In Re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Siderit

824 N.W.2d 812 (2013)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D was admitted to the practice of law in Wisconsin in 1996. D worked for Otjen, Van Ert, & Weir. D was also the Treasurer of the Firm, worked with the Firm's bookkeeper, and as was responsible for approving all final compensation distributions to shareholders of the Firm. Shareholders got a bonus if billings exceeded 1,800 hours for that year. D was a shareholder. D reviewed each of the computations and signed off on the final distributions. As a shareholder, D participated in each of these year-end meetings and in bonus distributions for each year he was a partner from 2004 through his termination in 2009. In 2004 D's billings fell slightly short of 1,800 hours. D asked the Firm to allow him to participate in the bonus pool because he had spent a considerable amount of time working on the Firm's computer system. The members of the Firm agreed. In both 2007 and 2008, D recorded in excess of 1,800 hours. His combined bonus for those years was $46,978.04. After the Firm paid D each of the bonuses, but before the Firm mailed his bills to his clients, D reduced, or 'wrote-down,' certain of his billable hours for the years for which the bonuses were paid. In early 2008 D wrote-down 29.2 hours of time from his 2007 billings without notifying the Firm. In early 2009 Attorney Siderits wrote-down 231.9 hours from his 2008 billings, again without notifying the Firm. In both years with the writedown, D was not eligible for a bonus. D made changes to actual work performed adding significant hours to the bills. D personally entered all of these charges directly into the Firm's computer system, and he likewise deleted all of these time charges himself, again without notifying his assistant or the bookkeeper. The Firm discovered D's 2007 and 2008 billing conduct and terminated him. D repaid the Firm a total of $60,000 to compensate the Firm for the bonuses to which he was not entitled and for other unspecified damages claimed by the Firm. P filed a five-count complaint against D. D admitted his acts and also admitted that attorneys have a fiduciary duty to their law firms and a duty of honesty in the professional dealings with their law firms. D alleged that this case was merely a matter of a contractual dispute with the Firm over compensation and should not be viewed as an ethical issue. D claimed he did not know, at the time he wrote-down the time in the computer system, that the effect would be to disqualify him from the bonuses. He admitted he never told anyone else in the Firm that he wrote-down his time for either 2007 or 2008. He admitted that he entered all of the write-downs directly into the computer system so that neither his assistant nor the bookkeeper was aware of the write-downs. D denied inflating his time and claimed that the case involved an unusually difficult workers compensation defense claim and that he was under pressure from his client to win. Attorney D could not explain why many of the hours he entered in 2008 were entered well after the claimed date of service. The referee held that D was guilty of all five counts in the complaint. P recommended suspension for 18 months.