Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Joan M. Boyd

Citation: 2008 WI 103

Docket Number: 2007AP000588-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2008-07-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
2008 WI 103 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2007AP588-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Joan M. Boyd , Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Joan M. Boyd, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BOYD 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 18, 2008   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2008 WI 103
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2007AP588-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Joan M. Boyd, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Joan M. Boyd, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 18, 2008 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a referee's report finding 
that Attorney Joan M. Boyd engaged in professional misconduct 
with respect to her handling of three client matters.  The 
referee recommended that Attorney Boyd's license to practice law 
in Wisconsin be suspended for six months.   
¶2 
We conclude that the referee's findings of fact are 
supported 
by 
satisfactory 
and 
convincing 
evidence. 
 
We 
determine, however, that the seriousness of Attorney Boyd's 
No. 
2007AP588-D   
 
2 
 
misconduct warrants the suspension of her license to practice 
law for five months.  We further agree with the referee's 
recommendations 
that 
Attorney 
Boyd 
be 
ordered 
to 
make 
restitution to her clients and that she pay the costs of the 
proceeding, which are $14,654.40 as of April 23, 2008. 
¶3 
Attorney 
Boyd 
was 
admitted 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin in 1989 and practices in Shawano.  A significant 
portion of her practice is apparently devoted to handling 
bankruptcies since she stated at the public hearing before the 
referee that she has handled between 1,000 and 1,200 bankruptcy 
cases since starting her practice.  
¶4 
Attorney 
Boyd 
has 
received 
two 
prior 
public 
reprimands.  In 2000 she was reprimanded for forging her 
clients' endorsements on the back of a refund check that was 
issued by a bankruptcy trustee to the clients and arranging for 
the refund check to be deposited into her checking account.  She 
also made a misrepresentation to the bankruptcy trustee's staff 
that the clients had endorsed the check.  Public Reprimand of 
Joan M. Boyd, 2000-4. 
¶5 
In 
2006 
Attorney 
Boyd 
received 
another 
public 
reprimand for failing to deposit a fee into her client trust 
account and commingling her own funds in her trust account and 
failing to provide the legal skill or preparation reasonably 
necessary to handle a federal civil rights claim and charging a 
client an unreasonable fee. In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Boyd, 2006 WI 28, 289 Wis. 2d 351, 711 N.W.2d 286.  
No. 
2007AP588-D   
 
3 
 
¶6 
On March 14, 2007, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a complaint alleging that Attorney Boyd committed 
five counts of misconduct with respect to her handling of three 
client matters.  Two of the client matters involved bankruptcy 
cases and the third involved a criminal postconviction matter.  
¶7 
The 
first 
client 
matter 
detailed 
in 
the 
OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney Boyd's representation of Mr. and 
Mrs. M. in a bankruptcy case.  Mr. and Mrs. M. first contacted 
Attorney Boyd around November 2004 regarding their interest in 
pursuing a chapter 7 bankruptcy.  Mr. and Mrs. M. provided some 
financial information to Attorney Boyd, and she prepared 
bankruptcy schedules, but Mr. and Mrs. M. did not follow through 
with the bankruptcy at that time. 
¶8 
On January 5, 2005, Mr. and Mrs. M. had a house fire 
that destroyed their home and many of their personal belongings.  
They received approximately $50,000 in insurance money as a 
result of the fire. 
¶9 
In March of 2005, Mr. and Mrs. M. again met with 
Attorney Boyd.  They told her about the fire and said the 
bankruptcy petition needed to be updated.  Mr. and Mrs. M. 
signed the bankruptcy schedules on March 21, 2005, and Attorney 
Boyd filed them in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern 
District of Wisconsin on March 28.  Attorney Boyd inserted some 
reference to the fire in the bankruptcy schedules, including the 
comment that numerous personal property items were "lost in 
fire." The bankruptcy schedules did not disclose that Mr. and 
Mrs. M. had received $50,000 in insurance money after the fire, 
No. 
2007AP588-D   
 
