Office of Lawyer Regulation v. John O. Ifediora ( 2024 )

2024 WI 7SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2022AP41-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against John O. Ifediora, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
John O. Ifediora,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST IFEDIORA
OPINION FILED: January 26, 2024
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
Per curiam.
ATTORNEYS:
2024 WI 7NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2022AP41-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against John O. Ifediora, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant,
JAN 26, 2024
v.
Samuel A. Christensen
Clerk of Supreme Court
John O. Ifediora,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
revoked.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review the recommendation of Referee
James D. Friedman that the license of Attorney John O. Ifediora
to practice law in Wisconsin be revoked due to professional
misconduct. The referee also recommends that Attorney Ifediora
pay the full costs of this proceeding, which are $12,305.23 as
of July 12, 2023. Although Attorney Ifediora initially filed a
notice of appeal of the referee's decision, he voluntarily
dismissed the appeal before any briefs were filed. Therefore,
No. 2022AP41-D
our review of the referee's recommendation proceeds pursuant to
Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.17(2).1
¶2 Upon careful review of the matter, we adopt the
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law and agree that
the seriousness of Attorney Ifediora's professional misconduct
warrants the revocation of his license to practice law. We
further agree that he should pay the full costs of this
proceeding.
¶3 Attorney Ifediora is a naturalized American citizen
who was born in Nigeria. He was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 2003. He is a retired professor of economics at
the University of Wisconsin-Platteville. For some years,
Attorney Ifediora maintained a law office in Madison. His
license to practice law has been suspended since 2016 for
failure to comply with continuing legal education requirements,
failure to pay State Bar dues, and non-compliance with trust
account certification requirements. Attorney Ifediora currently
resides in Virginia. He has no previous disciplinary record.
¶4 On January 10, 2022, the Office of Lawyer Regulation
(OLR) filed a complaint against Attorney Ifediora alleging
twelve counts of misconduct. All counts arose out of Attorney
Ifediora's representation of his first cousin, O.A., a Nigerian
1SCR 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."
2
No. 2022AP41-D
citizen, who sought Attorney Ifediora's assistance in becoming a
permanent resident in the United States. At that time, Attorney
Ifediora was employed as an economics professor at UW-
Platteville. Attorney Ifediora told OLR that he had retired
from the practice of law but wanted to assist O.A. in becoming a
permanent U.S. resident merely on a "familial basis."
¶5 In pursuit of accomplishing O.A.'s goal of becoming a
permanent U.S. resident, Attorney Ifediora referred O.A. to the
Immigrant Investor Program, which is also known as the "EB-5"
Program, administered by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS). Under this program, a person who invests
$500,000 in a new commercial enterprise that creates ten or more
permanent full-time jobs will have a path to permanent residency
in the United States. The investment may be either a direct
investment in a business or an indirect investment in a USCIS-
designated "EB-5 regional center."
¶6 Attorney Ifediora became aware of a startup
pharmaceutical manufacturer in Madison, Wisconsin called U.S.
Foods and Pharmaceuticals (USFP). USFP had been working with a
USCIS-approved EB-5 regional center in Detroit, Michigan called
the Detroit Immigrant Investor Regional Center (DIIRC).
Attorney Ifediora contacted representatives of both USFP and
DIIRC and told them that he had a potential investor. In
addition, Attorney Ifediora contacted an immigration lawyer,
Attorney Ebere Ekechukwu, to facilitate the filing of the
associated I-526 Petition necessary to establish eligibility for
the EB-5 program.
3
No. 2022AP41-D
¶7 In October 2014 Attorney Ifediora advised O.A. to
invest $500,000 with USFP, working in conjunction with DIIRC, as
part of an EB-5 petition. Attorney Ifediora also advised O.A.
that in addition to the $500,000 investment, the DIIRC charged a
nonrefundable $57,000 processing fee. Attorney Ifediora
coordinated with representatives of USFP and DIIRC, as well as
Attorney Ekechukwu, to obtain all necessary documents to start
the EB-5 petition process.
¶8 In an August 22, 2014 email to O.A., Attorney Ifediora
said, "As your attorney in your pending transactions, I would
advise that funds for the purchase of property be sent to my law
office Trust Account from where the funds would be used for your
intended investment."
