Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. Richard C. Glesner
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2000 WI 18 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN Case No.: 99-3351-D Complete Title of Case: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Richard C. Glesner, Attorney at Law. Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, Complainant, v. Richard C. Glesner, Respondent. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GLESNER Opinion Filed: Submitted on Briefs: Oral Argument: Source of APPEAL COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: Concurred: Dissented: Not Participating: ATTORNEYS: February 23, 2000 2000 WI 18 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 99-3351-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Richard C. Glesner, Attorney at Law. IN SUPREME COURT FILED FEB 23, 2000 Cornelia G. Clark Acting Clerk of Supreme Court Madison, WI Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, Complainant, v. Richard C. Glesner, Respondent. ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license suspended. ¶1 PER CURIAM We review, pursuant to SCR 21.09(3m),1 the stipulation Attorney Richard Glesner entered into with the Board 1 SCR 21.09(3m) provides: (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. If the supreme court rejects the stipulation, a referee shall be appointed pursuant to sub. (4) and the matter shall proceed pursuant to SCR chapter 22. A stipulation that is rejected has no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to the respondent's defense of the proceeding or the board's prosecution of the complaint. No. of Attorneys admitted Professional to inflating having two Responsibility engaged billings from (Board) in that a 60-day which in professional misconduct his law a firm to inserting false time entries on those billings. stipulated 99-3351-D license suspension is client he by and The parties appropriate discipline for that misconduct. ¶2 We accept the parties' stipulation and impose the 60- day license suspension to which they stipulated. second time Attorney professional Glesner misconduct, will and have been his This is the disciplined dishonesty for and misrepresentation in the matter considered in this proceeding is sufficiently serious to warrant his removal from the practice of law for 60 days. ¶3 Attorney Glesner was admitted to Wisconsin in 1966 and practices in Madison. practice law in In June 1993, he consented to a public reprimand from the Board for having acted on behalf of one client while at the same time representing another client with conflicting interests without the latter's knowledge or consent, failing to disclose that conflict of interest to one of the clients, and giving misleading deposition testimony intended to evade discovery of the conflict he had an affirmative duty to disclose. ¶4 The instant case concerns Attorney Glesner's representation of a company seeking to acquire another company in 1996. A dispute arose between that client and the law firm over the billing of approximately $20,000 in the matter, and the 2 No. 99-3351-D firm agreed to accept approximately $7000 less than what it had billed in order to resolve the dispute. ¶5 Thereafter, angry with the client over the billing dispute and its resolution, Attorney Glesner, who was the firm's billing attorney for that client, summarily added $1500 to the current balance of a periodic bill he was given in February 1999 for approval or modification. The bill then was sent to the client time without itemization of entries but summary of work done and a total dollar charge. with only a The client paid that bill. ¶6 The following month, Attorney Glesner again was given a periodic bill for the client, to which he again added $1500 to the balance. The client did not pay that bill but asked for an itemization of time entries. sent him that request, When the firm's billing department Attorney Glesner reviewed the time entries for the invoice and adjusted several of them upward in order to make it appear that the time justified the dollar amount of the bill. spent on the matter The time entries he adjusted were not his own but those of several other attorneys who had worked on the client's matter. ¶7 in this The parties stipulated that Attorney Glesner's conduct matter involved dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c),2 and violated 2 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; 3 No. 99-3351-D his fiduciary duty, established by case law, to the law firm where he was employed, as well as his duty of honesty in his professional dealings with his law firm. In mitigation of the seriousness of discipline to be imposed for that misconduct, the Board noted the lack of personal financial gain as a motivation. An aggravating factor considered by the Board was Attorney Glesner's violation of his duty of honesty in his dealings with his law firm and its clients. ¶8 We determine that a 60-day license suspension is the appropriate discipline to impose for Attorney misconduct established in this proceeding. dishonest harshly. conduct toward We impose that a client cannot suspension Glesner's His vengeful and be dealt effective the with less date this opinion issues, as the parties had stipulated. ¶9 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Richard Glesner to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for 60 days, commencing the date of this order. ¶10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Richard Glesner comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 4 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.
