Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Robert C. Menard

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2018AP000659-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2020-05-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
2020 WI 50 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2018AP659-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Robert C. Menard, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Robert C. Menard, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MENARD 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 29, 2020   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
For the respondent-appellant, there were briefs filed by 
Terry E. Johnson, Ryan P. Fetherston, and von Briesen & Roper, 
S.C., Milwaukee.  
 
For the complainant-respondent, there was a brief filed by 
John T. Payette and the Office of Lawyer Regulation, Madison.  
 
 
 
2020 WI 50
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2018AP659-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Robert C. Menard, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Robert C. Menard, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
FILED 
 
MAY 29, 2020 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney Robert C. Menard has appealed a 
referee's recommendation that his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin be revoked; that he be ordered to make restitution to a 
number of clients; and that he be ordered to pay the full costs of 
this proceeding, which are $18,191.42 as of October 25, 2019.  
Attorney Menard stipulated to 30 counts of misconduct and the only 
disputed issue left for the referee to decide was the appropriate 
sanction.  Similarly, the only issue raised on appeal is what is 
reasonable and appropriate discipline for the misconduct in this 
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
2 
 
case.  We agree with the referee that revocation is the appropriate 
sanction. 
¶2 
Attorney Menard was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1991.  He has no prior disciplinary history.  On March 
20, 2020, the court, on its own motion pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule (SCR) 22.21(1), determined that Attorney Menard's continued 
practice of law posed a threat to the interests of the public and 
the administration of justice, and it temporarily suspended his 
license. 
¶3 
On April 9, 2018, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
filed a complaint against Attorney Menard alleging 23 counts of 
misconduct arising out of 12 client matters.  The complaint also 
alleged various counts of misconduct regarding commingling of 
funds, conducting prohibited bank transactions, various trust 
account violations, and making misrepresentations to the OLR.  
Referee James W. Mohr, Jr. was appointed on May 7, 2018.  Attorney 
Menard filed an answer to the complaint on May 18, 2018.   
¶4 
On December 28, 2018, the OLR filed an amended complaint 
adding eight counts of misconduct.  The amended complaint added 
three counts of misconduct involving one of the client matters set 
forth in the original complaint.  It also added five counts of 
misconduct involving a client matter that was not part of the 
original complaint.  Attorney Menard filed an answer to the amended 
complaint on January 18, 2019.   
¶5 
Attorney Menard eventually chose to admit the factual 
basis of counts 1 through 30 in the OLR's amended complaint, and 
the OLR agreed to dismiss count 31 with prejudice.  A hearing on 
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
3 
 
sanction was held before the referee on August 19 and 20, 2019.  
At that time, the parties stipulated that the factual allegations 
in the amended complaint constituted a sufficient factual basis in 
the record for the referee to conclude that the misconduct alleged 
in counts 1 through 30 of the amended complaint had taken place.   
¶6 
The referee issued his report on October 10, 2019.  He 
found that the OLR's uncontested motion for summary judgment and 
the stipulation put on the record at the evidentiary hearing 
supported the finding that the OLR had proven all 30 counts of 
misconduct by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence.  The 
following factual recitation is taken from the amended complaint. 
¶7 
At all times material to the allegations in the amended 
complaint, Attorney Menard was a member of the firm Derzon & 
Menard, S.C.  (More recently, he practiced with Menard & Menard.)  
He handled primarily worker's compensation and personal injury 
matters. Between August 2011 and September 2014, the firm 
maintained both a trust account and a business account at Park 
Bank.  Between January 2014 and February 2016 the firm maintained 
both a trust account and a business account at U.S. Bank.  Attorney 
Menard also maintained two joint savings accounts with his wife at 
U.S. Bank.  He was responsible for trust account recordkeeping for 
his clients, and his partner, Alan Derzon, was responsible for 
such functions for his clients.  However, Attorney Menard prepared 
most of the deposit slips and signed most of the transactions for 
the firm's trust and business accounts. 
¶8 
The first three counts set forth in the OLR's amended 
complaint involved Attorney Menard's representation of B.C., a 
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
4 
 
minor, in a personal injury matter.  Attorney Menard was appointed 
guardian ad litem (GAL) for B.C.  The circuit court approved a 
$47,500 minor settlement.  As GAL, Attorney Menard was ordered to 
make a payment to Dean Health Care and was ordered to place money 
in a federally insured interest bearing account at Park Bank until 
B.C. reached the age of 18 in April 2014.   
¶9 
Attorney Menard deposited or directed the deposit of a 
$47,500 check, payable to the Derzon & Menard S.C. trust account, 
to the Park Bank trust account.  He then transferred the entire 
settlement from the Park Bank trust account to the Park Bank 
business account.  Those transfers were made by telephone.  
Immediately before these transfers, the Park Bank business account 
was overdrawn.  The transfers restored the account to a positive 
balance.   
¶10 The amended complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to B.C.'s case: 
Count 1:  By disbursing and failing to hold in trust 
$29,105.65 that he received as B.C.'s GAL on February 1, 
2013, 
Attorney 
Menard 
violated 
former 
SCR 20:1.15(j)(1).1 
                                                 
1 Effective July 1, 2016, substantial changes were made to 
Supreme Court Rule 20:1.15, the "trust account rule."  See S. Ct. 
Order 14-07, 2016 WI 21 (issued Apr. 4, 2016, eff. July 1, 2016).  
Because the conduct underlying this case arose prior to July 1, 
2016, unless otherwise indicated, all references to the supreme 
court rules will be to those in effect prior to July 1, 2016. 
Former SCR 20:1.15(j)(1) provided: 
 
A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the 
lawyer's own funds or property, those funds or that 
property of clients or 3rd parties that are in the 
lawyer's possession when acting in a fiduciary capacity 
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
5 
 
