Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Geneva E. McKinley

Citation: 2014 WI 48

Docket Number: 2013AP002685-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2014-07-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
2014 WI 48 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2013AP2685-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Geneva E. McKinley, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Geneva E. McKinley, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST McKINLEY 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 1, 2014 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
         
 
COUNTY: 
       
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
2014 WI 48
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2013AP2685-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Geneva E. McKinley, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Geneva E. McKinley, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 1, 2014 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a stipulation filed pursuant 
to SCR 22.121 by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.12 states as follows:  Stipulation. 
 
(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.   
No. 
2013AP2685-D   
 
2 
 
Attorney Geneva E. McKinley.  In the stipulation, Attorney 
McKinley admits that she pled no contest to and was convicted of 
two misdemeanor counts of filing a tax return that she believed 
was 
not 
true 
and 
correct, 
in 
violation 
of 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 71.83(2)(a)2.  She further admits that the conduct underlying 
these two convictions constituted violations of SCR 20:8.4(b).  
The 
stipulation 
requests 
this 
court 
to 
impose 
a 
60-day 
suspension of Attorney McKinley's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin as discipline for the admitted misconduct.  There is 
no request for a restitution award or the imposition of any 
conditions on the reinstatement of Attorney McKinley's license. 
¶2 
After closely reviewing this matter, we approve the 
stipulation and suspend Attorney McKinley's license to practice 
law in this state for a period of 60 days.  We do not impose any 
restitution obligation.  Because this matter was resolved with a 
stipulation under SCR 22.12, we do not require Attorney McKinley 
to pay any of the costs of this proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney McKinley was admitted to the practice of law 
in this state in April 1996.  According to the transcript of the 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
(2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation, 
it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of 
law and impose the stipulated discipline. 
 
(3) If the supreme court rejects the stipulation, 
a referee shall be appointed and the matter shall 
proceed as a complaint filed without a stipulation. 
 
(4) A stipulation rejected by the supreme court 
has no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to 
the respondent's defense of the proceeding or the 
prosecution of the complaint. 
No. 
2013AP2685-D   
 
3 
 
plea and sentencing hearing in the criminal action, which was 
filed in this matter in connection with the stipulation, during 
much of the time relevant to the acts at issue in this matter 
she maintained a solo law practice, in which she accepted 
appointments from the Office of the State Public Defender and 
represented private clients.  In March 2007 she began employment 
as a full-time court commissioner for the Milwaukee County 
circuit court.  As a result of the convictions described in this 
opinion, she is no longer a court commissioner.  Attorney 
McKinley has never before been the subject of professional 
discipline. 
¶4 
The state initially filed a criminal complaint against 
Attorney McKinley in June 2011, alleging that she had committed 
two felony counts of filing false or fraudulent tax returns, in 
violation of Wis. Stat. § 71.83(2)(b)1.  Those charges required 
proof that the filing of the false tax returns had been done 
"with intent to defeat or evade" the payment of state income 
taxes.  The criminal complaint alleged that Attorney McKinley 
had underreported her income on her 2006 and 2007 state income 
tax returns by a total of more than $117,000 and that the 
estimated benefit of the underreporting on both her federal and 
state tax returns had been slightly less than $33,000.  The 
prosecutor representing the state explained at the sentencing 
hearing that Attorney McKinley had failed to report income from 
certain private pay clients and from the rental of a commercial 
building she owned.  She also carried forward improper net 
No. 
2013AP2685-D   
 
