Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Morse (In Re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Morse)

2019 WI 53
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2016AP1288-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against
Daniel W. Morse, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant-Respondent,
v.
Daniel W. Morse,
Respondent-Appellant.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MORSE
OPINION FILED: May 21, 2019
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2019 WI 53
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2016AP1288-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Daniel W. Morse, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant-Respondent, May 21, 2019
v. Sheila T. Reiff
Clerk of Supreme Court
Daniel W. Morse,
Respondent-Appellant.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Attorney Daniel W. Morse has appealed a
report filed by Referee James W. Mohr, Jr., concluding that
Attorney Morse committed four counts of professional misconduct
and recommending that his license to practice law in Wisconsin
be suspended for two years. In his appeal, Attorney Morse
challenges only the referee's recommended sanction. Attorney
Morse argues that his misconduct warrants a public reprimand or,
at most, a 60-day suspension.
No. 2016AP1288-D
¶2 Upon careful review of this matter, we uphold the
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law. We conclude,
however, that rather than the two-year suspension recommended by
the referee, a one-year suspension of Attorney Morse's license
to practice law is an appropriate sanction for the misconduct at
issue. In addition, we find it appropriate to follow our usual
custom of imposing the full costs of this proceeding, which are
$11,038.85 as of December 18, 2018, on Attorney Morse. The
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) notes that Attorney Morse has
already made restitution and it is not seeking an additional
restitution award.
¶3 Attorney Morse was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 1979. He is also licensed to practice law in
Florida and Pennsylvania. He has no prior disciplinary history.
¶4 On June 29, 2016, the OLR filed a complaint alleging
six counts of misconduct with respect to Attorney Morse's
handling of the estate of M.G. Attorney Morse filed an answer
on July 28, 2016. Referee Mohr was appointed on October 8,
2016, following Attorney Morse's motion for substitution of a
previously appointed referee. In May of 2017, the referee
ordered the disciplinary proceeding stayed pending a criminal
case filed against Attorney Morse arising out of the same fact
situation that gave rise to this case. The stay was lifted in
May of 2018.
¶5 On June 21, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation
whereby Attorney Morse stipulated to four of the counts of
misconduct alleged in the OLR's complaint. The OLR dismissed
2
No. 2016AP1288-D
the remaining two counts. The parties agreed that the terms of
the stipulation shall serve as the factual basis for the
referee's determination of misconduct and, in addition to any
evidence received in the disciplinary phase of the matter, the
referee's recommendation as to discipline. The parties agreed
that the scope of the hearing in this matter would be limited to
taking additional evidence and argument to facilitate the
referee's recommendation as to the appropriate sanction.
¶6 The hearing with respect to the sanction was held on
July 2, 2018. The referee issued his report and recommendation
on September 7, 2018. The referee adopted the facts as stated
in the stipulation. The following recitation of facts is taken
from the stipulation.
¶7 M.G. passed away on October 11, 2013. Approximately
four days later, Attorney Morse met with the heirs of the
estate. Since three of the four heirs resided outside of
Wisconsin, and the fourth heir had physical limitations that
prevented her from acting, it was agreed that Attorney Morse
would be nominated as personal representative of the estate.
Attorney Morse also served as attorney for the personal
representative. No fee agreement was entered into between
Attorney Morse and the estate's heirs, although it was
reasonably feasible that the total cost of the representation
would exceed $1,000.
¶8 The estate was filed in Dodge County Circuit Court in
November 2013. No bills for Attorney Morse's services were sent
to the heirs during his representation of the estate.
3
No. 2016AP1288-D
¶9 The heirs eventually expressed to Attorney Morse their
frustration at his lack of communication and his seeming neglect
of the estate. On August 31, 2014, the heirs wrote to Attorney
Morse expressing a general concern for his lack of communication
and attention to the estate. The heirs' letter contained
several specific requests for information about the estate,
including but not limited to requests for an itemized bill for
Attorney Morse's legal services, an accounting for all
expenditures made on behalf of the estate, and the timing of
payment of certain bills of the estate. The heirs requested a
response to their letter within ten days. In a September 8,
2014 email to the heirs, Attorney Morse stated he would respond
to the August 31 letter that week, but he failed to do so.
