Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Joan M. Boyd

Citation: 2006 WI 28

Docket Number: 2005AP000215-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2006-03-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
2006 WI 28 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2005AP215-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Joan M. Boyd, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Joan M. Boyd, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BOYD 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 30, 2006   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2006 WI 28
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2005AP215-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Joan M. Boyd, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Joan M. Boyd, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 30, 2006 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   We 
review 
a 
referee's 
report 
and 
recommendation issued November 9, 2005, concluding that Attorney 
Joan M. Boyd violated the rules of professional conduct in 
connection with her representation of S.P.  The referee 
recommended this court impose a public reprimand upon Attorney 
Boyd, together with certain conditions upon her license to 
practice law, and that it require Attorney Boyd to pay 
restitution and costs in connection with this matter.  We adopt 
No. 
2005AP215-D   
 
2 
 
the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law and the 
recommendations regarding discipline. 
¶2 
Attorney 
Boyd 
was 
admitted 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin in 1989.  In 2000 she was publicly reprimanded for 
forging a client's endorsement on a refund check from a 
bankruptcy trustee and for depositing the client funds into her 
law office business account.  Conditions were placed upon her 
license to practice law in connection with that matter, 
including the requirement that she use an accounting firm to 
handle her finances, that she attend certain continuing legal 
education courses, and that she continue to receive medical 
treatment for bipolar/manic depressive disorder.   
¶3 
On January 24, 2005, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) 
filed 
a 
complaint 
against 
Attorney 
Boyd 
alleging 
professional misconduct involving her representation of her 
former client, S.P.  Attorney Boyd filed an answer and Timothy 
L. Vocke was appointed as referee in the matter.  Subsequently, 
Attorney Boyd withdrew her answer and pled no contest to the 
allegations contained in the OLR complaint.   
¶4 
The complaint alleged, and the referee found, that 
Attorney Boyd represented S.P. in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy matter.  
Attorney Boyd received a total of $700 from S.P. for purposes of 
commencing the bankruptcy action.  However, Attorney Boyd failed 
to deposit her client's payments into her client trust account.  
When asked by successor counsel to refund a portion of the 
retainer, Attorney Boyd commingled her own funds in the client 
No. 
2005AP215-D   
 
3 
 
trust account, then made the $300 refund check payable to the 
wrong payee.   
¶5 
The OLR alleged, and the referee concluded, that by 
failing to deposit the client's payments into her client trust 
account, Attorney Boyd failed to hold in trust, property of a 
client or third person that is in the lawyer's possession in 
connection with a representation, in violation of former SCR 
20:1.15(a).1  In addition, by depositing $300 of her own funds 
into her client trust account and issuing a check for $300 to 
successor counsel to refund a portion of the fee, Attorney Boyd 
commingled her own funds into her client trust account in 
violation of former SCR 20:1.15(a).   
¶6 
Attorney Boyd was also retained by S.P. to pursue the 
possibility of initiating a federal civil rights action on her 
behalf against a variety of individuals, including state and 
other government officials involved in a child in need of 
protective 
services 
(CHIPS) 
case 
involving 
S.P.'s 
child.  
Attorney Boyd informed S.P. that she thought S.P. had "a good 
case" and that she thought S.P. might obtain a "substantial 
                                                 
1 Former SCR 20:1.15 applies to misconduct committed prior 
to July 1, 2004.  Former SCR 20:1.15(a) provided in pertinent 
part that:   
(a) A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from 
the lawyer's own property, that property of clients 
and third persons that is in the lawyer's possession 
in connection with a representation or when acting in 
a fiduciary capacity. . . . No funds belonging to the 
lawyer or law firm, except funds reasonably sufficient 
to pay or avoid imposition of account service charges, 
may be deposited in such an account.   
No. 
2005AP215-D   
 
4 
 
settlement."  She requested a $10,000 deposit, plus $2000 for 
costs, and over time S.P. made payments totaling $6500 to pursue 
the civil rights matter.  No such action was ever commenced. 
¶7 
The 
OLR 
alleged, 
and 
the 
referee 
subsequently 
concluded, that Attorney Boyd failed to provide the legal skill 
or preparation reasonably necessary to handle the federal civil 
rights claim, in violation of SCR 20:1.1.2   
¶8 
In 
addition, 
the 
OLR 
alleged, 
and 
the 
referee 
concluded, that the fee Attorney Boyd charged S.P. in connection 
with the civil rights matter was unreasonable, in violation of 
SCR 20:1.5(a).3  The referee particularly noted that the legal 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.1 provides that "[a] lawyer shall provide 
competent representation to a client.  Competent representation 
requires 
the 
legal 
knowledge, 
skill, 
thoroughness 
and 
preparation reasonably necessary for the representation." 
3 SCR 20:1.5(a) provides:  Fees 
 
