Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Thomas J. McClure

Citation: 2015 WI 25

Docket Number: 2013AP002140-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2015-03-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
2015 WI 25 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2013AP2140-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against 
Thomas J. McClure, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Thomas J. McClure, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MCCLURE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 10, 2015 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2015 WI 25
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2013AP2140-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Thomas J. McClure, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Thomas J. McClure, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 10, 2015 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule (SCR) 22.17(2), the report of the referee, Reserve Judge 
Dennis J. Flynn, recommending that the court suspend Attorney 
Thomas J. McClure's license to practice law in Wisconsin for a 
period of six months less one day for 20 counts of misconduct, 
and also recommending that Attorney McClure be required to 
complete continuing legal education (CLE) ethics courses.   
No. 
2013AP2140-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Upon careful review of the matter, we adopt the 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law.  We conclude, 
however, that a five-month suspension of Attorney McClure's 
license is an appropriate sanction for his misconduct.  We also 
conclude that the full costs of the proceeding, which are 
$13,677.99 as of December 1, 2014, should be assessed against 
Attorney McClure.   
¶3 
Attorney McClure was admitted to the practice of law 
in Wisconsin in 1980 and practices in Delafield.  He has no 
prior disciplinary history. 
¶4 
On September 26, 2013, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a complaint alleging that Attorney McClure committed 
21 counts of misconduct.  Ten counts of misconduct arose out of 
his handling of three client manners.  The remaining 11 counts 
consisted of various trust account violations. 
¶5 
Referee Flynn was appointed on February 18, 2014.  On 
September 9, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation whereby 
Attorney McClure admitted the facts underlying Counts 1-19 of 
the OLR's complaint.  An evidentiary hearing was held before the 
referee in October 2014.  The referee issued his report and 
recommendation on November 10, 2014.  The referee found that the 
OLR had met its burden of proof with respect to Counts 1-19 and 
Count 21 of the OLR's complaint.  The referee found that the OLR 
did not meet its burden of proof as to Count 20. 
¶6 
Counts One-Six of the OLR's complaint arose out of 
Attorney McClure's representation of J.J.  In or about May 2007, 
J.J. hired Attorney McClure to represent him regarding a claim 
No. 
2013AP2140-D   
 
3 
 
for personal injuries that resulted from a motor vehicle 
accident.  As part of a mediation agreement signed by J.J. and 
Attorney McClure, J.J. agreed to settle his claim against the 
driver of the other vehicle and the driver's insurance company 
for a payment of $79,000.  In a settlement statement to J.J., 
Attorney McClure specified that the McClure Law Offices' 
attorney fees and costs were $26,333.07; the attorneys costs, 
including a partial waiver of $72.67, were $747.80; the 
outstanding 
medical 
bills 
were 
$41,919.13; 
and 
the 
net 
settlement recovery to J.J. was $10,000.00. 
¶7 
J.J. received a net settlement proceeds check from 
Attorney McClure in the amount of $10,000 on June 10, 2008.  
That same day, Attorney McClure made payments with trust account 
checks to various medical providers totaling $12,567.20.  Over 
the next two years, Attorney McClure made various withdrawals 
and wrote various checks out of his trust account which resulted 
in insufficient funds remaining in the trust account to pay 
J.J.'s outstanding medical bills as required by the settlement 
statement. 
¶8 
In July of 2010, J.J. wrote to Attorney McClure saying 
that several medical bills were still unpaid and were adversely 
affecting J.J.'s credit rating.  Attorney McClure made the final 
payment to J.J.'s medical providers in February 2011.   
¶9 
The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney McClure's handling of J.J.'s 
settlement: 
No. 
2013AP2140-D   
 
