Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Madison attorney fighting license suspension

By: Erika Strebel, [email protected]//March 2, 2017//

Madison attorney fighting license suspension

By: Erika Strebel, [email protected]//March 2, 2017//

Listen to this article

A Madison attorney is fighting a recommendation that the Wisconsin Supreme Court should suspend his license two times longer than what lawyer-regulation authorities had requested.

The recommendation stems from an Office of Lawyer Regulation complaint filed in 2015 charging Steven Cohen with four counts of misconduct in 2015, including that he was convicted in 2014 for smuggling a toothbrush and pepper to a client in the Columbia Correctional Institution in Portage and then lying to prison officials about it.

Cohen also failed to return a client’s calls, failed to explain a fee agreement in writing to that client, and lied to the OLR during an investigation, according to the OLR.

The agency sought a 60-day suspension for the misconduct alleged in the complaint.

After a hearing in July, the referee appointed to oversee the case, Jim Boll, filed a report in August recommending that Cohen’s license be suspended for 120 days — double what the OLR had asked for.

Boll noted in his report that Cohen reached a stipulation with the OLR but produced no mitigating evidence and that Cohen showed “no remorse for his action and demonstrated contempt for the proceedings.” Boll also noted that Cohen brought nothing with him to the disciplinary hearing, not even a file.

Cohen, who is representing himself, appealed Boll’s recommendations in September. The case is now in briefing. Cohen filed his brief Jan. 30.

Cohen is arguing that there was not enough evidence that he had insufficiently communicated with a client and that Boll failed to consider mitigating circumstances involving that charge, including that Cohen gave clients his cellphone number.

Cohen contends that it was not clear from evidence presented at the trial that he did not promptly return client phone calls because there was no evidence of how much time passed between the calls and no evidence of what the calls were about.

Cohen is also arguing that Boll failed to consider mitigating circumstances surrounding the convictions involving smuggling contraband to an inmate.

He contends that he pointed out the toothbrush and pepper to prison officials when he entered the building and he intended to help the inmate as part of charitable work Cohen was doing to deal with his divorce.

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests