In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Fitzgerald

2006 WI 58, 714 N.W.2d 925, 290 Wis. 2d 713, 2006 Wisc. LEXIS 353
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedJune 2, 2006
Docket2005AP1065-D
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 2006 WI 58 (In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Fitzgerald) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Fitzgerald, 2006 WI 58, 714 N.W.2d 925, 290 Wis. 2d 713, 2006 Wisc. LEXIS 353 (Wis. 2006).

Opinion

*714 PER CURIAM.

¶ 1. We review the recommendation of the referee, Michael Ash, that the license of *715 Attorney Maureen B. Fitzgerald to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for 90 days for professional misconduct and that she be required to pay the costs of this proceeding, which are $6844.07 as of March 14, 2006. Attorney Fitzgerald did not appeal the referee's report and recommendation.

¶ 2. We adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law and agree that the seriousness of Attorney Fitzgerald's misconduct warrants the suspension of her license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of 90 days. We further agree that she should pay the costs of this proceeding.

¶ 3. Attorney Fitzgerald was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 1995 and practices in Milwaukee, primarily in the area of criminal law. By order dated May 9, 2006, Attorney Fitzgerald's license to practice law was temporarily suspended for failure to cooperate in grievance investigations currently pending in the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR). She has no other disciplinary history.

¶ 4. On April 26, 2005, the OLR filed a complaint alleging six counts of misconduct with respect to Attorney Fitzgerald's handling of two personal injury actions. On September 11, 1999, M.R. retained Attorney Fitzgerald to represent her in connection with an auto accident M.R. had been involved in a few days earlier. M.R. and Attorney Fitzgerald entered into a written contingent fee agreement.

¶ 5. On October 1, 1999, M.R. was involved in a second auto accident. Attorney Fitzgerald also represented M.R. in connection with the second accident, but no written contingent fee agreement was signed for this second accident.

¶ 6. The other drivers in both accidents were uninsured, and uninsured motorist coverage was avail *716 able under M.R.'s own insurance policy issued by Ohio Casualty. Ohio Casualty assigned claim numbers to both accidents. The only payment made by Ohio Casualty in the two claims was $159 in payment of one medical bill. Ohio Casualty made inquiries to Attorney Fitzgerald regarding the two claims but when it did not receive prompt reply to its inquiries, Ohio Casualty closed out both files without a settlement in either case.

¶ 7. On or about February 18, 2003, Attorney Fitzgerald informed M.R. that Ohio Casualty was willing to settle her claims for a total of $5000.22 and would also pay her medical bills. In fact, no such offer was made.

¶ 8. To perpetuate the ruse that a settlement had been made with Ohio Casualty, Attorney Fitzgerald deposited funds obtained from the estate of her grandfather and from a personal loan into her business account. She then transferred the funds into her trust account, commingling her personal funds with her client funds, for the purpose of utilizing such funds to pay M.R. her proportionate share of the purported settlement.

¶ 9. On or about June 12, 2003, Attorney Fitzgerald sent M.R. a check payable from her trust account in the amount of $3333.48 for the purported purpose of resolving M.R.'s claims and releasing Ohio Casualty. To further perpetuate the ruse that a settlement had been reached, Attorney Fitzgerald forwarded to M.R. for her signature a purported document that would release Ohio Casualty from any claims. In fact, Ohio Casualty had never issued a release with regard to M.R.'s claims.

¶ 10. Although the fee agreement entitled Attorney Fitzgerald to 33V3 percent of any monies recovered by M.R., in order to placate M.R. because she was unhappy about the length of time it took to obtain the *717 settlement, Attorney Fitzgerald offered to forego her fees and remit to M.R. the rest of the "settlement" money. Attorney Fitzgerald had received no funds from Ohio Casualty.

¶ 11. The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of misconduct with respect to Attorney Fitzgerald's handling of M.R.'s case:

COUNT ONE — By failing to reduce the contingent fee agreement in the second accident matter to writing, Fitzgerald failed to enter into a written fee agreement with regard to M.R.'s second accident, in violation of SCR 20:1.5(c). 1
COUNT TWO — By failing to reply to inquiries from Ohio [Casualty] concerning the claims, which resulted in Ohio closing their files without a settlement for M.R., Fitzgerald failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. 2
COUNT THREE — By asserting to M.R. that Ohio [Casualty] had made a settlement offer for the sum of $5000.22, in addition to M.R.'s medical bills being paid, *718 and by not telling M.R. that Ohio [Casualty] had made no such offer and, in fact, had closed their files without a settlement being reached, Fitzgerald failed to keep her client reasonably informed about the status of a matter, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a). 3
COUNT FOUR — By depositing personal funds into her trust account, Fitzgerald failed to hold in trust, separate from the lawyer's own property, that property of clients and third parties that is in the lawyer's possession in connection with representation, in violation of [former] SCR 20:1.15(a). 4
COUNT FIVE — By asserting to M.R. that Ohio [Casualty] had made a settlement of her claims, by fabricating a release from Ohio [Casualty] and forwarding it to her client for signature, by offering to forego her attorney fees in order to perpetuate a misrepresentation that Ohio [Casualty] had paid a settlement on M.R.'s claims, and by forwarding a check to M.R. purporting to be a settlement of her claim, Fitzgerald engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c). 5

*719 ¶ 12. The OLR's complaint also alleged that during the course of its investigation Attorney Fitzgerald advised the OLR's staff that Ohio Casualty had agreed to extend the applicable statute of limitations, when that information was not true. Attorney Fitzgerald also provided to the OLR the purported release of Ohio Casualty, which document had been fabricated by Attorney Fitzgerald to convince M.R. that a settlement of the case had been reached. Attorney Fitzgerald failed to inform the OLR's staff that the funds sent to M.R. were not settlement proceeds from Ohio Casualty but were in fact Attorney Fitzgerald's own personal funds. Attorney Fitzgerald also told the OLR investigator that M.R.'s medical bills had been paid by Ohio Casualty when in fact Attorney Fitzgerald herself had paid the bills from her business account. The OLR's complaint alleged the following count of misconduct with respect to Attorney Fitzgerald's communications with the OLR during the investigation of M.R.'s grievance:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. William J. Spangler
2016 WI 61 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2016)
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Patrick A. Callahan
2016 WI 8 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2016)
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Fitzgerald
2010 WI 99 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2010)
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Fitzgerald
2008 WI 101 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2008)
Reinstatement of Polk v. Office of Lawyer Regulation
2007 WI 51 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2007)
Polk v. OFFICE OF LAWYER REGULATION
2007 WI 51 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2006 WI 58, 714 N.W.2d 925, 290 Wis. 2d 713, 2006 Wisc. LEXIS 353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-disciplinary-proceedings-against-fitzgerald-wis-2006.