Disciplinary Proceedings Against Grogan
2014 WI 39, 6/19/2014 (2014)
|
ATTORNEY disciplinary
proceeding. Attorney's license revoked.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review the
recommendation of the referee, Reserve Judge
Robert E. Kinney, that the license of
Attorney William J. Grogan to practice law
in Wisconsin be revoked due to professional
misconduct. The referee also recommended
that Attorney Grogan be ordered to pay
restitution and the costs of this
proceeding. Attorney Grogan did not timely
appeal the report and recommendation.
¶2 We adopt the referee's findings of
fact and conclusions of law and agree that
the seriousness of Attorney Grogan's
professional misconduct warrants the
revocation of his law license. We further
agree that he should pay restitution in the
amounts described below, and that he should
pay the costs of this proceeding.
¶3 Attorney Grogan was admitted to
practice law in Wisconsin in 1978. He has
practiced in the Appleton area.
|
|
|
¶4 Attorney Grogan has been previously
disciplined for unprofessional conduct. In
2007, Attorney Grogan was publicly
reprimanded for failing to timely file
income and withholding tax returns, and
failing to provide information in a timely
fashion during an Office of Lawyer
Regulation (OLR) investigation. See Public
Reprimand of William J. Grogan, No. 2007-6.
In 2011, Attorney Grogan's Wisconsin law
license was suspended for 60 days for
misconduct consisting of five violations of
trust account rules and one count of failing
to cooperate with an OLR investigation.
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
William J. Grogan, 2011 WI 7, 331 Wis. 2d
341, 795 N.W.2d 745.
¶5 Since March 7, 2011, Attorney
Grogan's Wisconsin law license has been
suspended continuously. Attorney Grogan has
not satisfied certain conditions placed on
the reinstatement of his license following
the 60-day disciplinary suspension imposed
in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
William J. Grogan, 331 Wis. 2d 341, ¶¶16,
18. Attorney Grogan's license is also
presently suspended for failing to comply
with continuing legal education requirements
and failing to pay bar dues. Finally, on
June 16, 2011, and on January 24, 2012, this
court temporarily suspended Attorney
Grogan's license to practice law for his
willful failure to cooperate in two separate
OLR investigations concerning certain
conduct underlying this opinion. These
temporary suspensions remain in effect.
¶6 The OLR's complaint against Attorney
Grogan consists of some 33 counts of
misconduct committed in eight separate
client matters: Charles B. (Counts 1-3);
Clayton B. (Counts 4-8); D.D. (Counts 9-11);
L.J. (Counts 12-14); M.S.L. (Counts 15-20);
J.J.M. (Counts 21-26); D.K.K. (Counts 27-
29); and C.T. (Counts 30-33). Attorney
Grogan answered the complaint with a general
denial of all counts. The referee held a
six-day hearing on this matter and received
post-hearing briefing, after which the
referee filed a 93-page report concluding
that Attorney Grogan had committed all 33
alleged acts of professional misconduct.
¶7 Given the volume of the factual
findings and legal conclusions made by the
referee, we do not repeat them all here. It
is sufficient to provide the following
summary information concerning the serious
misconduct at issue in this matter.
|
|
|
¶8 The OLR alleged and the referee
concluded that, contrary to SCR 20:1.3,
Attorney Grogan willfully failed to act with
diligence and promptness during his
representation of Clayton B. (Count 4),
M.S.L. (Count 15), and D.K.K. (Count 27).
|
|
|
¶9 The OLR alleged and the referee
concluded that, contrary to SCR 20:1.5(b)
(3), Attorney Grogan improperly retained
funds in his trust account during his
representation of C.T. (Count 31).
|
|
|
¶10 The OLR alleged and the referee
concluded that, contrary to SCR 20:1.15(b)
(1), Attorney Grogan failed to hold in
trust, separate from his own property, the
property of clients and third persons in his
possession during his representation of
J.J.M. (Count 21) and D.K.K. (Count 28).
|
|
|
¶11 The OLR alleged and the referee
concluded that, contrary to SCR 20:1.15(d)
(1), Attorney Grogan failed to promptly
disburse funds that a third party was
entitled to receive during his
representation of J.J.M. (Count 22) and C.T.
