Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Robert J. Smead

Citation: 2011 WI 102

Docket Number: 2011AP000960-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2011-12-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
2011 WI 102 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2011AP960-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Robert J. Smead, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Robert J. Smead, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SMEAD 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 20, 2011   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2011 WI 102
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2011AP960-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Robert J. Smead, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Robert J. Smead, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
DEC 20, 2011 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.    Attorney publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of the referee, the Honorable Timothy L. Vocke, that Attorney 
Robert J. Smead receive a public reprimand and make restitution 
to a former client.  Because no appeal has been filed, we review 
the 
referee's 
report 
and 
recommendation 
pursuant 
to 
SCR 22.17(2).1  We approve and adopt the referee's findings of 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) states:   
No. 
2011AP960-D   
 
2 
 
fact and conclusions of law.  We agree that Attorney Smead's 
professional misconduct warrants a public reprimand, and we find 
it appropriate to order him to make restitution to his former 
client.  We also agree with the director of the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR) that no costs be assessed against Attorney 
Smead. 
¶2 
Attorney Smead was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1998 and last practiced in Menasha.  In 2010 
Attorney Smead's law license was suspended for 120 days for 
misconduct found in two separate attorney disciplinary matters.  
The misconduct at issue included failing to respond to his 
clients' requests for information; failing to hold clients' 
money in trust; failing to refund unearned fee to a client; 
failing to have a written contingent fee agreement; and failing 
to respond to the OLR's grievance investigations.  In re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Smead, 
2010 
WI 
4, 
322 
Wis. 2d 100, 777 N.W.2d 644.  Attorney Smead's license remains 
suspended.  In addition, Attorney Smead's law license is 
currently suspended for nonpayment of dues, noncompliance with 
continuing legal education (CLE) requirements, and failure to 
cooperate with an OLR grievance investigation. 
                                                                                                                                                             
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.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter 
No. 
2011AP960-D   
 
3 
 
¶3 
On April 27, 2011, the OLR filed a complaint alleging 
three counts of misconduct arising out of Attorney Smead's 
representation of M.R., who hired Attorney Smead to represent 
him in a criminal matter.  M.R. paid Attorney Smead $1,500 for 
the representation in 2007.  On March 15, 2007, Attorney Smead 
filed a notice of appearance in the criminal case on M.R.'s 
behalf.  On September 21, 2007, the Winnebago County circuit 
court sent notice to Attorney Smead about a hearing scheduled 
for October 25, 2007.   
¶4 
On October 10, 2007, this court issued an order 
suspending Attorney Smead's license for failing to cooperate 
with an OLR grievance investigation.  The order provided that 
Attorney Smead was to comply with SCR 22.26, which governs an 
attorney's 
activities 
upon 
suspension 
or 
revocation, 
and 
requires an attorney to notify all clients of the suspension and 
the consequent inability to act as an attorney following the 
effective date of the suspension.   
¶5 
Attorney Smead failed to notify M.R. of the suspension 
of his law license and failed to tell him he would not be able 
to appear at the October 25, 2007, hearing or otherwise 
participate further in M.R.'s defense.  On October 25, 2007, 
Attorney Smead failed to appear in court for the scheduled 
hearing.  The circuit court appointed new counsel for M.R.   
¶6 
Following the suspension of his law license, Attorney 
Smead failed to provide M.R. with an accounting of fees advanced 
and a refund of any unearned portion of the fee.  Attorney Smead 
No. 
2011AP960-D   
 
4 
 
also failed to respond to M.R.'s post-representation requests 
for information about fees.   
¶7 
M.R. filed a grievance with the OLR on April 17, 2009.  
The OLR sent Attorney Smead letters by both first-class and 
certified mail advising of his duty to cooperate with the 
investigation and setting a deadline for him to provide a 
written response to M.R.'s grievance.  Attorney Smead failed to 
provide a written response to the grievance. 
¶8 
Prior to the OLR filing a formal complaint, this case 
was originally referred to a referee in the form of an SCR 22.12 
stipulation for the imposition of a public reprimand.  However, 
the referee rejected the stipulation because, at that time, 
Attorney 
Smead 
lacked 
the 
financial 
resources 
to 
pay 
restitution.   
¶9 
The 
OLR's 
complaint 
alleged 
three 
counts 
of 
misconduct: 
 
