Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Randy J. Wynn , 353 Wis. 2d 132 ( 2014 )

2014 WI 17SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2013AP1362-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Randy J. Wynn, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Randy J. Wynn,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST WYNN
OPINION FILED: March 26, 2014
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING: ABRAHAMSON, C.J., did not participate.
ATTORNEYS:
2014 WI 17NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2013AP1362-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Randy J. Wynn, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant,
MAR 26, 2014
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Randy J. Wynn,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
revoked.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Attorney Randy J. Wynn has filed a
petition for consensual license revocation under SCR 22.19.1
1
SCR 22.19 states as follows: Petition for consensual
license revocation.
(1) An attorney who is the subject of an
investigation for possible misconduct or the
respondent in a proceeding may file with the supreme
court a petition for the revocation by consent or his
or her license to practice law.
No. 2013AP1362-D
¶2 Attorney Wynn's license has been suspended since
August 9, 2013, pending receipt of additional information needed
to render a restitution order. The Office of Lawyer Regulation
(OLR) has provided this court with the most complete accounting
available and the parties have agreed that it is a final
accounting for purposes of this petition. Accordingly, we
accept the petition, direct Attorney Wynn to pay restitution as
set forth herein, and revoke Attorney Wynn's license to practice
law in Wisconsin.
(2) The petition shall state that the petitioner
cannot successfully defend against the allegations of
misconduct.
(3) If a complaint has not been filed, the
petition shall be filed in the supreme court and shall
include the director's summary of the misconduct
allegations being investigated. Within 20 days after
the date of filing of the petition, the director shall
file in the supreme court a recommendation on the
petition. Upon a showing of good cause, the supreme
court may extend the time for filing a recommendation.
(4) If a complaint has been filed, the petition
shall be filed in the supreme court and served on the
director and on the referee to whom the proceeding has
been assigned. Within 20 days after the filing of the
petition, the director shall file in the supreme court
a response in support of or in opposition to the
petition and serve a copy on the referee. Upon a
showing of good cause, the supreme court may extend
the time for filing a response. The referee shall
file a report and recommendation on the petition in
the supreme court within 30 days after receipt of the
director's response.
(5) The supreme court shall grant the petition
and revoke the petitioner's license to practice law or
deny the petition and remand the matter to the
director or to the referee for further proceedings.
2
No. 2013AP1362-D
¶3 Attorney Wynn was admitted to the practice of law in
Wisconsin in 1979. He is a solo practitioner from West Allis
who, until his suspension, worked primarily in the area of debt
collection. He has no previous disciplinary history.
¶4 In November 2012 Attorney Wynn self-reported to the
Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office (MCDA) and to the
OLR that he had stolen money from his IOLTA client trust account
to fund a severe gambling addiction and to pay personal bills.
The funds in Attorney Wynn's trust account were generated from
money judgments that Attorney Wynn secured on behalf of various
clients. Attorney Wynn admitted that he had taken a significant
amount of money from his trust account over the past several
years; he was not certain of the exact amount.
¶5 In March 2013 Attorney Wynn provided the MCDA with a
partial accounting in which he identified dozens of clients from
whom he had taken funds totaling $450,923.04. In May 2013
Attorney Wynn provided the OLR with a second partial accounting
showing that Attorney Wynn had taken $784,734.87 from numerous
clients. Attorney Wynn estimated this second partial accounting
was "90% complete."
¶6 The matter came to our attention in June 2013 when
Attorney Wynn filed his petition for consensual license
revocation. The OLR supported the petition and provided the
court with a copy of the second partial accounting. The OLR
recommended we require Attorney Wynn to make restitution to the
persons and entities identified on the second partial
accounting. However, the parties conceded that specific,
3
No. 2013AP1362-D
accurate restitution amounts and apportionments were not readily
ascertainable. The OLR asked the court to calculate set-offs to
which Attorney Wynn may be entitled, and recommended Attorney
Wynn should be required to verify the funds owed. The OLR also
informed the court that criminal charges from Milwaukee County
were expected and recommended Attorney Wynn be required to
comply with any future restitution order that might be entered
by the Milwaukee County circuit court.2
¶7 This court issued an order directing Attorney Wynn to
show cause why his license should not be temporarily suspended
pending further inquiry to ensure the court had the most
complete accounting possible for purposes of awarding
restitution to injured clients. Attorney Wynn was temporarily
suspended on August 9, 2013, and the court subsequently ordered
the parties to file additional information relating to a final
accounting.
