2014 WI 77
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2012AP2423-D, 2013AP1592-D, 2014AP272-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Bridget E. Boyle, Attorney at Law,
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant-Respondent,
v.
Bridget E. Boyle,
Respondent-Appellant.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BOYLE
OPINION FILED: July 18, 2014
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED: BRADLEY, J., concurs. (Opinion filed.)
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
For the respondent-appellant, there was a brief by Bridget
Boyle, Milwaukee.
For the complainant-respondent, there was a brief by Robert
G. Krohn and Roethe Pope Roethe LLP, Edgerton.
2014 WI 77
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
Nos. 2012AP2423-D
2013AP1592-D
2014AP272-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant, FILED
v. JUL 18, 2014
Bridget E. Boyle, Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
revoked.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Attorney Bridget E. Boyle has filed a
petition for the consensual revocation of her 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.
Nos. 2012AP2423-D
2013AP1592-D
2014AP272-D
Boyle's petition states that she cannot successfully defend
against seven Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) grievance
investigations in which the Preliminary Review Committee (PRC)
has found cause to proceed as to multiple counts of misconduct,
as well as seven additional pending OLR grievance matters that
have not yet been fully investigated by the OLR or brought to
the PRC for its consideration. Attorney Boyle's petition
further states that she cannot successfully defend against 22
(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
Nos. 2012AP2423-D
2013AP1592-D
2014AP272-D
counts of professional misconduct in four grievance matters
which are the subject of a pending appeal before this court, In
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bridget E. Boyle, Case
No. 2012AP2423-D. Attorney Boyle's petition further states that
she cannot successfully defend against 15 counts of professional
misconduct alleged in the OLR's complaint, filed July 18, 2013,
in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bridget Boyle, Case
No. 2013AP1592-D.
¶2 Attorney Boyle was admitted to the practice of law in
Wisconsin in 1995 and, prior to her most recent disciplinary
suspension, practiced in Milwaukee. Attorney Boyle has a
lengthy disciplinary history, and her license to practice law in
this state is currently suspended. Her prior disciplinary
matters can be summarized as follows:
¶3 In 2008 Attorney Boyle was privately reprimanded for
failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client; failing to keep a client reasonably
informed about the status of a matter; failing to promptly
comply with reasonable requests for information; and failing to
explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit
the client to make informed decisions regarding the
representation. Private Reprimand, No. 2008-09.
¶4 In 2012 Attorney Boyle was suspended for 60 days for
failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client; failing to communicate appropriately with
a client; failing to promptly respond to a client's request for
3
Nos. 2012AP2423-D
2013AP1592-D
2014AP272-D
information concerning fees and expenses; failing to take steps
to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's
interest; failing to cooperate with an OLR investigation into
her conduct; willfully failing to provide relevant information,
fully answer questions, or furnish documents in the course of an
OLR investigation; and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Boyle, 2012 WI 54, 341 Wis. 2d 92, 813
N.W.2d 215.
¶5 In 2012 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals disbarred
Attorney Boyle from further practice in that court for her
abandonment of her client in a criminal case. In re Bridget
Boyle-Saxton, 668 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2012).
¶6 In 2013 Attorney Boyle was suspended for six months
for failing to keep her client reasonably informed about the
status of a matter; failing to promptly comply with her client's
reasonable requests for information; failing to communicate the
basis for her fee; failing to promptly respond to a client's
request for information concerning fees and expenses; failing to
return a client's file upon termination of representation;
failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client; charging an unreasonable fee; failing to
hold unearned fees and advanced payments of fees in trust until
earned; and failing to refund unearned fees. In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Boyle, 2013 WI 103, 351 Wis. 2d 713, 840
4
Nos. 2012AP2423-D
2013AP1592-D
2014AP272-D
N.W.2d 694. This six-month suspension went into effect on
January 30, 2014, and her license remains suspended.