[Count One]  Upon suspension of his law license 
on October 10, 2007, [Attorney] Smead failed to notify 
his client M.R. of the suspension and that he would 
not be able to appear at his client's scheduled 
hearing or otherwise participate further in his 
defense, in violation of SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b).2 
                                                 
2 SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b) states: 
(1) On or before the effective date of license 
suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 
suspended or revoked shall do all of the following: 
(a) Notify by certified mail all clients being 
represented in pending matters of the suspension or 
revocation and of the attorney's consequent inability 
to act as an attorney following the effective date of 
the suspension or revocation. 
No. 
2011AP960-D   
 
5 
 
 
[Count Two]  Upon suspension of his law license 
and thereafter, [Attorney] Smead failed to provide his 
client M.R. with an accounting of fees advanced and a 
refund of any unearned portion of the fee, and failed 
to address his client's post-representation requests 
for information on the subject of fees, in violation 
of SCR 20:1.16(d).3 
 
[Count Three]  [Attorney] Smead failed to provide 
OLR with a written response to M.R.'s grievance, in 
violation of SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6),4 enforced 
via SCR 20:8.4(h).5 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
(b) Advise the clients to seek legal advice of 
their choice elsewhere.  
3 SCR 20:1.16(d) states: 
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 or expense that has not 
been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers 
relating to the client to the extent permitted by 
other law. 
4 SCRs 22.03(2) and (6) state 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. 
 
. . .  
No. 
2011AP960-D   
 
6 
 
¶10 On May 6, 2011, Attorney Smead filed an answer 
admitting all allegations in the OLR's complaint.  A hearing was 
held before Referee Vocke on August 9, 2011.  The referee issued 
his report and recommendation on August 24, 2011.  The referee 
concluded that the OLR had met its burden of proof with respect 
to the allegations contained in all three counts of the OLR's 
complaint.  The referee noted that by filing an answer admitting 
all 
of 
the 
allegations 
against 
him, 
Attorney 
Smead 
was 
essentially entering a plea of no contest as to all three counts 
of misconduct.  The referee concluded that a public reprimand 
would 
be 
an 
appropriate 
sanction 
for 
Attorney 
Smead's 
misconduct.   
¶11 The referee noted that Attorney Smead was previously 
disciplined, and the referee said there appeared to be a pattern 
of misconduct between the two prior disciplinary cases, which 
resulted in the 2010 suspension of Attorney Smead's license, and 
the instant case.  However, the referee also found numerous 
mitigating factors, including the fact that the misconduct at 
issue here occurred during precisely the same timeframe as the 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
(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. 
5 SCR 20:8.4(h) 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. 
2011AP960-D   
 
7 
 
misconduct that occurred in the two prior disciplinary cases and 
if the timing had been right, the OLR could have brought all 
three cases at the same time.   
¶12 The referee found a significant mitigating factor to 
be that Attorney Smead's misconduct arose after he took over a 
heavy caseload from another attorney with whom he shared office 
space and whose license was suspended.  The referee noted that 
out of a sense of compassion and professional obligation, 
Attorney Smead nearly doubled his own caseload by taking on the 
other attorney's clients, the vast majority of whom had already 
paid retainers to the suspended attorney, and Attorney Smead 
basically handled these clients' cases for free.   
¶13 The referee found Attorney Smead to be remorseful and 
found Attorney Smead's problems were situational in that he was 
unexpectedly overwhelmed by the amount of additional work he 
took on and there was no indication that he operated out of 
greed or dishonest motive.  The referee noted that Attorney 
Smead has discontinued the practice of law, has gone to nursing 
school and obtained an R.N. degree, and is currently working at 
a hospital.  Based on all of those factors, the referee 
concluded that a public reprimand was an appropriate level of 
discipline. 
¶14 Attorney Smead agreed that he owed M.R. $1,500 
restitution, plus interest.  At the hearing before the referee, 
Attorney Smead tendered two money orders, one in the amount of 
$1,000 and one in the amount of $787.50, which would cover 
$1,500 in restitution as well as interest through August 2011.  
No. 
2011AP960-D   
 
