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

Citation: 2011 WI 7

Docket Number: 2009AP001830-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2011-02-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
2011 WI 7 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2009AP1830-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
William J. Grogan, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
William J. Grogan, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GROGAN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 4, 2011   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: PROSSER, J. did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
2011 WI 7
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2009AP1830-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against William J. Grogan, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
William J. Grogan, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
FILED 
 
FEB 4, 2011 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the referee's recommendation 
that Attorney William J. Grogan's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin be suspended for 60 days for professional misconduct.  
The referee also recommends conditions for reinstatement.  The 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a complaint alleging 
five counts of misconduct for failing to comply with trust 
account regulations and a sixth count for failing to provide 
information regarding trust account records and management.  
Richard P. Mozinski was appointed referee.  The referee accepted 
No. 
2009AP1830-D   
 
2 
 
Attorney Grogan's stipulation that the allegations of the 
complaint 
were 
established 
by 
clear, 
satisfactory, 
and 
convincing evidence.   
¶2 
No appeal has been filed.  We approve and adopt the 
stipulated facts and conclusions of law.  We agree the 
seriousness of Attorney Grogan's misconduct warrants a 60-day 
suspension of his license to practice law, and we approve the 
recommended reinstatement conditions.  We impose costs of 
$6,425.53. 
¶3 
Attorney Grogan was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1978.  He has practiced in Appleton.  In 1994 
Attorney Grogan was reprimanded for failing to file timely 
income and withholding tax returns, and failing to provide 
information in a timely fashion during an OLR investigation.  
See Public Reprimand of William J. Grogan, 2007-06. 
¶4 
In the instant proceeding, the referee found facts as 
follows.  Attorney Grogan filed a bankruptcy petition in 2005.  
The creditors included the IRS, which had seized $4,000 in 2005, 
and the Wisconsin Department of Revenue, which had seized $2,000 
in 2004.  The bankruptcy was dismissed with Attorney Grogan's 
consent on March 14, 2006. 
¶5 
During the pendency of his bankruptcy, Attorney Grogan 
opened a client trust account on March 10, 2006.  Attorney 
Grogan made a series of deposits into the trust account, 
including unidentified cash deposits.  He also disbursed a 
number 
of 
checks 
for 
personal 
purposes 
and 
made 
cash 
No. 
2009AP1830-D   
 
3 
 
withdrawals.  The bank reported 16 overdrafts totaling $9,016.72 
during July 2008.   
¶6 
Attorney Grogan admitted he had used his trust account 
as a business and personal account.  He said he had a business 
account, but it had been closed due to overdrafts before he had 
opened the trust account.  He did not maintain a personal 
account.  
¶7 
Beginning in May 2007, OLR sent multiple requests for 
trust account information to Attorney Grogan.  Attorney Grogan 
did not fully respond to the requests until June 12, 2008.  The 
OLR requested additional information and trust account records 
from Attorney Grogan on July 18, 2008, and again on July 25, 
2008.   
¶8 
On July 28, 2008, the bank informed Attorney Grogan 
his trust account would be closed for "NSF" and unusual account 
activity.  Attorney Grogan advised the OLR that no client 
matters were involved with the overdrafts, and within a few days 
he would provide the records the OLR requested on July 18, 2008.  
However, as of November 10, 2008, he had failed to produce the 
records or his response.  The records were not produced until 
after this court ordered Attorney Grogan to show cause why his 
license should not be suspended for willful failure to cooperate 
with an OLR investigation.  
¶9 
The referee concluded Grogan engaged in six counts of 
professional misconduct: 
• Count 1.  By placing personal and business funds into his 
client trust account, thereby depositing and retaining funds 
No. 
2009AP1830-D   
 
4 
 
belonging to himself in his client trust account, Attorney 
Grogan violated former SCR 20:1.15(b)(3).1 
• Count 2.  By failing to maintain a business account, 
Attorney Grogan violated SCR 20:1.15(e)(8).2 
• Count 3.  By making 46 cash withdrawals from the trust 
account totaling $5,880.20, and by disbursing two checks 
totaling 
$720 
payable 
to 
cash, 
Attorney 
Grogan 
violated 
SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)a.3 
• Count 4.  By failing to maintain client ledgers, Attorney 
Grogan violated SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)b.4 
                                                 
1 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).  The conduct alleged in all 
but Count 6 arose prior to July 1, 2007.  Unless otherwise 
indicated, all references to the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules 
will be to those in effect from July 1, 2004, through June 30, 
2007. 
Former SCR 20:1.15(b)(3) provided, "No funds belonging to 
the lawyer or law firm, except funds reasonably sufficient to 
pay monthly account service charges, may be deposited or 
retained in a trust account." 
2 Former SCR 20:1.15(e)(8) stated that "[e]ach lawyer who 
receives trust funds shall maintain at least one demand account, 
other than the trust account, for funds received and disbursed 
other than in the lawyer's trust capacity, which shall be 
entitled 
'Business 
Account,' 
'Office 
Account,' 
'Operating 
Account,' or words of similar import." 
3 Former 
SCR 
20:1.15(e)(4)a. 
provided 
that 
"[n]o 
disbursement of cash shall be made from a trust account or from 
a deposit to a trust account, and no check shall be made payable 
to 'Cash.'" 
4 Former SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)b. stated as follows: 
No. 
2009AP1830-D   
 
