Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. George H. Losby

Citation: 2008 WI 8

Docket Number: 2007AP000396-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2008-01-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
2008 WI 8 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2007AP396-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against George H. Losby, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
George H. Losby, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST LOSBY 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
January 29, 2008   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2008 WI 8
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2007AP396-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against George H. Losby, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
George H. Losby, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JAN 29,2008 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the referee's recommendation 
to suspend Attorney George H. Losby's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin for 18 months for professional misconduct.  The 
referee also recommended that Attorney Losby be required to make 
restitution and pay the costs of this disciplinary proceeding.  
No appeal has been filed.  We conclude the record supports the 
referee's findings of facts and conclusions of law and adopt 
them as set forth in the referee's report.  We agree that the 
No. 
2007AP396-D   
 
2 
 
seriousness of the misconduct warrants the suspension of 
Attorney Losby's license to practice law for 18 months and that 
restitution and costs should be imposed. 
¶2 
Attorney Losby was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1964 and he has practiced in Eau Claire.  He has 
not been previously disciplined for misconduct.   
¶3 
The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) brought a 
disciplinary complaint alleging ten counts of misconduct with 
respect to Attorney Losby's handling of three probate estates.  
Stanley F. Hack was appointed referee.  Hearings were held 
July 17 and 25, 2007.  Following the receipt of testimony and 
exhibits, the referee concluded the evidence supported the 
allegations of the complaint. 
¶4 
The referee found five counts of misconduct relating 
to Attorney Losby's handling of M.S.'s estate.  Attorney Losby 
failed to file fiduciary income tax returns and did not conclude 
probate for more than 6 1/2 years after M.S.'s death.  The 
referee found Attorney Losby failed to act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation 
of former SCR 20:1.13.1  The referee also determined that 
                                                 
1 Effective July 1, 2007, substantial changes were made to 
the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct for 
Attorneys, SCR Chapter 20.  See S.Ct. Order No. 04-07, 2007 WI 
4, 293 Wis. 2d xv; and S.Ct. Order No. 06-04, 2007 WI 48, 297 
Wis. 2d xlvii.  Since the conduct underlying this case arose 
prior 
to 
July 
1, 
2007, 
unless 
otherwise 
indicated, 
all 
references to the supreme court rules will be to those in effect 
prior to July 1, 2007. 
Former SCR 20:1.3 provides that a lawyer "shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
No. 
2007AP396-D   
 
3 
 
Attorney Losby made false statements of fact to a tribunal, 
contrary to SCR 20:3.3(a)(1),2 when he filed a final account with 
the court that underreported his total personal representative 
and attorney fee by $425; underreported interest income by more 
than $1,000; and failed to report over $12,000 in interest on 
estate savings bonds.  Attorney Losby was also found to have 
misinformed the court that he had engaged the services of a 
certain attorney to assist him in closing the M.S. estate, when 
in fact he had not.  In addition, Attorney Losby falsely advised 
the court that tax problems, for which he was awaiting a reply 
from the IRS, caused delays in concluding the M.S. estate. 
¶5 
Between February 2001 and February 2005, Attorney 
Losby failed to appear at hearings and failed to meet court 
established filing deadlines, thus knowingly disobeying an 
obligation under the rules of a tribunal, contrary to SCR 
20:3.4(c).3  Also, the referee found that by taking $425 more in 
fees than he was entitled to receive and by paying himself 
$2,000 on January 15, 2005, well after he had filed the final 
account despite that he had done nothing to conclude probate, 
                                                 
2 Former SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) provides that a lawyer shall not 
knowingly "make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal." 
3 Former 20:3.4(c) states that a lawyer shall not "knowingly 
disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for 
an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation 
exists."   
No. 
2007AP396-D   
 
4 
 
Attorney Losby engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c).4   
¶6 
The referee also found that in August and November of 
2006, Attorney Losby failed to provide the OLR staff with 
requested 
information, 
thus 
willfully 
failing 
to 
provide 
relevant information or to answer questions fully in the course 
of an OLR investigation, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(f),5 as it 
relates to SCR 22.03(6)6 requirements.  The referee found 
Attorney Losby owed restitution to the M.S. estate beneficiaries 
for at least $2,425 in funds paid to himself that were 
unreported on the final account, and that he should reimburse 
the M.S. heirs for all interest and penalties accrued as a 
result of delinquent tax filings.   
¶7 
With respect to a second probate matter, the M.K. 
estate, Attorney Losby was found to have committed four counts 
of misconduct.  M.K died on April 11, 1995.  Attorney Losby 
failed to file fiduciary income tax returns and failed to 
                                                 
