Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Brown
This text of 2007 WI 110 (Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Brown) 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.
Opinion
¶ 1. We review the stipulation filed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney *602 Winston E Brown pursuant to SCR 22.12. 1 The parties stipulate that Attorney Brown admits to the facts and misconduct alleged in the OLR complaint and agrees that the appropriate level of discipline is a 90-day suspension of his license to practice law.
¶ 2. We approve the stipulation and adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law. We agree that the seriousness of Attorney Brown's misconduct warrants the suspension of his license. We accept the parties' stipulation that a 90-day suspension is appropriate discipline.
¶ 3. Attorney Brown was admitted to the practice of law in Wisconsin in 1973 and practices in Milwaukee. He has not previously been the subject of professional discipline.
¶ 4. Attorney Brown's misconduct arises from numerous trust account rules violations. Among his numerous failings, Attorney Brown failed to perform a reconciliation of his trust account between January 1, 2000, and May 12, 2004; failed to maintain complete trust account records; misrepresented to the OLR that he made notations on the client's ledger contemporaneously with deposits and disbursements; failed to identify on his deposit slips the client or matter associated with each deposit item; and failed to consistently identify the *603 client matter and the reason for the disbursement on the memo line of all checks disbursed from the trust account after July 1, 2004.
¶ 5. In addition, between January 1, 2000, and October 31, 2005, Attorney Brown disbursed funds from his trust account before the deposit of funds from which the disbursement was made. He also deposited his personal funds in his trust account, deposited client funds in his office account, and allowed earned fees to remain in trust without disbursing them. Attorney Brown failed to hold client and third-party funds in trust by using client or third-party funds to pay checks in matters relating to other clients. Additionally, he failed to promptly notify clients of receipt of funds in which the client had an interest and deliver them to the client.
¶ 6. The parties stipulated that Attorney Brown engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation by informing the court that guardianship funds of a client were held in a separate guardianship account when the funds were actually being held in his pooled client trust account. Attorney Brown also dishonestly informed the court that he was holding $13,485.31 in trust and had a balance of funds in the account totaling $10,016.26, when he did not. Attorney Brown also engaged in dishonesty by informing the court that a bond payment of $300 was owed to Probate Bond Service when the $300 had already been paid.
¶ 7. Attorney Brown and the OLR stipulated that his misconduct gave rise to the following ten counts alleged in the OLR complaint. Count 1 charged that Attorney Brown's failure to perform any reconciliation of his trust account between January 1, 2000, and May 12, 2004, violated former SCR 20:1.15(e) (effective through *604 June 30, 2004). 2 Count 2 also alleged that Attorney Brown failed to maintain complete records of trust account funds in violation of former SCR 20:1.15(e) (effective through June 30, 2004). Count 3 alleged that in the course of an investigation, Attorney Brown willfully failed to provide relevant information or answer questions fully or furnish documents, and made a misrepresentation, contrary to SCR 22.03(6.) 3 *605 and 20:8.4(f). 4
¶ 8. Count 4 of the OLR complaint alleged that by failing to identify the client or matter associated with each deposit item after July 1, 2004, Attorney Brown violated SCR 20:1.15(f)(l)d. (effective July 1, 2004). 5 Also, by failing to identify the client matter and reason for the disbursement on checks after July 1, 2004, Attorney Brown violated SCR 20:1.15(f)(l)e.l (effective July 1, 2004), 6 as alleged in Count 5. Count 6 alleged that by disbursing funds from the trust account before the deposit was made on numerous occasions between January 1,2000, and October 31, 2005, Attorney Brown failed to hold in trust separate from the lawyer's property, that property of clients in the lawyer's possession *606 in connection with representation or when acting in a fiduciary capacity, contrary to former SCR 20:1.15(a) (effective through June 30, 2004), 7 and disbursed funds from the trust account prior to the deposit, contrary to current SCR 20:1.15(e)(5)a. (effective July 1, 2004). 8
¶ 9. Count 7 of the OLR complaint alleged that by depositing his own personal funds in the trust account *607 on at least two occasions between January 1, 2000, and October 31, 2005, as well as allowing earned fees to remain in trust without disbursing them, Attorney Brown failed to hold in trust, separate from his own property, that property of clients and third persons in his possession in connection with representation or when acting in a fiduciary capacity, contrary to former SCR 20:1.15(a) (effective through June 30, 2004) and current SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) (effective July 1, 2004). 9
¶ 10. Count 8 also alleged that by failing to hold client and third-party funds in trust by using client or third-party funds to pay checks issued in matters related to other clients on numerous occasions between January 2, 2000, and October 31, 2005, Attorney Brown failed to hold in trust separate from his own property, the property of clients and third persons in his possession in connection with representation or when acting in a fiduciary capacity, contrary to former SCR 20:1.15(a) (effective through June 30, 2004) and current SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) (effective July 1, 2004).
¶ 11. In Count 9, the OLR complaint alleged that by failing to promptly notify clients of receipt of funds in which the client had an interest, and deliver them to the client, Attorney Brown violated SCR 20:1.15(d) (effective July 1, 2004). 10 Finally, Count 10 alleged that *608 Attorney Brown's May 12, 2004, affidavit to the court in a guardianship matter made certain misstatements regarding a guardianship trust account and expenses not having yet been paid, demonstrating conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c). 11
¶ 12. SCR 22.12 provides that if this court approves the stipulation it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law and impose the stipulated discipline.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2007 WI 110, 735 N.W.2d 909, 304 Wis. 2d 601, 2007 Wisc. LEXIS 439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-disciplinary-proceedings-against-brown-wis-2007.