Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. William J. Gilbert

Citation: 2003 WI 131

Docket Number: 2003AP000445-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2003-10-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
2003 WI 131 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
03-0445-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against William J. Gilbert, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
William J. Gilbert,  
 
Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GILBERT 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 7, 2003   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2003 WI 131 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  03-0445-D  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against William J. Gilbert, Attorney at  
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
William J. Gilbert,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 7, 2003 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the referee's recommendation 
that Attorney William J. Gilbert's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin 
be 
suspended 
for 
six 
months 
for 
professional 
misconduct.  That misconduct consists of failing to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, 
failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of 
a matter, failing to hold property of a client or property in 
which both the lawyer and client claim an interest in trust 
No. 
03-0445-D   
 
2 
 
separate from the lawyer's own property until there is an 
accounting and a severing of their interests, failing to 
surrender papers and property to which the client was entitled 
upon termination of representation, and failing to cooperate 
with the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) in the investigation 
of grievances.  The referee also recommended that Attorney 
Gilbert be required to pay the costs of the proceeding and that 
in the event he seeks to have his license reinstated following 
the 
suspension, 
the 
reinstatement 
be 
subject 
to 
certain 
conditions.   
¶2 
We 
determine 
that 
the 
seriousness 
of 
Attorney 
Gilbert's professional misconduct warrants a suspension of his 
license to practice law for six months.  We also agree that 
Attorney Gilbert should pay the costs of the proceeding and that 
his reinstatement be subject to the conditions identified by the 
referee.  
¶3 
Attorney Gilbert was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1971 and practiced in Hudson.  On June 12, 2003, 
this court suspended Attorney Gilbert's license after he failed 
to respond to an order to show cause relating to his willful 
failure to respond or cooperate in the OLR's investigation of 
his conduct.  His license remains suspended.  
¶4 
The complaint filed by the OLR alleged misconduct with 
respect to two former clients.  The first client retained 
Attorney Gilbert in November of 1999 to represent him in a 
divorce.  The client paid Attorney Gilbert a retainer fee of 
$1500.  Attorney Gilbert deposited the $1500 retainer into his 
No. 
03-0445-D   
 
3 
 
office checking account.  At the time the money was deposited 
not all of the $1500 had been earned.  Attorney Gilbert failed 
to perform any work on the divorce action after March 31, 2000.  
The client called Attorney Gilbert on numerous occasions asking 
for updates on the status of his case.  Attorney Gilbert failed 
to return the client's phone calls.  The client also wrote to 
Attorney Gilbert at least three times requesting an itemized 
statement and requesting a return of any unused portion of the 
retainer.  Attorney Gilbert failed to respond to the client's 
letters and failed to provide the client with either an itemized 
statement or a return of any unearned portion of the retainer 
fee. 
¶5 
Attorney Gilbert withdrew from representation of the 
client on September 22, 2000.  Successor counsel, Attorney 
Daniel Demaio, entered an appearance in the case on June 27, 
2001.  Attorney Gilbert failed to send the client's file to 
Attorney Demaio, in spite of Attorney Demaio's request that he 
do so.  
¶6 
The client filed a grievance against Attorney Gilbert.  
On April 11, 2002, the OLR staff sent Attorney Gilbert a letter 
asking him to submit a written supplemental response addressing 
specific issues.  Attorney Gilbert failed to respond.  On May 2, 
2002, the OLR staff sent a second request, by both regular and 
certified mail, requesting a response from Attorney Gilbert.  
Attorney Gilbert again failed to respond.  The OLR staff 
telephoned Attorney Gilbert on two occasions and left voicemail 
No. 
03-0445-D   
 