4 
 
[COUNT ONE]  By failing to inform [J.J.] that he 
had not promptly paid the medical providers from the 
settlement funds, and having paid one of the medical 
providers more than a year after the settlement, and 
again failing to inform [J.J.] that he had not paid 
several 
medical 
providers, 
McClure 
violated 
SCR 20:1.4(a)(3).1 
[COUNT TWO]  By failing to hold in trust the 
funds owed to numerous medical providers from the 
settlement, McClure violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).2 
[COUNT THREE]  By commingling his own funds with 
[J.J.'s] settlement funds in his trust account, 
McClure violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(3).3 
[COUNT FOUR]  By failing to promptly deliver 
funds to numerous medical providers, including six 
medical providers that did not receive their funds for 
more than two years after the settlement, McClure 
violated SCR 20:1.15(d)(1).4 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides that a lawyer shall "keep the 
client reasonably informed about the status of the matter." 
2 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. 
3 SCR 20:1.15(b)(3) provides that "[n]o funds belonging to 
the lawyer or law firm, except funds reasonably sufficient to 
pay monthly account service charges, may be deposited or 
retained in a trust account." 
4 SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) provides: 
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 
(continued) 
No. 
2013AP2140-D   
 
5 
 
[COUNT FIVE]  By failing to maintain a subsidiary 
individual client ledger for [J.J.], McClure violated 
SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)b.5 
[COUNT SIX]  By converting [J.J.'s] settlement 
funds, which were owed to numerous medical providers, 
for his own personal use and/or delivering the funds 
to his other clients or third parties, McClure 
violated SCR 20:8.4(c).6 
¶10 After observing various irregularities in Attorney 
McClure's trust account statements that came to light during the 
OLR's investigation into J.J.'s grievance, the OLR initiated an 
inquiry into Attorney McClure's trust account practices.  That 
inquiry resulted in the 11 counts of misconduct as enumerated in 
the OLR's complaint: 
                                                                                                                                                             
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. 
5 SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)b. provides: 
A subsidiary ledger shall be maintained for each 
client or 3rd party for whom the lawyer receives trust 
funds that are deposited in an IOLTA account or any 
other pooled trust account.  The lawyer shall record 
each receipt and disbursement of a client's or 3rd 
party's 
funds 
and 
the 
balance 
following 
each 
transaction.  A lawyer shall not disburse funds from 
an IOLTA account or any pooled trust account that 
would create a negative balance with respect to any 
individual client or matter. 
6 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
No. 
2013AP2140-D   
 
6 
 
[COUNT SEVEN]  By failing to hold in trust his 
clients' funds, separate from his own personal funds, 
McClure violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(1). 
[COUNT EIGHT]  By commingling his own funds with 
the funds of clients and third-parties in his trust 
account for at least four years, McClure violated 
SCR 20:1.15(b)(3). 
[COUNT NINE]  By making at least 670 in-person 
cash withdrawals from his trust account, McClure 
violated SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)a.7 
[COUNT TEN]  Having his trust account check 
number 161 returned for insufficient funds, and 
therefore disbursing the funds from his trust account 
without the funds being available for disbursement, 
McClure violated SCR 20:1.15(e)(5)a.8 
[COUNT 
ELEVEN] 
 
By 
failing 
to 
maintain 
a 
transaction register for his trust account, McClure 
violated SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)a.9 
                                                 
7 SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)a. provides that "[n]o disbursement of 
cash shall be made from a trust account or from a deposit to a 
trust account, and no check shall be made payable to 'Cash.'" 
8 SCR 20:1.15(e)(5)a. provides that "[a] lawyer shall not 
disburse funds from any trust account unless the deposit from 
which those funds will be disbursed has cleared, and the funds 
are available for disbursement." 
9 SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)a. provides: 
The 
transaction 
register 
shall 
contain 
a 
chronological record of all account transactions, and 
shall include all of the following: 
1. the date, source, and amount of all deposits; 
2. the date, check or transaction number, payee 
and amount of all disbursements, whether by check, 
wire transfer, or other means; 
3. the date and amount of every other deposit or 
deduction of whatever nature; 
(continued) 
No. 
2013AP2140-D   
 
7 
 
[COUNT TWELVE]  By failing to maintain individual 
client ledgers for his clients, McClure violated 
SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)b. 
[COUNT THIRTEEN]  By failing to prepare and 
retain a printed reconciliation report on a regular 
and periodic basis not less frequently than every 30 
days, McClure violated SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)g.10 
[COUNT FOURTEEN]  By failing to file an overdraft 
notification agreement with OLR for his trust account, 
McClure violated SCR 20:1.15(h)(8).11 
                                                                                                                                                             
