Office of Lawyer Regulation v. John R. Dade
2013 WI 21
Wis.2013Background
- Dade was admitted to practice in Wisconsin in 1983 and had four prior disciplinary matters.
- In July 2009 N.B. filed a pro se divorce; she later retained Dade in November 2009 for representation and a domestic abuse injunction.
- A March 1, 2010 pretrial order required final financial disclosures and a trial brief by specified deadlines; Dade failed to timely file both.
- The same order required a trial brief by April 29, 2010; Dade failed to timely file it.
- May 5, 2010 trial occurred with N.B. absent; the court dismissed the divorce for lack of diligent prosecution, after which Dade informed N.B. of the dismissal and advised she would need to refile.
- Dade later filed a new divorce petition on May 14, 2010; his license was temporarily suspended in July 2010 for an unrelated OLR matter; N.B. eventually obtained new counsel and a default divorce was entered on March 1, 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a 60-day suspension is appropriate | OLR supports 60-day suspension under SCR 22.12 based on admitted misconduct. | Dade acknowledges the misconduct and stipulates discipline; no broader challenge to the sanction is raised. | Yes; supreme court adopts the stipulation and imposes a 60-day suspension. |
| Whether costs should be imposed | OLR requests no costs in light of the stipulation. | Not expressly contended beyond the stipulation; no cost allocation argued by Dade. | No costs are imposed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ermert, 298 Wis. 2d 622 (Wis. 2007) (used as a comparative for sanction levels in disciplinary matters)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Anderson, 324 Wis. 2d 627 (Wis. 2010) (considered in formulating discipline in professional misconduct cases)