5 
 
• Count 5.  By failing to identify the client or matter 
relating to each deposit on his deposit slips, particularly the 
72 cash deposits totaling $19,470, Attorney Grogan violated 
SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)d.5 
• Count 6.  By failing to respond to the OLR's multiple 
written requests for trust account records and by failing to 
answer questions regarding the management of his trust account, 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
Individual client ledgers.  A subsidiary ledger 
shall be maintained for each client or matter for 
which the lawyer receives trust funds, and the lawyer 
shall record each receipt and disbursement of that 
client's 
funds 
and 
the 
balance 
following 
each 
transaction.  A lawyer shall not disburse funds from 
the trust account that would create a negative balance 
with respect to any individual client or matter. 
5 Former SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)d. provided, in pertinent part, as 
follows: "Deposit records.  Deposit slips shall identify the 
name of the lawyer or law firm, and the name of the account.  
The deposit slip shall identify the amount of each deposit item, 
the client or matter associated with each deposit item, and the 
date of the deposit." 
No. 
2009AP1830-D   
 
6 
 
Attorney Grogan violated former SCR 20:1.15(e)(7)6 and current 
SCRs 22.03(2) and 22.03(6),7 via SCR 20:8.4(h).8 
                                                 
6 Former SCR 20:1.15(e)(7) stated: 
 
Production of records.  All trust account records 
have public aspects related to a lawyer's fitness to 
practice.  Upon request of the office of lawyer 
regulation, or upon direction of the supreme court, 
the records shall be submitted to the office of lawyer 
regulation 
for 
its 
inspection, 
audit, 
use, 
and 
evidence under any conditions to protect the privilege 
of clients that the court may provide.  The records, 
or an audit of the records, shall be produced at any 
disciplinary proceeding involving the lawyer, whenever 
material.  Failure to produce the records constitutes 
unprofessional conduct and grounds for disciplinary 
action. 
7 SCRs 22.03(2) and (6) (effective as of July 1, 2007) 
provide as follows: 
(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 
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. 
 . . .  
(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. 
2009AP1830-D   
 
7 
 
¶10 Although Attorney Grogan did not dispute the six 
counts of misconduct, he requested an evidentiary hearing on the 
issue of sanction.  The sanction hearing was held May 26, 2010. 
¶11 At the hearing, Attorney Grogan offered a number of 
explanations in an attempt to mitigate the sanction.  The 
referee found those explanations fell generally into two 
categories: (1) the offenses, although committed, did not rise 
to the level of causing actual client harm; and (2) the offenses 
were related to various personal, business, physical health and 
emotional problems.   
¶12 The referee determined the first category of Attorney 
Grogan's explanations was not persuasive.  The referee concluded 
clients were not harmed because the bank had covered most of the 
overdrafts, 
but 
this 
did 
not 
mitigate 
Attorney 
Grogan's 
misconduct.   
¶13 The referee found the second category of explanations 
more difficult to assess.  The referee said Attorney Grogan's 
testimony was somewhat compelling as to his catastrophic life 
struggles and he had dealt with a number of life challenges 
during the time of the rule violations.  The referee observed 
Attorney Grogan's testimony was professional and appropriate, 
and he did not contend he should be relieved of the consequences 
of his professional misconduct.  The referee noted Attorney 
                                                                                                                                                             
8 SCR 20:8.4(h) (effective as of July 1, 2007) states it is 
professional misconduct for a lawyer to "fail to cooperate in 
the investigation of a grievance filed with the office of lawyer 
regulation as required by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), 
SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), or SCR 22.04(1); . . . ." 
No. 
2009AP1830-D   
 
8 
 
Grogan's personal circumstances may have called for a creative 
response for the imposition of discipline; Attorney Grogan, 
however, failed to file a post-hearing brief, although invited 
and required to do so.  The referee found Attorney Grogan's 
failure 
to 
acknowledge 
communications 
after 
the 
hearing 
demonstrates he is not yet willing to do what is necessary to 
meet his professional responsibilities.  The referee stated that 
although he was sympathetic to Attorney Grogan's daunting life 
circumstances, the record did not support a lesser sanction than 
called for by the facts of the misconduct.  
¶14 The referee found that Attorney Grogan: 
• did not supervise his staff, failed to provide 
oversight, and did not monitor trust, tax, and other 
financial records and filings; 
• did not provide a minimum degree of oversight 
regarding 
financial 
matters, 
including 
billing, 
trust 
account recordkeeping, and tax payment responsibility; 
• commingled his personal funds/financial matters into 
his trust account, including, among other matters, grocery, 
office rent, personal pre-paid cash card purchases, and 
child education payments; 
• had difficulty with accounts receivable;  
• did 
not 
maintain 
competent 
professional 
bookkeeping/accountant advice; 
• placed 
inappropriate 
blame 
upon 
his 
clients, 
secretarial 
staff, 
bookkeeper 
and 
others 
for 
his 
No. 
2009AP1830-D   
 