4. the identity of the client for whom funds were 
deposited or disbursed; and 
5. 
the 
balance 
in 
the 
account 
after 
each 
transaction. 
10 SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)g. provides: 
For each trust account, the lawyer shall prepare 
and retain a printed reconciliation report on a 
regular and periodic basis not less frequently than 
every 30 days.  Each reconciliation report shall show 
all of the following balances and verify that they are 
identical: 
1. the balance that appears in the transaction 
register as of the reporting date; 
2. the total of all subsidiary ledger balances 
for IOLTA accounts and other pooled trust accounts, 
determined by listing and totaling the balances in the 
individual client ledgers and the ledger for account 
fees and charges, as of the reporting date; and 
3. the adjusted balance, determined by adding 
outstanding deposits and other credits to the balance 
in the financial institution's monthly statement and 
subtracting outstanding checks and other deductions 
from the balance in the monthly statement. 
11 SCR 20:1.15(h)(8) provides:  
Every lawyer practicing or admitted to practice 
in Wisconsin shall comply with the reporting and 
(continued) 
No. 
2013AP2140-D   
 
8 
 
[COUNT FIFTEEN]  By filing false certificates 
with the State Bar of Wisconsin in which he certified 
that he had complied with each of the record-keeping 
requirements, McClure violated SCR 20:1.15(i)(4).12 
[COUNT SIXTEEN]  By placing all monies received 
by his office into his trust account in an effort to 
protect income from seizure at a time when he was the 
subject 
of 
Wisconsin 
Department 
of 
Revenue 
tax 
warrants, McClure violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
[COUNT SEVENTEEN]  By failing to timely file his 
state and federal tax returns for the years of 2008, 
2009, and 2010, McClure violated SCR 20:8.4(f).13 
¶11 The OLR's complaint also alleged three counts of 
misconduct arising out of Attorney McClure's representation of 
J.K.  J.K. was charged in a Kenosha County case filed in June of 
2011 with Child Abuse-Intentionally Cause Harm, a class H 
felony; Battery, a class A misdemeanor; and Disorderly Conduct, 
a class B misdemeanor.   
¶12 On June 13, 2011, Attorney McClure sent an electronic 
response via a "legalmatch" website to M.K., J.K.'s mother, 
                                                                                                                                                             
production requirements of this subsection, including 
filing of an overdraft notification agreement for each 
IOLTA account, each draft-type trust account and each 
draft-type fiduciary account that is not subject to an 
alternative protection under sub. (j)(9). 
12 SCR 20:1.15(i)(4) provides that "[t]he failure of a state 
bar member to file the certificate is grounds for automatic 
suspension of the member's membership in the state bar in the 
same manner provided in SCR 10.03(6) for nonpayment of dues.  
The filing of a false certificate is unprofessional conduct and 
is grounds for disciplinary action." 
13 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme 
court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers." 
No. 
2013AP2140-D   
 
9 
 
saying that Attorney McClure was a respected former prosecutor 
with 20 years of private practice criminal defense experience 
and that Attorney McClure could help J.K.  Attorney McClure told 
M.K. that he offered "a free consultation, convenient evening 
and weekend appointments and a simple up front flat fee."  
Attorney McClure went on to tell M.K., "The total fee that I 
would charge for this case is $2,500, pending more information 
from you.  The entire fee payment is due when I take your case.  
Standard flat fee for domestic violence and felony child abuse 
charge." 
¶13 On June 16, 2011, M.K. hired Attorney McClure to 
represent her son and paid Attorney McClure a flat fee of 
$2,500, which Attorney McClure deposited directly into his 
business account.  There is no documentary evidence of a written 
fee agreement between Attorney McClure and M.K. and/or J.K.  
J.K. obtained successor counsel, whose appearance was entered on 
September 8, 2011. 
¶14 M.K. and J.K. filed a grievance against Attorney 
McClure, alleging various concerns about his representation of 
J.K.  M.K. stated in the grievance, "Attorney McClure informed 
me after I hired him that it would cost me an additional 
$2,500.00 if my son's case went to trial." 
¶15 The OLR's complaint alleged three counts of misconduct 
with respect to Attorney McClure's handling of J.K.'s case: 
[COUNT EIGHTEEN]  By failing to have a written 
fee agreement communicating the requisite information 
No. 
2013AP2140-D   
 
