand for failures to supply information, refund fees, and cooperate with OLR).
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Grapsas, 174 Wis. 2d 816, 498 N.W.2d 400 (Wis. 1993) (public reprimand for failing to cooperate with OLR and refund client fees).
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Adent, 367 Wis. 2d 372, 877 N.W.2d 364 (Wis. 2016) (acceptance of stipulation and public reprimand for trust account violations).
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 718 (Wis. 2001) (standard of review for referee findings and conclusions).
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Sosnay, 209 Wis. 2d 241, 562 N.W.2d 137 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997) (standard of review precedent cited).
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686 (Wis. 2003) (court determines appropriate discipline independently of referee recommendation).