2014 WI 119
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2014AP1443-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against
Michael J. Briggs, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Michael J. Briggs,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BRIGGS
OPINION FILED: October 28, 2014
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2014 WI 119
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2014AP1443-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Michael J. Briggs, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant,
OCT 28, 2014
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Michael J. Briggs,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review the stipulation filed by the
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Michael J. Briggs
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12.1 On June 24, 2014,
1
SCR 22.12 provides, in relevant part:
(1) The director may file with the complaint a
stipulation of the director and the respondent to the
facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and
discipline to be imposed. The supreme court may
consider the complaint and stipulation without the
appointment of a referee, in which case the supreme
court may approve the stipulation, reject the
(continued)
No. 2014AP1443-D
the OLR filed a complaint in this court alleging 12 counts of
misconduct against Attorney Briggs. Attorney Briggs did not
file an answer, but instead he and the OLR filed a stipulation
in which Attorney Briggs admitted the facts and misconduct as
alleged in the OLR's complaint and agreed to the level of
discipline sought by the OLR: a 90-day suspension of Attorney
Briggs's license to practice law in this state.
¶2 We approve the stipulation and adopt the stipulated
facts and conclusions regarding Attorney Briggs's 12 counts of
misconduct as alleged in the OLR's complaint. We determine that
the seriousness of Attorney Briggs's misconduct warrants
suspension of his license to practice law in this state for a
period of 90 days. We do not impose restitution, as the OLR did
not make any such request. Finally, because Attorney Briggs
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 do not impose costs in this
matter.
¶3 Attorney Briggs was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 1975 and practices in Oregon, Wisconsin. He has no
prior disciplinary history.
stipulation, or direct the parties to consider
specific modifications to the stipulation.
(2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation,
it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of
law and impose the stipulated discipline.
2
No. 2014AP1443-D
¶4 As noted above, Attorney Briggs admits to the facts
and misconduct as alleged in the OLR complaint. Summarized, the
allegations are these:
REPRESENTATION OF J.N. AND R.N. (COUNTS 1 THROUGH 5)
¶5 The OLR complaint alleged, and Attorney Briggs now
stipulates, that in approximately January 2011, J.N. and R.N.
hired Attorney Briggs to represent them as plaintiffs in a land
contract dispute in which J.N. and R.N. were the land contract
grantors. Attorney Briggs filed a motion for default judgment,
which the circuit court granted.
¶6 J.N. and R.N. believed that Attorney Briggs would take
all actions necessary to garnish the defendants' wages as well
as to prepare and file the necessary documents to restore the
clear title of the property to J.N. and R.N.
¶7 Attorney Briggs failed to do so. Specifically, he
failed to file the default judgment or any other document in the
appropriate real estate records to clarify that title had
reverted to J.N. and R.N. He failed to determine what
procedures would be needed to enforce Wisconsin garnishments
against the defendants, both of whom had moved out of state and
were employed outside of Wisconsin. He failed to effectuate the
garnishments.
¶8 J.N. and R.N. repeatedly tried to contact Attorney
Briggs by telephone and email to inquire about the status of the
garnishments and related legal matters, as well as to inquire
about billing issues. Attorney Briggs did not return their
calls or emails.
3
No. 2014AP1443-D
¶9 J.N. and R.N. filed a grievance with the OLR. By
letter dated April 18, 2012, the OLR notified Attorney Briggs of
its investigation of J.N.'s and R.N.'s grievance and requested
certain documents from Attorney Briggs. Attorney Briggs did not
respond.
¶10 The OLR sent Attorney Briggs a second investigative
letter requesting Attorney Briggs's response to J.N.'s and
R.N.'s grievance. Attorney Briggs's wife signed the certified
mail receipt for this investigative letter. Attorney Briggs did
not respond.
¶11 The OLR sent Attorney Briggs a third request for his
response, which was personally served on Briggs. Attorney
Briggs still did not respond.
¶12 On motion from the OLR, this court issued an order
requiring Attorney Briggs to show cause why his Wisconsin law
license should not be suspended for his failure to cooperate in
the OLR's investigation of the J.N. and R.N. matter. Attorney
Briggs filed a response promising to cooperate in the
investigation, but he failed to do so. On February 12, 2013,
this court temporarily suspended Attorney Briggs for his failure
to cooperate with the OLR investigation.
¶13 On November 27, 2013, Attorney Briggs sent a letter to
the OLR that responded to the OLR's April 18, 2012 investigative
letter. In his letter, Attorney Briggs provided an explanation
as to why he did not complete the garnishments requested by J.N.
and R.N. Attorney Briggs claimed that J.N. and R.N. had not
responded to his email communication to them, and that he did
4
No. 2014AP1443-D
not proceed further with the garnishments because J.N. and R.N.
had failed to either pay his fee or to commit to reimburse him
for filing fees. These representations were later proven false.
