Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Coral Dawn Pleas

2022 WI 29SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2020AP724-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Coral Dawn Pleas, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Coral Dawn Pleas,
Respondent.
REINSTATEMENT PETITION OF PLEAS
OPINION FILED: May 10, 2022
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
Per Curiam.
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2022 WI 29NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2020AP724-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Coral Dawn Pleas, Attorney at Law.
FILED
Complainant,
MAY 10, 2022
v.
Sheila T. Reiff
Coral Dawn Pleas, Clerk of Supreme Court
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Reinstatement granted.
¶1 PER CURIAM. The court has before it the parties' joint
stipulation for Attorney Coral Dawn Pleas' reinstatement of her
license to practice law in Wisconsin.
¶2 Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.30(5)(b), the
court may consider a reinstatement petition by stipulation when,
as here, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) concludes after
investigation that the petitioner has demonstrated, to the OLR's
director's satisfaction, that all of the reinstatement criteria
No. 2020AP724-D
have been met. See SCR 22.3051 and SCR 22.29.2 The court then
considers the petition and stipulation without the appointment of
1 SCR 22.305 provides:
At all times relevant to the petition, the
petitioner has the burden of demonstrating, by clear,
satisfactory, and convincing evidence, all of the
following:
(1) That he or she has the moral character to
practice law in Wisconsin.
(2) That his or her resumption of the practice of
law will not be detrimental to the administration of
justice or subversive of the public interest.
(3) That his or her representations in the
petition, including the representations required by SCR
22.29(4)(a) to (m) and 22.29(5), are substantiated.
(4) That he or she has complied fully with the terms
of the order of suspension or revocation and with the
requirements of SCR 22.26
2 SCR 22.29 provides in pertinent part:
(4) The petition for reinstatement shall show all
of the following:
(a) The petitioner desires to have the petitioner's
license reinstated.
(b) The petitioner has not practiced law during the
period of suspension or revocation.
(c) The petitioner has complied fully with the
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and will
continue to comply with them until the petitioner's
license is reinstated.
(d) The petitioner has maintained competence and
learning in the law by attendance at identified
educational activities.
2
No. 2020AP724-D
a referee. SCR 22.30(5)(b). The court may approve the stipulation
and reinstate the petitioner's law license, or reject the
(e) The petitioner's conduct since the suspension
or revocation has been exemplary and above reproach.
(f) The petitioner has a proper understanding of
and attitude toward the standards that are imposed upon
members of the bar and will act in conformity with the
standards.
(g) The petitioner can safely be recommended to the
legal profession, the courts and the public as a person
fit to be consulted by others and to represent them and
otherwise act in matters of trust and confidence and in
general to aid in the administration of justice as a
member of the bar and as an officer of the courts.
(h) The petitioner has fully complied with the
requirements set forth in SCR 22.26.
(j) The petitioner's proposed use of the license if
reinstated.
(k) A full description of all of the petitioner's
business activities during the period of suspension or
revocation.
(m) The petitioner has made restitution to or
settled all claims of persons injured or harmed by
petitioner's misconduct, including reimbursement to the
Wisconsin lawyers' fund for client protection for all
payments made from that fund, or, if not, the
petitioner's explanation of the failure or inability to
do so.
. . . .
(5) A petition for reinstatement shall be
accompanied by an advance deposit in an amount to be set
by the supreme court for payment of all or a portion of
the costs of the reinstatement proceeding. The supreme
court may extend the time for payment or waive payment
in any case in which to do otherwise would result in
hardship or injustice.
3
No. 2020AP724-D
stipulation and refer the petition to a referee for a hearing, or
direct the parties to consider modifications to the stipulation.
Id.¶3 Upon consideration of Attorney Pleas' reinstatement
petition, the OLR's response pursuant to SCR 22.30(4), the parties'
stipulation pursuant to SCR 22.30(5)(a), and the OLR's memorandum
in support of the stipulation pursuant to SCR 22.30(5)(a), we
conclude that reinstatement is appropriate.
