Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Leroy Jones

Citation: 2008 WI 53

Docket Number: 2007AP001004-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2008-06-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
2008 WI 53 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2007AP1004-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of the Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Leroy Jones, Attorney at Law. 
 
 Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Leroy Jones, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST JONES 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 3, 2008   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: BUTLER, JR., J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2008 WI 53
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2007AP1004-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of the Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Leroy Jones, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Leroy Jones, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 3, 2008 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the referee's recommendation 
that Attorney Leroy Jones's license to practice law in Wisconsin 
be suspended for four months due to professional misconduct.  
The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) has filed a 12-count 
disciplinary complaint arising from four client matters.   
¶2 
Stanley Hack was appointed referee.  Following the 
disciplinary hearing, the referee determined the evidence 
supported the complaint's allegations.  He recommended that 
No. 
2007AP1004-D   
 
2 
 
Attorney Jones's law license be suspended for four months, 
restitution be required in the form of interest on a belatedly 
refunded fee and the costs of this disciplinary proceeding, 
$10,622.89, be imposed.  No appeal has been filed.   
¶3 
We approve and adopt the referee's findings of fact 
and conclusions of law.  We conclude that the seriousness of 
Attorney 
Jones's misconduct warrants a four-month license 
suspension.  We impose the entire cost of this disciplinary 
proceeding and restitution as recommended by the referee.     
¶4 
Attorney Leroy Jones was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1972 and practices in Milwaukee.  He has been 
subject to a number of previous disciplinary proceedings, 
including separate public reprimands for conduct the referee 
found to be similar to the conduct alleged in this proceeding.  
On three previous occasions, Attorney Jones's law license has 
been suspended.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Leroy Jones, 160 Wis. 2d 564, 466 N.W.2d 890 (1991) (60-day 
suspension 
for 
neglect 
of 
client's 
real 
estate 
matter, 
mishandling client funds, and failure to timely respond to Board 
of Attorneys Professional Responsibility); In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Leroy Jones, 171 Wis. 2d 465, 491 N.W.2d 763 
(1992) (60-day retroactive suspension for failing to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness); and In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Leroy Jones, 176 Wis. 2d 140, 499 N.W.2d 674 
(1993) (60-day suspension for failing to timely pursue personal 
injury claim and advise a client that the time for filing on one 
claim had expired and another claim had been denied).  
No. 
2007AP1004-D   
 
3 
 
¶5 
The disciplinary complaint now before us involves four 
client matters.  In the first client matter, E.B. retained 
Attorney Jones in May 2002 to probate her mother's estate.  E.B. 
paid Attorney Jones a retainer; there was, however, no written 
fee agreement.  Attorney Jones prepared an application for 
informal administration, an order appointing a guardian ad 
litem, and domiciliary letters which were filed with the probate 
court.   
¶6 
Attorney Jones failed to file the estate inventory by 
the February 26, 2003, deadline and failed to inform his client 
accordingly.  The probate court issued an order to show cause 
and Attorney Jones failed to appear at the hearing.  He did not 
inform E.B. of his failure to appear and claimed he did not 
recall receiving the notice.  In June 2003 Attorney Jones was 
ordered removed as attorney of record and E.B. was ordered 
removed as personal representative.  The probate court faulted 
both for not filing the inventory.   
¶7 
Nonetheless, in August 2003 Attorney Jones filed the 
inventory, which was rejected because Attorney Jones was no 
longer acting as the attorney of record.  E.B. terminated 
Attorney Jones's services and retained another attorney.  E.B. 
requested that Attorney Jones return the money paid because he 
had failed to act timely and had not completed the probate 
matter.  Attorney Jones did not respond.  Before the hearing in 
this disciplinary matter, however, Attorney Jones had returned 
to E.B. the money she had paid him.   
No. 
2007AP1004-D   
 
4 
 
¶8 
E.B. had also retained Attorney Jones to file a 
guardianship petition and had paid him $1,000 for such service.  
Attorney Jones filed the petition in March 2003 but failed to 
appear at the hearing.  Although the hearing was rescheduled, 
Attorney Jones failed to appear at the rescheduled hearing.  Due 
to Attorney Jones's failure to appear, E.B. requested a refund 
of the $1,000 fee.  
¶9 
In January 2006 the OLR's committee investigator 
requested to speak with Attorney Jones concerning the grievance 
E.B. filed.  Attorney Jones failed to respond.  In February 2006 
the investigator sent a letter requesting the opportunity for an 
interview with Attorney Jones.  Attorney Jones failed to 
respond.  In May 2006 this court temporarily suspended Attorney 
Jones's license based on his failure to cooperate.  Thereafter, 
Attorney 
Jones's 
attorney 
contacted 
the 
investigator 
and 
indicated Attorney Jones's willingness to discuss the grievance.   
¶10 In a second client matter, A.M. contacted Attorney 
Jones in January 2004 after receiving a summons and complaint.  
The suit related to a vehicle accident involving a van owned by 
the company for which A.M. served as principal officer.  A.M. 
informed Attorney Jones that the accident was a minor incident 
without serious injuries, and that she did not want to involve 
her insurance company.   
¶11 Attorney Jones agreed to represent A.M.'s company and 
was paid a flat fee; there was no written fee agreement.  
Attorney Jones did not tender A.M.'s defense to the insurance 
company because A.M. wanted to resolve what she thought was a 
No. 
2007AP1004-D   
 
5 
 
minor matter independent of the insurance company.  Attorney 
Jones failed to attend a deposition in the matter.  The court 
ordered mediation; Attorney Jones failed to inform A.M. of the 
court-ordered mediation.   
¶12 At the February 22, 2005, mediation hearing, the 
plaintiff requested $15,000 in settlement.  A.M. was not 
present.  Attorney Jones settled the case at mediation for 
$12,500.  He never communicated with A.M. during the mediation 
and agreed to the settlement without A.M.'s knowledge or 
approval.  On February 28, 2005, Attorney Jones wrote A.M., 
advising that he had attempted to reach her by telephone to 
inform her of the mediation results.  The letter, written on 
Attorney Jones's letterhead with his name signed by an employee, 
stated that the mediator had awarded the plaintiff $12,500.  
This representation was false.   
¶13 In February 2004 a third client, C.E., hired Attorney 
Jones regarding a child support matter.  C.E. filed a grievance.  
On November 30, 2005, the OLR wrote Attorney Jones requesting a 
response to the grievance.  Attorney Jones failed to timely 
respond.  By certified mail, the OLR sent a second letter 
reminding Attorney Jones of his duty to cooperate.  The signed 
certified mail receipt was returned to the OLR; it was undated 
but signed by a Marrion Braxton (Braxton).  Attorney Jones again 
failed to respond.  In January 2006 the OLR sent Attorney Jones 
a third letter, again by certified mail, requesting a response 
by February 2, 2006.  The certified mail receipt acknowledging 
No. 
2007AP1004-D   
 
6 
 
delivery was signed by Attorney Jones and returned to the OLR.  
Attorney Jones again failed to respond.   
¶14 On February 15, 2006, the OLR sent a fourth letter 
both by U.S. mail and personal service.  Personal service was 
eventually obtained at Attorney Jones's law office by service on 
Braxton.  The affidavit of service indicates that Braxton was 
authorized to accept service on Attorney Jones's behalf.  
Attorney Jones failed to respond to the February 15, 2006, 
letter.   
¶15 In March 2006, upon the OLR's motion, this court 
issued an order requiring Attorney Jones to show cause why his 
license to practice law should not be suspended for failure to 
cooperate.  Attorney Jones responded to the November 30, 2005, 
letter.  The OLR took no action on the C.E. grievance.   
¶16 After 
this court suspended Attorney Jones's law 
license in May 2006 upon his failure to cooperate in two 
grievance investigations, Attorney Jones failed to comply with 
SCR 22.26.  In June 2006 the OLR sent Attorney Jones a letter 
reminding him of his failure to file an affidavit pursuant to 
SCR 22.26(1)(e).1  Attorney Jones replied in a June 12, 2006, 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.26(1)(e) 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:  
 . . .  
No. 
2007AP1004-D   
 
7 
 
letter that he was notifying his clients by certified mail of 
his license suspension and inability to represent them.  He also 
stated that he was notifying courts, administrative agencies, 
and attorneys of his suspension.  In June 2006 Attorney Jones 
filed an affidavit in accordance with SCR 22.26(1)(e) stating he 
had complied with that rule.  In July 2006 this court reinstated 
Attorney Jones's license.   
¶17 Attorney Jones was retained to represent a fourth 
client, D.P., in a small claims case.  D.P. filed a grievance 
with the OLR.  The OLR investigator sent Attorney Jones a letter 
requesting Attorney Jones contact him regarding this matter; 
Attorney Jones did not respond.  In a second letter, the 
investigator inquired why Attorney Jones had not responded.  
Attorney Jones replied by letter that his office paralegal had 
been ill for three months and because the investigator has not 
finished his investigation, Attorney Jones requested additional 
                                                                                                                                                             
(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. 
No. 
2007AP1004-D   
 
8 
 
time.  The OLR investigator informed Attorney Jones this reply 
was unsatisfactory and requested a meeting. 
¶18 After this court issued an order to show cause, 
Attorney Jones apologized for his delay and provided the OLR 
with minimal information.  Following his May 2006 license 
suspension for failure to cooperate, Attorney Jones met with the 
investigator regarding D.P.'s grievance.  The OLR took no action 
on this grievance.  Attorney Jones's license was reinstated in 
July 2006.  
¶19 The 
referee 
determined 
the 
OLR 
established 
the 
following:   
1. 
By 
failing 
to 
timely 
file 
an 
estate 
inventory, failing to appear at an order to show cause 
hearing regarding the same estate, and failing to 
appear at two guardianship hearings, Attorney Jones 
failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client, in violation of former SCR 
20:1.3.2  
2. 
By failing to inform his client that he had 
not timely filed an estate inventory and that an order 
to show cause hearing had been scheduled but that no 
one appeared on her behalf at the hearing, Attorney 
Jones failed to keep his client reasonably informed 
                                                 
2 Effective July 1, 2007, substantial changes were made to 
the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct for 
Attorneys, SCR Chapter 20.  See S. Ct. Order 04-07, 2007 WI 4, 
293 Wis. 2d xv, 726 N.W.2d Ct.R-45 (eff. July 1, 2007); and 
S. Ct. 
Order 
06-04, 
2007 
WI 
48, 
297 
Wis. 2d xv, 
730 
N.W.2d Ct.R.-29 (eff. July 1, 2007).  Because the conduct 
underlying this case arose prior to July 1, 2007, unless 
otherwise indicated, all references to the supreme court rules 
will be to those in effect prior to July 1, 2007. 
Former SCR 20:1.3 states "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
No. 
2007AP1004-D   
 
9 
 
about the status of a matter, in violation of SCR 
20:1.4(a).3  
3. 
By failing to timely return any portion of 
the flat fee paid to him by his client, despite the 
fact that he did not complete the representation, 
Attorney Jones failed to refund an advance payment of 
fee that had not been earned, in violation of SCR 
20:1.16(d).4  This fee was returned at the time of the 
disciplinary hearing after efforts to return it 
earlier failed because the post office did not forward 
a letter.  
4. 
By 
failing 
to 
cooperate 
with 
the 
OLR 
district committee's investigation of his grievance, 
eventually leading to the suspension of his license, 
Attorney 
Jones 
failed 
to 
cooperate 
with 
OLR's 
investigation of a grievance, in violation of SCR 
21.15(4)5 and SCR 22.03(6)6 via SCR 20:8.4(f).7 
                                                 
3 Former SCR 20:1.4(a) provides that "[a] lawyer shall keep 
a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and 
promptly comply with reasonable requests for information." 
4 Former SCR 20:1.16(d) provides: 
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer 
shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable 
to protect a client's interests, such as giving 
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for 
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and 
property to which the client is entitled and refunding 
any advance payment of fee that has not been earned. 
The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to 
the extent permitted by other law. 
5 SCR 21.15(4) states: 
Every attorney shall cooperate with the office of 
lawyer regulation in the investigation, prosecution 
and disposition of grievances, complaints filed with 
or by the director, and petitions for reinstatement.  
An attorney's wilful failure to cooperate with the 
office of lawyer regulation constitutes violation of 
the rules of professional conduct for attorneys. 
No. 
2007AP1004-D   
 
10 
 
5. 
By failing to take appropriate action in 
defending his client, including but not limited to 
failing to attend plaintiff's deposition, Attorney 
Jones failed to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing a client, in violation of 
SCR 20:1.3. 
6. 
By failing to inform his client of upcoming 
mediation and its meaning, Attorney Jones failed to 
explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to 
permit the client to make an informed decision 
regarding the representation, in violation of SCR 
20:1.4(b).8 
7. 
By failing to inform his client of a 
settlement offer prior to accepting the offer during 
mediation, Attorney Jones failed to inform a client of 
all offers of settlement and abide by the client's 
decision whether to accept an offer, in violation of 
SCR 20:1.2(a).9 
8. 
By representing to his client that the 
mediator had "awarded" the plaintiff $12,500, Attorney 
Jones engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
                                                                                                                                                             
