|
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.
Attorney's license revoked.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Attorney Adam Walsh
has filed a petition for the consensual
revocation of his license to practice law in
Wisconsin pursuant to Supreme Court Rule
(SCR) 22.19. Attorney Walsh's petition
states that he cannot successfully defend
against the allegations of professional
misconduct arising out of two Office of
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) investigations
concerning his conduct. An OLR summary of
those investigations and of the potential
allegations of professional misconduct is
attached to Attorney Walsh's petition.
¶2 Attorney Walsh was admitted to the
practice of law in Wisconsin in January
2008. He most recently practiced in Madison
under the name Affordable Legal Services of
Wisconsin. Attorney Walsh sold the law firm
to another attorney effective January 1,
2015. He continued to work at the firm,
however, until November 25, 2015.
¶3 Attorney Walsh has been the subject
of professional discipline on one prior
occasion. In 2015 he consented to the
imposition of a private reprimand pursuant
to SCR 22.09 for improperly using his client
trust account credit card on three separate
occasions to disburse trust account funds
prior to the deposit and availability of
those funds for the respective clients and
for failing to maintain and to produce
required trust account records. Private
Reprimand 2015-1 (electronic copy available
at
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/00
2757.html).
¶4 Attorney Walsh filed a petition for
the voluntary resignation of his license to
practice law in this state in June 2016.
Because the OLR's response to that petition
indicated that it was conducting an
investigation regarding Attorney Walsh, his
voluntary resignation petition has been held
in abeyance. In light of his current
petition, his petition for voluntary
resignation is being dismissed pursuant to a
separate order being issued simultaneously
with this opinion.
¶5 The OLR summary attached to Attorney
Walsh's petition for consensual revocation
sets forth two main areas of investigation
into potential ethical violations.
¶6 The first area involves Attorney
Walsh's multiple instances of insufficient
balances in his client trust account.
Attorney Walsh maintained a client trust
account at JP Morgan Chase Bank in Madison
from November 19, 2010, until October 14,
2015. At the time he closed the account,
Attorney Walsh withdrew for himself the
remaining balance of $868.26. A check
Attorney Walsh had issued against the trust
account, however, was subsequently presented
for payment on November 3, 2015, and was
returned for insufficient funds. Attorney
Walsh claims that he reimbursed the
recipient of the trust account check via
other means.
¶7 Although the OLR's investigation was
hampered by Attorney Walsh's refusal or
inability to provide records for his trust
account, the available information shows
that on multiple occasions, the trust
account contained substantially less money
than it should have in 2014 and 2015. For
example, bank records show that the balance
in the trust account was $469,349.55 on May
31, 2014. At that time, the trust account
should have contained at least $78,351.86 in
funds belonging to two clients, J.M.G. and
M.J.E. Subtracting that amount from the
balance would leave a remaining balance of
$390,997.69. This amount, however, was more
than $50,000 less than Attorney Walsh had
previously admitted in a letter he should
have been holding for another client, a
substantial trust. Indeed, that amount
would have been more than $78,000 less than
the amount identified in the March 28, 2014
annual report of the trust. Moreover, the
limited records the OLR was able to obtain
indicate that Attorney Walsh deposited over
$589,000 into his trust account on behalf of
the trust, but those records also show total
disbursements of only approximately $530,000
to proper recipients of the trust's funds.
Because the OLR has not been able to obtain
complete records, it cannot tell whether
there were other disbursements to proper
recipients for which records are not
available or whether Attorney Walsh
converted some or all of the remaining
trust's funds to his own use.
¶8 Similar possible shortcomings in
disbursements of other client funds appear
in connection with at least three other
clients. The amounts that do not appear to
have been disbursed to the clients or to
other proper recipients, however, are
substantially smaller than was the case with
the trust's money. What is clear is that in
at least one case, the balance of Attorney
Walsh's client trust account dipped more
than $30,000 below the amount that should
have been held in trust for just one client.
Thus, that amount of client funds had to
have been converted to the use of other
clients or to Attorney Walsh's personal use.
¶9 Indeed, Attorney Walsh admitted to
the OLR that starting at least as far back
as 2011 he had placed substantial sums of
his own money into the trust account and had
not kept track of those funds. Given the
fact that on multiple occasions the balance
in his trust account was substantially less
than the amounts that were owed to clients,
one can only conclude that Attorney Walsh
needed to deposit his own funds into the
account at times to avoid overdrafts and to
repay amounts he had previously converted to
his own use.
¶10 In the course of its investigation,
the OLR asked Attorney Walsh to produce a
transaction register, client ledgers, and a
monthly reconciliation for his trust
account. Attorney Walsh failed to produce
any of these requested records. He produced
only a single bank statement for October
2015, the month prior to closing the
account. His response to the OLR's request
stated merely that he was no longer
practicing law and that he did not possess
any further records.
|
|
¶11 The OLR's summary indicates that its
investigation of Attorney Walsh's handling
of his client trust account involves
Attorney Walsh's potential violations of the
following Supreme Court Rules: SCR
20:8.4(c); SCR 20:1.15(b)(1); former SCR
20:1.15(b)(3); former SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)c.;
former SCR 20:1.15(e)(6) and (7); and former
SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)a., b., and g.
