Preview:

2013  WI  11
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.:                                  2011AP1626-D
COMPLETE TITLE:                            In  the  Matter  of  Disciplinary  Proceedings
Against
Everett  E.  Wood,  Attorney  at  Law:
Office  of  Lawyer  Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Everett  E.  Wood,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY  PROCEEDINGS  AGAINST  WOOD
OPINION FILED:                             January  25,  2013
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:




2013  WI  11
NOTICE
This  opinion  is  subject  to  further
editing  and  modification.    The  final
version   will   appear   in   the   bound
volume of the official reports.
No.                                                                        2011AP1626-D
STATE  OF  WISCONSIN                                                       :                                                  IN  SUPREME  COURT
In  the  Matter  of  Disciplinary  Proceedings
Against  Everett  E.  Wood,  Attorney  at  Law:
Office  of  Lawyer  Regulation,
FILED
Complainant,
JAN  25,  2013
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Everett  E.  Wood,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY    disciplinary    proceeding.      Attorney's    license
suspended.
¶1    PER   CURIAM.      We   review   the   report   filed   by   the
referee,   Kim   M.   Peterson,   recommending   the   court   suspend
Attorney  Everett  E.  Wood's  license  to  practice  law  in  Wisconsin
for  six  months  for                                                      28  counts  of  professional  misconduct.     No
appeal  has  been  filed  so  we  review  the  referee's  report  and
recommendation  pursuant  to  SCR                                          22.17(2).1     We  approve  and  adopt
1  SCR  22.17(2)  states:




No.                                                                           2011AP1626-D
the  referee's  findings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law.    We  agree
that  Attorney  Wood's  professional  misconduct  warrants  a  six-
month  suspension  of  his  license  to  practice  law,  and  we  deem  it
appropriate  to  require  Attorney  Wood  pay  the  full  costs  of  the
proceeding,  which  were  $19,959.24  as  of  October  1,  2012.
¶2    Attorney  Wood  was  admitted  to  the  practice  of  law  in
Wisconsin  on  June                                                           17,            1992.     He  has  most  recently  practiced  in
Hubertus,  Wisconsin.     Attorney  Wood  has  no  prior  disciplinary
history.
¶3    On   July                                                               18,            2011,   the   Office   of   Lawyer   Regulation
(OLR)  filed  a  complaint  against  Attorney  Wood  alleging  28  counts
of  misconduct.     Attorney  Wood  filed  an  answer  and,  on  June         29,
2012,  the  OLR  filed  a  motion  for  partial  summary  judgment.     On
July                                                                          31,            2012,   the   parties   entered   into   a   partial   fact
stipulation  supporting  17  of  the  counts  of  alleged  misconduct.
¶4    On  August  2,  2012,  the  referee  conducted  a  telephonic
hearing  on  the  OLR's  motion  for  partial  summary  judgment,  and
granted  the  OLR's  motion  on  all  counts  included  in  the  motion
except  one  on  which  judgment  was  reserved  until  hearing.
¶5    On    August                                                            6,             2012,    the    referee    conducted    an
evidentiary   hearing   on   the   remaining   counts   of   misconduct.
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.                                                                           2011AP1626-D
Following  submission  of  post-hearing  briefs,  the  referee  issued
her  report  and  recommendation  concluding  the  OLR  had  met  its
burden  and  proved  the  remaining                                           11  allegations  by  clear  and
convincing   evidence.                                                        The   referee   recommended   a   six-month
suspension  and  the  imposition  of  costs.     There  is  no  need  to
detail  the  extensive  allegations  and  findings.    We  will  briefly
summarize  the  incidents  giving  rise  to  the  ethical  misconduct.
Matter  of  W.A.  (Counts  1  and  2)
¶6    W.A.  hired  Attorney  Wood  in  February  2006  to  represent
her  in  connection  with  problems  with  the  construction  of  her
home,  including  alleged  contractor  overbilling.     Attorney  Wood
failed  to  pursue  his  client's  claims.    He  was  often  unresponsive
to  W.A.  and,  after  W.A.'s  contractor  filed  suit  against  her,
Attorney  Wood  failed  to  file  any  response  in  the  suit  he  had
been  hired  to  defend.     Even  after  the  court  granted  a  default
judgment  against  W.A.,  Attorney  Wood  failed  to  communicate  with
W.A.  and  later  failed  to  inform  W.A.  that  he  was  terminating  his
representation.
Matter  of  R.M.  (Counts  3  and  4)
¶7    R.M.  hired  Attorney  Wood  in  2007  to  represent  him  in  a
dispute  with  a  homeowner.    Attorney  Wood  sent  the  bank  and  title
company   a   demand   letter   but,   when   the   recipients   did   not
respond,  Attorney  Wood  failed  to  pursue  the  matter.     Attorney
Wood  failed  to  respond  to  R.M.'s  requests  for  information  until
R.M.   threatened   to   report   Attorney   Wood's   unresponsiveness.
Attorney  Wood  then  performed  some  work  but  failed  to  respond  to
R.M.'s   repeated   requests   for   information,   failed   to   file   a
3