¶10 In October 2014, the heirs met with Attorney Allen
Larson and requested that he replace Attorney Morse as personal
representative for the estate. From October 2014 through
January 2015, Attorney Larson tried to communicate with Attorney
Morse about the estate. Attorney Larson told Attorney Morse
that the heirs wanted Attorney Larson to replace Attorney Morse
as personal representative. Attorney Larson requested from
Attorney Morse, among other things, an accounting of the estate
and copies of the estate's banking records. Attorney Morse was
largely nonresponsive to Attorney Larson's communications and
requests for information.
¶11 On November 18, 2014, the probate court entered an
order granting the stipulated substitution of Attorney Larson in
4
No. 2016AP1288-D
place of Attorney Morse as personal representative of the
estate.
¶12 On December 19, 2014, Attorney Larson received a
package from Attorney Morse containing a $3,000 check made out
to the estate drawn on Attorney Morse's law firm trust account
along with unopened mail relating to the estate, including
bills, some of which had arrived since Attorney Larson's
substitution in place of Attorney Morse. No accounting for the
estate was enclosed, nor was there any explanation of the
purpose for the check or why it was drawn on Attorney Morse's
law firm trust account.
¶13 Attorney Larson filed an inventory for the estate on
January 23, 2015. The due date for filing the inventory had
passed during the period in which Attorney Morse represented the
estate, but Attorney Morse never filed an inventory.
¶14 As a result of his inability to obtain information
about the estate from Attorney Morse, including an accounting
and banking records, Attorney Larson filed an order to show
cause on February 25, 2015 directed to Attorney Morse, along
with an accompanying affidavit demonstrating over $26,000 in
estate funds were unaccounted for by Attorney Morse.
¶15 At a March 30, 2015 hearing on the order to show
cause, Attorney Morse was ordered to make a payment to the
estate in the amount of $26,037.19 by April 9, 2015. This sum
represented the amount of funds belonging to the estate for
which Attorney Morse could not account. Attorney Morse was also
5
No. 2016AP1288-D
ordered to provide to Attorney Larson all financial records and
an accounting pertaining to the estate.
¶16 Attorney Morse timely made the payment ordered by the
probate court, but he never produced the financial records
relating to the estate.
¶17 At the March 30, 2015 hearing, Attorney Morse
presented for the first time a billing statement for fees he
claimed he incurred in representing the estate. The statement
purported to show that the estate owed Attorney Morse over
$7,500 for legal services rendered in connection with the
estate. In May of 2015, Attorney Larson asked Attorney Morse
for substantiation of the various entries on the billing
statement. Attorney Morse did not reply, and the heirs never
made any payment to Attorney Morse.
¶18 Attorney Larson eventually obtained the banking
records relating to the estate without Attorney Morse's
assistance. The records reflected that Attorney Morse wrote
checks and made electronic fund transfers totaling over $25,000
to himself or his law office. Attorney Morse presented no
evidence to the probate court or to OLR that the more than
$25,000 in payments were related in any way to the estate. Bank
records reflected additional payments made from estate funds for
Attorney Morse's personal benefit, including payment of rent for
his office space and payment of his cable bill.
¶19 By virtue of the stipulation, Attorney Morse admitted
the following counts of misconduct:
6
No. 2016AP1288-D
Count 1: By failing to take steps to advance the
interests of the estate, including but not limited to:
failing to file an inventory, failing to open mail
related to the estate, and failing to pay bills owed
by the estate, Attorney Morse violated SCR 20:1.3.1
Count 2: By failing to promptly deliver to Attorney
Larson all documents in his possession relating to the
estate, including but not limited to, financial
records pertaining to the estate, Attorney Morse
violated SCR 20:1.16(d).2
Count 3: By failing to abide by the probate court's
March 30, 2015 order, that he turn over to Attorney
Larson all financial records pertaining to the estate,
Attorney Morse violated SCR 20:3.4(c).3
Count 4: By failing to keep in trust funds totaling
over $25,000 belonging to the estate, and by instead
paying those funds to his law firm and himself and
using the funds to pay personal obligations, Attorney
Morse violated SCR 20:8.4(c)4 and SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).5