10 
 
for his representation of [J.K.], McClure violated 
SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2).14 
[COUNT NINETEEN]  By depositing [J.K.'s] unearned 
advanced fee payment directly into his business bank 
account, without acting in a manner indicating an 
intention 
to 
use 
the 
alternative 
fee 
placement 
measures 
stated 
in 
SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m), 
McClure 
violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(4).15 
[COUNT TWENTY]  By informing his new client that 
he would charge her an additional fee for taking the 
matter to trial which was double the amount he said he 
would 
charge 
to 
handle 
the 
engagement, 
McClure 
violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
                                                 
14 SCR 20:1.5(b), as relevant here, provides:  
(1) The scope of the representation and the basis 
or rate of the fee and expenses for which the client 
will be responsible shall be communicated to the 
client in writing, before or within a reasonable time 
after commencing the representation, except when the 
lawyer will charge a regularly represented client on 
the same basis or rate as in the past.  If it is 
reasonably 
foreseeable 
that 
the 
total 
cost 
of 
representation to the client, including attorney's 
fees, will be $1000 or less, the communication may be 
oral or in writing. Any changes in the basis or rate 
of the fee or expenses shall also be communicated in 
writing to the client.  
(2) If the total cost of representation to the 
client, including attorney's fees, is more than $1000, 
the purpose and effect of any retainer or advance fee 
that is paid to the lawyer shall be communicated in 
writing. 
15 SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) provides that, "[e]xcept as provided in 
par. (4m), unearned fees and advanced payments of fees shall be 
held in trust until earned by the lawyer, and withdrawn pursuant 
to sub. (g).  Funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for 
payment of costs shall be held in trust until the costs are 
incurred." 
No. 
2013AP2140-D   
 
11 
 
¶16 Finally, the OLR's complaint alleged one count of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney McClure's representation of 
C.G.  On February 12, 2010, Attorney McClure sent an electronic 
response via the "legalmatch" website to a member of C.G.'s 
family, saying, "I am available immediately and do not charge 
for the initial consultation.  I practice in this court 
regularly and am a respected former Rock County Asst. DA."  
Attorney McClure stated that the total fee he would charge for 
the case was $2,500 and that the entire fee payment would be due 
when he took the case. 
¶17 C.G. hired Attorney McClure to represent him on 
charges of possession of THC (second offense), a class I felony; 
Manufacture/Deliver THC, a class F felony; and Maintain Drug 
Trafficking Place, a class I felony.  Attorney McClure was also 
hired to represent C.G. in a revocation case.  Both cases were 
pending in Rock County. 
¶18 On February 23, 2010, C.G.'s mother paid Attorney 
McClure $2,000 as a partial payment of the $2,500 flat fee.  On 
April 2, 2010, C.G.'s brother paid Attorney McClure the final 
$500 of the flat fee. 
¶19 In March of 2012, over a year after Attorney McClure's 
representation of C.G. concluded, C.G. filed a grievance with 
the OLR alleging various concerns regarding Attorney McClure's 
representation of C.G.  As part of his response to the 
grievance, Attorney McClure provided the OLR with a copy of his 
entire file.  The file contained no documentary evidence of a 
No. 
2013AP2140-D   
 
12 
 
written fee agreement beyond the electronic communication on 
"legalmatch." 
¶20 The OLR's complaint alleged the following count of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney McClure's representation of 
C.G.: 
[COUNT TWENTY-ONE]  By failing to have a written 
fee agreement communicating the requisite information 
for his representation of [C.G.], McClure violated 
SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2). 
¶21 By entering into the stipulation, Attorney McClure 
admitted 
the 
facts 
underlying 
Counts 
1-19 
of 
the 
OLR's 
complaint.  He contested Counts 20 and 21.  The referee 
concluded that the OLR failed to meet its burden of proof as to 
Count 20.  The referee found that the OLR did meet its burden of 
proof as to Count 21.  Thus, the referee found that Attorney 
McClure committed 20 counts of misconduct. 
¶22 The 
referee 
noted 
that 
the 
main 
focus 
of 
the 
evidentiary hearing was on the appropriate sanction to be 
imposed in this case.  The referee noted that both parties 
recommended some period of license suspension, with the OLR 
seeking a two-year suspension and Attorney McClure seeking a 
suspension in the three to five month range.  The referee said 
the case presented both aggravating and mitigating factors, with 
the aggravating factors including the fact that there were 20 
counts of misconduct that occurred over a number of years and 
involved several clients.  The referee said Attorney McClure's 
intent as to the misconduct can be discerned from the incidents 
related to the tax warrants, the comingling of personal and 
No. 
2013AP2140-D   
 