No.                                                                           2011AP1626-D
summons  and  complaint,  and  undertook  no  other  action  to  resolve
R.M.'s   claims.                                                              R.M.   eventually   filed   a   grievance   against
Attorney    Wood    whereupon    Attorney    Wood    terminated    his
representation.
Matter  of  T.M.  (Counts  5  through  7)
¶8    T.M.  hired  Attorney  Wood  in  early                                  2007  to  represent
him  in  a  dispute  with  a  contractor.     Attorney  Wood  failed  to
take  action  on  T.M.'s  case  and,  with  rare  exception,  failed  to
respond   to   T.M.'s   requests   for   information.                         Attorney   Wood
finally   filed   the   summons   and   complaint   in   T.M.'s   case   in
February  2008,  but  then  failed  to  effect  personal  service  of  the
summons  and  complaint.
¶9    On  July                                                                24,                                                            2008,  Attorney  Wood  failed  to  attend  a
dismissal  hearing  on  the  lawsuit.    The  court  dismissed  the  case
and  Attorney  Wood  failed  to  send  the  dismissal  notice  to  T.M.
Eventually,  T.M.  filed  a  grievance  against  Attorney  Wood  with
the  OLR.    Attorney  Wood  then  failed  to  timely  respond  to  T.M.'s
grievance.
Matter  of  A.M.  and  J.M.  (Counts  8  through  12)
¶10   A.M.  and  J.M.  hired  Attorney  Wood  in  March                       2008  to
                                                                              help   them   resolve   a   dispute   with   a   contractor.   They   paid
Attorney   Wood                                                               $1,000   for   future   services.                              Attorney   Wood
deposited  this  check  into  his  business  account  without  sending
the   required   notice   described   in   SCR                                20:1.15(b)(4m).                                                On
April  8,                                                                     2008,  the  contractor  filed  a  lien  claim  against  the
property  and  sent  a  letter  explaining  the  basis  of  the  claim.
A.M.   and   J.M.   forwarded   this   letter   to   Attorney   Wood,   but
4




No.                                                                            2011AP1626-D
Attorney  Wood  failed  to  respond,  except  for  sending  the  clients
a  bill  in  June  2008.
¶11   Attorney  Wood  essentially  took  no  action  to  resolve
the  lien  claim.     The  clients  tried  to  contact  Attorney  Wood
numerous  times,  with  minimal  success.     Attorney  Wood  failed  to
provide  his  clients  with  a  copy  of  a  letter  he  sent  on  their
behalf   and   also   failed   to   send   a   follow-up   letter   at   the
clients'   direction.                                                          Finally,   on   May                                                         11,                                                               2009,   the   clients
terminated  Attorney  Wood's  representation,  requested  he  return
any   remaining   funds,   and   filed   a   grievance   with   the   OLR.
Attorney  Wood  failed  to  return                                             $100  of  the  remaining  clients'
funds  and  failed  to  timely  respond  to  the  OLR's  inquiries.
Matter  of  C.H.  (Counts  13  through  17)
¶12   C.H.  and  his  corporation                                              (collectively  C.H.)  retained
Attorney  Wood  in  2008  in  connection  with  a  dispute  with  V.H.  and
L.H.     On  June                                                              6,                                                                          2008,  Attorney  Wood  filed  suit  on  behalf  of
C.H.     On  August                                                            25,                                                                         2008,  Attorney  Wood  spoke  with  C.H.  and
filed  an  answer  to  a  counterclaim.     C.H.  called  Attorney  Wood
several   times   over   the   following   months   trying   to   obtain
information  about  the  case.    Attorney  Wood  did  not  return  those
calls.                                                                         Attorney   Wood   failed   to   appear   at   a   scheduling
conference,  and  he  failed  to  comply  with  a  court  directive  to
file  a  witness  list.
¶13   On  January                                                              9,                                                                          2009,  V.H.  and  L.H  filed  a  third—party
                                                                               summons  and  complaint  and  sent  it  to  Attorney  Wood,  who  refused
service.                                                                                                                                                   Attorney   Wood   then   failed   to   inform   C.H.   of   the
filing.     In  February                                                                                                                                   2009  V.H.  and  L.H  moved  to  exclude  C.H.'s
                                                                               5