¶4 Attorney Pleas was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin
in 1993. On September 29, 2020, based on a stipulation between
Attorney Pleas and the OLR, this court suspended Attorney Pleas'
Wisconsin law license for six months for misconduct arising out of
her representation of a client, V.B., regarding two automobile
accidents that injured V.B. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Pleas, 2020 WI 77, 394 Wis. 2d 6, 948 N.W.2d 901. The
court determined that, during her representation of V.B. regarding
the first automobile accident, Attorney Pleas committed misconduct
by failing to promptly notify V.B. and V.B.'s health insurer of
her receipt of $25,000 in settlement funds; failing to promptly
deliver to V.B. and V.B.'s health insurer the funds to which they
were entitled; failing to hold the settlement funds in trust;
making disbursements from her trust account via internet banking
transactions; failing to provide V.B. and V.B.'s health insurer
with an accounting following final distribution of trust property;
and converting the $25,000 in settlement funds to her own use.
See id., ¶¶18-19, 24. The court also determined that, during her
representation of V.B. regarding the second automobile accident,
4
No. 2020AP724-D
Attorney Pleas committed misconduct by failing to file a personal
injury lawsuit prior to the expiration of the statute of
limitations. See id. The court also determined that, during her
representation of V.B. regarding both automobile accidents,
Attorney Pleas committed misconduct by failing to communicate
sufficiently with V.B., including regarding the fact that the
statute of limitations had expired on the second accident claim.
See id. Finally, the court determined that Attorney Pleas
committed misconduct by failing to file an overdraft notification
agreement with the OLR. See id.
¶5 In addition to imposing a six-month license suspension,
effective November 10, 2020, the court ordered Attorney Pleas to
pay restitution to V.B.'s health insurer in the amount of $8,333.33
within 60 days of the date of the disciplinary decision. Id.,
¶¶25-26.3 The court further ordered Attorney Pleas to comply with
the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose
license to practice law in Wisconsin have been suspended. Id.,
¶27.
¶6 On November 5, 2021, Attorney Pleas filed a petition for
the reinstatement of her Wisconsin law license.
¶7 On January 19, 2022, the OLR filed a response to Attorney
Pleas' reinstatement petition, as required by SCR 22.30(4). In
its response, the OLR explains that it investigated Attorney Pleas'
Attorney Pleas had negotiated this amount as a compromise
3
of a larger medical lien, but had yet to pay it out of the $25,000
she had received in settlement of V.B.'s first accident claim.
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Pleas, 2020 WI 77, ¶¶15-
17, 394 Wis. 2d 6, 948 N.W.2d 901.
5
No. 2020AP724-D
petition and found she has satisfied the criteria for reinstatement
listed in SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(m).
¶8 Examining SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(m) criteria one by one, the
OLR notes in its response that Attorney Pleas desires to have her
law license reinstated, SCR 22.29(4)(a), and has not practiced law
during the period of suspension, SCR 22.29(4)(b). She has instead
done non-legal work for a local community organization.
¶9 As for the requirement in SCR 22.29(4)(c) that Attorney
Pleas demonstrate full compliance with the terms of the order of
suspension, the OLR notes in its response that Attorney Pleas has
met this requirement, except for minor deviations that, in its
view, do not warrant the denial of Attorney Pleas' reinstatement
petition. One way the OLR identifies that Attorney Pleas did not
strictly comply with our September 29, 2020 disciplinary decision
is that, while we ordered Attorney Pleas to pay $8,333.33 in
restitution to V.B.'s health insurer within 60 days of the decision
date (i.e., by late November 2020), Attorney Pleas did not pay
this amount until well later, in October 2021. In another
deviation from the terms of our disciplinary decision, while we
required Attorney Pleas to notify her clients of her suspension by
certified mail,4 she did so by regular mail. The OLR also reports
that, while we required Attorney Pleas to file, within 25 days
after her suspension date, an affidavit showing full compliance
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Pleas, 394
4
Wis. 2d 6, ¶27, (requiring Attorney Pleas to comply with the
provisions of SCR 22.26); see also SCR 22.26(1)(a) (requiring a
suspended lawyer to send, by certified mail, written notice of the
lawyer's suspension to all clients in pending matters).
