Disbarred Florida attorney makes case to practice in Wisconsin

Listen to this article

A Florida attorney who was disbarred for misconduct is asking the Wisconsin Supreme Court to give him a chance to practice law in Wisconsin.

David E. Hammer argued his case before the high court on Monday. But after he passed the exam, the Board of Bar examiners found he didn’t meet character and fitness requirements because of his misconduct in Florida.

Hammer practiced law in Florida from 2006 until 2010, when he was disbarred for trust-account violations and misappropriation of client funds. Members of the board said the disbarment was the primary reason for their decision, but they were also concerned by civil suits Hammer had filed against 32 defendants, a statement he made alleging he used a 2013 bankruptcy filing to forestall his family’s eviction from their home and his 56 traffic violations since 1998.

Hammer appealed the decision to the state Supreme Court, arguing 10 years had passed since the misconduct and he was only 28 years old at the time. He said his punishment would have been lighter had the misconduct happened in Wisconsin, and he thought the BBE was discriminating against him because he is a Florida resident.

Hammer said the board was “perplexed” about his application to practice law in Wisconsin, and he thought members’ line of questioning was discriminatory.

Justice Dan Kelly said he thought the board was trying to determine why Hammer didn’t just seek reinstatement in Florida.

“Why did you opt to come to Wisconsin to do that, rather than Florida?” Kelly asked.

Hammer said reinstatement isn’t a possible remedy in Florida because he was disbarred.

“I made a whole lot of very, very bad judgment calls in the state during my practice, and I thought the most likely path to a successful practice in the future would be in a different jurisdiction,” Hammer said.

Hammer said he viewed a denial from the board as an effective ban for life on practicing law because he didn’t think more time would help his case. He went through legal ethics training since disbarment, and he said he was willing to undergo additional training if the court requested it.

“My conduct was quite serious, and I make no attempt to minimize it, but I don’t think it was so serious that under the law, considering the other applicants and cases this court considered, that I should be banned from the practice of law forever,” Hammer said.

Jacquelynn Rothstein appeared for the Board of Bar Examiners. She said the board found a “notable deficiency of honesty and integrity” when examining Hammer’s fitness and character.

Rothstein said the board looked at Hammer as a new applicant, rather than someone petitioning for reinstatement. The justices asked whether reinstatement cases for similar misconduct could be used as a comparison in Hammer’s case.

“I do think that there is a distinction in that this is not a re-admission, this is an initial admission,” Rothstein said.

Rothstein argued that Hammer hasn’t met the standard of trust, and the board didn’t believe his ethics course was enough rehabilitation for his misconduct. She cited a previous ethics course Hammer had to take in law school for failing to disclose 56 traffic violations and 19 driver’s license suspensions.

“There is no reason to believe the ethics tutorial he engaged with Attorney Dietrich will have any more of an discernible effect on Mr. Hammer now than the ethics course that he was directed to take by his law school did,” Rothstein said.

The state Supreme Court will now decide whether the board was right to decline Hammer’s admission. Follow @“WLJreporter”