1 SCR 20:1.3 provides: "A lawyer shall act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing a client.
2 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides:
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer
shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable
to protect a client's interests, such as giving
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and
property to which the client is entitled and refunding
any advance payment of fee or expense that has not
been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers
relating to the client to the extent permitted by
other law.
3 SCR 20:3.4(c) provides: "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."
4 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: "It is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit or misrepresentation."
7
No. 2016AP1288-D
¶20 The OLR dismissed the remaining two counts of
misconduct alleged in the complaint, saying the OLR director no
longer believed that the OLR could prove either of those
violations by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence.
¶21 In his report, the referee discussed the various
witnesses who testified at the July 2, 2018 hearing. One of
M.G.'s brothers and heirs testified by telephone and expressed
his frustration over Attorney Morse's failure to handle key
aspects of the estate and his failure to respond to the heirs'
reasonable inquiries.
¶22 Attorney Larson testified at the hearing. The referee
said Attorney Larson "seemed genuinely offended" by Attorney
Morse's conduct, calling the conduct "inexcusable" and damaging
to the public's perception of the legal profession.
¶23 Attorney Morse testified at the hearing that he has
been an attorney for 39 years and practices primarily in the
areas of tax, estate planning, and estate administration.
Although in the past he worked with a number of large firms in
the Milwaukee area, he has been a solo practitioner since 2011.
5 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.
8
No. 2016AP1288-D
The referee said that Attorney Morse testified in a sincere and
forthright manner and sounded quite embarrassed and genuinely
remorseful about what he had done. The referee said to Attorney
Morse's credit, he did not deny the facts of the case or the
ethical and moral lapses those facts represented. He admitted
he had done something wrong and said the entire matter had cost
him over $80,000 and was an embarrassment to him and his family.
He emphasized he would never again act as a personal
representative.
¶24 The referee noted that Attorney Morse offered several
mitigating explanations for his misconduct. He said he had to
travel to Florida on numerous occasions to help his elderly
mother. He said he was suffering from several medical
conditions that caused extreme pain in his lower back. He
admitted perhaps overusing drugs and alcohol to help deal with
the pain, and he said the pain caused him to lose sleep and
caused an inability to concentrate at work. Attorney Morse
testified he had back surgery in May of 2017 and the pain went
away almost entirely.
¶25 Attorney Morse also said his automobile was stolen in
June of 2014 and included in the items of personal property in
the car at the time were files, including much of the file for
the M.G. estate. Attorney Morse testified that he had signed a
personal signature bond as personal representative of the M.G.
estate in the amount of $50,000. The referee said Attorney
Morse readily admitted to comingling estate funds with his
personal and business accounts and justified that behavior by
9
No. 2016AP1288-D
saying that, in light of the signature bond, he was ultimately
responsible for the full value of the estate and that it did not
matter if he used estate funds so long as he was ultimately
"good for it."
¶26 Attorney Morse was charged with five felonies and
three misdemeanors over his handling of the M.G. estate funds.
The referee noted that the criminal case was resolved by a plea
agreement under the terms of which the felony counts were
dismissed and Attorney Morse pled guilty to three counts of
theft (embezzlement), Class A misdemeanors, on January 7, 2018.
As part of the plea agreement, Attorney Morse agreed that he
would not oppose the district attorney's recommendation that, as
a condition of probation, Attorney Morse be prohibited from
practicing law for a period of two years. Attorney Morse also
agreed to repay to the heirs and the estate an additional
$10,710.17 in interest and attorney's fees. He has repaid that
amount.