6
No. 2020AP724-D
with her post-suspension obligations,5 she filed this affidavit
belatedly.
¶10 Nevertheless, the OLR states in its response that
Attorney Pleas "in an overall sense ultimately substantially
complied with the Court's September 2020 decision." The OLR
credits Attorney Pleas' explanation that she satisfied her
restitution obligation beyond the date we ordered because she was
financially unable to do so earlier. The OLR accepts Attorney
Pleas' representation that her finances were seriously compromised
by her personal health problems, the adverse effect of COVID-19 on
her pre-suspension business income, and her limited post-
suspension income. The OLR notes that Attorney Pleas' troubled
finances are documented in her tax returns and Chapter 13
bankruptcy filings. The OLR also notes that, in Attorney Pleas'
belated post-suspension affidavit, she detailed the steps she took
to wind down her practice by her suspension date, including
successfully petitioning this court for a 30-day extension to the
suspension date to allow her additional time to wind down her
practice, refraining from taking any new cases, communicating with
her clients verbally and via mail (albeit not certified mail) that
she had been suspended, assisting her clients in transitioning
their cases to successor counsel, advising all courts and adverse
counsel of her impending suspension, and otherwise taking all
5See id., ¶27 (requiring Attorney Pleas to comply with the
provisions of SCR 22.26); see also SCR 22.26(1)(e) (requiring a
suspended lawyer to file an affidavit with the OLR director, within
25 days after the suspension date, showing compliance with his or
her post-suspension obligations).
7
No. 2020AP724-D
necessary steps to ensure her clients suffered no prejudice due to
her suspension.
¶11 As for the reinstatement criteria set forth in
SCR 22.29(4)(d)-(k), the OLR notes in its response that Attorney
Pleas has maintained competence and learning in the law by
attendance at identified educational activities, as evidenced by
a January 12, 2022 memorandum from the Board of Bar Examiners
confirming her compliance with continuing legal education and
ethics and professional responsibility requirements,
SCR 22.29(4)(d); that her conduct since her suspension has been
exemplary and beyond reproach, SCR 22.29(4)(e); that she has a
proper understanding of and attitude toward the standards that are
imposed upon members of the bar and will act in conformity with
those standards, SCR 22.29(4)(f); that, as evidenced by several
character reference letters, she can safely be recommended to the
legal profession, the courts, and the public as a person fit to be
consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise act in
matters of trust and confidence and in general to aid in the
administration of justice as a member of the bar and as an officer
of the courts, SCR 22.29(4)(g); and that, as discussed above, she
has complied with the requirements set forth in SCR 22.26, SCR
22.29(4)(h). The OLR also notes that, in accordance with SCR
22.29(4)(j), Attorney Pleas has explained her proposed use of her
license if reinstated: running a home-based practice handling
simple wills, municipal and traffic matters, entity formation for
small businesses, and other small matters for family and friends.
The OLR also notes that Attorney Pleas satisfactorily described
8
No. 2020AP724-D
her business activities during her suspension in accordance with
SCR 22.29(4)(k), as she explained that she works as a Program Coach
for the Martin Luther King Economic Development Corporation in
Milwaukee and has served as a caretaker for her mother.
