Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Bridget E. Boyle

Citation: 2014 WI 77

Docket Number: 2014AP000272-D, 2013AP001592-D, 2012AP002423-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2014-07-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
2014 WI 77 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2012AP2423-D, 2013AP1592-D, 2014AP272-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Bridget E. Boyle, Attorney at Law, 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Bridget E. Boyle, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BOYLE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 18, 2014 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
         
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
BRADLEY, J., concurs. (Opinion filed.) 
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the respondent-appellant, there was a brief by Bridget 
Boyle, Milwaukee. 
 
 
For the complainant-respondent, there was a brief by Robert 
G. Krohn and Roethe Pope Roethe LLP, Edgerton.  
 
 
 
2014 WI 77
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
Nos.    
2012AP2423-D 
 
2013AP1592-D 
 
2014AP272-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Bridget E. Boyle, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 18, 2014 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
revoked. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney Bridget E. Boyle has filed a 
petition for the consensual revocation of her license to 
practice law in Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 22.19.1  Attorney 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.19 provides as follows:   
Petition for consensual license revocation. 
(1)  An attorney who is the subject of an 
investigation 
for 
possible 
misconduct 
or 
the 
respondent in a proceeding may file with the supreme 
court a petition for the revocation by consent or his 
or her license to practice law. 
Nos. 2012AP2423-D 
2013AP1592-D 
2014AP272-D   
 
2 
 
Boyle's petition states that she cannot successfully defend 
against seven Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) grievance 
investigations in which the Preliminary Review Committee (PRC) 
has found cause to proceed as to multiple counts of misconduct, 
as well as seven additional pending OLR grievance matters that 
have not yet been fully investigated by the OLR or brought to 
the PRC for its consideration.  Attorney Boyle's petition 
further states that she cannot successfully defend against 22 
                                                                                                                                                             
(2)  The petition shall state that the petitioner 
cannot successfully defend against the allegations of 
misconduct. 
(3)  If a complaint has not been filed, the 
petition shall be filed in the supreme court and shall 
include the director's summary of the misconduct 
allegations being investigated.  Within 20 days after 
the date of filing of the petition, the director shall 
file in the supreme court a recommendation on the 
petition.  Upon a showing of good cause, the supreme 
court may extend the time for filing a recommendation. 
(4)  If a complaint has been filed, the petition 
shall be filed in the supreme court and served on the 
director and on the referee to whom the proceeding has 
been assigned.  Within 20 days after the filing of the 
petition, the director shall file in the supreme court 
a response in support of or in opposition to the 
petition and serve a copy on the referee.  Upon a 
showing of good cause, the supreme court may extend 
the time for filing a response.  The referee shall 
file a report and recommendation on the petition in 
the supreme court within 30 days after receipt of the 
director's response. 
(5) The supreme court shall grant the petition 
and revoke the petitioner's license to practice law or 
deny the petition and remand the matter to the 
director or to the referee for further proceedings. 
Nos. 2012AP2423-D 
2013AP1592-D 
2014AP272-D   
 
3 
 
counts of professional misconduct in four grievance matters 
which are the subject of a pending appeal before this court, In 
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bridget E. Boyle, Case 
No. 2012AP2423-D.  Attorney Boyle's petition further states that 
she cannot successfully defend against 15 counts of professional 
misconduct alleged in the OLR's complaint, filed July 18, 2013, 
in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bridget Boyle, Case 
No. 2013AP1592-D. 
¶2 
Attorney Boyle was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in 1995 and, prior to her most recent disciplinary 
suspension, practiced in Milwaukee.  Attorney Boyle has a 
lengthy disciplinary history, and her license to practice law in 
this state is currently suspended.  Her prior disciplinary 
matters can be summarized as follows: 
¶3 
In 2008 Attorney Boyle was privately reprimanded for 
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 promptly 
comply with reasonable requests for information; and failing to 
explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit 
the 
client 
to 
make 
informed 
decisions 
regarding 
the 
representation.  Private Reprimand, No. 2008-09. 
¶4 
In 2012 Attorney Boyle was suspended for 60 days for 
failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing a client; failing to communicate appropriately with 
a client; failing to promptly respond to a client's request for 
Nos. 2012AP2423-D 
2013AP1592-D 
2014AP272-D   
 
