Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jeffry P. Van Groll

Citation: 2005 WI 140

Docket Number: 2004AP001765-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2005-10-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
2005 WI 140 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2004AP1765-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jeffry P. Van Groll, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Jeffry P. Van Groll, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST VAN GROLL 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 19, 2005   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2005 WI 140 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2004AP1765-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jeffry P. Van Groll, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Jeffry P. Van Groll, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 19, 2005 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.     
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the referee's report and 
recommendation that Attorney Jeffry Van Groll's license to 
practice law in this state be suspended for one year for his 
professional misconduct as alleged in the complaint filed by the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) on July 2, 2004.  The 
complaint alleged nine counts of professional wrongdoing against 
Attorney Van Groll.   
No. 
2004AP1765-D   
 
 
 
2
¶2 
The first four counts relate to Attorney Van Groll's 
improper handling of client S.K.'s funds and Attorney Van 
Groll's failure to provide relevant information to the OLR, as 
well as his misrepresentations to the OLR concerning the S.K. 
representation.  Count 1 alleges a violation of former SCR 
20:1.15(a)1 for failing to hold S.K.'s funds in trust.  Count 2 
alleges violations of former SCR 20:1.15(b)2 and SCR 20:1.16(d)3 
for failing to render an accounting of S.K.'s funds or to return 
such funds to S.K. in a timely manner.  Count 3 alleges a 
                                                 
1 Former SCR 20:1.15 applies to misconduct committed prior 
to July 1, 2004.  Former SCR 20:1.15(a) provided in relevant 
part that 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."  
2 Former SCR 20:1.15(b) provided:    
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. 
3 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides in relevant part that upon 
termination of representation, a lawyer "shall take steps to the 
extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, 
such as . . . surrendering papers and property to which the 
client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee that 
has not been earned." 
No. 
2004AP1765-D   
 
 
 
3
violation of SCR 20:8.4(c)4 for conversion of S.K.'s funds.  
Count 4 alleges a violation of SCR 22.03(6)5 for failing to 
cooperate and provide full and truthful responses to the OLR's 
requests during its investigation of the S.K. matter. 
¶3 
Counts 5—8 address 
Attorney 
Van 
Groll's failure 
generally to hold client funds in trust, to disburse them 
properly, and to maintain and preserve trust account records, as 
well as his falsely certifying on his State Bar of Wisconsin 
dues statements that he had complied with all trust account 
record-keeping requirements. 
¶4 
Count 5 alleges that Attorney Van Groll commingled his 
funds with clients' trust funds in violation of former SCR 
20:1.15(a).  Count 6 alleges a violation of former SCR 
20:1.15(e)6 for failing to maintain and preserve trust account 
                                                 
4 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
5 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." 
6 Former SCR 20:1.15(e) provides: 
 
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 
No. 
2004AP1765-D   
 
 
 
4
records.  Count 7 alleges a violation of former SCR 20:1.15(g)7 
for falsely certifying on his bar dues statement that he had 
complied with all trust account record-keeping requirements.  
Count 8 alleges that Attorney Van Groll converted property or 
funds of his clients in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c). 
¶5 
Finally, Count 9 alleges that Attorney Van Groll, in 
violation of SCR 20:8.4(f),8 had failed to file income tax 
returns for calendar years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2002, and 
                                                                                                                                                             
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 
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. 
7 Former SCR 20:1.15(g) states in relevant part that each 
member of the State Bar of Wisconsin annually shall "explicitly 
certify therein that he or she has complied with each of the 
record-keeping 
requirements 
set forth [in 
SCR 
20:1.15(e)] 
hereof." 
8 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme 
court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers." 
No. 
2004AP1765-D   
 
 
 
5
that 
he 
had 
filed 
untimely 
returns 
(without 
seeking 
an 
extension) for calendar years 2000 and 2001. 
¶6 
Attorney Michael Ash was appointed as referee in this 
matter.  Prior to the public hearing, Attorney Van Groll and the 
OLR submitted a "Joint Pre-Trial Statement of Contested and 
Uncontested Facts and Conclusions of Law" (the "stipulation").  
In the stipulation, Attorney Van Groll admitted the violations 
alleged in Counts 1, 6, and 9, and agreed to a number of 
uncontested facts.  The referee conducted a hearing on December 
20, 2004 and January 7, 2005.  
¶7 
Following the submission of post-trial briefs by the 
OLR and Attorney Van Groll, the referee issued his report and 
recommendation, which included very detailed findings of fact 
and conclusions of law.  The referee found that Attorney Van 
Groll had committed professional misconduct with respect to each 
of the nine counts contained in the OLR complaint.  He 
recommended as discipline for these violations that Attorney Van 
Groll's license be suspended for a period of one year; that he 
be ordered to pay restitution, plus interest, to two clients; 
and, that he be ordered to pay the costs of this proceeding. 
No. 
2004AP1765-D   
 
 
 