¶12 The OLR next examines in its response the requirement in
SCR 22.29(4)(m) that Attorney Pleas either: (1) show she has made
restitution to or settled all claims of persons injured or harmed
by her misconduct; or (2) provide an explanation of her failure or
inability to do so. The OLR notes that it received written
comments on this point from V.B., the client involved in Attorney
Pleas' earlier disciplinary matter.6 In her written comments, V.B.
states that she seeks compensation for Attorney Pleas' failure to
timely file a personal injury lawsuit regarding V.B.'s second
automobile accident. V.B. notes that she retained a lawyer who
brought a malpractice lawsuit against Attorney Pleas, but her
lawyer ultimately dismissed this lawsuit because Attorney Pleas
had no malpractice insurance during the relevant time period and
had commenced bankruptcy proceedings. V.B. notes that Attorney
Pleas sent her lawyer in the malpractice action an offer to pay
V.B. a small amount of compensation under a payment plan, but
V.B.'s lawyer did not accept that proposal. V.B. states that she
does not believe that Attorney Pleas has the moral character to
practice law. V.B. further asks that, if this court reinstates
Attorney Pleas' Wisconsin law license, the reinstatement should be
6 Consistent with SCR 22.30(5)(a), the OLR attached a copy of
V.B.'s comments to its memorandum in support of the stipulation
for Attorney Pleas' reinstatement.
9
No. 2020AP724-D
conditioned on Attorney Pleas reimbursing her for expenses that
she may have recovered had Attorney Pleas timely filed a personal
injury lawsuit regarding V.B.'s second automobile accident.
¶13 In its response to Attorney Pleas' reinstatement
petition, the OLR states that V.B.'s objection should not preclude
Attorney Pleas' reinstatement. The OLR reasons that Attorney Pleas
has already been disciplined for her failure to timely file a
personal injury lawsuit regarding V.B.'s second automobile
accident by way of the six-month suspension imposed in this court's
September 29, 2020 disciplinary decision. As for any damages V.B.
was unable to recover by virtue of Attorney Pleas' failure to
timely file such a lawsuit, the OLR explains that these are
consequential damages, as opposed to funds that were under Attorney
Pleas' direct control. Thus, the OLR writes, the situation "did
not meet OLR's restitution policy, either when the disciplinary
proceeding was pending or at present."
¶14 On February 14, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation in
which the OLR states that Attorney Pleas has met her SCR 22.305
burden to prove by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence:
(1) That she has the moral character to practice law in
Wisconsin.
(2) That her resumption of the practice of law will not be
detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of the
public interest.
(3) That her representations in the petition, including the
representations required by SCR 22.29(4)(a) to (m) and 22.29(5),
are substantiated.
10
No. 2020AP724-D
(4) That she has complied fully with the terms of the order
of suspension or revocation and with the requirements of SCR 22.26.
¶15 Also on February 14, 2022, the OLR filed a memorandum in
support of the stipulation in which it reiterates that Attorney
Pleas has satisfactorily complied with the criteria for
reinstatement. The OLR further notes that it did not identify any
adverse material issues during its investigation of Attorney
Pleas' reinstatement petition that would justify denial of
reinstatement.
¶16 Upon consideration of all of the above, we approve the
parties' stipulation, adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions
of law, and reinstate Attorney Pleas' Wisconsin law license.
¶17 In doing so, we note that we agree with the OLR's
assessment that, despite some missteps and delay, Attorney Pleas
ultimately complied with the terms of this court's September 29,
2020 disciplinary decision. See SCR 22.29(4)(c). There is no
dispute that Attorney Pleas served her period of license
suspension; that she fully paid the restitution we ordered her to
pay in what appears to be as timely a manner as possible given her
troubled financial circumstances; that she in fact notified
clients of her license suspension (albeit not by certified mail);
and that she filed a post-suspension affidavit with the OLR
director (albeit belatedly). Under the circumstances presented
here, the court will not penalize Attorney Pleas for her imperfect,
but ultimately effective, efforts to comply with the terms of our
September 29, 2020 disciplinary decision.
