By an order dated June 2, 1988, the Supreme Court suspended Alan D. Eisenberg's license to practice law for a period of two years, effective August 1, 1988. The Court further ordered Attorney Eisenberg to comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to practice law has been suspended.

Shortly before Attorney Eisenberg's license was reinstated in September of 1994, the Board received a copy of a newspaper notice that made it appear that a small amount of money remained in an Alan Eisenberg, S.C., trust account. The Board asked Attorney Eisenberg to provide information about the account and to explain why it had not been closed out at the time he was suspended. Attorney Eisenberg provided information indicating that the notice in the newspaper was an error and the funds referred to were not in a client trust account. He gave no indication to the Board at that time that an open client trust account did exist.

On November 22, 1994, Attorney Eisenberg informed the Board that he did indeed have an open IOLTA client trust account which dated back to the time of his suspension, and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was making inquiries regarding those funds as a source of payment for back taxes Attorney Eisenberg owed to the IRS. He indicated that the "dormant" account, which had been not been closed after his suspension, contained approximately $35,000. Attorney Eisenberg further informed the Board that all of his trust account records had been inadvertently destroyed when he had to move from his old offices in early 1994. The Board subsequently learned from the IRS that a notice of levy on the account had been served on Attorney Eisenberg on November 22, 1994, because he could not prove to the IRS that the funds were client funds, and not his personal funds. The funds were in imminent danger of being seized.

SCR 22.26(3) requires that a suspended attorney shall make all arrangements for permanent or temporary closing or winding up of the attorney's practice within 15 days of the effective date of the suspension, which in this case was August 1, 1988. The Board's investigation showed that the balance in Attorney Eisenberg's trust account on August 31, 1988, was $39,011.75. The account was not closed, and approximately two dozen checks were written on the account after that date, with the last one clearing the bank in May of 1989, leaving a balance of $34,771.65 as of May 31, 1989. No checks were ever written on these funds thereafter, nor were there any withdrawals.

During the Board's investigation, Attorney Eisenberg introduced evidence that, in order to close the trust account, he and members of his staff had tried to locate clients by means of mass mailings to hundreds of clients, but there was either no response or the letters were returned. Although no funds were paid out to clients after May of 1989, Attorney Eisenberg stated that he did two or three mailings a year until 1992, when the mailings were abandoned due to cost and lack of productive results. Due to the destruction of the trust account records, the Board was unable to examine the records to determine the specific causes of the build up of over $34,000 in unclaimed funds, over what period of time the build up occurred, or the identity of the clients who owned the funds.

Although Attorney Eisenberg was the only one in his law firm with authority to sign a check, this was a multiple attorney firm, and the funds placed in the trust account belonged to clients of a number of attorneys. It was not possible to determine why trust account funds were not routinely disbursed to clients when their cases closed, rather than allow hundreds of deposits to accumulate for years. Although Attorney Eisenberg and members of his former staff testified that the account records were reconciled on a regular basis, it did not appear that anyone knew or took any action regarding the fact that almost $35,000 was accumulating in the trust account which should have been disbursed.

Attorney Eisenberg petitioned for reinstatement of his license to practice law on three occasions before it was reinstated in September of 1994, but at no time between August 1, 1988, and November 22, 1994, did Attorney Eisenberg advise the Board that he had not closed out his trust account because it contained funds he could not return to clients. Attorney Eisenberg transferred the account from one bank to another in January of 1992, but he never sought the Board's advice or direction as to the appropriate steps to take in closing out his trust account.

The Board concluded that Attorney Eisenberg and/or attorneys under his supervision in his law firm had failed to act with diligence in returning client funds to clients at the close of their cases, and that Attorney Eisenberg had, as a partner in a law firm, failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm had in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers in the firm conformed to the Rules of Professional Conduct, which conduct constitutes a violation of SCR 20:1.3 and 20:5.1(a). The Board further concluded that Attorney Eisenberg had failed to close out his trust account, a necessary step in winding up his practice upon suspension of his license to practice law, which conduct constituted a violation of SCR 22.26(3).

In evaluating an appropriate sanction for the disciplinary violations, the Board considered that Attorney Eisenberg had previously had his license to practice law suspended for a period of one year, effective November 30, 1970, and that his license was suspended a second time, effective August 1, 1988, for a period of two years. The Board further noted that Attorney Eisenberg did make arrangements with the IRS to pay his taxes, and the levy was removed from the trust account.

The Board further determined that this public reprimand should be conditioned upon Attorney Eisenberg's having transferred all funds remaining in the trust account to the Wisconsin Trust Account Foundation.

-Trust Account TransferIn accordance with SCR 21.09(2), the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility does hereby publicly reprimand Alan D. Eisenberg of Milwaukee.