Count 2:  By converting $29,105.65 belonging to B.C. 
between April 24, 2013 and May 16, 2013 to cover 
overdrafts on the Park Bank Business Account, Attorney 
Menard violated SCR 20:8.4(c).2 
Count 3:  By failing to place B.C.'s $29,105.65 in a 
federally insured interest bearing account until B.C. 
reached the age of 18 on April 2, 2014, Attorney Menard 
knowingly failed to abide by a court order and violated 
SCR 20:3.4(c).3 
¶11 The next four counts of misconduct alleged in the amended 
complaint arose out of Attorney Menard's representation of C.M. 
and D.D.  Attorney Menard represented C.M. in a personal injury 
action.  In December 2013, Attorney Menard deposited or directed 
the deposit of a $76,000 check related to C.M.'s claim to the Park 
Bank trust account.  The firm also represented D.D. in a worker's 
compensation claim and a related civil action.  Attorney Menard 
deposited or directed the deposit of a $90,000 check related to 
D.D.'s claim to the Park Bank trust account.  
¶12 Between December 18, 2013 and February 3, 2014, Attorney 
Menard transferred $163,500 of the C.M. and D.D. settlements from 
the Park Bank trust account to the Park Bank business account.  
Most of the transfers occurred by telephone or internet.  On 
                                                 
that directly arises in the course of, or as a result 
of, a lawyer-client relationship or by appointment of a 
court.  
2 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct for 
a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation." 
3 SCR 20:3.4(c) provides:  "A lawyer shall not knowingly 
disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except for an 
open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation 
exists." 
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
6 
 
December 20, 2013, the Park Bank business account was overdrawn by 
more than $15,000.  A transfer from the Park Bank trust account 
briefly restored the business account to a positive balance but 
soon thereafter the Park Bank business account was again overdrawn.  
The business account was restored to a positive balance with 
another transfer from the trust account.  This pattern of the 
business account being overdrawn and then restored to a positive 
balance by more transfers from the trust account was repeated 
multiple times.   
¶13 The amended complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to the C.M. and D.D. cases: 
Count 4:  By disbursing and failing to hold in trust 
$46,919.15 of C.M.'s personal injury settlement between 
December 18, 2013 and February 3, 2014, Attorney Menard 
violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).4 
Count 5:  By converting $46,919.15 of C.M.'s settlement 
between December 18, 2013 and February 3, 2014 to cover 
overdrafts on the firm's business account, Attorney 
Menard violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
Count 6:  By disbursing and failing to hold in trust as 
much as $57,500 of D.D.'s settlement between December 
23, 2013 and February 3, 2014, Attorney Menard violated 
SCR 20:1.15(b)(1). 
                                                 
4 SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) provides:   
A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the 
lawyer's own property, that property of clients and 3rd 
parties that is in the lawyer's possession in connection 
with a representation.  All funds of clients and 3rd 
parties paid to a lawyer or law firm in connection with 
a representation shall be deposited in one or more 
identifiable trust accounts. 
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
7 
 
Count 7:  By converting as much as $57,500 of D.D.'s 
settlement between December 23, 2013 and February 3, 
2014 to cover overdrafts on the firm's business account, 
Attorney Menard violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
¶14 The next client matter detailed in the amended complaint 
involved Attorney Menard's firm's representation of D.S. in a 
personal injury matter.  On November 26, 2012, Attorney Menard 
deposited or directed the deposit of a $190,000 check relating to 
the D.S. matter to the Park Bank business account.  Between 
November 26, 2012 and November 30, 2012, Attorney Menard used the 
D.S. settlement proceeds to cover numerous transactions, including 
pre-authorized debits to AT&T, Target, CITI Card, and Austin Ford.   
¶15 The amended complaint alleged the following count of 
misconduct with respect to D.S.'s settlement: 
Count 8:  By converting as much as $117,300.02 of D.S.'s 
settlement between November 26, 2012 and December 18, 
2012 to pay business and personal expenses and to make 
disbursements to himself of $13,500, Attorney Menard 
violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
¶16 The next client matter detailed in the amended complaint 
involved Attorney Menard's representation of B.H. in a personal 
injury matter.  On December 3, 2012, Attorney Menard deposited or 
directed the deposit of a $93,893.53 check to the firm's Park Bank 
business account.  By December 18, 2012, the Park Bank business 
account was overdrawn; none of the settlement proceeds had been 
paid to B.H.; and Attorney Menard had converted as much as 
$67,072.82 of the settlement.  Attorney Menard eventually 
disbursed a total of $52,950 to B.H. despite the fact that the 
settlement breakdown specified that she was owed $62,950.32.  
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
8 
 
Attorney Menard has provided no evidence that B.H. received the 
remaining $10,000 of her settlement funds. 
¶17 The OLR's amended complaint alleged the following count 
of misconduct with respect to Attorney Menard's handling of the 
B.H. settlement: 
Count 9:  By converting as much as $67,072.82 of B.H.'s 
settlement between December 3, 2012 and December 18, 
2012 in order to cover disbursements unrelated to his 
representation of B.H., Attorney Menard violated SCR 
20:8.4(c). 
¶18 The next client matter detailed in the amended complaint 
involved Attorney Menard's representation of M.B. in a worker's 
compensation claim.  On December 19, 2012, Attorney Menard 
deposited or directed the deposit of a $63,491.97 check to the 
Park Bank business account.  Another check payable to an attorney 
at Derzon & Menard was deposited the same day.  Prior to those 
deposits, the Park Bank business account was overdrawn.  The 
deposited funds were used to cover checks to Attorney Menard and 
wire transfers to other individuals.  In addition, Attorney Menard 
disbursed four checks payable to "cash" totaling $16,000 from the 
funds.  The amended complaint alleged the following count of 
misconduct with respect to the M.B. matter: 
Count 10:  By converting as much as $63,491.97 of M.B.'s 
settlement between December 19, 2012 and January 4, 2013 
in order to repay $42,259.46 that was owed to D.S. and 
make $11,000 in disbursements and wire transfers to 
Attorney Menard and others, as well as $16,000 in cash 
disbursements, Attorney Menard violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
¶19 The next client matter detailed in the amended complaint 
involved Attorney Menard's representation of J.B. regarding an 
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
9 
 
auto accident.  On April 15, 2013, Attorney Menard deposited or 
directed the deposit of a $92,330 check to the Park Bank business 
account along with two other checks.  Prior to this deposit, the 
business account was overdrawn.  The deposit restored the account 
to a positive balance.  Between April 15 and April 22, 2013, 
Attorney Menard made numerous disbursements from the Park Bank 
business account, including a $28,300 cashier's check to his wife.  
¶20 At the close of business on April 22, 2013, the business 
account was overdrawn by $244.19; none of the funds had been 
disbursed to J.B. and Attorney Menard had converted as much as 
$55,648.44 relating to the J.B. matter.  Attorney Menard continues 
to owe J.B., or her subrogated care providers, $12,648.44. 
¶21 The amended complaint alleged the following count of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Menard's representation of 
J.B.:   
Count 11:  By converting as much as $55,648.44 of J.B.'s 
settlement between April 15, 2013 and April 22, 2013 in 
order to repay $27,500 to D.S., provide a $28,300 
cashier's check to his wife, and cover numerous business 
or personal expenses, Attorney Menard violated SCR 
20:8.4(c). 
¶22 The next client matter detailed in the amended complaint 
involved Attorney Menard's representation of J.L.-M. in a personal 
injury action and a related third-party worker's compensation 
claim.  The settlement in the matter was paid via two checks issued 
to the Derzon & Menard trust account:  a $108,000 check dated May 
13, 2013, and a $12,000 check dated June 3, 2013.  On June 3, 2013, 
Attorney Menard deposited or directed the deposit of the $108,000 
check to the Park Bank business account.  Prior to this deposit 
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
10 
 