6
¶8 
Neither Attorney Van Groll nor the OLR has appealed 
from the referee's report and recommendation.  Accordingly, this 
court's review proceeds pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).9 
¶9 
We approve and adopt the referee's findings of fact 
and conclusions of law and determine that the seriousness of 
Attorney Van Groll's misconduct warrants the imposition of a one 
year suspension of his license to practice law.  We also agree 
with and adopt the referee's recommendation that Attorney Van 
Groll be ordered to pay restitution to client, S.K., in the 
amount of $1736.48, plus interest; to pay restitution to client, 
K.W., in the amount of $221.05, plus interest; and, to pay the 
costs of this proceeding, which were $15,781.20 as of June 13, 
2005. 
¶10 Attorney Van Groll has been licensed to practice law 
in Wisconsin since 1986.  He maintains an office in Milwaukee.  
In 1997, Attorney Van Groll was privately reprimanded for 
failing 
to 
exercise 
reasonable 
diligence 
and 
failing 
to 
communicate with his client concerning the representation. 
¶11 In approximately May 2001, Attorney Van Groll was 
retained by S.K. on a litigation matter.  S.K.'s mother 
                                                 
9 SCR 22.17(2) provides:  Review; appeal. 
 
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
No. 
2004AP1765-D   
 
 
 
7
delivered $15,000 in cash to Attorney Van Groll.  Attorney Van 
Groll, however, did not deposit the funds into his client trust 
account; rather, he claims that he put the cash into a safe in 
his office.  Before any of the S.K. funds were deposited, 
Attorney Van Groll paid $230 in expenses for S.K. by drawing 
checks on his client trust account.  After S.K. terminated 
Attorney Van Groll's services in September 2001, S.K. and his 
mother requested an accounting of the $15,000 and a return of 
any unused amounts.  Attorney Van Groll did not respond to these 
repeated requests.  Finally, at some point in January 2002, 
Attorney Van Groll sent a letter to S.K.'s mother enclosing a 
check in the amount of $6500.  Attorney Van Groll's letter said 
that with the receipt of the $6500 check, all of the trust 
monies had been accounted for.  Attorney Van Groll, however, 
never provided any accounting that showed how he had arrived at 
the $6500 amount.  Indeed, in the course of the OLR proceeding, 
Attorney Van Groll has admitted that he still retains $1736.48 
of S.K.'s funds for which he cannot account. 
¶12 When the OLR attempted to investigate Attorney Van 
Groll's handling of the S.K. trust funds, he consistently failed 
to provide trust account records as requested by the OLR.  
Attorney Van Groll told the OLR investigator that he was in the 
process of locating the applicable records.  Finally, at the end 
of April 2002, Attorney Van Groll told the OLR that he could not 
produce some of the trust account records because his computer 
had crashed and he did not maintain any backup records.  
Attorney Van Groll also told the OLR that after keeping the 
No. 
2004AP1765-D   
 
 
 
8
funds in his office safe for six months he had deposited them 
into his client trust account. 
¶13 During the OLR 
investigation, 
it 
was 
ultimately 
discovered that any computer crash as alleged by Attorney Van 
Groll 
would 
have 
occurred 
before 
December 
6, 
2001, 
and 
therefore, prior to Attorney Van Groll's initial contact with 
the OLR and prior to his statements to the OLR that he would 
produce trust account records to account for the funds.  If his 
computer had indeed crashed at the beginning of December 2001, 
and his only records had been destroyed at that time, his 
subsequent statements about producing trust account records were 
untrue.  In addition, Attorney Van Groll later conceded that he 
had not, in fact, deposited the S.K. funds in a financial 
institution as required by SCR 20:1.15, rendering his prior 
statements to the contrary also untrue.  Attorney Van Groll 
delayed, misled, and deceived the OLR investigators in a number 
of respects concerning the deposit of S.K.'s funds in his trust 
account and concerning the existence and adequacy of his trust 
account records. 
¶14 The referee's findings concerning the S.K. matter are 
not clearly erroneous and are adopted by the court.  They 
support the referee's legal conclusions that Attorney Van Groll 
violated former SCR 20:1.15(a) and (b), SCR 20:1.16(d), SCR 
20:8.4(c) and SCR 22.03(6) as alleged in Counts 1—4 of the OLR 
complaint. 
¶15 As a result of the OLR's concerns about Attorney Van 
Groll's handling of client funds, it conducted an audit of his 
No. 
2004AP1765-D   
 
 
 
