Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. Verlin H. Peckham
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2000 WI 17 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN Case No.: 98-3171-D Complete Title of Case: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Verlin H. Peckham, Attorney at Law. Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, Complainant, v. Verlin H. Peckham, Respondent. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PECKHAM Opinion Filed: Submitted on Briefs: Oral Argument: Source of APPEAL COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: Concurred: Dissented: Not Participating: ATTORNEYS: February 23, 2000 2000 WI 17 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 98-3171-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT FILED In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Verlin H. Peckham, Attorney at Law. FEB 23, 2000 Cornelia G. Clark Acting Clerk of Supreme Court Madison, WI Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, Complainant, v. Verlin H. Peckham, Respondent. ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Public reprimand imposed. ¶1 PER CURIAM We review the recommendation of the referee that Attorney Verlin Peckham be publicly reprimanded as discipline for failing to appear at trial on behalf of a client in a small claims action, not pursuing reconsideration of the resulting judgment against the client, not having communicated with the client alternatives to available prepare to for challenge the the trial or judgment, discussing borrowing money from that client without advising her to seek independent advice or obtain her written consent to the loan, and failing to cooperate in Professional the investigation Responsibility of (Board) the Board into his of Attorneys conduct. In No. 98-3171-D addition to the public reprimand, the referee recommended that Attorney Peckham be required to repay the loan to the client, together with interest. ¶2 We determine that the public reprimand recommended by the referee is the appropriate discipline to impose for Attorney Peckham's professional misconduct. After initially considering that recommendation, we ordered Attorney Peckham and the Board to show cause why more severe discipline should not be imposed, as this is the second time that Attorney Peckham is facing the imposition of discipline for professional misconduct. In its response to that order, the Board presented information that was not in the record before us, including that the client from whom he borrowed money was a long-time friend and neighbor of Attorney Peckham, that Attorney Peckham has been suspended from the practice of law for nonpayment of State Bar membership dues and assessments education and failure requirements, and to comply that poor with continuing health caused legal him to retire from the practice of law in November 1998 and he does not intend to resume practice. ¶3 Attorney Peckham was admitted to practice law Wisconsin in 1968 and most recently practiced in Portage. in He was disciplined previously for professional misconduct in 1983, when the court suspended his license for six months as discipline for neglect of several client matters, failure to return a client's telephone calls and respond to inquiries concerning his legal matter, withdrawing client funds from his trust account and placing them in his office account without 2 No. 98-3171-D making an accounting to the client, depositing a client's income tax refund into his office account rather than his trust account and issuing a check to his client from his office account that was dishonored for insufficient funds, making payments to himself from his trust account in respect to two estates in excess of the fees to which he was entitled, failing to maintain a formal record of his trust account or a client ledger, and failing to respond to inquiries from the Board into his conduct in those matters. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Peckham, 115 Wis. 2d 494, 340 N.W.2d 198. ¶4 The referee in the instant proceeding, Attorney Judith Sperling Newton, adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law to which the parties had stipulated concerning Attorney Peckham's representation of a client in a small claims action. The client retained Attorney Peckham in April 1995 to recover interest on mortgage payments she had made that were refunded to her by virtue of mortgage insurance. Attorney Peckham appeared at the pretrial conference in July 1997 but had no contact with the client concerning the case between that conference and the trial date, August 29, 1997, and did not appear at the trial. The client's numerous attempts to contact him during that time were unsuccessful. ¶5 The client appeared for trial, and after she gave testimony, the court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. Attorney Peckham thereafter learned of the judgment adverse to his client but made no effort to contact her and took no action to have the judgment reopened. 3 No. ¶6 The referee concluded that Attorney Peckham 98-3171-D thereby failed to provide competent representation, in violation of SCR 20:1.1,1 failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing the client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3,2 failed to keep his client reasonably informed of the status of her matter and respond to her requests for information, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a),3 and effectively terminated his representation of her without taking appropriate steps to protect her interests, in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d).4 1 SCR 20:1.1 provides: Competence. A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. 2 SCR 20:1.3 provides: Diligence. A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. 3 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides: (a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. 4 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides: (d) Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been earned. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted by other law. 4 No. ¶7 98-3171-D On the date of the pretrial conference in the small claims matter, Attorney Peckham told his client he was short of cash and asked for a $500 loan. Peckham gave payment, her a with annual The client agreed, and Attorney handwritten interest promissory of 12%, by note calling September 5, for 1997. Attorney Peckham did not advise the client to seek independent legal advice in connection with the loan and has not repaid any principal Peckham or interest. violated transaction with opportunity to The referee SCR 20:1.8(a)5 the client seek the by entering without advice concluded giving that into her of independent of his a a Attorney business reasonable counsel or obtaining her written consent. ¶8 During its sent Attorney Peckham information. Peckham a letter December several failed to provide materials. 5 After investigation The referee extensions the Board concluded conduct, 1, to with that he 1997, the asking respond, any Board Attorney information thereby for failed or to SCR 20:1.8(a) provides: (a) A lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client or knowingly acquire an ownership, possessory, security or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client unless: (1) the transaction and terms on which the lawyer acquires the interest are fair and reasonable to the client and are fully disclosed and transmitted in writing to the client in a manner which can be reasonably understood by the client; (2) the client is given a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent counsel in the transaction; and (3) the client consents in writing thereto. 5 No. cooperate in the Board's investigation, in 98-3171-D violation of SCR misconduct, the 21.03(4) and 22.07(3).6 ¶9 As discipline for that professional referee recommended imposition of the public reprimand to which the parties had stipulated. In addition, she recommended that the court order Attorney Peckham to repay the client the $500 he borrowed from her, together with annual interest of 12%, within 90 days. Finally, the referee recommended that Attorney Peckham pay the costs of this proceeding. ¶10 We adopt the referee's findings of fact conclusions of law and impose the discipline recommended. and Under the circumstances present, a public reprimand is a sufficient disciplinary response to Attorney Peckham's failure to meet his professional obligations to his client from the outset of his representation of her in the small claims action and to act in obtaining relief from the adverse judgment that resulted from his nonperformance. 6 It also will suffice to deter other SCR 21.03(4) provides: (4) Every attorney shall cooperate with the board and the administrator in the investigation, prosecution and disposition of grievances and complaints filed with or by the board or administrator. SCR 22.07(3) provides: (3) The administrator or committee may compel the respondent to answer questions, furnish documents and present any information deemed relevant to the investigation. Failure of the respondent to answer questions, furnish documents or present relevant information is misconduct. The administrator or a committee may compel any other person to produce pertinent books, papers and documents under SCR 22.22. 6 No. attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct. 98-3171-D We also require Attorney Peckham to repay the loan he obtained from the client, with interest, as the referee recommended. ¶11 IT reprimanded IS ORDERED that as discipline Verlin for the H. Peckham is professional publicly misconduct established in this proceeding. ¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order Verlin H. Peckham repay the loan he obtained from his client, with interest, as set forth in this opinion. ¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, Verlin H. Peckham pay to the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility the costs of this proceeding, provided that in the event the costs are not paid within the time specified and absent a showing to this court of his inability to pay the costs within that time, the license of Verlin H. Peckham to practice law in suspended until further order of the court. 7 Wisconsin shall be 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.
