Professional Responsibility — reinstatement

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Civil

Professional Responsibility — reinstatement

Where revoked attorney John J. Balistrieri breached a fiduciary duty to a person with whom he was doing business, he failed to show requisite moral fitness for reinstatement of his law license.

“We do not think this matter should be disregarded so lightly. The circuit court specifically found, and the court of appeals affirmed, that Attorney Balistrieri and his brother had a fiduciary duty to Alioto because of the inequality of sophistication in business matters, the fact that Alioto had been a client of both Balistrieri brothers when they had been practicing lawyers, and the fact that she had continued to rely on Attorney Balistrieri’s business advice and support after he was no longer practicing law. The circuit court further found that Attorney Balistrieri had violated this fiduciary duty and had obtained the option contract by intentional misrepresentation. The court of appeals agreed that, in light of Alioto’s statements to Attorney Balistrieri that she would be willing to give him and his brother a right of first refusal, his failure to disclose to Alioto that the agreement actually gave them an option to purchase the Jackson Street property for a specific price to be exercised at their sole discretion constituted an actionable failure to speak when disclosure was required and “fulfill[ed] the elements of misrepresentation.” In essence, the courts in the Alioto litigation concluded that Attorney Balistrieri took advantage of his superior knowledge of business and the law to obtain an agreement from an older relative that would have benefitted him and his brother financially and then sued her to enforce that agreement. There is no basis to attack and relitigate those conclusions in this proceeding.”

“We conclude that engaging in misrepresentation in order to take advantage of a less sophisticated person, especially one with whom there is a fiduciary relationship, does not show a moral character of the type needed to practice law in this state, SCR 22.31(1)(a), does not constitute conduct that is exemplary and above reproach, SCR 22.29(4)(e), and does not demonstrate that Attorney Balistrieri has a proper attitude toward the standards that are imposed upon members of the bar and will act in conformity with those standards, SCR 22.29(4)(f). Such conduct also does not befit a person who ‘can safely be recommended to the legal profession, the courts and the public as a person fit to be consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise act in matters of trust and confidence.’ SCR 22.29(4)(g).”

1984AP970-D OLR v. Balestrieri

Per Curiam.

Attorneys: For Complainant: Vogel, Denis R., Madison; Weigel, William J., Madison; For Respondent: Balistrieri, John J., Milwaukee; Johnson, Terry E., Milwaukee