¶27 Attorney Morse was sentenced on the criminal charges
on April 24, 2018. The sentencing court stated there was an
extremely low likelihood that Attorney Morse would do anything
wrong in the future and the need to protect the public was also
extremely low. The sentencing court also did not believe
Attorney Morse was in need of rehabilitation and that he would
be sufficiently deterred from engaging in similar future
conduct. The circuit court imposed and stayed a sentence of six
months in the House of Correction and placed Attorney Morse on
probation for one year, without any conditions except for 40
10
No. 2016AP1288-D
hours of community service. No additional restitution was
ordered, nor was there any requirement that Attorney Morse
refrain from practicing law for any period of time.
¶28 The referee noted that this case presented certain
aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The referee said the
aggravating circumstances present were a dishonest or selfish
motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, and
substantial experience in the practice of law. The referee
identified as mitigating factors the absence of any prior
disciplinary record, personal or emotional problems, a timely
good faith effort to make restitution, cooperation with the OLR,
character or reputation, and remorse. The referee said although
Attorney Morse testified about medical and treatment issues
related to back pain, the referee did not take those issues into
account when deciding the appropriate sanction because there was
no testimony or evidence sufficient to find a causal connection
between any medical condition and the misconduct.
¶29 The referee said in arriving at a recommendation for
discipline, it was worth noting that Attorney Morse had
previously agreed to a plea agreement in the criminal case which
included his agreement not to practice law for a period of two
years, although the sentencing court did not impose that
condition as part of the sentence. The referee said this case
involves serious misconduct and although the referee believed it
was unlikely that Attorney Morse's misconduct would recur,
"nevertheless damage has been done to the public, the courts,
the clients, and to the legal system and should not go
11
No. 2016AP1288-D
unpunished." The referee said attorneys with Attorney Morse's
level of experience should certainly understand that they are
not supposed to comingle client trust funds with their own
funds; that when called to account they must understand they
cannot be allowed to wait until a court orders reimbursement;
and that they must serve the public competently and promptly so
that public trust in attorneys is maintained.
¶30 The referee discussed a number of prior disciplinary
cases that involved misuse or conversion of client funds and
concluded that the fact situation here was similar to that
presented in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Krezminski,
2007 WI 21, 299 Wis. 2d 152, 727 N.W.2d 492. Attorney
Krezminski was the personal representative of an estate and took
possession of $37,000 in funds from the estate. He began using
some of the funds himself and was only able to forward
approximately $16,000 of estate funds when the sole heir of the
estate demanded payment. Attorney Krezminski ultimately paid
the balance of the funds, plus interest, to the heir. Attorney
Krezminski also failed to keep a different client informed of
the status of his case. Attorney Krezminski had previously been
privately reprimanded. This court suspended his license to
practice law for two years. The referee concluded that Attorney
Morse's conduct warranted a similar sanction. The referee again
noted that, as part of his plea agreement, Attorney Morse had
been willing to accept, as a condition of his sentence in the
criminal case, a two-year suspension of his law license.
12
No. 2016AP1288-D
¶31 In his appeal, Attorney Morse argues that a two-year
suspension is excessive and a public reprimand would be
appropriate. In the alternative, he says that if a suspension
is to be imposed, the suspension should not exceed 60 days.
¶32 Attorney Morse argues that the relevant mitigating
factors weigh in favor of a much lesser sanction than that
recommended by the referee. He points out he has no prior
discipline, either in Wisconsin or in the other jurisdictions
where he is admitted to practice law. He asserts that there was
no dishonest or selfish motive and although he did mishandle the
estate funds, "at the time he regarded it as a harmless
convenience." Attorney Morse says at the time he was handling
the M.G. estate he was under significant stress, was new to solo
practice, was trying to run offices in two states, and was
helping his elderly mother. He says in the midst of all those
events, his car, which contained the M.G. estate file, was
stolen. He says there is no allegation that any of the heirs
received less money than they should have in the absence of his
misconduct. He says he cooperated fully with the disciplinary
process and freely entered into the stipulation. He says while
he questions the validity of the criminal charges he does not
question the fact that he did violate this court's rules of
professional responsibility.
