Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jane Edgar

Citation: 2003 WI 49

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2003-05-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
2003 WI 49 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
02-2962-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jane Edgar, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
Jane Edgar,  
 
Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST EDGAR 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 28, 2003   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2003 WI 49 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  02-2962-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jane Edgar, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Jane Edgar,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 28, 2003 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the stipulation filed by 
Attorney Jane Edgar and the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
pursuant to SCR 22.12,1 which sets forth findings of fact and 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.12 provides:  Stipulation.  
(1) The director may file with the complaint a 
stipulation of the director and the respondent to the 
facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and 
discipline to be imposed.   The supreme court may 
consider the complaint and stipulation without the 
appointment of a referee.  
No. 
02-2962-D   
 
2 
 
conclusions of law regarding Attorney Edgar's professional 
misconduct.  Attorney Edgar is already under suspension for 
misconduct committed between 1996 and 1999. In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Edgar, 230 Wis. 2d 205, 601 N.W.2d 284 
(1999).  The 23 counts of misconduct that are the subject of 
this disciplinary proceeding were committed during the same 
period 
of 
time 
as 
the 
matters 
addressed 
in 
the 
prior 
disciplinary matter. 
¶2 
The parties have stipulated that a one-year suspension 
of Attorney Edgar's license to practice law is appropriate 
discipline for the additional incidents of misconduct described 
in the stipulation.  The parties also agree that the suspension 
should be imposed retroactively, so that it will run consecutive 
to the suspension imposed in the prior disciplinary matter.  The 
parties have stipulated further that Attorney Edgar shall pay 
restitution to four clients as set forth herein, and that 
Attorney Edgar's reinstatement shall be subject to certain 
conditions, which are also set forth herein. 
                                                                                                                                                             
(2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation, 
it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of 
law and impose the stipulated discipline.  
(3) If the supreme court rejects the stipulation, 
a referee shall be appointed and the matter shall 
proceed as a complaint filed without a stipulation.  
(4) A stipulation rejected by the supreme court 
has no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to 
the respondent's defense of the proceeding or the 
prosecution of the complaint. 
No. 
02-2962-D   
 
3 
 
¶3 
We accept the parties' stipulation and recommendation 
as to the appropriate discipline for Attorney Edgar. 
¶4 
Attorney Edgar was admitted to practice in 1985.  She 
was suspended effective March 22, 1999, for two years for 
converting $11,000 that belonged to a client and an adverse 
party in a divorce action, for commingling her own funds and 
client funds in her law office business account, for making 
deposits into and disbursements from that account for personal 
expenses, and for having falsely certified that she had a trust 
account and that she maintained that trust account and bank 
records in compliance with the applicable rules governing the 
conduct of attorneys.  Id.  
¶5 
The stipulation submitted to this court describes an 
additional 23 violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 
many of which were committed in the course of Attorney Edgar's 
handling of six client matters between 1996 and 1999.  The 
remaining violations relate to her failure to respond to or 
cooperate with the OLR's investigation into her misconduct. 
¶6 
Attorney Edgar suffers from depression.  She claims 
her depression affected her conduct.  Attorney Edgar is under 
the supervision of a psychiatrist and she receives social 
security disability benefits due to her depression.  She has 
advised the court that she does not have sufficient personal 
assets to enable her to pay the restitution she admittedly owes.  
However, the OLR notes that Attorney Edgar's depression is not 
technically 
a 
mitigating 
factor 
with 
respect 
to 
this 
No. 
02-2962-D   
 
4 
 
disciplinary 
proceeding 
because 
she 
has 
not 
medically 
established that depression was a causal factor in her conduct.   
¶7 
In December 2002 the OLR and Attorney Edgar agreed to 
resolve this matter and executed a stipulation pursuant to SCR 
22.12.  The stipulation states that Attorney Edgar failed to 
take reasonably practicable steps to protect her client's 
interests in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d)2 (six counts); failed to 
keep her client reasonably informed or to comply with the 
client's reasonable requests for information in violation of 
20:1.4(a)3 (five counts); failed to act with reasonable diligence 
in representing a client in violation of SCR 20:1.34 (four 
counts); failed to cooperate with grievance investigations in 
violation of former SCR 21.03(4)5 and former SCR 22.07(3)6 (five 
                                                 