the account was overdrawn by over $12,000.  Between June 3 and 
June 17, 2013, Attorney Menard made numerous disbursements from 
the business account for business and personal expenses.  By June 
17, 2013, the business account was overdrawn by $2,757.59 and no 
disbursements had been made to J.L.-M.  Attorney Menard told J.L.-
M. he had made disbursements in accordance with the settlement 
breakdown.   
¶23 Specifically, Attorney Menard told J.L.-M. he had 
disbursed $12,491.77 to Athletic & Therapeutic Institute and 
$7,623.75 to Blount Orthopedic Clinic.  Park Bank records show 
that neither check was ever presented for payment or cleared the 
business account. 
¶24 In January 2014, against Attorney Menard's advice, J.L.-
M. and her husband claimed all of her medical expenses as 
deductions on their 2013 joint income tax return.  An IRS audit 
ensued in 2016.   
¶25 J.L.-M. and her husband hired the law firm of Robinson 
& Henry, P.C., to represent them in the tax audit.  Thereafter, 
both J.L.-M. and her new attorneys repeatedly requested medical 
billing information and documentation from Attorney Menard.  While 
Attorney Menard was initially helpful in providing documents, he 
later became difficult to reach and never sent them all of the 
correct documents showing proof of medical payments he had made on 
J.L.-M.'s behalf.   
¶26 Ultimately, the IRS did not allow the payments to Blount 
Orthopedic Clinic and Athletic & Therapeutic Institute to be 
included in its calculations because there was no proof those 
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
11 
 
medical expenses had been paid out of J.L.-M.'s settlement.  J.L.-
M. and her husband eventually settled with the IRS for an 
additional tax burden of $3,973, plus interest on their 2013 tax 
return. 
¶27 On November 26, 2013, Attorney Menard issued a check 
from his Park Bank business account payable to Blount Orthopedic 
Clinic in the amount of $3,000, which was presented and paid in 
December 2013.  Attorney Menard acknowledged to the OLR that this 
check was paid on behalf of J.L.-M. to settle the debt she owed to 
Blount Orthopedic Clinic.   
¶28 On July 24, 2014, Attorney Menard issued a check from 
his U.S. Bank business account payable to Athletic & Therapeutic 
Institute in the amount of $8,000, which was presented and paid on 
August 20, 2014.  Attorney Menard acknowledged to the OLR that 
this check was paid on behalf of J.L.-M. to settle the debt owed 
to Athletic & Therapeutic Institute. 
¶29 Attorney Menard never advised either J.L.-M. or Robinson 
& Henry of these reduced payments, despite their repeated requests 
during the IRS audit for evidence of all medical payments made.  
Until July 2018, Attorney Menard had led J.L.-M. to believe that 
the full bills of both of those creditors had been paid.  To date, 
Attorney Menard has not made any refund to J.L.-M., either the 
$4,623.75 balance of any funds after the $3,000 payment to Blunt 
Orthopedic Clinic or the $4,491.77 balance of funds after the 
$8,000 payment to Athletic & Therapeutic Institute. 
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
12 
 
¶30 The amended complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Menard's handling of the J.L.-
M. case: 
Count 12:  By converting as much as $78,727.28 of J.L.-
M.'s settlement between June 3, 2013 and June 17, 2013 
to cover numerous business or personal expenses, 
including $384 in overdraft fees; a $10,000 check to his 
mother; a $5,000 check to Entercom for advertising; 
checks to other clients and checks to "Cash," Attorney 
Menard, or Derzon & Menard totaling $10,400, Attorney 
Menard violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
Count 13:  By falsely informing J.L.-M. that he had paid 
Athletic & Therapeutic Institute $12,491.77 and Blunt 
Orthopedic Clinic $7,623.75 on her behalf from the 
settlement proceeds in her case, Attorney Menard 
violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
Count 14:  By failing to promptly deliver $12,491.77 to 
Athletic & Therapeutic Institute and $7,623.75 to Blount 
Orthopedic Clinic pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, 
or to promptly disburse the balance ($9,115.52) of any 
remaining funds to J.L.-M. after settling the claims of 
Athletic & Therapeutic Institute and Blount Orthopedic 
Clinic for lesser amounts, Attorney Menard violated SCR 
20:1.15(e)(1).5 
Count 15:  By failing to fully and accurately respond to 
J.L.-M.'s 
request 
for 
information 
regarding 
the 
disbursement of her settlement funds to her creditors, 
including his failure to inform J.L.-M. that he had paid 
                                                 
5 SCR 20:1.15(e)(1) provides: 
Upon receiving funds or other property in which a 
client has an interest, or in which a lawyer has received 
notice that a 3rd party has an interest identified by a 
lien, court order, judgment, or contract, the lawyer 
shall promptly notify the client or 3rd party in writing.  
Except as stated in this rule or otherwise permitted by 
law or by agreement with the client, the lawyer shall 
promptly deliver to the client or 3rd party any funds or 
other property that the client or 3rd party is entitled 
to receive. 
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
13 
 
only $8,000 to Athletic & Therapeutic Institute and 
$3,000 to Blount Orthopedic Clinic and that she was 
entitled to a refund totaling $9,115.52, Attorney Menard 
violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(4).6 
¶31 The next client matter detailed in the amended complaint 
involved Attorney Menard's representation of P.D. in a personal 
injury case.  Attorney Menard's records include a copy of a $50,000 
check payable to the firm's client trust account in the P.D. 
matter, but Attorney Menard has not identified the account into 
which the $50,000 was deposited and has not identified any 
disbursements made to P.D. from those funds. 
¶32 On March 13, 2014, Attorney Menard deposited or directed 
the deposit of a $75,000 check relating to the P.D. matter to the 
firm's U.S. Bank business account. 
¶33 Between March 13 and March 26, 2014, Attorney Menard 
made numerous disbursements from the U.S. Bank business account, 
including over $40,000 for advertising and payments to Attorney 
Menard, his law firm, or cash.  Attorney Menard also disbursed two 
checks totaling $23,000 to another client whose personal injury 
case had been settled in December of 2013.  No funds belonging to 
that client were ever deposited to the U.S. Bank business account. 
¶34 The amended complaint alleged the following count of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Menard's representation of 
P.D.: 
Count 16:  By converting as much as $74,313.81 of P.D.'s 
two settlements between approximately July 31, 2012 and 
May 22, 2014, at least some of which was used to cover 
                                                 