4 
 
messages requesting a response.  Attorney Gilbert failed to 
return the OLR's telephone calls.   
¶7 
The OLR's complaint also alleged that Attorney Gilbert 
engaged in misconduct in his representation of two clients who 
hired him to represent them in a condemnation review against the 
Wisconsin Department of Transportation (DOT) concerning property 
the clients owned in St. Croix county.  Attorney Joseph Ryan was 
the clients' Minnesota attorney.  On August 8, 1999, Attorney 
Ryan forwarded a $2500 check to Attorney Gilbert for advance 
payment of costs.  In his cover letter Attorney Ryan requested 
that Attorney Gilbert provide him with a breakdown of the 
application of the $2500.  Attorney Gilbert failed to provide an 
accounting, claiming he had lost his trust account records for 
the relevant time period.  Attorney Gilbert said he placed the 
check in his trust account and paid out costs on the clients' 
behalf.   
¶8 
In December of 1999 Attorney Gilbert reached a 
settlement with the DOT by which the DOT agreed to pay the 
clients an additional $5528.16.  The DOT's attorney, a State of 
Wisconsin assistant attorney general, faxed a stipulation, order 
for dismissal, and release to Attorney Gilbert on December 20, 
1999.  On January 21, 2000, the DOT's attorney sent Attorney 
Gilbert the releases to be executed by his clients along with a 
State of Wisconsin check in the amount of $5528.16.  Attorney 
Gilbert failed to notify his clients in writing of his receipt 
of the check and failed to disburse the check to them.  Attorney 
No. 
03-0445-D   
 
5 
 
Gilbert lost the settlement check, made no prompt or diligent 
effort to locate it, and failed to obtain a replacement check.   
¶9 
A status hearing in the condemnation matter was 
scheduled for March 13, 2000.  Prior to that hearing the DOT's 
attorney sent two letters to the judge stating that Attorney 
Gilbert had failed to respond to the DOT attorney's January 21, 
2000, letter.  Attorney Gilbert failed to appear at the March 
13, 2000, status hearing.  The circuit court dismissed the 
action with prejudice, noting that the DOT had paid Attorney 
Gilbert's clients an additional $5528.16.   
¶10 Both the clients and Attorney Ryan attempted to 
contact Attorney Gilbert on numerous occasions to determine the 
status of the settlement check.  Attorney Gilbert failed to 
respond to any of the clients' calls and spoke with Attorney 
Ryan only once.  On December 3, 2001, Attorney Ryan contacted 
the DOT's attorney to obtain a replacement check.  On January 2, 
2002, the DOT's attorney forwarded a letter to Attorney Gilbert 
requesting permission to forward the replacement check to 
Attorney Ryan.  Attorney Gilbert failed to respond to the 
letter.  Following a January 28, 2002, letter, to which Attorney 
Gilbert again did not respond, the DOT's attorney sent Attorney 
Ryan a replacement check.   
¶11 Attorney Ryan filed a grievance against Attorney 
Gilbert.  On March 27, 2002, the OLR staff sent a letter to 
Attorney Gilbert asking him to submit a written response to 
Attorney Ryan's grievance on or before April 19, 20002.  
Attorney Gilbert failed to respond.  On May 2, 2002, the OLR 
No. 
03-0445-D   
 
6 
 
staff sent a second request, by certified mail, requesting a 
response from Attorney Gilbert.  Attorney Gilbert again failed 
to respond.  The OLR staff telephoned Attorney Gilbert on two 
occasions and left voicemail messages requesting a response.  
Attorney Gilbert failed to return the OLR's telephone calls.   
¶12 The OLR filed a complaint against Attorney Gilbert on 
February 18, 2003.  Janet Jenkins was appointed as referee.  
Attorney Gilbert was personally served with the order to answer 
but did not file an answer.  The referee found Attorney Gilbert 
to be in default.   
¶13 The referee concluded that by failing to perform any 
work on the first client's divorce action after March 31, 2000, 
Attorney Gilbert violated SCR 20:1.3.1  The referee also 
concluded that by failing to respond to the first client's 
written and telephonic inquiries and by failing to apprise the 
client of the status of the divorce action, Attorney Gilbert 
violated SCR 20:1.4(a).2  The referee further concluded that by 
failing to deposit and hold in trust the $1500 retainer received 
from the first client until the fees were earned, and by failing 
to provide the first client with an account of the funds upon 
his request, Attorney Gilbert violated SCR 20:1.15(a) and (d).3  
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.3 provides: "Diligence. A lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
2 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides: "(a) A lawyer shall keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly 
comply with reasonable requests for information." 
3 SCR 20:1.15(a) and (d) provide: 
No. 
03-0445-D   
 
