Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Coral Dawn Pleas

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2020-09-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
2020 WI 77 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2020AP724-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Coral Dawn Pleas, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
   v. 
Coral Dawn Pleas, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PLEAS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
September 29, 2020   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2020 WI 77
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2020AP724-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Coral Dawn Pleas, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Coral Dawn Pleas, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
SEP 29, 2020 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the stipulation filed by the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Coral Dawn Pleas 
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12.  On April 10, 2020, 
the OLR filed a complaint in this court alleging eight counts of 
misconduct against Attorney Pleas.  Attorney Pleas did not file an 
answer.  Instead, she and the OLR filed a stipulation in which 
Attorney Pleas admitted the facts and the misconduct alleged in 
the OLR's complaint and agreed to the level of discipline sought 
No. 
2020AP724-D   
 
2 
 
by the OLR:  a six-month suspension of Attorney Pleas' license to 
practice law in Wisconsin. 
¶2 
We approve the stipulation and adopt the stipulated 
facts and conclusions regarding Attorney Pleas' eight counts of 
misconduct as alleged in the OLR's complaint.  We determine that 
the seriousness of Attorney Pleas' misconduct warrants the 
suspension of her license to practice law in the state for a period 
of six months.  In addition, we agree that Attorney Pleas should 
be required to pay $8,333.33 in restitution.  Because Attorney 
Pleas entered into a comprehensive stipulation under SCR 22.12, 
thereby obviating the need for the appointment of a referee and a 
full disciplinary proceeding, we impose no costs in this matter. 
¶3 
Attorney Pleas was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin 
in 1993 and practices in Milwaukee.  She has no prior disciplinary 
history.   
¶4 
The misconduct alleged in the OLR's complaint arose out 
of Attorney Pleas' representation of V.B.  On September 25, 2014, 
V.B. was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sustained serious 
injuries.  The other driver involved in the accident was insured 
through Progressive Insurance Company. 
¶5 
On September 27, 2014, V.B. signed a contingent fee 
agreement with Pleas Williams, LLC, the law firm at which Attorney 
Pleas worked.  The fee agreement provided for a one-third 
contingent fee for all money recovered as part of the case. 
¶6 
From September 2014 through January 2015, V.B. received 
medical treatment for her injuries.  However, in January of 2015, 
No. 
2020AP724-D   
 
3 
 
she was involved in a second automobile accident and suffered 
additional injuries. 
¶7 
On March 27, 2015, V.B. signed a second contingent fee 
agreement with Attorney Pleas to represent her with regard to the 
2015 accident. 
¶8 
In March 2015, Attorney Pleas settled V.B.'s property 
damage claim for the 2014 accident for $7,396.29.  In June 2015, 
Attorney Pleas settled V.B.'s personal injury claim for the 2014 
accident with Progressive Insurance for $25,000, which was the 
policy limit for Progressive's insured. 
¶9 
On June 15, 2015, Attorney Pleas deposited the $25,000 
settlement check from Progressive into her client trust account.  
Attorney Pleas did not notify V.B. or any of V.B.'s medical 
providers that she had received the $25,000 insurance settlement.  
Pursuant to the first fee agreement, Attorney Pleas would have 
been entitled to no more than $8,333 out of the $25,000 settlement.  
In addition, V.B. and third-party medical providers had an 
ownership interest in a portion of the $25,000. 
¶10 Between June 17 and 26, 2015, Attorney Pleas transferred 
a total of $23,000 from her client trust account to her business 
checking account.  She accomplished these transfers via internet 
transfers. 
¶11 On June 26, 2015, Attorney Pleas withdrew $20,710.54 
from her business account.  In July and August of 2015, Attorney 
Pleas made additional internet transfers totaling $6,865 from her 
client trust account.  By the end of August 2015, Attorney Pleas' 
client trust account had a balance of $.35. 
No. 
2020AP724-D   
 