¶33 Attorney Morse describes himself as "an upstanding
member of the community, a highly competent attorney, a good
person, and a beloved family member." While he agrees that his
back pain did not directly cause the misconduct, he says "there
13
No. 2016AP1288-D
is good reason to conclude that adding pain, medication, and
sleep deprivation to an otherwise high-stress period in Attorney
Morse's life temporarily eroded his good judgment." He says
that he has already been sanctioned by virtue of the criminal
conviction. He says the Florida attorney regulatory authorities
were notified about this case, his law license has been
suspended in Florida, and it appears all but certain that he
will be disbarred there. He notes that this case has been the
subject of newspaper articles, which have caused him
embarrassment. He says he is remorseful. He says he is not
appealing the sentence in the criminal case, but he is appealing
whether the transfers he made as personal representative
constitute the crime of theft under Wis. Stat. § 943.20(1)(b).6
¶34 Attorney Morse cites a number of cases in which
attorneys who mishandled or converted client funds received
sanctions less than a two-year suspension. Attorney Morse
argues that the two-year suspension recommended by the referee
"is drastic overkill."
¶35 Attorney Morse faults the referee for saying that
Attorney Morse, as part of the plea agreement, agreed "not to
practice law for a period of two years." Attorney Morse says
the actual terms of the plea agreement were that he would not
oppose the State's request for such a condition. While he says
6
The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction.
State v. Morse, 2018AP1293, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App.
Mar. 19, 2019). No petition for review was filed.
14
No. 2016AP1288-D
if the sentencing court had imposed that condition he would have
complied with it, he asserts his attorney advised him it was
improbable the condition would be imposed and indeed it was not.
¶36 Attorney Morse also faults the referee for attaching
significance to the fact that Attorney Morse failed to turn over
estate records when ordered to do so by the probate court. He
says those findings by the referee overlooked the fact that
Attorney Morse's car, with the estate file in it, had been
stolen, which left him with no ability to provide the estate
records. While he says the referee is also correct that he did
not make payment to the heirs until a court ordered him to do
so, that was because he did not know what amount to pay. He
says it is undisputed that once Attorney Larson provided his
accounting to the probate court, Attorney Morse promptly paid
the amount ordered. Attorney Morse says while the referee does
not indicate to what degree the terms of the plea agreement and
the failure to turn over records and make repayment to the
estate played a role in the recommendation for a two-year
suspension, to the extent those factors are cited at all, they
are inconsistent with the evidence.
¶37 The OLR argues that a two-year suspension is an
appropriate sanction for Attorney Morse's admitted misconduct.
The OLR notes that the primary goals of attorney discipline are
to address the seriousness of the misconduct; to protect the
public, courts, and the system from repetition of misconduct; to
impress upon the attorney the seriousness of the misconduct; and
to deter other attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct.
15
No. 2016AP1288-D
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Arthur, 2005 WI 40, ¶78,
279 Wis. 2d 583, 694 N.W.2d 910. The OLR says the referee's
report was extremely thorough and well-reasoned.
¶38 The OLR says that Attorney Morse misappropriated more
than $25,000 of the estate's funds for his own personal use.
The OLR notes that while in his brief Attorney Morse tries to
recast his criminal conversion of estate funds as a "harmless
convenience" that lacked any dishonest or selfish motive, at the
sanctions hearing he agreed that the mishandling of the funds
involved intentional acts and was not just a function of sloppy
recordkeeping.
¶39 The OLR says while Attorney Morse now complains that
he was unable to calculate the amount due to the estate and was
unable to furnish estate records because the estate files were
in his stolen car and he no longer had access to the estate bank
accounts after Attorney Larson replaced him as personal
representative, Attorney Morse did not advance either of those
arguments at the order to show cause hearing before the probate
court. The OLR also says Attorney Morse fails to identify where
in the referee's report the referee attributed undue weight to
those facts. The OLR says even if the referee had given undue
weight to the facts, it is unclear why such reliance would be
inappropriate given that Attorney Morse stipulated to a
misconduct count of failing to abide by the probate court's
order to turn over to Attorney Larson all financial records
pertaining to the estate.
