CourtListener opinion 4674780

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

2021 WI 31

 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2020AP1082-D

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
 Against Benjamin J. Harris, Attorney at Law:

 Office of Lawyer Regulation,
 Complainant,
 v.
 Benjamin J. Harris,
 Respondent.

 DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HARRIS

OPINION FILED: April 6, 2021
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL:
 COURT:
 COUNTY:
 JUDGE:

JUSTICES:
Per Curiam.
NOT PARTICIPATING:

ATTORNEYS:
 2021 WI 31
 NOTICE
 This opinion is subject to further
 editing and modification. The final
 version will appear in the bound
 volume of the official reports.
No. 2020AP1082-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Benjamin J. Harris, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
 Complainant, APR 6, 2021
 v. Sheila T. Reiff
 Clerk of Supreme Court
Benjamin J. Harris,

 Respondent.

 ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license

suspended.

 ¶1 PER CURIAM. We review the report of the referee, the

Honorable Jeffrey A. Kremers, which recommends that the court

suspend Attorney Benjamin J. Harris' license to practice law in

Wisconsin for 60 days and order him to pay the full costs of

this disciplinary proceeding, which are $1,616.83 as of

February 8, 2021. Prior to the referee issuing his report,

Attorney Harris and the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR)

entered into a stipulation in which Attorney Harris pled no
contest to the four counts of misconduct alleged in the OLR's
 No. 2020AP1082-D

complaint. Since neither party has appealed from the referee's

report and recommendation, our review proceeds under Supreme

Court Rule (SCR) 22.17(2).

 ¶2 Upon our independent review, we adopt the referee's

findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to Attorney

Harris' misconduct. We agree that the misconduct warrants a 60-

day suspension of Attorney Harris' license to practice law in

Wisconsin. The OLR did not seek restitution, and we do not

order restitution. As is our usual custom, we order Attorney

Harris to pay the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding.

 ¶3 Attorney Harris was admitted to practice law in

Wisconsin in 1996 and practices in the Milwaukee area. He has

been previously disciplined on five prior occasions. In 2007,

he was privately reprimanded for failing to pursue the

resolution of a debt collection matter; failing to keep a client

informed of the status of the debt collection matter; failing to

proceed with a landlord matter or file a claim on behalf of his

client for one year; and failing to keep a client informed of
the status of that matter. Private Reprimand No. 07-04

(electronic copy available at https://compendium.wicourts.gov/

app/raw/001931.html). In 2008, Attorney Harris was publicly

reprimanded for misconduct consisting of entering into a land

contract with a client without written consent; failing to

respond to a motion to amend a complaint and failing to attend

the motion hearing; failing to inform his client of the status

of the case and respond to the client's request for information;
failing to timely act in furtherance of a resolution of a
 2
 No. 2020AP1082-D

client's equalization payment; failing to respond to the

client's telephone calls or notify the client of a proposed

stipulation and order in an upcoming hearing; and failing to

promptly return the client's file to him or successor counsel.

Public Reprimand of Benjamin J. Harris, No. 2008-03 (electronic

copy available at https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/

raw/002029.html).

 ¶4 In 2010, Attorney Harris' license was suspended for 60

days for misconduct consisting of failing to keep a client

informed of the status of litigation; failing to attend a

damages hearing and a motion hearing; failing to notify the

client of the status of the case; failing to notify the client

of the dismissal of the appeal; and failing to advise the client

of an order granting a motion to enforce a judgment. In re

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Harris, 2010 WI 9, 322

Wis. 2d 364, 778 N.W.2d 154.

 ¶5 In 2012, Attorney Harris was privately reprimanded for

failing to have a written fee agreement and depositing a
client's unearned advanced fee payment directly into his

business account. Private Reprimand No. 2012-20 (electronic

copy available at https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/

raw/002515.html).

 ¶6 In 2013, Attorney Harris' license was suspended for

five months for misconduct consisting of failing to timely file

a judgment of divorce and promptly prepare a QDRO; failing to

respond to a client's emails and telephone calls; failing to
notify a client of his license suspension; failing to consult
 3
 No. 2020AP1082-D

with a client regarding the method and means of pursing the

client's claim; failing to advise a client of the dismissal of a

case; and failing to respond in a timely fashion to the OLR's

written request for information. In re Disciplinary Proceedings

Against Harris, 2013 WI 8, 345 Wis. 2d 239, 825 N.W.2d 285.

 ¶7 On June 25, 2020, the OLR filed a complaint against

Attorney Harris alleging four counts of misconduct arising out

of two client matters. The first client matter involved

Attorney Harris' representation of T.P. Attorney Harris was

retained to defend T.P. in three lawsuits. Attorney Harris'

conduct in two of those matters formed the basis for the

misconduct charged in the OLR's complaint.

 ¶8 On December 14, 2017, T.P. retained Attorney Harris to

defend him and a company he owned and operated in a small claims

lawsuit that involved claims of breach of contract and unjust

enrichment, initiated by Ramos Drywall, LLC. T.P. had hired

Ramos Drywall as a subcontractor on a project, and Ramos Drywall

claimed it had not been paid.
 ¶9 The initial return date for the small claims case was

set for December 18, 2017. A small claims publication summons

and notice in the case provided that defendants may have the

option of filing an answer before the court date to avoid the

necessity of a personal appearance on December 18, 2017. On

December 14, 2017, Attorney Harris filed an answer and

affirmative defenses, but he did not confirm that his filing

obviated the need to personally appear on December 18, 2017.
Attorney Harris did not personally appear on that date.
 4
 No. 2020AP1082-D

 ¶10 On December 18, 2017, a default judgment was entered

against T.P. for $2,200 based on Attorney Harris' failure to

personally appear. T.P. learned of the entry of default

judgment in late December 2017 when he checked Wisconsin Circuit

Court Access. He notified Attorney Harris that a default

judgment had been entered.

 ¶11 On January 24 and 31, 2018, T.P. messaged Attorney

Harris asking for a response; asking for the case status;

expressing his frustration at the lack of communication; and

saying he felt Attorney Harris was \blowing me off.\" On