¶7 Attached to Attorney Boyle's petition for revocation
are the following three documents: (1) the OLR's summary of
misconduct allegations in 14 pending investigative matters that
have not been publicly charged; (2) the referee's report in Case
No. 2012AP2423-D in which the referee determined that Attorney
Boyle engaged in 22 counts of misconduct in four grievance
matters and recommended an 18-month suspension of Attorney
Boyle's law license; and (3) the complaint in Case
No. 2013AP1592-D, filed July 18, 2013, in which the OLR alleged
that Attorney Boyle engaged in 15 counts of misconduct in five
grievance matters and asked for a one-year license suspension.
¶8 It is not necessary to describe the particular factual
allegations of each representation. A synopsis of the
information contained in the attachments to Attorney Boyle's
petition for revocation will provide a sufficient description of
the nature and scope of her professional misconduct.
¶9 The OLR's summary of misconduct allegations in the 14
pending investigative matters that have not been publicly
charged synopsizes alleged violations or potential violations of
the following rules: SCR 1.1 (failing to provide competent
representation); SCR 20:1.2(a) (failing to abide by the client's
decisions concerning the objectives of representation);
SCR 20:1.3 (failing to act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing a client); SCR 20:1.4(a)(2) (failing
5
Nos. 2012AP2423-D
2013AP1592-D
2014AP272-D
to reasonably consult with a client about the means by which the
client's objectives are to be accomplished); SCR 20:1.4(a)(3)
(failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status
of a matter); SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) (failing to promptly comply with
reasonable requests by the client for information);
SCR 20:1.4(b) (failing to explain a matter to the extent
reasonably necessary to permit a client to make informed
decisions regarding the representation); SCR 20:1.5(a) (charging
an unreasonable fee); SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) (failing to adequately
explain the basis on which lawyer's fee would be calculated);
SCR 20:1.5(b)(3) (failing to promptly respond to a client's
request for information concerning fees and expenses);
SCR 20:1.9 (operating under a conflict of interest with a former
client); SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) (failing to deposit advanced payments
of fees and costs into trust account); SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m)
(depositing unearned advanced fees payment in business account
rather than in trust account without complying with the notice,
accounting, and arbitration requirements of SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m));
SCR 20:1.15(g)(1) (failing to notify clients of withdrawal of
non-contingent fees from trust account); SCR 20:1.16(d) (failing
to take steps to protect client's interests upon termination of
representation); SCR 20:3.4(c) (knowingly disobeying an
obligation under the rules of a tribunal); SCR 20:5.3 (failing
to properly supervise nonlawyer assistants); SCR 20:8.4(c)
(engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation); SCR 22.03(2) (failing to cooperate with an
6
Nos. 2012AP2423-D
2013AP1592-D
2014AP272-D
OLR investigation); SCR 22.03(6) (failing to provide relevant
information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish documents
in the course of an OLR investigation); and SCR 22.26(1)
(failing to comply with the duties of a person whose license to
practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended).
¶10 The referee's report and recommendation in Case
No. 2012AP2423-D sets forth the referee's determination that
Attorney Boyle engaged in 22 counts of misconduct in four
grievance matters. Attorney Boyle had appealed from this report
and recommendation, but now concedes that she cannot
successfully defend herself against the professional misconduct
described in the report and recommendation. The misconduct, as
determined by the referee, involved violations of the following
rules: SCR 20:1.1 (failing to provide competent
representation); SCR 20:1.2(a) (failing to abide by a client's
decisions concerning the objectives of representation);
SCR 20:1.3 (failing to act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing a client); SCR 20:1.4(a)(2) (failing
to reasonably consult with a client about the means by which the
client's objectives are to be accomplished); SCR 20:1.4(a)(3)
(failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status
of a matter); SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) (failing to promptly comply with
reasonable requests by the client for information);
SCR 20:1.5(a) (charging an unreasonable fee); SCR 20:1.5(b)(1)
(failing to adequately explain the basis on which the lawyer's
fee would be calculated); SCR 20:1.5(b)(2) (failing to
7
Nos. 2012AP2423-D
2013AP1592-D
2014AP272-D
communicate in writing to the client the purpose and effect of
any retainer or advance fee that is paid to the lawyer);
SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) (failing to hold in trust property of clients
and third parties that is in the lawyer's possession in
connection with a presentation); SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) (failing to
deposit advanced payments of fees and costs into trust account);
SCR 20:1.16(a)(2) (failing to withdraw from representation when
the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the
lawyer's ability to represent the client); SCR 20:1.16(d)
(failing to take steps to protect client's interests upon
termination of representation); SCR 20:3.2 (failing to make
reasonable efforts to expedite litigation of the client's case);
SCR 20:3.4(c) (knowingly disobeying an obligation under the
rules of a tribunal); and SCR 20:8.4(c)(engaging in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation).
