Attorney Thomas 0. Mulligan was admitted to the practice of law in Wisconsin on December 19, 1985,State Bar No. 1013152.

On August 30, 2022, a client and her spouse hired Mulligan to represent them in a civil claim against contractors who performed faulty repairs to the clients' home. She paid Mulligan a $3,500 flat fee by personal check, and she signed a fee agreement. However, she was either never given a copy of the fee agreement or lost the copy she was given. She asked for a new copy, but Mulligan never provided one.

Mulligan does not have a copy of a fee agreement signed by the clients, but he provided OLR with a copy of the unsigned fee agreement he provided to the client, which was dated August 30, 2022.

The unsigned fee agreement stated, "THIS FEE IS NON REFUNDABLE .... Attorney restates the initial flat fee paid by the client is NON REFUNDABLE." (Emphasis in original.)

The unsigned fee agreement also inaccurately referred to the flat fee as a "retainer" or "retaining fee," and it stated that there would not be any accounting provided for the "retainer." It also stated, "If attorney's representation terminates prior to the performance of the agreed upon service, the retaining fee will be forfeiture by Client, who, by this document waives an accounting of the retaining fee of any initial flat fee paid by the Client."

The unsigned fee agreement also stated that the client would be charged an hourly rate for some services, contradicting that the representation was on a flat fee basis. Specifically, the agreement stated, "YOU WILL BE BILLED AT A RATE OF $350.00 PER HOUR ON THIS CASE FOR WORK INCURRED AT THE PRETRIAL LEVEL, WHICH IS INCURRED IN ADDITION OVER THE FLAT FEE." (Emphasis in original.) The agreement also stated that the client would be charged $500/hour rate for phone calls after work hours; a $50.00 fee for every sent text message, regardless of the time it takes to review it; and additional charges for "compensation as the case progresses."

The unsigned fee agreement does include the required notice under SCR 20:1.5(g)(1)(e) regarding Mulligan's obligation to submit any unresolved fee dispute to binding arbitration within 30 days, and it includes the required language under SCR 20:1.5(g)(1)(f) regarding the Wisconsin Lawyers Fund for Client Protection. However, this language contradicts the language that the flat fee is nonrefundable and that Mulligan does not have to provide an accounting of the fee.

On October 26, 2022, Mulligan filed a Summons and Complaint on the clients' behalf. After almost 18 months, the case resulted in a settlement agreement and joint stipulation to dismiss, which was entered into on the eve of trial and submitted to the court on April 18, 2024. The stipulation required the defendants to complete and repair the work that they had done on the clients' home.

On April 19, 2024, Mulligan mailed the clients a copy of the settlement agreement and stipulation to dismiss. Mulligan never provided the clients with an accounting for the flat fee at any time during the representation, including at the end of the representation. Mulligan never provided the clients with a closing letter.

By stating in the fee agreement that the client would be charged $50.00 for each text message, Mulligan violated SCR 20:1.5(a), which states, "A lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for expenses."

By failing to clearly explain in writing the rate and basis of the fee, including by having contradictory infonnation in the fee agreement regarding whether the representation was on a flat fee or hourly basis, Mulligan violated SCR 20:1.5(b)(1), which states, "The scope of the representation and the basis or rate of the fee and expenses for which the client will be responsible shall be communicated to the client in writing ... "

By failing to provide the client with a copy of her fee agreement when requested, Mulligan violated SCR 20: 1.5(b)(3), which states, "A lawyer shall promptly respond to a client's request for information concerning fees and expenses."

By stating in his fee agreement that the fee was nonrefundable and that the client waived any request for accounting of the flat fee, and by failing to provide the client with a final accounting at the end of the representation, in each instance Mulligan violated SCR 20: 1.5(g), which states, in relevant part, "(1) Upon accepting any advanced payment of fees pursuant to this subsection, the lawyer shall deliver to the client a notice in writing containing all of the following information: ... d. The lawyer's obligation to refund any unearned advanced fee, along with an accounting, at the termination of the representation ... (2) Upon termination of the representation, the lawyer shall deliver to the client in writing all of the following: a. A final accounting, or an account from the date of the lawyer's most recent statement to the end of the representation, regarding the client's advanced fee payment."

Mulligan has prior disciplines. In 1997, Mulligan received a consensual private reprimand for failing to properly communicate with a client, failing to return the client's file, failing to refund unearned fees, and failing to timely communicate the basis or rate of his fee. In 2005, Mulligan received a consensual private reprimand for failing to timely refund an unearned advanced fee. In 2009, Mulligan received a court-imposed public reprimand for failing to consult with a client regarding the appellate process. In 2015, Mulligan's license to practice law in Wisconsin was suspended for nine months for misconduct that included failing to enter into a fee agreement with his client, failing to deposit fees in trust, making cash disbursements out of his trust account, commingling personal funds with trust funds, and failing to maintain proper trust account records. Also in 2015, Mulligan received a consensual private reprimand for failing to clearly state the basis or rate of his fee, failing to respond to requests for fee-related information from his client, failing to return an unearned fee, and failing to hold unearned fees in trust.

Despite Mulligan's prior discipline, in pursuing a public reprimand OLR considered in mitigation that Mulligan's prior discipline was remote in time, he cooperated in the investigation, and his misconduct did not cause material harm to the clients

In accordance with SCR 22.09(3), Attorney Thomas O. Mulligan is hereby publicly reprimanded.