2008 WI 101
|
Supreme Court of |
|
|
|
|
Case No.: |
2008AP181-D |
|
Complete Title: |
|
|
|
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Maureen B. Fitzgerald, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Maureen B. Fitzgerald, Respondent. |
|
|
|
|
|
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST FITZGERALD |
|
|
|
|
Opinion Filed: |
July 17, 2008 |
|
Submitted on Briefs: |
||
Oral Argument: |
||
|
|
|
Source of Appeal: |
|
|
|
Court: |
|
|
County: |
|
|
Judge: |
|
|
|
|
Justices: |
|
|
|
Concurred: |
|
|
Dissented: |
|
|
Not Participating: |
|
|
|
|
Attorneys: |
|
2008 WI 101
notice
This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license suspended.
¶1 PER
CURIAM. We review the stipulation filed
pursuant to SCR 22.12 by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney
Maureen B. Fitzgerald. Attorney
Fitzgerald admits the misconduct alleged by the OLR in a six-count disciplinary
complaint and agrees to a 60-day license suspension plus restitution.
¶2 Attorney
Fitzgerald was admitted to practice law in
¶3 The
disciplinary complaint alleges misconduct arising from Attorney Fitzgerald's
actions while her license was under suspension.
After her May 9, 2006, suspension, while performing work on a contract
basis for the Office of the State Public Defender (SPD), Attorney Fitzgerald
appeared in circuit court in
¶4 Three
appearances took place on May 15, 2006.
In the first matter, Attorney Fitzgerald billed the SPD for 1.7 hours of
work and was paid $68 for work performed after the suspension. In the second matter, she was paid a flat fee
of $266, of which $86.80 was for work performed after her suspension. The SPD has not recouped the $154.80 Attorney
Fitzgerald received for work performed after her suspension on these two cases.[1]
¶5 On
December 4, 5, and 6, 2006, Attorney Fitzgerald appeared on behalf of a fourth
client in a motion hearing in
¶6 On
March 27, 2007, the OLR sent Attorney Fitzgerald a letter informing her that
the OLR was investigating her potential practice of law while under suspension
and requesting certain information. On
April 9, 2007, the OLR sent a second letter by first-class mail informing
Attorney Fitzgerald that the OLR was expanding its investigation and pursuant
to SCR 22.03(2), she was required to provide a written response by May 2,
2007. Attorney Fitzgerald failed to
respond to the OLR's correspondence.
¶7 On
May 7, 2007, the OLR sent Attorney Fitzgerald a third letter via first-class
mail and certified mail informing her of her duty to cooperate with the OLR and
requesting a response by May 17, 2007.
The OLR received a signed certified mail receipt (signed by "CTA/C.
Lathrop") on May 8, 2007, acknowledging delivery of the May 7 letter. The letter sent via first-class mail to
Attorney Fitzgerald was not returned.
Attorney Fitzgerald failed to respond to the OLR's letter of May 7,
2007.
¶8 Counts
1 through 3 of the disciplinary complaint charge (1) by appearing on behalf of
clients while her license to practice law was suspended, Attorney Fitzgerald
violated SCR 22.26(2);[2]
(2) by billing the SPD and accepting payment for appearances made on behalf of
two clients while her license to practice law was suspended, Attorney
Fitzgerald violated SCR 20:8.4(c);[3]
and (3) by failing to respond to correspondence from the OLR requesting
information, Attorney Fitzgerald violated SCR 22.03(2).[4]
¶9 Counts
4 through 6 of the disciplinary complaint involve Attorney Fitzgerald's
misconduct with respect to her representation of a client in
¶10 On
the same day, the
¶11 On
July 25, 2007, the clerk had not yet received information from Attorney
Fitzgerald and left a message for her.
When the clerk checked for Attorney Fitzgerald's bar number on the State
Bar of Wisconsin's Web site, the clerk learned Attorney Fitzgerald's license to
practice law was suspended. On July 31,
2007, the OLR sent Attorney Fitzgerald a letter informing her of the nature of
its investigation and requesting information.
Attorney Fitzgerald did not respond.
¶12 On
August 27, 2007, the OLR sent Attorney Fitzgerald a second letter via first-class
mail and certified mail reminding her of her duty to cooperate with the OLR and
requesting a response. The OLR received
a signed certified mail receipt (by "J. Purnell") on August 28, 2007,
acknowledging receipt of the OLR's August 27, 2007 letter. The letter sent by first-class mail had not
been returned. Attorney Fitzgerald
failed to respond.
¶13 The
disciplinary complaint in count 4 charges that by entering the not guilty plea
by fax on P.N.'s behalf while her license was suspended, Attorney Fitzgerald
violated SCR 22.26(2). Count 5 charges
that by misleading the Jefferson County clerk of circuit court about her
license status, indicating she was a member of a firm and failing to clarify
she would not be representing P.N., Attorney Fitzgerald violated SCR
20:8.4(c). Count 6 charges that by
failing to respond to the OLR's letters, Attorney Fitzgerald violated SCR
22.03(2).
¶14 By
her stipulation, Attorney Fitzgerald admits the misconduct alleged and agrees
to the level of discipline sought by the OLR:
a 60-day suspension and restitution of $154.80 to the SPD. The stipulation states it does not reflect
plea bargaining or negotiations.
Attorney Fitzgerald states that she fully understands her right to
contest the matter and consult with counsel, her entry into the stipulation is
knowing and voluntary, and she understands the misconduct allegations and
ramifications should this court impose the agreed upon discipline.[5]
¶15 The
OLR states that a 60-day suspension is consistent with this court's opinion in In
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Engelbrecht, 2000 WI 120, 239 Wis. 2d 236,
618 N.W.2d 743. Attorney
Engelbrecht, who had been previously reprimanded privately for misconduct
including misrepresentation, received a 60-day suspension for appearing at a
trial and filing a brief during a suspension for non-compliance with continuing
legal education requirements. Attorney
Engelbrecht had also failed to notify the court or opposing counsel of his
suspension, made misleading statements to the Board of Bar Examiners, and
failed to cooperate in the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility's
investigation. See id.,
¶1. The OLR contends Attorney
Fitzgerald's misconduct resembles that charged in the Engelbrecht case
because not only did she practice during her suspension, but her prior
discipline involved issues of dishonesty and noncooperation.
¶16 This
court approves the stipulation, adopts the stipulated facts and conclusions of
law, and imposes the stipulated discipline.
We determine the seriousness of the misconduct warrants the suspension
of Attorney Fitzgerald's license to practice law for 60 days and the imposition
of $154.80 restitution to the SPD. In
view of the stipulation, the OLR does not seek costs. Costs of this proceeding will not be imposed.
¶17 IT
IS ORDERED that the license of Maureen B. Fitzgerald to practice law in
¶18 IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent she has not yet done so, Attorney
Fitzgerald 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 within 60 days of the date of this order, Attorney
Fitzgerald make restitution to the Office of the State Public Defender in the
sum of $154.80, provided that if restitution is not paid within the time
specified and absent a showing to this court of her inability to pay restitution
within that time, her license to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain
suspended until further order of the court.
[1] In the third matter, Attorney Fitzgerald was paid a flat fee; however, the payment in the third matter does not form a basis for a disciplinary count.
[2] SCR 22.26(2) provides:
An attorney whose license to practice law is suspended or revoked or who is suspended from the practice of law may not engage in this state in the practice of law or in any law work activity customarily done by law students, law clerks, or other paralegal personnel, except that the attorney may engage in law related work in this state for a commercial employer itself not engaged in the practice of law.
[3] SCR 20:8.4(c) states it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."
[4] SCR 22.03(2) provides:
Upon commencing an investigation, the director shall notify the respondent of the matter being investigated unless in the opinion of the director the investigation of the matter requires otherwise. The respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail a request for a written response. The director may allow additional time to respond. Following receipt of the response, the director may conduct further investigation and may compel the respondent to answer questions, furnish documents, and present any information deemed relevant to the investigation.
[5] It appears that the stipulation contains a misstatement on page 9, paragraph 35, in which it refers to Attorney Fitzgerald's understanding of the ramifications of a "private reprimand." The disciplinary complaint, however, seeks a 60-day license suspension and restitution. Also, paragraph 34 of the stipulation states, "Fitzgerald agrees to the level of discipline sought by the OLR: 60-day suspension and restitution of $154.80 to the SPD." The OLR's memorandum in support of the stipulation recommends a 60-day suspension and restitution. In view of the record, we conclude that the stipulation's isolated reference to a private reprimand is an inconsequential misstatement.