|
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.
Attorney's license revoked.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Attorney Theodore F.
Mazza has filed a petition for voluntary
revocation of his license to practice law in
Wisconsin pursuant to Supreme Court Rule
(SCR) 22.19. Attorney Mazza is the
respondent in a case in which the Office of
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) has alleged 13
counts of misconduct arising out of two
client matters. The OLR sought revocation
of Attorney Mazza's law license and also
sought restitution on behalf of the two
clients. Attorney Mazza is also currently
the subject of three additional pending OLR
grievance matters that have not yet been
fully investigated by the OLR or brought
before the Preliminary Review Committee.
Attorney Mazza states in his petition that
he cannot successfully defend against these
multiple counts of misconduct. By order
dated May 15, 2020, Referee Kim M. Peterson
recommends that Attorney Mazza's license to
practice law in Wisconsin be revoked and
that he be ordered to make restitution to
three clients.
|
|
¶2 Attorney Mazza was admitted to the
practice of law in Wisconsin in 1965 and
practices in Pewaukee. In 1978, his law
license was indefinitely suspended, with
leave to apply for reinstatement after one
year, for misconduct consisting of misuse of
client funds and neglect of legal matters.
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Mazza, 82 Wis. 2d 598, 262 N.W.2d 767
(1978). In 1984, his law license was
revoked based on his conviction of a
criminal charge of conspiracy to commit
theft as party to a crime. In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mazza,
117
Wis. 2d 770, 345 N.W.2d 492 (1984). This
court reinstated Attorney Mazza's law
license in 2002. In re Reinstatement of
Mazza, 2002 WI 36, 252 Wis. 2d 86, 643
N.W.2d 83.
¶3 The OLR filed its complaint against
Attorney Mazza on March 27, 2019. The first
client matter detailed in the complaint
involved Attorney Mazza's representation of
J.D. in a case in which J.D. was convicted
of operating while intoxicated, 5th offense.
In September 2008, J.D. was sentenced to one
year in prison. Attorney Mazza offered to
manage J.D.'s affairs while he was
incarcerated. This offer arose in the
course of and as a result of Attorney
Mazza's lawyer-client relationship with J.D.
¶4 J.D. believed that Attorney Mazza
would receive and pay all of J.D.'s bills,
file J.D.'s 2007 and 2008 state and federal
income tax returns, and arrange to terminate
J.D.'s apartment lease and move his property
into storage.
¶5 Notices from the Wisconsin
Department of Revenue and Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) regarding the tax returns were
sent to Attorney Mazza's office, but
Attorney Mazza failed to file, cause the
returns to be filed, or discuss the tax
returns with J.D. during his incarceration.
Due to Attorney Mazza's failure to file the
returns, J.D. incurred interest and
penalties.
¶6 Attorney Mazza did not pay J.D.'s
apartment rent for several months, and he
failed to timely terminate J.D.'s lease.
Attorney Mazza also failed to pay J.D.'s
outstanding bill for electrical service for
the apartment and failed to pay other
ongoing obligations, causing J.D.'s accounts
to become past due or go into collections.
During J.D.'s incarceration, Attorney Mazza
sold one of J.D.'s cars without J.D.'s
authorization. Attorney Mazza has not
accounted for the proceeds of the sale.
¶7 During J.D.'s incarceration,
Attorney Mazza took possession of six silver
dollars owned by J.D., valued at $300 and a
three-gallon jar of change valued at between
$400-$500. Those items were never returned
to J.D., nor has Attorney Mazza accounted
for the proceeds from those items.
¶8 During J.D.'s incarceration,
Attorney Mazza withdrew funds from J.D.'s
bank accounts for his own use or the use of
others besides J.D. and transferred J.D.'s
funds to Attorney Mazza's own business or
personal accounts. Attorney Mazza failed to
leave adequate balances in J.D.'s checking
account, which resulted in overdraft fees.
¶9 Attorney Mazza failed to make
monthly payments toward J.D.'s daughter's
student loan, which caused the loan to go
into default, accrue interest, and be
forwarded to a collection agency.
¶10 In or about May 2009, Attorney Mazza
represented J.D.'s daughter in a lawsuit
relating to illegally downloaded music.
J.D.'s daughter signed a settlement
agreement requiring monthly payments of $108
until $2,600 was paid in full. Attorney
Mazza did not timely communicate with J.D.,
his daughter, or her mother about the
required monthly payments. Between the date
of the settlement agreement and December
2009, Attorney Mazza made a single payment
of $216 toward the required monthly
payments. Attorney Mazza used J.D.'s funds
to make that payment. J.D. paid $324 toward
the debt in December 2009, by paying the
same to Attorney Mazza so that he could
forward it to the creditor's attorney.
