Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Professional Responsibility — public reprimand

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//January 25, 2013//

Professional Responsibility — public reprimand

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//January 25, 2013//

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Civil

Professional Responsibility — public reprimand

Where attorney Sherman Ward Hackbarth failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, failed to adequately communicate with a client, failed to return an advance payment of a fee that he had not earned, and failed to respond to the OLR’s investigative requests, a public reprimand is appropriate.

“We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the referee’s report. In addition, we accept the referee’s recommended sanctions. Because Attorney Hackbarth failed to present a defense despite being given multiple opportunities to do so, we declare him to be in default. We agree with the referee that Attorney Hackbarth has engaged in the serious misconduct alleged in the OLR’s complaint, warranting a public reprimand. We also deem it appropriate to require Attorney Hackbarth to make restitution to the Fund in the amount of $1,000. Finally, because this case presents no extraordinary circumstances, we require Attorney Hackbarth to pay the full costs of this matter. See SCR 22.24(1m) (supreme court’s general policy upon a finding of misconduct is to impose all costs upon the respondent attorney).”

2012AP668-D OLR v. Hackbarth 

Per Curiam.

Attorneys: For Petitioner: Hendrix, Jonathan E., Madison; For Respondent: Hackbarth, Sherman Ward, Madison

Polls

Should Wisconsin Supreme Court rules be amended so attorneys can't appeal license revocation after 5 years?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests