Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Maureen B. Fitzgerald

Citation: 2010 WI 99

Docket Number: 2009AP000945-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2010-07-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
2010 WI 99 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2009AP945-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Maureen B. Fitzgerald, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Maureen B. Fitzgerald, 
          Complainant. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST FITZGERALD 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 28, 2010   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2010 WI 99
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2009AP945-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Maureen B. Fitzgerald, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Maureen B. Fitzgerald, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 28, 2010 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of 
Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of the referee, Attorney Jonathan V. Goodman, that Attorney 
Maureen B. Fitzgerald's license to practice law in Wisconsin be 
suspended for a period of six months and that she be required to 
pay the costs of this disciplinary proceeding, which were 
$1,075.23 as of December 8, 2009.  Because no appeal has been 
No. 
2009AP945-D   
 
2 
 
filed in this matter, our review proceeds pursuant to SCR 
22.17(2).1 
¶2 
The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a five-
count complaint against Attorney Fitzgerald in this disciplinary 
proceeding.  When Attorney Fitzgerald failed to file a response 
to the complaint, the OLR filed a motion for the entry of a 
default.  At the hearing on the OLR's motion, Attorney 
Fitzgerald personally appeared and indicated to the referee that 
she did not object to the entry of a default against her. 
¶3 
Consequently, the referee prepared a report that 
essentially adopted the allegations of the OLR's complaint as 
the referee's findings of fact.  According to those findings, 
Attorney Fitzgerald was admitted to the practice of law in this 
state in May 1995.  She subsequently practiced in the Milwaukee 
area. 
¶4 
Attorney Fitzgerald's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin has been suspended for various reasons since May 9, 
2006.  On that date, her license was temporarily suspended due 
to her willful failure to cooperate with the OLR in a grievance 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) states: 
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. 
2009AP945-D   
 
3 
 
investigation.  Her license has remained suspended through to 
the present date. 
¶5 
On June 2, 2006, Attorney Fitzgerald received a 90-day 
suspension that was unrelated to the temporary suspension issued 
approximately one month earlier.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Fitzgerald, 2006 WI 58, 290 Wis. 2d 713, 714 N.W.2d 925.  
That suspension stemmed from Attorney Fitzgerald's failure to 
reduce a contingent fee agreement to writing, her failure to act 
with reasonable diligence in responding to inquiries from an 
insurance company, her failure to keep her client adequately 
informed about the status of an insurance claim, and her failure 
to hold in trust the money of clients and third parties, 
separate from her own personal funds.  The suspension was also 
due to Attorney Fitzgerald's dishonesty in falsely claiming that 
a case had been settled and in fabricating a release. 
¶6 
On July 17, 2008, Attorney Fitzgerald received another 
suspension of her license to practice law in this state.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Fitzgerald, 2008 WI 101, 314 
Wis. 2d 7, 752 N.W.2d 879.  This suspension was for a period of 
60 days and stemmed from a stipulation that Attorney Fitzgerald 
reached with the OLR.  The subject of the stipulated suspension 
was, in part, Attorney Fitzgerald's representation of multiple 
clients after her license had been suspended.  In addition, she 
billed the Office of the State Public Defender for various court 
appearances that she had made while her license was under 
suspension.  Attorney Fitzgerald also misled a clerk of circuit 
court about the status of her license to practice law and her 
No. 
2009AP945-D   
 
4 
 
membership in a law firm.  Finally, Attorney Fitzgerald 
repeatedly 
failed 
to 
respond 
to 
the 
OLR's 
requests 
for 
information. 
¶7 
The current disciplinary proceeding relates primarily 
to Attorney Fitzgerald's representation of D.S. in a criminal 
case.  Attorney Fitzgerald's representation of D.S. continued 
after the suspension of her license in May 2006 until D.S. was 
convicted in December 2006.2  Attorney Fitzgerald never informed 
D.S. of her suspension; he ultimately learned of her suspension 
from a friend. 
¶8 
In 2007 D.S. was exonerated on the basis of newly 
discovered evidence.  He then hired a new lawyer, Attorney Hugh 
Barrow, to represent him on any legal claims that might result 
from 
his 
incarceration 
and 
subsequent 
exoneration. 
 
For 
approximately three months in the fall of 2007, Attorney Barrow 
made numerous attempts to obtain D.S.'s criminal case file from 
Attorney Fitzgerald.  Attorney Fitzgerald failed to provide the 
file, leading Attorney Barrow to file a grievance against her in 
February 2008. 
¶9 
Between March 24, 2008, and May 1, 2008, the OLR sent 
three letters to Attorney Fitzgerald informing her of the nature 
of the grievance against her and asking her to provide 
                                                 
2 Attorney Fitzgerald's representation of D.S. in violation 
of her suspension was one of the matters addressed in the 2008 
disciplinary matter.  Thus, this aspect of her representation of 
D.S. is not part of the OLR's allegations in the present 
proceeding.   
No. 
2009AP945-D   
 
