Case Title: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. Jill Gilbert

Citation: 2002 WI 102

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2002-07-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
2002 WI 102 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
95-3561-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jill S. Gilbert, Attorney at Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility,  
 
Complainant-Respondent, 
 
v. 
Jill Gilbert,  
 
Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
REINSTATEMENT OF GILBERT 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 11, 2002   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: WILCOX and SYKES, JJ., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2002 WI 102 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  95-3561-D  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jill S. Gilbert, Attorney at  
Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional  
Responsibility,  
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Jill Gilbert,  
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 11, 2002  
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.  Reinstatement granted 
upon conditions and matter remanded for further proceedings. 
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   Jill 
Gilbert 
has filed 
a petition 
seeking reinstatement of her license to practice law in 
Wisconsin.  We determine, based on the referee's report, the 
conditional recommendation of the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR), and the conditional recommendation of the Board of Bar 
Examiners (BBE), that Attorney Gilbert's license to practice law 
in this state shall be reinstated upon certain conditions as set 
No. 
95-3561-D   
 
2 
 
forth herein.1  We also remand this matter for a hearing on the 
advisability of expediting restitution payments to the client. 
¶2 
Attorney Gilbert was admitted to the practice of law 
in 
Wisconsin 
in 
June 
1992 
and 
practiced 
in 
Milwaukee, 
Brookfield, and Cedarburg.  In 1999 this court found Attorney 
Gilbert 
guilty 
of 
professional 
misconduct 
based 
on 
her 
representation of a vulnerable and elderly client over a six-
month 
period. 
 
During 
this 
period 
she 
mishandled 
and 
misappropriated 
the 
client's 
funds. 
 
Specifically, 
her 
misconduct consisted of submitting bills to the client that 
contained 
misrepresentations 
and 
were 
fraudulent, 
misrepresenting her use of her client's funds to purchase a big 
screen television for herself, engaging in dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation in videotaping what purported to be 
the client's execution of an agreement, charging the client and 
paying herself excessive and unreasonable fees from the client's 
funds, failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in handling the client's checking account, failing to keep the 
client reasonably informed of the status of his financial 
affairs and explain them to the extent reasonably necessary for 
                                                 
1 Effective 
October 
1, 
2000, 
Wisconsin's 
attorney 
disciplinary process underwent a substantial restructuring.  The 
name of the body responsible for investigating and prosecuting 
cases involving attorney misconduct was changed to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation and the supreme court rules applicable to the 
lawyer regulation system were also revised. Since the conduct 
underlying this case arose prior to October 1, 2000, the body 
will hereafter be referred to as "the Board," however, all 
references to supreme court rules will be to those currently in 
effect unless otherwise noted. 
No. 
95-3561-D   
 
3 
 
him to make informed decisions, and depositing funds she claimed 
as 
fees 
into 
her 
client 
trust 
account 
and 
subsequently 
withdrawing a portion of those funds knowing there was a dispute 
about her entitlement to them.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Gilbert, 227 Wis. 2d 444, 595 N.W.2d 715 (1999). 
¶3 
The court suspended Attorney Gilbert's license for two 
years, commencing August 16, 1999, as discipline for her 
professional misconduct.  Id.  In addition, Attorney Gilbert was 
required to make restitution to the client within 60 days in the 
amount of $84,800, plus interest; to pay the costs of the 
disciplinary proceeding, which totaled $51,706.72; and to notify 
her clients of the suspension.  Id.  The court denied her motion 
for reconsideration on September 16, 1999. 
¶4 
Subsequently, Attorney Gilbert and the Board entered 
into 
an 
"Agreement 
Relating 
to 
Restitution 
Obligation" 
(Agreement) which extended the time Attorney Gilbert was 
allotted to make restitution to the client.  On June 28, 2000, 
the suspension order was modified to reflect this Agreement.   
¶5 
On May 17, 2001, Attorney Gilbert filed this petition 
for reinstatement pursuant to SCR 22.28.2 
                                                 
2 SCR 22.28 provides: License reinstatement. 
(1) An attorney suspended from the practice of 
law for nonpayment of state bar dues or failure to 
comply with continuing legal education requirements or 
the trust account certification requirement under SCR 
20:1.15(g) shall be reinstated pursuant to the rules 
governing the suspension. 
(2) The license of an attorney suspended for 
misconduct 
for 
less 
than 
six 
months 
shall 
be 
No. 
95-3561-D   
 