No.                                                                           2011AP1626-D
witnesses  because  Attorney  Wood  had  failed  to  file  a  witness
list.     Finally,  in  the  spring  of                                       2009,  C.H.  discussed  his  case
with  another  attorney,  who  unsuccessfully  attempted  to  contact
Attorney  Wood.    The  attorney  filed  a  notice  of  appearance  as  co-
counsel  and  faxed  a  copy  to  Attorney  Wood.    Attorney  Wood  never
assisted  the  attorney  in  transferring  C.H.'s  file  or  addressing
the  motion  to  exclude  C.H.'s  witnesses.     Attorney  Wood  did  not
withdraw  as  counsel  for  C.H.
¶14   On  June  5,  2009,  the  court  heard  the  exclusion  motion
filed  by  V.H.  and  L.H.     Attorney  Wood  was  not  present  at  the
hearing.    Successor  counsel  moved  to  have  Attorney  Wood  removed
from  the  case.     The  court  granted  the  motion  and  then  ordered
C.H.  and  Attorney  Wood  to  pay  $1,4002  in  sanctions,  jointly  and
severally.     Attorney  Wood  also  repeatedly  failed  to  respond  to
or  adequately  cooperate  with  the  OLR's  requests  for  information
in  this  matter.
Matter  of  S.H./Trust  Account  Violations  (Counts  18  through  23)
¶15   In                                                                      2008  Attorney  Wood  represented  S.H.  in  a  lawsuit
against   Sears   Roebuck   and   Company                                     (Sears).                                                  Sears   was
represented  by  Attorney  Michael  Ganzer.    In  September  2008  S.H.
and  Sears  settled  the  lawsuit.    Sears  agreed  to  pay  S.H.  $28,000
for  the  full  and  complete  release  of  all  of  his  claims  in  that
particular  case.    The  parties  did  not  discuss  whether  S.H.  would
retain  any  warranty  claims.
2  Attorney  Wood  has  conceded  he  is  solely  responsible  for
the  $1,400  in  sanctions  imposed.
6




                                                                                                                                                                                                             No.   2011AP1626-D
¶16   On  October                                                             15,                                                                 2008,   Attorney  Ganzer  sent  Attorney
Wood  the  settlement  documents  with  a  settlement  check  payable  to
Attorney  Wood's  trust  account.     The  check  was  to  be  held  in
trust  pending  S.H.'s  execution  of  the  settlement  documents.    On
October                                                                       17,                                                                 2008,  Attorney  Wood  deposited  the  settlement  check
in  his  trust  account.
¶17   On   October                                                            31,                                                                 2008,   S.H.   signed   the   settlement
documents   but   added   that   Sears   was   "release[d]   as   to   work
performed,  [but]  product  warranties  survive."    Attorney  Wood  had
not  discussed  this  modification  with  Attorney  Ganzer.    Attorney
Wood  then  issued  a  check  to  S.H.  for  S.H.'s  portion  of  the
settlement  and  withdrew  $7,000  in  cash  as  fees.    Between  October
2008  and  January                                                            2009,  Attorney  Wood  made  six  additional  cash
withdrawals  from  his  trust  account.    Attorney  Wood  did  not  keep
individual   client   ledgers,   deposit   records,   or   disbursement
records  in  2008.
¶18   Attorney   Ganzer   repeatedly   requested   copies   of   the
executed  settlement  documents.    Attorney  Ganzer  finally  received
the  settlement  documents  on  December                                      5,                                                                  2008.     Attorney  Ganzer
filed  the  stipulation  and  order  for  dismissal  with  the  court,
but  objected  to  changes  Attorney  Wood  had  made  to  the  settlement
agreement.
¶19   On  December  12,  2008,  Attorney  Wood  withdrew  $6,000  in
                                                                              cash   from   his   trust   account   as   his   remaining   fee.   On
December  24,                                                                 2008,   Attorney   Ganzer   wrote   to   Attorney   Wood
objecting  to  the  changes  made  in  the  settlement  agreement,  and
demanding  that  he  get  a  "clean"  release  from  S.H.    Attorney  Wood
7