2 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. 
3 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." 
4 SCR 20:1.3 provides: "Diligence. A lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client."  
5 Former SCR 21.03(4) applies to misconduct committed prior 
to October 1, 2000.  It provided: "(4) Every attorney shall 
cooperate 
with 
the 
board 
and 
the 
administrator 
in 
the 
investigation, prosecution and disposition of grievances and 
complaints filed with or by the board or administrator." 
No. 
02-2962-D   
 
5 
 
counts); failed to render a full accounting in connection with a 
fee advance in violation of SCR 20:1.15(b)7 (one count); 
practiced law while under CLE administrative suspension for a 
period of three weeks in violation of SCR 31.10(1)8 (one count); 
                                                                                                                                                             
6 Former SCR 22.07(3) applies to misconduct committed prior 
to October 1, 2000.  It provided:  
(3) The administrator or committee may compel the 
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents and 
present 
any 
information 
deemed 
relevant 
to 
the 
investigation. Failure of the respondent to answer 
questions, 
furnish 
documents 
or 
present 
relevant 
information is misconduct. The administrator or a 
committee may compel any other person to produce 
pertinent books, papers and documents under SCR 22.22. 
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 SCR 31.10(1) provides: 
(1) If 
a 
lawyer 
fails 
to 
comply 
with 
the 
attendance requirement of SCR 31.02, fails to comply 
with the reporting requirement of SCR 31.03(1), or 
fails to pay the late fee under SCR 31.03(2), the 
board shall serve a notice of noncompliance on the 
lawyer. This notice shall advise the lawyer that the 
state 
bar 
membership 
of 
the 
lawyer 
shall 
be 
automatically suspended for failing to file evidence 
of compliance or to pay the late fee within 60 days 
after service of the notice. The board shall certify 
the names of all lawyers so suspended under this rule 
to the clerk of the supreme court and to each judge of 
a court of record in this state. A lawyer shall not 
No. 
02-2962-D   
 
6 
 
and failed to obtain a written conflict waiver in violation of 
SCR 20:1.7(a)9 (one count). 
¶8 
In addition to stipulating to the facts relating to 
these incidents of misconduct, the parties stipulated to 
discipline in the form of a one-year suspension of Attorney 
Edgar's license to practice law in Wisconsin, to run consecutive 
to her present suspension.  The parties also agreed that 
Attorney Edgar should be required to make restitution of fees 
and costs collected in four client matters.  More specifically, 
the stipulation provides that Attorney Edgar should be ordered 
"to make restitution of unrefunded fees/costs in the Day, 
Goomey, Wudtke and Martin matters."  Stipulation at 32 (emphasis 
in original).  
¶9 
By order dated March 3, 2003, this court directed the 
parties to clarify the amount of restitution Attorney Edgar 
should be ordered to pay to each of the four clients identified 
                                                                                                                                                             
engage in the practice of law in Wisconsin while his 
or her state bar membership is suspended under this 
rule. 
9 SCR 20:1.7(a) provides: 
(a) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the 
representation of that client will be directly adverse 
to another client, unless:  
(1) the 
lawyer 
reasonably 
believes 
the 
representation 
will 
not 
adversely 
affect 
the 
relationship with the other client; and  
(2) each 
client 
consents 
in 
writing 
after 
consultation. 
 
No. 
02-2962-D   
 
7 
 
in the stipulation.  The OLR promptly filed a response, 
clarifying and supporting its position that Attorney Edgar 
should be required to make restitution to Neal Day in the amount 
of $1500; to Diane Goomey in the amount of $1000; to Mark Wudtke 
in the amount of $425; and to Anne L. Martin in the amount of 
$1700.   
¶10 On March 17, 2003, Attorney Edgar filed a letter 
stating that she did not agree with the amounts of restitution 
proposed by the OLR.  She requested an extension of time to 
search her business records and respond to the OLR's memorandum.  
The request was granted.  The deadline for Attorney Edgar's 
response has passed and she has filed nothing further with this 
court. 
¶11 Attorney Edgar has had repeated opportunities to 
provide any verification of amounts she earned or expended from 
these clients.  She has failed to do so.  The OLR's restitution 
assessment is consistent with the OLR's grievance investigation, 
its disciplinary complaint, and the SCR 22.12 stipulation.  We 
therefore adopt the amounts proposed by the OLR as appropriate 
restitution in this matter. 
¶12 Finally, 
the 
parties 
agreed 
that 
the 
following 
conditions should apply to Attorney Edgar's reinstatement:10 
(1) that Edgar's reinstatement be contingent 
upon her demonstrating that she has her 
depression 
and 
any 
other 
emotional 
or 
psychological problems under control, by her 
                                                 
