Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Thomas J. McClure ( 2015 )

2015 WI 25
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2013AP2140-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against
Thomas J. McClure, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Thomas J. McClure,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MCCLURE
OPINION FILED: March 10, 2015
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2015 WI 25
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2013AP2140-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Thomas J. McClure, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant,
MAR 10, 2015
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Thomas J. McClure,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review, pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule (SCR) 22.17(2), the report of the referee, Reserve Judge
Dennis J. Flynn, recommending that the court suspend Attorney
Thomas J. McClure's license to practice law in Wisconsin for a
period of six months less one day for 20 counts of misconduct,
and also recommending that Attorney McClure be required to
complete continuing legal education (CLE) ethics courses.
No. 2013AP2140-D
¶2 Upon careful review of the matter, we adopt the
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law. We conclude,
however, that a five-month suspension of Attorney McClure's
license is an appropriate sanction for his misconduct. We also
conclude that the full costs of the proceeding, which are
$13,677.99 as of December 1, 2014, should be assessed against
Attorney McClure.
¶3 Attorney McClure was admitted to the practice of law
in Wisconsin in 1980 and practices in Delafield. He has no
prior disciplinary history.
¶4 On September 26, 2013, the Office of Lawyer Regulation
(OLR) filed a complaint alleging that Attorney McClure committed
21 counts of misconduct. Ten counts of misconduct arose out of
his handling of three client manners. The remaining 11 counts
consisted of various trust account violations.
¶5 Referee Flynn was appointed on February 18, 2014. On
September 9, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation whereby
Attorney McClure admitted the facts underlying Counts 1-19 of
the OLR's complaint. An evidentiary hearing was held before the
referee in October 2014. The referee issued his report and
recommendation on November 10, 2014. The referee found that the
OLR had met its burden of proof with respect to Counts 1-19 and
Count 21 of the OLR's complaint. The referee found that the OLR
did not meet its burden of proof as to Count 20.
¶6 Counts One-Six of the OLR's complaint arose out of
Attorney McClure's representation of J.J. In or about May 2007,
J.J. hired Attorney McClure to represent him regarding a claim
2
No. 2013AP2140-D
for personal injuries that resulted from a motor vehicle
accident. As part of a mediation agreement signed by J.J. and
Attorney McClure, J.J. agreed to settle his claim against the
driver of the other vehicle and the driver's insurance company
for a payment of $79,000. In a settlement statement to J.J.,
Attorney McClure specified that the McClure Law Offices'
attorney fees and costs were $26,333.07; the attorneys costs,
including a partial waiver of $72.67, were $747.80; the
outstanding medical bills were $41,919.13; and the net
settlement recovery to J.J. was $10,000.00.
¶7 J.J. received a net settlement proceeds check from
Attorney McClure in the amount of $10,000 on June 10, 2008.
That same day, Attorney McClure made payments with trust account
checks to various medical providers totaling $12,567.20. Over
the next two years, Attorney McClure made various withdrawals
and wrote various checks out of his trust account which resulted
in insufficient funds remaining in the trust account to pay
J.J.'s outstanding medical bills as required by the settlement
statement.
¶8 In July of 2010, J.J. wrote to Attorney McClure saying
that several medical bills were still unpaid and were adversely
affecting J.J.'s credit rating. Attorney McClure made the final
payment to J.J.'s medical providers in February 2011.
¶9 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of
misconduct with respect to Attorney McClure's handling of J.J.'s
settlement:
3
No. 2013AP2140-D
[COUNT ONE] By failing to inform [J.J.] that he
had not promptly paid the medical providers from the
settlement funds, and having paid one of the medical
providers more than a year after the settlement, and
again failing to inform [J.J.] that he had not paid
several medical providers, McClure violated
SCR 20:1.4(a)(3).1
[COUNT TWO] By failing to hold in trust the
funds owed to numerous medical providers from the
settlement, McClure violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).2
[COUNT THREE] By commingling his own funds with
[J.J.'s] settlement funds in his trust account,
McClure violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(3).3
[COUNT FOUR] By failing to promptly deliver
funds to numerous medical providers, including six
medical providers that did not receive their funds for
more than two years after the settlement, McClure
violated SCR 20:1.15(d)(1).4
1
SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides that a lawyer shall "keep the
client reasonably informed about the status of the matter."