6 SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) provides:  "A lawyer shall promptly comply 
with reasonable requests by the client for information." 
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
14 
 
business expenses, including advertising and payments to 
Attorney Menard, the firm, and "Cash," Attorney Menard 
violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
¶35 The next client matter detailed in the amended client 
involved Attorney Menard's representation of T.R. in a worker's 
compensation matter.  On February 4, 2015, Attorney Menard 
deposited or directed the deposit of two checks to the U.S. Bank 
business account in the T.R. case:  a $55,289.57 check payable to 
T.R., which was not endorsed, and a $14,710.43 check payable to 
Attorney Menard.  Prior to that deposit, the balance in the U.S. 
Bank business account was $8,259.25.  That same day, there were 
two electronic withdrawals from the U.S. Bank business account by 
YP Advertising.  On February 6, 2015, a check for over $28,000 
payable to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue cleared the U.S. 
Bank business account.  By February 9, 2015, the business account 
was overdrawn by $16.30, and none of T.R.'s funds remained in the 
account. 
¶36 The amended complaint alleged the following count of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Menard's representation of 
T.R.: 
Count 17:  By converting T.R.'s $55,289.57 worker's 
compensation settlement between February 4, 2015 and 
February 9, 2015 to cover business expenses, including 
advertising and a payment to the Wisconsin Department of 
Revenue, Attorney Menard violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
¶37 The next client matter detailed in the amended complaint 
arose out of Attorney Menard's representation of J.S. in a worker's 
compensation matter.  On December 21, 2015, Attorney Menard 
deposited or directed the deposit of a $31,326.31 check to the 
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
15 
 
U.S. Bank business account.  That amount represented Attorney 
Menard's fees and costs in the matter.  On December 31, 2015, 
Attorney Menard deposited or directed the deposit of a $95,637.56 
check payable to J.S. to the business account.  Prior to this 
deposit, there was $9,119.39 in the business account. 
¶38 Between December 31, 2015 and January 6, 2016, over 
$140,000 in transactions cleared the U.S. Bank business account, 
including payments to the Milwaukee Athletic Club, Bank of America, 
Chase, and GM Financial. 
¶39 On January 6, 2016, Attorney Menard transferred $15,000 
of J.S.'s funds from the U.S. Bank trust account to the U.S. Bank 
business account.  By the close of business that day, the business 
account was overdrawn and none of J.S.'s funds had been disbursed 
to her. 
¶40 Between January 7 and February 9, 2016, Attorney Menard 
transferred $73,000 belonging in part to J.S. from the U.S. Bank 
trust account to the U.S. Bank business account.  None of those 
transfers were used to pay J.S.  The funds were all used for 
business and personal purposes.   
¶41 The amended complaint alleged the following count of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Menard's representation of 
J.S.: 
Count 18:  By converting J.S.'s $95,637.56 worker's 
compensation settlement to cover business expenses, 
including advertising, a $35,843.08 payment to ADP 
relating to a 401k plan and a $25,500 check to his new 
law firm, Attorney Menard violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
16 
 
¶42 The next client matter detailed in the amended complaint 
involved Attorney Menard's representation of P.M., who is Attorney 
Menard's uncle.  P.M. has a winter home in Florida.  In February 
of 2014, he was struck by a car while he was mowing his lawn at 
his home in Florida and suffered severe injuries requiring medical 
and surgical treatment. 
¶43 On April 10, 2014, P.M. hired Attorney Menard to 
represent him in a personal injury action against the driver who 
hit him.  The parties entered into a contingent fee agreement which 
provided that P.M. agreed to pay Derzon & Menard 33 1/3 percent of 
whatever total sum was collected, plus costs and disbursements.   
¶44 The driver had $1,000,000 in liability coverage through 
State Farm.  P.M. denies that Attorney Menard informed him about 
the policy limit.  Attorney Menard said he was concerned about 
potential contributory negligence since there were reports that 
P.M. had stepped into the road in front of the car while mowing 
his lawn.  P.M. had no recollection of the accident and would not 
be able to testify to rebut those reports. 
¶45 In June 2014, State Farm offered to settle the case for 
$325,000.  P.M. agreed Attorney Menard should attempt to negotiate 
a higher settlement and, if there was not a higher offer, the 
initial offer would be accepted.  Attorney Menard negotiated a 
higher settlement figure of $500,000.  P.M. accepted that 
settlement amount. 
¶46 On July 3, 2014, State Farm issued a $500,000 check 
payable to Derzon & Menard Attorneys at Law Trust Account and 
mailed it to Attorney Menard.  The check was deposited in Derzon 
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
17 
 
& Menard's business account at U.S. Bank on July 8, 2014.  Attorney 
Menard did not inform P.M. of the receipt of the funds.  He did 
not disburse any portion of the settlement payment to P.M. or to 
any third party on P.M.'s behalf.   
¶47 On July 9, 2014, P.M. signed a release agreeing to the 
$500,000 settlement.  Between July 8 and July 28, 2014, Attorney 
Menard made numerous disbursements from the U.S. Bank business 
account for business and personal expenses unrelated to his 
representation of P.M.  By October 17, 2014, following numerous 
deposits and disbursements unrelated to P.M.'s case, the balance 
in the U.S. Bank business account was $131.93.  By November 24, 
2014, the balance of the business account was $16.96.  Thus, by 
November 24, 2014, Attorney Menard had converted $333,333.33 of 
P.M.'s settlement funds. 
¶48 From April 2015 through early 2018, P.M. repeatedly 
contacted Attorney Menard by telephone and email inquiring about 
the status of his settlement proceeds.  Attorney Menard gave 
excuses to P.M. as to why he was not able to disburse the funds.   
¶49 P.M.'s own insurance agreed to cover his medical 
expenses.  P.M.'s insurance carrier paid out $648,478.14 to medical 
care providers on P.M.'s behalf, discharging most of the medical 
bills for less than the original amount billed, which was 
$1,993,103.10. 
¶50 Attorney Menard did not disburse any portion of the 
$500,000 settlement as payment for any of P.M.'s medical bills. 
¶51 In early 2018, P.M. hired Attorneys Lenz and Meadows as 
successor counsel.  In July 2018, P.M. sued Attorney Menard, his 
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
18 
 