10  Attorney Edgar has indicated that she no present plans 
to petition for reinstatement of her license to practice law. 
No. 
02-2962-D   
 
8 
 
submission 
to 
an 
independent 
medical 
examination 
(IME) 
by 
a 
health 
provider 
approved by the OLR, at her own expense; 
(2) that 
Edgar's 
licensure 
following 
reinstatement 
be 
conditioned 
on 
Edgar 
remaining in treatment as recommended by the 
IME and/or her therapist, monitored by the 
OLR via obtainment of quarterly reports for 
a 
period 
of 
two 
years 
following 
her 
reinstatement; 
(3) that 
Edgar's 
practice 
of 
law 
be 
monitored by an attorney approved by the OLR 
for 
a 
period 
of 
two 
years 
following 
reinstatement, 
unless 
Edgar 
is 
either 
employed by a law firm or practicing with 
another attorney aware of her disciplinary 
and medical history. 
¶13 It is relevant that many of the violations described 
in the parties' stipulation occurred at the same time as the 
violations that gave rise to the previous disciplinary matter.  
Indeed, some of the violations involved the same client matters.  
Accordingly, 
the 
parties 
suggest 
the 
one-year 
suspension 
stipulated to herein be made retroactive to March 21, 2001, the 
date Attorney Edgar's previous two-year license suspension 
ended.  The practical effect of this equates to the court having 
imposed an aggregate three-year license suspension for Attorney 
Edgar's cumulative misconduct in these two matters.   
¶14 We approve the stipulation and adopt the stipulated 
facts and conclusions of law as set forth therein.   We agree 
that Attorney Edgar's misconduct warrants the suspension of her 
license to practice law for a period of one year, subject to the 
conditions set forth herein, and we agree that it is appropriate 
for the one-year suspension we impose today to commence 
No. 
02-2962-D   
 
9 
 
effective March 21, 2001, in order to run consecutive to the 
suspension imposed in the prior disciplinary proceeding. We 
agree further that Attorney Edgar should be required to pay 
restitution to the four clients identified in the stipulation 
and we adopt the amounts of restitution proposed by the OLR.   
¶15 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Jane Edgar 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of one 
year, effective March 22, 2001. 
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Jane Edgar comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Jane Edgar is 
directed to make restitution of unrefunded fees and or costs to 
the following former clients, as follows: Neal Day: $1500; Diane 
Goomey: $1000; Mark Wudtke: $425; and Anne L. Martin: $1700.  If 
restitution is not made within 60 days, the license of Attorney 
Jane Edgar to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended 
until further order of the court. 
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reinstatement of 
Attorney Jane Edgar's license to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
be conditioned upon her satisfying the following conditions: 
(1) that Edgar's reinstatement be contingent 
upon her demonstrating that she has her 
depression 
and 
any 
other 
emotional 
or 
psychological problems under control, by her 
submission 
to 
an 
independent 
medical 
examination 
(IME) 
by 
a 
health 
provider 
approved by the OLR, at her own expense; 
No. 
02-2962-D   
 
10 
 
(2) that 
Edgar's 
licensure 
following 
reinstatement 
be 
conditioned 
on 
Edgar 
remaining in treatment as recommended by the 
IME and/or her therapist, monitored by the 
OLR via obtainment of quarterly reports for 
a 
period 
of 
two 
years 
following 
her 
reinstatement; and 
(3) that 
Edgar's 
practice 
of 
law 
be 
monitored by an attorney approved by the OLR 
for 
a 
period 
of 
two 
years 
following 
reinstatement, 
unless 
Edgar 
is 
either 
employed by a law firm or practicing with 
another attorney aware of her disciplinary 
and medical history. 
 
No. 
02-2962-D   
 
 
 
1