¶9 In a September 29, 2014 letter to Attorney Ekechukwu,
written on his Madison office letterhead, Attorney Ifediora
said, "I am enclosing in this letter a retainer and part of the
agreed upon fee for your legal service. The rest shall be
remitted with the filing fee as the process moves along. I will
facilitate things from my end, and shall keep you updated."
¶10 Attorney Ifediora obtained O.A.'s signature on a
Subscription Agreement and Power of Attorney authorizing the
investment in USFP. Pursuant to the Subscription Agreement,
O.A. agreed to pay "$500,000 plus a processing fee of $57,000,
which shall be payable as follows: (i) $557,000 shall be
payable in cash/check or wire concurrently with delivery of this
Agreement."
4
No. 2022AP41-D
¶11 Following Attorney Ifediora's advice, O.A. sent
Attorney Ifediora two checks, one in the amount of $50,000
payable to "Ifediora Law Office" to cover the processing fee for
DIIRC, and one in the amount of $500,000 made payable to "US
Foods and Pharmaceuticals."
¶12 Attorney Ifediora also held himself out as O.A.'s
legal representative to R.V., the managing member of USFP. R.V.
testified in subsequent federal litigation over the failed EB-5
petition that Attorney Ifediora was "the agent of [O.A.]" and
that "we trusted [Attorney Ifediora] to represent not only
[O.A.] but also USFP in the cause of getting this petition
approved and bringing in additional investment into the
company."
¶13 Attorney Ifediora's actions on behalf of O.A. during
the EB-5 petition process demonstrated that Attorney Ifediora
was acting as O.A.'s attorney. Attorney Ifediora expressly said
he was O.A.'s attorney. Attorney Ifediora gave specific legal
advice to O.A. and represented to third parties that he was
O.A.'s agent or representative. Attorney Ifediora handled
significant client funds in connection with the representation.
On October 20, 2014, Attorney Ifediora deposited the funds he
received from O.A. into his law firm's operating account, rather
than into a trust account. Attorney Ifediora communicated with
multiple individuals on behalf of O.A. using email and office
letterhead containing his law office address and website.
¶14 Attorney Ifediora did not notify DIIRC, the intended
beneficiary of the funds, in writing that he had received
5
No. 2022AP41-D
$50,000 in client funds associated with DIIRC's processing fee,
nor did he promptly deliver to DIIRC the processing fee agreed
to in the Subscription Agreement.
¶15 After depositing the $50,000 in processing fees into
his law firm operating account, Attorney Ifediora transferred
those proceeds into other bank accounts he owned. He
subsequently converted the entire $50,000 for his personal use,
leaving his law firm operating account with a balance under
$200.
¶16 Attorney Ifediora failed to provide O.A. and DIIRC an
accounting of the final distribution of the $50,000. Those
funds should have been held in trust for O.A. and DIIRC.
¶17 In November 2014 O.A.'s $500,000 payment was deposited
in a USFP checking account at Wells Fargo Business Bank in
Madison, Wisconsin. Wells Fargo sent USFP written confirmation
of the deposit.
¶18 On November 10, 2014, R.V. wrote a check in the amount
of $200,000 from the Wells Fargo account to "John Ifediora Law
Firm." R.V. said the purpose of the check was to repay a loan
Attorney Ifediora purportedly made to O.A. in the amount of
$200,000 as part of the initial $500,000 EB-5 petition. R.V.
testified in the subsequent federal litigation that Attorney
Ifediora promised the $200,000 payment would be placed in an
escrow account.
¶19 Attorney Ifediora deposited the $200,000 into his
business account, rather than in an escrow account as he had
6
No. 2022AP41-D
promised. He did not notify O.A. that he had received the
$200,000 associated with the EB-5 petition from USFP.
¶20 Attorney Ifediora transferred the funds into bank
accounts he owned. He made two payments totaling $10,600 to
Attorney Ekechukwu toward her legal fees related to the EB-5
petition. Attorney Ifediora subsequently converted nearly
$190,000 for his own personal purposes, including paying himself
more than $121,000 over a three-year period. He failed to
provide an accounting to O.A. of the $200,000 after distributing
the funds.
