|
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.
Attorney's license suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review the
stipulation filed by the Office of Lawyer
Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Coral Dawn
Pleas pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR)
22.12. On April 10, 2020, the OLR filed a
complaint in this court alleging eight
counts of misconduct against Attorney Pleas.
Attorney Pleas did not file an answer.
Instead, she and the OLR filed a stipulation
in which Attorney Pleas admitted the facts
and the misconduct alleged in the OLR's
complaint and agreed to the level of
discipline sought by the OLR: a six-month
suspension of Attorney Pleas' license to
practice law in Wisconsin.
¶2 We approve the stipulation and adopt
the stipulated facts and conclusions
regarding Attorney Pleas' eight counts of
misconduct as alleged in the OLR's
complaint. We determine that the
seriousness of Attorney Pleas' misconduct
warrants the suspension of her license to
practice law in the state for a period of
six months. In addition, we agree that
Attorney Pleas should be required to pay
$8,333.33 in restitution. Because Attorney
Pleas entered into a comprehensive
stipulation under SCR 22.12, thereby
obviating the need for the appointment of a
referee and a full disciplinary proceeding,
we impose no costs in this matter.
¶3 Attorney Pleas was admitted to
practice law in Wisconsin in 1993 and
practices in Milwaukee. She has no prior
disciplinary history.
¶4 The misconduct alleged in the OLR's
complaint arose out of Attorney Pleas'
representation of V.B. On September 25,
2014, V.B. was involved in a motor vehicle
accident and sustained serious injuries.
The other driver involved in the accident
was insured through Progressive Insurance
Company.
¶5 On September 27, 2014, V.B. signed a
contingent fee agreement with Pleas
Williams, LLC, the law firm at which
Attorney Pleas worked. The fee agreement
provided for a one-third contingent fee for
all money recovered as part of the case.
¶6 From September 2014 through January
2015, V.B. received medical treatment for
her injuries. However, in January of 2015,
she was involved in a second automobile
accident and suffered additional injuries.
¶7 On March 27, 2015, V.B. signed a
second contingent fee agreement with
Attorney Pleas to represent her with regard
to the 2015 accident.
¶8 In March 2015, Attorney Pleas
settled V.B.'s property damage claim for the
2014 accident for $7,396.29. In June 2015,
Attorney Pleas settled V.B.'s personal
injury claim for the 2014 accident with
Progressive Insurance for $25,000, which was
the policy limit for Progressive's insured.
¶9 On June 15, 2015, Attorney Pleas
deposited the $25,000 settlement check from
Progressive into her client trust account.
Attorney Pleas did not notify V.B. or any of
V.B.'s medical providers that she had
received the $25,000 insurance settlement.
Pursuant to the first fee agreement,
Attorney Pleas would have been entitled to
no more than $8,333 out of the $25,000
settlement. In addition, V.B. and third-
party medical providers had an ownership
interest in a portion of the $25,000.
¶10 Between June 17 and 26, 2015,
Attorney Pleas transferred a total of
$23,000 from her client trust account to her
business checking account. She accomplished
these transfers via internet transfers.
¶11 On June 26, 2015, Attorney Pleas
withdrew $20,710.54 from her business
account. In July and August of 2015,
Attorney Pleas made additional internet
transfers totaling $6,865 from her client
trust account. By the end of August 2015,
Attorney Pleas' client trust account had a
balance of $.35.
¶12 On September 15, 2015, a service
charge to Attorney Pleas' client trust
account resulted in an overdraft on the
account. At the time, Attorney Pleas did
not have an overdraft agreement on file with
the OLR.
¶13 From June 2015 through April 2018,
Attorney Pleas did not inform V.B. of the
$25,000 settlement of her personal injury
claim for the 2014 accident.
¶14 Attorney Pleas took no action on
V.B.'s personal injury claim for the 2015
accident, and the three-year statute of
limitations expired. Attorney Pleas did not
inform V.B. that she had failed to file the
civil action for the 2015 accident and that
the statute of limitations had expired.
