Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Richard W. Voss , 365 Wis. 2d 442 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                              
    2015 WI 104
    SUPREME COURT            OF   WISCONSIN
    CASE NO.:               2014AP2086-W
    COMPLETE TITLE:         In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
    Against
    Richard W. Voss, Attorney at Law:
    Office of Lawyer Regulation,
    Complainant,
    v.
    Richard W. Voss,
    Respondent.
    DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST VOSS
    OPINION FILED:          December 8, 2015
    SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
    ORAL ARGUMENT:
    SOURCE OF APPEAL:
    COURT:
    COUNTY:
    JUDGE:
    JUSTICES:
    CONCURRED:
    DISSENTED:
    NOT PARTICIPATING:
    ATTORNEYS:
    
    2015 WI 104
                                                                        NOTICE
    This opinion is subject to further
    editing and modification.   The final
    version will appear in the bound
    volume of the official reports.
    No.       2014AP2086-D
    STATE OF WISCONSIN                                :            IN SUPREME COURT
    In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
    Against Richard W. Voss, Attorney at Law:
    Office of Lawyer Regulation,                                             FILED
    Complainant,
    DEC 8, 2015
    v.
    Diane M. Fremgen
    Clerk of Supreme Court
    Richard W. Voss,
    Respondent.
    ATTORNEY        disciplinary      proceeding.         Attorney's          license
    suspended.
    ¶1      PER   CURIAM.     We    review      a     stipulation         filed       by
    Richard W.     Voss    and    the   Office   of       Lawyer    Regulation        (OLR),
    pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12,1 which sets forth
    1
    SCR 22.12 (Stipulation) provides:
    (1) The director may file with the complaint a
    stipulation of the director and the respondent to the
    facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and
    discipline to be imposed. The supreme court may
    consider the complaint and stipulation without the
    appointment of a referee, in which case the supreme
    (continued)
    No.    2014AP2086-D
    findings    of     fact    and    conclusions   of   law   regarding    Attorney
    Voss's six counts of professional misconduct.                 Attorney Voss is
    already    under    suspension       pursuant   to   the   18-month   suspension
    ordered    in      In     re     Disciplinary   Proceedings     Against    Voss,
    