¶21 In November 2017 USCIS informed Attorney Ifediora and
USFP that it intended to deny the Form I-526 that had been filed
on behalf of O.A.
¶22 Attorney Ifediora continued to represent O.A. by
coordinating with R.V. and Attorney Ekechukwu on how to respond
to the USCIS Notice of Intent to Deny, despite the fact that his
Wisconsin law license had been administratively suspended in
2016.
¶23 In January 2018 USCIS denied O.A.'s I-526 petition.
O.A. informed Attorney Ifediora that he wanted to discontinue
all further efforts on the EB-5 petition, and he asked Attorney
Ifediora to refund the funds he had set aside for the
investment. Attorney Ifediora failed to respond to O.A.'s
request and failed to surrender any property belonging to O.A.
¶24 In May 2018 Attorney Ifediora received a $6,000
interest payment from USFP for the money O.A. had invested with
7
No. 2022AP41-D
them. Attorney Ifediora failed to notify O.A. of his receipt of
the funds and subsequently converted them for his personal use.
¶25 O.A. initiated a federal civil lawsuit in United
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
against Attorney Ifediora, USFP, and others, seeking the refund
of all of his investment money. Attorney Ifediora subsequently
reached a settlement with all parties. The terms of the
settlement are confidential, but OLR states that it believes
that all funds, including the $50,000 processing fee, the
$200,000 in funds received from USFP, and the $6,000 interest
payment, have been repaid pursuant to the settlement. As a
result, OLR is not seeking restitution.
¶26 In January 2020 O.A. filed a grievance against
Attorney Ifediora with OLR. In response, Attorney Ifediora
claimed he did not act as O.A.'s attorney, stating, "I never
provided any legal services to [O.A.]"
¶27 OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of
misconduct with respect to Attorney Ifediora's representation of
O.A.:
Count one: By failing to place in trust the $50,000
associated with the DIIRC processing fee, [Attorney]
Ifediora violated former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4).2
Effective July 1, 2016, substantial changes were made to
2
Supreme Court Rule 20:1.15, the "trust account rule." See S. Ct.
Order 14-07, (issued Apr. 4, 2016, eff. July 1, 2016). Because
the conduct that involved Attorney Ifediora's handling of client
funds arose prior to July 1, 2016, unless otherwise indicated,
all references to the supreme court trust account rules will be
those in effect prior to July 1, 2016.
8
No. 2022AP41-D
Count two: By failing to provide notice to DIIRC of
his receipt of $50,000 associated with the DIIRC
processing fee, [Attorney] Ifediora violated former
SCR 20:1.15(d)(1).3
Count three: By failing to provide an accounting of
the $50,000 associated with the DIIRC processing fee
after distributing the funds, [Attorney] Ifediora
violated former SCR 20:1.15(d)(2).4
Count four: By converting the $50,000 associated with
the DIIRC processing fee, [Attorney] Ifediora violated
SCR 20:8.4(c).5
Count five: By failing to place in trust $200,000 in
client funds associated with [O.A.'s] EB-5 petition,
[Attorney] Ifediora violated former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4).
Former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) provided: "Except 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."
3 Former SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) provided: "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 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.
4 Former SCR 20:1.15(d)(2) provided: "Upon final
distribution of any trust property or upon request by the client
or a 3rd party having an ownership interest in the property, the
lawyer shall promptly render a full written accounting regarding
the property."
5 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: "It is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit or misrepresentation."
9
No. 2022AP41-D
Count six: By failing to provide an accounting of the
$200,000 in funds associated with [O.A.'s] EB-5
petition after distributing those funds, [Attorney]
Ifediora violated former SCR 20:1.15(d)(2).
Count seven: By converting $200,000 in funds
associated with [O.A.'s] EB-5 petition, [Attorney]
Ifediora violated SCR 20:8.4(c).
Count eight: By failing to place in trust $6,000 in
interest received in connection with [O.A.'s] EB-5
petition, [Attorney] Ifediora violated former SCR
20:1.15(b)(4).
Count nine: By failing to provide notice to [O.A.] of
the receipt of $6,000 in interest received in
connection with O.A.'s EB-5 petition, [Attorney]
Ifediora violated former SCR 20:1.15(d)(1).