6 SCR 
22.03(6) 
provides, 
"In 
the 
course 
of 
the 
investigation, 
the 
[attorney's] wilful failure to provide 
relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 
documents and the [attorney's] misrepresentation in a disclosure 
are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted 
in the grievance." 
7 Former SCR 20:8.4(f) states 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; . . . ." 
8 Former SCR 20:1.4(b) states, "A lawyer shall explain a 
matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client 
to make informed decisions regarding the representation." 
9 Former SCR 20:1.2(a) provides, in pertinent part, that 
"[a] lawyer shall inform a client of all offers of settlement 
and abide by a client's decision whether to accept an offer of 
settlement of a matter."  
No. 
2007AP1004-D   
 
11 
 
deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 
20:8.4(c).10 
9. 
By failing to timely respond to OLR's 
November 30, 2005, letter until March 14, 2006, 
Attorney Jones failed to fully and fairly disclose all 
facts 
and 
circumstances 
pertaining 
to 
alleged 
misconduct within 20 days after being served by 
ordinary mail with a request for a written response, 
in violation of SCR 22.03(2).11 
10. By failing to timely notify his clients, 
courts, administrative agencies and the attorney for 
each party in a pending matter of his suspension on or 
before the effective date of his suspension, Attorney 
Jones violated SCRs 22.26(1)(a) and (c)12 via SCR 
20:8.4(f). 
                                                 
10 Former SCR 20:8.4(c) states it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation; . . . ." 
11 SCR 22.03(2) provides:  
Upon commencing an investigation, the director 
shall notify the [attorney] of the matter being 
investigated unless in the opinion of the director the 
investigation of the matter requires otherwise.  The 
[attorney] shall fully and fairly disclose all facts 
and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct 
within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail a 
request for a written response.  The director may 
allow additional time to respond.  Following receipt 
of the response, the director may conduct further 
investigation and may compel the [attorney] to answer 
questions, 
furnish 
documents, 
and 
present 
any 
information deemed relevant to the investigation. 
12 SCRs 22.26(1)(a) and (c) provide:  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 
No. 
2007AP1004-D   
 
12 
 
11. By failing to timely file an affidavit in 
accordance 
SCR 
22.26(1)(e) until June 28, 2006, 
Attorney 
Jones 
violated SCR 22.26(1)(e) via SCR 
20:8.4(f). 
12. By failing to timely cooperate with the 
district 
committee's 
investigation 
of 
D.P.'s 
grievance, leading to OLR's pursuit of an order to 
show cause under SCR 22.03(4) and Attorney Jones's 
eventual license suspension, Attorney Jones violated 
SCR 21.15(4), 22.03(6), and SCR 22.04(1)13 via SCR 
20:8.4(f). 
¶20 The OLR sought a six-month suspension.  The referee 
considered Attorney Jones's disciplinary history very serious, 
noting his past disciplinary problems were similar in many 
respects to the present ones.  The referee considered as a 
mitigating circumstance that Attorney Jones served a low income 
segment of society which is underserved by the legal community.  
                                                                                                                                                             
to act as an attorney following the effective date of 
the suspension or revocation. 
 
 . . .  
(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. . . .  
13 SCR 22.04(1) states: Referral to district committee. 
The director may refer a matter to a district 
committee for assistance in the investigation.  A 
respondent has the duty to cooperate specified in SCR 
21.15(4) and 22.03(2) in respect to the district 
committee.  The committee may subpoena and compel the 
production of documents specified in SCR 22.03(8) and 
22.42. 
No. 
2007AP1004-D   
 
