Attorney Martin J. Greenberg was admitted to the practice of law in Wisconsin on May 24, 1971, State Bar No. 1013746.

In February 2025, a new "client" claiming to be from Hong Kong emailed Greenberg. They told Greenberg they had an outstanding business loan that was due and owing from a Wisconsin resident. Greenberg had never represented the "client" before, and he only communicated with them by email and telephone. The "client" used a publicly available free gmail.com address, rather than a business email address. Greenberg never met with the "client," either in person or via a video meeting.

Greenberg never spoke with the "opposing party," supposedly a businessman with a company in Pewaukee, Wisconsin. Greenberg only communicated with the "opposing party" by email via a publicly available free gmail.com address rather than a business email address. While Greenberg reviewed the "opposing party's" supposed business website, he did not confirm the person with whom he emailed was, in fact, the person who owned the Wisconsin business in question. Greenberg never met with the "opposing party," either in person or via a video meeting.

The "client" emailed Greenberg, explaining they had wired the "opposing party" $3 million pursuant to a business loan agreement whereby the "client" would lend the "opposing party" $3 million, and in return the "opposing party" would pay him back $4.5 million one year later. The "client" provided the loan agreement to Greenberg, which described the purpose of the loan only as "pursuant to a business transaction he wants to enter into." The agreement did not set forth a 50% interest rate or mention a $4.5 million repayment, the amount the "client" claimed was to be repaid. Greenberg did not obtain any evidence that the "client" had ever actually lent $3 million to the "opposing party," or any other documentation confirming the transaction occurred. The "client" claimed that the "opposing party" failed to repay the $4.5 million.

Greenberg agreed to represent the "client" for an advanced fee of $2,500, which he would bill against at his normal hourly rate. Greenberg prepared a demand letter for the full $4.5 million, which the "client" insisted Greenberg send not by certified mail, but only by email to the "opposing party." On February 27, Greenberg emailed the demand letter to the "opposing party," who responded within a day, immediately agreeing to pay the full amount without any negotiation and without hiring counsel of his own. The "opposing party" proposed a payment plan of$2 million by April 30, 2025, $1.25 million by May 31, 2025, and $1.25 million by June 30, 2025.

Before the "parties" had entered into a settlement agreement, the "opposing party" wired $4,000 into Greenberg's Wisconsin trust account on March 3, as a "test transfer," which included a "5% Success Fee" of $200, presumably for Greenberg. On March 5, the "client" and the "opposing party" both purported to sign a settlement agreement prepared by Greenberg, incorporating the "opposing party's" payment plan.

On March 7, the "client" sent Greenberg wire transfer instructions to send $3,750 payable to a bank account at a bank in Mexico City. The "client" told Greenberg that the account belonged to a Mexican company owned by the "client," and that the wire was a test transfer to ensure the wire transfer instructions were correct.

During the period in question, Greenberg was working remotely from Florida while his paralegal in Wisconsin initiated the bank transactions pursuant to Greenberg's instructions. Greenberg's paralegal sent the $3,750 wire transfer.

On March 18, the "opposing party" wired $3,451,157.44 to Greenberg's trust account, which is an amount not mentioned in any of the agreements, did not match the agreed first installment payment of $2 million, and was not due to be paid until April 20, 2025. That same day, both the "client" and the "opposing party" emailed Greenberg to confirm he had received the funds and asked him to send out money by wire transfer the next day.

Once Greenberg confirmed he had received the funds, on March 19, the "client" sent Greenberg an email thanking him for receiving the funds in his trust account and including a breakdown of the payment as $3,451,157.44 funds received, less a "5% Success Fee" of $172,557.87, again presumably for Greenberg, leaving a balance of$3,278,599.57. The "client" also emailed wire transfer instructions to send $782,000 made payable to his Mexican company at a different bank in Mexico City than the bank to which Greenberg had previously sent the $3,750 test wire transfer. No other emails or agreements between the "parties" discussed $782,000 or sending money to a second bank in Mexico City. Nevertheless, that same day Greenberg had his paralegal wire transfer $782,000 to the second bank in Mexico. The "client" emailed Greenberg, asking him to confirm the money had been sent.

After Greenberg confirmed the $782,000 had been sent, the "client" confirmed by email he had received it and told Greenberg to keep an additional $5,000 for himself for his trouble. Greenberg never asked the "client" about the "success fees" of $200 and $172,557.87 or the bonus $5,000 the "client" offered him for doing no additional work beyond that for which Greenberg was hired.

On March 20, the "client" emailed Greenberg wire instructions to send $1,255,000 to the first bank in Mexico City, the same one to which Greenberg had sent the initial $3,750 "test transfer." Greenberg sent his paralegal to his Wisconsin bank to send this transfer, but Greenberg's bank refused to initiate tl1e wire transfer.

By that time, a bank in Florida, the source of the initial $3,451,157.44 transfer, had contacted Greenberg's bank in Wisconsin to inform them that the initial wire transfer had been fraudulent and requested Greenberg's bank return the funds. Because Greenberg had already sent $782,000 belonging to some unknown third party or parties to a bank in Mexico, Greenberg's bank was only able to return the remaining trust account balance of$2,701,632.75 to the bank in Florida, leaving a $0.00 balance in Greenberg's trust account. The bank then closed his trust account. Thereafter, Greenberg contacted the FBI and self-reported the incident to OLR.

Prior to receiving any funds from the "client" or "third party," Greenberg had been holding in his trust account $32,475.31, consisting of $2,024.69 belonging to one or more of his clients, and $30,450.62 in earned fees he had not yet disbursed from his trust account. The net effect of Greenberg's actions was that he failed to hold in trust the $2,024.69 in client funds and he unwittingly assisted the perpetrators in converting a total of $749,524.69 belonging to some unknown third party or third parties whose funds had been on deposit at the bank in Florida. While Greenberg reimbursed his clients for their lost $2,024.69, Greenberg himself lost $30,450.62 in earned fees. The $782,000 has not been recovered.

By failing to maintain the requisite knowledge and skill regarding technology and financial transactions reasonably necessary to recognize and prevent his unwitting participation in the fraudulent transactions, Greenberg violated SCR 20: 1.1, which states: "A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation."

By instructing his paralegal employee to initiate wire transfers of funds from his client trust account without taking reasonable steps to safeguard the client funds held in trust, Greenberg violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(1), which states in relevant part: "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."

By instructing his paralegal employee to initiate wire transfers of funds from his client trust account without taking reasonable steps to recognize and prevent his unwitting participation in fraudulent transactions, Greenberg violated SCR 20:1.15(f)(1), which states in relevant part: "A lawyer is responsible for the security of each transaction in the lawyer's trust account and shall not conduct or authorize transactions for which the lawyer does not have commercially reasonable security measures in place. A lawyer shall establish and maintain safeguards to assure that each disbursement from a trust account has been authorized by the lawyer and that each disbursement is made to the appropriate payee."

Greenberg has no prior discipline.

In accordance with SCR 22.09(3), Attorney Martin Greenberg is hereby publicly reprimanded.