Off. of Law. Reg. v. Strouse

410 Wis. 2d 402

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Paul A. Strouse, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant,

v.Paul A. Strouse, Respondent.

Supreme Court

No. 2023AP1032-D. Decided February 27, 2024.

2024 WI 10

(Also reported in 2 N.W.3d 739.)

Per curiam.

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license revoked.

¶ 1. PER CURIAM. We review Referee V.L. Bailey-Rihn's report recommending that the court declare Attorney Paul A. Strouse in default and revoke his license to practice law in Wisconsin due to professional misconduct. The referee also recommends that Attorney Strouse pay the full costs associated with this proceeding, which are $2,456.45 as of November 28, 2023.

[1]

¶ 2. Since no appeal has been filed, we review the referee's report pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.17(2).¹ After careful review of the matter, we agree with the referee that, based on Attorney Strouse's failure to answer the complaint filed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), or otherwise appear in the proceeding, Attorney Strouse is in default. We also conclude that revocation of Attorney Strouse's license is an appropriate sanction for his professional misconduct. Finally, we agree with the referee that Attorney Strouse should be assessed the full costs of this proceeding.

¶ 3. Attorney Strouse was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 1991. The most recent address he furnished to the State Bar of Wisconsin is in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

¶ 4. Attorney Strouse's disciplinary history consists of three public reprimands and a suspension. In 2010 he received a public reprimand for misconduct that included failing to keep clients reasonably informed of the status of their cases; failing to respond to a client's requests for information; and falsifying a bankruptcy discharge order and failing to clarify the origin of the falsified document when asked by the court. Public Reprimand of Paul A. Strouse, 2010-2.²

¶ 5. In 2011 Attorney Strouse received a second public reprimand for his conduct in a bankruptcy matter which included a lack of diligence; failure to keep a client reasonably informed of the status of the case; failing to respond to the client's requests for information; and failing to explain a matter to the extent necessary for the client to make informed decisions. Public Reprimand of Paul A. Strouse, 2011–5.³

¶ 6. In 2015 Attorney Strouse received a third public reprimand for practicing law while his license was suspended for ten days due to noncompliance with the continuing legal education requirement and failing to disclose to the Wisconsin Board of Bar Examiners on his reinstatement petition that he had filed two bankruptcy petitions during the period of his suspension. Public Reprimand of Paul A. Strouse, 2015–6.⁴

¶ 7. Attorney Strouse also received a 60-day suspension in 2015 for his conduct in four bankruptcy matters. The seven counts of misconduct for which he was suspended included failing to provide a receipt for or properly safeguard property of a client or third person; failing to communicate the scope and basis for fees; failing to consult with a client regarding the means by which objectives of the representation were to be pursued; failing to explain matters sufficiently to enable a client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; and failing to respond to a client's requests for information. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Strouse, 2015 WI 83, 364 Wis. 2d 314, 868 N.W.2d 163.

¶ 8. On June 12, 2023, OLR filed a complaint against Attorney Strouse alleging nine counts of misconduct. The first three counts arose out of his use of another attorney's notary stamp and his misrepresentations to a court.

¶ 9. In 2014 the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions revoked Attorney Strouse's notary commission, which he had held since 1992. The revocation was based on the administrative suspension of Attorney Strouse's law license due to his failure to comply with mandatory continuing legal education reporting requirements. Attorney Strouse has not held a notary commission since 2014.

¶ 10. Between approximately January 2017 and October 2020, Attorney Thomas R. Napierala's firm, Napierala Law Offices, LLC, shared office space in Milwaukee, Wisconsin with Attorney Strouse's firm. During the time they shared office space, Attorney Napierala, who held a valid notary commission, often notarized documents for Attorney Strouse which related to the representation of clients for both firms.

¶ 11. In approximately October 2020, Attorneys Strouse and Napierala ended their office sharing arrangement and moved their firms to separate office locations. Following the move, Attorney Napierala could not locate his notary stamp. During OLR's investigation, Attorney Strouse stated that during the move from the shared office space, Attorney Napierala's notary stamp had been inadvertently packed with Attorney Strouse's firm's property and was located when the items were unpacked at Attorney Strouse's new office.

¶ 12. Attorney Strouse had possession of Attorney Napierala's notary stamp no later than November 9, 2020. Between November 9 and December 6, 2020, Attorney Strouse used Attorney Napierala's notary stamp to affix Attorney Napierala's notary seal on two affidavits without Attorney Napierala's authorization or knowledge. In addition, Attorney Strouse affixed or caused his nonlawyer staff to affix Attorney Napierala's electronic signature as the notary on the two affidavits without Attorney Napierala’s authorization or knowledge.

