• 
• CLASS
• JOBS
• AUTO
• HOMES

State's Supreme Court reprimands Edgerton lawyer

MADISON — The state Supreme Court on Wednesday reprimanded an Edgerton attorney for actions he took during the settling of two estates.

Reprimanded was Jeffrey T. Roethe, a veteran lawyer who practices in Edgerton.

"We agree that attorney Roethe's professional misconduct warrants a public reprimand, the court wrote. "We also find it appropriate to require attorney Roethe to pay the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding, which are $24,630."

Roethe was found to have violated state law or Supreme Court rulings by:

-- Charging a fee based on a percentage of the estate's value for his services rather than charging by the hour. State law regulates how fees are charged in probate cases.

-- On two occasions, having an assistant notarize documents and having those documents filed with the court, even though the people who had signed the documents were not present or even in the state at the time of the notarization.

The Office of Lawyer Regulation had asked for a 60-day suspension of Roethe's license, in part because Roethe had been reprimanded in 2000.

But a referee threw out two of the allegations, saying the Office of Lawyer Regulation had not met its burden of proof, and recommended the reprimand. The Supreme Court agreed.

According to the court's written opinion: "The referee found that attorney Roethe was an honest witness, and there was nothing to suggest he did anything for personal gain or to injure any of the heirs. …

"The referee noted that attorney Roethe has had a long and honorable career and has benefited his local communities through various civic organizations. The referee also said there was testimony at the hearing that attorney Roethe was acting as a reasonable attorney would act. …

"The referee concluded by saying: 'And finally, I would be remiss if I didn't say quite bluntly that attorney Roethe was afflicted with an insufferable, unreasonable client in this case. We've all had them, and his biggest mistake was not getting rid of her quickly rather than allowing her to take up the resources of his firm in such a way that it should have been predictable that nothing the firm did for her was ever going to satisfy her.'"