5 
 
information in response.  The last letter was also personally 
served on Attorney Fitzgerald on May 6, 2008. 
¶10 Attorney Fitzgerald finally responded on May 8, 2008.  
In her written response of that date, she acknowledged that she 
had received Attorney Barrow's requests for D.S.'s file.  She 
stated that when she had received the OLR's third letter on 
May 6, 2008, she sent a copy of her file to Attorney Barrow.  
She also stated that she would contact the district attorney's 
office and obtain copies of discovery materials from the 
criminal case for Attorney Barrow.  In addition, Attorney 
Fitzgerald claimed that she had explained the suspension of her 
license to D.S. 
¶11 Attorney 
Barrow never received D.S.'s file from 
Attorney Fitzgerald.  Consequently, on July 29, 2008, the OLR 
sent another letter to Attorney Fitzgerald asking her to respond 
to Attorney Barrow's assertion that he had not received the file 
and to explain when, where, and how she had informed D.S. of the 
suspension of her license to practice law.  Attorney Fitzgerald 
did not respond to the OLR's letter. 
¶12 Based on the facts set forth above, the referee 
concluded that Attorney Fitzgerald had engaged in five counts of 
professional misconduct.  First, by failing to inform D.S. of 
her 
license 
suspension, 
Attorney 
Fitzgerald 
violated 
SCR 
22.26(1)(a),3 which requires a suspended attorney to notify all 
                                                 
3 SCR 22.26(1)(a) provides:   
No. 
2009AP945-D   
 
6 
 
clients by certified mail of a license suspension and the 
resulting inability to act as an attorney.  Second, Attorney 
Fitzgerald violated SCR 20:1.16(d)4 by failing to provide D.S.'s 
file to Attorney Barrow when requested to do so.  Third, 
Attorney Fitzgerald's failure to respond to the OLR's requests 
for a response to the grievance against her until after she had 
been personally served with a third letter constituted a 
violation of SCR 22.03(2).5  Fourth, by subsequently failing to 
                                                                                                                                                             
(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. 
4 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. 
5 SCR 22.03(2) states:   
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 
No. 
2009AP945-D   
 
7 
 
respond to the OLR's fourth letter of July 29, 2008, Attorney 
Fitzgerald violated SCR 22.03(6).6  Finally, Attorney Fitzgerald 
violated SCR 22.03(6) a second time by misrepresenting to the 
OLR that she had sent D.S.'s file to Attorney Barrow when she 
had not done so. 
¶13 The referee recommended that Attorney Fitzgerald's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for six months 
as discipline for her professional misconduct.  He also 
recommended that Attorney Fitzgerald be required to pay the 
costs of this disciplinary proceeding. 
¶14 When reviewing a report and recommendation in an 
attorney disciplinary proceeding, we affirm a referee's findings 
of fact unless they are found to be clearly erroneous.  See In 
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 
305 Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125.  We review the referee's 
conclusions of law, however, on a de novo basis.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 
Wis. 2d 662, 
636 
N.W.2d 718. 
 
Finally, 
we 
determine 
the 
                                                                                                                                                             
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. 
6 SCR 22.03(6) provides: 
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. 
No. 
2009AP945-D   
 
8 
 
appropriate level of discipline given the particular facts of 
each case, independent of the referee's recommendation, but 
benefiting from it.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶15 After fully reviewing the matter, we accept the 
referee's findings of fact based on the undisputed factual 
allegations in the OLR's complaint.  We further agree with the 
referee that those findings of fact support a conclusion that 
Attorney 
Fitzgerald 
engaged in professional misconduct as 
alleged in the five counts of the OLR's complaint.   
¶16 With respect to the appropriate level of discipline, 
we conclude that a six-month suspension of Attorney Fitzgerald's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin is required by her 
disciplinary history and the misconduct found in this case.  We 
note that this is the third disciplinary proceeding against 
Attorney Fitzgerald within a span of four years.  Moreover, her 
conduct shows a consistent failure to conform to the Rules of 
Professional Conduct for Attorneys and is compounded by the fact 
that she lied to cover up her misconduct.   
¶17 Although 
the 
referee 
did 
not 
make 
a 
specific 
recommendation in this regard, we also expressly require 
Attorney Fitzgerald to return D.S.'s file to him or to his 
current counsel.  
Finally, because we do not find any 
"extraordinary circumstances" in this case, we impose the full 
costs of this disciplinary proceeding on Attorney Fitzgerald.  
See SCR 22.24(1m).  
No. 
2009AP945-D   
 
9 
 
¶18 IT 
IS 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
license 
of 
Maureen 
B. 
Fitzgerald to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a 
period of six months, effective as of the date of this order. 
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Maureen B. Fitzgerald 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 her inability to pay those costs within that time, 
the license of Maureen B. Fitzgerald to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of this 
court. 
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if she has not yet done so, 
Maureen B. Fitzgerald shall return client D.S.'s file to D.S. or 
transfer it to D.S.'s successor counsel within 30 days of the 
date of this order. 
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent she has not 
already done so, Maureen B. Fitzgerald 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. 
2009AP945-D   
 
 
 
1