4 
 
¶12 On September 15, 2015, a service charge to Attorney 
Pleas' client trust account resulted in an overdraft on the 
account.  At the time, Attorney Pleas did not have an overdraft 
agreement on file with the OLR. 
¶13 From June 2015 through April 2018, Attorney Pleas did 
not inform V.B. of the $25,000 settlement of her personal injury 
claim for the 2014 accident. 
¶14 Attorney Pleas took no action on V.B.'s personal injury 
claim for the 2015 accident, and the three-year statute of 
limitations expired.  Attorney Pleas did not inform V.B. that she 
had failed to file the civil action for the 2015 accident and that 
the statute of limitations had expired. 
¶15 By 
January 
2018, 
V.B.'s 
health 
insurer, 
UnitedHealthcare, had paid over $38,000 for medical expenses 
related to the two accidents.  Attorney Pleas worked to negotiate 
a reduction of the entire medical lien with the third-party 
administrator hired by UnitedHealthcare.  In a letter to V.B. dated 
April 28, 2018, Attorney Pleas advised that she was trying to 
negotiate a reduction of the entire medical lien.  By August 2018, 
Attorney Pleas negotiated a reduction of the entire medical lien 
to $8,333.33. 
¶16 On August 7, 2018, Attorney Pleas sent a letter to V.B. 
enclosing the release of claims, a settlement statement, and a 
settlement check in the amount of $8,333.33.  The settlement 
statement reflected that Attorney Pleas received attorney's fees 
in the amount of $8,333.33 and noted the medical lien in that same 
amount.  On August 21, 2018, V.B.'s new attorney sent a letter to 
No. 
2020AP724-D   
 
5 
 
Attorney Pleas advising that he had been retained by V.B. with 
regard to her handling of the two accident claims.  The new 
attorney requested the name of Attorney Pleas' errors and omissions 
carrier. 
¶17 On August 21, 2018, Attorney Pleas sent a letter to V.B. 
apologizing for her delay in handling the 2014 accident case and 
saying she would be refunding the full attorney's fee of $8,333.33 
from that case.  Attorney Pleas has since refunded the full 
attorney's fee to V.B.  Attorney Pleas has also agreed to pay off 
the medical lien of $8,333.33 but has not yet done so. 
¶18 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Pleas' representation of V.B. 
in the two accident claims: 
Count 1:  By failing to promptly notify V.B. and 
UnitedHealthcare 
of 
the 
receipt 
of 
the 
$25,000 
settlement proceeds, as well as failing to promptly 
deliver to V.B. and UnitedHealthcare those funds to 
which they were entitled, Attorney Pleas violated former 
SCR 20:1.15(d)(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(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 
No. 
2020AP724-D   
 
6 
 
Count 2:  By failing to hold in trust $25,000 from V.B.'s 
personal injury settlement for the 2014 accident, 
Attorney Pleas violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).2 
Count 3:  By making multiple internet transfers out of 
her client trust account from June to August 2015, 
Attorney Pleas violated former SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)(c).3 
Count 4:  By 
failing 
to 
provide 
V.B. 
and 
UnitedHealthcare 
an 
accounting 
following 
final 
distribution of trust property in June 2015, Attorney 
Pleas violated former SCR 20:1.15(d)(2).4 
Count 5:  By converting $25,000 in settlement funds to 
her own use, Attorney Pleas violated SCR 20:8.4(c).5 
Count 6:  By failing to file a civil action on a personal 
injury claim arising out of the 2015 accident prior to 
                                                 
or 3rd party any funds or other property that the client 
or 3rd party is entitled to receive. 
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 Former SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)(c) provided:  "A lawyer shall not 
make deposits to or disbursements from a trust account by way of 
an Internet transaction." 
4 Former SCR 20:1.15(d)(2) provided:  "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." 
5 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct for 
a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation." 
No. 
2020AP724-D   
 
7 
 
the expiration of the statute of limitations, Attorney 
Pleas violated SCR 20:1.3.6 
Count 7:  By failing to communicate sufficiently with 
V.B. regarding her 2014 accident and 2015 accident 
claims, including the fact that the statute of 
limitations had expired on the 2015 accident claim, 
Attorney Pleas violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3).7 
Count 8:  By failing to file an overdraft notification 
agreement with the OLR, Attorney Pleas violated former 
SCR 20:1.15(h)(8).8 
¶19 As noted, Attorney Pleas has now stipulated to the eight 
counts of misconduct as alleged in the OLR's complaint.  She 
further stipulates that a six-month suspension of her license to 
practice law in Wisconsin is an appropriate sanction for the 
misconduct. 
¶20 The stipulation states that Attorney Pleas fully 
understands the allegations of misconduct; fully understands the 
ramifications should this court impose the stipulated level of 
discipline; and fully understands her right to contest the matter 
and her right to consult with counsel.  The stipulation further 
                                                 
