2013 WI 104
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2013AP1685-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Perry H. Friesler, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Perry H. Friesler,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST Friesler
OPINION FILED: December 26, 2013
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED: ABRAHAMSON, C.J., concurs. (Opinion filed.)
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2013 WI 104
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2013AP1685-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Perry H. Friesler, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant,
DEC 26, 2013
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Perry H. Friesler,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
revoked.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Attorney Perry H. Friesler has filed a
petition for the consensual revocation of his license to
practice law in Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 22.19.1 Attorney
1
SCR 22.19 provides as follows: Petition for consensual
license revocation.
(1) An attorney who is the subject of an
investigation for possible misconduct or the
respondent in a proceeding may file with the supreme
court a petition for the revocation by consent or his
or her license to practice law.
No. 2013AP1685-D
Friesler states in his petition that he cannot successfully
defend against multiple allegations of misconduct in connection
with two grievances that the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR)
is currently investigating.
¶2 Attorney Friesler was admitted to the practice of law
in 1968. His license is currently suspended for nonpayment of
dues and failure to comply with trust account certification
requirements.
(2) The petition shall state that the petitioner
cannot successfully defend against the allegations of
misconduct.
(3) If a complaint has not been filed, the
petition shall be filed in the supreme court and shall
include the director's summary of the misconduct
allegations being investigated. Within 20 days after
the date of filing of the petition, the director shall
file in the supreme court a recommendation on the
petition. Upon a showing of good cause, the supreme
court may extend the time for filing a recommendation.
(4) If a complaint has been filed, the petition
shall be filed in the supreme court and served on the
director and on the referee to whom the proceeding has
been assigned. Within 20 days after the filing of the
petition, the director shall file in the supreme court
a response in support of or in opposition to the
petition and serve a copy on the referee. Upon a
showing of good cause, the supreme court may extend
the time for filing a response. The referee shall
file a report and recommendation on the petition in
the supreme court within 30 days after receipt of the
director's response.
(5) The supreme court shall grant the petition
and revoke the petitioner's license to practice law or
deny the petition and remand the matter to the
director or to the referee for further proceedings.
2
No. 2013AP1685-D
¶3 Attached to Attorney Friesler's petition for
revocation is a summary of misconduct allegations in two matters
that have not yet been fully investigated by the OLR. Both
matters involved Attorney Friesler allegedly misappropriating
funds belonging to an estate in which he served as personal
representative and attorney. In one estate matter in Ozaukee
County, the Estate of H.A.L., Attorney Friesler is alleged to
have misappropriated $72,500 in estate funds. In another estate
matter in Milwaukee County, the Estate of L.P., Attorney
Friesler is alleged to have misappropriated approximately
$105,250 in estate funds, although Attorney Friesler claims this
amount should be offset by $17,860, the amount he invoiced the
estate for fees. The OLR states that it is investigating claims
that in both estate matters, Attorney Friesler engaged in
misconduct involving dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation;
committed trust account violations; and failed to act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his clients.
See SCRs 20:8.4(c), 20:1.15(b) and (d), and 20:1.3.
¶4 Attorney Friesler's petition for consensual revocation
states that he cannot successfully defend himself against the
allegations of professional misconduct set forth in the OLR's
summary of the matters being investigated. His petition asserts
that he is seeking consensual revocation freely, voluntarily,
and knowingly. Attorney Friesler states that he understands he
is giving up his right to contest the OLR's allegations.
Attorney Friesler is represented by counsel in this disciplinary
matter.
3
No. 2013AP1685-D
¶5 The OLR has filed a recommendation on Attorney
Friesler's petition for consensual license revocation. See
SCR 22.19(3). The OLR states that revocation is warranted and
necessary. The OLR's recommendation also contains a restitution
request. The OLR states that Attorney Friesler should be
ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $72,500 to the State
Bar of Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (the Fund),
which has approved and paid a $72,500 reimbursement application
filed by successor counsel for the Estate of H.A.L. Regarding
the Estate of L.P., the OLR states that Attorney Friesler should
be ordered to pay restitution to the estate in the amount of
$105,250, less any offset for Attorney Friesler's fees which are
determined to be properly chargeable to the estate. As stated
above, Attorney Friesler claims entitlement to $17,860 in fees
for his work on the Estate of L.P.
¶6 Having reviewed Attorney Friesler's petition, the
OLR's summary of the matters it is investigating, and the OLR's
recommendation on Attorney Friesler's petition, we accept
Attorney Friesler's petition for the revocation of his license
to practice law in Wisconsin. See SCRs 22.19(1), (2), and (5).
The seriousness of Attorney Friesler's 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 Friesler the seriousness of his
misconduct; and to deter other attorneys from engaging in
similar misconduct. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Arthur, 2005 WI 40, ¶78, 279 Wis. 2d 583, 694 N.W.2d 910.
4
No. 2013AP1685-D
¶7 Concerning restitution, we determine that Attorney
Friesler should be required to pay $72,500 to the Fund in
connection with the losses caused by his actions as personal
representative of the Estate of H.A.L. We further determine
that Attorney Friesler should be required to pay restitution to
the Estate of L.P. in the minimum amount of $87,390. We direct
the OLR and Attorney Friesler to confer and attempt to reach a
stipulation within 30 days from the date of this order as to
what amount of Attorney Friesler's $17,860 fee claim is properly
chargeable to the Estate of L.P. If a stipulation cannot be
reached, we order that as a condition of reinstatement of
Attorney Friesler's license, Attorney Friesler shall furnish a
complete accounting and prove that he has settled all claims
related to the $17,860 potentially owed to the Estate of L.P.
See SCR 22.29(4m) (a lawyer petitioning for reinstatement must
prove that he or she has made restitution to or settled all
claims of persons harmed by the lawyer's misconduct, or must
explain the failure or inability to do so); see also In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mularski, 2010 WI 113, ¶¶35,
37, 329 Wis. 2d 273, 787 N.W.2d 834 (revoking attorney's license
and requiring attorney to show he made full restitution to his
clients at such time as he would seek reinstatement).
¶8 Because Attorney Friesler petitioned for the
consensual revocation of his Wisconsin law license before the
appointment of a referee, and because the OLR has not requested
the imposition of costs, we do not assess the costs of this
disciplinary proceeding against Attorney Friesler.
5
No. 2013AP1685-D
¶9 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for consensual license
revocation is granted.
¶10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of Perry H.
Friesler to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the
date of this order.
¶11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order Perry H. Friesler shall pay restitution in the
amount of $72,500 to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client
Protection and in the amount of $87,390 to the Estate of L.P.
¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Office of Lawyer
Regulation and Perry H. Friesler shall confer and attempt to
reach a stipulation within 30 days from the date of this order
as to what amount of Perry H. Friesler's $17,860 fee claim is
properly chargeable to the Estate of L.P. If a stipulation
cannot be reached, we order that as a condition of reinstatement
of Perry H. Friesler's license, Perry H. Friesler shall furnish
a complete accounting and prove that he has settled all claims
related to the $17,860 potentially owed to the Estate of L.P.
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not
already done so, Perry H. Friesler 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.
6
No. 2013AP1685.ssa
¶14 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J. (concurring). The court
has not been advised whether any criminal prosecution has been
undertaken.
1
No. 2013AP1685.ssa
1