Disciplinary Proceedings Against Stokes
2012 WI 105 (2012)
|
ATTORNEY disciplinary
proceeding. Attorney's license
revoked.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Pending before the
court is a report and recommendation filed
on March 6, 2012, by Referee Lisa Goldman.
The report recommends this court revoke the
license of Attorney David G. Stokes to
practice law in Wisconsin. The parties have
stipulated that revocation is appropriate.
We agree that revocation is appropriate and
direct Attorney Stokes to pay the costs of
this proceeding which total $1,562.12 as of
March 26, 2012.
|
|
|
¶2 Attorney Stokes was licensed to
practice law in Wisconsin on October 17,
1978. In May 1982 Attorney Stokes was
privately reprimanded for improperly
discussing a client's legal matter in the
context of another client matter. In 1995
he was publicly reprimanded for failing to
provide competent and diligent
representation of a client and for failing
to communicate with a client in a criminal
appeal matter. In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Stokes, 190 Wis. 2d
480,
526 N.W.2d 507 (1995). Attorney Stokes'
license to practice law in Wisconsin was
summarily suspended pursuant to SCR 22.20(1)
by this court on September 27, 2011, due to
Attorney Stokes' criminal conviction as more
fully described below. His license is
currently suspended.
¶3 On October 6, 2010, Attorney Stokes
was charged in Dane County circuit court
with the commission of two felonies.
State
v. Stokes, Dane County Circuit Court Case
No. 2010CF1663. He was charged with felony
theft, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 943.20(1)(d)
and (3)(c), for billing the Wisconsin State
Public Defender's Office (SPD) for 691 hours
of work which he did not perform, consisting
of 628 fraudulent billing entries in more
than 40 client matters over a nearly four-
year period, and for which he received more
than $19,600. He was also charged with
perjury, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 946.31(1)
(c), for allegedly giving false testimony
under oath before the judge in the John Doe
proceeding investigating Attorney Stokes'
SPD billings.
¶4 On May 16, 2011, upon stipulation to
the facts alleged in the criminal complaint,
Attorney Stokes was convicted of felony
theft. The perjury charge was dismissed on
the State's motion. Prior to his sentencing
hearing, Attorney Stokes repaid the SPD
$19,630.01. Attorney Stokes was sentenced
to two years' probation with several
conditions including six months
incarceration, fines and costs in the amount
of $6,423, and a prohibition on Attorney
Stokes from working for the SPD or as a
contract attorney for any government or non-
profit organization.
|
|
|
¶5 Attorney Stokes' criminal conviction
formed the basis for this court's order
summarily suspending Attorney Stokes'
license to practice law effective September
27, 2011, as well as an ensuing lawyer
disciplinary complaint filed on November 2,
2011, alleging one count of violating SCR
20:8.4(b). The Office of Lawyer Regulation
(OLR) sought revocation of Attorney Stokes'
law license. Attorney Stokes filed an
answer on or about December 1, 2011,
admitting all allegations, with
clarification as to one paragraph.
|
|
|
¶6 Meanwhile, in addition to the OLR
complaint, Attorney Stokes was also under
investigation by the OLR for five additional
grievances. On or about December 21, 2011,
Attorney Stokes filed a petition for
revocation by consent, together with an
appendix detailing the alleged misconduct,
in which he admitted he could not
successfully defend against the allegations
of misconduct reflected by the grievances.
The OLR filed a response in support of the
petition for revocation by consent on the
same day.
¶7 Two of the pending grievances were
filed by Brian Locke and relate to Mr.
Locke's claims of fraudulent billing,
allegations that Attorney Stokes committed
perjury and falsified evidence during the
John Doe proceeding, and allegations that
Attorney Stokes refused to answer discovery
requests and lied to the court in Mr.
Locke's malpractice action against Attorney
Stokes.
¶8 The third grievance was filed by
Attorney Deborah Smith, director of the
assigned counsel division of the SPD,
relating to fraudulent billing and echoing
the claims stated in the Locke grievance.
¶9 The fourth grievance was filed by
the U.S. Trustee, who provided numerous
examples of Attorney Stokes' incompetence as
an attorney practicing before the Western
District of Wisconsin Bankruptcy Court.