4 
 
¶6 
The petition was assigned to Referee Michael Ash, 
consistent with the reinstatement procedure set forth in SCR 
22.30.3  Following a hearing on December 20, 2001, the referee 
                                                                                                                                                             
reinstated by the supreme court upon the filing of an 
affidavit with the director showing full compliance 
with all the terms and conditions of the order of 
suspension and the director's notification to the 
supreme court of the attorney's full compliance. 
(3) The license of an attorney that is revoked or 
suspended for misconduct for six months or more shall 
be reinstated pursuant to the procedure set forth in 
SCR 22.29 to 22.33 and only by order of the supreme 
court.  
3 SCR 22.30 provides:  Reinstatement procedure.   
(1) The clerk of the supreme court shall select a 
referee from the panel provided in SCR 21.08, based on 
availability 
and 
geographic 
proximity 
to 
the 
petitioner's place of residence, and the chief justice 
shall appoint the referee to conduct a hearing on the 
petition for reinstatement. In the case of a license 
suspension, the hearing shall not be held prior to the 
expiration of the period of suspension. 
(2) The 
director 
shall 
investigate 
the 
eligibility of the petitioner for reinstatement and 
file a response with the referee in support of or in 
opposition to the petition. 
(3) At least 30 days prior to the hearing, the 
director shall publish a notice in a newspaper of 
general circulation in any county in which the 
petitioner maintained an office for the practice of 
law prior to suspension or revocation and in the 
county of 
the petitioner's residence 
during the 
suspension 
or 
revocation 
and 
in 
an 
official 
publication of the state bar of Wisconsin. 
(4) The notice under sub. (3) shall contain a 
brief statement of the nature and date of suspension 
or revocation, the matters required to be proved for 
reinstatement, and the date, time and location of the 
hearing on the petition. 
No. 
95-3561-D   
 
5 
 
issued a thorough and articulate report and recommendation on 
January 24, 2002, finding that Attorney Gilbert has "achieved a 
proper understanding and attitude toward standards imposed on 
bar members and is likely to act with conformity therewith." 
¶7 
However, the referee expressed grave concern about 
certain aspects of the Agreement, in particular, its effect on 
the aggrieved client, who was not a party to it.  Whatever the 
reasons for its terms (which the parties dispute) the result of 
the Agreement is that Attorney Gilbert used all her available 
cash to fully reimburse the Board for its legal costs and 
expenses in the amount of $53,656.72, while restitution to the 
elderly and impoverished victim is being paid in monthly amounts 
ranging from $500 to $1000 at the rate of 5% over nine years. 
The referee added that he had continuing reservations stemming 
from "the dramatic incongruity between the very comfortable 
suburban lifestyle of Gilbert, who was found in effect to have 
wrongfully taken money from [the client] and [the client's] 
present impoverished and unhappy one."  At the hearing the 
client testified that he is now beset with medical bills, 
struggling financially, and had to move from a condominium where 
he was happy to a small apartment in public housing.   
¶8 
The 
referee continued: "The 
lurking 
question is 
whether a just regulatory system should leave the parties so 
disproportionately situated and in particular whether Gilbert 
should be forced to pay or do more to make the situation right."4  
                                                 
4 As of the date of the referee's report, Attorney Gilbert 
owed the client approximately $66,000.  She also owes the 
No. 
95-3561-D   
 
6 
 
¶9 
Ultimately, 
however, 
the 
referee 
concluded 
that 
Attorney Gilbert has satisfied her burden of proof on the narrow 
question of reinstatement.  She has satisfactorily addressed all 
the requirements of SCR 22.29(4),5 and she has demonstrated 
                                                                                                                                                             
Wisconsin State Bar Client Security Fund (CSF) approximately 
$35,000.  The CSF has waived subrogation so that Gilbert will 
pay the client in full before she must repay the CSF. 
 
