Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. John E. Sheehan

Citation: 2007 WI 3

Docket Number: 2006AP000842-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2007-01-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
2007 WI 3 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2006AP842-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against John E. Sheehan, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
John E. Sheehan, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SHEEHAN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
January 5, 2007   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2007 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.  2006AP842-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against John E. Sheehan, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
John E. Sheehan, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JAN 5, 2007 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney John E. Sheehan has filed a 
petition for consensual license revocation pursuant to SCR 22.191 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.19 states in relevant part:  Petition for 
consensual license revocation. 
(1)  An attorney who is the subject of an 
investigation 
for 
possible 
misconduct 
or 
the 
respondent in a proceeding may file with the supreme 
court a petition for the revocation by consent or his 
or her license to practice law.   
No. 
2006AP842-D   
 
2 
 
stating that he cannot successfully defend against seven counts 
of misconduct charged in a pending disciplinary action as well 
as allegations of misconduct currently under investigation. 
¶2 
The referee filed a report and recommendation that 
this court revoke Attorney Sheehan's license to practice law and 
order he pay the entire costs of the disciplinary proceeding.  
No objection has been filed.  On August 31, 2006, the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a statement of costs of $4072.93. 
¶3 
Attorney Sheehan was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1968 and most recently practiced in Beloit.  There 
is no indication of any previous disciplinary history. 
¶4 
The seven counts of misconduct arise from 16 client 
matters.  Counts One and Two involve the mishandling of client 
funds.  The referee concluded that by failing to promptly notify 
the clients in writing and promptly deliver the funds to which 
they were entitled and, upon request, render a full accounting, 
Attorney Sheehan violated former SCR 20:1.15(b),2 as alleged in 
                                                                                                                                                             
(2)  The petition shall state that the petitioner 
cannot successfully defend against the allegations of 
misconduct. 
. . . . 
(5)  The supreme court shall grant the petition 
and revoke the petitioner's license to practice law or 
deny the petition and remand the matter to the 
director or to the referee for further proceedings.   
2 Former SCR 20:1.15 applied to misconduct committed prior 
to July 1, 2004.  It provided in pertinent part:  
(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 
No. 
2006AP842-D   
 
3 
 
Count 
One. 
 
The 
referee 
further 
concluded 
that 
by 
misappropriating client funds and making misrepresentations 
regarding payment delay, Attorney Sheehan engaged in misconduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation, 
contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c),3 as alleged in Count Two.   
¶5 
Counts Three through Seven involve trust account 
record 
keeping 
and 
commingling 
violations. 
 
The 
referee 
determined that by failing to account for and deliver funds 
belonging to numerous clients, Attorney Sheehan failed, upon 
receiving funds in which a client has an interest, to promptly 
notify the client in writing and to deliver to the client, funds 
that the client or a third party was entitled to receive, 
contrary to current SCR 20:1.15(d)(1),4 as alleged in Count Three 
of the complaint. 
                                                                                                                                                             
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. 
3 SCR 20:8.4(c) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation." 
4 SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) provides:  Prompt notice and delivery of 
property. 
(1) Notice and disbursement.  Upon receiving 
funds or other property in which a client has an 
interest, or in which the lawyer has received notice 
that a 3rd party has an interest identified by a lien, 
court order, judgment, or contract, the lawyer shall 
promptly notify the client or 3rd party in writing.  
Except as stated in this rule or otherwise permitted 
No. 
2006AP842-D   
 
4 
 
¶6 
The referee determined that by misappropriating funds 
belonging to numerous clients, Attorney Sheehan engaged in 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, contrary to SCR 
20:8.4(c), as alleged in Count Four. 
¶7 
The referee also concluded that by failing to create 
and keep the required trust account records from 1992 forward, 
Attorney Sheehan failed to keep records as required for his 
trust account, contrary to SCR 20:1.15(e),5 now cited as SCR 
20:1.15(f), as alleged in Count Five. 
                                                                                                                                                             
by law or by agreement with the client, the lawyer 
shall promptly deliver to the client or 3rd party any 
funds or other property that the client or 3rd party 
is entitled to receive. 
5 Former SCR 20:1.15(e) provided: 
 
