Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michael J. Briggs

Citation: 2014 WI 119

Docket Number: 2014AP001443-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2014-10-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
2014 WI 119 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2014AP1443-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
Michael J. Briggs, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Michael J. Briggs, 
          Respondent.   
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BRIGGS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 28, 2014 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2014 WI 119
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2014AP1443-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Michael J. Briggs, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Michael J. Briggs, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 28, 2014 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
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 Michael J. Briggs 
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12.1  On June 24, 2014, 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.12 provides, in relevant part: 
(1) The director may file with the complaint a 
stipulation of the director and the respondent to the 
facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and 
discipline to be imposed.  The supreme court may 
consider the complaint and stipulation without the 
appointment of a referee, in which case the supreme 
court 
may 
approve 
the 
stipulation, 
reject 
the 
(continued) 
No. 
2014AP1443-D   
 
2 
 
the OLR filed a complaint in this court alleging 12 counts of 
misconduct against Attorney Briggs.  Attorney Briggs did not 
file an answer, but instead he and the OLR filed a stipulation 
in which Attorney Briggs admitted the facts and misconduct as 
alleged in the OLR's complaint and agreed to the level of 
discipline sought by the OLR:  a 90-day suspension of Attorney 
Briggs's license to practice law in this state. 
¶2 
We approve the stipulation and adopt the stipulated 
facts and conclusions regarding Attorney Briggs's 12 counts of 
misconduct as alleged in the OLR's complaint.  We determine that 
the 
seriousness 
of 
Attorney 
Briggs's 
misconduct 
warrants 
suspension of his license to practice law in this state for a 
period of 90 days.  We do not impose restitution, as the OLR did 
not make any such request.  Finally, because Attorney Briggs 
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 do not impose costs in this 
matter. 
¶3 
Attorney Briggs was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1975 and practices in Oregon, Wisconsin.  He has no 
prior disciplinary history. 
                                                                                                                                                             
stipulation, 
or 
direct 
the 
parties 
to 
consider 
specific modifications to the stipulation.   
(2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation, 
it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of 
law and impose the stipulated discipline. 
No. 
2014AP1443-D   
 
3 
 
¶4 
As noted above, Attorney Briggs admits to the facts 
and misconduct as alleged in the OLR complaint.  Summarized, the 
allegations are these: 
REPRESENTATION OF J.N. AND R.N. (COUNTS 1 THROUGH 5) 
¶5 
The OLR complaint alleged, and Attorney Briggs now 
stipulates, that in approximately January 2011, J.N. and R.N. 
hired Attorney Briggs to represent them as plaintiffs in a land 
contract dispute in which J.N. and R.N. were the land contract 
grantors.  Attorney Briggs filed a motion for default judgment, 
which the circuit court granted.   
¶6 
J.N. and R.N. believed that Attorney Briggs would take 
all actions necessary to garnish the defendants' wages as well 
as to prepare and file the necessary documents to restore the 
clear title of the property to J.N. and R.N.   
¶7 
Attorney Briggs failed to do so.  Specifically, he 
failed to file the default judgment or any other document in the 
appropriate real estate records to clarify that title had 
reverted to J.N. and R.N.  He failed to determine what 
procedures would be needed to enforce Wisconsin garnishments 
against the defendants, both of whom had moved out of state and 
were employed outside of Wisconsin.  He failed to effectuate the 
garnishments.   
¶8 
J.N. and R.N. repeatedly tried to contact Attorney 
Briggs by telephone and email to inquire about the status of the 
garnishments and related legal matters, as well as to inquire 
about billing issues.  Attorney Briggs did not return their 
calls or emails.   
No. 
2014AP1443-D   
 
