Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Leslie J. Webster
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN Case No.: 98-0677-D Complete Title of Case: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Leslie J. Webster, Attorney at Law. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST WEBSTER Opinion Filed: Submitted on Briefs: Oral Argument: April 29, 1998 Source of APPEAL COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: Concurred: Dissented: Not Participating: ATTORNEYS: Wilcox, J., did not participate No. 98-0677-D NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 98-0677-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT FILED In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against LESLIE J. WEBSTER, Attorney at APR 29, 1998 Law. Marilyn L. Graves Clerk of Supreme Court Madison, WI ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney s license suspended. ¶1 to SCR PER CURIAM 21.09(3m)1 Responsibility concerning We review the stipulation, filed pursuant by (Board) Attorney the Board and of Attorney Webster s Attorneys Leslie professional Professional J. Webster, misconduct that resulted in his conviction in federal court of one count of aiding and abetting the fraudulent concealment of a debtor s property from a bankruptcy trustee. The parties stipulated that the appropriate 1 discipline to impose for that professional SCR 21.09 provides, in pertinent part: Procedure. . . . (3m) The board may file with a complaint a stipulation by the board and the respondent attorney to the facts, conclusions of law and discipline to be imposed. The supreme court may consider the complaint and stipulation without appointing a referee. If the supreme court approves the stipulation, it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law and impose the stipulated discipline. . . . 1 No. 98-0677-D misconduct is the suspension of Attorney Webster s license to practice law for two years and that the suspension be considered as having commenced January 21, 1998, the date on which the court summarily suspended Attorney Webster s license pursuant to SCR 11.032 in response to his criminal conviction. ¶2 We approve the stipulation and adopt the facts and conclusions seriousness of law of set forth Attorney in it. Webster s We determine professional that the misconduct warrants the two-year license suspension to which the parties had stipulated. Using his professional position, Attorney Webster counseled his client to make a fraudulent representation in the bankruptcy, which led to the client s criminal conviction and incarceration, and participated actively in a fraud on the bankruptcy court. Moreover, as the federal court determined, Attorney Webster gave false testimony during his trial regarding his participation in the fraud. ¶3 Attorney Webster was licensed to practice law in Wisconsin in 1979 and practiced in Ellsworth. In 1990, the court publicly reprimanded him for undertaking the representation of a client in a matter in which he had a conflicting interest by 2 SCR 11.03 provides: Suspension on conviction of crime. (1) Summary suspension. Upon receiving satisfactory proof that an attorney has been convicted of a serious crime, the supreme court may summarily suspend the attorney, pending final disposition of a disciplinary proceeding, whether the conviction resulted from a plea of guilty or no contest or from a verdict after trial, and regardless of the pendency of an appeal. . . . 2 No. 98-0677-D virtue of his intimate relationship with the client s wife. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Webster, 154 Wis. 2d 110, 452 N.W.2d 374. ¶4 The facts to which the parties stipulated concern Attorney Webster s conduct in representing the owner of a bar and the owner s wife beginning in January, 1991. The owner, who also managed the bar, retained Attorney Webster to incorporate the business in order to limit his liability. The business was incorporated February 1, 1991, and the owner and his wife received stock in exchange for the assets of the business and became the corporation s only directors. In the course of that matter, Attorney Webster advised the clients to review their finances and debts and to consider filing a bankruptcy petition to have their debts discharged. ¶5 On Attorney Webster s advice and with his representation, the clients filed for bankruptcy March 25, 1991. In the schedules and statement of financial affairs specified for a debtor not engaged in a business that he drafted, Attorney Webster stated that in January, 1991, the owner voluntarily had surrendered the bar business to the vendor of a land contract in exchange for his release from the unpaid balance on that contract. Those papers did not advert, however, to the facts that the bar recently had been incorporated and that the owner s assets in it had been conveyed to the corporation and did not report any reported ownership zero stock of stock ownership in the and no business. real The papers property, and Attorney Webster told the bankruptcy trustee that this was a no 3 No. 98-0677-D asset case. The bankruptcy court granted the owner and his wife a discharge July 16, 1991. ¶6 Thereafter, the bar was destroyed by fire, and Attorney Webster initially represented the clients in attempting to collect bankruptcy insurance and the proceeds. statement Having in it discovered that the the bar owner s had been surrendered to the land contract vendor in January, 1991, the insurance company investigators questioned whether the client was in fact the owner of the bar at the time of the fire. Attorney Webster tried to clarify a sworn statement given by the client to the insurance company concerning his ownership of the bar and asserted that the client had not understood the difference between pledging and transferring stock and that what the client in fact had done was give the land contract vendor a lien on the stock, which did not transfer the stock to him. It was determined in subsequent litigation that the client had purchased the bar in 1986 and owned it continuously until it was destroyed by fire in May, 1992. ¶7 The client then was charged with federal bankruptcy fraud and was convicted on a guilty plea of one count of making a false oath, for which he was sentenced to three months in prison. Attorney Webster was charged with one count of aiding and abetting the fraudulent concealment of the debtors property from the bankruptcy trustee and was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment, fined $4000, and placed on three years supervised release. The district court imposed the same sentence after the conviction was affirmed on appeal and 4 No. 98-0677-D remanded for resentencing for the reason that the district court had not stated with specificity the factual basis for its conclusion that Attorney Webster had given perjured testimony at trial, for which the court applied a sentence enhancer. Attorney Webster began serving that sentence December 18, 1997. ¶8 Attorney Webster and the Board stipulated that the conduct for which he was convicted of a federal felony violated SCR 20:8.4(b), as it constituted a criminal act that reflects adversely lawyer. on The his 11.03(5), honesty, parties the trustworthiness also conviction stipulated constitutes and that, fitness pursuant conclusive as to evidence a SCR of Attorney Webster s guilt of the crime.3 As aggravating factors to be considered, the parties stipulated to Attorney Webster s active participation in the fraud, his advice and counsel to the client that contributed significantly to that client s participation in the fraud and his conviction and incarceration for it, Attorney Webster s false testimony during the trial, and his prior discipline. In mitigation, the parties stipulated to the facts that the client s creditors had not been deprived of assets, as the debtor had no equity in the bar, that Attorney 3 SCR 11.03 provides, conviction of crime. in pertinent part: Suspension on . . . (5) Proof of guilt. In any disciplinary proceeding instituted against an attorney based on a conviction, the certificate of his or her conviction shall be conclusive evidence of his or her guilt of the crime of which he or she was convicted. 5 No. 98-0677-D Webster did not benefit personally from the fraudulent conduct, that he has community, assisted and that charities he fully and civic cooperated groups during in the his Board s investigation of this matter. ¶9 We adopt the facts and legal conclusions to which the parties have stipulated concerning Attorney Webster s professional misconduct in this matter. We determine that the seriousness of the misconduct, in light of the aggravating and mitigating warrants factors the set forth suspension of in the parties Attorney Webster s stipulation, license to practice law for two years as discipline. We impose that license suspension commencing the date on which we summarily suspended Attorney Webster s license following exhaustion of his remedies on appeal of his conviction. ¶10 practice IT IS ORDERED that the license of Leslie J. Webster to law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of two years, effective January 21, 1998. ¶11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, Leslie J. Webster pay to the Board of Attorneys Professional provided that Responsibility if the the costs costs are of not paid this proceeding, within the time specified and absent a showing to this court of his inability to pay the costs within that time, the license of Leslie J. Webster to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the court. ¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Leslie J. Webster comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 6 No. 98-0677-D person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin suspended. ¶13 JON P. WILCOX, J., did not participate. 7 has been 1
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