No.                                                                            2011AP1626-D
did  not  respond,  and  did  not  return  any  money  to  his  trust
account  for  the  settlement.
¶20   After  March  2009  Attorney  Ganzer's  associate  contacted
Attorney  Wood  several  times  to  obtain  an  unedited  release  or  the
settlement  funds.     Attorney  Wood  did  not  respond.     On  June         30,
2009,   Attorney   Ganzer   filed   a   grievance   with   the   OLR   over
Attorney  Wood's  handling  of  the  settlement.    Attorney  Wood  then
failed  to  adequately  respond  to  the  OLR's  inquiries.
Matter  of  K.R.  and  T.R.  (Counts  24  through  27)
¶21   K.R.  and  T.R.  hired  Attorney  Wood  in  2006  to  represent
them  in  a  potential  suit  against  A.  Bishop  Farms,  Inc.  (Bishop).
In                                                                             2007  Attorney  Wood  filed  suit  against  Bishop.     In  May   2008
Bishop   and   K.R.   and   T.R.   settled   the   suit,   and   the   court
dismissed  the  case.    Bishop  agreed  to  pay  an  increased  amount  if
it  failed  to  make  the  payments  promised  under  the  settlement
agreement.
¶22   In  July  2008  Bishop  breached  the  settlement  agreement,
entitling  K.R.  and  T.R.  to  a  judgment  of                                $30,000.     In  November
2008  Attorney  Wood  moved  to  reopen  the  case  and  enforce  the
settlement  agreement,  seeking  a  $30,000  judgment  against  Bishop.
At  a  February                                                                9,                                                                2009  hearing,  the  court  granted  the  motion  to
reopen.     However,  the  court  granted  a  judgment  for                    $10,843.22,
instead  of  the                                                               $30,000  allowed  under  the  settlement  agreement
and  requested  in  Attorney  Wood's  motion.     Afterward,  Attorney
Wood  submitted  a  judgment  to  the  court  with  the  incorrect  lower
amount.     On  April                                                          28,                                                               2009,  the  court  entered  the  judgment.
8




No.                                                                             2011AP1626-D
Attorney  Wood  did  not  send  a  copy  of  the  judgment  to  K.R.  and
T.R.  at  that  time.
¶23   In  September                                                             2009  Attorney  Wood  sent  a  copy  of  the
judgment  to  K.R.  and  T.R.  and  told  them  he  would  have  the  error
fixed.    In  late  2009  and  early  2010,  K.R.  and  T.R.  called  and  e-
mailed  Attorney  Wood  several  times  asking  him  to  correct  the
judgment.    Attorney  Wood  frequently  failed  to  respond.
¶24   Attorney  Wood  eventually  moved  to  reopen  the  judgment
but  failed  to  send  his  clients  a  copy  of  the  motion.    The  court
set  a  hearing  for  July                                                      27,                                            2010.     On  June                 11,   2010,  K.R.  and
T.R.  e-mailed  Attorney  Wood  to  terminate  his  representation  due
to  his  lack  of  communication  and  requested  their  file.    K.R.  and
T.R.   were   not   aware   of   the   pending   motion   to   reopen   that
Attorney  Wood  had  finally  filed.    Attorney  Wood  did  not  respond
to  his  clients'  e-mail  or  send  them  their  file.     Attorney  Wood
failed  to  appear  at  the  July                                               27,                                            2010  motion  hearing,  and  the
court  dismissed  the  motion.
¶25   Between   September   and   December                                      2010,   the   OLR   made
several   attempts   to   contact   Attorney   Wood   to   investigate   a
grievance    filed    against    Attorney    Wood    related    to    his
representation  of  K.R.  and  T.R.     Attorney  Wood  did  not  respond
to  the  OLR's  communications.     On  January                                 5,                                             2011,  this  court
ordered  Attorney  Wood  to  show  cause  why  his  license  should  not
be   suspended   for   failure   to   cooperate   with   the   OLR.             On
January  25,  2011,  Attorney  Wood  finally  responded  satisfactorily
to  the  OLR  in  the  K.R.  and  T.R.  matter.
Unauthorized  Practice  (Count  28)
                                                                                9