¶ 13. On November 9, 2020, Attorney Strouse filed or caused his nonlawyer staff to file one of the affidavits with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Bankruptcy Court). On December 6, 2020, Attorney Strouse filed or caused his nonlawyer staff to file one of the affidavits with the Bankruptcy Court in a second case.

¶ 14. Between December 10, 2020 and January 8, 2021, Attorney Napierala communicated with Attorney Strouse in an effort to locate and retrieve Attorney Napierala's notary stamp. Attorney Strouse denied having possession of the stamp.

¶ 15. On approximately December 10, 2020, Thomas D. Vaitys, an attorney whose Wisconsin law license had been revoked and who had access to Attorney Strouse's new office space, informed Attorney Napierala that Vaitys had found a notary stamp in Attorney Strouse's new office space.

¶ 16. On December 16, 2020, Attorney Napierala emailed Attorney Strouse asking him to send the notary stamp to him as soon as possible. On December 18, 2020, Attorney Strouse replied to the email saying, "I do not have your notary seal." Attorney Napierala responded by informing Attorney Strouse that Vaitys had told Attorney Napierala that Attorney Strouse had the notary stamp. Attorney Strouse responded, "Well then, you know who has it."

¶ 17. Between December 18 and 21, 2020, Attorney Napierala attempted to make arrangements with Attorney Strouse to pick up the notary stamp or to have someone deliver it to Attorney Napierala.

¶ 18. On December 21, 2020, Attorney Strouse emailed Attorney Napierala saying, "I do not have your notary seal… if [Vaitys] has it, then bring it up with him."

¶ 19. Between January 3 and 5, 2021, Attorney Strouse affixed Attorney Napierala's notary seal and affixed or caused his nonlawyer staff to affix Attorney Napierala's electronic signature as the notary on three additional affidavits without Attorney Napierala's authorization or knowledge. Attorney Strouse filed or caused his nonlawyer staff to file the affidavits with the Bankruptcy Court.

¶ 20. On January 8, 2021, Attorney Napierala emailed Vaitys and copied Attorney Strouse, saying, "I still need to obtain my notary seal and I will come and retrieve it," Attorney Strouse did not return the notary stamp to Attorney Napierala.

¶ 21. Between February 4, 2021 and March 3, 2021, Attorney Strouse affixed Attorney Napierala's notary seal on 13 additional affidavits without Attorney Napierala's authorization or knowledge. Attorney Strouse also affixed or caused his nonlawyer staff to affix Attorney Napierala's electronic signature on the 13 affidavits without Attorney Napierala's authorization or knowledge, and Attorney Strouse filed or caused his nonlawyer staff to file the 13 affidavits with the Bankruptcy Court.

¶ 22. On or about March 3, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court's Clerk's Office contacted Attorney Napierala regarding his purported notarization of the affidavit filed that day in one of the cases. On March 4, 2021, Attorney Napierala emailed Attorney Strouse about the Bankruptcy Court's contact regarding the affidavit. Attorney Napierala advised Attorney Strouse that Attorney Napierala's notary seal and electronic signature appeared on a document filed on March 3, 2021 and that Attorney Napierala had not notarized anything that day. Attorney Napierala instructed Attorney Strouse to contact the Bankruptcy Court to fix the problem, and he told Attorney Strouse that he would pick up the notary seal.

¶ 23. On March 4, 2021, Attorney Napierala sent a letter to the Bankruptcy Court advising that he had not notarized the affidavit in question that had been filed by Attorney Strouse. Attorney Napierala subsequently sent the Bankruptcy Court similar letters regarding affidavits filed on March 3, 2021 in other cases.

¶ 24. On March 8, 2021, Attorney Napierala went to Attorney Strouse's new office, and the nonlawyer staff returned Attorney Napierala's notary stamp to him.

¶ 25. On March 1, 2021, Judge Beth E. Hanan issued an order to show cause requiring Attorney Strouse to file a written response explaining why the court should not strike the debtors' motion to reopen due to an inaccurate affidavit of service. Attorney Strouse responded to the order to show cause on March 17, 2021, saying he had an arrangement with Attorney Napierala in which Attorney Napierala would routinely visit Attorney Strouse's office to sign...