2021 WI 74
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2016AP85-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Daniel Parks, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant-Respondent,
v.
Daniel Parks,
Respondent-Appellant.
ATTORNEY PARKS REINSTATEMENT PROCEEDINGS
Reported at 395 Wis. 2d 500,953 N.W.2d 873
PDC No:2021 WI 10 - Published
OPINION FILED: August 20, 2021
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
Per Curiam.
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2021 WI 74
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2016AP85-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Daniel Parks, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant-Respondent, AUG 20, 2021
v. Sheila T. Reiff
Clerk of Supreme Court
Daniel Parks,
Respondent-Appellant.
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding. Reinstatement granted
upon conditions.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Pending before the court is Attorney
Daniel Parks' second petition for reinstatement of his license
to practice law in Wisconsin. Upon consideration of the
reinstatement petition; Attorney Parks' affidavit in support of
his reinstatement petition; the Office of Lawyer Regulation's
(OLR) response pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.30(4);
the parties' SCR 22.30(5)(a) stipulation; the OLR's memorandum
in support of the stipulation (attaching Attorney Anthony
O'Malley's comment in support of reinstatement); and Attorney
No. 2016AP85-D
Parks' response to the OLR's memorandum, we conclude that
reinstatement, upon conditions, is appropriate.
¶2 Attorney Parks was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 1991. His license was unblemished until 2016, when
the OLR filed a complaint alleging that Attorney Parks had
committed 19 counts of professional misconduct. The allegations
derived from a grievance filed by Attorney Parks' former law
firm stating, among other things, that it had discovered that
Attorney Parks had performed unauthorized legal work "on the
side" while employed by the firm.
¶3 Following extensive litigation, amended complaints,
and an appeal, this court accepted the referee's conclusion that
Attorney Parks had committed eight of 14 alleged counts of
misconduct.1 See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Parks,
2018 WI 110, 384 Wis. 2d 635, 920 N.W.2d 505 (Parks I). We
suspended Attorney Parks' law license for 14 months for his
violation of multiple supreme court rules: for earning fees
from non-firm legal work while employed by a law firm; arranging
for two clients to perform work for him in exchange for a
reduction of legal fees and otherwise reducing attorney fees
without his law firm's permission; accepting an unauthorized
$5,000 "gift" from two clients; working on client files on an
unsecured offsite computer belonging to another person; and
The OLR twice amended its complaint, dismissing five
1
counts. This court then dismissed five of the alleged counts of
misconduct.
2
No. 2016AP85-D
obtaining two signatures on a "release" designed to limit
Attorney Parks' liability, without properly clarifying his role
in the matter.
¶4 Attorney Parks first sought reinstatement in January
2020. The OLR initially declined to support his reinstatement
petition based on concerns that Attorney Parks might have misled
the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance (OCI) with respect
to statements on Attorney Parks' insurance license renewal. The
OLR also expressed concern that Attorney Parks had not made
restitution to the grievants in the underlying disciplinary
proceeding, but acknowledged that the OLR had not sought
restitution, the referee had not recommended restitution, and
this court had not ordered Attorney Parks to pay restitution.
¶5 A referee was appointed and a reinstatement hearing
was conducted on the first reinstatement petition. By the time
of the hearing, the OLR had identified a new concern: that
Attorney Parks may have claimed an improper tax deduction.
However, at the evidentiary hearing, Attorney Parks presented
evidence sufficient to satisfy the referee that Attorney Parks
had relied on professional guidance in both matters and had
dealt in good faith with the OCI and with the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS). On the question of restitution, the referee
reasoned that the referee in the underlying disciplinary case
had not recommended restitution, that this court had accepted
the referee's recommendation, and had not ordered restitution.
The referee recommended Attorney Parks' reinstatement.
3
No. 2016AP85-D
¶6 This court disagreed and denied Attorney Parks' first
reinstatement petition. The court accepted the referee's
findings with respect to the questions involving the OCI and the
IRS, but concluded that Attorney Parks' failure to make
restitution precluded his reinstatement. The court cited
SCR 22.29(4m), observing that the obligation to make restitution
to those harmed by the lawyer's misconduct applies, even if
restitution is not ordered in the original disciplinary
proceeding. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Parks,
2021 WI 10, ¶30, 395 Wis. 2d 500, 953 N.W.2d 873 (Parks II)
(citing In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Woodard, 2012 WI
41, 340 Wis. 2d 248, 812 N.W.2d 511). Consequently, the court
also concluded that Attorney Parks had not demonstrated that he
possessed the requisite moral character to practice law in this
state. See (former) SCR 22.31(a). The court indicated it would
be "more favorably disposed" to a reinstatement petition "upon a
showing that Attorney Parks has sought in good faith to address
the requirements of SCR 22.29(4m)." Parks II, ¶32.