6 SCR 20:1.3 provides:  "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
7 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides:  "A lawyer shall keep the client 
reasonably informed about the status of the matter." 
8 Former SCR 20:1.15(h)(8) provided:  
Every lawyer practicing or admitted to practice in 
Wisconsin shall comply with the reporting and 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). 
No. 
2020AP724-D   
 
8 
 
states that Attorney Pleas entered into it knowingly and 
voluntarily; that she has read the complaint and the stipulation; 
and that her entry into the stipulation represents her decision 
not to contest the allegations in the complaint or the level and 
type of discipline sought by the OLR's director. 
¶21 The OLR filed a memorandum in support of the stipulation 
in which it cited a number of cases that it believes support its 
request for a six-month suspension.  The OLR notes that In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mulligan, 2015 WI 96, 365 
Wis. 2d 43, 870 N.W.2d 233, this court imposed a nine-month 
suspension for eight counts of misconduct involving multiple trust 
account violations in two client matters.  The violations included 
commingling trust funds, dishonest conduct, and making cash 
withdrawals from the trust account.  This court noted that Attorney 
Mulligan had previously received two private reprimands and one 
public reprimand, and it found that progressive discipline was 
warranted since Attorney Mulligan had demonstrated a persistent 
pattern of failure to abide by the requirements of the Rules of 
Professional Conduct.  The OLR notes that while the Mulligan case 
similar to the instant case in the number of counts of misconduct 
and the type of some of the violations, Attorney Mulligan had three 
prior reprimands, while Attorney Pleas has no prior discipline and 
her misconduct was limited to the handling of two matters for the 
same client. 
¶22 The OLR's memorandum also discussed In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Smith, 2013 WI 98, 351 Wis. 2d 368, 841 
N.W.2d 278.  In Smith, the attorney received a six-month suspension 
No. 
2020AP724-D   
 
9 
 
for 20 counts of misconduct in four separate matters.  The 
misconduct included trust account violations, failure to act 
diligently, failure to communicate, dishonest behavior, and other 
forms of misconduct.  Attorney Smith had a prior public reprimand.  
This court noted aggravating factors in Attorney Smith's 
misconduct, including a troubling pattern of poor bookkeeping, 
office mismanagement, inadequate communication with clients, and 
insufficient concern for her clients' reasonable needs.  The OLR 
says Attorney Pleas' misconduct was more limited in the number and 
scope of violations and she has shown remorse and accepted 
responsibility for it, although she has not yet paid the $8,333.33 
in restitution that the OLR seeks. 
¶23 The OLR's memorandum also discussed In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against McClure, 2015 WI 25, 361 Wis. 2d 339, 860 
N.W.2d 474.  In McClure, the attorney received a five-month 
suspension for 20 counts of misconduct, 14 of which involved trust 
account irregularities including commingling and converting trust 
funds to the attorney's personal use; failing to pay a client's 
medical bills from settlement proceeds; and fee agreement 
irregularities.  This court agreed with the referee that the number 
of violations charged resulted in part from overcharging by the 
OLR.  Attorney McClure had no prior discipline in a lengthy 34 
year career, was remorseful for his misconduct, and admitted the 
majority of the misconduct by stipulation.   
¶24 From our independent review of the matter, we approve 
the stipulation and conclude that the seriousness of Attorney 
Pleas' misconduct warrants a six-month suspension of her license 
No. 
2020AP724-D   
 
10 
 
to practice law in Wisconsin.  Attorney Pleas' admitted acts are 
serious violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct governing 
lawyers in this state.  We deem a six-month suspension sufficient 
to 
protect 
the 
public 
from 
Attorney 
Pleas' 
unacceptable 
professional behavior, to ensure she will not repeat it, and to 
deter others from engaging in similar misconduct.  We also agree 
that Attorney Pleas should be required to make restitution in the 
amount of $8,333.33 to UnitedHealthcare.  In light of the fact 
that Attorney Pleas entered into a comprehensive stipulation, 
thereby obviating the need for the appointment of a referee, we 
agree with the OLR's request that the costs of the disciplinary 
proceeding not be assessed against Attorney Pleas. 
¶25 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Coral Dawn Pleas to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six months, 
effective November 10, 2020. 
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of 
this 
order, 
Coral 
Dawn 
Pleas 
shall 
make 
restitution 
to 
UnitedHealthcare in the amount of $8,333.33. 
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Coral Dawn Pleas shall comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person 
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin have been suspended.   
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.29(4)(c). 
 
No. 
2020AP724-D   
 
 
 
1