16
No. 2016AP1288-D
¶40 The OLR goes on to argue that the estate was
vulnerable to Attorney Morse's predatory conversions because he
was unsupervised. It points that Attorney Morse had substantial
experience in the practice of law when he agreed to handle
M.G.'s estate. The OLR says Attorney Morse's conduct was not
just unethical, it was illegal, as evidenced by the criminal
conviction.
¶41 The OLR argues that Attorney Morse presented no
medical evidence that his back pain caused him to commit
misconduct so that cannot be considered a mitigating factor.
While Attorney Morse says he was under stress at the time of the
misconduct, the OLR says he again presented no medical evidence
that the stress caused him to embezzle from the estate or commit
any of the other admitted misconduct. The OLR says it does not
generally dispute Attorney Morse's position that he has been
cooperative with the disciplinary process. However, the OLR
observes that Attorney Morse's willingness to enter into the
misconduct stipulation occurred only after the conclusion of the
criminal case.
¶42 The OLR acknowledges that the referee found Attorney
Morse to appear genuinely remorseful at the sanctions hearing.
The OLR says while it generally agrees with that conclusion, it
says the remorse does not appear to be categorical because while
Attorney Morse may not have appealed his sentence, he did appeal
his conviction, continuing to question whether his actions
constituted a crime. The OLR argues that Attorney Morse's
17
No. 2016AP1288-D
attack on the criminal conviction undercuts his claims of
remorse and acceptance of responsibility for his actions.
¶43 The OLR agrees with the referee that the fact
situation at issue here is similar to that presented in
Krezminski and warrants a similar sanction, i.e. a two-year
suspension. The OLR argues that Attorney Morse's proposed
discipline of either a public reprimand or a 60-day suspension
seriously undermines multiple goals of attorney discipline.
¶44 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.
¶45 We conclude there has been no showing that any of the
referee's findings of fact, which incorporate the terms of the
parties' stipulation, are clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we
adopt them. We further agree with the referee's conclusions of
law that Attorney Morse violated the supreme court rules set
forth above.
¶46 Turning to the appropriate level of discipline,
although no two disciplinary proceedings are identical, we find
this fact situation to be somewhat comparable to In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bauer, 2018 WI 49, 381
Wis. 2d 474, 912 N.W.2d 108. Attorney Bauer misused trust funds
belonging to seven clients, transferred large sums of trust
18
No. 2016AP1288-D
account money from one client fund to another, but ultimately
repaid all balances in the clients' accounts. Like Attorney
Morse, Attorney Bauer had substantial experience in practicing
law and had no prior disciplinary history. Like Attorney Morse,
Attorney Bauer cooperated with the OLR and entered into a
partial stipulation. The sums of money involved in Bauer were
significantly greater than the instant matter, but in this case
there was a criminal prosecution and conviction that did not
exist in Bauer.
¶47 It appears that the referee may have accorded undue
weight to the fact that, as part of the plea agreement in the
criminal case, Attorney Morse agreed not to oppose the State's
request for a condition of the sentence imposed that he not
practice law for two years. For that reason, we conclude that a
two-year suspension is excessive. However, acceding to Attorney
Morse's request for either a public reprimand or a 60-day
suspension would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the
misconduct at issue here. It cannot be overstated that Attorney
Morse converted estate funds to his own personal use, and his
conduct resulted in a criminal conviction. After careful review
of the matter, we conclude that a one-year suspension of his
license to practice law is an appropriate sanction for his
admitted misconduct. As is our usual custom, we find it
appropriate to assess the full costs of the proceeding against
him.
19
No. 2016AP1288-D
¶48 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Daniel W. Morse to
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of one year,
effective July 2, 2019.
¶49 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order, Daniel W. Morse shall pay to the Office of Lawyer
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $11,038.85 as
of December 18, 2018.
¶50 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Daniel W. Morse shall
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of
an attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended.
¶51 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See
22.29(4)(c).
20
No. 2016AP1288-D
1