4 
 
business losses from her 2006 return that resulted in the 
underreporting of income on her 2007 state income tax return. 
¶5 
After a lengthy pretrial stage, Attorney McKinley 
reached a plea agreement with the state.  According to the 
prosecutor representing the state, because of some issues 
regarding a couple of the state's witnesses that were unrelated 
to the substance of their testimony but might impact their 
credibility, the state agreed to file an amended information.  
The amended information changed the applicable tax years for the 
charges from 2006 and 2007 to 2005 and 2006.  The prosecutor 
explained that the income not reported on the 2005 state income 
tax return was, as in 2006, attorney fees paid to Attorney 
McKinley by a number of private pay clients.  Although the 
prosecutor did not indicate that the original charge for the 
2007 tax return had been inaccurate in any regard, the amended 
information no longer contained a charge regarding that tax 
year. 
¶6 
The 
other 
substantial 
change 
in 
the 
amended 
information was that the charges were reduced from felony 
offenses to misdemeanors.  Instead of charging Attorney McKinley 
with filing false or fraudulent tax returns with the intent to 
evade or defeat the assessment of state income taxes, in 
violation of Wis. Stat. § 71.83(2)(b)1, the state now charged 
Attorney McKinley with simply making and subscribing a tax 
return that she did not believe to be true and correct in every 
material matter, in violation of Wis. Stat. § 71.83(2)(a)2.  The 
No. 
2013AP2685-D   
 
5 
 
misdemeanor charges did not include the element of intending to 
evade or defeat the payment of state income taxes. 
¶7 
Attorney 
McKinley 
pled 
no 
contest 
to 
the 
two 
misdemeanor counts alleged in the amended information.  The 
circuit court accepted her pleas and found her guilty of those 
two offenses.  Prior to sentencing, Attorney McKinley was 
allowed an opportunity to address the court.  She expressed 
shame and remorse for her conduct, as well as a willingness to 
seek treatment/counseling. 
¶8 
The 
circuit 
court 
agreed 
with 
the 
state's 
recommendation to withhold sentence and place Attorney McKinley 
on probation.  It did not follow, however, the state's 
recommendation for two years of probation, with six months of 
jail time as a condition of probation.  Instead, the circuit 
court required Attorney McKinley to spend only five days in the 
county jail over the 2013 Thanksgiving weekend as a condition of 
her probation.  It also set the period of probation at 18 
months, which could be reduced to one year if Attorney McKinley 
underwent eight sessions of grief counseling or individual 
counseling.  Finally, the circuit court required as a condition 
of probation that Attorney McKinley obtain a mental health 
assessment and follow up with any treatment recommendations that 
resulted from that assessment. 
¶9 
The circuit court commented during its sentencing 
statement that it did not believe that Attorney McKinley would 
have intentionally endangered her job, her law license, and her 
reputation to save a few thousand dollars in taxes.  The court 
No. 
2013AP2685-D   
 
6 
 
indicated that it believed there were other factors that had led 
Attorney McKinley to fail to report certain amounts of income—
the illness and death of her mother and a serious depression 
that corresponded with the time period of her misconduct. 
¶10 By the time of Attorney McKinley's sentencing, she had 
already made a $9,000 payment to the Wisconsin Department of 
Revenue, which was equal to or near the amount of back taxes 
owed for the 2005, 2006 and 2007 tax years.2  Following her 
sentencing, 
Attorney 
McKinley 
timely 
self-reported 
her 
convictions to the OLR. 
¶11 As noted at the beginning of this opinion, Attorney 
McKinley has stipulated with the OLR that she has been convicted 
of the two misdemeanors described above, and that her conduct 
leading 
to 
those 
convictions 
constituted 
violations 
of 
SCR 20:8.4(b).  In the stipulation, Attorney McKinley agrees 
with the OLR's position that a 60-day suspension of her license 
to practice law in Wisconsin would be an appropriate level of 
discipline to impose in response to her misconduct.  The 
stipulation clearly states that it was not the result of plea 
bargaining, and that Attorney McKinley has acceded to the 
factual allegations, legal conclusions, and level of discipline 
sought by the OLR. 
                                                 
2 At the time of sentencing, there were still unresolved 
issues regarding the amount of interest and penalties that 
Attorney McKinley owed to the state as a result of her 
underreporting of income. 
No. 
2013AP2685-D   
 
7 
 
¶12 The stipulation contains a number of representations 
by Attorney McKinley.  She states that she fully understands the 
misconduct allegations against her and her right to contest 
those allegations.  She nonetheless admits her misconduct and 
assents to the discipline sought by the OLR.  She further states 
that she fully understands the ramifications that will follow if 
this court accepts the stipulation and imposes the requested 
level of discipline.  Attorney McKinley also represents that she 
understands her right to consult with counsel in this matter.  
Finally, she asserts that her entry into the stipulation is made 
knowingly and voluntarily. 
¶13 There is no dispute that Attorney McKinley's state 
income tax returns for the relevant years contained information 
that was not true and that Attorney McKinley did not believe to 
be true.  That is clearly sufficient for this court to find a 
violation of SCR 20:8.4(b). 
¶14 The only real issue here is whether the stipulated 
level of discipline (a 60-day suspension) is an appropriate 
level of discipline.  In its memorandum in support of the 
stipulation, the OLR states that it most closely considered four 
precedents in analyzing what level of discipline it would seek 
in this matter:  Public Reprimand of William J. Grogan, 
No. 2007-6 (consensual public reprimand for conduct including 
failing to file timely state and federal tax returns over 
several 
years 
and 
failing 
to 
cooperate 
with 
the 
OLR's 
investigation); In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Lex, 2000 
WI 49, 235 Wis. 2d 381, 611 N.W.2d 456 (public reprimand imposed 
No. 
2013AP2685-D   
 
8 
 
on attorney with prior public reprimand for his intentional 
failure to file income tax returns for several years; attorney 
had experienced financial and professional hardships at time of 
misconduct and had completed agreement to pay all taxes, 
penalties, and interest); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
May, 215 Wis. 2d 456, 576 N.W.2d 544 (1998) (60-day suspension 
imposed on attorney with previous private reprimand who was 
criminally charged with failing to file timely state income tax 
returns for 13 years, ultimately pled no contest to two 
misdemeanor counts, and received probation); In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Thomas, 187 Wis. 2d 332, 522 N.W.2d 781 
(1994) (60-day suspension imposed on attorney for intentionally 
and repeatedly failing to file state and federal tax returns).  
The OLR acknowledges that these four matters involved the 
failure to file tax returns, either at all or on a timely basis, 
while Attorney McKinley's conduct consisted of filing a false 
tax return.  Nonetheless, it asserts that Attorney McKinley's 
misconduct was similar to that of Attorney Thomas and Attorney 
May.  In particular, it emphasizes that both Attorney May and 
Attorney McKinley were convicted of two misdemeanors for their 
tax-related misconduct. 
¶15 In addition to prior precedent, the OLR states that it 
took 
into 
consideration 
a 
number 
of 
mitigating 
factors, 
including the lack of any prior discipline, Attorney McKinley's 
depression and personal problems, her timely effort to pay the 
back taxes, her timely report of her conviction, her complete 
disclosure of her conduct to the OLR, and her expressions of 
No. 
2013AP2685-D   
 
9 
 
remorse for her conduct.  On the other hand, the OLR also 
acknowledged the financial benefit to Attorney McKinley of 
underreporting her income as an aggravating factor. 
¶16 The OLR's memorandum fails to acknowledge that this 
court has also on a substantial number of occasions imposed much 
more 
severe 
discipline 
in 
cases 
involving 
tax-related 
convictions.  See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Phillips, 2007 WI 63, 301 Wis. 2d 33, 732 N.W.2d 17 (three-year 
suspension imposed on attorney convicted of willful attempted 
federal tax evasion for concealing the proceeds of a loan so 
that it could not be attached by the Internal Revenue Service); 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Washington, 2007 WI 65, 
301 Wis. 2d 47, 732 N.W.2d 24 (18-month suspension imposed on 
attorney convicted of attempting to evade and defeat the payment 
of a large portion of her federal income taxes by not reporting 
over $90,000 in income in one tax year; evidence also showed 
similar conduct in two other tax years). 
¶17 We recognize, however, that the convictions against 
Attorney Phillips and Attorney Washington involved the element 
of attempting to evade or defeat the payment of income taxes.  
While the state originally charged Attorney McKinley with 
offenses that included this same element, it ultimately agreed 
to lesser charges of filing tax returns that Attorney McKinley 
knew to be false or inaccurate.  Consequently, we must base our 
determination on the offenses that have been admitted in the 
criminal case because neither the state in the criminal case nor 
the OLR in this disciplinary proceeding has obtained a finding 
No. 
2013AP2685-D   
 