¶11 The OLR's complaint in Case No. 2013AP1592-D against
Attorney Boyle alleges that that she engaged in 15 counts of
misconduct in five grievance matters. The alleged misconduct
involved violations of the following rules: SCR 20:1.2(a)
(failing to abide by the client's decisions concerning the
objectives of representation); SCR 20:1.3 (failing to act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client);
SCR 20:1.4(a)(2) (failing to reasonably consult with a client
about the means by which the client's objectives are to be
accomplished); SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) (failing to keep a client
reasonably informed about the status of a matter);
8
Nos. 2012AP2423-D
2013AP1592-D
2014AP272-D
SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) (failing to promptly comply with reasonable
requests by the client for information); SCR 20:1.5(b)(1)
(failing to adequately explain the basis on which the lawyer's
fee would be calculated); SCR 20:1.5(b)(2) (failing to
communicate in writing to the client the purpose and effect of
any retainer or advance fee that is paid to the lawyer);
SCR 20:1.5(b)(3) (failing to promptly respond to a client's
request for information concerning fees and expenses);
SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) (failing to deposit advanced payments of fees
and costs into trust account); SCR 20:1.16(d) (failing to take
steps to protect client's interests upon termination of
representation); SCR 22.03(2) (failing to cooperate with an OLR
investigation); and SCR 22.03(6) (failing to provide relevant
information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish documents
in the course of an OLR investigation).
¶12 Attorney Boyle's petition for consensual revocation
states that she cannot successfully defend herself against the
allegations of professional misconduct set forth in the OLR's
summary of the matters still in the investigative process, the
referee's report and recommendation in Case No. 2012AP2423-D,
and the OLR's complaint in Case No. 2013AP1592-D. Attorney
Boyle's petition asserts that she is seeking consensual
revocation freely, voluntarily, and knowingly. Attorney Boyle
states that she understands she is giving up her right to
further contest the OLR's allegations. She further acknowledges
that she has been given the opportunity to consult with counsel.
9
Nos. 2012AP2423-D
2013AP1592-D
2014AP272-D
¶13 The OLR's report and recommendation in support of the
petition contains a restitution request. The OLR requests that
Attorney Boyle be ordered to pay restitution in the amount of
$2,000 to former client J.T.; $10,000 to former client P.K.; and
$5,000 to former client D.H.2 The OLR further requests that
Attorney Boyle be ordered to pay the amount of any award
resulting from a November 2013 State Bar of Wisconsin fee
arbitration hearing concerning her former client, L.W.3 Attorney
Boyle's petition states that she agrees that she should be
ordered to pay these restitution amounts.
¶14 Having reviewed Attorney Boyle's petition, the OLR's
summary of misconduct allegations in pending investigative
matters, the referee's report in Case No. 2012AP2423-D, and the
OLR's complaint in Case No. 2013AP1592-D, we conclude that the
petition for consensual revocation should be granted. It is
clear from the descriptions of the various representations that
Attorney Boyle has engaged in a widespread pattern of serious
professional misconduct that has harmed her clients. It is also
clear that Attorney Boyle is currently unwilling or unable to
2
Although the subject of some confusion during the pendency
of the instant matter, the OLR confirmed in a May 23, 2014
filing with the court that it does not seek restitution for any
of the matters described in the OLR's complaint in Case
No. 2013AP1592-D. We accede to the OLR's judgment on this
issue.
