Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. R. L. McNeely

Citation: 2008 WI 91

Docket Number: 2007AP000208-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2008-07-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
2008 WI 91 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2007AP208-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against R. L. McNeely, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
R. L. McNeely, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST McNEELY 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 15, 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 91
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2007AP208-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against R. L. McNeely, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
R. L. McNeely, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 15, 2008 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee, Dennis Flynn, that the license of Attorney R. L. 
McNeely to practice law in this state be suspended for a period 
of 60 days for professional misconduct.  Neither party appealed 
the referee's report, so this matter is submitted to the court 
for review pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).  We also consider Attorney 
McNeely's objection to the costs of this proceeding.   
No. 
2007AP208-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
We conclude that the referee's findings of fact are 
supported by satisfactory and convincing evidence.  We agree 
that the seriousness of Attorney McNeely's misconduct warrants 
the suspension of his license to practice law for 60 days.  
After careful consideration, we conclude that the costs of the 
proceeding, which are $3,710.27 as of January 17, 2008, should 
be assessed against him, and we deny the objection to the 
referee's costs. 
¶3 
Attorney McNeely was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin on January 10, 1995.  He has not been the subject of 
any prior disciplinary proceeding.  The Office of Lawyer 
Regulation 
(OLR) 
complaint 
alleges 
that 
Attorney 
McNeely 
committed three counts of professional misconduct involving the 
distribution of insurance settlement proceeds.   
¶4 
In May 2002 D.B. hired Attorney Jeffrey D. Berlin to 
represent him in a personal injury action for injuries D.B. 
sustained 
in 
an 
automobile 
accident. 
 
Attorney 
McNeely 
subsequently joined Attorney Berlin in this representation.1 
¶5 
On March 21, 2005, D.B. died from circumstances 
unrelated to the automobile accident.  Following his death, 
D.B.'s widow, C.B., contacted either Attorney Berlin or Attorney 
McNeely regarding the personal injury claim.   
                                                 
1 Attorney Berlin was suspended for six months for eight 
counts of professional misconduct committed in connection with 
this and other matters.  OLR v. Berlin, 2008 WI 4, 306 
Wis. 2d 288, 743 N.W.2d 683. 
No. 
2007AP208-D   
 
3 
 
¶6 
On April 5, 2005, Attorney McNeely prepared and filed 
a special administration petition in the D.B. estate, requesting 
that the probate court appoint C.B. as special administrator of 
D.B.'s estate to permit her to resolve D.B.'s personal injury 
claims arising out of the May 2002 accident.  
¶7 
On April 22, 2005, Attorney McNeely filed a civil 
summons and complaint in Milwaukee County circuit court seeking 
damages on behalf of D.B.'s estate and C.B. relating to the May 
2002 automobile accident. 
¶8 
On April 29, 2005, the Milwaukee County Child Support 
Agency filed four claims against D.B.'s estate for unpaid child 
support obligations totaling $126,200.28.   
¶9 
On or about May 24, 2005, American Family Insurance 
Group issued a check for $100,000 payable to "R. L. McNeely Law 
Office Clients Trust Account" to settle C.B.'s claims in 
connection with the personal injury action.  This settlement 
encompassed claims that C.B. made in her individual capacity, as 
well as claims made on behalf of D.B.'s estate.  C.B. had not 
been appointed special administrator of D.B.'s estate at the 
time the settlement was received. 
¶10 On June 3, 2005, C.B. signed a written release of all 
claims related to the automobile accident.   
¶11 On June 6, 2005, Attorney McNeely filed a notice of 
voluntary dismissal of the civil lawsuit relating to the 
automobile accident.  Attorney McNeely also sent a letter to the 
Milwaukee County register in probate on June 4, 2005.  In that 
letter Attorney McNeely said, in part, as follows: 
No. 
2007AP208-D   
 