¶15 By January 2018, V.B.'s health
insurer, UnitedHealthcare, had paid over
$38,000 for medical expenses related to the
two accidents. Attorney Pleas worked to
negotiate a reduction of the entire medical
lien with the third-party administrator
hired by UnitedHealthcare. In a letter to
V.B. dated April 28, 2018, Attorney Pleas
advised that she was trying to negotiate a
reduction of the entire medical lien. By
August 2018, Attorney Pleas negotiated a
reduction of the entire medical lien to
$8,333.33.
¶16 On August 7, 2018, Attorney Pleas
sent a letter to V.B. enclosing the release
of claims, a settlement statement, and a
settlement check in the amount of $8,333.33.
The settlement statement reflected that
Attorney Pleas received attorney's fees in
the amount of $8,333.33 and noted the
medical lien in that same amount. On August
21, 2018, V.B.'s new attorney sent a letter
to Attorney Pleas advising that he had been
retained by V.B. with regard to her handling
of the two accident claims. The new
attorney requested the name of Attorney
Pleas' errors and omissions carrier.
¶17 On August 21, 2018, Attorney Pleas
sent a letter to V.B. apologizing for her
delay in handling the 2014 accident case and
saying she would be refunding the full
attorney's fee of $8,333.33 from that case.
Attorney Pleas has since refunded the full
attorney's fee to V.B. Attorney Pleas has
also agreed to pay off the medical lien of
$8,333.33 but has not yet done so.
¶18 The OLR's complaint alleged the
following counts of misconduct with respect
to Attorney Pleas' representation of V.B. in
the two accident claims:
|
|
Count 1: By failing to promptly
notify V.B. and UnitedHealthcare of the
receipt of the $25,000 settlement proceeds, as
well as failing to promptly deliver to V.B.
and UnitedHealthcare those funds to which they
were entitled, Attorney Pleas violated former
SCR 20:1.15(d)(1).
|
|
Count 2: By failing to hold in
trust $25,000 from V.B.'s personal injury
settlement for the 2014 accident, Attorney
Pleas violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).
|
|
Count 3: By making multiple
internet transfers out of her client trust
account from June to August 2015, Attorney
Pleas violated former SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)
(c).
|
|
Count 4: By failing to provide V.B.
and UnitedHealthcare an accounting following
final distribution of trust property in June
2015, Attorney Pleas violated former SCR
20:1.15(d)(2).
|
|
Count 5: By converting $25,000 in
settlement funds to her own use, Attorney
Pleas violated SCR 20:8.4(c).
|
|
Count 6: By failing to file a civil
action on a personal injury claim arising out
of the 2015 accident prior to the expiration
of the statute of limitations, Attorney Pleas
violated SCR 20:1.3.
|
|
Count 7: By failing to communicate
sufficiently with V.B. regarding her 2014
accident and 2015 accident claims, including
the fact that the statute of limitations had
expired on the 2015 accident claim, Attorney
Pleas violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3).
|
|
Count 8: By failing to file an
overdraft notification agreement with the
OLR, Attorney Pleas violated former SCR
20:1.15(h)(8).
¶19 As noted, Attorney Pleas has now
stipulated to the eight counts of misconduct
as alleged in the OLR's complaint. She
further stipulates that a six-month
suspension of her license to practice law in
Wisconsin is an appropriate sanction for the
misconduct.
¶20 The stipulation states that Attorney
Pleas fully understands the allegations of
misconduct; fully understands the
ramifications should this court impose the
stipulated level of discipline; and fully
understands her right to contest the matter
and her right to consult with counsel. The
stipulation further states that Attorney
Pleas entered into it knowingly and
voluntarily; that she has read the complaint
and the stipulation; and that her entry into
the stipulation represents her decision not
to contest the allegations in the complaint
or the level and type of discipline sought
by the OLR's director.