4 
 
nor did the schedules report that Mr. and Mrs. M. had a $10,000 
balance in a checking account or that prior to filing the 
bankruptcy they had bought furniture and electronics and put 
them on layaway.  
¶10 Larry Liebzeit (Liebzeit), the bankruptcy trustee, 
wrote to Attorney Boyd on April 11, 2005, asking her to provide 
documents concerning the settlement of Mr. and Mrs. M.'s fire 
loss.  The meeting of creditors was continued to June 9, 2005.  
Liebzeit wrote Attorney Boyd asking that Mr. and Mrs. M. attend 
the meeting.  Liebzeit also requested copies of all bank 
statements from any accounts from December 1, 2004, through the 
present in addition to a list of specific property on layaway.  
¶11 Neither Attorney Boyd nor Mr. and Mrs. M. appeared for 
the June 9, 2005, meeting of creditors.  Liebzeit was not given 
notice that none of them would appear.  Attorney Boyd told OLR 
staff that Mr. and Mrs. M. told her they would not appear at the 
hearing, and she also said she was fearful of appearing in front 
of Liebzeit.  
¶12 On June 16, 2005, Liebzeit filed a motion to extend 
the time in which he and/or the assistant trustee could object 
to Mr. and Mrs. M.'s discharge.  Liebzeit also filed a motion to 
compel Mr. and Mrs. M. to attend another meeting of creditors 
scheduled for August 4, 2005.  On June 23, 2005, Attorney Boyd 
filed a response to Liebzeit's motions saying that because Mr. 
and Mrs. M. had previously been subjected to harsh treatment by 
the trustee they did not appear at the June 9 meeting of 
creditors.  
No. 
2007AP588-D   
 
5 
 
¶13 On June 30, 2005, the assistant trustee filed an 
adversary proceeding against Mr. and Mrs. M. in bankruptcy court 
and sought to deny their discharge in bankruptcy.  The complaint 
alleged that Mr. and Mrs. M. failed to fully and accurately 
disclose personal property and/or fire insurance proceeds, bank 
accounts, motor vehicles, etc.  The complaint also alleged that 
Mr. and Mrs. M. had provided false and misleading information 
regarding the value of the property lost in the fire and that 
Mr. and Mrs. M.'s nondisclosures were material because the value 
of the items not disclosed greatly exceeded the exemptions 
claimed by Mr. and Mrs. M.  
¶14 On July 5, 2005, Liebzeit filed a motion for an order 
compelling Mr. and Mrs. M. to turn over property, including bank 
accounts.  The motion alleged that Liebzeit believed Mr. and 
Mrs. M. had received insurance payments of approximately $53,000 
and had used the funds to buy a truck and had also bought a 
significant amount of furniture on layaway.  The motion also 
alleged that Mr. and Mrs. M.'s bankruptcy schedules did not 
report the accurate value of the furniture that had been 
purchased.  
¶15 On July 8, 2005, Attorney Boyd filed an objection to 
Liebzeit's motion to turn over property and asserted that the 
insurance proceeds were intended to replace Mr. and Mrs. M.'s 
possessions that had been lost in the fire.  Attorney Boyd 
alleged that Liebzeit was acting in bad faith and attempting to 
intimidate Mr. and Mrs. M. 
No. 
2007AP588-D   
 
6 
 
¶16 On July 12, 2005, the bankruptcy court held a 
telephonic conference and decided to hold Liebzeit's motions in 
abeyance, pending a motion to dismiss the case that would be 
filed by Mr. and Mrs. M.  The court advised Attorney Boyd that 
if Mr. and Mrs. M.'s motion to dismiss was denied, then Mr. and 
Mrs. M. would be required to attend another meeting of 
creditors. 
¶17 Sometime prior to July 28, 2005, Mr. and Mrs. M. 
terminated Attorney Boyd's representation and hired Attorney 
Dayten Hanson to represent them.  Attorney Hanson filed a motion 
to dismiss the bankruptcy petition and asserted that Mr. and 
Mrs. M. no longer wanted to file bankruptcy.  Attorney Hanson's 
motion alleged that Attorney Boyd had prepared inadequate and 
incorrect bankruptcy schedules, and that Mr. and Mrs. M. no 
longer wanted to proceed with the bankruptcy.  Attorney Hanson 
alleged that the schedules failed to include a reference to the 
insurance proceeds, Mr. and Mrs. M.'s house was twice listed on 
one schedule, the checking account information was not updated 
since November 2004, and there were inconsistent references to 
the fair market value assigned to one item of property.  A 
hearing was held on August 22, 2005.  Attorney Boyd did not 
attend.  Mr. and Mrs. M.'s bankruptcy was dismissed with a one-
year bar to re-filing.  
¶18 The second client matter detailed in the OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney Boyd's representation of V.J. in a 
bankruptcy matter.  Attorney Boyd filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy 
petition on V.J.'s behalf in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the 
No. 
2007AP588-D   
 