Attorney Mazza made another payment of $108
on February 26, 2010. By letter dated that
same day, Attorney Mazza notified J.D.'s
daughter's mother that she or J.D.'s
daughter would have to make payments going
forward.
¶11 J.D. was released from incarceration
on August 27, 2009 and took possession of
his checkbook from Attorney Mazza on
September 2, 2009. J.D. asked Attorney
Mazza several times each month to stop being
his financial power of attorney of record on
his bank statements, but Attorney Mazza did
not accompany J.D. to the bank to remove
himself from the accounts until March, 2010.
¶12 On multiple occasions, Attorney
Mazza transferred sums between his business
account and J.D.'s savings account without
J.D.'s authorization. Attorney Mazza failed
to provide J.D. with a written or oral
accounting of the funds and property managed
and disbursed by him during J.D.'s
incarceration. In total, Attorney Mazza
failed to account for at least $19,001.97 of
J.D.'s funds, which Attorney Mazza
transferred from J.D.'s accounts to Attorney
Mazza's own accounts or disbursed from
J.D.'s accounts for purposes unrelated to
J.D.'s interests.
¶13 After he was released from
incarceration, J.D. asked Attorney Mazza
about funds J.D. believed were missing from
his accounts. Attorney Mazza falsely
responded that the money was "tied up"
because the IRS had frozen Attorney Mazza's
accounts.
¶14 In 2016, J.D. filed a grievance with
the OLR asserting that Attorney Mazza had
converted and mismanaged J.D.'s assets and
property and failed to pay numerous of
J.D.'s debts, causing J.D. financial harm.
Attorney Mazza misrepresented to the OLR
that he had paid every legitimate
outstanding bill of which he was aware, and
he misrepresented that he only disbursed
funds from J.D.'s accounts to pay J.D.'s
expenses or to reimburse himself for his use
of his own money to pay J.D.'s expenses.
¶15 The OLR's complaint alleged the
following counts of misconduct with respect
with to Attorney Mazza's handling of J.D.'s
funds:
|
|
Count 1: By failing to diligently
and promptly pursue his clients' interests in:
(i) timely paying J.D.'s debts; (ii) timely
terminating J.D.'s apartment lease; (iii)
managing J.D.'s assets in accordance with
J.D.'s wishes; (iv) timely filing J.D.'s 2007
and 2008 tax returns, and (v) having settled a
civil action on J.D.'s daughter's behalf,
timely communicating with J.D.'s daughter
about the settlement terms and payments due or
pursuing her interests in ensuring that
payments due under her settlement agreement
were timely made, in each instance, Attorney
Mazza violated SCR 20:1.3.
|
|
Count 2: By failing to hold J.D.'s
funds and property in trust, separate from
Attorney Mazza's own funds and property,
Attorney Mazza violated former SCR 20:1.15(j)
(1).
|
|
Count 3: By converting to his own
use
funds and property entrusted to him by J.D.,
Attorney Mazza violated SCR 20:8.4(c).
|
|
Count 4: By misrepresenting to J.D.
that J.D.'s funds were "tied up" due to
actions by the Internal Revenue Service,
Attorney Mazza violated SCR 20:8.4(c).
|
|
Count 5: By making
misrepresentations to the OLR, Attorney
Mazza violated SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via
SCR 20:8.4(h).
¶16 The other client matter detailed in
the OLR's complaint arose out of Attorney
Mazza's representation of P.L, who contacted
Attorney Mazza to represent her in a dispute
with her landlord. Before or within a
reasonable time after commencing his
representation of P.L., Attorney Mazza
failed to enter into a written fee agreement
with her or clearly communicate the basis or
rate of his fees or expenses for which she
would be responsible.
¶17 During the representation, Attorney
Mazza failed to maintain contemporaneous or
accurate records of his actions on behalf of
or time spent in representing P.L., failed
to send her any billing statements, and
failed to communicate to her fees being
incurred in the representation.
¶18 During the representation, P.L.,
repeatedly asked Attorney Mazza and his non-
lawyer assistant, Katie Boerschinger, for a
billing statement or explanations of the
fees accruing. Neither Boerschinger nor
Attorney Mazza explained to P.L. the actual
fees being accrued, nor did they provide her
with a billing statement.
¶19 Between February 5 and March 7,
2016, P.L. made three payments of fees to
Attorney Mazza totaling $300. In September
2016, P.L.'s landlord filed an action for
damages against her. Attorney Mazza filed a
counterclaim on P.L.'s behalf seeking
damages of $1,900 and attorney's fees.
During a December 8, 2016 hearing, the
circuit court dismissed the landlord's claim
and entered judgment in P.L.'s favor on the
counterclaim in the amount of $1,900. That
amount was offset with credits in the
landlord's favor in the amount of $1,300.