4 Former SCR 20:8.4(c) states that it is professional 
misconduct for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." 
5 Former SCR 20:8.4(f) states that it is professional 
misconduct for a lawyer to "violate a statute, supreme court 
rule, supreme court order or supreme court decision regulating 
the conduct of lawyers." 
6 SCR 22.03(6) states, "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. 
2007AP396-D   
 
5 
 
conclude probate, allowing the estate to remain open for more 
than 9 1/2 years after M.K.'s death.  This gave rise to a 
violation of SCR 20:1.3, failing to act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client.  In the final 
account, Attorney Losby misrepresented the total estate income, 
the amount of his fee, the amount of taxes, penalties and 
interest paid by the estate, and the amount of distributions to 
the estate's heirs.  In so doing, Attorney Losby made false 
statements of fact to a tribunal, contrary to SCR 20:3.3(a)(1).   
¶8 
The referee found that Attorney Losby's misconduct 
involved 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit, 
or 
misrepresentation, 
contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c), when he deceived beneficiaries about 
reasons for delay, inaccurately reported transactions to the 
heirs in the estate's final account, failed to disclose or 
reimburse the estate the tax penalties assessed due to his 
delinquencies, and took $2,000 in estate funds to which he was 
not entitled.  The referee also concluded that Attorney Losby's 
failure to provide the OLR with information on July 31, 2006, 
and November 13, 2006, violated SCR 20:8.4(f), as it relates to 
SCR 22.03(6).  The referee found that Attorney Losby owed the 
M.K. estate beneficiaries $2,000 for funds he misappropriated 
from the estate's tax refund and $5,689 for penalties and 
interest the M.K. estate paid as a result of Attorney Losby's 
delays.   
¶9 
Finally, with respect to a third matter, the A.L. 
estate, the referee found Attorney Losby failed to deposit 
checks at the time they were received, causing the checks to 
No. 
2007AP396-D   
 
6 
 
become stale and requiring them to be reissued.  He failed to 
conclude probate even after the court ordered him to do so.  The 
referee determined Attorney Losby failed to act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client, contrary to 
SCR 20:1.3.   
¶10 This court upholds the referee's findings of fact 
unless clearly erroneous.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 
N.W.2d 718.  This court independently reviews the referee's 
legal conclusions.  Id.  Here, the referee's fact findings and 
legal conclusions are unchallenged; this court adopts them.   
¶11 It is ultimately this court's responsibility to 
determine the appropriate discipline.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Reitz, 2005 WI 39, ¶74, 279 Wis. 2d 550, 694 
N.W.2d 894.  Proper considerations include the seriousness of 
the misconduct and the need to protect the public, courts and 
the legal system from repetition of misconduct, to impress upon 
the attorney the seriousness of the misconduct, and to deter 
other attorneys from similar misconduct.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Arthur, 2005 WI 40, ¶78, 279 Wis. 2d 583, 
694 N.W.2d 910.    
¶12 We accept the referee's recommendation of an 18-month 
suspension, together with restitution and costs.  The referee 
considered a number of factors, including Attorney Losby's 
testimony demonstrating sincere remorse.  Although Attorney 
Losby testified as to his past medical condition of depression, 
the referee found that the medical evidence failed to indicate 
No. 
2007AP396-D   
 
7 
 
any connection between Attorney Losby's medical condition and 
his misconduct.  Also, while the absence of prior discipline may 
be regarded as a mitigating factor, the referee considered that 
Attorney Losby's misconduct caused harm to the heirs of the 
estates.  We agree that the seriousness of Attorney Losby's 
misconduct warrants license suspension and the recommended 18-
month license suspension is necessary to protect the public and 
deter similar misconduct.  
¶13 We further conclude Attorney Losby shall be required 
to make restitution in the amounts identified by the referee in 
his report and, in addition, all interest and penalties accrued 
to the M.S. estate as a result of delinquent tax filings.  The 
referee indicated that the total amount of interest and 
penalties has not yet been determined.  Therefore, as a 
condition of reinstatement, Attorney Losby must demonstrate that 
he has made restitution of all interest and penalties accrued to 
the M.S. estate as a result of delinquent tax filings.  Finally, 
we impose the $5,763.31 in costs sought by the OLR.  
¶14 IT IS ORDERED that the license of George H. Losby to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 18 months 
effective March 3, 2008. 
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Attorney Losby pay restitution to the clients 
identified in the referee's report.  Restitution shall be paid 
prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer Regulation. 
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Attorney Losby shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
No. 
2007AP396-D   
 
8 
 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  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 George H. Losby to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
remain suspended until further order of the court. 
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Losby 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. 
2007AP396-D   
 
 
 
1