7 
 
Eastern District of Wisconsin on October 6, 2005.  On or about 
December 15, 2005, Liebzeit, who was the trustee of V.J.'s 
bankruptcy estate, filed an objection to V.J.'s claim of 
exemptions pertaining to a $30,000 Edward Jones account which 
V.J. had claimed was exempt.  Liebzeit asserted the account was 
not totally exempt, and he asked the court to determine that the 
account was not exempt and order that the nonexempt proceeds be 
turned over to the trustee as property of the estate.   
¶19 On January 11, 2006, Attorney Boyd filed an amended 
Schedule C and again listed the Edward Jones account as being 
exempt in the amount of $30,000.  On January 18, 2006, Liebzeit 
filed an objection to the amended claim of exemptions.  Liebzeit 
also 
raised 
additional 
concerns 
regarding 
other 
claimed 
exemptions.  He asked the court to determine that V.J. was not 
entitled to the exemptions and to order that the balance of the 
nonexempt proceeds and assets be turned over to the trustee as 
property of the estate.  
¶20 On January 20, 2006, the bankruptcy court held a 
hearing and sustained the trustee's objection to V.J.'s claim of 
exemption of the Edward Jones account. On February 8, 2006, 
Attorney Boyd filed an amended Schedule C which continued to 
list the Edward Jones account as a claimed exemption.  
¶21 On February 13, 2006, the court discharged V.J. in 
bankruptcy.  On February 14, 2006, Liebzeit filed an objection 
to V.J.'s amended claim of exemptions and again asked the court 
to determine that V.J. was not entitled to the exemption 
relating to the Edward Jones account.  On February 22, 2006, the 
No. 
2007AP588-D   
 
8 
 
court issued an order sustaining the trustee's objection and 
finding that the Edward Jones account was not exempt. 
¶22 On April 19, 2006, Liebzeit filed a notice of 
trustee's 
proposed 
abandonment, 
indicating 
that 
Liebzeit 
intended to abandon the property listed on V.J.'s Schedule B 
(which requires the debtor to list all personal property) with 
exceptions regarding the Edward Jones account and V.J.'s car.  
On May 30, 2006, Liebzeit filed documentation with the court 
stating that no objections had been filed and that the trustee 
abandoned the estate's interest in the property as listed on the 
notice filed on April 19.  
¶23 Only a portion of the Edward Jones account (less than 
$6,000) would be exempt under a wildcard exemption under 
bankruptcy rules.  From the outset V.J. had sufficient funds to 
pay her credit card indebtedness and have money left over in her 
investment account.  Thus, V.J. was not a candidate to file for 
bankruptcy.  As a result of pursuing the bankruptcy, V.J. 
incurred 
unnecessary 
trustee/attorney/accountant 
fees 
of 
approximately $3,000.  
¶24 The 
third 
client 
matter 
detailed 
in 
the 
OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney Boyd's representation of C.B. in a 
criminal postconviction matter.  In May 1998 C.B. was convicted 
in Racine County circuit court of being party to the crime of 
attempted first-degree intentional homicide and multiple counts 
of party to the crime of first- and second-degree recklessly 
endangering safety.  He pursued a direct appeal, which was 
No. 
2007AP588-D   
 
