In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hinnawi

549 N.W.2d 245, 202 Wis. 2d 113, 1996 Wisc. LEXIS 78
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedJune 21, 1996
Docket95-1446-D
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 549 N.W.2d 245 (In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hinnawi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hinnawi, 549 N.W.2d 245, 202 Wis. 2d 113, 1996 Wisc. LEXIS 78 (Wis. 1996).

Opinion

*114 PER CURIAM.

We review the recommendation of the referee that the license of Luai M. Hinnawi to practice law in Wisconsin be revoked as discipline for professional misconduct. Attorney Hinnawi converted funds belonging to an estate in which he served as personal representative and attorney, failed to timely perform his duties in that estate and charged it an unreasonable fee, failed to keep estate funds in his client trust account, and made numerous misrepresentations to the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board) during its investigation of the matter. Also, Attorney Hinnawi practiced law while suspended from practice, failed to act promptly and diligently in representing a client in a real estate matter and respond to that client's attempts to contact him for information, and did not respond to inquiries from the Board in respect to the client's grievance in that matter and in another client matter.

We determine that the recommended license revocation is appropriate discipline to impose for Attorney Hinnawi's professional misconduct established in this proceeding. By his numerous violations of his professional duties to clients who retained him to represent their interests, Attorney Hinnawi has demonstrated his unfitness to be licensed to practice law in this state.

Attorney Hinnawi was admitted to the practice of law in Wisconsin in May, 1991 and practiced in the Milwaukee area. He has not been the subject of a prior disciplinary proceeding. He was suspended from practice October 31, 1994 for failure to pay State Bar membership dues; he was reinstated from that suspension December 29, 1994. In this proceeding, the Board filed with its complaint a motion for the temporary suspension of Attorney Hinnawi's license to practice law pending disposition of the proceeding. Attorney *115 Hinnawi pleaded no contest to the misconduct allegations of that complaint and stipulated to the temporary suspension, which the court ordered effective July 18, 1995.

Subsequently, after receiving two additional client grievances, the Board filed an amended complaint. Attorney Hinnawi admitted service of that complaint but did not appear or otherwise participate in the proceeding thereafter. The referee, Attorney Jean DiMotto, granted the Board's motion for default in respect to those misconduct allegations. Based on the parties' stipulation to the misconduct allegations concerning the estate matter and pursuant to the allegations of misconduct set forth in the Board's amended complaint to which Attorney Hinnawi did not respond, the referee made the following findings of fact.

In June, 1992, Attorney Hinnawi commenced an intestate administration proceeding in Milwaukee county circuit court and served the estate as personal representative and attorney. Responding to an order to show cause, he filed the inventory March 4, 1993 but did little thereafter to complete the proceeding. The court issued an order to show cause January 13, 1994 concerning his failure to file a final judgment, but Attorney Hinnawi did not appear at the hearing on that order or on the adjourned date of that hearing. Because of that failure, the court issued a body attachment for him in June, 1994. Some eight months later, the court issued a second order to show cause concerning the final judgment, but Attorney Hinnawi failed to appear at the hearing on it in April, 1995. As a result, the court ordered his removal as personal representative and attorney.

In the course of the Board's investigation of this matter, Attorney Hinnawi stated that he did not *116 appear as ordered on the several court dates because he had not done any work in the estate. Attorney Hin-nawi did not pay the court-appointed appraiser for services in respect to the decedent's real property, and the $275 bill has been outstanding since October 23, 1993. He also failed to pay the sales tax attributed to the decedent's former business.

The estate was valued at approximately $293,000. Between November, 1992 and June, 1994, Attorney Hinnawi issued nine checks from the estate account payable to his client trust account at another bank in the total amount of $105,552.67, of which he disbursed $77,010 to the heirs and $2369.26 for estate expenses. Attorney Hinnawi closed his client trust account in January, 1995 but has not accounted for the remaining $26,173.41 of estate assets previously transferred into it. Attorney Hinnawi misrepresented to the Board under oath his closing of the estate account and his client trust account.

During the same period, Attorney Hinnawi issued three checks from the estate account payable to himself as attorney fees in the total amount of $12,380; two subsequent checks for attorney fees and expense reimbursement totaled $6000. Based on the expert testimony of the successor personal representative, the referee found that the maximum amount of attorney fees to which Attorney Hinnawi was entitled for his work in the estate was $12,000.

On the basis of Attorney Hinnawi's summarization of the estate's assets and the bank records, the referee found that Attorney Hinnawi converted to his own use $94,583.56 of estate assets. He has not repaid the estate any of the funds he converted. During the Board's investigation, Attorney Hinnawi asserted under oath that he has a gambling addiction and has *117 taken client funds from his trust account in order to gamble for his own benefit.

In another matter, Attorney Hinnawi was retained in January, 1994 by a client to transfer real estate to the client's brother, for which the client paid him a fee of $300 and $90 for the transfer fee. The client believed the transfer had been effected until a year later he received a delinquent tax bill for the property. Another attorney retained by the client to look into the matter found no record in the Register of Deeds office concerning the transfer of the property.

When that attorney met with him in March, 1995, Attorney Hinnawi said he had filed the land contract with the Register of Deeds and would send the attorney a copy of the contract and the transfer tax return. When he failed to do so, the attorney attempted to contact him but Attorney Hinnawi did not respond and did not return any of several telephone calls attempting to obtain the documents. Attorney Hinnawi also did not respond to the Board's requests for a response to the attorney's grievance or to the Board's notice requiring him to attend an investigative meeting.

In a third matter, the Board requested a response from Attorney Hinnawi concerning a grievance received from a client whom Attorney Hinnawi had been appointed by the State Public Defender to represent. Attorney Hinnawi did not respond to three letters from the Board or to the notice requiring him to attend an investigative meeting. Finally, the referee found that, while suspended from practice for failure to pay State Bar membership dues, Attorney Hinnawi continued to practice law, although he had been notified by the State Bar of his suspension.

On the basis of those facts, the referee concluded that Attorney Hinnawi engaged in the following profes *118 sional misconduct.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Guy K. Fish
2026 WI 8 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2026)
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Carl Robert Scholz
2025 WI 13 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2025)
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Terry L. Constant
2022 WI 78 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2022)
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Nunnery
2009 WI 89 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2009)
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against George
2008 WI 21 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2008)
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Krombach
2005 WI 170 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
549 N.W.2d 245, 202 Wis. 2d 113, 1996 Wisc. LEXIS 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-disciplinary-proceedings-against-hinnawi-wis-1996.