2
SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) provides:
A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the
lawyer's own property, that property of clients and
3rd parties that is in the lawyer's possession in
connection with a representation. All funds of
clients and 3rd parties paid to a lawyer or law firm
in connection with a representation shall be deposited
in one or more identifiable trust accounts.
3
SCR 20:1.15(b)(3) provides that "[n]o funds belonging to
the lawyer or law firm, except funds reasonably sufficient to
pay monthly account service charges, may be deposited or
retained in a trust account."
4
SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) provides:
Upon receiving funds or other property in which a
client has an interest, or in which the lawyer has
received notice that a 3rd party has an interest
identified by a lien, court order, judgment, or
contract, the lawyer shall promptly notify the client
(continued)
4
No. 2013AP2140-D
[COUNT FIVE] By failing to maintain a subsidiary
individual client ledger for [J.J.], McClure violated
SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)b.5
[COUNT SIX] By converting [J.J.'s] settlement
funds, which were owed to numerous medical providers,
for his own personal use and/or delivering the funds
to his other clients or third parties, McClure
violated SCR 20:8.4(c).6
¶10 After observing various irregularities in Attorney
McClure's trust account statements that came to light during the
OLR's investigation into J.J.'s grievance, the OLR initiated an
inquiry into Attorney McClure's trust account practices. That
inquiry resulted in the 11 counts of misconduct as enumerated in
the OLR's complaint:
or 3rd party in writing. Except as stated in this
rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement
with the client, the lawyer shall promptly deliver to
the client or 3rd party any funds or other property
that the client or 3rd party is entitled to receive.
5
SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)b. provides:
A subsidiary ledger shall be maintained for each
client or 3rd party for whom the lawyer receives trust
funds that are deposited in an IOLTA account or any
other pooled trust account. The lawyer shall record
each receipt and disbursement of a client's or 3rd
party's funds and the balance following each
transaction. A lawyer shall not disburse funds from
an IOLTA account or any pooled trust account that
would create a negative balance with respect to any
individual client or matter.
6
SCR 20:8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit or misrepresentation."
5
No. 2013AP2140-D
[COUNT SEVEN] By failing to hold in trust his
clients' funds, separate from his own personal funds,
McClure violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).
[COUNT EIGHT] By commingling his own funds with
the funds of clients and third-parties in his trust
account for at least four years, McClure violated
SCR 20:1.15(b)(3).
[COUNT NINE] By making at least 670 in-person
cash withdrawals from his trust account, McClure
violated SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)a.7
[COUNT TEN] Having his trust account check
number 161 returned for insufficient funds, and
therefore disbursing the funds from his trust account
without the funds being available for disbursement,
McClure violated SCR 20:1.15(e)(5)a.8
[COUNT ELEVEN] By failing to maintain a
transaction register for his trust account, McClure
violated SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)a.9
7
SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)a. provides that "[n]o disbursement of
cash shall be made from a trust account or from a deposit to a
trust account, and no check shall be made payable to 'Cash.'"
8
SCR 20:1.15(e)(5)a. provides that "[a] lawyer shall not
disburse funds from any trust account unless the deposit from
which those funds will be disbursed has cleared, and the funds
are available for disbursement."
9
SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)a. provides:
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;
(continued)
6
No. 2013AP2140-D
[COUNT TWELVE] By failing to maintain individual
client ledgers for his clients, McClure violated
SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)b.
[COUNT THIRTEEN] By failing to prepare and
retain a printed reconciliation report on a regular
and periodic basis not less frequently than every 30
days, McClure violated SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)g.10
[COUNT FOURTEEN] By failing to file an overdraft
notification agreement with OLR for his trust account,
McClure violated SCR 20:1.15(h)(8).11
4. the identity of the client for whom funds were
deposited or disbursed; and
5. the balance in the account after each
transaction.