4 
 
information concerning fees and expenses; failing to take steps 
to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's 
interest; failing to cooperate with an OLR investigation into 
her conduct; willfully failing to provide relevant information, 
fully answer questions, or furnish documents in the course of an 
OLR investigation; and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Boyle, 2012 WI 54, 341 Wis. 2d 92, 813 
N.W.2d 215.  
¶5 
In 2012 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals disbarred 
Attorney Boyle from further practice in that court for her 
abandonment of her client in a criminal case.  In re Bridget 
Boyle-Saxton, 668 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2012). 
¶6 
In 2013 Attorney Boyle was suspended for six months 
for failing to keep her client reasonably informed about the 
status of a matter; failing to promptly comply with her client's 
reasonable requests for information; failing to communicate the 
basis for her fee; failing to promptly respond to a client's 
request for information concerning fees and expenses; failing to 
return a client's file upon termination of representation;  
failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing a client; charging an unreasonable fee; failing to 
hold unearned fees and advanced payments of fees in trust until 
earned; and failing to refund unearned fees.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Boyle, 2013 WI 103, 351 Wis. 2d 713, 840 
Nos. 2012AP2423-D 
2013AP1592-D 
2014AP272-D   
 
5 
 
N.W.2d 694.  This six-month suspension went into effect on 
January 30, 2014, and her license remains suspended. 
¶7 
Attached to Attorney Boyle's petition for revocation 
are the following three documents:  (1) the OLR's summary of 
misconduct allegations in 14 pending investigative matters that 
have not been publicly charged; (2) the referee's report in Case 
No. 2012AP2423-D in which the referee determined that Attorney 
Boyle engaged in 22 counts of misconduct in four grievance 
matters and recommended an 18-month suspension of Attorney 
Boyle's 
law 
license; 
and 
(3) 
the 
complaint 
in 
Case 
No. 2013AP1592-D, filed July 18, 2013, in which the OLR alleged 
that Attorney Boyle engaged in 15 counts of misconduct in five 
grievance matters and asked for a one-year license suspension. 
¶8 
It is not necessary to describe the particular factual 
allegations 
of 
each 
representation. 
 
A 
synopsis 
of 
the 
information contained in the attachments to Attorney Boyle's 
petition for revocation will provide a sufficient description of 
the nature and scope of her professional misconduct. 
¶9 
The OLR's summary of misconduct allegations in the 14 
pending investigative matters that have not been publicly 
charged synopsizes alleged violations or potential violations of 
the following rules:  SCR 1.1 (failing to provide competent 
representation); SCR 20:1.2(a) (failing to abide by the client's 
decisions 
concerning 
the 
objectives 
of 
representation); 
SCR 20:1.3 (failing to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing a client); SCR 20:1.4(a)(2) (failing 
Nos. 2012AP2423-D 
2013AP1592-D 
2014AP272-D   
 
6 
 
to reasonably consult with a client about the means by which the 
client's objectives are to be accomplished); SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) 
(failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status 
of a matter); SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) (failing to promptly comply with 
reasonable 
requests 
by 
the 
client 
for 
information); 
SCR 20:1.4(b) (failing to explain a matter to the extent 
reasonably necessary to permit a client to make informed 
decisions regarding the representation); SCR 20:1.5(a) (charging 
an unreasonable fee);  SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) (failing to adequately 
explain the basis on which lawyer's fee would be calculated); 
SCR 20:1.5(b)(3) (failing to promptly respond to a client's 
request 
for 
information 
concerning 
fees 
and 
expenses); 
SCR 20:1.9 (operating under a conflict of interest with a former 
client); SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) (failing to deposit advanced payments 
of fees and costs into trust account); SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m) 
(depositing unearned advanced fees payment in business account 
rather than in trust account without complying with the notice, 
accounting, and arbitration requirements of SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m)); 
SCR 20:1.15(g)(1) (failing to notify clients of withdrawal of 
non-contingent fees from trust account); SCR 20:1.16(d) (failing 
to take steps to protect client's interests upon termination of 
representation); 
SCR 20:3.4(c) 
(knowingly 
disobeying 
an 
obligation under the rules of a tribunal); SCR 20:5.3 (failing 
to properly supervise nonlawyer assistants); SCR 20:8.4(c) 
(engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or 
misrepresentation); SCR 22.03(2) (failing to cooperate with an 
Nos. 2012AP2423-D 
2013AP1592-D 
2014AP272-D   
 
7 
 
OLR investigation); SCR 22.03(6) (failing to provide relevant 
information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish documents 
in the course of an OLR investigation); and SCR 22.26(1) 
(failing to comply with the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended). 
¶10 The referee's report and recommendation in Case 
No. 2012AP2423-D sets forth the referee's determination that 
Attorney Boyle engaged in 22 counts of misconduct in four 
grievance matters.  Attorney Boyle had appealed from this report 
and 
recommendation, 
but 
now 
concedes 
that 
she 
cannot 
successfully defend herself against the professional misconduct 
described in the report and recommendation.  The misconduct, as 
determined by the referee, involved violations of the following 
rules: 
 
