2017 WI 50
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2013AP2742-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Thomas O. Mulligan, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant-Respondent,
v.
Thomas O. Mulligan,
Respondent-Appellant.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MULLIGAN
OPINION FILED: May 18, 2017
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING: BRADLEY, A. W., J. and ZIEGLER, J. did not
participate.
ATTORNEYS:
2017 WI 50
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2013AP2742-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Thomas O. Mulligan, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant-Respondent, MAY 18, 2017
v. Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Thomas O. Mulligan,
Respondent-Appellant.
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding. Reinstatement granted
with conditions.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review, pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule (SCR) 22.33(3),1 a report filed by Referee James R.
Erickson, Jr., recommending the court reinstate the license of
Thomas O. Mulligan to practice law in Wisconsin, with
conditions. After careful review of the matter, we agree that
1
SCR 22.33(3) provides: "[i]f no appeal is timely filed,
the supreme court shall review the referee's report, order
reinstatement, with or without conditions, deny reinstatement,
or order the parties to file briefs in the matter."
No. 2013AP2742-D
Attorney Mulligan's license should be reinstated, with
conditions. We also agree with the referee that Attorney
Mulligan should be required to pay the full costs of this
reinstatement proceeding, which are $2,267.95 as of March 8,
2017.
¶2 Attorney Mulligan was licensed to practice law in
Wisconsin in 1985 and is a general practitioner in Spooner,
Wisconsin. He has previously been disciplined by this court.
He received private reprimands in 1997 and 2005, and received a
court-imposed public reprimand in 2009. In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Mulligan, 2009 WI 12, 315 Wis. 2d 605, 759
N.W.2d 766.
¶3 On October 8, 2015, following a lengthy contested
disciplinary proceeding, this court suspended Attorney
Mulligan's license to practice law for nine months for
professional misconduct committed in two client matters
including failing to enter into a fee agreement with his client,
failing to deposit fees in trust, making cash disbursements out
of his trust account, commingling personal funds with trust
funds, and failing to maintain proper trust account records. In
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mulligan, 2015 WI 96, 365
Wis. 2d 43, 870 N.W.2d 233. Our order directed Attorney
Mulligan to pay the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) the costs
of that proceeding. We also ordered that, as a condition of
reinstatement, Attorney Mulligan attend and successfully
complete an OLR trust account seminar and, further, that upon
reinstatement, Attorney Mulligan's trust account should be
2
No. 2013AP2742-D
subject to monitoring by the OLR for three years, or until
further order of the court.
¶4 On July 21, 2016, Attorney Mulligan filed a petition
seeking the reinstatement of his license to practice law in
Wisconsin. The OLR filed a response on December 9, 2016 stating
that it did not oppose Attorney Mulligan's reinstatement but
recommended, consistent with this court's underlying
disciplinary order, that his reinstatement be subject to the
conditions outlined by this court.
¶5 A public hearing was held on the reinstatement
proceeding on February 8, 2017. The referee filed his report
and recommendation on February 17, 2017.
¶6 Supreme Court Rule 22.31(1) provides the standards to
be met for reinstatement. Specifically, Attorney Mulligan must
show by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he has
the moral character to practice law, that his resumption of the
practice of law will not be detrimental to the administration of
justice or subversive to the public interest, and that he has
complied with SCR 22.26 and the terms of the underlying
disciplinary order. In addition to these requirements,
SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(4m) provides additional requirements that a
petition for reinstatement must show. All of these additional
requirements are effectively incorporated into SCR 22.31(1).
¶7 When we review a referee's report and recommendation,
we will adopt the referee's findings of fact unless they are
clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
3
No. 2013AP2742-D
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI
14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.
¶8 The referee found that Attorney Mulligan has not
practiced law during the period of his suspension; that he has
fully complied with the terms of the underlying disciplinary
order; that he has maintained competence and learning in the
law; that his conduct since the suspension has been exemplary
and above reproach; and that he 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. The
referee found that Attorney Mulligan 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. The referee also found
that Attorney Mulligan has fully complied with the requirements
set forth in SCR 22.26.
¶9 We note that Attorney Mulligan also complied with this
court's directive that he attend a trust account management
seminar sponsored by the OLR.
¶10 The OLR received 12 letters recommending Attorney
Mulligan's reinstatement, including letters from four attorneys,
a U.S. Border Patrol agent, a medical doctor, and various
clients, professional acquaintances, and friends.
¶11 The record reflects that Attorney Mulligan has not yet
paid in full the $17,720.02 for the costs of the underlying
4
No. 2013AP2742-D
disciplinary proceeding, but has provided the OLR with
information about his financial circumstances and has made
payment arrangements with the OLR to satisfy his obligation to
pay those disciplinary costs. Restitution was not ordered in
the underlying disciplinary proceeding.
¶12 The referee found that Attorney Mulligan's
reinstatement will be beneficial to the public interest due to
his commitment to assisting community members in a rural,
underserved area of Wisconsin. Mindful of the conditions this
court imposed in its underlying disciplinary order, the referee
recommends Attorney Mulligan's reinstatement be subject to
continued monitoring of his trust account by the OLR for a
period of three years or until further order of the court. He
also recommended we impose the costs of this reinstatement
proceeding on Attorney Mulligan.
¶13 We conclude that the referee's findings support a
determination that Attorney Mulligan has met his burden to
establish by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that
he has met all of the standards required for reinstatement and
we agree that reinstatement is appropriate, with conditions.
¶14 With respect to the cost of this reinstatement
proceeding, it is this court's general practice to assess the
full costs of a proceeding against a respondent. See
SCR 22.24(1m). We find no extraordinary circumstances that
would warrant a reduction in the costs imposed and we find it
appropriate to assess the full costs of the reinstatement
proceeding against Attorney Mulligan.
5
No. 2013AP2742-D
¶15 As is standard procedure, Attorney Mulligan may
contact the OLR to request a payment plan that will enable
Attorney Mulligan to pay the full costs of this proceeding in a
matter consistent with his financial ability.
¶16 IT IS ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this
order, Thomas O. Mulligan shall pay to the Office of Lawyer
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $2,267.95 as
of March 8, 2017.
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of Thomas O.
Mulligan to practice law in Wisconsin is reinstated, effective
the date of this order, subject to monitoring of his trust
account by the Office of Lawyer Regulation for a period of three
years or until further order of this court, and upon the
condition that he continue to make payments to the Office of
Lawyer Regulation toward the accumulated costs assessed against
him in this and the prior disciplinary proceeding.
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all of the
terms of this order remain a condition of Thomas O. Mulligan's
license to practice law in Wisconsin.
¶19 ANN WALSH BRADLEY AND ANNETTE KINGLAND ZIEGLER, JJ.,
did not participate.
6
No. 2013AP2742-D
1