¶14 On November 27, 2013, the OLR filed a report with the
court stating that Attorney Briggs had provided a written
response sufficient to allow the OLR to continue its
investigation. Accordingly, on December 16, 2013, this court
reinstated Attorney Briggs's license to practice law.
¶15 Based on this admitted course of conduct, the OLR
complaint charged Attorney Briggs with five counts of
misconduct, to which he now stipulates. The misconduct involved
violations of the following rules: SCR 20:1.1 (failing to
provide competent representation); SCR 20:1.3 (failing to act
with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a
client); 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 22.03(2) (failing to timely respond
to 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).
POST-DISCIPLINE NON-COMPLIANCE ISSUES (COUNTS 6 THROUGH 8)
¶16 The OLR complaint alleged, and Attorney Briggs now
stipulates, that a copy of this court's February 12, 2013 order
temporarily suspending his license for failing to cooperate with
the OLR investigation regarding J.N.'s and R.N.'s grievance was
mailed to the address Attorney Briggs had on file with the State
5
No. 2014AP1443-D
Bar of Wisconsin (State Bar). Nevertheless, Attorney Briggs
continued to practice law in Wisconsin, including drafting
documents, providing legal advice, and appearing in court on
behalf of clients.
¶17 On July 23, 2012, a Dane County circuit court judge
sent an email to the OLR stating that Attorney Briggs had
appeared that morning to represent a litigant in a family law
matter; that opposing counsel stated that Attorney Briggs's law
license was suspended; and that the State Bar's website showed
that Attorney Briggs's license was suspended. The circuit court
judge asked the OLR what Attorney Briggs's current license
status was, and the OLR confirmed via email that Attorney
Briggs's license was suspended. The circuit court judge replied
to the OLR that Attorney Briggs would not be allowed to appear
as counsel in the matter, and that Attorney Briggs would be in
contact with the OLR.
¶18 During an August 2, 2013 telephone call with OLR
staff, Attorney Briggs asserted that he had "just found out"
that he was suspended. OLR staff reminded Attorney Briggs that
his license had been suspended since February 12, 2013, and that
he had been sent a copy of the order of suspension, the
preceding motion filed by the OLR, an order to show cause issued
by this court, and reports filed by the OLR in this matter, all
prior to the suspension order.
¶19 By email dated August 2, 2013, the OLR provided
Attorney Briggs with another copy of the April 18, 2012 letter
notifying Attorney Briggs of the OLR's investigation of J.N.'s
6
No. 2014AP1443-D
and R.N.'s grievance and requesting certain documents from
Attorney Briggs. The OLR advised Attorney Briggs to file a
written response to the letter. He did not do so, nor did he
advise his clients, opposing counsel, or the courts in which he
was representing clients that his license to practice law had
been suspended.
¶20 Until at least October 3, 2013, Attorney Briggs
continued to practice law in Wisconsin.
¶21 During the OLR's investigation as to his practice of
law, Attorney Briggs made misrepresentations to the OLR as to
the extent, nature, and scope of his practice while suspended.
¶22 Based on this admitted course of conduct, the OLR
complaint charged Attorney Briggs with an additional three
counts of misconduct, to which he now stipulates. The
misconduct involved violations of the following rules:
SCR 22.26(1)(c) (failing to promptly provide written
notification of license suspension to courts and opposing
counsel); SCR 20:3.4(c) (knowingly disobeying an obligation
under the rules of a tribunal); SCR 22.26(2) (engaging in the
practice of law during license suspension); 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).
REPRESENTATION OF D.R. (COUNTS 9 THROUGH 12)
¶23 The OLR complaint alleged, and Attorney Briggs now
stipulates, that in approximately February 2013, Attorney Briggs
7
No. 2014AP1443-D
began representing D.R. in an eviction action against two
defendants.
¶24 As noted above, this court, on February 12, 2013,
issued an order suspending Attorney Briggs's license to practice
law in Wisconsin due to his failure to cooperate in its
investigation of J.N.'s and R.N.'s grievance. As also noted
above, Attorney Briggs's license remained suspended until
December 16, 2013.
¶25 Attorney Briggs did not notify D.R., the defendants,
or the circuit court of his suspension.
¶26 Between February 12 and July 23, 2013, Attorney Briggs
consulted with D.R. about the eviction action, provided D.R.
with legal advice, drafted pleadings and a set of
interrogatories, became counsel of record for D.R., and
communicated by mail and email with the defendants and with the
court as counsel for D.R.