5 SCR 22.29(4) provides: 
(4) The petition for reinstatement shall show all 
of the following: 
(a) The 
petitioner 
desires 
to 
have 
the 
petitioner's license reinstated. 
(b) The petitioner has not practiced law during 
the period of suspension or revocation. 
(c) The petitioner has complied fully with the 
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and 
will 
continue 
to 
comply 
with 
them 
until 
the 
petitioner's license is reinstated. 
(d) The petitioner has maintained competence and 
learning in the law by attendance at identified 
educational activities. 
(e) The petitioner's conduct since the suspension 
or revocation has been exemplary and above reproach. 
(f) The petitioner has a proper understanding of 
and attitude toward the standards that are imposed 
upon members of the bar and will act in conformity 
with the standards. 
(g) The petitioner can safely be recommended to 
the legal profession, the courts and the public as a 
person fit to be consulted by others and to represent 
them and otherwise act in matters of trust and 
confidence and in general to aid in the administration 
of justice as a member of the bar and as an officer of 
the courts. 
No. 
95-3561-D   
 
7 
 
compliance with SCR 22.26.6 See SCR 22.31(1).7  Therefore, the 
referee 
recommended 
that 
Attorney 
Gilbert's 
petition 
for 
                                                                                                                                                             
(h) The petitioner has fully complied with the 
requirements set forth in SCR 22.26. 
(j) The petitioner's proposed use of the license 
if reinstated. 
(k) A full description of all of the petitioner's 
business activities during the period of suspension or 
revocation. 
(m) The petitioner has made restitution to or 
settled all claims of persons injured or harmed by 
petitioner's misconduct or, if not, the petitioner's 
explanation of the failure or inability to do so. 
6 SCR 22.26 provides: Activities following suspension or 
revocation. 
(1) On or before the effective date of license 
suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 
suspended or revoked shall do all of the following: 
(a) Notify by certified mail all clients being 
represented in pending matters of the suspension or 
revocation and of the attorney's consequent inability 
to act as an attorney following the effective date of 
the suspension or revocation. 
(b) Advise the clients to seek legal advice of 
their choice elsewhere.  
(c) Promptly provide written notification to the 
court or administrative agency and the attorney for 
each party in a matter pending before a court or 
administrative agency of the suspension or revocation 
and of the attorney's consequent inability to act as 
an attorney following the effective date of the 
suspension or revocation. The notice shall identify 
the successor attorney of the attorney's client or, if 
there is none at the time notice is given, shall state 
the client's place of residence.  
(d) Within the first 15 days after the effective 
date 
of 
suspension 
or 
revocation, 
make 
all 
No. 
95-3561-D   
 
8 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
arrangements for the temporary or permanent closing or 
winding up of the attorney's practice. The attorney 
may assist in having others take over clients' work in 
progress.  
(e) Within 25 days after the effective date of 
suspension or revocation, file with the director an 
affidavit showing all of the following: 
(i) Full compliance with the provisions of the 
suspension or revocation order and with the rules and 
procedures regarding the closing of the attorney's 
practice. 
(ii) A 
list 
of 
all 
jurisdictions, 
including 
state, federal and administrative bodies, before which 
the attorney is admitted to practice. 
(iii) A list of clients in all pending matters 
and a list of all matters pending before any court or 
administrative agency, together with the case number 
of each matter.  
(f) Maintain records of the various steps taken 
under this rule in order that, in any subsequent 
proceeding instituted by or against the attorney, 
proof of compliance with the rule and with the 
suspension or revocation order is available.  
(2) An attorney whose license to practice law is 
suspended or revoked or who is suspended from the 
practice of law may not engage in this state in the 
practice 
of 
law 
or 
in 
any 
law 
work 
activity 
customarily done by law students, law clerks, or other 
paralegal personnel, except that the attorney may 
engage in law related work in this state for a 
commercial employer itself not engaged in the practice 
of law.  
(3) Proof of compliance with this rule is a 
condition precedent to reinstatement of the attorney's 
license to practice law. 
7 SCR 22.31(1) provides: 
(1) The 
petitioner 
has 
the 
burden 
of 
demonstrating by clear, satisfactory and convincing 
No. 
95-3561-D   
 
9 
 
reinstatement be granted, subject to imposition of certain 
conditions designed to induce the parties to revisit the 
Agreement 
and 
to 
encourage 
more 
rapid 
repayment 
of 
the 
restitution obligation.  The conditions recommended by the 
referee are as follows: 
1. Gilbert continuing to comply with the Agreement 
Relating to Restitution Obligation until such time 
as the agreement is amended or modified. 
2. Gilbert meeting with appropriate representatives 
of OLR within 18 months of her reinstatement to 
discuss, review, and negotiate in good faith 
possible modification of the agreement to provide 
for 
faster 
retirement 
of 
her 
restitution 
obligations; 
3. Gilbert disclosing to OLR annually her income, 
assets, and net worth, including all W-2's, tax 
returns, 
financial 
statements, 
and 
other 
documentation, 
until 
such 
time 
as 
she 
has 
satisfied all her restitution obligations; and 
4. Gilbert cooperating fully with any review of this 
matter that may be conducted by the Board of 
Administrative Oversight. 
¶10 On February 4, 2002, OLR filed its response, stating 
that it does not oppose Attorney Gilbert's reinstatement, 
subject to the conditions recommended by the referee.  By 
memorandum dated December 10, 2001, the BBE recommended that the 
                                                                                                                                                             
