Referee to high court: Suspend La Crosse attorney, require exam for reinstatement

Listen to this article

A referee is recommending that the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspend a La Crosse attorney’s law license for six months and require him to undergo an exam.

The Office of Lawyer Regulation filed a complaint in July alleging that Donald Harman, a lawyer out of La Crosse, had committed three counts of misconduct while representing a man in a divorce case in La Crosse County.

According to the allegations, Harman made improper submissions to a family-court commissioner and disobeyed two court orders handed down in the case.

The OLR is asking the Wisconsin Supreme Court to suspend Harman’s law license for six months and order Harman to pay a $4,400 contempt judgment he still owes.

Harman filed an answer and motion to dismiss the OLR’s complaint in August. The OLR, responded with a motion for summary judgment in September, contending that Harman’s filing failed to deny any of the allegations in the complaint, so he in effect admitted to the misconduct.

The referee in the case, Allan Beatty, denied Harman’s motion for dismissal and granted the OLR’s motion for summary judgement.

Beatty filed his recommendations to the court on Nov. 28, recommending to the justices that they suspend Harman’s license for the six months the OLR has asked for.

Moreover, Beatty suggested that the justices reinstate Harmans’s license only if he fulfilled certain requirements, including that he pay the $4,4000 judgement entered against him in the La Crosse divorce case and that he submit to a “neuro-psychological examination which addresses his ability to understand and conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys.” In general, neuropsychological exams assess brain functions such as memory and problem-solving.

Beatty noted that his recommendations took into account several aggravating factors, including Harman’s behavior during both the divorce case that was the subject of the OLR’s complaint and the lawyer-discipline proceeding.

“Attorney Harman has continued to demonstrate a disregard for and lack of understanding of the rules of civil procedure and the rules of disciplinary proceedings,” Beatty wrote.

Beatty also noted that Harman had been disciplined four times before and therefore should know the rules well.

Beatty also noted that Harman had tried to get the family-court commissioner removed from the divorce case and filed a complaint with the Judicial Commission against the commissioner and had, in the current disciplinary case, attempted to get Beatty to recuse himself. When Beatty declined, Harman refused to attend a scheduling conference, then filed a complaint against Beatty with the state’s Judicial Commission, which investigates allegations of judicial misconduct.

“When he does not like a judicial officer’s decisions, or he fears what the decisions could be, he attacks the judicial officer,” wrote Beatty.

In a letter filed on Dec. 3 with the court, Harman stated that he would not pay the judgment if the commission found that the court commissioner did not have the right to order him to pay the $4,400 contempt judgment.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court will review Beatty’s recommendations and issue a final decision in the matter. Follow @erikastrebel