Count ten: By failing to provide an accounting of the
$6,000 in interest he received in connection with
[O.A.]'s EB-5 petition after distributing the funds,
[Attorney] Ifediora violated former SCR 20:1.15(d)(2).
Count eleven: By converting the $6,000 in funds in
interest he received in connection with [O.A.'s] EB-5
petition, [Attorney] Ifediora violated SCR 20:8.4(c).
Count twelve: By engaging in the practice of law or
otherwise acting in a manner purporting to be
authorized or qualified to practice law while his law
license was suspended, [Attorney] Ifediora violated
10
No. 2022AP41-D
SCR 10.03(4)(a),6 as enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f)7 and
SCR 23.02(1).8
¶28 The referee was appointed on February 17, 2022. An
evidentiary hearing was held before the referee in March 2023.
The referee issued his report and recommendation on June 22,
2023. The referee found that OLR had met its burden of proof as
to all of the counts of misconduct alleged in the complaint.
The referee agreed with OLR that revocation of Attorney
Ifediora's license to practice law would be an appropriate
sanction for his misconduct. The referee also agreed that
Attorney Ifediora should bear the full costs of this proceeding.
¶29 The referee found numerous aspects of Attorney
Ifediora's testimony at the evidentiary hearing to be
incredible. For example, while Attorney Ifediora claimed that
he was merely acting as O.A.'s agent and not as his attorney,
6SCR 10.03(4)(a) provides: "No individual other than an
enrolled active member of the state bar may practice law in this
state or in any manner purported to be authorized or qualified
to practice law provided however, that an inactive or emeritus
member may provide pro bono legal services consistent with SCR
10.03(3)(am)."
7SCR 20:8.4(f) provides: "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."
8SCR 23.02(1) provides: "A person who is duly licensed to
practice law in this state by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and
who is an active member of the State Bar of Wisconsin may
practice law in Wisconsin. No person may engage in the practice
of law in Wisconsin, or attempt to do so, or make a
representation that he or she is authorized to do so, unless the
person is currently licensed to practice law in Wisconsin by the
Wisconsin Supreme Court and is an active member of the State Bar
of Wisconsin."
11
No. 2022AP41-D
the referee noted that in emails that Attorney Ifediora sent to
O.A., he expressly said he was acting as O.A.'s lawyer. The
referee also found that Attorney Ifediora represented to third
parties that he was O.A.'s attorney.
¶30 In addition, the referee said that Attorney Ifediora's
actions clearly indicated he was acting on behalf of O.A. as his
lawyer. The referee said, "The EB-5 program is not for the
faint of heart. It is extremely complicated and difficult.
[Attorney] Ifediora had no immigration law experience and no
familiarity with this program and yet he tried to lead someone
through it——that is primarily what caused [O.A.'s] losses here."
The referee also said:
In addition to representing [O.A.] in a complicated
immigration process in which he had no experience, his
response to a question of why he maintained a law
office is equally troubling:
"Well, you know, it's--it's the exuberance and the
idea to have a law degree and I don't know. It was --
it was a very exciting prospect. And of course, at
the point in time, I also wanted to provide services
to Wisconsin inmates and so the idea of having -- of
having a law -- a law practice was appealing, even
though I knew deep down I wouldn't have the time to do
that.["] Clearly, he liked to show the badge of being
a lawyer.
¶31 The referee had no difficulty concluding that Attorney
Ifediora mishandled and converted over $250,000 of O.A.'s funds.
The referee noted that client money that was intended to be paid
to a third party was required to be placed into a trust account,
but Attorney Ifediora did not have a trust account. The referee
commented on "the ease with which [Attorney] Ifediora lied to
12
No. 2022AP41-D
this Referee about not paying himself out of [O.A.'s] $50,000
for his services." The referee found that Attorney Ifediora
failed to notify O.A. that he had received $200,000 of O.A.'s
money from USFP, and he failed to provide O.A. with an
accounting of the $200,000 after he had distributed those funds.
The referee found that Attorney Ifediora converted the $200,000
when he spent it on a conference he put on in Africa.