former firm, his current firm, and others to recover the settlement 
proceeds to which he was entitled.  The case settled following 
meditation.  The settlement is confidential. 
¶52 The amended complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Menard's representation of 
P.M.: 
Count 19:  By depositing or directing the July 8, 2014 
deposit of a check in the amount of $500,000 in personal 
injury settlement proceeds for P.M. to his firm's U.S. 
Bank Business Account, rather than into the firm's trust 
account, Attorney Menard violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(1). 
Count 20:  By failing to disburse settlement funds to 
P.M., Attorney Menard violated former SCR 20:1.15(d)(1)7 
and current SCR 20:1.15(e)(1). 
Count 21:  By converting funds from P.M.'s State Farm 
settlement between July 8, 2014 and November 24, 2014, 
Attorney Menard violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
Count 22:  By failing to fully and accurately respond to 
P.M.'s request for reports on the status of his 
settlement 
funds, 
Attorney 
Menard 
violated 
SCR 20:1.4(a)(4). 
Count 23:  By failing to provide P.M. with a full 
accounting of his settlement funds upon their final 
                                                 
7 Former SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) provided: 
Upon receiving funds or other property in which a 
client has an interest, or in which the lawyer has 
received notice that a 3rd party has an interest 
identified by a lien, court order, judgment, or 
contract, the lawyer shall promptly notify the client or 
3rd party in writing.  Except as stated in this rule or 
otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the 
client, the lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client 
or 3rd party any funds or other property that the client 
or 3rd party is entitled to receive. 
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
19 
 
distribution, 
Attorney 
Menard 
violated 
former 
SCR 20:1.15(d)(2), and current SCR 20:1.15(e)2.8 
¶53 The amended complaint alleges two counts of misconduct 
for commingling funds.  It alleges that between December 2012 and 
February 2014, Attorney Menard deposited or directed the deposit 
of at least 72 checks to the Park Bank business account that were 
payable to the firm's trust account, to a specific client, to the 
firm and a specific client or a third party.  Those deposits 
totaled $1,801,858.13.   
¶54 Between March 2014 and September 2016, Attorney Menard 
deposited or directed the deposit of at least 102 checks to the 
U.S. Bank business account that were payable to the firm's trust 
account, to a specific client, to the firm and a specific client 
or a third party.  Those 103 deposits total $2,806,497.51. 
¶55 Attorney Menard admitted under oath in an interview 
conducted by the OLR that the checks deposited to the Park Bank 
business account were more likely than not all attorney fee checks 
from worker's compensation cases.  He also admitted under oath he 
did not keep track of whose funds were deposited to the business 
account and that he would use funds in that account for his own 
purposes. 
¶56 The amended complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Menard's commingling of funds: 
                                                 
8 SCR 20:1.15(d)(2) was renumbered as SCR 20:1.15(e)(2).  The 
text of the rule was not changed and provides:  "Upon final 
distribution of any trust property or upon request by the client 
or a 3rd party having an ownership interest in the property, the 
lawyer shall promptly render a full written accounting regarding 
the property." 
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
20 
 
Count 24:  By depositing or directing the deposit of as 
many as 72 checks totaling $1,801,858.13 to the Park 
Bank Business Account between December 2012 and February 
2014, which checks were payable to the firm's trust 
account, specific clients, the firm and a specific 
client, or a third party, Attorney Menard violated 
SCR 20:1.15(b)(1). 
Count 25:  By depositing or directing the deposit of as 
many as 103 checks totaling $2,806,497.51 to the U.S. 
Bank Business Account between March 2014 and September 
2016, which checks were payable to the firm's trust 
account, to specific clients, the firm and a specific 
client, a third party, or which otherwise constituted 
trust 
property, 
Attorney 
Menard 
violated 
SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).   
Count 26:  By conducting 46 telephone and internet 
transactions in his trust accounts at Park Bank and U.S. 
Bank between January 1, 2013 and February 16, 2016, 
Attorney Menard violated former SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)b. and 
c.9 
¶57 Finally, the amended complaint alleged additional trust 
account violations as follows:   
Count 27:  By failing to preserve transaction registers 
and client ledgers for at least six years after the 
                                                 
9 Former SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)b. and c. provided: 
b. No deposits or disbursements shall be made to or 
from a pooled trust account by a telephone transfer of 
funds.  This section does not prohibit any of the 
following: 
1. wire transfers. 
2. telephone transfers between non-pooled draft and 
non-pooled non-draft trust accounts that a lawyer 
maintains for a particular client. 
c. A lawyer shall not make deposits to or 
disbursements from a trust account by way of an Internet 
transaction. 
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
21 
 
termination of representation, Attorney Menard violated 
former SCR 20:1.15(e)(6).10 
Count 28:  By failing to produce transaction registers 
and client ledgers for funds received in trust, despite 
requests by the OLR on July 5, 2017, July 26, 2017, and 
July 
31, 
2017, 
Attorney 
Menard 
violated 
SCR 20:1.15(g)(2).11 
Count 29:  By maintaining trust account records by 
computer between at least December 1, 2012 and December 
31, 2015, and failing to regularly back up those records, 
Attorney Menard violated former SCR 20:1.15(f)(4)a.12 
Count 30:  By failing to print a copy of the transaction 
register and client ledgers for the Derzon & Menard Trust 
                                                 
10 Former SCR 20:1.15(e)(6) provided:  "A lawyer shall 
maintain complete records of trust account funds and other trust 
property and shall preserve those records for at least 6 years 
after the date of termination of the representation." 
11 SCR 20:1.15(g)(2) provides:  
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. 
12 Former SCR 20:1.15(f)(4)a. provided:  "A lawyer who 
maintains trust account records by computer shall maintain the 
transaction register, client ledgers, and reconciliation reports 
in a form that can be reproduced to printed hard copy.  Electronic 
records must be regularly backed up by an appropriate storage 
device." 
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
22 
 