(Count 30).
|
|
|
¶12 The OLR alleged and the referee
concluded that, contrary to SCR 20:1.15(d)
(2), Attorney Grogan failed to provide a
full written accounting of funds he received
from J.J.M. (Count 23).
|
|
|
¶13 The OLR alleged and the referee
concluded that, contrary to SCR 20:1.16(d),
Attorney Grogan failed upon termination of
representation of Clayton B. to refund any
unearned portion of an advanced fee (Count
6).
|
|
|
¶14 The OLR alleged and the referee
concluded that, contrary to SCR 20:3.4(c),
Attorney Grogan knowingly disobeyed a court
order during his representation of J.J.M.
(Count 24).
|
|
|
¶15 The OLR alleged and the referee
concluded that, contrary to SCR 20:5.5(b)
(2), Attorney Grogan held out to the public
or otherwise represented that he was
admitted to practice law at a time when his
law license was suspended (Count 32).
|
|
|
¶16 The OLR alleged and the referee
concluded that, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c),
Attorney Grogan engaged in dishonesty,
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation during
his representation of Charles B. (Count 2),
Clayton B. (Count 7), D.D. (Count 10), L.J.
(Count 13), and M.S.L. (Count 18).
|
|
|
¶17 The OLR alleged and the referee
concluded that, contrary to SCR 22.03(2),
Attorney Grogan failed to fully and fairly
disclose to the OLR all facts and
circumstances pertaining to alleged
misconduct that occurred during his
representation of Clayton B. (Count 8), D.D.
(Count 11), L.J. (Count 14), M.S.L. (Count
20), and D.K.K. (Count 29).
|
|
|
¶18 The OLR alleged and the referee
concluded that, contrary to SCR 22.03(2) and
SCR 22.03(6), Attorney Grogan failed to
fully and fairly disclose to the OLR all
facts and circumstances pertaining to
alleged misconduct that occurred during his
representation of J.J.M. and C.T., and also
willfully failed to provide relevant
information, fully and truthfully answer
questions, or furnish documents during the
OLR's investigation into his work on these
same matters (Counts 25 and 33).
|
|
|
¶19 The OLR alleged and the referee
concluded that, contrary to SCR 22.03(6),
Attorney Grogan willfully failed to provide
relevant information, fully and truthfully
answer questions, or furnish documents in
the course of the OLR's investigation into
his representation of J.J.M. (Count 26).
|
|
|
¶20 The OLR alleged and the referee
concluded that, contrary to SCR 22.26(1)(a)
and (b), Attorney Grogan failed to notify
Clayton B. and M.S.L. by certified mail of
his license suspension and failed to advise
them to seek legal advice of their choice
elsewhere (Counts 5 and 17).
|
|
|
¶21 The OLR alleged and the referee
concluded that, contrary to SCR 22.26(1)(c),
Attorney Grogan failed to promptly provide
written notification of his license
suspension to the circuit court in the
M.S.L. matter (Count 19).
|
|
|
¶22 The OLR alleged and the referee
concluded that, contrary to SCR 22.26(2),
Attorney Grogan engaged in the practice of
law after his license had been suspended
during his representation of Charles B.
(Count 1), D.D. (Count 9), L.J. (Count 12),
and M.S.L. (Count 16).
|
|
|
¶23 The OLR alleged and the referee
concluded that, contrary to SCR 10.03(2),
Attorney Grogan failed to report changes to
his office address to the State Bar (Count
3).
¶24 After making a determination of
misconduct as to all 33 counts summarized
above, the referee evaluated the appropriate
discipline for Attorney Grogan. The referee
recommended the revocation of Attorney
Grogan's law license. The referee wrote
that Attorney Grogan's misconduct
was "blatant." He "grossly mistreated" his
clients, many of whom were financially
challenged or otherwise vulnerable.
Referring to Attorney Grogan's conduct in
representing L.J., the referee wrote
that "[w]e now have the spectacle of a
suspended attorney, a former district
attorney, no less, meeting clients at Burger
King, taking their money, and essentially
disappearing into the night. The damage
done to the profession is truly
incalculable."