Attorney Mazza told the circuit court his
fees were $1,000. The landlord was ordered
to pay P.L. a total of $600 in net damages
plus $1,000 in actual attorney's fees.
¶20 On or about January 13, 2017,
Attorney Mazza received a check for $1,600
from P.L.'s landlord. Of that amount, $600
belonged to P.L. Attorney Mazza should have
held in trust at least $600 pending notice
to P.L., and either her agreement as to its
disbursement or the resolution of any
disputes as to how it should be disbursed.
Attorney Mazza deposited the check into his
business account and within six days he used
the funds for his own purposes.
¶21 In late January 2017, P.L. called
Attorney Mazza's office to ask about the
status of the judgment payment, at which
time Boerschinger informed P.L. the judgment
payment had been received. Boerschinger
also told P.L. that her legal fees related
to the dispute with the landlord totaled
approximately $1,800 but that "they" had
decided to keep the $1,600 received from the
landlord and call P.L.'s account "even."
¶22 In a January 31, 2017 email, P.L.
asked Boerschinger to email her a copy of
her bill. Neither Attorney Mazza nor
Boerschinger responded. Between February 7
and March 8, 2017, P.L. repeatedly asked for
an accounting of Attorney Mazza's fees and
the balance of her funds. Neither Attorney
Mazza nor Boerschinger responded.
¶23 On March 15, 2017 Attorney Mazza met
with P.L. to discuss filing bankruptcy. He
quoted P.L. a flat fee of $1,900 for the
bankruptcy representation, but offered to
credit $600 of the judgment payment from her
landlord against those fees. Between March
15 and April 19, 2017, Attorney Mazza and
P.L. exchanged numerous emails in which P.L.
repeatedly asked Attorney Mazza for an
accounting of the fees incurred in her
litigation and about the cost and timing of
filing bankruptcy. Attorney Mazza promised
to provide P.L. an accounting of the work he
had performed regarding the litigation with
her landlord, and he promised to meet
certain deadlines with regard to her filing
bankruptcy. However, he did not timely
provide an accounting of his fees and did
not meet his deadlines with regard to the
bankruptcy paperwork.
¶24 On April 20, 2017, a day after
receiving an email from P.L. asking for an
invoice, Attorney Mazza emailed P.L. a
statement of his services that claimed fees
of $2,750. He did not include the dates
when services were purportedly provided.
The April 20, 2017 statement misrepresented
the amount of fees P.L. had incurred. P.L.
requested that Attorney Mazza explain the
costs he incurred in representing her.
Attorney Mazza never provided P.L. with that
information.
¶25 Attorney Mazza never filed a
bankruptcy petition on P.L.'s behalf, nor
did he provide any meaningful services to
her related to a potential bankruptcy
filing. Attorney Mazza never paid P.L. any
of the $1,600 he received from her landlord.
He misrepresented to the OLR that the $1,600
did not include attorney's fees and that the
entire amount represented damages awarded to
P.L. Attorney Mazza also misrepresented to
the OLR that the funds he received from
P.L.'s landlord were deposited into his
business account by accident or
inadvertently, despite the fact he promptly
disbursed those funds from his business
account for his own purposes or the purposes
of his firm. He also misrepresented to the
OLR that he had represented P.L. in four
distinct matters, including a restraining
order and a bankruptcy filing when in fact
P.L. represented herself with regard to the
restraining order and Attorney Mazza was not
authorized to bill for any bankruptcy-
related services.
¶26 The OLR's complaint alleged the
following counts of misconduct with respect
to Attorney Mazza's representation of P.L.:
|
|
Count 6: By failing before or
within a reasonable time after commencing his
representation to clearly and accurately
explain the basis or rate of his fees,
including services for which P.L. would be
billed and whether she would be billed for
services provided by non-lawyer staff,
Attorney Mazza violated SCR 20:1.5(b)(1).
|
|
Count 7: By failing to timely
respond to P.L.'s reasonable requests for
information concerning the fees and expenses
she could incur or had incurred, Attorney
Mazza violated SCR 20:1.5(b)(3).
|
|
Count 8: By failing to promptly
notify P.L. of his office's receipt of the
$1,600 payment from her landlord, Attorney
Mazza violated SCR 20:1.15(d)(1).
|
|
Count 9: By depositing the $1,600
check from P.L.'s landlord in his business
account, and thereafter failing to hold the
portion of the $1,600 in which P.L. had an
interest in trust until he was authorized to
disburse it, Attorney Mazza violated SCR
20:1.15(b)(1).
|
|
Count 10: By using the entire
$1,600 payment from P.L.'s landlord, a portion
of which included P.L.'s $600 damages, for his
own or his firm's purposes without P.L.'s
authorization to do so, Attorney Mazza
violated SCR 20:8.4(c).
|
|
Count 11: By failing, upon her
requests, to timely provide P.L. with an
accounting, Attorney Mazza violated SCR
20:1.15(d)(2).
|
|
Count 12: By failing to provide
P.L. with an accurate understanding of the
timing and steps necessary to prepare and file
her bankruptcy petition, so that she could
make informed decisions about the bankruptcy
and about Attorney Mazza's representation,
Attorney Mazza violated SCR 20:1.4(b).
|
|
Count 13: By making
misrepresentations to the OLR during the
course of its investigation, Attorney Mazza
violated SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via SCR
20:8.4(h).