¶27 Between July 23 and September 6, 2013, Attorney Briggs
continued to consult with and provide legal advice to D.R. and
to communicate with the defendants as counsel for D.R.
¶28 In a letter dated October 15, 2013, Attorney Briggs
told the OLR that he was notified in a letter dated July 23,
2013, that his license to practice law had been suspended.
Attorney Briggs claimed that his communications with the
defendants as counsel for D.R. occurred before that date. These
statements were misrepresentations.
¶29 On October 23, 2013, during an in-person meeting with
OLR staff, Attorney Briggs asserted that, once he learned he was
8
No. 2014AP1443-D
suspended on July 23, 2013, he changed his law office website to
notify clients he was suspended. That information was false.
¶30 Attorney Briggs failed to properly advise D.R. that
his license was suspended. D.R. became aware of the suspension
when, after a hearing, a defendant in the eviction action
threatened to sue Attorney Briggs because he had represented
D.R. when his license was suspended. It was only upon D.R.'s
subsequent inquiry that Attorney Briggs disclosed his
suspension.
¶31 Based on this admitted course of conduct, the OLR
complaint charged Attorney Briggs with an additional four counts
of professional misconduct, to which he now stipulates. The
misconduct involved violations of the following rules:
SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b) (failing to notify the client by
certified mail of suspension and failing to advise client to
seek legal advice elsewhere); SCR 20:3.4(c) (knowingly
disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal);
SCR 22.26(1)(c) (failing to promptly provide written
notification of license suspension to courts and opposing
counsel); SCR 22.26(2) (engaging in the practice of law during
license suspension); SCR 20:8.4(c) (engaging in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); 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).
¶32 As noted above, Attorney Briggs has now stipulated to
the 12 counts of misconduct as alleged by the OLR in its
9
No. 2014AP1443-D
complaint. He further stipulates that a 90-day suspension of
his license to practice law in this state is an appropriate
sanction for his misconduct.
¶33 The stipulation properly states that Attorney Briggs
fully understands the misconduct allegations, his right to
contest this matter, the ramifications of his entry into this
stipulation, and his right to consult with counsel. The
stipulation further provides that Attorney Briggs entered into
the stipulation knowingly and voluntarily.
¶34 The OLR filed a memorandum in support of the
stipulation. The OLR cited several cases that it claims——and we
agree——support its request for a 90-day suspension: In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against FitzGerald, 2007 WI 111,
304 Wis. 2d 592, 735 N.W.2d 913 (90-day suspension for
misconduct including practicing law during suspension and
failing to notify employer, court, and opposing counsel of
suspension); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kelsay,
2003 WI 141, 267 Wis. 2d 17, 671 N.W.2d 8 (six-month suspension
for lawyer with disciplinary history who practiced law during
suspension); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Scanlan,
2006 WI 38, 290 Wis. 2d 30, 712 N.W.2d 877 (six-month suspension
for 21 counts of misconduct including practicing law while
suspended, failing to provide notice to clients and courts
concerning the suspension, failing to timely respond to an OLR
investigation, failing to provide competent representation, and
trust account violations); and In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Farris, 2004 WI 125, 276 Wis. 2d 13, 688 N.W.2d 231
10
No. 2014AP1443-D
(60-day suspension for lawyer who practiced law while suspended,
made misrepresentations in his petition for reinstatement, and
willfully failed to provide information to the OLR during an
investigation).
¶35 The OLR noted in its memorandum that several
aggravating factors were present in this case. Attorney Briggs
engaged in multiple misconduct offenses, intentionally failed to
comply with disciplinary rules and orders, and made
misrepresentations to the OLR during the course of its
investigations.
¶36 On the mitigating side, Attorney Briggs was admitted
to practice law in this state in 1975 and has no disciplinary
history.
¶37 After our independent review of the matter, we approve
the stipulation and determine that the seriousness of Attorney
Briggs's misconduct warrants a 90-day suspension of his license
to practice law. Attorney Briggs's admitted acts are serious
violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct governing
lawyers in this state. We deem a 90-day suspension sufficient
to protect the public from Attorney Briggs's unacceptable
professional behavior, to ensure that he will not repeat it, and
to deter others from engaging in similar misconduct.
¶38 In light of the fact that Attorney Briggs entered into
a comprehensive stipulation, thereby obviating the need for the
appointment of a referee and for additional litigation costs, we
agree with the OLR's request that the costs of this disciplinary
proceeding not be assessed against Attorney Briggs.
11
No. 2014AP1443-D
¶39 We do not impose restitution, as the OLR did not make
any such request.
¶40 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Michael J. Briggs to
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of ninety
days, effective November 28, 2014.
¶41 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Michael J. Briggs shall
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been
suspended.
12
No. 2014AP1443-D
1