The Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a public reprimand to Attorney Daniel O. Barham on Dec. 11, 2025, in a reciprocal disciplinary proceeding that mirrors sanctions previously imposed by Tennessee's Board of Professional Responsibility. The court also dismissed a separate charge against Barham for allegedly failing to notify Wisconsin regulators of his Tennessee discipline.
The Office of Lawyer Regulation and Barham filed a joint stipulation under Supreme Court Rule 22.12 requesting the public reprimand as reciprocal discipline. The Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted the stipulation and dismissed Count 2 of the OLR's complaint, which alleged Barham violated SCR 22.21 by failing to timely notify Wisconsin authorities of his public censure in Tennessee.
Barham was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 2013 and in Tennessee in 2015. He has no prior disciplinary history in Wisconsin. The disciplinary proceedings stem from his representation of two companies in a breach of contract action in Tennessee involving the sale and manufacture of COVID-19 test kits.
According to the court's opinion, during the Tennessee litigation, a court entered an order appointing a receiver and enjoined the defendants from dissipating assets. The order required defendants to surrender test kits and any profits to the receiver. Subsequently, the defendants settled a third-party claim related to the test kits for approximately $700,000.
Barham deposited the settlement funds into his firm's trust account, believing the settlement was not subject to the prior court order. However, at a subsequent contempt proceeding, the parties agreed that the disputed funds were payable to the receiver.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision reflects the principle of reciprocal discipline, where attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions face comparable sanctions across all states where they practice. This system ensures consistent professional standards and prevents attorneys from avoiding consequences by practicing in different jurisdictions.
Supreme Court Rule 22.12 governs reciprocal discipline proceedings in Wisconsin. Under this rule, when an attorney licensed in Wisconsin receives discipline in another jurisdiction, Wisconsin courts typically impose substantially similar discipline unless there are compelling reasons not to do so.
The dismissal of Count 2 suggests the court found the failure to timely notify the OLR of the Tennessee censure was either not proven or not worthy of additional sanction given the circumstances. Wisconsin attorneys are required under SCR 22.21 to promptly notify the Office of Lawyer Regulation when they receive discipline in other jurisdictions.
The case involved complex issues surrounding court-appointed receivers and asset preservation orders during litigation. Receivers are typically appointed by courts to manage and preserve assets when there are concerns about dissipation or mismanagement. In this case, the receiver was appointed to ensure that test kits and related profits were preserved during the breach of contract litigation.
Barham's belief that the settlement funds were not subject to the receiver order appears to have been a good faith misunderstanding rather than intentional misconduct. The Tennessee disciplinary authorities evidently found sufficient misconduct to warrant public censure, which Wisconsin has now reciprocated.
Public reprimands serve as formal sanctions that become part of an attorney's disciplinary record while allowing them to continue practicing law. This level of discipline indicates the conduct was serious enough to warrant formal sanction but not severe enough to justify suspension or disbarment.
The COVID-19 pandemic created numerous legal challenges around medical supplies and testing equipment, with various companies entering into contracts for products that were in high demand. These cases often involved significant amounts of money and complex contractual arrangements that sometimes led to disputes requiring court intervention.
Because the parties reached a stipulated resolution, the Wisconsin Supreme Court noted that no costs would be imposed. This reflects the efficiency gained when attorneys and disciplinary authorities can agree on appropriate sanctions without requiring a lengthy referee process.
The case demonstrates how professional responsibility rules operate across state lines and the importance of attorneys understanding their obligations in all jurisdictions where they practice. It also illustrates how courts handle complex financial arrangements during litigation and the serious consequences that can result from misunderstanding court orders regarding asset preservation.
For Wisconsin attorneys practicing in multiple jurisdictions, this case serves as a reminder of the importance of promptly notifying the Office of Lawyer Regulation of any discipline received elsewhere and understanding that misconduct in one state can result in reciprocal discipline in all jurisdictions where they are licensed.
The decision reinforces the legal profession's commitment to maintaining consistent ethical standards across state lines and ensuring that attorneys face appropriate consequences for professional misconduct regardless of where it occurs.