9 
 
denied in January 2000.  A petition for review was denied in 
June 2000. 
¶25 C.B. hired Attorney Boyd in 2002.  C.B.'s mother, 
M.H., paid Attorney Boyd $2,000 for a postconviction motion. 
Attorney Boyd told M.H. that she had experience in criminal law 
and was very familiar with the appeal process. 
¶26 On July 31, 2003, Attorney Boyd filed a motion for 
postconviction relief in Racine County circuit court based on 
ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel.  The 
motion was denied.  During the motion hearing the circuit judge 
asked Attorney Boyd to describe in detail the aspects of the 
ineffective assistance of counsel claim.  One of the concerns 
recited by Attorney Boyd was a possible relationship between 
C.B.'s trial counsel and the appellate counsel such that the 
appellate counsel never raised the issue of trial counsel's 
ineffectiveness during C.B.'s direct appeal.  
¶27 Attorney Ann Auberry was appellate counsel.  She 
testified that she had a friendly professional relationship with 
C.B.'s trial counsel, Wynne Laufenberg, but had never had any 
social contacts with him outside of work.  Attorney Auberry also 
indicated that she found no reason to believe that Attorney 
Laufenberg had provided ineffective assistance of counsel.  At 
the close of the hearing the circuit court suggested that 
Attorney Boyd had been unorganized in terms of the issues 
presented and ruled that there was no basis to find any 
professional conflict of interest between C.B.'s trial and 
appellate attorneys.  The court said by suggesting such a 
No. 
2007AP588-D   
 
10 
 
conflict existed, Attorney Boyd's conduct was "reprehensible" 
and "inexcusable."  The court also concluded that there was no 
showing of ineffective assistance of counsel and that there was 
no evidence presented of any failure by Attorney Auberry to 
raise 
meritorious 
claims 
on 
appeal 
or 
to 
call 
critical 
witnesses.  The court concluded that Attorney Boyd had failed 
"miserably 
to 
meet 
your 
burden 
of 
proof 
by 
this 
poor 
presentation."  The circuit court denied the postconviction 
motion. 
¶28 C.B. hired Attorney Boyd to file an appeal of the 
circuit court's order denying his postconviction motion.  M.H. 
paid Attorney Boyd $500 for representation on the appeal.  On 
February 25, 2004, Attorney Boyd filed a notice of appeal.  On 
March 30, 2005, the court of appeals dismissed the appeal and 
admonished Attorney Boyd for preparing "an incomplete and 
confusing appendix to the appellant's brief." 
¶29 C.B. hired Attorney Boyd to file a petition for review 
in this court.  M.H. paid Attorney Boyd $1,500 for the 
representation.  Attorney Boyd filed a petition for review on 
April 29, 2005.  This court denied the petition on July 28, 
2005.  It was not until November 21, 2005, that Attorney Boyd 
told M.H. that the petition for review had been denied.  
¶30 Stanley F. Hack was appointed referee.  The matter was 
set for a two-day hearing starting on September 25, 2007. 
Shortly 
before 
the 
hearing 
was 
to 
begin, 
Attorney 
Boyd 
stipulated to the allegations of the complaint and asked to 
No. 
2007AP588-D   
 
11 
 
proceed solely on the issue of sanctions.  A hearing was held on 
sanctions. 
¶31 After the hearing, the parties submitted proposed 
findings of fact and conclusions of law.  The OLR filed a motion 
to strike Attorney Boyd's proposed findings of fact and 
conclusions of law.  Attorney Boyd then indicated a desire to 
withdraw her stipulation.  Following a hearing, the referee 
entered an order on January 14, 2007, allowing Attorney Boyd to 
withdraw the stipulation.  
¶32 Another hearing was held in March 2008. The referee's 
report and recommendation was filed on May 6, 2008.  
¶33 The referee found that the OLR had met its burden of 
establishing all five counts of misconduct alleged in the 
complaint.  Specifically, the referee found that Attorney Boyd 
failed to provide competent representation to a client, in 
violation of former SCR 20:1.11 in the Mr. and Mrs. M., V.J., and 
C.B. matters; that she failed to act with reasonable diligence 
and promptness in representing a client, in violation of SCR 
                                                 
