Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

State Supreme Court dismisses complaint against family-law practitioner

By: Jane Pribek//March 22, 2013//

State Supreme Court dismisses complaint against family-law practitioner

By: Jane Pribek//March 22, 2013//

Listen to this article

A veteran Milwaukee family-law practitioner has been cleared of ethics-violation charges regarding reimbursements he sought for his attendance and service at numerous American Bar Association events.

In a nine-page, per curiam decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court dismissed a complaint the Office of Lawyer Regulation brought against Richard Podell.

The OLR alleged Podell engaged in professional misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c) when he filed reimbursement requests with the ABA from the 2010 mid-year meeting in Orlando.

Podell, of Podell & Book SC, was a longstanding, active ABA member. He served as: a member of the House of Delegates; past-chairman of the Family Law Section; chairman of the Individual Rights and Responsibilities Section; and budget officer of the Senior Lawyers Division. He frequently attended ABA section House of Delegates meetings, and often submitted requests for reimbursement.

The complaint alleged he personally sought duplicate reimbursement in 2010. According to the ABA, Podell in 2007, 2008 and 2009 had submitted other duplicate requests for reimbursement, resulting in overpayment totaling $1,156.

Podell admitted that he didn’t send the reimbursement requests to the ABA in an appropriate manner. He expressed embarrassment and regret and repaid the ABA.

He additionally claimed he often failed to request reimbursement for ABA-related expenses and, had he done so, the ABA would have had to pay him considerable sums of money. Between 2008 and 2010, Podell attended 56 ABA meetings outside Wisconsin, submitting vouchers for approximately 35 meetings.

At an evidentiary hearing before referee Richard Ninneman, there was testimony about the confusing nature of ABA reimbursement policies, as well as Podell’s reputation for honesty.

When Podell reimbursed the ABA he was told the matter was closed. However, in 2010 T. Maxfield Bahner, a Tennessee attorney and former ABA officer, learned of the matter from an ABA staff member and began pursuing the matter of his own accord.

Bahner had set up phone conference calls with Podell during which an ABA staff member silently listened and Bahner’s secretary also listened and took notes.

Ninneman commented at the hearing that Bahner had “rush[ed] to judgment that Podell was guilty of dishonesty from the very outset,” that Podell’s phone conversations with his “so-called friend were silently being listened to” by others, and “this referee is reminded of the old adage that with friends like this, who needs enemies.”

Ninneman recommended dismissal and the state Supreme Court adopted that recommendation.

Milwaukee family law attorney Gregg Herman served as a witness for Podell. He said, “I’m not nearly as involved in the ABA as Dick Podell, but I have been involved for nearly 20 years, and I can’t ever recall a time when I’ve submitted a reimbursement request that hasn’t had a problem with it. This prosecution seemed to have indications of some sort of political vendetta against him. It’s terribly unfair what they did to him.”

Milwaukee lawyer Richard Cayo, who represents attorneys facing ethics charges from the OLR, called the court’s decision “encouraging.”

“When the OLR, or any prosecutor, fails to distinguish mistakes from deliberate falsehoods, it inflicts irreparable harm, even when the target is vindicated,” the Halling & Cayo lawyer said. “These cases are expensive, prolonged, emotionally taxing and tarnish reputations without regard to their merits.

“It is encouraging to see the court make clear that only misrepresentation that is knowing and intentional qualifies as misconduct under SCR 20:8.4(c).”

Podell was admitted to practice in 1969, and has not previously been disciplined. He declined to comment.

The court imposed no costs upon him.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests