Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. James Toran

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2016AP000112-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2018-04-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
2018 WI 26 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2016AP112-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against James Toran , Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
James Toran, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST TORAN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 5, 2018 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
January 17, 2018 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
For the respondent-appellant, there was a brief filed and 
an oral argument by Michael L. Chernin and Law Office of Michael 
L. Chernin, Milwaukee.  
 
For the complainant-respondent, there was a brief filed and 
oral argument by Gregg Herman on behalf of the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation, Madison. 
 
 
2018 WI 26
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2016AP112-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against James Toran, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
James Toran, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 5, 2018 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney James Toran appeals a report 
filed by Referee John A. Fiorenza concluding that Attorney Toran 
committed 
three 
counts 
of 
professional 
misconduct 
and 
recommending that Attorney Toran should be ordered to pay 
restitution and that his license to practice law in Wisconsin be 
suspended for one year.  Attorney Toran entered into a 
stipulation whereby he admitted to the alleged misconduct and 
No. 
2016AP112-D   
 
2 
 
agrees to pay restitution.  He argues that a lesser sanction is 
warranted.  
¶2 
We adopt the referee's findings of fact, conclusions 
of law, and recommendation regarding restitution, but we 
conclude that a 60-day suspension of Attorney Toran's license to 
practice law is a sufficient sanction for his misconduct.  As is 
our usual practice, we also agree that Attorney Toran should be 
required to pay the full costs of this proceeding, which are 
$2,188.05 as of February 6, 2018.  
¶3 
Attorney Toran was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1983.  He practices criminal law in Milwaukee.  
This is his fifth disciplinary proceeding.   
¶4 
In 1989, we suspended Attorney Toran's license for six 
months because Attorney Toran arranged to receive cocaine as 
payment of a portion of legal fees he charged to represent a 
criminal client.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Toran, 
151 Wis. 2d 194, 443 N.W.2d 927 (1989).  He was charged and 
convicted of possession of cocaine and received two years of 
probation.  Id. 
¶5 
In 1991, Attorney Toran received a consensual public 
reprimand for misconduct committed in two client matters.  
Public Reprimand of James E. Toran, No. 1991-13 (electronic copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/ 
000288.html).  In the first matter, a client retained Attorney 
Toran to represent him on a speeding and drunk driving charge.  
Attorney Toran failed to show up for a court hearing without 
formal notice to the court and with only five minutes notice to 
No. 
2016AP112-D   
 
3 
 
his client.  The client promptly discharged him and, although 
Attorney Toran agreed to return $350 of the $500 retainer to the 
client, he failed to do so.  
¶6 
In the second matter, a woman retained Attorney Toran 
following her arrest on a drunk driving charge.  She had been 
offered a plea deal but Attorney Toran told her that she had a 
good case.  She paid Attorney Toran a $500 retainer and, on 
Attorney Toran's advice, drove 200 miles to take photographs of 
the area where she had been driving to use as evidence at trial.  
After several delays, Attorney Toran accepted a plea deal for 
her without her consent.  Believing she was going to trial, she 
tried to contact Attorney Toran without success.  She terminated 
representation and, when she tried to discuss a refund, Attorney 
Toran cancelled the meeting and subsequently failed to respond 
to her telephone calls or to a certified letter.  During the 
investigation Attorney Toran agreed to refund her $500 retainer, 
but failed to do so.  
¶7 
Attorney Toran received a consensual private reprimand 
in 2007. 
¶8 
On November 3, 2012, Attorney Toran received another 
consensual public reprimand based on misconduct in three client 
matters.  Public Reprimand of James E. Toran, No. 2012-15 
(electronic copy available at https://compendium.wicourts.gov/ 
app/raw/002521.html).  Attorney Toran failed to provide a client 
with a written fee agreement, in violation of SCR 20:1.5(b)(1).  
With respect to the second client, Attorney Toran again failed 
to provide the client with a written fee agreement and, despite 
No. 
2016AP112-D   
 
4 
 
repeated requests, also failed to provide the client with a copy 
of discovery in the case, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a)(4).  
Attorney 
Toran 
also 
falsely 
told 
the 
Office 
of 
Lawyer 
Regulation's (OLR) investigators that he had visited this client 
in jail.  In the third client matter, Attorney Toran failed to 
respond to appellate counsel's requests for the client's file 
and failed to promptly deliver the client's file to appellate 
counsel, in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d).   
¶9 
This proceeding commenced on January 15, 2016, when 
the OLR filed a complaint alleging that Attorney Toran had 
committed misconduct in connection with his representation of 
B.S.  The OLR sought a 60-day suspension and $500 in 
restitution.  Attorney Toran filed an answer and a referee was 
appointed. 
¶10 At the beginning of the September 23, 2016 evidentiary 
hearing, the lawyers informed the referee that Attorney Toran 
had 
stipulated 
to 
the 
allegations 
in 
the 
complaint.  
Accordingly, the only remaining issue was the appropriate 
sanction. 
¶11 The complaint alleged, and Attorney Toran stipulated, 
that in November 2012 Attorney Toran was retained to represent 
B.S. in a criminal matter.  B.S.'s mother, D.S., paid Attorney 
Toran $1,000 in advanced fees toward the representation.  There 
was no written fee agreement.  
¶12 At some point, D.S. asked Attorney Toran to file a 
petition for writ of certiorari on her son's behalf.  Attorney 
Toran explained to D.S. that he required payment of $1,000 
No. 
2016AP112-D   
 
5 
 
before he would file the writ of certiorari.  D.S. made some 
additional payments totaling approximately $1,500.  Of that 
amount, $500 was paid in contemplation of Attorney Toran filing 
the petition for writ of certiorari.  However, the additional 
$500 was not paid.  So, Attorney Toran did not draft or file the 
writ of certiorari.   
¶13 However, upon termination of representation, Attorney 
Toran never refunded D.S. the $500 paid toward the writ of 
certiorari.  Attorney Toran also failed to deposit any of these 
funds into his trust account. 
¶14 The complaint alleged that, by failing to enter into a 
written fee agreement with regard to his representation of B.S. 
when the total cost of the representation exceeded $1,000, 
Attorney Toran violated SCR 20:1.5(b)(l)(Count One);1 by failing 
to deposit into his trust account the advanced payment of fees 
made by B.S.'s mother on his behalf, and absent any evidence 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) provides: 
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. 
No. 
2016AP112-D   
 
6 
 
that Attorney Toran complied with the alternative protection for 
fees available under SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m), Attorney Toran violated 
(former) SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) (Count Two);2 and by failing to refund 
the $500 advanced payment of fees made in contemplation of 
filing a writ of certiorari, when no such work was completed, 
Attorney Toran violated SCR 20:1.16(d)(Count Three).3 
¶15 At the time of the evidentiary hearing it was clear 
that D.S. felt she was entitled to more than $500 in 
                                                 
2 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, (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(b)(4) provided: 
Except 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. 
Attorney Toran does not argue that he complied with the advanced 
fee alternative formerly available under SCR 20:1.15(4m). 
 
3 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides: 
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. 
No. 
2016AP112-D   
 
7 
 
restitution.  The parties agreed that D.S. should be permitted 
to 
testify 
and 
she 
did 
so. 
 
Both 
lawyers 
made 
brief 
presentations to the referee regarding sanctions.  Attorney 
Toran testified, saying, inter alia, that he thought he had 
repaid D.S. but could not prove it.   
¶16 The referee filed a brief report and recommendation on 
January 
30, 
2017 
accepting 
the 
parties' 
stipulation, 
recommending the court order Attorney Toran to pay $500 in 
restitution 
to 
D.S., 
and, 
in 
light 
of 
Attorney 
Toran's 
disciplinary history, recommending a one-year license suspension 
and costs. 
¶17 Attorney Toran appeals.  He asserts that a public 
reprimand is sufficient.  The parties filed briefs, and this 
court conducted oral argument on January 17, 2018.   
¶18 Neither party challenges the referee's findings of 
fact or conclusions of law.  We agree with the findings of fact 
and conclusions of law and we adopt them.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 
Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  The issue for this court is the 
appropriate level of discipline for Attorney Toran's admitted 
misconduct: failing to provide a fee agreement, failing to hold 
advanced fees in trust, and failing to return advanced fees to 
D.S. when it became clear that he would not be drafting a writ 
of certiorari petition.  
¶19 Attorney Toran maintains that a public reprimand is 
sufficient.  He seeks to provide some context for his errors.  
He concedes, as he must, that this court adheres to the practice 
No. 
2016AP112-D   
 
8 
 
of progressive discipline.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Nussberger, 2006 WI 111, 296 Wis. 2d 47, 719 N.W.2d 501; 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Lister, 2010 WI 108, 329 
Wis. 2d 289, 787 N.W.2d 820.  He suggests however that his early 
discipline is so remote in time and preceded his recovery and 
should not be held against him in this matter.  He notes that 
the "[r]eferee's recommendation is terse in word and analysis" 
and argues that progressive discipline does not "in any manner 
suggest the harsh sanction recommended."  However, he cites no 
legal authority in support of his request for another public 
reprimand.   
¶20 The OLR agrees that a one-year suspension is too harsh 
but maintains that a suspension of some length is merited.  It 
reiterates its request for a 60-day suspension.  The OLR 
acknowledges that Attorney Toran was cooperative during the 
investigation 
and 
prosecution 
of 
this 
matter. 
 
The 
OLR 
acknowledges that, standing alone, in the absence of any prior 
disciplinary history, the nature and severity of Attorney 
Toran's misconduct in this matter might warrant a reprimand, and 
perhaps if restitution had been timely made, even a private 
reprimand.   
¶21 However, restitution was not timely made and this is 
Attorney Toran's fifth disciplinary proceeding.  Even if we were 
to discount Attorney Toran's early disciplinary history, the 
facts giving rise to his 2012 public reprimand indicate this 
misconduct was not an isolated or unique occurrence.  As such, 
No. 
2016AP112-D   
 
9 
 
progressive discipline tips the balance in favor of license 
suspension.  The question is how long? 
¶22 We agree that a one-year suspension is too long.  
Indeed, any license suspension of six months or more would 
require Attorney Toran to formally petition for reinstatement 
pursuant to SCR 22.28(3), thereby delaying reinstatement.   
¶23 A 60-day license suspension is the shortest license 
suspension we impose.4  While no two disciplinary cases present 
precisely the same circumstances, a 60-day suspension appears 
most consistent with our prior practice in similar cases.  See 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Osicka, 2014 WI 33, 353 
Wis. 2d 656, 847 N.W.2d 343 (imposing 60-day suspension for 
violations of SCRs 20:1.15(b), 20:1.5(a), 20:1.16(d), and 
22.03(2) and (6) on attorney with three prior public reprimands, 
the most recent for similar misconduct); In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Harris, 2010 WI 9, 322 Wis. 2d 364, 778 
N.W.2d 154 (imposing a 60-day suspension for violations of SCRs 
20:1.3 and 20:1.4 on attorney with a prior private reprimand and 
a prior public reprimand for similar misconduct).  We thus 
                                                 
4 The court may order a shorter suspension when imposing 
discipline reciprocal to that imposed on an attorney by another 
jurisdiction.  SCR 22.22.  We did impose 30-day license 
suspensions 
in 
two 
related 
disciplinary 
cases, 
In 
re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Sommers, 2012 WI 33, 339 
Wis. 2d 580, 811 N.W.2d 387 and In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Humphrey, 2012 WI 32, 339 Wis. 2d 531, 811 N.W.2d 363.  
That outcome, imposed on lawyers with no prior discipline, was 
explicitly characterized "an unusual case that calls for an 
unusual result." 
No. 
2016AP112-D   
 
10 
 
conclude that a 60-day suspension of Attorney Toran's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin is sufficient to impress upon him the 
seriousness of his misconduct, to protect other clients, and to 
deter other attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct.  
¶24 We turn to the question of restitution.  The parties 
stipulated to $500 in restitution to D.S., and the referee 
agreed.  
¶25 At the 
evidentiary hearing, the client's mother 
testified that she retained Attorney Toran in the fall of 2012 
to represent her son in a criminal proceeding.  She gave 
Attorney Toran $1,000 in cash or a cashier's check at that time.  
The testimony from the evidentiary hearing disclosed that she 
sought Attorney Toran's assistance on a number of interrelated 
matters regarding her son, including a revocation proceeding.  
She testified that she later gave Attorney Toran another $500-
$700, then another $800 for a total of $2,500 on "the first 
case."  This testimony differed from the OLR's understanding, as 
set forth in the complaint: that Attorney Toran had received a 
total of $1,500.  D.S. offered no receipts or other evidence of 
having paid Attorney Toran more than $1,500.  It was clear that 
D.S. wanted Attorney Toran to file a writ of certiorari petition 
on her son's behalf, but paid only $500 of the requisite $1,000 
fee for that work.  The referee considered the evidence and 
recommended, consistent with the parties' stipulation, that we 
direct Attorney Toran to pay $500 in restitution to D.S.  We 
accept that recommendation and we also agree that Attorney Toran 
should pay the full costs of this proceeding.  
No. 
2016AP112-D   
 
11 
 
¶26 IT IS ORDERED that the license of James Toran to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days 
effective May 17, 2018.  
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that James Toran shall pay $500 
in restitution to D.S., the mother of his former client, B.S. 
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified 
above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation. 
¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that James Toran comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.  
¶30 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, James Toran pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $2,188.05 as 
of February 6, 2018.  If the costs are not paid within the time 
specified, and absent a showing to this court of his inability 
to pay the costs within that time, the license of James Toran to 
practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further 
order of the court. 
 
No. 
2016AP112-D   
 
 
 
1