8 
 
There was a discussion on the record that M.R. has disappeared 
and both Attorney Smead and counsel for the OLR made repeated 
attempts to locate M.R., all without success.  When asked what 
should be done with the $1,787.50, OLR's counsel said she had 
done some investigation and believed the funds should be 
deposited with the Office of the State Treasurer as unclaimed 
property.  She said this proposal was based upon guidance the 
OLR provides to Wisconsin attorneys on OLR's web site.  The 
referee concluded that this proposed handling of the money 
orders was not suitable to the circumstances presented in this 
case and directed that OLR's counsel take possession of the 
money orders and turn them over to the clerk of this court 
pending a determination by the court as to the appropriate 
handling of the funds.  The referee also suggested that if M.R. 
had not come forward to collect the money within one year, the 
money should be returned to Attorney Smead.  Finally, the 
referee recommended that no costs be imposed against Attorney 
Smead.   
¶15 This court will affirm a referee's findings of fact 
unless they are clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law are 
reviewed de novo.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Tully, 
2005 WI 100, ¶25, 283 Wis. 2d 124, 699 N.W.2d 882.  This court 
is free to impose whatever discipline it deems appropriate, 
regardless of the referee's recommendation.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 
N.W.2d 686. 
No. 
2011AP960-D   
 
9 
 
¶16 Because they have not been shown to be clearly 
erroneous, we adopt the referee's findings of fact.  We also 
agree 
with 
the 
referee's 
conclusions 
of 
law 
and 
his 
recommendation regarding the appropriate level of discipline.  
We conclude that a public reprimand is sufficient to achieve the 
objectives of attorney discipline.  We also agree that under the 
unique facts of this case, no costs should be imposed against 
Attorney Smead.  We note that in its statement of costs, the OLR 
says it is appropriate to treat this case similar to cases 
involving stipulations filed under SCR 22.12, in which costs are 
generally not assessed against a respondent.  The OLR points out 
that Attorney Smead was previously willing to enter into a pre-
litigation stipulation to resolve the matter but a referee 
rejected that agreement because Attorney Smead was unable to pay 
restitution at that time.  The OLR also notes that Attorney 
Smead continued his willingness to resolve the matter by not 
contesting a public reprimand and paying restitution to M.R.   
¶17 Supreme court rule 22.24(1m) provides that it is this 
court's general policy upon a finding of misconduct to impose 
all costs upon the respondent.  In cases involving extraordinary 
circumstances, the court may, in the exercise of its discretion, 
reduce the amount of costs imposed upon a respondent.  We deem 
it an extraordinary circumstance that the misconduct at issue 
here occurred at approximately the same time as the misconduct 
at issue in the matters which resulted in Attorney Smead's 2010 
suspension.  As the referee pointed out, if the counts involving 
M.R. could have been brought concurrently with the counts 
No. 
2011AP960-D   
 
10 
 
alleged in the earlier proceedings, it is likely that additional 
costs would not have been incurred.  In addition, we note that 
Attorney Smead attempted to bring this matter to a swift 
conclusion, first by agreeing to enter into an SCR 22.12 
stipulation 
and 
then 
by 
filing 
an 
answer 
admitting 
all 
allegations in OLR's complaint.  For these reasons, we decline 
to assess any costs against Attorney Smead. 
¶18 While we agree with the referee that Attorney Smead 
should be required to make restitution to M.R. in the amount of 
$1,787.50, we deem it appropriate to establish a different 
procedure than that suggested by the referee.  As noted above, 
in spite of due diligence, neither Attorney Smead nor counsel 
for 
the 
OLR 
has 
been able to ascertain M.R.'s current 
whereabouts.  Under the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to 
transmit the $1,787.50 to the unclaimed property unit of the 
Office of the State Treasurer.   
¶19 IT IS ORDERED that Robert J. Smead is publicly 
reprimanded for professional misconduct. 
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 30 days of the date 
of this order, the clerk of this court shall transmit to the 
unclaimed property unit of the Office of the State Treasurer the 
two money orders totaling $1,787.50, which represent restitution 
and interest owed to M.R. by Attorney Smead.   
No. 
2011AP960-D   
 
 
 
1