¶7 In the wake of this court's adverse reinstatement
decision, Attorney Parks promptly took steps to address the
restitution issue. Through counsel, Attorney Parks contacted
each grievant by mail, broaching the issue of restitution.
Former client L.E. informed Attorney Parks that she thought
$4,500 was a satisfactory and appropriate amount of restitution.
Attorney Parks' former law firm, Zacherl, O'Malley & Endejan,
S.C., indicated that $10,000 would be a satisfactory amount of
4
No. 2016AP85-D
restitution. Attorney Parks then entered into payment
agreements with each grievant to pay the requested restitution.2
¶8 On April 2, 2021, Attorney Parks filed his second
reinstatement petition.3 The OLR investigated Attorney Parks'
second petition and determined that there were no new concerns
beyond those previously addressed in the first reinstatement
proceeding. The OLR noted that this court had denied Attorney
Parks' initial reinstatement petition due to Attorney Parks'
failure to pay restitution to persons or entities harmed by his
misconduct. Parks II, ¶31.
¶9 The OLR considered whether Attorney Parks' efforts at
restitution would satisfy this court's concerns, as set forth in
the initial, adverse reinstatement decision.4 The OLR determined
2 Each grievant agreed to an initial payment with the
balance to be paid within one year of Attorney Parks'
reinstatement. Attorney Parks, though counsel, thus paid $1,000
to L.E. and $3,000 to Zacherl, O'Malley & Endejan, S.C., along
with a letter memorializing his commitment to complete the
agreed-upon restitution within one year of reinstatement.
3This court permitted Attorney Parks to file a subsequent
reinstatement petition in advance of the usual nine-month
waiting period required by SCR 22.33(4). In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Parks, 2021 WI 10, ¶32, 395 Wis. 2d 500, 953
N.W.2d 873 (Parks II).
4 The OLR expressed some reservations about Attorney Parks'
payment of restitution and/or costs appearing to be conditioned
on his reinstatement. The OLR therefore advised Attorney Parks'
former firm and L.E. that their reinstatement agreements were
not determinative of whether the OLR would support or oppose
Attorney Parks' reinstatement petition. We concur that
agreements to pay restitution that are conditioned upon
reinstatement are not ideal, but under the unique facts of this
case, the terms should not preclude reinstatement.
5
No. 2016AP85-D
that Attorney Parks appears to have satisfactorily addressed the
concerns raised with regard to his satisfaction of (former)
SCR 22.29(4m). The OLR notes that Attorney Parks' former
colleague, Attorney Anthony O'Malley, now supports Attorney
Parks' reinstatement. The OLR thus concluded that Attorney
Parks has, to the satisfaction of the OLR, met his burden to
prove by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he
has met all of the criteria for reinstatement. Accordingly, the
OLR and Attorney Parks executed a stipulation pursuant to
SCR 22.30(5)(a) for Attorney Parks' reinstatement.
¶10 The parties further stipulated that the court should
impose the following conditions on Attorney Parks' reinstatement
to the practice of law:
Attorney Parks must comply with his agreement to pay
L.E. a total of $4,500 in restitution. Under the
terms of his agreement, the remaining $3,500 is due
within one year of Attorney Parks' reinstatement.
Attorney Parks must comply with his agreement to pay
his former firm a total of $10,000 in restitution.
Under the terms of the agreement, the remaining $7,000
is due within one year of Attorney Parks'
reinstatement.
Attorney Parks must comply with his agreement to pay
the OLR the costs of his discipline proceeding and his
6
No. 2016AP85-D
first reinstatement petition proceeding, by continuing
to pay the OLR at least $500 monthly.5
The OLR states that it will not seek an assessment of costs for
this second reinstatement proceeding.
¶11 The parties' joint stipulation for Attorney Parks'
reinstatement is now before us for our review. This is one of
the first reinstatement petitions submitted to the court by
stipulation under SCR 22.30(5)(a), effective January 1, 2021.6
The new reinstatement provisions permit the court to consider a
reinstatement petition by stipulation when, as here, the OLR
concludes, upon investigation, that the petitioner has
demonstrated, to the director's satisfaction, all of the
reinstatement criteria. SCR 22.3057 and SCR 22.29(4). This
In the underlying disciplinary case Attorney Parks was
5
ordered to pay costs totaling $42,226.26. In the unsuccessful
first reinstatement proceeding, Attorney Parks was ordered to
pay an additional $6,370.43 in costs. He has entered into a
payment plan with the OLR and is current with his monthly
payments.
6Effective January 1, 2021, substantial changes were made
to the rules pertaining to lawyer disciplinary procedures,
including the reinstatement rules, SCR 22.29 through 22.33.
See S. Ct. Order 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and
19-12, 2020 WI 62 (issued June 30, 2020, eff. Jan. 1, 2021).