10 
 
from a trier of fact that Attorney McKinley attempted to evade 
the payment of state income taxes.  Thus, the Phillips and 
Washington matters are not directly analogous with respect to 
the proper sanction. 
¶18 Of greater assistance in resolving this case is our 
discussion of Attorney Jeffrey Elverman's failure to report 
$230,000 in income from co-trustee fees on his state and federal 
income tax returns for five years.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceeding Against Elverman, 2008 WI 28, 308 Wis. 2d 524, 746 
N.W.2d 793.  Importantly, in that decision we divided our 
analysis of Attorney Elverman's failure to report the trustee 
fee income into two categories.  In the first three years, 
Attorney Elverman claimed that he had simply forgotten to report 
the trustee fees as income.  We stated that if this had been the 
only misconduct at issue, we might have been more inclined to 
impose a public reprimand, in line with Lex and In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Young, 2006 WI 109, 296 Wis. 2d 
36, 718 N.W.2d 717.  Elverman, 308 Wis. 2d 524, ¶48.  For the 
last two years at issue, however, Attorney Elverman admitted 
that he knew he was supposed to report the trustee fees as 
income, but deliberately chose not to do so in order to pay 
other personal financial obligations.  Id.  We concluded that 
this was a more serious level of misconduct that moved the 
matter on the continuum of culpability more toward what had 
occurred in Phillips and Washington.  Consequently, we suspended 
Attorney Elverman's license for a period of nine months.  Id., 
¶¶49-50. 
No. 
2013AP2685-D   
 
11 
 
¶19 Similarly, Attorney McKinley did not simply fail to 
file her tax returns, as was the situation in the Grogan and Lex 
matters cited by the OLR. She was convicted of filing state 
income tax returns that she believed were not true or correct, 
which appears to be a more serious offense.  On the other hand, 
she was not convicted of attempted tax evasion, as were Attorney 
Phillips and Attorney Washington.  Without more, these facts 
would seem to call for a suspension of more than a couple 
months. 
¶20 There is more in this case, however.  Although the OLR 
could have provided more information about the impact of 
Attorney 
McKinley's 
depression 
on 
her 
misconduct 
in 
the 
stipulation or in its statement in support of the stipulation, 
the OLR is clearly taking Attorney McKinley's depression into 
account as a mitigating factor in the level of discipline it is 
seeking.  There is some discussion of the depth of Attorney 
McKinley's depression in the transcript of the plea and 
sentencing hearing in the criminal case that has been filed in 
connection with the stipulation.  We factor that into our 
analysis.  In addition, Attorney McKinley has never before been 
the subject of professional discipline.  When her failure to 
report all of her income came to light, she made timely efforts 
to pay the back taxes that she owed and she expressed remorse 
for her misconduct. 
¶21 In light of these mitigating factors, we accept the 
stipulation and impose the jointly requested sanction of a 60-
day suspension of Attorney McKinley's license to practice law in 
No. 
2013AP2685-D   
 
12 
 
this state.  We are confident that Attorney McKinley recognizes 
the seriousness of her misconduct.  Filing tax returns that a 
person knows or believes are not true because they do not 
include all of a person's income is a grave matter.  Attorney 
McKinley's criminal convictions and the resulting loss of her 
job have demonstrated that fact.  The suspension of her license 
to practice law in this state, even though tempered in this 
instance because of mitigating factors, is a further indication 
that such conduct carries serious consequences. 
¶22 We do not impose any restitution in this matter.  In 
addition, because this matter was resolved with the filing of a 
stipulation under SCR 22.12 and without the appointment of a 
referee, we also do not require Attorney McKinley to pay any 
costs. 
¶23 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Geneva E. McKinley 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 
days, effective July 31, 2014. 
¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Geneva E. McKinley 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. 
¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2). 
 
 
No. 
2013AP2685-D   
 
 
 
1