4 
 
¶9 
J.N. and R.N. filed a grievance with the OLR.  By 
letter dated April 18, 2012, the OLR notified Attorney Briggs of 
its investigation of J.N.'s and R.N.'s grievance and requested 
certain documents from Attorney Briggs.  Attorney Briggs did not 
respond.  
¶10 The OLR sent Attorney Briggs a second investigative 
letter requesting Attorney Briggs's response to J.N.'s and 
R.N.'s grievance.  Attorney Briggs's wife signed the certified 
mail receipt for this investigative letter.  Attorney Briggs did 
not respond.  
¶11 The OLR sent Attorney Briggs a third request for his 
response, which was personally served on Briggs.  Attorney 
Briggs still did not respond.  
¶12 On motion from the OLR, this court issued an order 
requiring Attorney Briggs to show cause why his Wisconsin law 
license should not be suspended for his failure to cooperate in 
the OLR's investigation of the J.N. and R.N. matter.  Attorney 
Briggs 
filed 
a 
response 
promising 
to 
cooperate 
in 
the 
investigation, but he failed to do so.  On February 12, 2013, 
this court temporarily suspended Attorney Briggs for his failure 
to cooperate with the OLR investigation. 
¶13 On November 27, 2013, Attorney Briggs sent a letter to 
the OLR that responded to the OLR's April 18, 2012 investigative 
letter.  In his letter, Attorney Briggs provided an explanation 
as to why he did not complete the garnishments requested by J.N. 
and R.N.  Attorney Briggs claimed that J.N. and R.N. had not 
responded to his email communication to them, and that he did 
No. 
2014AP1443-D   
 
5 
 
not proceed further with the garnishments because J.N. and R.N. 
had failed to either pay his fee or to commit to reimburse him 
for filing fees.  These representations were later proven false. 
¶14 On November 27, 2013, the OLR filed a report with the 
court stating that Attorney Briggs had provided a written 
response 
sufficient 
to 
allow 
the 
OLR 
to 
continue 
its 
investigation.  Accordingly, on December 16, 2013, this court 
reinstated Attorney Briggs's license to practice law.  
¶15 Based on this admitted course of conduct, the OLR 
complaint 
charged 
Attorney 
Briggs 
with 
five 
counts 
of 
misconduct, to which he now stipulates.  The misconduct involved 
violations of the following rules:  SCR 20:1.1 (failing to 
provide competent representation); SCR 20:1.3 (failing to act 
with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a 
client); SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) (failing to keep a client reasonably 
informed about the status of a matter); SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) 
(failing to promptly comply with reasonable requests by the 
client for information); SCR 22.03(2) (failing to timely respond 
to an OLR investigation); and SCR 22.03(6) (failing to provide 
relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 
documents in the course of an OLR investigation). 
POST-DISCIPLINE NON-COMPLIANCE ISSUES (COUNTS 6 THROUGH 8) 
¶16 The OLR complaint alleged, and Attorney Briggs now 
stipulates, that a copy of this court's February 12, 2013 order 
temporarily suspending his license for failing to cooperate with 
the OLR investigation regarding J.N.'s and R.N.'s grievance was 
mailed to the address Attorney Briggs had on file with the State 
No. 
2014AP1443-D   
 
6 
 
Bar of Wisconsin (State Bar).  Nevertheless, Attorney Briggs 
continued to practice law in Wisconsin, including drafting 
documents, providing legal advice, and appearing in court on 
behalf of clients.  
¶17 On July 23, 2012, a Dane County circuit court judge 
sent an email to the OLR stating that Attorney Briggs had 
appeared that morning to represent a litigant in a family law 
matter; that opposing counsel stated that Attorney Briggs's law 
license was suspended; and that the State Bar's website showed 
that Attorney Briggs's license was suspended.  The circuit court 
judge asked the OLR what Attorney Briggs's current license 
status was, and the OLR confirmed via email that Attorney 
Briggs's license was suspended.  The circuit court judge replied 
to the OLR that Attorney Briggs would not be allowed to appear 
as counsel in the matter, and that Attorney Briggs would be in 
contact with the OLR.   
¶18 During an August 2, 2013 telephone call with OLR 
staff, Attorney Briggs asserted that he had "just found out" 
that he was suspended.  OLR staff reminded Attorney Briggs that 
his license had been suspended since February 12, 2013, and that 
he had been sent a copy of the order of suspension, the 
preceding motion filed by the OLR, an order to show cause issued 
by this court, and reports filed by the OLR in this matter, all 
prior to the suspension order.   
¶19 By email dated August 2, 2013, the OLR provided 
Attorney Briggs with another copy of the April 18, 2012 letter 
notifying Attorney Briggs of the OLR's investigation of J.N.'s 
No. 
2014AP1443-D   
 