SCR 
20:1.1 
(failing 
to 
provide 
competent 
representation); SCR 20:1.2(a) (failing to abide by a client's 
decisions 
concerning 
the 
objectives 
of 
representation); 
SCR 20:1.3 (failing to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing a client); SCR 20:1.4(a)(2) (failing 
to reasonably consult with a client about the means by which the 
client's objectives are to be accomplished); SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) 
(failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status 
of a matter); SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) (failing to promptly comply with 
reasonable 
requests 
by 
the 
client 
for 
information); 
SCR 20:1.5(a) (charging an unreasonable fee); SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) 
(failing to adequately explain the basis on which the lawyer's 
fee 
would 
be 
calculated); 
SCR 
20:1.5(b)(2) 
(failing 
to 
Nos. 2012AP2423-D 
2013AP1592-D 
2014AP272-D   
 
8 
 
communicate in writing to the client the purpose and effect of 
any retainer or advance fee that is paid to the lawyer); 
SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) (failing to hold in trust property of clients 
and third parties that is in the lawyer's possession in 
connection with a presentation); SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) (failing to 
deposit advanced payments of fees and costs into trust account); 
SCR 20:1.16(a)(2) (failing to withdraw from representation when 
the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the 
lawyer's ability to represent the client); SCR 20:1.16(d) 
(failing to take steps to protect client's interests upon 
termination of representation); SCR 20:3.2 (failing to make  
reasonable efforts to expedite litigation of the client's case); 
SCR 20:3.4(c) (knowingly disobeying an obligation under the 
rules of a tribunal); and SCR 20:8.4(c)(engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation). 
¶11 The OLR's complaint in Case No. 2013AP1592-D against 
Attorney Boyle alleges that that she engaged in 15 counts of 
misconduct in five grievance matters.  The alleged misconduct 
involved violations of the following rules:  SCR 20:1.2(a) 
(failing to abide by the client's decisions concerning the 
objectives of representation); SCR 20:1.3 (failing to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client); 
SCR 20:1.4(a)(2) (failing to reasonably consult with a client 
about the means by which the client's objectives are to be 
accomplished); SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) (failing to keep a client 
reasonably 
informed 
about 
the 
status 
of 
a 
matter); 
Nos. 2012AP2423-D 
2013AP1592-D 
2014AP272-D   
 
9 
 
SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) (failing to promptly comply with reasonable 
requests by the client for information); SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) 
(failing to adequately explain the basis on which the lawyer's 
fee 
would 
be 
calculated); 
SCR 
20:1.5(b)(2) 
(failing 
to 
communicate in writing to the client the purpose and effect of 
any retainer or advance fee that is paid to the lawyer); 
SCR 20:1.5(b)(3) (failing to promptly respond to a client's 
request 
for 
information 
concerning 
fees 
and 
expenses); 
SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) (failing to deposit advanced payments of fees 
and costs into trust account); SCR 20:1.16(d) (failing to take 
steps 
to 
protect 
client's 
interests 
upon 
termination 
of 
representation); SCR 22.03(2) (failing to cooperate with an OLR 
investigation); and SCR 22.03(6) (failing to provide relevant 
information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish documents 
in the course of an OLR investigation). 
¶12 Attorney Boyle's petition for consensual revocation 
states that she cannot successfully defend herself against the 
allegations of professional misconduct set forth in the OLR's 
summary of the matters still in the investigative process, the 
referee's report and recommendation in Case No. 2012AP2423-D, 
and the OLR's complaint in Case No. 2013AP1592-D.  Attorney 
Boyle's 
petition 
asserts 
that 
she 
is 
seeking 
consensual 
revocation freely, voluntarily, and knowingly.  Attorney Boyle 
states that she understands she is giving up her right to 
further contest the OLR's allegations.  She further acknowledges 
that she has been given the opportunity to consult with counsel. 
Nos. 2012AP2423-D 
2013AP1592-D 
2014AP272-D   
 
10 
 
¶13 The OLR's report and recommendation in support of the 
petition contains a restitution request.  The OLR requests that 
Attorney Boyle be ordered to pay restitution in the amount of 
$2,000 to former client J.T.; $10,000 to former client P.K.; and 
$5,000 to former client D.H.2  The OLR further requests that 
Attorney Boyle be ordered to pay the amount of any award 
resulting from a November 2013 State Bar of Wisconsin fee 
arbitration hearing concerning her former client, L.W.3  Attorney 
Boyle's petition states that she agrees that she should be 
ordered to pay these restitution amounts. 
¶14 Having reviewed Attorney Boyle's petition, the OLR's 
summary of misconduct allegations in pending investigative 
matters, the referee's report in Case No. 2012AP2423-D, and the 
OLR's complaint in Case No. 2013AP1592-D, we conclude that the 
petition for consensual revocation should be granted.  It is 
clear from the descriptions of the various representations that 
Attorney Boyle has engaged in a widespread pattern of serious 
professional misconduct that has harmed her clients.  It is also 
clear that Attorney Boyle is currently unwilling or unable to 
                                                 