13 
 
trust account funds, the withholding of payments due to J.J.'s 
medical providers, and the use of trust account funds for 
personal purposes.  In addition, the referee noted that J.J.'s 
credit was negatively affected as a result of the late payments 
made from settlement funds to medical providers, and the referee 
found that Attorney McClure engaged in deceit with respect to 
failure to maintain client communication with J.J. 
¶23 The referee found that numerous mitigating factors 
existed in this matter, including the fact that no monies were 
lost to clients or medical providers with respect to any of the 
trust 
account 
anomalies; 
Attorney 
McClure 
has 
no 
prior 
disciplinary history; Attorney McClure cooperated fully with the 
OLR in its investigation; Attorney McClure has made a real 
effort to provide restitution to J.J. for the injury to his 
credit; and Attorney McClure had many serious personal problems 
that impacted his actions, including the death of his first 
grandchild, caring for his elderly parents, attending the needs 
of his mentally ill older brother, and taking on an excessive 
number of pro bono cases.  The referee found that Attorney 
McClure was genuinely remorseful.  The referee said Attorney 
McClure is and has been throughout his legal career a lawyer 
respected by his clients, his peers, and the judges before whom 
he practiced, and was known for his willingness to help others 
and for not seeking personal wealth.  The referee said Attorney 
McClure has publicly acknowledged his misconduct to the faith 
community at his church as part of his personal rehabilitation, 
No. 
2013AP2140-D   
 
14 
 
and the referee said this demonstrates the attorney's commitment 
to not again engage in lawyer misconduct. 
¶24 After noting that the OLR's complaint alleged 21 
separate acts of misconduct, the referee said: 
But something is unusual.  Why are there so many 
separate Counts charged here?  It appears that 
Complainant decided to include in its Complaint every 
possible wrong it could find.  While that is its 
right, it still causes the Referee to wonder why this 
happened in a case where the attorney of over 33 years 
here in Wisconsin had never had any prior discipline 
and no client or medical provider lost any funds and 
OLR knew of the personal hardships which impacted that 
attorney during the period of misconduct.  OLR has not 
challenged Respondent's assertion of him having many, 
many serious personal issues affecting him during the 
time period of the misconduct.  It appears to the 
referee from the case record that the reason for 
Complainant bringing so many Counts was/is to create, 
for the Sanction portion of the proceeding, an 
impression that a great wrong has occurred because of 
the number of findings of misconduct and, therefore, a 
major and significant penalty should be imposed. 
The danger with that approach is that the 
prosecutor then is forever encouraged to overcharge in 
cases where there is clear wrong-doing on one or a few 
Counts in order to argue for and obtain the imposition 
of ever more severe sanctions.  Here the Respondent 
acknowledged his wrongdoing as can be seen by the 
stipulation that was received into the case record.  
But when all is said and done the Respondent still is 
seen to have committed acts of misconduct in the areas 
of his Trust Account, his fee agreement/communication 
document and dishonesty.  Saying the foregoing is in 
no way an effort to diminish the misconduct that 
occurred.  But did Respondent's conduct warrant a 
complaint with 21 separate Counts?  A schoolyard 
metaphor would be that piling on was occurring by 
youngsters during the recess. 
. . . . 
No. 
2013AP2140-D   
 