    2014 WI 75
    , 
    356 Wis. 2d 382
    , 
    850 N.W.2d 190
    , which runs until
    February 22, 2016.
    ¶2      The parties' stipulation did not contain an agreement
    regarding the appropriate level of discipline to be imposed.
    court   may  approve   the   stipulation,  reject the
    stipulation, or direct the parties to consider
    specific modifications to the stipulation.
    (2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation,
    it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of
    law and impose the stipulated discipline.
    (3) If the supreme court rejects a stipulation, a
    referee shall be appointed and the matter shall
    proceed as a complaint filed without a stipulation.
    (3m) If the supreme court directs the parties to
    consider specific modifications to the stipulation,
    the parties may, within 20 days of the date of the
    order, file a revised stipulation, in which case the
    supreme court may approve the revised stipulation,
    adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law, and
    impose the stipulated discipline. If the parties do
    not file a revised stipulation within 20 days of the
    date of the order, a referee shall be appointed and
    the matter shall proceed as a complaint filed without
    a stipulation.
    (4) A stipulation rejected by the supreme court
    has no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to
    the respondent's defense of the proceeding or the
    prosecution of the complaint.
    2
    No.     2014AP2086-D
    The parties agreed to brief the issue of sanctions before the
    referee, James R. Erickson.
    ¶3     The referee accepted the stipulation and found, based
    on   the    stipulation,        that    the       stipulated     facts        supported    a
    conclusion       of   misconduct       on    all     six    counts.           The   referee
    recommended that the court suspend Attorney Voss for a 60-day
    period, consecutive to the 18-month suspension Attorney Voss is
    currently serving.            The referee also recommended that the court
    assess the OLR's full costs against Attorney Voss, which total
    $2,801.98 as of July 30, 2015.
    ¶4     Because no appeal has been filed from the referee's
    report     and   recommendation,        we    review       the   matter       pursuant    to
    SCR 22.17(2).2        We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of
    law to which the parties have stipulated and as adopted by the
    referee.         We   agree    that    the    seriousness        of    Attorney      Voss's
    misconduct       warrants      a   60-day         suspension     of    his     license    to
    practice     law,     consecutive      to     the     18-month        suspension     he   is
    currently serving, together with costs.
    ¶5     Attorney Voss was admitted to the practice of law in
    Wisconsin in 1976.
    2
    SCR 22.17(2) provides:
    If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court
    shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or
    modify the referee's findings and conclusions or
    remand the matter to the referee for additional
    findings;   and   determine  and   impose appropriate
    discipline. The court, on its own motion, may order
    the parties to file briefs in the matter.
    3
    No.    2014AP2086-D
    ¶6      Attorney       Voss      has    been     disciplined      previously         for
    misconduct.          In 2004, Attorney Voss was privately reprimanded
    for failing to provide competent representation and failing to
    keep       a    client       reasonably         informed.          Private        Reprimand
    No. 2004-24.3         In 2006, Attorney Voss received a public reprimand
    for    various       trust    account         violations.        Public    Reprimand        of
    Richard W. Voss, 2006-7.                  In 2014, Attorney Voss received an
    18-month       suspension         for   his     conduct     as   the     court-appointed
    guardian of the person and estate of an individual suffering
    from mental illness.               This court determined that Attorney Voss
    committed       11    counts       of    misconduct       by,    among    other       things,
    converting at least $48,791.73 of his client's funds either for
    his own use or to cover expenditures for other client matters,
    committing        various         trust       account     violations,          and    making
    misrepresentations to the circuit court regarding his client's
    assets.        Voss, 
    356 Wis. 2d 382
    .
    ¶7      This    disciplinary            matter     involves       six    counts       of
    misconduct,       four       of   which       concern    Attorney      Voss's        work    in
    bankruptcy matters, and two of which concern Attorney Voss's
    trust account practices.                 We take the following facts from the
    parties' stipulation.
    3
    The OLR's complaint and the parties' stipulation both cite
    Private Reprimand No. 2004-25, but that matter involved criminal
    conduct by a lawyer, which clearly does not fit the description
    of Attorney Voss's misconduct.     Private Reprimand No. 2004-24
    involved violations of SCRs 20:1.1 and 20:1.4(a).
    4
    No.    2014AP2086-D
    ¶8     Attorney Voss was hired to file bankruptcies for his
    clients, J.M. and L.R.              In both cases, before doing any work,
    Attorney Voss had the client pay approximately $500 in attorney
    fees   and    approximately        $300       in    filing   fees.      Attorney     Voss
    placed      these   funds    into       his    client     trust     account.      It    is
    undisputed that while the funds remained in trust, they remained
    an asset of the client.
    ¶9     Attorney Voss, or his staff under his direction, told
    J.M. and L.R. that the firm would file a fee waiver application
    with the appropriate United States Bankruptcy Court.                           Attorney
    Voss's office would prepare the fee waiver application, along
    with the bankruptcy petition.                      When drafting these documents,
    Attorney Voss failed to disclose to the bankruptcy court that
    the filing fee had already been paid by the client and that
    Attorney Voss was holding the funds in trust.
    ¶10    Attorney Voss, or his staff under his direction, had
    J.M. and L.R. sign the bankruptcy documents under penalty of
    perjury.       In signing the bankruptcy documents, J.M. and L.R.
    verified that the documents were accurate, including a statement
    that they could not afford to pay the filing fee, and including
    an   asset     disclosure        that    did       not   disclose    the    filing     fee
    payments held in Attorney Voss's firm's trust account.
    ¶11    In    the   J.M.    bankruptcy         case,   the     bankruptcy    court
    denied the filing fee waiver application on September 25, 2013.
    The court ordered that J.M. pay the filing fee in installments
    beginning on October 25, 2013.                     Neither Attorney Voss nor his
    staff contacted J.M. to let her know of the denial of her filing
    5
    No.    2014AP2086-D
    fee waiver application.             J.M. first learned that the bankruptcy
    court had denied her waiver application and that her filing fee
    remained unpaid at the meeting of creditors on October 17, 2013.
    J.M. was upset upon learning this information because she had
    paid the filing fee to Attorney Voss months earlier and had not
    been told of the denial of her filing fee waiver application.
    ¶12    On October 25, 2013——the date the first installment of
    J.M.'s filing fee was due——Attorney Voss's secretary paid the
    filing fee in full.             Before this date, Attorney Voss's secretary
    had   experienced         difficulties        determining       from     the    bankruptcy
    court's website how much was owed as a filing fee and how to pay
    it.   Because Attorney Voss's secretary did not inform him of her
    difficulties in paying the filing fee, Attorney Voss was unaware
    of the problems until he received a letter from the OLR about
    the matter.
    ¶13    In     the    L.R.    bankruptcy        case,    the    bankruptcy           court
    approved L.R.'s filing fee waiver application.                            When Attorney
    Voss received the notice of the approval, he refunded to L.R.
    the filing fee which was held in trust.
    ¶14    Attorney        Voss       has       submitted     filing         fee    waiver
    applications for bankruptcy clients other than J.M. and L.R.
    after having collected filing fees from those other clients.                                In
    all   of    those    cases,       the   filing      fee   held      in   trust       was   not
    disclosed as an asset of the debtor in the bankruptcy documents.
    If the bankruptcy court waived the filing fee, Attorney Voss's
    office      returned      the     filing      fee    to   the    clients.            If    the
    6
    No.    2014AP2086-D
    bankruptcy court did not waive the filing fees, Attorney Voss's
    office paid the filing fee to the bankruptcy court.
    ¶15   The   remaining     conduct     at     issue      concerns     Attorney
    Voss's continued inability or unwillingness to comply with the