7 
 
The referee also concluded that by failing to turn over the 
                                                                                                                                                             
(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 as provided in paragraph (c). The trust 
account shall be 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. The trust 
account shall be clearly designated as "Client's 
Account" or "Trust Account" or words of similar 
import. No funds belonging to the lawyer or law firm, 
except funds reasonably sufficient to pay or avoid 
imposition 
of 
account 
service 
charges, 
may 
be 
deposited in such an account. Unless the client 
otherwise directs in writing, securities in bearer 
form shall be kept by the attorney in a safe deposit 
box 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. The safe deposit box shall be 
clearly designated as "Client's Account" or "Trust 
Account" or words of similar import. Other property of 
a client or third person shall be identified as such 
and 
appropriately 
safeguarded. 
If 
a lawyer 
also 
licensed in another state is entrusted with funds or 
property 
in 
connection 
with 
an 
out-of-state 
representation, this provision shall not supersede the 
trust account rules of the other state. 
(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. 
03-0445-D   
 
8 
 
first client's file to successor counsel, Attorney Gilbert 
violated SCR 20:1.16(d).4  In addition, the referee concluded 
that by failing to file a written supplemental response to the 
first client's grievance despite the OLR's written request to do 
so, Attorney Gilbert willfully failed to cooperate with the OLR 
in the investigation of this matter, as defined in SCR 
22.001(9)(b),5 in violation of SCR 22.03(6).6   
¶14 With respect to Attorney Gilbert's representation of 
the second client, the referee concluded that by failing to take 
prompt and diligent steps to find the lost settlement check or 
to have a replacement check issued, by failing to respond to 
written 
requests 
from 
the 
DOT's 
attorney 
regarding 
the 
settlement check and its replacement, and by failing to appear 
                                                 
4 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides: 
(d) 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 22.001(9)(b) provides: "(9) 'Misconduct' means any of 
the following: (b) Failure to cooperate in the investigation of 
a grievance." 
6 SCR 
22.03(6) 
provides: 
"(6) In 
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. 
03-0445-D   
 
9 
 
at the March 13, 2000, status hearing, Attorney Gilbert violated 
SCR 20:1.3.  The referee also concluded that by failing to keep 
the second client or Attorney Ryan reasonably informed about the 
status of the settlement check, and by failing to respond to 
requests for information from the clients and Attorney Ryan, 
Attorney Gilbert violated SCR 20:1.4(a).   
¶15 The referee also found that by failing to promptly 
notify the clients or Attorney Ryan in writing of the receipt of 
the settlement check and by failing to promptly deliver to them 
the funds to which they were entitled, and by failing to render 
an accounting of the $2500 check to Attorney Ryan, Attorney 
Gilbert violated SCR 20:1.15(b).7  The referee further concluded 
by failing to retain required trust account records concerning 
the $2500 advanced to Attorney Gilbert by Attorney Ryan for the 
clients' costs, Attorney Gilbert violated SCR 20:1.15(e).8  
                                                 
7 SCR 20:1.15(b) provides:  
(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. 
8 Both the OLR's complaint and the referee's 
report 
erroneously cite to SCR 1.14(e), a nonexistent supreme court 
rule.  The rule applicable to retention of trust account records 
is SCR 20:1.15(e) which provides: 
(e) Complete records of trust account funds and 
other trust property shall be kept by the lawyer and 
No. 
03-0445-D   
 
10 
 
Finally, the referee concluded that by failing to file a written 
response to Attorney Ryan's grievance, after notification by the 
OLR by both regular and certified mail, Attorney Ryan willfully 
failed to cooperate with the OLR in the investigation of the 
matter, as defined in SCR 22.001(9)(b), in violation of SCR 
22.03(2),9 and SCR 22.03(6).  
                                                                                                                                                             
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 
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.  
9 SCR 22.03(2) provides:  
(2) Upon 
commencing 
an 
investigation, 
the 
director shall notify the respondent of the matter 
being investigated unless in the opinion of the 
director the investigation of the matter requires 
otherwise. The respondent shall fully and fairly 
disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct within 20 days after being served 
No. 
03-0445-D   
 
11 
 
¶16 In discussing the appropriate sanction for Attorney 
Gilbert's misconduct, the referee commented: 
It 
is 
particularly 
difficult 
to 
make 
a 
recommendation for sanctions when the attorney who is 
the 
subject 
of 
the 
misconduct 
action 
fails 
to 
participate in the action.  One cannot ascertain 
whether the misconduct was intentional or negligent or 
what problems or conditions may have affected the 
attorney and which might serve as an explanation for 
the misconduct.  Moreover, one has no way of gauging 
whether the attorney's potential for rehabilitation is 
great 
or 
nonexistent 
or 
whether 
there 
are 
any 
mitigating factors.  By choosing not to participate in 
the action, the attorney has reduced himself to simply 
a collection of allegations against him.  Having no 
basis on which to judge William J. Gilbert, the man, I 
can only judge his misconduct.  
¶17 The referee concluded that a six-month suspension of 
Attorney Gilbert's license to practice law was appropriate.  The 
referee noted that in both matters clients had paid substantial 
sums to Attorney Gilbert for his assistance and in both cases 
Attorney Gilbert did some initial work on the files and then 
stopped, almost as if he had vanished.  The referee noted that 
Attorney Gilbert failed to respond to phone calls and letters, 
both from the clients themselves and from the OLR.  The referee 
also commented that having practiced for more than 30 years, 
Attorney Gilbert knew or should have known what was required of 
                                                                                                                                                             