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               No.                     2011AP1626-D
¶26   On  April                                                                17,                                                                                                                                     2009,  the  Board  of  Bar  Examiners                           (BBE)
                                                                                                                                           formally   notified   Attorney   Wood   that   it   would   suspend   his
                                                                               license  to  practice  law  on  June                        16,                                                                         2009,  at                               4:30  p.m.,  if  he
                                                                                                                                           failed  to  submit  satisfactory  documentation  showing  Continuing
Legal  Education                                                               (CLE)  hours.     On  June                                                                                                              16,                                     2009,  Attorney  Wood
                                                                                                                                           hand-delivered  CLE  documentation  to  the  BBE,  but  reported  one
                                                                               credit  short  of  the  requirements.
¶27   On   June                                                                17,                                                         2009,   the   BBE   mailed   Attorney   Wood   a
notice  of  suspension.    That  same  day,  Attorney  Wood  appeared  on
a  client's  behalf  at  a  worker's  compensation  hearing.    Over  the
next  few  days,  while  suspended,  Attorney  Wood  filed  documents
with  courts  in  at  least  three  cases.    On  June  23,  2009,  Attorney
Wood  obtained  one  ethics  CLE  credit  and  achieved  reinstatement,
effective  June  25,  2009.
¶28   The  referee  concluded,  both  pursuant  to  the  terms  of
the  partial  stipulation  and  following  an  evidentiary  hearing,
that   Attorney   Wood   committed   the   misconduct   alleged   in   the
complaint.
¶29   The   OLR   alleged   and   the   referee   concluded   that
Attorney  Wood  committed  the  following  misconduct:  six  violations
of  20:1.33  (Counts  1,  3,  5,  8,  13,  24);  one  violation  of  former
SCR                                                                            20:1.4(a)4                                                  (effective  prior  to  July                                                 1,                                      2007)                   (Count         2)  and
3  SCR                                                                         20:1.3  states,  "A  lawyer  shall  act  with  reasonable
diligence  and  promptness  in  representing  a  client."
4  Former  SCR  20:1.4(a)  stated,  "A  lawyer  shall  keep  a  client
reasonably  informed  about  the  status  of  a  matter  and  promptly
comply  with  reasonable  requests  for  information."
10




No.                                                                           2011AP1626-D
six  violations  of  current  SCR  20:1.4(a)(3)  and  (4)5  (Counts  2,  4,
6,                                                                            9,                                                            14,                                                                         25);  five  violations  of  SCR                                               22.03(2)6       (Counts   7,   12,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        17,  23,  27)  and  four  violations  of  SCR  22.03(6)7  (Counts  12,  17,
23,                                                                                                                                                                                                                     27),  all  enforceable  via  SCR  20:8.4(h);8  five  violations  of
5  SCR                                                                        20:1.4(a)(3)  and                                                                                                                         (4)  state  as  follows:     "A  lawyer
                                                                                                                                            shall:  .  .  .  (3)  keep  the  client  reasonably  informed  about  the
status  of  a  matter;                                                                                                                      [and]                                                                       (4)  promptly  comply  with  reasonable
                                                                              requests  by  the  client  for  information;  .  .  .                                                                                                                                                                   ."
6  SCR  22.03(2)  states:
Upon   commencing   an   investigation,   the   director
shall   notify   the   respondent   of   the   matter   being
investigated  unless  in  the  opinion  of  the  director  the
investigation  of  the  matter  requires  otherwise.     The
respondent  shall  fully  and  fairly  disclose  all  facts
and  circumstances  pertaining  to  the  alleged  misconduct
within                                                                        20  days  after  being  served  by  ordinary  mail  a
request   for   a   written   response.      The   director   may
allow  additional  time  to  respond.     Following  receipt
of   the   response,   the   director   may   conduct   further
investigation  and  may  compel  the  respondent  to  answer
questions,    furnish    documents,    and    present    any
information  deemed  relevant  to  the  investigation.
7  SCR  22.03(6)  provides:
In    the    course    of    the    investigation,    the
respondent's    wilful    failure    to    provide    relevant
information,  to  answer  questions  fully,  or  to  furnish
documents  and  the  respondent's  misrepresentation  in  a
disclosure  are  misconduct,  regardless  of  the  merits  of
the  matters  asserted  in  the  grievance.
8  SCR                                                                        20:8.4(h)  states  it  is  professional  misconduct  for  a
lawyer  to  "fail  to  cooperate  in  the  investigation  of  a  grievance
filed   with   the   office   of   lawyer   regulation   as   required   by
SCR  21.15(4),  SCR                                                           22.001 (9)                                                    (b),  SCR                                                                   22.03(2),  SCR                                                                22.03(6),  or
SCR  22.04(1);  .  .  .                                                       ."
11




                                                                                                                                                                        No.             2011AP1626-D
SCR                                                                         20:1.15,9  the  "trust  account  rule"                    (Counts                           10,       18,   19,            20,
                                                                            21);  two  violations  of  SCR             20:1.16(d)10   (Counts                           11  and         26);  one
9  The  pertinent  portions  of  SCR                                        20:1.15,  the  trust  account
rule,  that  were  found  to  have  been  violated  are  SCR  20:1.15(b),
(b)(4),  (d)(3),  (e)(4),  and  (f),  and  provide  as  follows:
(b)  Segregation  of  trust  property.
(1)  Separate  account.      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.
(4)  Unearned  fees  and  cost  advances.     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.
(d)  Prompt  notice  and  delivery  of  property.
(3)  When  the  lawyer  and  another  person  or  the
client  and  another  person  claim  ownership  interest  in
trust   property   identified   by   a   lien,   court   order,
judgment,   or   contract,   the   lawyer   shall   hold   that
property  in  trust  until  there  is  an  accounting  and
severance   of   the   interests.                                           If   a   dispute   arises
regarding  the  division  of  the  property,  the  lawyer
shall  hold  the  disputed  portion  in  trust  until  the
dispute  is  resolved.    Disputes  between  the  lawyer  and
a  client  are  subject  to  the  provisions  of  sub.  (g)(2).
12




