|
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.
Attorney's license suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a
stipulation, as revised, filed pursuant to
Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12 by the Office
of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney
Matthew H. Marx. Attorney Marx stipulates to
the misconduct alleged by the OLR,
stipulates, further, that he should be
ordered to pay restitution to two clients
and that his license to practice law in
Wisconsin should be suspended for nine
months.
¶2 We adopt the stipulated facts and
conclusions of law. We agree that Attorney
Marx's professional misconduct warrants the
suspension of his Wisconsin law license for
a period of nine months. We further agree
that restitution is appropriate. Because
this matter was resolved by stipulation
without appointment of a referee, we will
not impose the costs of this proceeding upon
Attorney Marx.
¶3 Attorney Marx was admitted to the
practice of law in Wisconsin in 1996.
Although he has not previously been
disciplined by this court, Attorney Marx's
license is administratively suspended for
failing to pay State Bar dues and for
failing to maintain his CLE requirements. In
addition, his law license has been
temporarily suspended since March 18, 2014
for noncooperation with the OLR's
investigation into this matter.
|
|
¶4 On January 13, 2016, OLR filed a
disciplinary complaint against Attorney Marx
alleging 22 counts of misconduct. The first
seven counts of the OLR's complaint alleged,
and the parties have stipulated, that
Attorney Marx violated various provisions of
SCR 20:1.15, the trust account rule. He
violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) and/or SCR
20:1.15(b)(3) by paying from his trust
account $2,102.03 in personal and business
expenses; $215 in filing fees for a client
who had no funds in trust; and at least
$301.33 in credit card surcharges. He
violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(30) when he
deposited and retained $3,800 in personal
funds in his trust account. He violated SCR
20:1.15(f)(1)a., b., and g. by failing to
maintain a transaction register and client
ledgers, and violated SCR 20:1.15(e)(7) by
failing to produce a transaction register,
client ledgers, and a monthly
reconciliation. Attorney Marx also violated
SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)e. by authorizing credit
card and other electronic payments be
deposited into his trust account, and
violated SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)c. by making
internet deposits and disbursements from his
trust account.
|
|
¶5 Counts 8 and 9 of the complaint allege
and the parties have stipulated that Attorney
Marx committed misconduct in his
representation of D.A. in her divorce action.
Attorney Marx failed to hold D.A.’s funds in
trust in violation of SCR 20:1.15(b) and then
failed to cooperate with the investigation of
this matter, in violation of SCR 22.03(2) and
SCR 22.03(6), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).
|
|
¶6 Counts 10-16 of the complaint
allege, and the parties have stipulated,
that Attorney Marx also committed misconduct
in his representation of C.W. in a divorce.
Attorney Marx violated SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)h.
by allowing the deposit of C.W.’s credit
card payment into his client trust account.
He violated SCR 20:1.15(g)(1) by failing to
provide C.W., in writing, at least five
business days prior to withdrawing his funds
for payment of fees, (a) an itemized bill or
other accounting showing services rendered,
(b) notice of the amount owed and
anticipated date of withdrawal, and (c) a
statement of the balance of his funds in the
trust account following the withdrawal. He
violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) by failing to
respond to C.W.’s telephone calls and emails
requesting information and violated SCR
22.26(1)(a), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f) by
failing to notify C.W. by certified mail of
the suspension of his license to practice
law and his consequent inability to
represent him further. Additionally, he
violated SCR 20:1.16(d) by failing to refund
unearned fees to C.W. upon termination of
the representation and violated SCR
20:8.4(c) by making misrepresentations to
the OLR. He also violated SCR 22.03(2) and
SCR 22.03(6), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h), by
failing to respond to OLR's letters
regarding C.W. matter.
|
|
¶7 Counts 17-22 of the complaint allege,
and the parties have stipulated, that Attorney
Marx committed misconduct by violating the
terms of his temporary license suspension.
Specifically, he failed to report his license
suspension to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, thereby
violating SCR 20:3.4(c) and SCR 22.26(1)(c),
enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f).
|
|
¶8 In addition, by failing to notify his
client, J.L., of his suspension and her need
to hire successor counsel, Attorney Marx
violated SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b), enforced via
SCR 20:8.4(f), and, by continuing to represent
J.L. and filing numerous documents in support
of the U.S. District Court case, Attorney Marx
violated SCR 22.26(2), enforced via SCR
20:8.4(f).
|
|
¶9 In addition, by misrepresenting to OLR
that he had notified all his active clients of
his March 18, 2014 suspension, when he
continued to represent J.L., Attorney Marx
violated SCR 20:8.4(c).
|
|
¶10 Finally, in failing to respond to
OLR's letters sent January 23, 2015 and
February 18, 2015, requesting a response to
OLR's inquiry, Attorney Marx violated SCR
22.03(2) and (6), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).
|
|
¶11 In late February 2016, the OLR and
Attorney Marx executed a stipulation
addressing the complaint. In addition to
stipulating to the facts as set forth above,
the parties stipulated to discipline in the
form of a nine-month suspension of Attorney
Marx's Wisconsin law license. The OLR filed
a memorandum in support of the stipulation.