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 
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents, and 
present 
any 
information 
deemed 
relevant 
to 
the 
investigation. 
No. 
03-0445-D   
 
12 
 
him with respect to trust accounting, and the referee said the 
fact that Attorney Gilbert had not previously run afoul of the 
trust accounting rules demonstrated that for the better part of 
his legal career he did follow the rules.   
¶18 The referee said since Attorney Gilbert chose to 
remain silent it was impossible to even speculate as to the 
cause of his misconduct.  The referee said, "[w]hat we are left 
with is a lawyer who appears to either no longer care about his 
ethical responsibilities or who, for some unknown reason, is 
incapable of caring.  Both possibilities raise grave concern for 
the protection of Gilbert's present and potential future 
clients."  The referee recommended that Attorney Gilbert's 
license to practice be suspended for six months and that he be 
required to pay the costs of the proceeding.  
¶19 The referee also recommended that, in the event 
Attorney Gilbert seeks to have his license reinstated following 
the six-month suspension, the reinstatement be subject to the 
following conditions: (1) That he provide a full and complete 
accounting to Attorney Ryan and the first client in their 
respective matters; (2) that he submit a business or office 
management plan which establishes a daily diary, a daily 
calendar, an appropriate filing system that reflects daily 
entries, and an appropriate billing system; (3) that he meet 
with a mentor on a periodic basis to ensure compliance with 
these conditions; and (4) in the event the required accountings 
for the two client matters are unavailable or if the accountings 
reveal Attorney Gilbert did not earn all of the first client's 
No. 
03-0445-D   
 
13 
 
retainer or utilize all of the second client's costs advance, 
that Attorney Gilbert be required to pay restitution for the 
amounts not spent or earned.  
¶20 A referee's findings of fact on a disciplinary matter 
will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Sosnay, 209 Wis. 2d 241, 243, 
562 N.W.2d 137 (1997).  Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.  
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll, 2000 WI 130, 248 
Wis. 2d 662, 675, 636 N.W.2d 718.  Since the referee's findings 
of fact have not been shown to be clearly erroneous, we adopt 
them.  We also conclude, as did the referee, that the 
seriousness of Attorney 
Gilbert's 
misconduct 
warrants the 
suspension of his license to practice law in Wisconsin for six 
months.  We further agree with the referee that Attorney Gilbert 
should be required to pay the costs of this proceedings, and we 
also agree that in the event he seeks to have his license 
reinstated, 
the 
reinstatement 
should 
be 
subject 
to 
the 
conditions discussed above.   
¶21 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney William J. 
Gilbert to practice law in Wisconsin remains suspended for a 
period of an additional six months, effective the date of this 
order. 
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney William J. Gilbert 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended, if he has not already done so.  
No. 
03-0445-D   
 
14 
 
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney William J. Gilbert 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 the costs within that time, 
the license of Attorney William J. Gilbert to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the 
court.   
¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event Attorney 
William J. Gilbert seeks to have his license reinstated 
following the suspension, the reinstatement be subject to the 
following conditions: (1) That he provide a full and complete 
accounting to Attorney Ryan and the first client in their 
respective matters; (2) that he submit a business or office 
management plan which establishes a daily diary, a daily 
calendar, an appropriate filing system that reflects daily 
entries, and an appropriate billing system; (3) that he meet 
with a mentor on a periodic basis to ensure compliance with 
these conditions; and (4) in the event the required accountings 
for the two client matters are unavailable or if the accountings 
reveal Attorney Gilbert did not earn all of the first client's 
retainer or utilize all of the second client's costs advance, 
that Attorney Gilbert be required to pay restitution for the 
amounts not spent or earned. 
No. 
03-0445-D   
 
 
 
1