¶25 The referee vigorously rejected
Attorney Grogan's defenses to the OLR's
allegations. The referee variously
described Attorney Grogan's defenses
as "entirely incredible," "riddled with
inconsistency," "baseless," and "advanced
without a shred of supporting documentary
evidence . . . , and in the face of a
mountain of contemporaneous written evidence
to the contrary." The referee wrote that
one of Attorney Grogan's arguments during
the six-day disciplinary hearing "literally
destroyed any remaining credibility he
possessed." The referee also commented that
Attorney Grogan's noncooperation with the
disciplinary process rose "to a level never
before seen by this referee. [Attorney
Grogan] has made engaging in basic
communication with him a monumental
struggle. The jobs of OLR investigators,
Court clerks, and even this referee were
needlessly magnified by his avoidance
behavior."
¶26 As mentioned above, the referee
ultimately recommended the revocation of
Attorney Grogan's law license. The referee
wrote that "[w]hile it is almost
unfathomable to think that an attorney would
risk censure over such trifling amounts as
[Attorney Grogan] took in this case, it is
the blatant nature of the violations,
combined with a long pattern of unremorseful
behavior, which tips the scale."
|
|
|
¶27 Concerning monetary sanctions, the
referee recommended that Attorney Grogan be
ordered to pay restitution as follows:
• Charles B. matter: $300 to the
State Bar's Wisconsin Lawyers Fund for
Client Protection ("Fund");
• Clayton B. matter: $875 to the
Fund;
• D.D. matter: $220 to D.D.;
• L.J. matter: $500 to the Fund;
• M.S.L. matter: $65 to M.S.L.;
• J.J.M. matter: $6,500 to the Fund,
$1,000 to J.J.M.; and
• C.T. matter: $2,000 to C.T.'s
mother, C.V.G.
¶28 The referee also recommended that
Attorney Grogan be ordered to pay costs of
$37,718.88, a figure which represents costs
through November 26, 2013.
|
|
|
¶29 The OLR did not appeal from the
referee report, and, as mentioned earlier,
Attorney Grogan did not timely file an
appeal. Accordingly, this court's review
proceeds pursuant to SCR 22.17(2). In
conducting our review, we will affirm the
referee's findings of fact unless they are
found to be clearly erroneous, but we will
review the referee's conclusions of law on a
de novo basis. See In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126,
¶5, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125. The
court may impose whatever sanction it sees
fit regardless of the referee's
recommendation. See In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule,
2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d
686.
¶30 Based upon our review of the record,
we approve and adopt the referee's findings
of fact and conclusions of law. We
determine that the seriousness of Attorney
Grogan's misconduct demonstrates that his
law license must be revoked to protect the
public, courts, and legal system from the
repetition of the misconduct; to impress
upon Attorney Grogan the seriousness of his
misconduct; and to deter other attorneys
from engaging in similar misconduct. We
also agree with and adopt the referee's
recommendation that Attorney Grogan be
ordered to pay restitution and costs as
described above.
¶31 IT IS ORDERED that the license of
William J. Grogan to practice law in
Wisconsin is revoked, effective as of the
date of this order.
¶32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the
temporary license suspensions of June 16,
2011 and January 24, 2012, which arose out
of William J. Grogan's willful failure to
cooperate with two separate OLR grievance
investigations in this matter, are lifted.
¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60
days of the date of this order William J.
Grogan shall pay restitution as follows:
• Charles B. matter: $300 to the
Fund;
• Clayton B. matter: $875 to the
Fund;
• D.D. matter: $220 to D.D.;
• L.J. matter: $500 to the Fund;
• M.S.L. matter: $65 to M.S.L.;
• J.J.M. matter: $6,500 to the Fund,
$1,000 to J.J.M.; and
• C.T. matter: $2,000 to C.T.'s
mother, C.V.G.
¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60
days of the date of this order, William J.
Grogan shall pay to the Office of Lawyer
Regulation the imposed costs of this
proceeding.
¶35 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the
restitution specified above is to be
completed prior to paying costs to the
Office of Lawyer Regulation.
¶36 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that William
J. Grogan shall comply with the provisions
of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a
person whose license to practice law in
Wisconsin has been revoked.
¶37 DAVID T. PROSSER, J., did not
participate.
|
|
|