The memorandum discusses attorney
disciplinary cases that resulted in
comparable suspensions for professional
misconduct. The OLR deems analogous the
matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Maynard, 2014 WI 13, 352 Wis. 2d 629, 845
N.W.2d 648.
¶12 Attorney Maynard's law license was
suspended for one year for misconduct
consisting of failing to notify his clients
and the courts that his license was
suspended, continuing to practice law while
suspended, engaging in dishonesty,
misrepresenting his license status to the
court, making false statements in his
affidavit of compliance, continuing to use
his letterhead and making false
communications that he was permitted to
practice in Wisconsin, and providing false
information to OLR during its investigation.
See also Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Wood, 2013 WI 11, Id., 345
Wis. 2d 279, 825 N.W.2d 473; Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Scanlan, 2006 WI 38,
290 Wis. 2d 30, 712 N.W.2d 877. The OLR
advises the court that Attorney Marx's
misconduct is much like Attorney Maynard's
in that Attorney Marx failed to comply with
SCR 22.26, made misrepresentations regarding
his license status, and provided false
information to OLR.
|
|
¶13 This court reviewed the stipulation.
Noting that the stipulation did not provide
for restitution, the court issued an order
directing the parties to consider specific
modifications to the stipulation to address
whether the court should order Attorney Marx
to pay restitution to two clients, D.A. and
C.W.
¶14 On April 28, 2016, the parties filed
a revised stipulation. The revised
stipulation reiterated previous terms and
also stipulated that the court should order
Attorney Marx to pay restitution to D.A. in
the amount of $994.50, reflecting the
balance that remained in his trust account
attributable to D.A. as of February 25,
2013. The parties further agreed that the
court should order Attorney Marx to pay
restitution to C.W. in the amount of $1,568,
the amount that should be returned to C.W.
after Attorney Marx's payment of the $198
filing fee and $500 worth of work that
Attorney Marx performed on C.W.'s case.
¶15 The stipulation, as revised,
provides that it is not the result of a plea
bargain. Attorney Marx verifies that he
fully understands the misconduct
allegations, the ramifications if this court
should impose the stipulated level of
discipline, his right to contest the matter,
and his right to consult with counsel. He
further verifies that his entry into the
stipulation was made knowingly and
voluntarily, and that it represents his
admission of all misconduct and his assent
to the level and type of discipline sought
by the OLR.
¶16 We adopt the stipulation, as
revised, and the stipulated facts and
conclusions of law, and impose the
stipulated discipline. We agree that the
seriousness of Attorney Marx's misconduct
warrants the suspension of his Wisconsin law
license for nine months and payment of
restitution to D.A. and C.W. We agree that
Attorney Marx's mismanagement of his trust
account evidences a careless disregard for
the basic requirements of segregating trust
funds from personal funds and record keeping
and that his misconduct was exacerbated by
his apparent indifference to making
restitution. In light of the stipulation,
the OLR does not seek costs, so we do not
impose costs.
¶17 IT IS ORDERED that the license of
Matthew H. Marx to practice law in Wisconsin
is suspended for a period of nine months,
effective the date of this order.
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Matthew
H. Marx shall comply with the provisions of
SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin
has been suspended.
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that
compliance with all conditions of this order
is required for reinstatement. See SCR
22.28(2).
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the March
18, 2014 temporary suspension of Matthew H.
Marx’s license to practice law in Wisconsin,
due to his wilful failure to cooperate with
the OLR's grievance investigation in this
matter, is lifted.
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the
administrative suspension of Matthew H.
Marx’s license to practice law in Wisconsin,
due to his failure to pay mandatory bar dues
and failure to comply with continuing legal
education requirements, will remain in
effect until each reason for the
administrative suspension has been
rectified, pursuant to SCR 22.28(1).
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Matthew
H. Marx shall pay restitution to D.A. in the
amount of $994.50, and to C.W. in the amount
of $1,568.
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no costs
are imposed in this matter.
|