No.                                                                 2011AP1626-D
(e)  Operational  requirements  for  trust  accounts.
(4)  Prohibited  transactions.
a.  Cash.     No  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."
(f)  Record-keeping   requirements   for   all   trust
accounts.
(1)  Draft  accounts.     Complete  records  of  a  trust
account   that   is   a   draft   account   shall   include   a
transaction   register;   individual   client   ledgers   for
IOLTA   accounts   and   other   pooled   trust   accounts;   a
ledger  for  account  fees  and  charges,  if  law  firm  funds
are   held   in   the   account   pursuant   to   sub.              (b)(3);
deposit    records;    disbursement    records;    monthly
statements;  and  reconciliation  reports,  subject  to  all
of  the  following:
b.  Individual   client   ledgers.                                  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.
d.  Deposit  records.    Deposit  slips  shall  identify
the  name  of  the  lawyer  or  law  firm,  and  the  name  of
the   account.      The   deposit   slip   shall   identify   the
amount   of   each   deposit   item,   the   client   or   matter
associated  with  each  deposit  item,  and  the  date  of  the
deposit.                                                            The   lawyer   shall   maintain   a   copy   or
13




No.                                                                 2011AP1626-D
duplicate  of  each  deposit  slip.    All  deposits  shall  be
made  intact.    No  cash,  or  other  form  of  disbursement,
shall  be  deducted  from  a  deposit.     Deposits  of  wired
funds  shall  be  documented  in  the  account's  monthly
statement.
e.  Disbursement  records.
1.  Checks.     Checks  shall  be  pre-printed  and  pre-
numbered.     The  name  and  address  of  the  lawyer  or  law
firm,  and  the  name  of  the  account  shall  be  printed  in
the  upper  left  corner  of  the  check.     Trust  account
checks  shall  include  the  words  "Client  Account,"  or
"Trust  Account,"  or  words  of  similar  import  in  the
account  name.     Each  check  disbursed  from  the  trust
account   shall   identify   the   client   matter   and   the
reason  for  the  disbursement  on  the  memo  line.
2.  Canceled   checks.                                              Canceled   checks   shall   be
obtained   from   the   financial   institution.                    Imaged
checks  may  be  substituted  for  canceled  checks.
3.  Imaged   checks.                                                Imaged   checks   shall   be
acceptable  if  they  provide  both  the  front  and  reverse
of  the  check  and  comply  with  the  requirements  of  this
paragraph.     The  information  contained  on  the  reverse
side    of    the    imaged    checks    shall    include    any
endorsement  signatures  or  stamps,  account  numbers,  and
transaction  dates  that  appear  on  the  original.    Imaged
checks   shall   be   of   sufficient   size   to   be   readable
without  magnification  and  as  close  as  possible  to  the
size  of  the  original  check.
10  SCR  20:1.16(d)  states:
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.
14




                                                                                                                                                                                               No.                           2011AP1626-D
violation   of   SCR                                                         20:3.211                                                                      (Count                              15);   one   violation   of
SCR  20:3.4(c)12                                                             (Count                                                                        16);   one   violation   of   SCR                                 20:8.4(c)13
11  SCR                                                                      20:3.2   provides   "A   lawyer   shall   make   reasonable
efforts  to  expedite  litigation  consistent  with  the  interests  of
the  client."
12  SCR                                                                      20:3.4(c)  says  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;  .  .  .                                                             ."
13  SCR                                                                      20:8.4(c)  provides  it  is  professional  misconduct  for
                                                                             a   lawyer   to   "engage   in   conduct   involving   dishonesty,   fraud,
deceit  or  misrepresentation;  .  .  .                                      ."
15