10
SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)g. provides:
For each trust account, the lawyer shall prepare
and retain a printed reconciliation report on a
regular and periodic basis not less frequently than
every 30 days. Each reconciliation report shall show
all of the following balances and verify that they are
identical:
1. the balance that appears in the transaction
register as of the reporting date;
2. the total of all subsidiary ledger balances
for IOLTA accounts and other pooled trust accounts,
determined by listing and totaling the balances in the
individual client ledgers and the ledger for account
fees and charges, as of the reporting date; and
3. the adjusted balance, determined by adding
outstanding deposits and other credits to the balance
in the financial institution's monthly statement and
subtracting outstanding checks and other deductions
from the balance in the monthly statement.
11
SCR 20:1.15(h)(8) provides:
Every lawyer practicing or admitted to practice
in Wisconsin shall comply with the reporting and
(continued)
7
No. 2013AP2140-D
[COUNT FIFTEEN] By filing false certificates
with the State Bar of Wisconsin in which he certified
that he had complied with each of the record-keeping
requirements, McClure violated SCR 20:1.15(i)(4).12
[COUNT SIXTEEN] By placing all monies received
by his office into his trust account in an effort to
protect income from seizure at a time when he was the
subject of Wisconsin Department of Revenue tax
warrants, McClure violated SCR 20:8.4(c).
[COUNT SEVENTEEN] By failing to timely file his
state and federal tax returns for the years of 2008,
2009, and 2010, McClure violated SCR 20:8.4(f).13
¶11 The OLR's complaint also alleged three counts of
misconduct arising out of Attorney McClure's representation of
J.K. J.K. was charged in a Kenosha County case filed in June of
2011 with Child Abuse-Intentionally Cause Harm, a class H
felony; Battery, a class A misdemeanor; and Disorderly Conduct,
a class B misdemeanor.
¶12 On June 13, 2011, Attorney McClure sent an electronic
response via a "legalmatch" website to M.K., J.K.'s mother,
production requirements of this subsection, including
filing of an overdraft notification agreement for each
IOLTA account, each draft-type trust account and each
draft-type fiduciary account that is not subject to an
alternative protection under sub. (j)(9).
12
SCR 20:1.15(i)(4) provides that "[t]he failure of a state
bar member to file the certificate is grounds for automatic
suspension of the member's membership in the state bar in the
same manner provided in SCR 10.03(6) for nonpayment of dues.
The filing of a false certificate is unprofessional conduct and
is grounds for disciplinary action."
13
SCR 20:8.4(f) provides that it is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to "violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme
court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of
lawyers."
8
No. 2013AP2140-D
saying that Attorney McClure was a respected former prosecutor
with 20 years of private practice criminal defense experience
and that Attorney McClure could help J.K. Attorney McClure told
M.K. that he offered "a free consultation, convenient evening
and weekend appointments and a simple up front flat fee."
Attorney McClure went on to tell M.K., "The total fee that I
would charge for this case is $2,500, pending more information
from you. The entire fee payment is due when I take your case.
Standard flat fee for domestic violence and felony child abuse
charge."
¶13 On June 16, 2011, M.K. hired Attorney McClure to
represent her son and paid Attorney McClure a flat fee of
$2,500, which Attorney McClure deposited directly into his
business account. There is no documentary evidence of a written
fee agreement between Attorney McClure and M.K. and/or J.K.
J.K. obtained successor counsel, whose appearance was entered on
September 8, 2011.
¶14 M.K. and J.K. filed a grievance against Attorney
McClure, alleging various concerns about his representation of
J.K. M.K. stated in the grievance, "Attorney McClure informed
me after I hired him that it would cost me an additional
$2,500.00 if my son's case went to trial."