4 
 
The above-captioned matter was scheduled for hearing 
on appointment of a special administrator, on June 22, 
2005, at 2:30 p.m.  The special administration was 
commenced to pursue a claim arising out of an 
automobile accident involving the deceased, occurring 
in May 2002.  A civil suit was commenced, . . . .  We 
have been unable to serve the other driver involved in 
the accident, and there are no outside witnesses.  
Therefore, we have entered a voluntary dismissal in 
the civil case, and there is no longer a need to 
pursue special administration.  I request that you 
take the matter off the court's calendar . . ., and 
close the file on this matter.   
¶12 Prior to disbursing the $100,000 settlement proceeds, 
Attorney Berlin had told Attorney McNeely that the American 
Family insurance adjuster handling the claim had authorized them 
to distribute the settlement proceeds as they saw fit.   
¶13 Prior to distribution of the settlement funds, the two 
attorneys did not discuss with C.B. actual or potential 
conflicts of interest that she might have regarding her 
individual interests and the interests of the Estate of D.B.  
Attorney McNeely asserts that Attorney Berlin did not raise 
those issues with him.  He asserts that he did not perceive 
there to be any difference between the individual interest of 
C.B. and the interest of the Estate of D.B.  The attorneys did 
not discuss or obtain any written waivers from C.B. regarding 
these potential or actual conflicts of interest.  The entire 
settlement (less attorney fees and litigation-related costs) was 
No. 
2007AP208-D   
 
5 
 
allocated to C.B., in her individual capacity.  This amount 
totaled $57,199.26.2 
¶14 Neither Attorney McNeely nor Attorney Berlin advised 
the probate court that a settlement had been received relating 
to D.B.'s May 2002 automobile accident or that these settlement 
proceeds had been disbursed.  In addition, neither Attorney 
McNeely nor Attorney Berlin advised the Milwaukee County Child 
Support Agency of the settlement. 
¶15 The parties to this disciplinary proceeding now agree 
that some portion of the $100,000 settlement proceeds may have 
belonged to the Estate of D.B.  It is undisputed that Attorney 
McNeely did not personally benefit as a result of allocating 100 
percent of the aggregate settlement to C.B. 
¶16 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that by 
participating with another attorney in making a full or 
aggregate settlement of two claims (C.B.'s individual claim and 
the claim of the Estate of D.B.) without consulting with the 
client or obtaining her informed written consent to do so, and 
by failing to inform and obtain authorization from the Milwaukee 
County probate court regarding the settlement, Attorney McNeely 
                                                 
2 Attorney 
McNeely 
disbursed 
the 
$100,000 
settlement 
proceeds received as follows:  C.B.: $57,199.26; Attorney 
Berlin: $16,665; Attorney McNeely: $17,442.87; Litigation costs: 
$359.54; and LeSafre Intl. Co. (medical creditor): $8,333.33. 
No. 
2007AP208-D   
 
6 
 
engaged in a prohibited transaction, in violation of former SCR 
20:1.8(g).3 
¶17 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that by 
making false statements of fact to the Milwaukee County register 
in probate in his letter of June 4, 2005, notably failing to 
disclose that a settlement had been reached that resulted in 
release of the estate's claims, Attorney McNeely knowingly made 
a false statement of fact to a tribunal in violation of SCR 
20:3.3(a)(1).4   
¶18 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that by 
engaging in conduct intended to allocate 100 percent of the 
aggregate settlement of both C.B.'s individual claims and the 
                                                 
3 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 20:1.8(g) provides:   
 
A lawyer who represents two or more clients shall 
not participate in making an aggregate settlement of 
the claims of or against the clients, or in a criminal 
case an aggregated agreement as to guilty or nolo 
contendere pleas, unless each client consents after 
consultation, including disclosure of the existence 
and nature of all the claims or pleas involved and of 
the participation of each person in the settlement. 
4 Former SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) states that a lawyer shall not 
knowingly "make a false statement of fact or law to a 
tribunal; . . . ." 
No. 
2007AP208-D   
 