    trust account rules.         Since at least 1986, Attorney Voss has
    used a particular bank account at M&I Bank (n/k/a BMO Harris
    Bank) as his client trust account.            Attorney Voss has designated
    this account as his client trust account.                    However, the account
    is not an Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts (IOLTA) account and
    does   not   accrue   interest    to    be   paid       to   the   Wisconsin    Trust
    Account Foundation, Inc.
    ¶16   Attorney Voss has long been on notice that he must
    rectify his handling of trust account funds.                   In 2006, Attorney
    Voss received a public reprimand for misconduct that, in part,
    related to his failure to maintain accurate records of his trust
    account activity and his failure to maintain an IOLTA trust
    account.      In   2012,   the    OLR   filed       a    disciplinary      complaint
    seeking to discipline Attorney Voss for misconduct that included
    his failure to maintain an IOLTA trust account; this complaint
    culminated in the 18-month suspension which Attorney Voss is
    currently serving.         Attorney Voss continued, throughout these
    prior matters, and throughout the OLR's investigation of the
    present matter, to use the non-IOLTA account at M&I Bank (n/k/a
    BMO Harris Bank) as his client trust account.
    ¶17   In late 2013, the OLR requested a copy of Attorney
    Voss's trust account transaction register for the period of time
    in which he was holding J.M.'s filing fee in trust.                         Attorney
    7
    No.     2014AP2086-D
    Voss provided to the OLR a list of deposits and a separate list
    of disbursements, which did not separately or collectively meet
    the requirements for compliant trust account documents.
    ¶18     On the basis of these facts, the parties stipulated,
    and   the     referee   concluded,     that     Attorney   Voss      committed    the
    following acts of misconduct:
       Count One:        By filing or causing his staff to file
    applications for filing fee waivers with the United
    States    Bankruptcy     Courts    on    behalf   of    clients    that
    failed to disclose the amounts being held by Attorney
    Voss on behalf of the clients for payment of their
    filing    fees,    and   thereby        failing   to      comply   with
    applicable    Federal     Rules     of     Bankruptcy       Procedure,
    Attorney Voss violated SCR 20:3.4(c).4
       Count Two:    By filing or causing his staff to file on
    behalf of clients applications for filing fee waivers
    with United States Bankruptcy Courts that failed to
    disclose the funds being held in trust by Attorney
    Voss on behalf of the clients for payment of their
    filing fees, Attorney Voss violated SCR 20:8.4(c).5
    4
    SCR 20:3.4 (c) provides that a lawyer shall not "knowingly
    disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except for
    an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation
    exists."
    5
    SCR 20:8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct
    for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
    deceit or misrepresentation."
    8
    No.     2014AP2086-D
       Count Three:       By failing to adequately supervise his
    staff   so   as   to    ensure   that     documents   prepared      and
    filed by his staff on behalf of clients conformed in
    all respects with applicable law and court rules and
    were in all respects accurate, Attorney Voss violated
    SCR 20:5.3(a) and (b).6
       Count Four:       By failing to take reasonable steps to
    ensure his staff timely informed him and/or clients of
    case    developments,     including       the   payment    status    of
    filing fees, Attorney Voss violated SCR 20:5.3(a) and
    (b).
       Count   Five:      By    (i)    failing    to   maintain    a   pooled
    interest bearing account; (ii) failing to participate
    in the Interest on Trust Accounts Program; and (iii)
    depositing      client    and    third    party   funds     that    are
    nominal in amount and/or intended to be held for a
    6
    SCR 20:5.3(a) and (b) provide that, with respect to a
    nonlawyer employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer,
    (a) a partner, and a lawyer who individually or
    together with other lawyers possesses comparable
    managerial authority in a law firm shall make
    reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in
    effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the
    person's conduct is compatible with the professional
    obligations of the lawyer;
    (b) a lawyer having direct supervisory authority
    over the nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to
    ensure that the person's conduct is compatible with
    the professional obligations of the lawyer[.]
    9
    No.    2014AP2086-D
    short      period   of    time       in   a     non-interest-bearing
    account,      Attorney        Voss    violated     SCR        13.047   and
    SCR 20.15(c)(l).8
       Count Six:      By failing to provide the OLR with a copy
    of   his    trust   account        transaction    register       for   the
    period     requested     of    him   by   the    OLR,    Attorney      Voss
    violated SCR 20:1.15(e)(7).9              In the alternative, by
    failing to maintain a compliant transaction register
    7
    SCR 13.04 provides, as relevant here, that "an attorney
    shall participate in the [Interest on Trust Accounts] program as
    provided in SCR 20:1.15[.]"
    8
    SCR 20:1.15(c)(1) provides:
    A lawyer or law firm who receives client or 3rd-
    party funds that the lawyer or law firm determines to
    be nominal in amount or that are expected to be held
    for a short period of time such that the funds cannot
    earn income for the benefit of the client or 3rd party
    in excess of the costs to secure that income, shall
    maintain a pooled interest-bearing or dividend-paying
    draft   trust   account  in   an  IOLTA  participating
    institution.
    9
    SCR 20:1.15(e)(7) provides:
    All trust account records have public aspects
    related to a lawyer's fitness to practice. Upon
    request of the office of lawyer regulation, or upon
    direction of the supreme court, the records shall be
    submitted to the office of lawyer regulation for its
    inspection, audit, use, and evidence under any
    conditions to protect the privilege of clients that
    the court may provide. The records, or an audit of the
    records, shall be produced at any disciplinary
    proceeding involving the lawyer, whenever material.
    Failure    to   produce   the    records   constitutes
    unprofessional conduct and grounds for disciplinary
    action.
    10
    No.        2014AP2086-D
    for   the    period     requested,         Attorney        Voss     violated
    SCR 20:1.15(f)(l)a.10
    ¶19      The parties briefed the issue of sanctions before the
    referee.       The     OLR     encouraged      the     referee     to     recommend      a
    six-month license suspension of Attorney Voss's Wisconsin law
    license, to run consecutive to his present suspension.                           Attorney
    Voss encouraged the referee to recommend a less-than-six-month
    suspension, to run concurrent to his present suspension.
    ¶20      In his report, the referee recommended that the court
    impose   a    60-day     license    suspension,         to   run    consecutive         to
    Attorney Voss's present suspension.                    The referee wrote that a
    six-month     period      of     suspension          following     Attorney        Voss's
    18-month suspension, as the OLR requested, was unnecessary to
    10
    SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)a. provides that complete records of a
    trust account that is a draft account shall include a
    transaction register. Specifically:
    The   transaction   register   shall contain   a
    chronological record of all account transactions, and
    shall include all of the following:
    1. the date, source, and amount of all deposits;
    2. the date, check or transaction number, payee
    and amount of all disbursements, whether by check,
    wire transfer, or other means;
    3. the date and amount of every other deposit or
    deduction of whatever nature;
    4. the identity of the client for whom funds were
    deposited or disbursed; and
    5. the          balance     in        the     account     after        each
    transaction
    11
    No.      2014AP2086-D
    meet the goals of Wisconsin's disciplinary system——especially
    since, in the referee's view, Attorney Voss's misconduct has
    "more to do with sloppy office supervision and inadequate staff
    and    self-training           than     it    has      to      do    with        intentional
    professional misconduct."
    ¶21    Because no appeal was filed from the referee's report
    and     recommendation,           our        review         proceeds          pursuant       to
    SCR 22.17(2).        When reviewing a report and recommendation in an
    attorney disciplinary proceeding, we affirm a referee's findings
    of fact unless they are found to be clearly erroneous.                                   In re
    Disciplinary        Proceedings       Against       Inglimo,        
    2007 WI 126
    ,   ¶5,
    