2 Although the subject of some confusion during the pendency 
of the instant matter, the OLR confirmed in a May 23, 2014 
filing with the court that it does not seek restitution for any 
of the matters described in the OLR's complaint in Case 
No. 2013AP1592-D.  We accede to the OLR's judgment on this 
issue. 
3 In its report and recommendation in support of Attorney 
Boyle's petition, the OLR states that the parties are currently 
awaiting the arbitrator's decision. 
Nos. 2012AP2423-D 
2013AP1592-D 
2014AP272-D   
 
11 
 
conform her conduct to the standards that are required to 
practice law in this state. 
¶15 Attorney Boyle asks the court to make her revocation 
effective as of January 30, 2014, the effective date of her six-
month 
license 
suspension 
imposed 
in 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Boyle, 2013 WI 103, 351 Wis. 2d 713, 840 
N.W.2d 694.  The OLR endorses this request in its report and 
recommendation in support of the petition.  We reject Attorney 
Boyle's request.   Customarily, the effective date of a license 
revocation to be imposed for a lawyer's misconduct is the date 
of the court's order imposing the revocation.  We see no reason 
to depart from that practice here. 
¶16 We further determine, in light of the OLR's report and 
Attorney Boyle's agreement, that Attorney Boyle should be 
required to pay $2,000 to former client J.T.; $10,000 to former 
client P.K.; $5,000 to former client D.H.; and the amount of any 
award resulting from the November 2013 State Bar of Wisconsin 
fee arbitration hearing concerning her former client, L.W. 
¶17 Finally, we impose full costs.  The OLR seeks costs 
totaling $13,272.42 as of February 21, 2014.4 This figure 
                                                 
4 We note that on May 21, 2014, the OLR filed an "Amended 
Statement of Costs and Recommendation" in Case No. 2013AP1592-D.  
This document lists approximately $600.00 in costs beyond those 
described in the OLR's February 21, 2014 recommendation in 
support of Attorney Boyle's petition for revocation.  In the 
interest of judicial efficiency, we look only to the cost total 
in the OLR's February 21, 2014 recommendation, as that total has 
long been settled by virtue of Attorney Boyle's choice not to 
object to it. 
Nos. 2012AP2423-D 
2013AP1592-D 
2014AP272-D   
 
12 
 
represents the costs incurred by the OLR in the pending appeal 
before 
this 
court, 
Case 
No. 
2012AP2423-D, 
and 
in 
the 
disciplinary matter that led to the filing of the complaint in 
Case No. 2013AP1592-D.  Under SCR 22.24(1m), this court's 
general policy is to impose full costs.  Attorney Boyle has not 
objected to the OLR's requested costs and has not alleged any 
factors that would justify a reduction in costs. Consequently, 
Attorney Boyle shall bear the entire costs of this disciplinary 
proceeding. 
¶18 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for consensual license 
revocation is granted. 
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of Bridget E. 
Boyle to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the 
date of this order. 
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Bridget E. Boyle shall pay restitution in the 
amount of $2,000 to former client J.T.; $10,000 to former client 
P.K.; $5,000 to former client D.H.; and the amount of any award 
resulting from the November 2013 State Bar of Wisconsin fee 
arbitration hearing concerning her former client, L.W. 
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Bridget E. Boyle shall pay the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified 
above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation. 
Nos. 2012AP2423-D 
2013AP1592-D 
2014AP272-D   
 
13 
 
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent she has not 
already done so, Bridget E. Boyle shall comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked. 
 
 
 
 
 
Nos.  2012AP2423-D, 2013AP1592-D, 2014AP272-D.awb 
 
1 
 
¶24 ANN 
WALSH 
BRADLEY, 
J.   (concurring). 
 
I 
write 
separately to address the issue of restitution.  On May 6, 2014, 
the referee assigned to Case No. 2013AP1592-D, Attorney James W. 
Mohr, Jr., filed a report and recommendation pursuant to SCR 
22.19(4).  In his report, Referee Mohr recommended that the 
court revoke Attorney Boyle's Wisconsin law license, order her 
to pay the full costs of the proceeding, and order her to pay a 
total of $21,500 in restitution, less any provable offsets.  I 
would order the restitution recommended by Referee Mohr.   
 
 
Nos.  2012AP2423-D, 2013AP1592-D, 2014AP272-D.awb 
 
 
 
1