No.                                                                            2011AP1626-D
(Count  22);  and  one  violation  of  SCR  31.10(1),14  enforceable  via
SCR  20:8.4(f)15  (Count  28).
¶30   In  this  case,  the  referee  concluded,  and  we  agree,
that  a  six-month  suspension  is  warranted.    The  misconduct  proven
by  the  OLR  is  serious,  and  there  is  a  clear  need  to  protect  the
public  from  possible  repetition  of  this  kind  of  misconduct.    As
the  referee  observed,  Attorney  Wood's  misconduct  goes  to  the
heart  of  a  lawyer's  obligations  to  his  client.     The  referee
observed:
14  SCR  31.10(1)  states:
If  a  lawyer  fails  to  comply  with  the  attendance
requirement  of  SCR                                                           31.02,  fails  to  comply  with  the
reporting  requirement  of  SCR  31.03(1),  or  fails  to  pay
the  late  fee  under  SCR  31.03(2),  the  board  shall  serve
a  notice  of  noncompliance  on  the  lawyer.    This  notice
shall  advise  the  lawyer  that  the  lawyer's  state  bar
membership    shall    be    automatically    suspended    for
failing  to  file  evidence  of  compliance  or  to  pay  the
late  fee  within                                                              60  days  after  service  of  the  notice.
The  board  shall  certify  the  names  of  all  lawyers  so
suspended  under  this  rule  to  the  clerk  of  the  supreme
court,   all   supreme   court   justices,   all   court   of
appeals  and  circuit  court  judges,  all  circuit  court
commissioners   appointed   under   SCR                                        75.02(1)   in   this
state,  all  circuit  court  clerks,  all  juvenile  court
clerks,   all   registers   in   probate,   the   executive
director  of  the  state  bar  of  Wisconsin,  the  Wisconsin
State  Public  Defender's  Office,  and  the  clerks  of  the
federal  district  courts  in  Wisconsin.    A  lawyer  shall
not  engage  in  the  practice  of  law  in  Wisconsin  while
his  or  her  state  bar  membership  is  suspended  under
this  rule.
15  SCR                                                                        20:8.4(f)  states  it  is  professional  misconduct  for
lawyer  to  "violate  a  statute,  supreme  court  rule,  supreme  court
order   or   supreme   court   decision   regulating   the   conduct   of
lawyers;  .  .  .                                                              ."
16




No.                                                                         2011AP1626-D
Two    of    the    most    important    and    foundational
requirements  for  a  lawyer  are  to  act  with  diligence
and  communicate  with  the  client.     This  case  doesn't
involve  a  situation  where  Mr.  Wood  attempted  to  handle
a  matter  that  was  beyond  his  legal  capacity,  or  where
he  simply  didn't  understand  a  complicated  legal  issue.
These  are  matters  where  Mr.  Wood  simply  failed  to  act
diligently  on  client  matters  and  then  when  confronted
by  his  clients,  failed  to  communicate.     To  compound
the  issue,  when  several  of  Mr.  Wood's  clients  finally
lost  patience  and  brought  the  issue  to  the  OLR  for
investigation,  Mr.  Wood  often  failed  to  cooperate  with
the  OLR.    Further,  the  misconduct  doesn't  involve  just
one   case   that   slipped   through   the   cracks——this
misconduct  spans  a  period  of  time  and  a  series  of
cases.                                                                      This   is   a   pattern   of   misconduct   that   has
caused  Mr.  Wood's  clients  unnecessary  anxiety,  stress
and  money.
What  is  most  disturbing  is  the  fact  in  at  [least]
three  of  the  matters  Mr.  Wood  has  tried  to  justify  his
misconduct  rather  than  simply  acknowledge  he  made  an
error  in  judgment.    Mr.  Wood's  weak  efforts  to  justify
his  misconduct  leads  me  to  believe  that  Mr.  Wood  does
not  clearly  understand  his  ethical  failings  and  is
therefore    more    likely    to    repeat    this    kind    of
misconduct.
The   case   law   also   supports   a   more   serious
sanction.    In  Disciplinary  Proceedings  Against  Hansen,
2009  WI  56,  318  Wis.  2d  1,  768  N.W.2d  1,  a  nine  month
sanction  was  imposed  for                                                 28  counts  of  misconduct  in
four  client  matters.     The  misconduct  was  similar  in
nature  to  that  alleged  in  this  case,  and  while  the
attorney  in  Hansen  had  a  prior  private  reprimand,  his
depression  also  played  a  role  in  the  misconduct,  and
could   be   considered   a   mitigating   factor.      In   this
case,   there   were                                                        28   counts   of   misconduct   on   seven
client   matters.                                                           While   there   has   been   no   prior
discipline,   there   has   been   no   explanation   for   the
misconduct  either.
¶31   This  court  will  affirm  a  referee's  findings  of  fact
unless   they   are   clearly   erroneous.                                  Conclusions   of   law   are
reviewed  de  novo.    In  re  Disciplinary  Proceedings  Against  Tully,
17