    305 Wis. 2d 71
    ,        
    740 N.W.2d 125
    .                 We      review      the       referee's
    conclusions of law, however, on a de novo basis.                              
    Id. Finally, we
       determine     the    appropriate        level       of    discipline          given   the
    particular     facts      of   each     case,     independent        of     the      referee's
    recommendation       but    benefitting         from    it.         In   re      Disciplinary
    Proceedings Against Widule, 
    2003 WI 34
    , ¶44, 
    261 Wis. 2d 45
    ,
    
    660 N.W.2d 686
    .
    ¶22    We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law
    to    which   the    parties     have    stipulated         and     as    adopted      by   the
    referee.      We agree with the referee that the stipulated facts
    demonstrate that Attorney Voss committed each of the six counts
    of misconduct alleged in the OLR's complaint.
    ¶23    We further agree with the referee that Attorney Voss's
    misconduct warrants a 60-day suspension of his Wisconsin law
    license.      In imposing a 60-day suspension in lieu of a lengthier
    suspension,     we    note      particularly        the     referee's         determination
    12
    No.    2014AP2086-D
    that Attorney Voss's mistakes were more a result of slipshod
    practices, as Attorney Voss claimed, than flagrant misconduct,
    as the OLR claimed——a determination from which the OLR has not
    appealed.      Even given that the events in this case were merely
    the result of sloppy lawyering, however, we have no difficulty
    justifying a 60-day suspension.                See, e.g., In re Disciplinary
    Proceedings Against McKloskey,              
    2009 WI 65
    , 
    318 Wis. 2d 602
    ,
    