3
In its report and recommendation in support of Attorney
Boyle's petition, the OLR states that the parties are currently
awaiting the arbitrator's decision.
10
Nos. 2012AP2423-D
2013AP1592-D
2014AP272-D
conform her conduct to the standards that are required to
practice law in this state.
¶15 Attorney Boyle asks the court to make her revocation
effective as of January 30, 2014, the effective date of her six-
month license suspension imposed in In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Boyle, 2013 WI 103, 351 Wis. 2d 713, 840
N.W.2d 694. The OLR endorses this request in its report and
recommendation in support of the petition. We reject Attorney
Boyle's request. Customarily, the effective date of a license
revocation to be imposed for a lawyer's misconduct is the date
of the court's order imposing the revocation. We see no reason
to depart from that practice here.
¶16 We further determine, in light of the OLR's report and
Attorney Boyle's agreement, that Attorney Boyle should be
required to pay $2,000 to former client J.T.; $10,000 to former
client P.K.; $5,000 to former client D.H.; and the amount of any
award resulting from the November 2013 State Bar of Wisconsin
fee arbitration hearing concerning her former client, L.W.
¶17 Finally, we impose full costs. The OLR seeks costs
totaling $13,272.42 as of February 21, 2014.4 This figure
4
We note that on May 21, 2014, the OLR filed an "Amended
Statement of Costs and Recommendation" in Case No. 2013AP1592-D.
This document lists approximately $600.00 in costs beyond those
described in the OLR's February 21, 2014 recommendation in
support of Attorney Boyle's petition for revocation. In the
interest of judicial efficiency, we look only to the cost total
in the OLR's February 21, 2014 recommendation, as that total has
long been settled by virtue of Attorney Boyle's choice not to
object to it.
11
Nos. 2012AP2423-D
2013AP1592-D
2014AP272-D
represents the costs incurred by the OLR in the pending appeal
before this court, Case No. 2012AP2423-D, and in the
disciplinary matter that led to the filing of the complaint in
Case No. 2013AP1592-D. Under SCR 22.24(1m), this court's
general policy is to impose full costs. Attorney Boyle has not
objected to the OLR's requested costs and has not alleged any
factors that would justify a reduction in costs. Consequently,
Attorney Boyle shall bear the entire costs of this disciplinary
proceeding.
¶18 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for consensual license
revocation is granted.
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of Bridget E.
Boyle to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the
date of this order.
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order Bridget E. Boyle shall pay restitution in the
amount of $2,000 to former client J.T.; $10,000 to former client
P.K.; $5,000 to former client D.H.; and the amount of any award
resulting from the November 2013 State Bar of Wisconsin fee
arbitration hearing concerning her former client, L.W.
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order, Bridget E. Boyle shall pay the Office of Lawyer
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified
above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of
Lawyer Regulation.
12
Nos. 2012AP2423-D
2013AP1592-D
2014AP272-D
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent she has not
already done so, Bridget E. Boyle 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.
13
Nos. 2012AP2423-D, 2013AP1592-D, 2014AP272-D.awb
¶24 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J. (concurring). I write
separately to address the issue of restitution. On May 6, 2014,
the referee assigned to Case No. 2013AP1592-D, Attorney James W.
Mohr, Jr., filed a report and recommendation pursuant to SCR
22.19(4). In his report, Referee Mohr recommended that the
court revoke Attorney Boyle's Wisconsin law license, order her
to pay the full costs of the proceeding, and order her to pay a
total of $21,500 in restitution, less any provable offsets. I
would order the restitution recommended by Referee Mohr.
1
Nos. 2012AP2423-D, 2013AP1592-D, 2014AP272-D.awb
1