Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Dan A. Riegleman

Citation: 2003 WI 3

Docket Number: 2002AP000406-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2003-02-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
2003 WI 3 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
02-0406-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Dan A. Riegleman, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
Dan A. Riegleman,  
 
Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST RIEGLEMAN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 25, 2003   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: WILCOX, J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2003 WI 3 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  02-0406-D  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Dan A. Riegleman, Attorney at  
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Dan A. Riegleman,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 25, 2003 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the stipulation filed by 
Attorney Dan A. Riegleman and the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) pursuant to SCR 22.121 setting forth findings of fact and 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.12 provides:  Stipulation. 
(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.  
No. 
02-0406-D   
 
2 
 
conclusions of law regarding Attorney Riegleman's professional 
misconduct in connection with his handling of a financial 
settlement obtained in connection with his representation of a 
client involved in a motor vehicle accident.  The parties 
stipulated to a 60-day suspension of Attorney Riegleman's 
license to practice law. 
¶2 
We approve the stipulation and adopt the stipulated 
facts and conclusions of law.   We agree that Attorney 
Riegleman's misconduct warrants the suspension of his license to 
practice law.  We accept the parties' stipulation that a 60-day 
suspension is appropriate discipline for this offense.   
¶3 
Attorney 
Riegleman 
was 
admitted 
to 
practice 
in 
Wisconsin in 1985.  He resides in Sussex, Wisconsin. In 1995 he 
received a public reprimand.  He has no other disciplinary 
history. 
¶4 
According to the OLR complaint filed in this matter, 
as well as the terms of the stipulation, Attorney Riegleman 
agreed to represent Scott Tennessen, who had been injured in a 
motor vehicle accident arising out of his employment.  Attorney 
                                                                                                                                                             
(2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation, 
it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of 
law and impose the stipulated discipline.  
(3) If the supreme court rejects the stipulation, 
a referee shall be appointed and the matter shall 
proceed as a complaint filed without a stipulation.  
(4) A stipulation rejected by the supreme court 
has no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to 
the respondent's defense of the proceeding or the 
prosecution of the complaint. 
No. 
02-0406-D   
 
3 
 
Riegleman 
filed 
a 
Worker's 
Compensation 
claim 
against 
Tennessen's employer and the employer's insurer, Continental 
Western Insurance Corporation (Continental). 
¶5 
Attorney Riegleman also filed a third party action on 
Tennessen's behalf against the driver of the other vehicle and 
against the driver's insurer, Allstate, in Butler County, 
Missouri. 
¶6 
In April 1997 Continental paid a total of $26,659.64 
in benefits related to Tennessen's claim.  By letter dated 
February 26, 1998, Continental's counsel sent a letter to 
Riegleman, advising him that Continental retained a lien in the 
amount of $26,650.64 on any and all proceeds recovered in the 
Missouri personal injury action.  Subsequently, Allstate agreed 
to settle the Missouri personal injury action for $12,000, plus 
court costs. 
¶7 
On November 10, 1998, Allstate sent Attorney Riegleman 
a check for $12,000, along with a release and stipulation for 
dismissal of the Missouri action.  That same day Attorney 
Riegleman wrote to Continental's counsel, stating that a 
settlement had been reached in the personal injury action.  He 
set forth proposed calculations for distribution of the $12,000 
settlement.  According to Attorney Riegleman's calculations, 
Continental was entitled to only $429.25.  Attorney Riegleman 
did not, however, advise Continental that he was already in 
receipt of a settlement check from Allstate. 
¶8 
After Attorney Riegleman filed the statement of costs 
in the Missouri personal injury action, Allstate paid the costs 
No. 
02-0406-D   
 