¶8 On November 21, 2013, the OLR filed the requested
status update. With the information provided by the OLR we are
prepared to proceed with Attorney Wynn's petition.
¶9 We agree that revocation is warranted and necessary.
This has never been in dispute. Attorney Wynn admitted he used
his law practice to misappropriate over three-quarters of a
million dollars from numerous persons and entities. Attorney
Wynn acknowledged that he cannot successfully defend against
misconduct allegations and further acknowledges that he will owe
2
The OLR later withdrew this recommendation.
4
No. 2013AP1362-D
restitution to the clients he has harmed. He notes that he is
represented by counsel regarding his criminal liability and has
opted to proceed pro se in this disciplinary matter. We grant
the petition and we revoke Attorney Wynn's license to practice
law in Wisconsin.
¶10 With respect to restitution, the OLR informs the court
that the second partial accounting filed with the court in June
2013 remains the most complete accounting available. We are
further advised that the information in that list has now been
verified by Attorney Wynn; reflects appropriate offsets due
Attorney Wynn; and is agreeable to the parties to be final for
purposes of this petition. The MCDA has performed spot-checks
and cross-referencing of the information in the document, and
reported satisfactory results to the OLR. The OLR adds that
Attorney Wynn confirms his intent to make restitution as set
forth herein, as well as his intent to make restitution to any
other clients who may be owed money but do not yet appear on any
listing.
¶11 We accept the OLR's recommendation and we direct
Attorney Wynn to make restitution to the persons and entities
5
No. 2013AP1362-D
and in the amounts as shown on Exhibit 1-B, filed by the OLR on
November 21, 2013.3
¶12 The OLR does not recommend we impose any further
conditions upon Attorney Wynn at this time. We accept the OLR's
explanation that the issue of appropriate conditions is best
addressed in the context of reinstatement. Should Attorney Wynn
ever seek reinstatement of his Wisconsin law license he will be
required to prove that he has made restitution to or settled all
claims of all persons injured or harmed by his misconduct,
including reimbursement to the State Bar of Wisconsin Lawyers'
Fund for Client Protection for all payments made by that fund,
or, if restitution has not been made, Attorney Wynn will need to
explain his failure or inability to do so. See SCR 22.29 (4m).
¶13 The filings do not mention costs. In view of Attorney
Wynn's apparent intention to cooperate fully with authorities
3
After the petition was filed, the OLR filed a detailed
five-page list, entitled Exhibit 1, identifying clients and the
amounts of restitution apparently owed to them. In June 2013 we
asked the OLR to clarify whether the names of these potential
victims should be redacted to protect their privacy. The OLR
responded that it did not deem redaction necessary but provided
the court with a redacted version of Exhibit 1, in which names
were replaced with initials. We directed the Clerk of Supreme
Court to seal, until further order of this court, the original
Exhibit 1 and we accepted redacted Exhibit 1 for filing.
The parties have now verified appropriate offsets and, to
assist the court, the OLR has filed a new document, entitled
Exhibit 1-B, listing clients and the restitution they are owed,
after offsets. We will not redact the client names set forth on
Exhibit 1-B.
6
No. 2013AP1362-D
and meet his restitution obligations we decline to impose costs
in this matter.
¶14 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Randy J.
Wynn to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked effective the date
of this order.
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Randy J. Wynn shall comply
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an
attorney whose license to practice law has been revoked, to the
extent he has not already done so.
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Randy J. Wynn shall pay
restitution to the persons and entities identified in Exhibit 1-
B, filed with the court on November 21, 2013.
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no costs are imposed in
this matter.
¶18 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J., did not participate.
7
No. 2013AP1362-D
1