Office of Lawyer Regulation v. John J. Doyle

2013 WI 95SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2013AP1215-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against
John J. Doyle, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
John J. Doyle,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DOYLE
OPINION FILED: November 27, 2013
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2013 WI 95NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2013AP1215-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against John J. Doyle, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant,
NOV 27, 2013
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
John J. Doyle,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a stipulation filed by the
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney John J. Doyle
pursuant to SCR 22.121 requesting this court suspend Attorney
1
SCR 22.12 states as follows: Stipulation.
(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.
No. 2013AP1215-D
Doyle's license to practice law in Wisconsin as reciprocal
discipline identical to that imposed by the Michigan Attorney
Discipline Board.
¶2 Attorney Doyle was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 1992. He was admitted to practice in Michigan the
same year. Attorney Doyle's Wisconsin license is currently
suspended for noncompliance with CLE reporting requirements,
failure to pay State Bar of Wisconsin dues, and failure to
submit the required trust account certification to the State
Bar. Attorney Doyle has no prior disciplinary history in either
state. He most recently practiced in Michigan.
¶3 On December 14, 2012, the Michigan Attorney Discipline
Board filed a formal complaint (the Michigan complaint) against
Attorney Doyle alleging that he committed the following
misconduct:
Failing to hold property of his clients or third
persons separate from his own and in an IOLTA, in
violation of MRPC [Michigan Rules of Professional
Conduct] 1.15(d);
(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 the stipulation,
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. 2013AP1215-D
Holding funds other than client or third person
funds in an IOLTA, in violation of MRPC 1.15(a)(3);
Depositing his own funds in the client trust
account in excess of an amount reasonably necessary to
pay financial institution service charges or fees or
to obtain a waiver of service charges or fees, in
violation of MRPC 1.15(f) and 8.4(b);
Engaging in conduct that exposes the legal
profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt,
censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR [Michigan
Court Rule] 9.104(2);
Engaging in conduct that is contrary to justice,
ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR
9.104(3); and
Engaging in conduct in violation of the Rules of
Professional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and
MCR 9.104(4).
¶4 More specifically, the Michigan complaint alleged that
Attorney Doyle wrote "many" checks from his IOLTA account that
were personal or business-related and unrelated to any client
matter he was handling. Attorney Doyle also deposited client
funds into and made disbursements of client funds from this
IOLTA account, thus knowingly and improperly commingling
personal and client funds in the IOLTA. The Michigan complaint
also alleged that Attorney Doyle improperly used his IOLTA to
avoid a levy or garnishment of the funds by the federal
government and the State of Michigan.
¶5 The parties to the Michigan disciplinary proceeding
executed a stipulation in which Attorney Doyle admitted the
allegations of misconduct.
¶6 On April 18, 2013, the Michigan Attorney Discipline
Board approved the stipulation and suspended Attorney Doyle's
3
No. 2013AP1215-D
Michigan law license for 179 days, commencing June 1, 2013.2 The
suspension order imposed certain conditions on Attorney Doyle,
including:
1. During the term of suspension, respondent
shall arrange, pay for and participate in an audit of
his practice to be conducted by the State Bar of
Michigan Practice Management Resource Center (PMRC).
2. Respondent agrees that a copy of the signed
stipulation for consent order of discipline shall
serve as a disclosure authorization and that the PMRC
may provide and discuss the audit report with the
Grievance Administrator's staff.
3. Respondent shall promptly take any action
necessary to implement all reasonable recommendations
flowing from the PMRC audit and report his progress
toward such implementation to the Grievance
Administrator on a monthly basis.
4. Respondent will attend the next presentation
of the Tips and Tools for a Successful Practice
Workshop to be presented by the State Bar of Michigan.
The next presentation of the workshop is currently
scheduled for May 7, 2013. Respondent shall provide a
written verification of attendance to both the
Grievance Administrator and the Attorney Discipline
Board within seven days of participation in this
course.
¶7 On May 31, 2013, the OLR filed a disciplinary
complaint (the OLR's complaint) against Attorney Doyle advising
Attorney Doyle he is subject to reciprocal discipline in
Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 22.22.3 The OLR also alleged that by
2
On May 16, 2013, the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board
amended its suspension order to set the commencement date of
Attorney Doyle's license suspension to May 14, 2013, rather than
June 1, 2013.
3
SCR 22.22 provides: Reciprocal discipline.
4
No. 2013AP1215-D
(1) An attorney on whom public discipline for
misconduct or a license suspension for medical
incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction
shall promptly notify the director of the matter.
Failure to furnish the notice within 20 days of the
effective date of the order or judgment of the other
jurisdiction constitutes misconduct.