7 
 
claims of the Estate of D.B. only to C.B. in her individual 
capacity, Attorney McNeely engaged in misconduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of 
SCR 20:8.4(c).5 
¶19 In their stipulation, Attorney McNeely and OLR agreed 
that a 60-day suspension of Attorney McNeely's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin was appropriate discipline for this 
misconduct.  
¶20 In considering the appropriate discipline, the referee 
observed that the misconduct in this matter involved multiple 
rule violations and that the victims of the misconduct include 
the client, the probate court, and persons or entities that may 
have had legitimate claims against the Estate of D.B.  However, 
the referee also noted that Attorney McNeely did not personally 
profit from this misconduct and that there was no evidence in 
the record that other claims would have been upheld. 
¶21 The referee considered six glowing letters of support 
submitted on Attorney McNeely's behalf that accompanied the 
stipulation.6  While noting that "the information does not 
directly mitigate Attorney McNeely's misconduct and does not 
change the appropriateness of the recommended sanction" the 
                                                 
5 Former SCR 20:8.4(c) states it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation; . . . ." 
6 Those letters, which are all exceedingly positive, were 
submitted by Attorney Lindsey D. Draper; Mr. Barry W. Givens; 
Professor Daniel D. Blinka; Rick Lovell, Ph.D.; Dean Stan 
Stojkovic; and Professor Thomas J. Hammer. 
No. 
2007AP208-D   
 
8 
 
referee described the letters as "powerful" and observed that 
"all six of the support letters give insight into a lawyer who 
has done much with his education and talents."   
¶22 The referee noted, however, that both Attorney McNeely 
and OLR still opted to jointly agree to the proposed 60-day 
suspension.  The referee observed that he was not inclined to 
"lightly set aside" this joint recommendation. 
¶23 The referee then recommended that Attorney McNeely's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for a period 
of 60 days and that he be assessed the costs of this 
disciplinary proceeding.   
¶24 We affirm the referee's findings of fact unless they 
are clearly erroneous.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Sosnay, 209 Wis. 2d 241, 243, 562 N.W.2d 137 (1997).  We 
review the referee's conclusions of law de novo.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 
Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 718.  In accordance with our authority 
to supervise the practice of law in this state, we determine the 
level of discipline that is appropriate under the particular 
circumstances, independent of the referee's recommendation, but 
benefiting from it.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶25 We adopt the referee's findings of fact in this case 
and we agree with the referee's conclusions of law.  We further 
agree with the referee's recommendation for a 60-day suspension 
of Attorney McNeely's license to practice law in Wisconsin.  
No. 
2007AP208-D   
 
9 
 
¶26 We turn to the question of costs.  On January 3, 2008, 
the OLR filed a statement of costs in the amount of $3,497.29, 
including referee fees and disbursements in the amount of 
$2,550.90.  On January 9, 2008, an itemized statement of costs 
was filed detailing these expenditures. 
¶27 On January 24, 2008, Attorney McNeely filed an 
objection to the referee's costs.  The objection was accompanied 
by an affidavit executed by one of Attorney McNeely's lawyers 
questioning the amount of time billed by the referee on a number 
of matters and suggesting that the time recorded was excessive 
for the tasks described in the statement of costs. 
¶28 We 
have 
carefully 
considered 
Attorney 
McNeely's 
objections to the referee's costs.  This proceeding included a 
joint stipulation, which frequently reduces the costs of a 
disciplinary proceeding.  However, the referee is still charged 
with ascertaining whether the facts of record support the facts 
set forth in the stipulation, and must reach an independent 
recommendation regarding appropriate discipline.  The report and 
recommendation rendered in this matter is thorough and was 
helpful to the court.  We find it appropriate to require 
Attorney McNeely to pay the full costs of this proceeding which, 
as of January 17, 2008, total $3,710.27. 
¶29 IT IS ORDERED that the license of R. L. McNeely to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective August 25, 2008. 
¶30 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
Attorney 
McNeely's 
objection to the costs of this proceeding is denied.  Within 60 
No. 
2007AP208-D   
 
10 
 
days of the date of this order, R. L. McNeely shall pay to the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If 
the costs are not paid within the time specified, and absent a 
showing to this court of his inability to pay the costs within 
that time, the license of R. L. McNeely to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the 
court. 
¶31 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney R. L. McNeely 
shall comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the 
duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin 
has been suspended. 
¶32 LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., J., did not participate. 
 
No. 
2007AP208-D   
 
 
 
1