¶21 The OLR filed a memorandum in
support of the stipulation in which it cited
a number of cases that it believes support
its request for a six-month suspension. The
OLR notes that In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Mulligan, 2015 WI 96,
365 Wis. 2d 43, 870 N.W.2d 233, this court
imposed a nine-month suspension for eight
counts of misconduct involving multiple
trust account violations in two client
matters. The violations included
commingling trust funds, dishonest conduct,
and making cash withdrawals from the trust
account. This court noted that Attorney
Mulligan had previously received two private
reprimands and one public reprimand, and it
found that progressive discipline was
warranted since Attorney Mulligan had
demonstrated a persistent pattern of failure
to abide by the requirements of the Rules of
Professional Conduct. The OLR notes that
while the Mulligan case similar to the
instant case in the number of counts of
misconduct and the type of some of the
violations, Attorney Mulligan had three
prior reprimands, while Attorney Pleas has
no prior discipline and her misconduct was
limited to the handling of two matters for
the same client.
¶22 The OLR's memorandum also discussed
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Smith, 2013 WI 98, 351 Wis. 2d 368, 841
N.W.2d 278. In Smith, the attorney
received a six-month suspension for 20
counts of misconduct in four separate
matters. The misconduct included trust
account violations, failure to act
diligently, failure to communicate,
dishonest behavior, and other forms of
misconduct. Attorney Smith had a prior
public reprimand. This court noted
aggravating factors in Attorney Smith's
misconduct, including a troubling pattern of
poor bookkeeping, office mismanagement,
inadequate communication with clients, and
insufficient concern for her clients'
reasonable needs. The OLR says Attorney
Pleas' misconduct was more limited in the
number and scope of violations and she has
shown remorse and accepted responsibility
for it, although she has not yet paid the
$8,333.33 in restitution that the OLR
seeks.
¶23 The OLR's memorandum also discussed
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
McClure, 2015 WI 25, 361 Wis. 2d 339, 860
N.W.2d 474. In McClure, the attorney
received a five-month suspension for 20
counts of misconduct, 14 of which involved
trust account irregularities including
commingling and converting trust funds to
the attorney's personal use; failing to pay
a client's medical bills from settlement
proceeds; and fee agreement irregularities.
This court agreed with the referee that the
number of violations charged resulted in
part from overcharging by the OLR. Attorney
McClure had no prior discipline in a lengthy
34 year career, was remorseful for his
misconduct, and admitted the majority of the
misconduct by stipulation.
¶24 From our independent review of the
matter, we approve the stipulation and
conclude that the seriousness of Attorney
Pleas' misconduct warrants a six-month
suspension of her license to practice law in
Wisconsin. Attorney Pleas' admitted acts
are serious violations of the Rules of
Professional Conduct governing lawyers in
this state. We deem a six-month suspension
sufficient to protect the public from
Attorney Pleas' unacceptable professional
behavior, to ensure she will not repeat it,
and to deter others from engaging in similar
misconduct. We also agree that Attorney
Pleas should be required to make restitution
in the amount of $8,333.33 to
UnitedHealthcare. In light of the fact that
Attorney Pleas entered into a comprehensive
stipulation, thereby obviating the need for
the appointment of a referee, we agree with
the OLR's request that the costs of the
disciplinary proceeding not be assessed
against Attorney Pleas.
¶25 IT IS ORDERED that the license of
Coral Dawn Pleas to practice law in
Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six
months, effective November 10, 2020.
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60
days of the date of this order, Coral Dawn
Pleas shall make restitution to
UnitedHealthcare in the amount of $8,333.33.
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Coral
Dawn Pleas shall comply with the provisions
of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a
person whose license to practice law in
Wisconsin have been suspended.
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that
compliance with all conditions of this order
is required for reinstatement. See SCR
22.29(4)(c).
|