Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. Sharon A. Davison
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2002 WI 24 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: OF WISCONSIN 00-1503-D In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Sharon A. Davison, Attorney at Law: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, Complainant, v. Sharon A. Davison, Respondent. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DAVISON OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: March 15, 2002 2002 WI 24 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 00-1503-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Sharon A. Davison, Attorney at Law: FILED Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, MAR 15, 2002 Complainant, Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Supreme Court v. Sharon A. Davison, Respondent. ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license suspended. ¶1 PER CURIAM We review the report and recommendation of the referee that the license of Sharon A. Davison to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for six months as discipline for professional misconduct. conclusions of suspension were law, based The and on referee's recommendation the parties' findings for a of fact, six-month stipulation. The No. 00-1503-D complaint filed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR)1 against Attorney Davison asserted that she had over billed the state public defender (SPD) by charging parking expenses not actually incurred in cases in which the SPD had appointed her. The OLR complaint asserted, the parties stipulated, and the referee so found, that this fraud, deceit, or constituted conduct misrepresentation involving in dishonesty, violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).2 ¶2 We determine that the seriousness of Attorney Davison's professional misconduct warrants a suspension of her license to practice law in this state for six months. with the referee's recommendation. We agree We further conclude that Attorney Davison should be required to make restitution to the SPD in an appropriate amount to be determined by the OLR and that she be required to pay, within 60 days of the date of this decision, the cost of these proceedings totaling $8,717.21. ¶3 Sharon A. Davison was admitted to practice law in this state in 1981, and currently practices in Milwaukee. She has 1 Effective October 1, 2000, Wisconsin's attorney disciplinary process underwent a substantial restructuring. The name of the body responsible for investigating and prosecuting cases involving attorney misconduct was changed to the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR). 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. 2 No. not previously proceeding. been Based the on subject the of an parties' attorney 00-1503-D disciplinary stipulation, the referee found that from June 1992 to March 1995 Attorney Peter Vetter and Attorney James Weber were employed by Attorney Davison as salaried employees at her law offices. Attorney Vetter appointments. and Attorney Weber During that time both received several SPD All fees generated from such appointments were turned over to Attorney Davison. ¶4 Both Attorneys Vetter and Weber kept daily expense records regarding each SPD client they represented while working at Davison's law offices. Clerical staff at the firm would, by computer, calculate the time and expenses for each SPD client from the daily time sheets kept by Attorneys Vetter and Weber; in addition, handwritten, file. Attorneys Vetter contemporaneous and time Weber and would expense submit slips their for each The clerical staff would then compare the computerized time and expense sheets with the handwritten sheets and produce an itemization for each client which would then be turned over to Attorney Davison for review. Under the internal office procedures followed in Attorney Davison's law offices, Attorneys Vetter and Weber had pre-signed undated SPD payment vouchers which had been forwarded to Attorney Davison. ¶5 Attorney Davison would finalize each SPD voucher submitted over the signatures of Attorneys Vetter and Weber and tally the total hours and expenses in each case. She would then direct that the final billing be sent to the SPD for payment. The final vouchers submitted by Attorney Davison to the SPD for 3 No. 00-1503-D payment were not, however, reviewed by Attorneys Vetter or Weber prior to submission. ¶6 referee Attorney The so OLR complaint found based Davison added against on the expenses Davison parties' for alleged, and stipulation, parking to the the that final vouchers for each SPD appointment case even though no parking expenses had actually been incurred by Attorneys Vetter or Weber in specific SPD cases in which they had been appointed. The parties stipulated that on between 48 to 132 occasions between 1992 and 1995, Attorney Davison had submitted parking expenses allegedly incurred by Attorney Vetter to the SPD for payment even though not all of those parking expenses had actually been incurred by Attorney Vetter. aggregate amount of It was further stipulated that the those improper submissions regarding Attorney Vetter totaled between $585 and $1486. ¶7 Similarly, the parties stipulated and the referee so found that on between 51 to 78 occasions between 1993 and 1996, Attorney Davison had submitted parking expenses allegedly incurred by Attorney Weber to the SPD for payment even though not all of those parking expenses had actually been incurred by Attorney Weber. It was further stipulated that the aggregate amount of those improper submissions regarding Attorney Weber totaled between $283 and $763. ¶8 Based on the parties' stipulation of facts, the referee concluded that OLR had proven by clear and convincing evidence that by actually incurred, charging Attorney the SPD Davison 4 for had parking engaged expenses in not conduct No. involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 00-1503-D misrepresentation in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c). ¶9 OLR As a recommended discipline again agreed to by the and Attorney Davison the referee recommended that this court suspend the license of Attorney Sharon Davison to practice law in this state for six months and that she be required to pay, within 60 days, the cost of these proceedings. ¶10 We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the referee's report and recommendation. Davison's misconduct with respect to her Attorney submitting false vouchers to the SPD for payment for costs not actually incurred are serious failings warranting suspension of her license. We agree that a six-month suspension of her license to practice law is appropriate discipline for her professional misconduct. ¶11 practice IT IS ORDERED that the license of Sharon A. Davison to law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six months, effective April 26, 2002. ¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Sharon A. Davison comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been Davison make suspended. ¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Sharon A. restitution to the state public defender's office, within 60 days of the date of this order, in an amount to be determined by the Office of Lawyer Regulation. If this restitution is not made within the specified time, the license of Sharon A. Davison 5 No. to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain 00-1503-D suspended until further order of this court. ¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order Sharon A. Davison pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of these proceedings, totaling $8717.21. If the costs are not paid within the time specified and absent a showing to this court of her inability to pay the costs within that time, the license of Sharon A. Davison to practice law in this state shall remain suspended until further order of this court. 6 No. 1 00-1503-D
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.