(e) Complete records of trust account funds and 
other trust property shall be kept by the lawyer and 
shall be preserved for a period of at least six years 
after termination of the representation.  Complete 
records shall include: (i) a cash receipts journal, 
listing the sources and date of each receipt, (ii) a 
disbursements journal, listing the date and payee of 
each disbursement, with all disbursements being paid 
by check, (iii) a subsidiary ledger containing a 
separate page for each person or company for whom 
funds have been received in trust, showing the date 
and amount of each receipt, the date and amount of 
each disbursement, and any unexpended balance, (iv) a 
monthly schedule of the subsidiary ledger, indicating 
the balance of each client's account at the end of 
each month, (v) a determination of the cash balance 
(checkbook balance) at the end of each month, taken 
from the cash receipts and cash disbursement journals 
and a reconciliation of the cash balance (checkbook 
balance) with the balance indicated in the bank 
statement, and (vi) monthly statements, including 
canceled 
checks, 
vouchers 
or 
share 
drafts, 
and 
duplicate deposit slips.  A record of all property 
No. 
2006AP842-D   
 
5 
 
¶8 
The referee further determined that by depositing a 
fee payment from the public defender's office to his client 
trust account, and issuing payments to personal creditors using 
trust account funds, Attorney Sheehan violated former SCR 
20:1.15(a),6 now cited as SCR 20:1.15(b)(1), stating that no 
funds belonging to the law firm or lawyer, except those 
reasonably sufficient to pay service charges, may be retained or 
deposited in the trust account, as alleged in Count Six. 
¶9 
The referee concluded that by not providing the OLR 
with documents and information as requested, Attorney Sheehan 
willfully failed to provide relevant information, to answer 
questions 
fully and furnish documents, and misrepresented 
                                                                                                                                                             
other than cash which is held in trust for clients or 
third persons, as required by paragraph (a) hereof, 
shall also be maintained.  All trust account records 
shall be deemed to have public aspects as related to 
the lawyer's fitness to practice. 
6 Former SCR 20:1.15(a) provided: 
 
(a) A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from 
the lawyer's own property, that property of clients 
and third persons that is in the lawyer's possession 
in connection with a representation or when acting in 
a fiduciary capacity.  Funds held in connection with a 
representation or in a fiduciary capacity include 
funds held as trustee, agent, guardian, personal 
representative of an estate, or otherwise.  All funds 
of clients and third persons paid to a lawyer or law 
firm shall be deposited in one or more identifiable 
trust accounts . . . maintained in a bank, savings 
bank, trust company, credit union, savings and loan 
association or other investment institution authorized 
to do business and located in Wisconsin. . . . 
No. 
2006AP842-D   
 
6 
 
information in a disclosure to the OLR, contrary to SCR 
22.03(6),7 as alleged in Count Seven.   
¶10 Three grievances are under investigation, which were 
filed by clients referenced in the disciplinary complaint lodged 
against Attorney Sheehan involving the above seven counts of 
misconduct. 
¶11 We determine that the petition for consensual license 
revocation shall be granted and that Attorney Sheehan's license 
should be revoked effective the date of this order.  In response 
to this court's order to show cause, the OLR is not seeking 
restitution at this time.  Attorney Sheehan shall bear the costs 
of this disciplinary proceeding.   
¶12 IT IS ORDERED that the license of John E. Sheehan to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked effective the date of this 
order.  
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that John E. Sheehan shall 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
an attorney whose license to practice law has been revoked, to 
the extent he has not already done so. 
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order John E. Sheehan shall pay $4072.93 to the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation for the costs of this proceeding.    
                                                 
7 SCR 22.03(6) provides that "[i]n the course of the 
investigation, 
the 
respondent's wilful failure to provide 
relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 
documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure 
are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted 
in the grievance." 
No. 
2006AP842-D   
 
7 
 
 
No. 
2006AP842-D   
 
 
 
1