Account every 30 days, Attorney Menard violated former 
SCR 20:1.15(f)(4)b.13 
¶58 In his report, the referee noted that a number of 
witnesses testified at the hearing and, in the referee's opinion, 
the most convincing witness was Mary Hoeft Smith, the former Trust 
Account Program Administrator for the OLR, who is now retired.  
Ms. Smith testified that Attorney Menard was unable to produce the 
required trust account records, but he did produce voluminous 
business account records.  She testified it was a common practice 
for him to move client trust funds into his business account and 
then use those funds to pay "very hefty expenses for things like 
advertising, radio, and billboards."  She described this as a 
practice of "robbing Peter to pay Paul" and using funds belonging 
to one client in order to pay back a client who was previously the 
victim of a conversion by Attorney Menard.  She testified that the 
matters that were charged in this case were only the largest of 
many, many conversions and in her opinion "virtually every client 
whose funds went into the business account were converted." 
¶59 The referee noted that J.L.-M. testified by telephone 
from Colorado and the referee found her to be intelligent, honest, 
and straightforward.  J.L.-M. testified she felt a lot of betrayal 
from Attorney Menard and that it had been a very harrowing 
experience.   
                                                 
13 Former SCR 20:1.15(f)(4)b. provided:  "In additional to the 
requirements of sub. (f)(4)a., the transaction register, the 
subsidiary ledger, and the reconciliation report shall be printed 
every 30 days for the IOLTA account.  The printed copy shall be 
retained for at least 6 years, as required under sub. (e)(6)." 
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
23 
 
¶60 The referee noted that P.M., Attorney Menard's 71-year-
old uncle, also testified and although the matter has been resolved 
and P.M. has no further claim for restitution, the entire 
experience has left a bad taste in P.M.'s mouth.   
¶61 The referee found that Attorney Menard "gave the 
impression of not being entirely trustworthy."  The referee said 
Attorney Menard felt he was entitled to the full $500,000 
settlement proceeds from his uncle's settlement and that his uncle 
was entitled to nothing.  The referee said "this assertion lacked 
a rational basis and was a rather cold-hearted way to treat a 
family member.  It showed a distinct lack of remorse on 
Respondent's part in depriving his uncle of his settlement 
proceeds."   
¶62 The referee also noted that Attorney Menard claimed that 
each of his clients gave him a power of attorney to do whatever he 
wanted with their money and that included depositing the money 
into the business account and using it for whatever purposes 
Attorney Menard wanted.  The referee said: 
Frankly, I found it astonishing that an attorney would 
ask clients to sign a power of attorney allowing him to 
use their settlement money for the attorney's business 
purposes, and also apparently thought this practice 
would absolve him of the Supreme Court's trust account 
requirements.  Interestingly, Respondent never produced 
any of those powers of attorney as exhibits at the 
hearing.  (Emphasis added.) 
¶63 The referee said Attorney Menard acknowledged that he 
was sloppy and "crappy" in regards to his accounting practices but 
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
24 
 
said "a revocation would ruin me and would ruin everything that 
I've worked for 30 years." 
¶64 The referee said that the evidence revealed that over at 
least a six-year period, Attorney Menard converted over $1,000,000 
in client funds.  The referee said additionally, between December 
2012 and September 2016, Attorney Menard deposited as many as 175 
checks made out to clients, to his trust account, or to third 
parties, all of which should have gone into the trust account, 
into his business accounts and these out-of-trust deposits at two 
different banks totaled over $4,000,000. 
¶65 After considering a variety of cases cited by both 
parties, the referee said this case was similar to In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Weigel, 2012 WI 124, 345 
Wis. 2d 7, 823 N.W.2d 798.  Attorney Weigel was charged with ten 
counts of misconduct involving failure to maintain proper trust 
account records and converting funds belonging to clients.  He 
claimed the trust account violations already existed when the 
former founding member of his law firm was bought out by Attorney 
Weigel and others.  At times, the trust account may have been out 
of balance as much as $1,000,000, but by the time Attorney Weigel 
was charged the out of balance amount was down to $100,000.   
¶66 The referee noted that Attorney Weigel claimed, as 
Attorney Menard does here, that the OLR did not present testimony 
from a client or third party demonstrating an actual monetary loss.  
Therefore, he argued that the OLR had failed to prove conversion.  
The referee noted that this court disagreed, noting that an 
attorney must hold the property of others with the care required 
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
25 
 
of a professional fiduciary.  This court described Attorney 
Weigel's conduct, just as Mary Hoeft Smith did here, as "robbing 
Peter to pay Paul," and this court revoked Attorney Weigel's 
license to practice law. 
¶67 The referee said that the conduct in Weigel is almost on 
all fours with the conduct involved here and in both cases, over 
an extended period of time, client trust funds were used as slush 
funds to pay off other clients, firm expenses, or whatever was 
most pressing at the moment.  The referee said that Attorney 
Menard's trust accounts, as the Weigel trust account, were 
continuously overdrawn or out of trust.  The referee said the 
amount converted here, well over $1,000,000, is in the same order 
of magnitude as in Weigel, and likely represents just the tip of 
the iceberg.  In addition, the referee noted that over $4,600,000 
was out of trust over a span of four years.  The referee agreed 
with the OLR that revocation was the appropriate remedy.  He said: 
The scope of Respondent's conduct in playing fast and 
loose with client money is simply breathtaking.  Proper 
trust account records were never kept; money belonging 
to clients was commingled with that of other clients and 
used to pay vast sums in law firm and personal expenses; 
clients were not paid in a timely basis and often did 
not get paid until they complained; one client 
(ironically Respondent's uncle) was never paid at all – 
under some misguided theory that the attorney was 
entitled to the full proceeds of the settlement – and 
had to sue his own nephew for the nonpayment. 
This is far-reaching, deplorable and disreputable 
conduct.  It reflects poorly on the practice of law in 
general and has jaded those clients that Respondent was 
to have served.  This is clearly not the way lawyers 
should conduct themselves.  Jeopardizing over $1,000,000 
of client money on an extended 'rob Peter to pay Paul' 
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
26 
 
scheme is totally unacceptable.  So is failing to keep 
over $4,600,000 in trust. 
¶68 In addition to recommending revocation of Attorney 
Menard's license, the referee recommended that Attorney Menard be 
ordered to make restitution as follows: 
 