                                                                                                                                                                            No.                                 2011AP1626-D
2005  WI                                                                       100,                                                            ¶25,   283  Wis.  2d  124,   699  N.W.2d  882.     This  court
is   free   to   impose   whatever   discipline   it   deems   appropriate,
regardless  of  the  referee's  recommendation.    In  re  Disciplinary
Proceedings  Against  Widule,  2003  WI  34,  ¶44,  261  Wis.  2d  45,  660
N.W.2d  686.
¶32   We  adopt  the  referee's  findings  of  fact  because  they
have  not  been  shown  to  be  clearly  erroneous.    We  also  agree  with
the   referee's   conclusions   of   law   and   her   recommendation
regarding    discipline.                                                       Because    this    case    presents    no
extraordinary  circumstances,  we  further  determine  that  Attorney
Wood  should  be  required  to  pay  the  full  costs  of  this  matter.
See  SCR  22.24(1m)  (supreme  court's  general  policy  upon  a  finding
of   misconduct   is   to   impose   all   costs   upon   the   respondent
attorney).
¶33   Finally,  we  turn  to  the  issue  of  restitution.     The
referee  recommended  the  court  require  Attorney  Wood  to  reimburse
J.M.  and  R.M.     She  notes  that  the  complaint  alleged  Attorney
Wood  failed  to  return  an  unearned  retainer,  despite  a  written
request   for   the   refund   from   the   clients.                           She   notes   that
"[a]mazingly,  Mr.  Wood  argues  that  he  is  entitled  to  retain
those    remaining    funds    because    he    spoke    to    the    client
approximately    eight    times    during    the    course    of    the
representation.     However,  all  of  those  contacts  were  initiated
by  the                                                                        [clients]  in  an  effort  to  reach  Mr.  Wood  and  inquire
about  the  progress  of  their  case."    The  referee  opined  that  the
clients  "shouldn't  have  to  pay  a  fee  to  get  Mr.  Wood  to  do  his
job,  or  to  get  information  about  the  status  of  their  case."
18




                                                                              No.                                     2011AP1626-D
¶34   The  referee  stated:
I   would   recommend   a   refund                                            [of]   almost   the   entire
$1000  fee.     The  new  attorney  hired  by                                 [the  clients]
likely  had  to  duplicate  much  of  the  work  billed  by
Mr.  Wood,    including    reviewing    client    documents,
reading  and  discussing  the  expert  report  .  .  .                        .    This
wasted  work  accounted  for  2.9  hours  of  the  work  billed
by  Mr.  Wood,  for  a  total  of                                             $652.50.     Including  the
$100  that  Mr.  Wood  agrees  was  not  billed,  the  total
owed  the  [clients]  would  be  $752.50.
¶35   The   OLR   filed   a   restitution   statement   stating   its
policy  on  restitution  and  stating  that  with  respect  to  this
matter  it  would  only  seek  restitution  of                                $100,  explaining  that
"[s]uccessor   counsel's   time   is   not   in   the   record,   and
regardless,   represents   incidental   or   consequential   damages."
The  OLR  also  sets  forth  the  reasons  it  does  not  seek  restitution
in   any   other   client   matter.                                           Attorney   Wood   had   multiple
opportunities  to  object  to  the  recommended  restitution  before
both  the  referee  and  this  court.    He  has  not  done  so.
¶36   We  generally  adhere  to  the  OLR's  policy  with  respect
to  restitution.    Here,  under  the  facts  presented  and  in  view  of
the   referee's   specific   recommendation,   we   determine   that
Attorney  Wood  should  be  ordered  to  pay  restitution  in  the  amount
of  $752.50.
¶37   IT  IS  ORDERED  that  the  license  of  Everett  E.  Wood  to
practice  law  in  Wisconsin  is  suspended  for  a  period  of  six
months,  effective  March  1,  2013.
¶38   IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  Everett  E.  Wood  shall  pay
restitution  in  the  amount  of                                              $752.50  plus  interest  dating  from
19




                                                                               No.                                                          2011AP1626-D
May  11,                                                                       2009,  to  his  former  clients,  A.M.  and  J.M.,  within   30
days  of  the  date  of  this  order.
¶39   IT   IS   FURTHER   ORDERED   that   Everett   E.   Wood   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.
¶40   IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  within  60  days  of  the  date
of  this  order,  Everett  E.  Wood  shall  pay  to  the  Office  of  Lawyer
Regulation  the  costs  of  this  proceeding.
¶41   IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  the  restitution  specified
above  is  to  be  completed  prior  to  paying  costs  to  the  Office  of
Lawyer  Regulation.
¶42   IT   IS   FURTHER   ORDERED   that   compliance   with   all
conditions  of  this  order  is  required  for  reinstatement.     See
SCR  22.29(4)(c).
20




No.   2011AP1626-D
1

Download 2011ap001626-d.pdf

Wisconsin Law