4 
 
and Tennessen dismissed the action.  In total Allstate paid 
$12,922.50 to settle the Missouri action. 
¶9 
On January 15, 1999, Attorney Riegleman endorsed the 
name "Continental" on the Allstate settlement check, followed by 
his own initials.  He then deposited the settlement check into 
his trust account.  He did not have Continental's permission to 
endorse the check with Continental's name.  
¶10 That same day Attorney Riegleman issued a check to his 
client in the amount of $5000.35.  He also issued a check to his 
law firm in the amount of $4790.35, leaving a balance of 
$2209.30 from the Allstate settlement in the trust account.  He 
issued these checks without first notifying Continental or 
securing its consent to accept the figures he had calculated.  
¶11 In April 1999, after making no further effort to 
contact Continental, Attorney Riegleman issued a check for the 
remainder of the settlement proceeds to his client.  As of that 
date he still had not advised Continental that he had received 
the settlement funds from Allstate or otherwise provided 
Continental with an accounting of the funds. 
¶12 Eventually Continental learned of the settlement.  The 
ensuing negotiations to resolve the dispute concerning the 
proper amount of Continental's lien claim took over nine months.  
In September 2000 Attorney Riegleman voluntarily agreed to pay, 
and did pay Continental $2500. 
¶13 On February 14, 2002, the OLR filed a complaint 
against Attorney Riegleman.  The complaint charged that by 
endorsing Continental's name on the settlement check from 
No. 
02-0406-D   
 
5 
 
Allstate 
without 
Continental's 
consent, 
Attorney 
Riegleman 
engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or 
misrepresentation in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).2  In addition, 
by failing to promptly notify Continental, in writing, of funds 
in which Continental had an interest, Attorney Riegleman 
violated SCR 20:1.15(b).3  Finally, by failing to treat disputed 
property of which he was in possession and in which he and 
Continental both claimed interest, as trust property until there 
was an accounting and severance of the interests and the dispute 
was resolved, Attorney Riegleman violated SCR 20:1.15(d).4 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to: (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." 
3 SCR 20:1.15(b) provides that: 
(b) Upon receiving funds or other property in 
which a client or third person has an interest, a 
lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third 
person in writing. Except as stated in this rule or 
otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the 
client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client 
or third person any funds or other property that the 
client or third person is entitled to receive and, 
upon request by the client or third person, shall 
render a full accounting regarding such property. 
4 SCR 20:1.15(d) provides that:  
(d) When, in the representation, a lawyer is in 
possession of property in which both the lawyer and 
another person claim interests, the property shall be 
treated by the lawyer as trust property until there is 
an accounting and severance of their interests. If a 
dispute arises concerning their respective interests, 
the portion in dispute shall continue to be treated as 
trust property until the dispute is resolved. 
No. 
02-0406-D   
 
6 
 
¶14 On or about August 26, 2002, the OLR and Attorney 
Riegleman executed a stipulation pursuant to SCR 22.12.  In 
addition to stipulating to the facts as set forth above, the 
parties stipulated to discipline in the form of a 60-day 
suspension of Attorney Riegleman's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin, and agreed that Attorney Riegleman should pay the 
costs of the OLR proceeding.   
¶15 On October 14, 2002, the referee issued a report and 
recommendation on this matter.  The report and recommendation 
reflects the facts set forth herein and comments that endorsing 
a check payable to another is a serious violation of ethical 
requirements.  The referee notes that this ethical violation was 
compounded by the failure to notify Continental of the handling 
of the settlement proceeds.  
¶16 The referee acknowledged certain mitigating factors 
involved in this matter, including the fact that Attorney 
Riegleman eventually did reimburse Continental.  In addition, 
the referee noted that there is no evidence that Attorney 
Riegleman personally benefited from his actions, or that his 
client was harmed by them.  The referee agreed that a 60-day 
suspension is appropriate discipline for Attorney Riegleman's 
misconduct.   
¶17 We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law 
set forth in the parties' stipulation.  Attorney Riegleman's 
misconduct constitutes a serious breach of professional conduct 
and warrants suspension of his license to practice law.  We 
accept the parties' conclusion that a 60-day suspension of his 
No. 
02-0406-D   
 
7 
 
license 
is 
appropriate 
discipline 
for 
his 
professional 
misconduct and we direct Attorney Riegleman to pay the costs of 
the OLR proceeding.  Therefore,  
¶18 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Dan A. Riegleman to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
commencing April 1, 2003. 
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Dan A. Riegleman 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Attorney Dan A. Riegleman shall pay to the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding in the amount 
of $1305.09. If the costs are not paid within the time 
specified, and absent a showing to this court of his inability 
to pay the costs within that time, the license of Attorney Dan 
A. Riegleman to practice law in Wisconsin shall be suspended 
until further order of the court. 
¶21 JON P. WILCOX, J., did not participate. 
No. 
02-0406-D   
 
 
 
1