Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

High court suspends Germantown lawyer’s license

By: Erika Strebel, [email protected]//October 27, 2016//

High court suspends Germantown lawyer’s license

By: Erika Strebel, [email protected]//October 27, 2016//

Listen to this article

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has suspended the license of a Germantown attorney over 21 counts of misconduct, including demanding sex from a client.

Wednesday’s discipline stems from an Office of Lawyer Regulation complaint filed last year asking the high court to suspend Craig Vance’s license for 18 months over 23 counts of misconduct.

That misconduct included not communicating with six clients, not taking action on those clients’ cases, practicing with a suspended license and repeatedly not cooperating with the OLR’s investigation into claims included in the complaint.

The OLR also had alleged that Vance began a sexual relationship with a client after she had retained him and would not discuss details of her case unless she had sexual relations with him. However, the OLR later withdrew those charges as part of a stipulation it had reached with Vance.

In the stipulation, Vance admitted to the 21 other counts of misconduct. Because of that stipulation, an appointed referee recommended that the justices suspend Vance’s licensed for nine months. The OLR agreed.

However, the OLR and the referee disagreed on whether Vance should pay costs. The referee recommended that Vance pay only half the costs of the proceeding. The OLR noted that the only reason Vance had contested the case was that he wanted to fight the two charges that OLR later dropped.

The OLR contended that Vance should pay full costs.

The high court on Wednesday sided with the OLR, ordering Vance to pay full costs of the proceeding, or $2,570.85. The court noted that Vance had not shown that the two counts the OLR had withdrawn had no merit.

The court also suspended Vance’s license for nine months, saying that his actions showed total disregard of his clients and obligations as an attorney.  The justices’ per curiam decision issued Wednesday also took him to task for failing to respond to the OLR and to the court’s demand that he respond to the OLR.

“His indifference to the OLR’s investigatory process and this court’s temporary suspension order flaunted the authority of this court and its rules and orders,” according to the decision.

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