7 
 
and R.N.'s grievance and requesting certain documents from 
Attorney Briggs.  The OLR advised Attorney Briggs to file a 
written response to the letter.  He did not do so, nor did he 
advise his clients, opposing counsel, or the courts in which he 
was representing clients that his license to practice law had 
been suspended.   
¶20 Until at least October 3, 2013, Attorney Briggs 
continued to practice law in Wisconsin.  
¶21 During the OLR's investigation as to his practice of 
law, Attorney Briggs made misrepresentations to the OLR as to 
the extent, nature, and scope of his practice while suspended.  
¶22 Based on this admitted course of conduct, the OLR 
complaint charged Attorney Briggs with an additional three 
counts of misconduct, to which he now stipulates.  The 
misconduct 
involved 
violations 
of 
the 
following 
rules:  
SCR 22.26(1)(c) 
(failing 
to 
promptly 
provide 
written 
notification of license suspension to courts and opposing 
counsel); SCR 20:3.4(c) (knowingly  disobeying an obligation 
under the rules of a tribunal); SCR 22.26(2) (engaging in the 
practice of law during license suspension); and SCR 22.03(6) 
(failing to provide relevant information, to answer questions 
fully, or to furnish documents in the course of an OLR 
investigation). 
REPRESENTATION OF D.R. (COUNTS 9 THROUGH 12) 
¶23 The OLR complaint alleged, and Attorney Briggs now 
stipulates, that in approximately February 2013, Attorney Briggs 
No. 
2014AP1443-D   
 
8 
 
began representing D.R. in an eviction action against two 
defendants.  
¶24 As noted above, this court, on February 12, 2013, 
issued an order suspending Attorney Briggs's license to practice 
law in Wisconsin due to his failure to cooperate in its 
investigation of J.N.'s and R.N.'s grievance.  As also noted 
above, Attorney 
Briggs's license remained suspended until 
December 16, 2013.  
¶25 Attorney Briggs did not notify D.R., the defendants, 
or the circuit court of his suspension.  
¶26 Between February 12 and July 23, 2013, Attorney Briggs 
consulted with D.R. about the eviction action, provided D.R. 
with 
legal 
advice, 
drafted 
pleadings 
and 
a 
set 
of 
interrogatories, 
became 
counsel 
of 
record 
for 
D.R., 
and 
communicated by mail and email with the defendants and with the 
court as counsel for D.R.  
¶27 Between July 23 and September 6, 2013, Attorney Briggs 
continued to consult with and provide legal advice to D.R. and 
to communicate with the defendants as counsel for D.R.  
¶28 In a letter dated October 15, 2013, Attorney Briggs 
told the OLR that he was notified in a letter dated July 23, 
2013, that his license to practice law had been suspended.  
Attorney Briggs claimed that his communications with the 
defendants as counsel for D.R. occurred before that date.  These 
statements were misrepresentations.  
¶29 On October 23, 2013, during an in-person meeting with 
OLR staff, Attorney Briggs asserted that, once he learned he was 
No. 
2014AP1443-D   
 
9 
 
suspended on July 23, 2013, he changed his law office website to 
notify clients he was suspended.  That information was false.  
¶30 Attorney Briggs failed to properly advise D.R. that 
his license was suspended.  D.R. became aware of the suspension 
when, after a hearing, a defendant in the eviction action 
threatened to sue Attorney Briggs because he had represented 
D.R. when his license was suspended.  It was only upon D.R.'s 
subsequent 
inquiry 
that 
Attorney 
Briggs 
disclosed 
his 
suspension.  
¶31 Based on this admitted course of conduct, the OLR 
complaint charged Attorney Briggs with an additional four counts 
of professional misconduct, to which he now stipulates.  The 
misconduct 
involved 
violations 
of 
the 
following 
rules:  
SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b) (failing to notify the client by 
certified mail of suspension and failing to advise client to 
seek 
legal 
advice 
elsewhere); 
SCR 20:3.4(c) 
(knowingly  
disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal); 
SCR 22.26(1)(c) 
(failing 
to 
promptly 
provide 
written 
notification of license suspension to courts and opposing 
counsel); SCR 22.26(2) (engaging in the practice of law during 
license 
suspension); 
SCR 20:8.4(c) 
(engaging 
in 
conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); and 
SCR 22.03(6) (failing to provide relevant information, to answer 
questions fully, or to furnish documents in the course of an OLR 
investigation). 
¶32 As noted above, Attorney Briggs has now stipulated to 
the 12 counts of misconduct as alleged by the OLR in its 
No. 
2014AP1443-D   
 