9 
 
noncompliance with the Supreme Court Rules, especially the 
trust account rules; 
• advised at the May 26, 2010, sanction hearing that 
he continued providing legal representation to clients from 
April 2007 until the date of the hearing, even though his 
trust account was closed in August 2008; 
• demonstrated at the sanction hearing that he does 
not have the appropriate frame of reference or basic 
understanding of compliance responsibilities related to 
maintaining a trust account with all necessary ledgers, 
registers, and books; 
• testified on May 26, 2010, that without a trust 
account he continues to have ten to twelve open client 
matters; 
• did not maintain client trust account ledgers, 
registers, or monthly reconciliations prior to and during 
the instant disciplinary proceedings; 
• failed 
to 
offer 
any 
exhibits 
or 
present 
any 
witnesses at the May 26, 2010, hearing as evidentiary proof 
of mitigation of the admitted disciplinary rule violations; 
• admitted that not all of his misconduct was related 
to medical issues; 
• acknowledged that he had approximately 80 completed 
cases for legal work that had not yet been billed to the 
Public Defender's Office as of the May 26, 2010, hearing; 
• did not have at the time of the May 26, 2010, 
hearing a separate business account and did not maintain 
No. 
2009AP1830-D   
 
10 
 
such an account at times when the misconduct claimed in 
this case occurred. 
¶15 The referee concluded a 60-day license suspension was 
consistent with ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 3.0 
(amended February 1992) and Wisconsin case law.9  The referee 
determined no restitution was indicated and deferred the issue 
of costs to the court.   
¶16 Additionally, the referee recommended the following 
conditions on the reinstatement of Attorney Grogan's license: 
1. 
Attorney Grogan must attend an OLR trust account 
management seminar within one year and successfully complete an 
exam following that seminar; 
2. 
Attorney 
Grogan 
must 
establish 
a 
new 
trust 
or 
fiduciary account prior to accepting client or third party funds 
in connection with client representation or in a fiduciary 
capacity; and 
3. 
Upon establishing the new trust or fiduciary account, 
Attorney Grogan must provide the OLR with the following: (a) a 
fully executed agreement to report overdrafts on the new trust 
or 
fiduciary 
account; (b) documentation establishing that 
                                                 
9 ABA Standard 3.0 states that the court should consider (a) 
the duty violated; (b) the lawyer's mental state; (c) the 
potential or actual injury caused by the misconduct; and (d) the 
existence of aggravating or mitigating factors.   
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Thibodeau, 2007 
WI 118, 305 Wis. 2d 21, 738 N.W.2d 558, and In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Springfield-Woodard, 200 Wis. 2d 537, 547 
N.W.2d 190 (1996). 
No. 
2009AP1830-D   
 
11 
 
Attorney Grogan has a business account; and (c) quarterly 
reports regarding his trust and/or fiduciary account for a 
period of one year after establishing such an account, including 
any and all trust, fiduciary, and/or business account records 
requested by the OLR. 
¶17 Because no appeal is filed, we review the referee's 
report pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).10  We approve and adopt the 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law as to Attorney 
Grogan's professional misconduct.  In imposing discipline, we 
independently review the seriousness of the misconduct as well 
as the need to protect the public, the courts, and the legal 
system from repetition of misconduct, to impress upon the 
attorney the seriousness of the misconduct, and to deter other 
attorneys from committing similar misconduct.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Woods, 2008 WI 79, ¶22, 311 
Wis. 2d 213, 751 N.W.2d 840.  
¶18 We are satisfied the record supports the imposition of 
a 60-day license suspension, together with the recommended 
conditions.  We approve the OLR's request for costs of 
$6,425.53.  Attorney Grogan has filed no objection to costs and 
                                                 
10 SCR 22.17(2) provides in part: 
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline. 
No. 
2009AP1830-D   
 
12 
 
the record discloses no extraordinary circumstances to reduce 
costs.  
¶19 IT IS ORDERED that the license of William J. Grogan to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for 60 days, effective 
March 7, 2011. 
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of the 
reinstatement of his license to practice law, William J. Grogan 
shall comply with the conditions set forth in this opinion  
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, William J. Grogan pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of the proceeding.  If 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, William J. 
Grogan's license to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain 
suspended until further order of the court.  
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that William J. Grogan shall 
comply with SCR 22.26 regarding the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked. 
¶23 DAVID T. PROSSER, J., did not participate. 
No. 
2009AP1830-D   
 
 
 
1