¶15 The OLR's complaint alleged three counts of misconduct
with respect to Attorney McClure's handling of J.K.'s case:
[COUNT EIGHTEEN] By failing to have a written
fee agreement communicating the requisite information
9
No. 2013AP2140-D
for his representation of [J.K.], McClure violated
SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2).14
[COUNT NINETEEN] By depositing [J.K.'s] unearned
advanced fee payment directly into his business bank
account, without acting in a manner indicating an
intention to use the alternative fee placement
measures stated in SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m), McClure
15
violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(4).
[COUNT TWENTY] By informing his new client that
he would charge her an additional fee for taking the
matter to trial which was double the amount he said he
would charge to handle the engagement, McClure
violated SCR 20:8.4(c).
14
SCR 20:1.5(b), as relevant here, provides:
(1) The scope of the representation and the basis
or rate of the fee and expenses for which the client
will be responsible shall be communicated to the
client in writing, before or within a reasonable time
after commencing the representation, except when the
lawyer will charge a regularly represented client on
the same basis or rate as in the past. If it is
reasonably foreseeable that the total cost of
representation to the client, including attorney's
fees, will be $1000 or less, the communication may be
oral or in writing. Any changes in the basis or rate
of the fee or expenses shall also be communicated in
writing to the client.
(2) If the total cost of representation to the
client, including attorney's fees, is more than $1000,
the purpose and effect of any retainer or advance fee
that is paid to the lawyer shall be communicated in
writing.
15
SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) provides that, "[e]xcept as provided in
par. (4m), unearned fees and advanced payments of fees shall be
held in trust until earned by the lawyer, and withdrawn pursuant
to sub. (g). Funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for
payment of costs shall be held in trust until the costs are
incurred."
10
No. 2013AP2140-D
¶16 Finally, the OLR's complaint alleged one count of
misconduct with respect to Attorney McClure's representation of
C.G. On February 12, 2010, Attorney McClure sent an electronic
response via the "legalmatch" website to a member of C.G.'s
family, saying, "I am available immediately and do not charge
for the initial consultation. I practice in this court
regularly and am a respected former Rock County Asst. DA."
Attorney McClure stated that the total fee he would charge for
the case was $2,500 and that the entire fee payment would be due
when he took the case.
¶17 C.G. hired Attorney McClure to represent him on
charges of possession of THC (second offense), a class I felony;
Manufacture/Deliver THC, a class F felony; and Maintain Drug
Trafficking Place, a class I felony. Attorney McClure was also
hired to represent C.G. in a revocation case. Both cases were
pending in Rock County.
¶18 On February 23, 2010, C.G.'s mother paid Attorney
McClure $2,000 as a partial payment of the $2,500 flat fee. On
April 2, 2010, C.G.'s brother paid Attorney McClure the final
$500 of the flat fee.
¶19 In March of 2012, over a year after Attorney McClure's
representation of C.G. concluded, C.G. filed a grievance with
the OLR alleging various concerns regarding Attorney McClure's
representation of C.G. As part of his response to the
grievance, Attorney McClure provided the OLR with a copy of his
entire file. The file contained no documentary evidence of a
11
No. 2013AP2140-D
written fee agreement beyond the electronic communication on
"legalmatch."
¶20 The OLR's complaint alleged the following count of
misconduct with respect to Attorney McClure's representation of
C.G.:
[COUNT TWENTY-ONE] By failing to have a written
fee agreement communicating the requisite information
for his representation of [C.G.], McClure violated
SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2).
¶21 By entering into the stipulation, Attorney McClure
admitted the facts underlying Counts 1-19 of the OLR's
complaint. He contested Counts 20 and 21. The referee
concluded that the OLR failed to meet its burden of proof as to
Count 20. The referee found that the OLR did meet its burden of
proof as to Count 21. Thus, the referee found that Attorney
McClure committed 20 counts of misconduct.