9
trust account.  The OLR audit was based principally on records 
maintained by Attorney Van Groll's bank because Van Groll failed 
to produce trust account records.  Either such records never 
existed in the first instance or they were lost due to a 
computer crash and Attorney Van Groll's failure to maintain 
either hard copy records or duplicate computer files. 
¶16 The OLR audit demonstrated that Attorney Van Groll had 
disbursed funds on behalf of persons as to whom there were no 
written record of any deposit of funds.  It likewise showed 
multiple instances where funds had been deposited on behalf of 
clients, but the available trust account records could not 
account for all or a part of the subsequent disbursement of the 
deposits.  As the referee concluded, Attorney Van Groll's poor 
handling of his trust account caused him repeatedly to use 
client monies for purposes other than what the client had 
intended or authorized.   
¶17 Finally, it was undisputed that Attorney Van Groll 
improperly kept personal funds in his trust account.  He claimed 
that any improper disbursement of trust account funds was from 
his personal monies rather than from client funds.  He even 
indicated during the proceedings before the referee that the 
intermingling of his personal funds was a beneficial situation 
since it provided a "positive float" that allowed him to cover 
trust account disbursements on behalf of his clients.  This 
belief by Attorney Van Groll evidences a complete lack of 
understanding 
as 
to 
the 
basic 
and 
important 
rules 
for 
maintaining client funds in separate trust accounts and for 
No. 
2004AP1765-D   
 
 
 
10
creating and preserving records to document the handling of such 
client trust funds. 
¶18 It should be noted that, although Attorney Van Groll 
failed to demonstrate competence in even the minimum practices 
of trust account management, the referee concluded that Attorney 
Van Groll had not purposely deprived any client of money for his 
own benefit by way of deceit or fraud.  With the exception of 
the $1736.48 that belongs to S.K. and the $221.05 that belongs 
to another client, K.W., there does not appear to be any other 
client that has lost money due to Attorney Van Groll's trust 
account violations. 
¶19 In 1999, 2000, and 2001, Attorney Van Groll signed 
State of Wisconsin Bar membership dues statements.  By signing 
those statements, he certified that he had "complied with each 
of 
the 
record-keeping 
requirements 
sent 
forth 
in 
SCR 
20:1.15(e)."  Attorney Van Groll, however, did not maintain all 
of the records required by former SCR 20:1.15(e), thereby 
rendering his certifications false. 
¶20 The referee's findings concerning Attorney Van Groll's 
improper handling of his trust account, his failure to maintain 
appropriate trust account records and his false certifications 
are not clearly erroneous and are adopted by this court.  Based 
on those findings, we agree with the referee's legal conclusions 
that Attorney Van Groll violated former SCR 20:1.15(a), (e) and 
(g), and SCR 20:8.4(c). 
¶21 Finally, as admitted by Attorney Van Groll, he failed 
to file tax returns for the calendar years of 1996, 1997, 1998, 
No. 
2004AP1765-D   
 
 
 
11
1999, and 2002, and he filed untimely returns (without seeking 
extensions) for the calendar years of 2000 and 2001.  By 
willfully failing to file income tax returns on a timely basis, 
Attorney Van Groll has violated SCR 20:8.4(f).  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Owens, 172 Wis. 2d 54, 56-57, 
492 N.W.2d 157 (1992). 
¶22 Having adopted the referee's factual findings and 
agreed that the facts constitute violations of the rules of 
professional conduct on each of the complaint's nine counts, we 
turn to the appropriate discipline to be imposed.  The referee 
recommended the substantial sanction of a one-year suspension 
from the practice of law.  The referee noted that while Attorney 
Van Groll had not acted with intent to enrich himself, he had 
exhibited an "abysmal and culpable ignorance of very basic legal 
duties like filing income tax returns and keeping clients' funds 
separate from one's own."  Moreover, Attorney Van Groll was not 
completely honest or candid with the OLR investigators. 
¶23 In light of Attorney Van Groll's history of past 
discipline, the seriousness of his multiple violations, the need 
to impress upon him and other attorneys the gravity of such 
misconduct, and to protect the public from misconduct of 
attorneys licensed to practice law in this state, we conclude 
that a suspension of one year is appropriate discipline in this 
case.  We also agree with the referee's recommendation to order 
Attorney Van Groll to pay restitution, plus interest, to S.K. 
and K.W.  Finally, we conclude that Attorney Van Groll should be 
required to pay the costs of this proceeding. 
No. 
2004AP1765-D   
 
 
 
12
¶24 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Jeffry Van 
Groll to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 
one year, effective November 18, 2005. 
¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 30 days of the date 
of this order, Attorney Van Groll shall pay restitution to S.K. 
in the amount of $1736.48, plus interest at the legal rate of 
five percent (5%) per annum for the period from January 2, 2002 
until the date of payment. 
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 30 days of the date 
of this order, Attorney Van Groll shall pay restitution to K.W. 
in the amount of $221.05, plus interest at the legal rate of 
five percent (5%) per annum for the period from July 27, 2001 
until the date of payment. 
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Attorney Van Groll shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If the costs 
are not paid within the time specified and absent a showing to 
this court of his inability to pay those costs within that time, 
the license of Attorney Jeffry Van Groll to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the 
court. 
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Van Groll shall 
comply, if he has not already done so, with the requirement of 
SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
No. 
2004AP1765-D   
 
 
 
1