|
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.
Attorney's license suspended.
|
|
1. PER CURIAM. This case is before us
under SCR 22.14(2)
and SCR 22.17(2) on a stipulation between
the parties, Attorney Lauren R. Brown-Perry,
and the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR).
The stipulation consists of her no contest
plea to the allegations of misconduct in the
OLR complaint. The referee, David R.
Friedman, has issued a report based upon
this stipulation.
|
|
2. We accept the stipulation and the
referee's
report and determine that the seriousness of
Attorney Brown-Perry's misconduct warrants
the imposition of the recommended
retroactive one-year suspension.
3. Attorney Brown-Perry was admitted to
the
practice of law in Wisconsin in 1980. This
is her first disciplinary matter.
|
|
4. The nine counts against her in the OLR
complaint, which the referee found to be
supported by the evidence, consisting of the
complaint itself pursuant to the
stipulation, arise out of her representation
of a client between 1997 and 1999.
5. The client was a member of a legal
services plan of which Attorney Brown-Perry
was a provider. She retained Attorney Brown-
Perry for $250 either to force a closing or
to file suit against a potential purchaser
of the client's real estate. Before that was
completed the client located another
potential buyer and paid Attorney Brown-
Perry $140 to complete the new closing. She
did not have a client trust account and put
both the $250 and the $140 into her business
account.
6. The new closing never took place and
under the terms of the legal services plan
the client was entitled to a refund of the
$140. However, Attorney Brown-Perry did not
repay that sum. Instead, she and the client
entered into a new fee agreement under which
the client would pay her an additional $1250
to sue the first potential buyer. Pursuant
to the legal services plan, Attorney Brown-
Perry was to bill her services at a rate of
$70 per hour. Once again, the $1250 went
into the business account rather than a
trust account.
7. Attorney Brown-Perry sued the first
buyer
and the matter was settled for $4000. She
told her client that the total $1500
retainer would cover all of her legal fees
when, in fact, at the $70 rate the fee
should only have been $749. When Attorney
Brown-Perry received the $4000 in settlement
she again deposited it into her business
account.
8. Within a short time the balance in
the
business account was down to nothing and the
client did not receive her $4000. Eventually
Attorney Brown-Perry issued a check to her
for $2028 but the client refused to cash it,
instead demanding all of the $4000
settlement. Numerous entreaties by the
client to Attorney Brown-Perry went unheeded
and she eventually filed a complaint with
the OLR's predecessor, the Board of
Attorneys Professional Responsibility
(BAPR).
9. The client also retained another
attorney
for $800 to commence an action against
Attorney Brown-Perry for $5640 (representing
the $250, the $140, the $1250, and the
$4000). That matter was settled with
Attorney Brown-Perry paying the client
$5000.
10. During the BAPR's investigation
Attorney
Brown-Perry failed to respond to various
requests for her accounting records. She
also made various misrepresentations to the
BAPR concerning her representation of the
client. Finally, she admitted to the BAPR
that she had not filed any personal state or
federal income tax returns since 1995.
|
|
11. The OLR then filed a complaint. While
it was
pending Attorney Brown-Perry claimed a
medical incapacity to proceed. As a result,
by order of this court, her license to
practice law was suspended between April 26,
2001, and April 27, 2003. Ultimately, the
medical incapacity proceeding was resolved
against her.
12. The nine counts against Attorney
Brown-
Perry, to which she has pled no contest, are
as follows:
|
|
1. Count One alleges a violation of SCR
20:1.15(a) and arises out of the failure to
place the client's funds into a trust
account.
|
|
2. Count Two alleges a violation of SCR
20:1.15(d) and also arises out of the trust
fund deficiency.
|
|
3. Count Three alleges a violation of SCR
20:1.16(d) and arises out of the failure to
return the unearned retainer.
|
|
4. Count Four alleges a violation SCR
20:1.15(b) and arises out of the failure to
forward the settlement funds to the client.
|
|
5. Count Five alleges a violation of SCR
20:1.4(a) and arises out of the failure to
provide the client with a billing
statement.
|
|
6. Count Six alleges a violation of SCR
20:8.4(c) and arises out of the use of
client funds for personal purposes and
misrepresenting the fees earned.
|
|
7. Count Seven alleges violations of
former SCR 21.03(4) and former SCR 22.07(2)
and (3) and arises out of the failure to
cooperate with the BAPR.
|
|
8. Count Eight alleges a violation of SCR
20:1.15(f) and similarly arises out of the
failure to cooperate with the
investigation.
|
|
9. Count Nine alleges a violation of SCR
20:8.4(f) and arises out of Attorney Brown-
Perry's failure to file income tax returns,
deemed unprofessional conduct by State v.
Roggensack, 19 Wis. 2d 38, 119 N.W.2d 412
(1963).
|
|
13. The referee has adopted the stipulation
with
respect to sanctions. He therefore
recommends a one-year suspension retroactive
to April 26, 2001, which was the starting
date for the two-year suspension due to the
pendency of the medical incapacity
proceedings. The referee believes a
prospective suspension would be unfair and
not provide any additional protection to the
public. He notes that Attorney Brown-Perry
has not practiced for at least two years, a
period which exceeds the stipulated
suspension. He submits that under the
circumstances there is no need for a
prospective sanction.
|
|
14. In conclusion, we accept the
stipulation of
the parties and the resulting report of the
referee. Attorney Brown-Perry's misconduct
represents a serious failure to comply with
the specified Rules of Professional Conduct.
Furthermore, the level of discipline
requested by the OLR, stipulated to by her
and adopted by the referee, is appropriate
for this misconduct.
|
|
15. Furthermore, under these circumstances,
a
retroactive suspension is reasonable.
Attorney Brown-Perry has already served a
two-year suspension arising out of the same
set of circumstances that prompted the one-
year suspension recommendation. To impose a
prospective one-year suspension at this time
would be excessive.
16. IT IS ORDERED that the license of
Attorney Brown-Perry to practice law in
Wisconsin is suspended for a period of one-
year commencing on April 26, 2001.
17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60
days
of the date of this order Attorney Brown-
Perry shall pay $6740.53 to the OLR
representing the costs of these proceedings.
If these costs are not paid within the time
specified, and absent a showing to this
court of an inability to pay the costs
within that time, the license of Attorney
Brown-Perry to practice law shall be
suspended indefinitely until further order
of the court. The date of commencement of
any suspension for non-payment shall be set
by the court upon motion of the OLR.
18. SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J., did not
participate.
|