15 
 
In this case it appears that the prosecutor has 
filed an unreasonable and excessive number of Counts, 
not because it could meet its burden, but in order to 
coerce and unfairly impact that portion of the 
proceedings that addresses sanctions.  The referee 
doesn't know what should be the exact number of Counts 
in this case, but 21 would appear clearly excessive 
and intended to influence the sanctions that should be 
imposed.  . . . . 
¶25 The referee went on to say: 
Respondent is a very good, but not a perfect, man 
and attorney.  On balance in his 33-plus years as a 
lawyer he has labored hard and brought great credit to 
the legal profession.  . . .  That said, however, it 
is also clear that he has violated . . . the Supreme 
Court Rules that regulate all attorneys in this State.  
The public must be protected from misconduct by an 
attorney that causes resources to be converted and 
diminishes respect for the rule of law.  While 
respondent's 
misconduct 
was 
real 
and 
over 
a 
substantial period of time, it is mitigated by his 
very positive and exemplary 33 year career as a 
practicing lawyer, his actions taken to correct the 
consequences of his misconduct, and by the great 
number of personal struggles that confronted and 
motivated him as he lost his moral compass during the 
very period when the misconduct occurred.  . . .  As a 
59 year old man with no prior lawyer misconduct, he is 
seeking an opportunity to be sanctioned fairly and 
appropriately.  
¶26 The 
referee 
recommended 
that 
Attorney 
McClure's 
license to practice law be suspended for a period of six months 
less one day, the result being that the attorney would be able 
to 
obtain 
the 
reinstatement 
of 
his 
law 
license 
upon 
demonstrating, through an affidavit, that he is in full 
compliance with all terms and conditions of the order of 
suspension.  See SCR 22.28(2).  The referee also recommended 
that Attorney McClure be ordered to successfully complete 15 
hours of CLE ethics courses, at least eight of which should 
No. 
2013AP2140-D   
 
16 
 
focus on trust account administration.  The referee further 
recommended that Attorney McClure be responsible for the full 
costs of the disciplinary proceeding.  The referee said the 
sanctions are significant and are appropriate to address the 
wrongdoing that occurred here as well as to achieve the 
important goal of deterrence in the future. 
¶27 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed 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.  The court may 
impose whatever sanction it sees fit, regardless of the 
referee's recommendation.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.   
¶28 There is no showing that any of the referee's findings 
of fact are clearly erroneous.  Accordingly, we adopt them.  We 
also agree with the referee's conclusions of law that Attorney 
McClure violated the supreme court rules set forth above. 
¶29 With respect to the appropriate level of discipline, 
upon careful review of the matter, we conclude that a five-month 
suspension is appropriate.  As the referee pointed out, Attorney 
McClure's law practice now spans more than 34 years and he has 
no prior disciplinary history.  It is also significant to 
reiterate that no clients or medical providers lost any funds, 
and that Attorney McClure fully cooperated with the OLR and 
entered into a stipulation whereby he admitted virtually all the 
facts alleged in the complaint.  We also find it significant 
that the referee, who was in the best position to judge witness 
No. 
2013AP2140-D   
 
17 
 
credibility, found Attorney McClure to be genuinely remorseful.  
In addition, the OLR does not dispute the fact that Attorney 
McClure was faced with a multitude of personal problems during 
the time period at issue in this case. 
¶30 We also share the referee's concern that there was 
perhaps an element of overcharging, or at least parsing the 
misconduct into more counts than was truly warranted.  We fully 
agree with the referee that Attorney McClure's misconduct was 
not insignificant and warrants a suspension.  However, after 
careful consideration of the matter, including the various 
aggravating and mitigating factors identified by the referee, we 
conclude that a five-month suspension will sufficiently protect 
the public from similar misconduct as well as impose upon 
Attorney McClure the gravity of his offenses.  While no two 
attorney disciplinary cases are precisely the same, a five-month 
suspension is generally consistent with the sanctions imposed in 
somewhat analogous situations.  See, e.g., In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Wood, 2013 WI 11, 345 Wis. 2d 279, 
825 N.W.2d 473 (six-month suspension imposed for 28 counts of 
misconduct, including multiple trust account violations).  We 
further agree with the referee's recommendation that Attorney 
McClure should be required to successfully complete 15 hours of 
CLE ethics courses, with at least eight of those hours focusing 
on trust account administration.  Finally, we agree with the 
referee that Attorney McClure should bear the full costs of this 
proceeding. 
No. 
2013AP2140-D   
 
18 
 
¶31 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Thomas J. McClure to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of five 
months, effective April 9, 2015. 
¶32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of the 
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin, 
Thomas J. McClure shall successfully complete 15 hours of 
continuing legal education ethics courses, with at least eight 
of those hours focusing on trust account administration. 
¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Thomas J. McClure should pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$13,677.99. 
¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Thomas J. McClure shall 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended.  
¶35 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2). 
 
 
No. 
2013AP2140-D   
 
 
 
1