13 
 
The referee found Attorney Jones to be credible and remorseful.  
The referee noted Attorney Jones planned to give up the practice 
of criminal law, which contributed to his problems.  The referee 
recognized the problems Attorney Jones claimed——being overly 
busy, receiving modest fees, and having collection and staff 
problems——are "no doubt true."  The referee found credible 
Attorney Jones's stated intention of reducing his practice and 
better organizing his office.   
¶21 While finding that these factors failed to minimize 
the seriousness of the violations, the referee concluded that a 
four-month license suspension was appropriate.  The referee also 
recommended Attorney Jones make restitution of interest to his 
former client, E.B., at 12 percent per annum from the date that 
he was paid his fee to the date payment was returned.  The 
referee further stated Attorney Jones should pay the costs of 
this proceeding, amounting to $10,622.89.   
¶22 No appeal has been filed.  A referee's findings of 
fact are not overturned unless clearly erroneous.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 
Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 718.  We independently review the 
referee's legal conclusions.  Id.  It is our responsibility to 
determine the appropriate discipline.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Reitz, 2005 WI 39, ¶74, 279 Wis. 2d 550, 694 
N.W.2d 894.   
¶23 We consider the seriousness of the conduct as well as 
the need to protect the public, courts, and legal system from 
repetition of misconduct, to impress upon the attorney the 
No. 
2007AP1004-D   
 
14 
 
seriousness of the misconduct and to deter other attorneys from 
engaging in similar misconduct.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Arthur, 2005 WI 40, ¶78, 279 Wis. 2d 583, 
694 N.W.2d 910.  Although no two cases are alike, in In Re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Guenther, 2005 WI 133, 285 
Wis. 2d 587, 700 N.W.2d 260, an eight-month license suspension 
was ordered for two matters totaling 17 counts of misconduct 
involving numerous trust account discrepancies, failing to hold 
property in trust, failing to provide relevant information and 
answer questions fully or furnish documents to the OLR, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentations, and failing to keep a client 
reasonably informed.  See id., ¶¶7, 15, 26.  Attorney Guenther 
had been admitted to practice law in 1982, and had been subject 
to three previous private reprimands for misconduct.  See id., 
¶5. 
¶24 We accept the referee's recommended discipline.  We 
agree that Attorney Jones's serious disciplinary history calls 
for the suspension of his license.  Due to the circumstances 
considered by the referee, a four-month license suspension is 
appropriate.  We give weight to the referee's finding that 
Attorney Jones will be able to carry out his intention of 
limiting 
his 
practice 
and 
better 
organizing 
his 
office.  
Attorney Jones has stated his intention to give up a portion of 
his work he found to be contributing to his problems, his 
criminal practice.  The referee found that by limiting Attorney 
Jones's practice as planned, many of his management problems 
would be resolved.  Accordingly, we impose as a condition of 
No. 
2007AP1004-D   
 
15 
 
reinstatement that Attorney Jones demonstrate that he has 
limited his practice in accordance with his stated intentions. 
¶25 Unlike the Guenther case, in which an eight-month 
suspension was imposed for 17 counts of misconduct, here 12 
counts are involved and a condition of reinstatement is imposed 
that Attorney Jones limit his practice.  Also, the referee found 
that due to Attorney Jones's age, a lengthy license suspension 
would probably end his practice permanently, resulting in an 
unduly harsh sanction.  We approve the referee's findings of 
fact, conclusions of law and recommended discipline.  Under the 
circumstances, a four-month license suspension, together with 
restitution to client E.B. and the entire cost of this 
proceeding achieves the objectives of lawyer discipline.  We 
further require, as a condition of reinstatement, that Attorney 
Jones demonstrate that he has limited his practice in accordance 
with his stated intentions.   
¶26 IT IS ORDERED that Attorney Leroy Jones's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of four 
months, effective July 7, 2008. 
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Leroy Jones comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended.   
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Attorney Leroy Jones shall demonstrate that he 
has paid restitution to his former client, E.B., in the form of 
12 percent interest per annum from the time Attorney Leroy Jones 
No. 
2007AP1004-D   
 
16 
 
was paid to the time he returned E.B.'s payment.  If restitution 
is not paid within the specified time and absent a showing to 
this court of his inability to pay restitution within that time, 
the license of Attorney Leroy Jones to practice law in Wisconsin 
shall remain suspended until further order of this court. 
¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Leroy Jones pay the costs of this 
proceeding to the Office of Lawyer Regulation, amounting to 
$10,622.89.  Restitution shall be made before the payment of 
costs.  If the costs are not paid within the specified time, and 
absent a showing to this court of his inability to pay the costs 
within that time, the license of Attorney Leroy Jones shall 
remain suspended until further order of the court.     
¶30 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Leroy Jones, as a 
condition of reinstatement, shall demonstrate that he has 
procedures in place to carry out his stated intention to limit 
his areas of practice to exclude criminal law practice. 
¶31 LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., J., did not participate. 
 
 
No. 
2007AP1004-D   
 
 
 
1