¶27 Attorney Mazza is also the subject
of three additional grievance
investigations. The first arises out of his
representation of J.L. in a divorce action.
The OLR is investigating allegations that
Attorney Mazza failed to diligently advance
his client's interests; failed to timely
communicate with the client; failed to
respond to the client's reasonable requests
for information; borrowed money from the
client without complying with the
requirements of SCR 20:1.8(a); failed to
provide the client with billing statements
or an accounting despite repeated requests;
failed to refund the unearned portion of
fees paid by the client; and made
misrepresentations to the OLR during the
investigation of the grievance.
¶28 The OLR is also investigating a
grievance filed by S.P., who hired Attorney
Mazza to represent him a divorce case. In
that matter the OLR is investigating
allegations that Attorney Mazza failed to
diligently advance the client's interests;
refunded only $250 of the $3,500 in advanced
fees paid by the client; failed to respond
to the client's reasonable requests for
information; failed to provide the client
with an accounting despite the client's
request; attempted to cause the client to
withdraw his grievance as a condition to
refunding some portion of the unearned fees;
failed to timely provide information and
records to the OLR; and made
misrepresentations to the OLR.
¶29 The final grievance being
investigated by the OLR arose out of
Attorney Mazza's service as treasurer for
the Saint Vincent de Paul Conference – Saint
Francis of Assisi Parish (Conference), a
non-profit organization affiliated with
Attorney Mazza's local Catholic parish, from
approximately March 28, 2018 until October
31, 2018. In that matter, the OLR is
investigating allegations that Attorney
Mazza converted to his own use or the use of
other clients or third parties at least
$9,500 of the Conference's funds entrusted
to him as treasurer; made misrepresentations
to and provided the Conference with false
reports and records in an effort to hide his
conversion of funds; made misrepresentations
to law enforcement; and commingled the
Conference's funds in his IOLTA client trust
account when the Conference was not a client
and the Conference repeatedly instructed
Attorney Mazza to open a separate account to
hold their funds.
|
|
¶30 Attorney Mazza's petition for
consensual revocation states that he is
seeking consensual revocation freely,
voluntarily, and knowingly. He states that
he understands that he is giving up his
right to contest the OLR's allegations. He
agrees that he should be ordered to make
restitution to three clients: $19,001.97 to
J.D., $600 to P.L., and $3,250 to S.P. The
OLR supports Attorney Mazza's petition for
consensual license revocation. Referee
Peterson, similarly, recommends that
Attorney Mazza's law license be revoked.
¶31 Having reviewed Attorney Mazza's
petition, the OLR's complaint, the OLR's
summary of the additional three grievances
it is investigating, and the OLR's and the
referee's recommendations, we accept
Attorney Mazza's petition for the revocation
of his license to practice law in Wisconsin.
The seriousness of his misconduct
demonstrates the need to revoke his law
license to protect the public, the courts,
and the legal system from the repetition of
misconduct; to impress upon Attorney Mazza
the seriousness of his misconduct; and to
deter other attorneys from engaging in
similar misconduct. In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Carranza, 2014 WI 121,
¶49, 358 Wis. 2d 522, 855 N.W.2d 683.
|
|
¶32 We determine that Attorney Mazza
should be required to pay restitution to the
three clients mentioned in his petition.
Finally, as is our usual custom, we deem it
appropriate to require Attorney Mazza to pay
the full costs of this proceeding, which are
$2,642.34 as of June 12, 2020.
¶33 IT IS ORDERED that Theodore F.
Mazza's petition for consensual license
revocation is granted.
¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the
license of Theodore F. Mazza to practice law
in Wisconsin is revoked effective October 6,
2020.
¶35 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60
days of the date of this order, Theodore F.
Mazza shall pay to the Office of Lawyer
Regulation the costs of this proceeding,
which are $2,642.34 as of June 12, 2020.
¶36 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60
days of the date of this order, Theodore F.
Mazza shall pay restitution as follows:
• $19,001.97 to J.D.;
• $600 to P.L.; and
• $3,250 to S.P.
¶37 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that
restitution specified above is to be
completed prior to paying costs to the
Office of Lawyer Regulation.
¶38 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Theodore
F. Mazza shall comply with the provisions of
SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person
who is licensed to practice law in Wisconsin
has been revoked.
|