¶22 The referee noted that the main focus of the
evidentiary hearing was on the appropriate sanction to be
imposed in this case. The referee noted that both parties
recommended some period of license suspension, with the OLR
seeking a two-year suspension and Attorney McClure seeking a
suspension in the three to five month range. The referee said
the case presented both aggravating and mitigating factors, with
the aggravating factors including the fact that there were 20
counts of misconduct that occurred over a number of years and
involved several clients. The referee said Attorney McClure's
intent as to the misconduct can be discerned from the incidents
related to the tax warrants, the comingling of personal and
12
No. 2013AP2140-D
trust account funds, the withholding of payments due to J.J.'s
medical providers, and the use of trust account funds for
personal purposes. In addition, the referee noted that J.J.'s
credit was negatively affected as a result of the late payments
made from settlement funds to medical providers, and the referee
found that Attorney McClure engaged in deceit with respect to
failure to maintain client communication with J.J.
¶23 The referee found that numerous mitigating factors
existed in this matter, including the fact that no monies were
lost to clients or medical providers with respect to any of the
trust account anomalies; Attorney McClure has no prior
disciplinary history; Attorney McClure cooperated fully with the
OLR in its investigation; Attorney McClure has made a real
effort to provide restitution to J.J. for the injury to his
credit; and Attorney McClure had many serious personal problems
that impacted his actions, including the death of his first
grandchild, caring for his elderly parents, attending the needs
of his mentally ill older brother, and taking on an excessive
number of pro bono cases. The referee found that Attorney
McClure was genuinely remorseful. The referee said Attorney
McClure is and has been throughout his legal career a lawyer
respected by his clients, his peers, and the judges before whom
he practiced, and was known for his willingness to help others
and for not seeking personal wealth. The referee said Attorney
McClure has publicly acknowledged his misconduct to the faith
community at his church as part of his personal rehabilitation,
13
No. 2013AP2140-D
and the referee said this demonstrates the attorney's commitment
to not again engage in lawyer misconduct.
¶24 After noting that the OLR's complaint alleged 21
separate acts of misconduct, the referee said:
But something is unusual. Why are there so many
separate Counts charged here? It appears that
Complainant decided to include in its Complaint every
possible wrong it could find. While that is its
right, it still causes the Referee to wonder why this
happened in a case where the attorney of over 33 years
here in Wisconsin had never had any prior discipline
and no client or medical provider lost any funds and
OLR knew of the personal hardships which impacted that
attorney during the period of misconduct. OLR has not
challenged Respondent's assertion of him having many,
many serious personal issues affecting him during the
time period of the misconduct. It appears to the
referee from the case record that the reason for
Complainant bringing so many Counts was/is to create,
for the Sanction portion of the proceeding, an
impression that a great wrong has occurred because of
the number of findings of misconduct and, therefore, a
major and significant penalty should be imposed.
The danger with that approach is that the
prosecutor then is forever encouraged to overcharge in
cases where there is clear wrong-doing on one or a few
Counts in order to argue for and obtain the imposition
of ever more severe sanctions. Here the Respondent
acknowledged his wrongdoing as can be seen by the
stipulation that was received into the case record.
But when all is said and done the Respondent still is
seen to have committed acts of misconduct in the areas
of his Trust Account, his fee agreement/communication
document and dishonesty. Saying the foregoing is in
no way an effort to diminish the misconduct that
occurred. But did Respondent's conduct warrant a
complaint with 21 separate Counts? A schoolyard
metaphor would be that piling on was occurring by
youngsters during the recess.
. . . .
14
No. 2013AP2140-D
In this case it appears that the prosecutor has
filed an unreasonable and excessive number of Counts,
not because it could meet its burden, but in order to
coerce and unfairly impact that portion of the
proceedings that addresses sanctions. The referee
doesn't know what should be the exact number of Counts
in this case, but 21 would appear clearly excessive
and intended to influence the sanctions that should be
imposed. . . . .
¶25 The referee went on to say:
Respondent is a very good, but not a perfect, man
and attorney. On balance in his 33-plus years as a
lawyer he has labored hard and brought great credit to
the legal profession. . . . That said, however, it
is also clear that he has violated . . . the Supreme
Court Rules that regulate all attorneys in this State.