¶12 The second investigation that the
OLR has been conducting relates to Attorney
Walsh's representation of O.B. Attorney
Walsh agreed to represent O.B. in attempting
to have his felony convictions expunged or
to seek a pardon for those convictions.
According to his fee agreement with O.B.,
Attorney Walsh accepted an advanced flat fee
of $1,500 at or near the time of entering
into the representation and deposited the
advanced fee into his law firm's business
account. Attorney Walsh claimed to the OLR
that he had done work on O.B.'s behalf and
was able to describe some of that work.
According to the OLR's summary Attorney
Walsh promised O.B. in July 2015 that he
would be following up on a lead that
required research, but warned that O.B.
would likely be out of luck if the research
did not yield favorable results. Attorney
Walsh, however, failed to communicate the
results of his research to O.B. He then
failed to advise O.B. in November 2015 that
he was leaving the law firm and was ceasing
his practice of law. Attorney Walsh failed
to provide O.B. with any of the notices that
were required when an attorney placed an
advanced fee into the attorney's business
account and utilized the alternative
advanced fee procedure outlined in former
SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m). Indeed, Attorney Walsh
failed to provide O.B. with a final
accounting that showed how he had earned the
$1,500 flat fee.
¶13 The OLR was unable to determine the
full extent of Attorney Walsh's work on
O.B.'s behalf because Attorney Walsh says
that he is no longer in possession of his
billing software, and the lawyer who
purchased the law firm from Attorney Walsh
states that she is unable to access Attorney
Walsh's billing records.
|
|
¶14 The OLR's summary indicates in
connection with Attorney Walsh's
representation of O.B. that it is
investigating possible violations of the
following Supreme Court Rules: SCR 20:1.3;
SCR 20:1.4(a); SCR 20:1.16(d); and former SCR
20:1.15(b)(4m).
|
|
¶15 Attorney Walsh's petition for
consensual revocation asserts that he is
seeking the consensual revocation of his
license freely, voluntarily, and knowingly.
He states that he cannot successfully defend
himself against the allegations of
misconduct summarized above and more fully
described in the OLR's summary. Attorney
Walsh also acknowledges that he understands
he is giving up his right to contest any of
the OLR's allegations, as well as his right
to have the assistance of counsel in this
matter. Finally, the petition acknowledges
that if the court grants the petition and
revokes his license, Attorney Walsh will be
subject to the requirements of SCR 22.26
and, should he ever wish to seek the
reinstatement of his license, the
reinstatement procedure set forth in SCRs
22.29-22.33.
¶16 The OLR's summary and its
recommendation in support of the petition
make clear that it is not seeking a
restitution award in this case. While it is
clear that there were multiple instances of
conversion of trust account funds (either
for the benefit of other clients or for
Attorney Walsh's personal use), the OLR
states that it has not been able, given the
limited records and information it was able
to obtain, either to identify to whom
restitution might be owed or to arrive at
any reasonably ascertainable restitution
amounts. The OLR further notes that despite
the apparent looseness with which Attorney
Walsh handled his client trust account, no
individual has notified it that Attorney
Walsh still owes him or her any money.
Similarly, given the lack of billing
records, the OLR cannot determine with any
reasonable certainty that O.B. should
receive a refund of any particular amount of
his advanced fee from Attorney Walsh.
¶17 Having reviewed Attorney Walsh's
petition, the OLR's summary of possible
misconduct, and its written recommendation
in favor of the petition, we conclude that
the petition for consensual revocation
should be granted. It is clear from the
OLR's summary of misconduct allegations that
Attorney Walsh treated his client trust
account as if it were a community fund at
his constant disposal. His disregard for
the core ethical value of protecting the
integrity of each client's funds and his
complete rejection of any obligation to
maintain the required records that are
necessary to keep client funds in order
represent serious breaches of his ethical
obligations as a lawyer in this state. His
ethical lapses are compounded by his
apparent lack of diligence and communication
in the representation of O.B. Moreover, the
private reprimand previously imposed on
Attorney Walsh demonstrates that there is a
pattern of misconduct.
|
|
¶18 Given the OLR's admitted inability
to determine whether any particular client
or third party is owed any money by Attorney
Walsh, and to arrive at a reasonably
ascertainable amount, we have no choice but
to accede to the OLR's request not to award
restitution in this matter. We are
disturbed that this outcome appears to
result from Attorney Walsh's failure to
create, preserve, and/or produce the
necessary records. We note, however, that
if Attorney Walsh were ever to seek the
reinstatement of his license, he would be
required to prove affirmatively that he had
made full restitution to all persons injured
or harmed by his misconduct. See SCR
22.29(4m).
¶19 Finally, because this matter is
being resolved via a petition for consensual
revocation without the need to appoint a
referee or hold an extensive hearing, we do
not impose any costs on Attorney Walsh.
¶20 IT IS ORDERED that the petition of
Adam Walsh for the consensual revocation of
his license to practice law in Wisconsin is
granted.
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the
license of Adam Walsh to practice law in
Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of
this order.
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the
extent he has not already done so, Adam
Walsh 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.
|