    768 N.W.2d 10
    (60-day suspension for sloppy and careless trust
    account procedures and failure to keep a client informed).
    ¶24   We   further     agree   with     the    referee      that    the   60-day
    suspension     should   run      consecutive     to    Attorney     Voss's       present
    18-month suspension.           We were concerned enough with Attorney
    Voss's practice habits to impose a lengthy 18-month suspension.
    Were we aware of the facts presented here, which further call
    into   question    Attorney      Voss's     trust     accounting      practices       and
    forthrightness      with    courts    and      clients,    we   are   confident       we
    would have imposed an even longer suspension.                       A consecutively
    imposed      suspension     is     therefore      in      order.          See    In    re
    Disciplinary Proceedings Against Woodard, 
    190 Wis. 2d 487
    , 488,
    
    526 N.W.2d 510
    (1995).
    ¶25   We note that Attorney Voss has filed no objection to
    the costs requested by the OLR, which total $2,801.98 as of
    July 30, 2015.      We therefore impose them.
    ¶26   Finally, we note that the OLR did not seek restitution
    in this case.      None is ordered.
    ¶27   IT IS ORDERED that the license of Richard W. Voss to
    practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days,
    13
    No.    2014AP2086-D
    to   run   consecutive   to    the    discipline    imposed     in        In    re
    Disciplinary     Proceedings     Against      Voss,     
    2014 WI 75
    ,
    
    356 Wis. 2d 382
    , 
    850 N.W.2d 190
    .
    ¶28   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
    of this order, Richard W. Voss shall pay to the Office of Lawyer
    Regulation the costs of this proceeding.
    ¶29   IT   IS   FURTHER   ORDERED     that    compliance    with          all
    conditions of this decision is required for reinstatement.                     See
    SCR 22.28(2).
    14
    No.   2014AP2086-D
    1
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2014AP002086-D

Citation Numbers: 365 Wis. 2d 442, 2015 WI 104, 871 N.W.2d 859, 2015 Wisc. LEXIS 713

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 12/8/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024