10 
 
complaint.  He further stipulates that a 90-day suspension of 
his license to practice law in this state is an appropriate 
sanction for his misconduct.   
¶33 The stipulation properly states that Attorney Briggs 
fully understands the misconduct allegations, his right to 
contest this matter, the ramifications of his entry into this 
stipulation, and his right to consult with counsel.  The 
stipulation further provides that Attorney Briggs entered into 
the stipulation knowingly and voluntarily.  
¶34 The 
OLR 
filed 
a 
memorandum 
in 
support 
of 
the 
stipulation.  The OLR cited several cases that it claims——and we 
agree——support its request for a 90-day suspension:  In re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
FitzGerald, 
2007 WI 111, 
304 Wis. 2d 592, 
735 N.W.2d 913 
(90-day 
suspension 
for 
misconduct including practicing law during suspension and 
failing to notify employer, court, and opposing counsel of 
suspension); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kelsay, 
2003 WI 141, 267 Wis. 2d 17, 671 N.W.2d 8 (six-month suspension 
for lawyer with disciplinary history who practiced law during 
suspension); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Scanlan, 
2006 WI 38, 290 Wis. 2d 30, 712 N.W.2d 877 (six-month suspension 
for 21 counts of misconduct including practicing law while 
suspended, failing to provide notice to clients and courts 
concerning the suspension, failing to timely respond to an OLR 
investigation, failing to provide competent representation, and 
trust account violations); and In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against 
Farris, 
2004 WI 125, 
276 Wis. 2d 13, 
688 N.W.2d 231 
No. 
2014AP1443-D   
 
11 
 
(60-day suspension for lawyer who practiced law while suspended, 
made misrepresentations in his petition for reinstatement, and 
willfully failed to provide information to the OLR during an 
investigation). 
¶35 The 
OLR 
noted 
in 
its 
memorandum 
that 
several 
aggravating factors were present in this case.  Attorney Briggs 
engaged in multiple misconduct offenses, intentionally failed to 
comply 
with 
disciplinary 
rules 
and 
orders, 
and 
made 
misrepresentations 
to 
the 
OLR 
during 
the 
course 
of 
its 
investigations.   
¶36 On the mitigating side, Attorney Briggs was admitted 
to practice law in this state in 1975 and has no disciplinary 
history. 
¶37 After our independent review of the matter, we approve 
the stipulation and determine that the seriousness of Attorney 
Briggs's misconduct warrants a 90-day suspension of his license 
to practice law.  Attorney Briggs's admitted acts are serious 
violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct governing 
lawyers in this state.  We deem a 90-day suspension sufficient 
to protect the public from Attorney Briggs's unacceptable 
professional behavior, to ensure that he will not repeat it, and 
to deter others from engaging in similar misconduct. 
¶38 In light of the fact that Attorney Briggs entered into 
a comprehensive stipulation, thereby obviating the need for the 
appointment of a referee and for additional litigation costs, we 
agree with the OLR's request that the costs of this disciplinary 
proceeding not be assessed against Attorney Briggs. 
No. 
2014AP1443-D   
 
12 
 
¶39 We do not impose restitution, as the OLR did not make 
any such request.  
¶40 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Michael J. Briggs to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of ninety 
days, effective November 28, 2014. 
¶41 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Michael J. Briggs 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. 
 
 
No. 
2014AP1443-D   
 
 
 
1