Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Charles A. Boyle

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2015AP002100-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2016-05-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
2016 WI 40 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2015AP2100-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Charles A. Boyle, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Charles A. Boyle, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BOYLE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 18, 2016 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2016 WI 40
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2015AP2100-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Charles A. Boyle, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Charles A. Boyle, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 18, 2016 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
and Attorney Charles A. Boyle have filed a stipulation pursuant 
to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12 that Attorney Boyle's license 
to practice law in this state should be suspended for a period 
of 60 days, as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the 
Supreme Court of Illinois.  After reviewing this matter, we 
approve the stipulation and impose the stipulated reciprocal 
No. 
2015AP2100-D   
 
2 
 
discipline.  The OLR does not seek costs, and we do not impose 
any. 
¶2 
Attorney Boyle was admitted to the practice of law in 
Illinois in November 1966.  He was also admitted to the practice 
of law in Wisconsin in June 1985.  He maintains a law practice 
in the city of Chicago. 
¶3 
Attorney Boyle has been the subject of professional 
discipline on one prior occasion.  In 2015 this court publicly 
reprimanded him for five counts of misconduct that arose from 
(1) filing documents and appearing in a Racine County circuit 
court while his license to practice law in this state was 
administratively suspended; (2) making false or misleading 
statements to the circuit court, the clerk of the circuit court, 
and the OLR; and (3) violating the Attorney's Oath by failing to 
maintain 
proper 
respect 
to 
the 
circuit 
court. 
 
In 
re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Boyle, 2015 WI 90, 364 Wis. 2d 
544, 869 N.W.2d 475.  
¶4 
On October 20, 2015, the OLR filed a two-count 
complaint. Count I alleged that Attorney Boyle should be subject 
to reciprocal discipline due to the imposition of a 60-day 
suspension imposed by the Supreme Court of Illinois.  Count II 
alleged that Attorney Boyle had failed to notify the OLR of his 
No. 
2015AP2100-D   
 
3 
 
suspension in a timely manner, in violation of SCR 22.22(1).1  On 
December 11, 2015, after the OLR's complaint had been served on 
Attorney Boyle but before any referee had been appointed, 
Attorney Boyle entered into a stipulation with the OLR whereby 
he agreed that the facts alleged in the OLR's complaint 
supported the imposition of a 60-day suspension of his license 
to practice law in Wisconsin, as reciprocal discipline. 
¶5 
According to the factual allegations in the OLR's 
complaint 
and 
the 
Illinois 
disciplinary 
records 
attached 
thereto, in 2012 Attorney Boyle agreed to retain $2,000 in 
settlement proceeds in his client trust account, pending a 
determination of whether any of those funds would be payable to 
Medicare.  Attorney Boyle subsequently transferred $1,949.62 of 
those funds from his client trust account into his business 
account for his own business or personal purposes.  After the 
client asked the Illinois regulatory authorities to investigate, 
Attorney Boyle contacted Medicare to inquire whether Medicare 
would be making a claim on any of those funds.  Medicare did not 
seek payment of any of the funds, and Attorney Boyle paid the 
$2,000 to the client.  Attorney Boyle consented that his conduct 
had constituted conversion of the client's funds, in violation 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.22(1) provides:  "An attorney on whom public 
discipline for misconduct or a license suspension for medical 
incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction shall 
promptly notify the director of the matter.  Failure to furnish 
the notice within 20 days of the effective date of the order or 
judgment of the other jurisdiction constitutes misconduct." 
No. 
2015AP2100-D   
 
4 
 
of Rule 1.15(a) (failure to hold client property in trust, 
separate from the lawyer's own property) and Rule 8.4(c) 
(conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit, 
or 
misrepresentation) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct 
(2010).2  Based on Attorney Boyle's consent, the Supreme Court of 
Illinois suspended his license to practice in that state for a 
period of 60 days.   
¶6 
Under SCR 22.22(3),3 this court shall impose the 
identical discipline or license suspension imposed in another 
jurisdiction, unless one or more of three exceptions apply.  In 
                                                 
2 In 
the 
petition 
for 
the 
imposition 
of 
consensual 
discipline, 
the 
administrator 
of 
the 
Illinois 
attorney 
regulatory agency indicated that Attorney Boyle had not been 
previously 
disciplined 
in 
that 
state, 
that 
he 
had 
made 
restitution of the funds to the client, that he had cooperated 
throughout the investigation and prosecution of the matter, and 
that he had expressed remorse for his conduct.   
3 SCR 22.22(3) provides: 
 
(3)  The supreme court shall impose the identical 
discipline or license suspension unless one or more of 
the following is present: 
 
(a)  The procedure in the other jurisdiction was 
so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to 
constitute a deprivation of due process.  
 
(b)  There was such an infirmity of proof 
establishing the misconduct or medical incapacity that 
the supreme court could not accept as final the 
conclusion in respect to the misconduct or medical 
incapacity.   
 
(c) 
 
The 
misconduct 
justifies 
substantially 
different discipline in this state.  
No. 
2015AP2100-D   
 
5 
 
his stipulation with the OLR, Attorney Boyle states that he does 
not claim that any exception applies to his case.  He agrees 
that this court should suspend his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin for a period of 60 days, as reciprocal discipline. 
¶7 
In the stipulation, Attorney Boyle further represents 
that the stipulation was not the result of plea bargaining, that 
he fully understands and agrees with the misconduct allegations 
made in the OLR's complaint, that he fully understands the 
ramifications of the stipulated level of discipline, that he 
fully understands his right to consult with counsel and his 
right to contest the allegations against him, that he is 
entering into the stipulation knowingly and voluntarily, and 
that the stipulation represents his decision not to contest the 
level and type of discipline sought by the OLR. 
¶8 
After reviewing this matter, we accept the stipulation 
and impose the identical discipline imposed by the Supreme Court 
of Illinois, namely a 60-day suspension of Attorney Boyle's 
license to practice law in this state.  Because this matter has 
been resolved by stipulation without the appointment of a 
referee and the OLR has not requested any costs, we do not 
impose any costs on Attorney Boyle. 
¶9 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Charles A. Boyle to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective May 31, 2016. 
¶10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Charles A. Boyle shall 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
No. 
2015AP2100-D   
 
6 
 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
¶11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See SCR 
22.28(2). 
 
 
 
 
No. 
2015AP2100-D   
 
 
 
1