The public must be protected from misconduct by an
attorney that causes resources to be converted and
diminishes respect for the rule of law. While
respondent's misconduct was real and over a
substantial period of time, it is mitigated by his
very positive and exemplary 33 year career as a
practicing lawyer, his actions taken to correct the
consequences of his misconduct, and by the great
number of personal struggles that confronted and
motivated him as he lost his moral compass during the
very period when the misconduct occurred. . . . As a
59 year old man with no prior lawyer misconduct, he is
seeking an opportunity to be sanctioned fairly and
appropriately.
¶26 The referee recommended that Attorney McClure's
license to practice law be suspended for a period of six months
less one day, the result being that the attorney would be able
to obtain the reinstatement of his law license upon
demonstrating, through an affidavit, that he is in full
compliance with all terms and conditions of the order of
suspension. See SCR 22.28(2). The referee also recommended
that Attorney McClure be ordered to successfully complete 15
hours of CLE ethics courses, at least eight of which should
15
No. 2013AP2140-D
focus on trust account administration. The referee further
recommended that Attorney McClure be responsible for the full
costs of the disciplinary proceeding. The referee said the
sanctions are significant and are appropriate to address the
wrongdoing that occurred here as well as to achieve the
important goal of deterrence in the future.
¶27 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless
clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg,
2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747. The court may
impose whatever sanction it sees fit, regardless of the
referee's recommendation. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.
¶28 There is no showing that any of the referee's findings
of fact are clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we adopt them. We
also agree with the referee's conclusions of law that Attorney
McClure violated the supreme court rules set forth above.
¶29 With respect to the appropriate level of discipline,
upon careful review of the matter, we conclude that a five-month
suspension is appropriate. As the referee pointed out, Attorney
McClure's law practice now spans more than 34 years and he has
no prior disciplinary history. It is also significant to
reiterate that no clients or medical providers lost any funds,
and that Attorney McClure fully cooperated with the OLR and
entered into a stipulation whereby he admitted virtually all the
facts alleged in the complaint. We also find it significant
that the referee, who was in the best position to judge witness
16
No. 2013AP2140-D
credibility, found Attorney McClure to be genuinely remorseful.
In addition, the OLR does not dispute the fact that Attorney
McClure was faced with a multitude of personal problems during
the time period at issue in this case.
¶30 We also share the referee's concern that there was
perhaps an element of overcharging, or at least parsing the
misconduct into more counts than was truly warranted. We fully
agree with the referee that Attorney McClure's misconduct was
not insignificant and warrants a suspension. However, after
careful consideration of the matter, including the various
aggravating and mitigating factors identified by the referee, we
conclude that a five-month suspension will sufficiently protect
the public from similar misconduct as well as impose upon
Attorney McClure the gravity of his offenses. While no two
attorney disciplinary cases are precisely the same, a five-month
suspension is generally consistent with the sanctions imposed in
somewhat analogous situations. See, e.g., In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Wood, 2013 WI 11, 345 Wis. 2d 279,
825 N.W.2d 473 (six-month suspension imposed for 28 counts of
misconduct, including multiple trust account violations). We
further agree with the referee's recommendation that Attorney
McClure should be required to successfully complete 15 hours of
CLE ethics courses, with at least eight of those hours focusing
on trust account administration. Finally, we agree with the
referee that Attorney McClure should bear the full costs of this
proceeding.
17
No. 2013AP2140-D
¶31 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Thomas J. McClure to
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of five
months, effective April 9, 2015.
¶32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of the
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin,
Thomas J. McClure shall successfully complete 15 hours of
continuing legal education ethics courses, with at least eight
of those hours focusing on trust account administration.
¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order, Thomas J. McClure should pay to the Office of
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are
$13,677.99.
¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Thomas J. McClure shall
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been
suspended.
¶35 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See
SCR 22.28(2).
18
No. 2013AP2140-D
1