evidence that the petitioner has the moral character 
to practice law in Wisconsin, that the petitioner's 
resumption of the practice of law will not be 
detrimental to the 
administration 
of 
justice or 
subversive of the public interest, and that the 
petitioner has complied fully with the terms of the 
order of suspension or revocation and with the 
requirements of SCR 22.26. 
No. 
95-3561-D   
 
10 
 
reinstatement petition be granted, subject to the requirement 
that she comply with the current continuing legal education 
(CLE) requirements by reporting an additional 30.0 approved 
hours, including 3.0 hours of legal ethics and professional 
responsibility; or by electing the exemption available at SCR 
31.04(2) on the CLE Form 1 that will be due for the 2001-2002 
reporting period. 
¶11 This is a troubling matter and the court shares the 
referee's 
concerns. 
 
As 
the 
referee 
observed, 
on 
an 
institutional level this matter presents the following question:  
Where a respondent has resources insufficient to satisfy his or 
her financial obligation to both the Board and to clients who 
have been victimized, who should be paid first?  We hold that 
the client should ordinarily be paid first in such situations.  
If there are reasons to depart from this general rule, they may 
be presented to the referee and decided on a case-by-case basis.  
Here the referee posited that perhaps the Board should be 
required to use all or some portion of the $51,656.72 it was 
paid to better the client's situation.  However, both the 
referee and the Board noted that this matter is complicated by 
the concern that expediting repayment of the restitution award 
might not serve the client's best interests.  The OLR urged that 
it should not be directed to pay the client unless the effect 
(and desirability) of the proposed disbursement is determined.  
Accordingly, we remand this matter for a hearing before Referee 
Michael Ash to ascertain the effect and desirability of 
expediting the restitution repayment.  If the referee determines 
No. 
95-3561-D   
 
11 
 
that the client requires an advocate to represent his interests 
in this proceeding, he shall so advise the court. 
¶12 Ultimately, 
however, 
the 
court 
agrees 
with 
the 
referee's conclusion that our concerns about the Agreement 
should not preclude Attorney Gilbert's reinstatement, subject to 
the understanding that review of the circumstances leading to 
the Agreement may result in recommendations regarding possible 
modification of the Agreement. 
¶13 We determine, based on the petition, the referee's 
report and recommendation, the conditional recommendation of the 
OLR, and the conditional recommendation of BBE, that Attorney 
Gilbert's license to practice law in this state shall be 
reinstated upon the following conditions: 
1. Attorney Gilbert shall continue to comply with the 
Agreement Relating to Restitution Obligation until 
such time as the Agreement is amended or modified. 
2. Attorney 
Gilbert 
shall 
meet 
with 
appropriate 
representatives of OLR within six months of her 
reinstatement 
and 
periodically 
thereafter 
to 
discuss, review, and negotiate in good faith 
possible modification of the Agreement to provide 
for 
faster 
retirement 
of 
her 
restitution 
obligations; 
3. Attorney Gilbert shall disclose to OLR annually 
her income, assets, and net worth, including all 
W-2's, tax returns, financial statements, and 
other documentation, until such time as she has 
satisfied all her restitution obligations; and 
4. Attorney Gilbert shall cooperate fully with any 
review of this matter that may be conducted by any 
entity appointed by the court to undertake such 
review. 
No. 
95-3561-D   
 
12 
 
¶14 IT IS ORDERED that this matter is remanded for a 
hearing before Referee Michael Ash to ascertain the effect and 
desirability, with respect to the client, of expediting the 
restitution repayment.   
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition is granted and 
the license of Jill Gilbert to practice law in Wisconsin is 
reinstated effective the date of this order. 
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the conditions set forth in 
this 
order, 
including 
compliance 
with 
the 
current 
CLE 
requirements, are imposed on the license of Jill Gilbert to 
practice law in Wisconsin. 
¶17 JON P. WILCOX and DIANE S. SYKES, JJ., did not 
participate. 
No. 
95-3561-D   
 
 
 
1