11
No. 2020AP724-D
¶18 We further agree with the OLR that V.B.'s written
comments should not preclude Attorney Pleas' reinstatement, nor
trigger the imposition of restitution to V.B. as a condition of
reinstatement. We did not order Attorney Pleas to pay restitution
to V.B. in our September 29, 2020 disciplinary decision.7 Although
we recently denied reinstatement to a lawyer for a failure to make
restitution even though restitution was not expressly ordered in
the original disciplinary proceeding, see In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Parks, 2021 WI 10, 395 Wis. 2d 500, 953
N.W.2d 873, in that instance the restitution at issue consisted of
funds that the lawyer had wrongfully obtained. Id., ¶¶20-32
(denying reinstatement petition due to lawyer's failure to
voluntarily reimburse his former law firm for legal fees he
diverted from it, or his clients for an improperly solicited
"gift"). By comparison, in this case, V.B. seeks consequential
damages; i.e., damages resulting from Attorney Pleas' alleged
malpractice in failing to timely bring a personal injury lawsuit
regarding her second automobile accident. The disciplinary
process is neither intended nor designed to handle the questions
of causation, contributory negligence, mitigation, burdens of
7We specifically noted that, with respect to V.B.'s first
accident claim, Attorney Pleas eventually paid V.B. a portion of
the $25,000 settlement that she negotiated on V.B.'s behalf and
refunded the full attorney's fee to V.B. See In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Pleas, 394 Wis. 2d 6, ¶¶16-17. We did not
discuss the issue of restitution with respect to Attorney Pleas'
failure to timely file a personal injury lawsuit regarding V.B.'s
second accident claim.
12
No. 2020AP724-D
proof, and other issues that would need to be resolved in order to
determine V.B.'s consequential damages. As we have explained:
Whereas the goal of a legal malpractice action is to put
clients in the position they would have occupied had the
attorney not been negligent, the goal of a disciplinary
proceeding is something else entirely: to protect the
public, the courts, and the legal profession from
attorneys who fail to meet minimum standards of conduct.
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Harman, 137
Wis. 2d 148, 151, 403 N.W.2d 459 (1987). "It is not the
purpose of lawyer discipline," we have noted, "to make
whole those harmed by attorney misconduct." Id.In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Boyle, 2015 WI 110, ¶44,
365 Wis. 2d 649, 872 N.W.2d 637.
¶19 We note, too, that V.B. states in her written comments
that Attorney Pleas contacted V.B.'s lawyer in her malpractice
action and offered to pay a small amount of compensation to V.B.
under a payment plan, but V.B.'s lawyer did not accept this
proposal and dismissed the action. Thus, it is not the case that
Attorney Pleas "has made no effort at all to make restitution to
or settle all claims of persons injured or harmed by [her]
misconduct," as was the case for the respondent-lawyer in In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Parks, 395 Wis. 2d 500, ¶32. We
therefore conclude that, under the circumstances presented here,
Attorney Pleas has satisfied her burden to demonstrate compliance
with SCR 22.29(4)(m).
¶20 In sum, then, we conclude that Attorney Pleas has the
moral character to practice law in Wisconsin, SCR 22.305(1); that
her resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to
the administration of justice or subversive of the public interest,
SCR 22.305(2); that her representations in her petition, including
13
No. 2020AP724-D
the representations required by SCR 22.29(4)(a) to (m) and SCR
22.29(5), are substantiated, SCR 22.305(3); and that she has
complied fully with the terms of the suspension order and with the
requirements of SCR 22.26, SCR 22.305(4). Accordingly, we accept
the parties' stipulation pursuant to SCR 22.30(5)(b), and we
reinstate Attorney Pleas' license to practice law in Wisconsin,
effective the date of this order.
¶21 IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement of Coral
Dawn Pleas to practice law in Wisconsin is granted, effective the
date of this order.
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no costs will be imposed in
connection with this reinstatement proceeding.
14
No. 2020AP724-D
1