(2) Upon the receipt of a certified copy of a
judgment or order of another jurisdiction imposing
discipline for misconduct or a license suspension for
medical incapacity of an attorney admitted to the
practice of law or engaged in the practice of law in
this state, the director may file a complaint in the
supreme court containing all of the following:
(a) A certified copy of the judgment or order
from the other jurisdiction.
(b) A motion requesting an order directing the
attorney to inform the supreme court in writing within
20 days of any claim of the attorney predicated on the
grounds set forth in sub. (3) that the imposition of
the identical discipline or license suspension by the
supreme court would be unwarranted and the factual
basis for the claim.
(3) The supreme court shall impose the identical
discipline or license suspension unless one or more of
the following is present:
(a) The procedure in the other jurisdiction was
so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to
constitute a deprivation of due process.
(b) There was such an infirmity of proof
establishing the misconduct or medical incapacity that
the supreme court could not accept as final the
conclusion in respect to the misconduct or medical
incapacity.
(c) The misconduct justifies substantially
different discipline in this state.
(4) Except as provided in sub. (3), a final
adjudication in another jurisdiction that an attorney
has engaged in misconduct or has a medical incapacity
5
No. 2013AP1215-D
failing to notify the OLR of the suspension of his Michigan law
license within 20 days of the effective date of that
jurisdiction's imposition of public discipline for professional
misconduct, Attorney Doyle violated SCR 22.22(1).
¶8 Attorney Doyle entered into a stipulation with the
OLR. He agrees that the facts alleged in the OLR's complaint
and documents attached thereto form a basis for the discipline
requested. Attorney Doyle states he does not claim that any of
the conditions listed in SCRs 22.22(3)(a)-(c) prevent the
imposition of reciprocal discipline in this case.
¶9 The stipulation properly provides that it did not
result from plea bargaining. Attorney Doyle represents he fully
understands: (1) the misconduct allegations, (2) the
ramifications should the court impose the stipulated level of
discipline, (3) his right to contest this matter, and (4) his
shall be conclusive evidence of the attorney's
misconduct or medical incapacity for purposes of a
proceeding under this rule.
(5) The supreme court may refer a complaint
filed under sub. (2) to a referee for a hearing and a
report and recommendation pursuant to SCR 22.16. At
the hearing, the burden is on the party seeking the
imposition of discipline or license suspension
different from that imposed in the other jurisdiction
to demonstrate that the imposition of identical
discipline or license suspension by the supreme court
is unwarranted.
(6) If the discipline or license suspension
imposed in the other jurisdiction has been stayed, any
reciprocal discipline or license suspension imposed by
the supreme court shall be held in abeyance until the
stay expires.
6
No. 2013AP1215-D
right to consult with counsel. He further avers that his entry
into the stipulation was made knowingly and voluntarily and
represents his decision not to contest the misconduct alleged or
the discipline sought by the OLR.
¶10 Attorney Doyle and the OLR jointly request that
Attorney Doyle's license to practice law in this state be
suspended for the same period of time imposed by the State of
Michigan Attorney Discipline Board, 179 days, and that the
disciplinary order direct Attorney Doyle to comply with all
court-ordered conditions placed upon his practice by the State
of Michigan Attorney Discipline Board. The OLR does not
recommend imposition of any costs in this matter.
¶11 Based upon our independent review, we determine that
the SCR 22.12 stipulation should be accepted, and that Attorney
Doyle's license to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended as
discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the State of Michigan
Attorney Discipline Board. We further determine it is
appropriate to suspend Attorney Doyle's license to practice law
in this state for the same period of time imposed by the State
of Michigan Attorney Discipline Board, 179 days. We further
direct Attorney Doyle to comply with all court-ordered
conditions placed upon his practice by the State of Michigan
Attorney Discipline Board. We agree that no costs shall be
imposed in this matter.
7
No. 2013AP1215-D
¶12 IT IS ORDERED that the license of John J. Doyle to
practice law in the State of Wisconsin is suspended for a period
of 179 days, effective the date of this order.4
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that John J. Doyle shall comply
with the conditions imposed by the State of Michigan Attorney
Discipline Board.
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that John J. Doyle shall
continue compliance with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning
the duties of a person whose license to practice law in
Wisconsin has been suspended.
4
Attorney Doyle is reminded that his license to practice
law in Wisconsin remains administratively suspended. Before
Attorney Doyle may practice law in Wisconsin, he must provide
evidence to this court that he has satisfied his obligations
relating to trust account certification and bar dues,
assessments, and fees, or demonstrated that he has obtained a
waiver from the State Bar of Wisconsin. See SCR 22.28(1).
8
No. 2013AP1215-D
1