(a) A lawyer's fee shall be reasonable.  The 
factors 
to 
be 
considered 
in 
determining 
the 
reasonableness of a fee include the following: 
 
(1) the time and labor required, the novelty 
and difficulty of the questions involved, and the 
skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; 
 
(2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, 
that the acceptance of the particular employment will 
preclude other employment by the lawyer; 
 
(3) the 
fee 
customarily 
charged 
in 
the 
locality for similar legal services; 
 
(4) the 
amount 
involved 
and 
the 
results 
obtained; 
 
(5) the time limitations imposed by the client 
or by the circumstances; 
No. 
2005AP215-D   
 
5 
 
bills reflected a "great deal of time for 'legal research'" 
although no action was ever filed.  The referee also noted that 
he was persuaded by the OLR investigator's testimony, opining 
that Attorney Boyd should have done more research before 
offering her opinion on the viability of a civil rights claim 
and 
that 
"the 
minimal 
amount 
of 
research" 
should 
have 
demonstrated that S.P. did not have a viable civil rights claim.   
¶9 
In evaluating the appropriate discipline, the referee 
acknowledged that the aggrieved client was "highly emotional." 
However, he also found that, although cooperative with the OLR, 
Attorney Boyd showed no sign of remorse, took a significant 
amount of money from a person with limited resources, failed to 
make 
restitution 
to 
that 
person, 
and 
committed 
multiple 
disciplinary violations, albeit against this single client.  
¶10  At a hearing conducted on July 27, 2005, Attorney 
Boyd withdrew her answer and entered a no-contest plea to the 
allegations contained in the OLR complaint.  However, Attorney 
Boyd's subsequent brief on the question of sanctions contained 
certain facts that the OLR asserted were not facts of record.  
The referee agreed, whereupon Attorney Boyd sought to withdraw 
her no-contest plea.  Following further hearing and argument the 
referee denied that motion, observing that, in any event, 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
(6) the nature and length of the professional 
relationship with the client; 
 
(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of 
the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and 
 
(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent. 
No. 
2005AP215-D   
 
6 
 
Attorney Boyd's answer had established a sufficient factual 
basis for the counts alleged against her.   
¶11 The referee then considered the request from the OLR 
for a 60-day license suspension.  Ultimately, after discussing 
various legal authorities, the referee recommended that the 
court: (1) impose a public reprimand; (2) order restitution in 
the amount of $5450 plus interest of 12 percent; (3) ensure that 
Attorney Boyd reach an agreement with the OLR that another 
accounting firm handle her finances; (4) make certain that 
Attorney Boyd supply the OLR with a medical authorization for 
purposes of her mental condition and continued treatment for her 
mental health condition; (5) guarantee that Attorney Boyd attend 
and pass the OLR trust account school; and (6) order Attorney 
Boyd to pay the costs of the prosecution of this case.   
¶12 We somewhat reluctantly agree that a public reprimand 
is sufficient discipline for Attorney Boyd's misconduct in this 
matter.  However, mindful of the fact that no appeal was filed 
in this matter, we accept the referee's recommendations.  We 
further agree that the conditions recommended by the referee are 
appropriate and we order Attorney Boyd to pay the costs of this 
disciplinary proceeding, which are $7006.39 as of November 29, 
2005. 
¶13 IT 
IS 
ORDERED 
that 
Joan 
M. 
Boyd 
is 
publicly 
reprimanded for professional misconduct. 
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 30 days of the date 
of this order, Attorney Joan M. Boyd shall pay restitution to 
the client, S.P., in the amount of $5450 plus interest at the 
No. 
2005AP215-D   
 
7 
 
rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of August 23, 2002 
until the date the client is repaid in full. 
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following conditions 
are imposed upon Attorney Boyd's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin: 
Attorney Boyd shall attend and satisfy trust account 
training requirements as directed by the OLR; 
Six months after the date of this order, and every six 
months thereafter until two years after the date of 
this order, Attorney Boyd shall provide full medical 
treatment records to the OLR and any authorizations 
necessary to enable the OLR to monitor her medical 
condition. 
Within three months after the date of this order, 
Attorney Boyd shall enter into an agreement with the 
OLR regarding an acceptable accounting firm to manage 
her finances. 
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Joan M. Boyd shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If the costs 
are not paid within the time specified and absent a showing to 
this court of an inability to pay the costs within that time, 
the license of Attorney Joan M. Boyd to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall be suspended until further order of the court. 
 
No. 
2005AP215-D   
 
 
 
1