To C.M. the sum of $459.58 
 
To B.H. the sum of $5,000.32 
 
To J.B. the sum of $12,648.44 
 
To J.L.-M. the sum of $4,346.57 
 
To P.D. the sum of $1,100 
 
To J.S. the sum of $74,137.58 (less any or all of the 
$5,395.72 amount which Attorney Menard can demonstrate 
was paid on behalf of J.S. for legitimately due and owing 
medical expenses). 
¶69 Finally, the referee recommended that Attorney Menard 
pay the full costs of the proceeding.   
¶70 Attorney 
Menard 
has 
appealed 
the 
referee's 
recommendation of revocation as the appropriate sanction.  He 
asserts that appropriate discipline should be a suspension between 
18 and 24 months. 
¶71 Attorney Menard notes that he testified at the 
evidentiary hearing that there were several reasons why he 
developed the practice of obtaining client consent to commingle 
funds in his business account rather than depositing them in trust, 
and for obtaining durable power of attorney forms from all clients 
in order to do so in the first place.  He says he testified that 
some of his clients did not have bank accounts and they asked him 
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
27 
 
to cash checks and pay portions of the proceeds on demand, while 
other clients were afraid that depositing a large settlement check 
into their own accounts might upset their SSDI or Medicare status.  
He says still others felt overwhelmed with the prospect of having 
to resolve unpaid medical expenses and liens on their own out of 
the settlement proceeds and Attorney Menard agreed to handle those 
tasks on his clients' behalf.  He says during the pertinent 
timeframe, his law business was generally good and he never 
perceived his accounting practices as "robbing Peter to pay Paul." 
¶72 Attorney Menard says the evidence showed that none of 
his clients or former clients were harmed by his conceded trust 
account violations, with the exception of J.S., who he acknowledges 
is still owed $60,000 and who recently filed a claim with the 
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection.  However, he says 
he "was willing to pay whenever she requested" and she had stopped 
making requests.   
¶73 Attorney Menard argues that "his business practices were 
uniquely set up in such a way to create financial flexibility for 
the benefit of his clients, and were set up as such with the 
expressed consent of his clients."  He says the referee fails to 
discuss or simply overlooked the following: 
 
Attorney Menard has never previously been the subject of 
a disciplinary proceeding. 
 
Attorney Menard's bookkeeping practices were previously 
reviewed by the OLR in the context of a client complaint 
and were found to be satisfactory. 
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
28 
 
 
Mary Hoeft Smith admitted her investigation was both 
rushed and incomplete. 
 
Each and every client identified had signed a durable 
power of attorney and consent form for their funds to be 
commingled. 
 
With the exception of P.M., which the matter has been 
resolved, not a single client at issue has made a claim 
for restitution to date. 
¶74 Attorney Menard argues that the OLR fell short of proving 
that the alleged amounts that the referee recommends be paid as 
restitution were in fact owed.  He complains that the OLR presented 
evidence inferring that, if Attorney Menard could not produce 
documentation proving full payment of settlement proceeds, when it 
was abundantly clear that his recordkeeping practice was sloppy at 
best, then he must owe restitution in the presumed, unproven 
deficit amount, irrespective of the fact that no one, except P.M., 
whose case has been settled, had made a claim against Attorney 
Menard for restitution owed.  Attorney Menard again acknowledges 
that he is a poor record keeper, but he says poor recordkeeping 
and the absence of documentation available to confirm full 
satisfaction of settlement proceeds owed to clients is not the 
same 
as 
clear, 
satisfactory, 
and 
convincing 
evidence 
of 
nonpayment. 
¶75 Attorney Menard complains that the referee unfairly 
compared his case to Weigel, in which the attorney's license was 
revoked.  He says: 
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
29 
 
[H]is case is uniquely situated in that the evidence 
showed that his clients were made fully aware of the 
commingling at issue.  In most, if not all cases, the 
evidence showed that his clients provided consent and/or 
signed waivers permitting Menard to hold on to their 
settlement proceeds, satisfy outstanding medical/third-
party liens, and pay out client's shares in lump sum 
allocations on an 'as needed' basis. 
He also says unlike Weigel, he did keep records and settlement 
statements "providing a detailed picture of each and every client 
settlement and accounting of funds commingled, albeit, sloppy, 
unorganized records."  Id. 
¶76 Attorney Menard argues the fact he kept all of his 
clients and former clients informed about his accounting practices 
and the commingling of funds for purposes of resolving medical 
bills, 
negotiating 
subrogation 
liens, 
and 
paying 
clients 
structured settlement proceeds should have been a factor taken 
into consideration by the referee but it was not. 
¶77 Rather than revocation, as was ordered in Weigel, 
Attorney Menard argues that his case is more similar to In re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Voss, 
2014 
WI 
75, 
356 
Wis. 2d 382, 850 N.W.2d 190.  The complaint in Voss alleged 11 
counts of misconduct arising from Attorney Voss' work as a court-
appointed guardian.  Rather than setting up a guardianship account 
to handle his clients' income and expenses, Attorney Voss used a 
personal checking account not subject to interest accrual as a 
standard IOLTA account would have been, and he did not establish 
a separate fiduciary account for his clients' assets.  In 
suspending Attorney Voss' license for 18 months, this court held 
that in spite of the fact it was Attorney Voss' third instance of 
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
30 
 
discipline, that the conduct went on for a significant period of 
time and that the client at issue was vulnerable, revocation was 
reserved for the most egregious cases and Attorney Voss' conduct, 
although serious, did not rise to that level.   
¶78 The OLR argues that revocation is indeed appropriate for 
Attorney Menard's admitted 30 counts of misconduct.  The OLR points 
out that although Attorney Menard claims he obtained powers of 
attorney or some other agreement from his clients purporting to 
authorize him to use their money as he saw fit, no such documents 
were ever introduced into evidence.  In addition, the OLR says 
even if Attorney Menard had induced his clients to sign such 
documents, this would amount to nothing more than an attempt to 
circumvent this court's clear cut ethical rules, and even Attorney 
Menard confirmed that his scheme did not change his underlying 
ethical obligations or excuse the underlying misconduct.   
¶79 As for Attorney Menard's claim that one reason he 
deposited client money into his business account was to shield 
clients from negative consequences in relation to their government 
benefits, the OLR says even if Attorney Menard was holding client 
funds to shield them from government discovery, he fails to explain 
why he could not have held that money in his trust account rather 
than his business account.  In addition, the OLR says Attorney 
Menard does not explain why this alleged motivation required or 
allowed him to convert client funds to his own use.  It says "under 
his theory the clients needed their money hidden, not spent by 
their attorney."  In addition, the OLR says this claimed motivation 
smacks of fraud.  The OLR asks whether Attorney Menard was hiding 
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
31 
 