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 04-07, 2007 WI 4, 
293 Wis. 2d xv, 726 N.W.2d Ct.R-45 (eff. July 1, 2007); and 
S. Ct. 
Order 
06-04, 
2007 
WI 
48, 
297 
Wis. 2d xv, 
730 
N.W.2d Ct.R.-29 (eff. July 1, 2007).  Because 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 20:1.1 states, "A lawyer shall provide competent 
representation to a client. Competent representation requires 
the 
legal 
knowledge, 
skill, 
thoroughness 
and 
preparation 
reasonably necessary for the representation." 
No. 
2007AP588-D   
 
12 
 
20:1.32 in the Mr. and Mrs. M. matter; and that she engaged in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit, 
or 
misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c)3 in the C.B. 
matter.  
¶34 Although the OLR had asked for a 90-day suspension of 
Attorney Boyd's license, the referee concluded that a six-month 
suspension was appropriate.  In reaching this conclusion, the 
referee pointed to the fact that Attorney Boyd previously 
received two public reprimands.  The referee also found there 
were "serious issues of credibility" on Attorney Boyd's part, 
and the referee said it was necessary for Attorney Boyd to 
establish that she understands her obligations to clients and 
the 
legal 
system 
and that she will act competently in 
representing 
clients 
in 
the 
future. 
 
The 
referee 
also 
recommended that Attorney Boyd pay the full costs of the 
proceeding.  
¶35 Although the referee's report and recommendation also 
called for Attorney Boyd to reimburse her clients, it did not 
set forth any specific amounts of reimbursement.  Following the 
filing of the referee's report and recommendation the parties 
entered into a stipulation setting forth the specific amounts of 
reimbursement that they deemed appropriate.  The referee 
                                                 
2 Former SCR 20:1.3 states, "A lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
3 Former SCR 20:8.4(c) states it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
No. 
2007AP588-D   
 
13 
 
incorporated those stipulated amounts into the addendum to his 
report filed on May 8, 2008.  
¶36 Attorney Boyd attempted to file an appeal from the 
referee's report and recommendation, but the court previously 
ruled that her appeal was untimely.  Thus, our review proceeds 
under SCR 22.17(2).4  This court will adopt a referee's findings 
of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law 
are reviewed de novo.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against 
Eisenberg, 
2004 
WI 
14, 
¶5, 
269 
Wis. 2d 43, 
675 
N.W.2d 747.  The court may also impose whatever sanction it sees 
fit regardless of the referee's recommendation.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 
Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.  The referee's findings of fact have 
not been shown to be clearly erroneous and we adopt them.  We 
also agree with the referee's conclusions of law. 
¶37 As to the appropriate sanction, we agree with the 
referee that a 90-day suspension would be inadequate.  By her 
own admission, Attorney Boyd has handled in excess of 1,000 
bankruptcies in her legal career.  The mistakes she made in 
handling the Mr. and Mrs. M. and V.J. bankruptcies were serious 
                                                 
4 SCR 22.17(2) provides: 
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. 
2007AP588-D   
 
14 
 
failings which caused her clients to incur unnecessary expenses.  
Attorney Boyd also misled C.B. and M.H. into believing she was 
experienced in handling postconviction criminal matters.  We 
agree with the referee that the sanction imposed must be 
sufficient to impress upon Attorney Boyd the seriousness of her 
misconduct.  We believe, however, that a five-month suspension, 
rather than the six months recommended by the referee, will 
accomplish this goal.  We also agree with the referee's 
recommendation 
that 
Attorney 
Boyd 
be 
required 
to 
make 
restitution to her clients in the amounts detailed in the 
addendum to the referee's report, and that she be required to 
pay the full costs of the proceeding. 
¶38 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Joan M. Boyd to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of five 
months, effective August 25, 2008. 
¶39 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 180 days of the date 
of this order, Joan M. Boyd make restitution to her clients in 
the amounts set forth in the addendum to the referee's report.  
If restitution is not paid within the time specified, and absent 
a showing to this court of her inability to pay restitution 
within that time, the license of Joan M. Boyd to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the 
court.  
¶40 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within seven months of the 
date of this order, Joan M. Boyd 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 
No. 
2007AP588-D   
 
15 
 
court of her inability to pay the costs within that time, the 
license of Joan M. Boyd to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
remain suspended until further order of the court. 
¶41 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Joan M. Boyd 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. 
2007AP588-D   
 
 
 
1