Similarly, the referee found that Attorney Ifediora converted
the $6,000 interest payment to his personal use and never
provided O.A. with an accounting.
¶32 The referee also found that Attorney Ifediora
practiced law after his license had been administratively
suspended. The referee noted that throughout 2017 and into
2018, Attorney Ifediora was still using his law office
letterhead in communications with O.A.
¶33 The referee found that O.A. "relied on [Attorney]
Ifediora's advice and entrusted him to hold and allocate
substantial funds according to that required by the Subscription
Agreement with USFP. Instead, [Attorney] Ifediora proceeded to
convert [O.A.'s] funds, which ultimately resulted in [O.A.]
suing [Attorney] Ifediora [and others] in federal court,
resulting in a confidential settlement." Based on these
findings, the referee recommended that Attorney Ifediora's
license to practice law in Wisconsin be revoked and that he be
assessed the full costs of this proceeding.
¶34 We will affirm a referee's findings of fact unless
they are found to be clearly erroneous. We review a referee's
13
No. 2022AP41-D
conclusions of law de novo. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d
125. 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.
¶35 Based upon our review of the record, we accept the
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law. We agree
that the seriousness of Attorney Ifediora's misconduct warrants
the revocation of his license to practice law. Conversion of
client funds is a very serious offense, and we have frequently
revoked attorneys' licenses in similar cases. For example, in
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Runyon, 2020 WI 74, 393
Wis. 2d 612, 948 N.W.2d 62, we revoked the license of an
attorney who converted over $135,000. In In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Sweeney, 2019 WI 13, 385 Wis. 2d 407, 922
N.W.2d 850, we found it appropriate to revoke the license of an
attorney who converted more than $420,000. Attorney Ifediora's
misconduct is readily comparable to that of Runyon and Sweeney.
The seriousness of that misconduct demonstrates that his license
to practice law must be revoked to protect the public, courts,
and the legal system from the repetition of the misconduct; to
impress upon Attorney Ifediora the seriousness of his
misconduct; and to deter other attorneys from engaging in
similar misconduct. As is our usual custom, we further agree
with the referee's recommendation that Attorney Ifediora pay the
full costs of this proceeding.
14
No. 2022AP41-D
¶36 IT IS ORDERED that the license of John O. Ifediora to
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this
order.
¶37 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order John O. Ifediora pay to the Office of Lawyer
Regulation the costs of this disciplinary proceeding, which are
$12,305.23 as of July 12, 2023.
¶38 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not
already done so, John O. Ifediora comply with the provisions of
SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to
practice law has been revoked.
¶39 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the administrative
suspensions of John O. Ifediora to practice law in Wisconsin,
due to non-compliance with continuing legal education
requirements, failure to pay bar dues, and non-compliance with
trust certification requirements, will remain in effect until
each reason for the administrative suspension has been
rectified, pursuant to SCR 22.28(1).
15
No. 2022AP41-D.akz
¶40 ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, C.J. (concurring). I
concur in the court's order revoking Attorney Ifediora's license
to practice law in Wisconsin. I write separately to point out
that in Wisconsin the "revocation" of an attorney's law license
is not truly revocation because the attorney may petition for
readmittance after a period of five years. See SCR 22.29(2). I
believe that when it comes to lawyer discipline, courts should
say what they mean and mean what they say. We should not be
creating false perceptions to both the public and to the lawyer
seeking to practice law again. See In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Moodie, 2020 WI 39, 391 Wis. 2d 196, 942
N.W.2d 302 (Ziegler, J., dissenting). And, as I stated in my
dissent to this court's order denying Rule Petition 19-10, In
the Matter of Amending Supreme Court Rules Pertaining to
Permanent Revocation of a License to Practice Law in Attorney
Disciplinary Proceedings, I believe there may be rare and
unusual cases that would warrant the permanent revocation of an
attorney's license to practice law. See S. Ct. Order 19-10
(issued Dec. 18, 2019) (Ziegler, J., dissenting).
¶41 I am authorized to state that Justices REBECCA GRASSL
BRADLEY, BRIAN HAGEDORN, and JILL J. KAROFSKY join this
concurrence.
1
No. 2022AP41-D.akz
1