OLR Compendium > Public Reprimand of William J. Grogan

Public Reprimand of William J. Grogan

2007-6

Attorney William J. Grogan failed to timely file his state and federal income tax returns for tax years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, and 2005. Returns for tax years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2004 were filed sometime in the fall of 2005. A return for tax year 2005 was being amended as of January of 2007. Grogan also was tardy in filing quarterly withholding tax returns on approximately 32 occasions.

CCAP records indicate that, as of February of 2007, Grogan was the subject of seven tax warrants totaling $60,413.47 relating to unpaid income taxes. Six of those warrants have been partially satisfied although it is unclear to what extent. CCAP records also indicate that, in addition to the seven warrants listed above, Grogan has been the subject of numerous other tax warrants that he has satisfied. Grogan asserts that he has satisfied the warrants by, amongst other things, selling his home. Grogan currently owes at least $12,000.00 in withholding taxes.

Grogan filed an appeal of the determination of his outstanding tax liability and expected a decision in February of 2007. He also was attempting to secure a loan to pay the outstanding taxes.

On November 17, 2005, staff sent Grogan a letter, via first class U.S. mail, informing him of the nature of OLR’s investigation and asking him to provide a written response to a series of questions. Staff informed Grogan that, pursuant to SCR 22.03(2), he was required to provide a written response by December 12, 2005. The letter further advised Grogan of his duty to cooperate with OLR’s investigation under SCR 21.15(4) and SCR 22.03(6). Grogan failed to respond to the November 17, 2005 letter.

On December 15, 2005, staff sent Grogan a second letter, via first class mail and certified mail, reminding him of his duty to cooperate with OLR and requesting a response by December 27, 2005. The signed the certified mail receipt, acknowledging delivery of the letter, was returned to OLR. The receipt was not dated and was signed by a Paula Morgan. Grogan failed to respond to staff’s letter of December 15, 2005.

On January 3, 2006, staff sent Grogan a third letter, via U.S. mail and personal service, requesting a response by January 10, 2006. Grogan was again reminded of his duty to cooperate and the possible consequences of not cooperating, including OLR’s director seeking the suspension of his license for wilful non-cooperation. On January 5, 2006, J.E. Lowery Professional Services Corporation obtained personal service of staff’s January 3, 2006 letter on Grogan at his office.

Grogan finally submitted a response to staff’s November 17, 2005 letter on January 10, 2006.

During the course of this investigation, staff repeatedly asked Grogan to delineate the specific quarters for which he was delinquent in filing his withholding tax returns, the specific dates on which certain delinquent income tax and withholding tax returns were filed, and his exact liability for any outstanding taxes. Grogan has failed to provide this specific information to staff, despite staff’s numerous requests.

By failing to timely file his income and withholding tax returns, Grogan violated a Supreme Court decision regulating the conduct of lawyers, contrary to SCR 20:8.4 (f), which states, “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of lawyers.” See, e.g., Disciplinary Proceedings against Owens, 172 Wis. 2d 54, 492 N.W.2d 157 (1992) (failure to file income tax returns constitutes professional misconduct). See also, Disciplinary Proceedings against Haley, 136 Wis. 2d 87, 401 N.W.2d 169 (1987).

By failing to respond to staff’s November 17, 2005 letter until January 10, 2006, Grogan violated SCR 22.03(2), which states, “The respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to alleged misconduct within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail a request for a written response.”

By failing to provide certain specific requested information to staff, Grogan violated SCR 22.03(6), which states, “In the course of the investigation, the respondent’s willful failure to provide relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish documents…are misconduct regardless of the merits of the matters asserted in the grievance.”

SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6) are enforceable under the Rules of Professional Conduct via SCR 20:8.4(f).

Grogan has no prior discipline.

In accordance with SCR 22.09(3), William J. Grogan is hereby publicly reprimanded.