7 SCR 22.305 (Standard for Reinstatement) provides:
At all times relevant to the petition, the
petitioner has the burden of demonstrating, by clear,
satisfactory, and convincing evidence, all of the
following:
(1) That he or she has the moral character to
practice law in Wisconsin.
(continued)
7
No. 2016AP85-D
court then considers the petition and stipulation without the
appointment of a referee and we may approve the stipulation and
reinstate the petitioner's law license; we may reject the
stipulation and refer the petition to a referee for a hearing;
or we may direct the parties to consider modifications to the
stipulation. SCR 22.30(5)(b).
¶12 As to Attorney Parks' representations in his
reinstatement petition, the record - including several favorable
character references - supports the parties' stipulation that
those representations are substantiated: Attorney Parks desires
to have his law license reinstated, SCR 22.29(4)(a); Attorney
Parks has not practiced law during the period of suspension,
engaging in volunteer service and working as a property manager
and a substitute teacher, SCR 22.29(4)(b); Attorney Parks has
complied fully with the terms of his order of suspension and
will continue to comply until he is reinstated, SCR 22.29(4)(c);
Attorney Parks has maintained competence and learning in the law
by attendance at identified educational activities, as evidenced
(2) That his or her resumption of the practice of
law will not be detrimental to the administration of
justice or subversive of the public interest.
(3) That his or her representations in the
petition, including the representations required by
SCR 22.29(4)(a) to (m) and 22.29(5), are
substantiated.
(4) That he or she has complied fully with the
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and
with the requirements of SCR 22.26.
8
No. 2016AP85-D
by a June 17, 2021 memorandum from the Board of Bar Examiners
confirming his CLE and EPR compliance, SCR 22.29(4)(d); Attorney
Parks' conduct since his suspension has been exemplary and
beyond reproach, SCR 22.29(4)(e); Attorney Parks has a proper
understanding of and attitude toward the standards that are
imposed upon members of the bar and will act in conformity with
those standards, SCR 22.29(4)(f); Attorney Parks can safely be
recommended to the legal profession, the courts, and the public
as a person fit to be consulted by others and to represent them
and otherwise act in matters of trust and confidence and in
general to aid in the administration of justice as a member of
the bar and as an officer of the courts, SCR 22.29(4)(g);
Attorney Parks has satisfactorily fully complied with the
requirements set forth in SCR 22.26, SCR 22.29(4)(h); if
reinstated, Attorney Parks intends to return to the practice he
left when his license was suspended, practicing with one other
attorney, SCR 22.29(4)(j); and Attorney Parks satisfactorily
described his business activities during his suspension,
engaging in community service, serving as a substitute teacher
and as a property manager, SCR 22.29(4)(k).
¶13 As discussed above, Attorney Parks has now also
satisfactorily made restitution to or settled all claims of
persons injured or harmed by his misconduct, thereby resolving
our concerns about his compliance with (former) SCR 22.29(4m)
and (former) SCR 22.31(a), SCR 22.29(4)(m).
¶14 Based on the stipulation and noting that the record
contains no evidence to the contrary, we conclude that Attorney
9
No. 2016AP85-D
Parks has the moral character to practice law in Wisconsin,
SCR 22.305(1); his resumption of the practice of law will not be
detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of
the public interest, SCR 22.305(2); his representations in his
petition, including the representations required by
SCR 22.29(4)(a) to (m) and SCR 22.29(5), are substantiated,
SCR 22.305(3); and he has complied fully with the terms of the
suspension orders and with the requirements of SCR 22.26,
SCR 22.305(4). Accordingly, we accept the parties' stipulation
pursuant to SCR 22.30(5)(b), and we reinstate Attorney Parks'
license to practice law in Wisconsin, effective the date of this
order, upon the stipulated conditions.
¶15 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement of
Daniel Parks is granted, effective the date of this order, upon
the following conditions:
Daniel Parks shall comply with his agreement to pay
L.E. a total of $4,500 in restitution. Under the
terms of his agreement, the remaining $3,500 is due
within one year of Daniel Parks' reinstatement.
Daniel Parks shall comply with his agreement to pay
his former firm a total of $10,000 in restitution.
Under the terms of the agreement, the remaining $7,000
is due within one year of Daniel Parks' reinstatement.
Daniel Parks shall comply with his agreement to pay
the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of his
discipline proceeding and his first reinstatement
10
No. 2016AP85-D
petition proceeding, by continuing to pay the Office
of Lawyer Regulation at least $500 monthly.
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Daniel Parks' failure to
abide by the aforementioned conditions, absent a showing of
inability to pay, may result in the further suspension of Daniel
Parks' license to practice law in Wisconsin.
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no costs will be imposed in
connection with this reinstatement proceeding.
11
No. 2016AP85-D
1