¶10 The fifth and final grievance was
filed by a former client, S.M., who
contended that Attorney Stokes failed to
properly represent her in a foreclosure
action and improperly deposited her advanced
fees in his business account.
¶11 On December 5, 2011, Referee Lisa
Goldman was appointed. She identified that
neither party had discussed restitution and,
on January 23, 2012, sent a letter asking
the parties to state their position on
restitution. On January 26, 2012, the OLR
responded that it did not seek restitution.
|
|
|
¶12 The referee filed her report on
March 6, 2012. With respect to the OLR
complaint, the referee found that by
fraudulently billing the SPD for work he did
not perform and by accepting more than
$19,600 from the SPD for that work,
resulting in a felony theft conviction under
Wis. Stat. § 943.20(1)(d) and (3)(c),
Attorney Stokes violated SCR 20:8.4(b).
¶13 In his petition for consensual
license revocation, Attorney Stokes has
conceded that he could not defend against
the five grievances that were under
investigation at the time he filed his
petition. The parties have stipulated that
revocation is appropriate.
|
|
|
¶14 The referee recommended that the
court leave the issue of restitution open
with regard to Attorney Stokes' clients in
the bankruptcy matters in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin. On March 26, 2012, after the
referee filed her report, the OLR filed a
document addressing the issue of
restitution. The OLR asked the court not to
adopt the recommendation regarding
restitution to the bankruptcy clients,
explaining that the bankruptcy court has
examined the circumstances, ordered refunds
in several cases, and has verified that
Attorney Stokes complied with those orders
for refunds.
¶15 However, the OLR now requests the
court order Attorney Stokes to make $200
restitution to S.M., explaining that
subsequent investigation revealed it would
be appropriate to seek restitution in this
amount. The OLR explains that this request
was not made before the referee filed her
report because the petition for consensual
license revocation was filed before the
grievances were submitted to the Preliminary
Review Committee for a determination of
cause to proceed. However, because this
request was made subsequent to the filing of
the referee's report, the report does not
contain any factual findings concerning
restitution to S.M.
|
|
|
¶16 When reviewing a report and
recommendation in an attorney disciplinary
proceeding, we affirm a referee's findings
of fact unless they are found to be clearly
erroneous. In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 Wis.
2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125. We review the
referee's conclusions of law, however, on a
de novo basis. Id. We determine the
appropriate level of discipline given the
particular facts of each case, independent
of the referee's recommendation, but
benefiting from it. See In re
Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34,
¶44,
261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.
¶17 Upon consideration of the entire
record, we accept the referee's findings of
fact and agree that the facts support the
legal conclusion that Attorney Stokes
engaged in the professional misconduct
alleged in the OLR's complaint filed on
November 2, 2011. We also agree with the
referee's recommendation that we accept
Attorney Stokes' petition for consensual
license revocation.
¶18 Attorney Stokes' professional
misconduct warrants the severest level of
discipline that we impose, namely, the
revocation of his license to practice law in
Wisconsin. We concur with the referee, who
noted:
This referee is troubled by
Stokes'
willingness to lie, forge signatures, and
fraudulently bill the SPD in furtherance of
his own personal goals. He lied to a
sitting court in the midst of a John Doe
investigation. He lied to the SPD in order
to line his pockets with extra, unearned[]
cash. He forged client signatures on
documents he later filed with the Western
District of Wisconsin Bankruptcy Court.
Equally disturbing are the allegations that
his filings were filled with mistakes, and
that the court personnel could not decipher
the filings, or process his client's cases
appropriately.
. . . To consider anything less than a
revocation of his license to practice law
would unduly depreciate the seriousness of
his misconduct and fail to deter others from
engaging in similar conduct.
¶19 With respect to the remaining
questions regarding restitution, we decline
to hold the matter of restitution open with
respect to the bankruptcy cases, and we
decline to grant the OLR's belated request
to order Attorney Stokes to pay $200 in
restitution to S.M. Finally, we further
determine that Attorney Stokes should be
required to pay the full costs of this
proceeding. SCR 22.24(1m).
¶20 IT IS ORDERED that the license of
David G. Stokes to practice law in Wisconsin
is revoked, effective the date of this order.
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within
180 days of the date of this order, David G.
Stokes shall pay to the Office of Lawyer
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the
extent he has not already done so, David G.
Stokes 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.
|
|
|