client funds in his bank account so that government entities would 
not factor those sums into his clients' benefit eligibility 
determination.  If so, it says it was not his place to assist 
clients in circumventing government benefit eligibility standards.   
¶80 The OLR says another justification used by Attorney 
Menard is the fact that an alleged former client named Jessup, who 
he claims filed a grievance against him, resulted in an OLR 
investigation that ultimately resulted in no discipline.  The OLR 
says this purported "evidence" provides no defense whatsoever 
since there is no evidence in the record as to the existence or 
facts of any Jessup grievance; what investigation, if any, the OLR 
did; or what the OLR advised or did not advise Attorney Menard 
regarding the matter.  The OLR says it is barred by this court's 
rules from even confirming or denying that any client named Jessup 
ever filed a grievance.  It notes that upon its objection at the 
evidentiary hearing, the referee confirmed he would not factor the 
alleged Jessup grievance into his decision.  
¶81 The OLR says Attorney Menard's conduct is not analogous 
to that in the Voss case because Attorney Menard repeatedly 
conceded he did use client funds for his own personal or business 
needs and, unlike Voss, the conversions here involved at least 12 
clients over the course of many years.  In addition, the OLR notes 
Attorney Menard's conversions total over $1,000,000 and his out of 
trust deposits exceeded $4,000,000.   
¶82 The OLR says the referee appropriately concluded that 
this case was analogous to Weigel.  The OLR notes that Attorney 
Weigel's license was revoked despite no finding that his 
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
32 
 
conversions were to pad his own pocket, whereby in this case 
Attorney Menard repeatedly converted funds not only to pay clients 
and others in client matters, he also converted funds to his own 
use. 
¶83 The OLR also argues that the referee appropriately 
ordered restitution in the amounts set forth above.  While Attorney 
Menard complains that the OLR's restitution request shifts the 
burden of proof on restitution to him, the OLR says it repeatedly 
asked Attorney Menard for documents to support any payments he 
made to or on behalf of clients.  It says Mary Hoeft Smith conducted 
her analysis based on what Attorney Menard produced and what she 
received from his banks.  The OLR says while Attorney Menard is 
correct that SCR 22.38 requires the OLR to prove misconduct by 
evidence that is clear, satisfactory, and convincing, he fails to 
note the impact of SCR 22.39, which shifts the burden of proof to 
a respondent who fails to produce trust account records to the 
OLR, or provide an accounting or fiduciary property to the OLR by 
creating a presumption of trust account misconduct.  See SCR 
22.39(2).  The OLR says Attorney Menard did not provide it with 
trust account records or accountings, and Mary Hoeft Smith had to 
recreate those records.  The OLR says, "Menard did not provide a 
scintilla of documentary evidence, much less evidence that is 
clear, satisfactory or convincing to rebut OLR's restitution proof 
or any presumption permitted under SCR 22.39."   
¶84 The OLR says Attorney Menard mischaracterizes Mary Hoeft 
Smith's testimony about her investigation by calling it "rushed 
and incomplete."  The OLR says she never said any such thing and 
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
33 
 
to the contrary she testified that the OLR prioritized promptly 
presenting the case to the Preliminary Review Committee with some 
clients rather than waiting to conduct an exhaustive audit of each 
and every one of Attorney Menard's clients. 
¶85 The OLR concludes by saying that the testimony at the 
hearing was clear, unequivocal, and compelling that Attorney 
Menard used his clients' funds as his own personal slush fund or 
piggy bank rather than holding them in trust as required by Supreme 
Court Rules.  It says his scheme displayed an utter disregard for 
the most fundamental of an attorney's fiduciary obligations:  the 
duty to hold his clients' funds in trust.  It says his "rob Peter 
to pay Paul" pyramid scheme violates a most basic and important 
part of the Supreme Court Rules. 
¶86 In his reply brief, Attorney Menard continues to argue 
that he tried to create a flexible and transparent accounting 
system for the benefit of his clients and with their expressed 
consent.  He also argues that the previous Jessup investigation 
had an effect on his perception that his accounting practices were 
acceptable and creates at least an explanation for why those 
practices continued to be used.  He says he has learned a painful 
lesson from this experience and is not at risk of repeating it.  
He asks the court to impose a suspension between 18 and 24 months.   
¶87 A referee's findings of fact will not be set aside unless 
clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.  See 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 
269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  This court is free to impose 
whatever discipline it deems appropriate, regardless of the 
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
34 
 
referee's recommendation.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.  
¶88 Attorney Menard stipulated to 30 counts of misconduct.  
The record clearly supports the referee's findings of fact, based 
on that stipulation, that the OLR met its burden of proof on all 
of those counts. 
¶89 Turning to the appropriate sanction, upon careful review 
of the matter, we agree with the referee that revocation of 
Attorney Menard's license is appropriate.  Although no two 
disciplinary cases are identical, we agree with the referee's 
assessment that this case is very similar to Weigel.  Here, as in 
Weigel, monies belonging to one client were routinely used to pay 
off other clients as well as firm and personal expenses.  As in 
Weigel, in virtually every client matter he handled, Attorney 
Menard "robbed Peter to pay Paul."  As we said in Weigel: 
[I]t would be difficult to imagine a more aggravated 
pattern of misconduct than the one presented here. We 
agree with the OLR that any sanction less than revocation 
would undermine the public's confidence in the honesty 
and integrity of the bar. Revocation . . . is the only 
sanction proportionate to the seriousness of the 
misconduct, and revocation will also protect the public, 
the courts, and the legal system, and it will deter other 
lawyers from engaging in similar misconduct.  Weigel, 
345 Wis. 2d at 39. 
¶90 We also agree with the referee's recommendations that 
Attorney Menard should be assessed the full costs of the proceeding 
and that he should be ordered to make restitution to the clients 
mentioned above. 
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
35 
 
¶91 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Robert C. Menard to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this 
order. 
¶92 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of 
this order, Robert C. Menard shall make restitution to the 
following clients: 
 
To C.M. the sum of $459.58 
 
To B.H. the sum of $5,000.32 
 
To J.B. the sum of $12,648.44 
 
To J.L.-M. the sum of $4,346.57 
 
To P.D. the sum of $1,100 
 
To J.S. the sum of $74,137.58 (less any or all of the 
$5,395.72 amount which Attorney Menard can demonstrate 
was paid on behalf of J.S. for legitimately due and owing 
medical expenses). 
¶93 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of 
this order, Robert C. Menard shall pay to the Office of Law 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $18,191.42 as 
of October 25, 2019. 
¶94 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified 
above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation. 
¶95 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Robert C. Menard shall comply with the provisions 
of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an attorney whose license to 
practice law has been revoked. 
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
36 
 
¶96 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the temporary suspension of 
Robert C. Menard's license to practice law, which was issued on 
March 20, 2020, is hereby lifted. 
¶97 Rebecca Frank Dallet, J., did not participate. 
 
No. 
2018AP659-D   
 
 
 
1