Case Title: OLR v. Gregory M. Lunde

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2015AP002414-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2016-10-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
2016 WI 84 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2015AP2414-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Gregory M. Lunde, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Gregory M. Lunde, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST LUNDE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 18, 2016 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
 
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2016 WI 84 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2015AP2414-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Gregory M. Lunde, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Gregory M. Lunde, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 18, 2016 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of Referee James G. Curtis approving a stipulation filed by the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Gregory M. Lunde.  
In the stipulation, Attorney Lunde stipulated to the facts 
underlying five counts of misconduct alleged in the OLR's 
complaint and agreed that the referee could enter conclusions of 
law finding that Attorney Lunde violated the various Supreme 
Court Rules as set forth in the complaint.  The parties jointly 
No. 
2015AP2414-D   
 
2 
 
recommended that the appropriate sanction to be imposed is a 60-
day suspension of Attorney Lunde's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin.  The referee agreed that a 60-day suspension was 
appropriate.   
¶2 
After careful review of the matter, we uphold the 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law and agree that 
a 60-day suspension is an appropriate sanction.  We further find 
it appropriate to impose the full costs of this proceeding, 
which are $1,357.73 as of August 1, 2016, on Attorney Lunde. 
¶3 
Attorney Lunde was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1981.  He resides in Westby, Wisconsin.  Effective 
April 12, 2016, Attorney Lunde ceased actively practicing law 
due to health reasons.  He has no present intention to 
recommence the active practice of law.   
¶4 
Attorney Lunde's prior disciplinary history consists 
of 
a 
consensual 
public 
reprimand 
imposed 
by 
the 
OLR's 
predecessor, the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility 
(BAPR), for failing to provide competent representation to a 
client, failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client, and failing to cooperate with BAPR's 
investigation. Public Reprimand of Gregory M. Lunde, 1992-3, 
(electronic 
copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/000297.html). 
¶5 
The OLR filed a complaint against Attorney Lunde on 
November 25, 2015.  Attorney Lunde filed an answer on December 
30, 2015.  The referee was appointed on March 24, 2016.  The 
parties' stipulation was filed on July 15, 2016.   
No. 
2015AP2414-D   
 
3 
 
¶6 
According to the stipulation, on June 3, 2001, J.S., a 
single person and resident of rural Westby, Wisconsin, died 
intestate.  J.S. was survived by two minor children, D.B., age 
14, and Z.S., age 7.  On or about June 9, 2001, Attorney Lunde 
met with James DelMedico (DelMedico), an officer of a bank, 
regarding the need to probate J.S.'s estate. 
¶7 
On 
January 
30, 
2002, 
Attorney 
Lunde 
filed 
an 
Application for Informal Administration of the estate, signed by 
DelMedico as the applicant, in Vernon County Circuit Court.  The 
court 
issued 
letters 
appointing 
DelMedico 
personal 
representative of the estate on January 30, 2002.  DelMedico 
contacted Attorney Lunde and requested that he serve as the 
attorney for the estate. 
¶8 
At the time of her death, J.S. was enrolled in a group 
life insurance plan sponsored by her employer, with insurance 
coverage issued by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Met 
Life).  J.S.'s minor children were entitled to equal shares in 
the death benefit payable under the Met Life plan. 
¶9 
On January 8, 2004, Attorney Lunde filed a petition 
and affidavit in the probate matter asking the court to issue an 
order directing Met Life to transfer the life insurance proceeds 
to his trust account.  The circuit court granted the petition on 
January 12, 2004 and issued an order directing Met Life to 
release the funds to Attorney Lunde's trust account.  The 
court's order required that the balance of funds received from 
Met Life, after payment of any outstanding debts, be retained in 
Attorney Lunde's trust account until further order of the court. 
No. 
2015AP2414-D   
 
4 
 
¶10 On November 18, 2004, Attorney Lunde sent a letter to 
the court saying that the J.S.'s estate had a credit balance of 
$12,668.54 to be divided equally between J.S.'s minor children.   
¶11 In 2012, after he was 18 years of age, Z.S. asked his 
aunt, S.D., to assist him in obtaining the funds to which he was 
entitled from his mother's estate.  S.D. subsequently called 
Attorney Lunde's office twice during the week of July 23, 2012 
and left messages with a secretary.  S.D. left a third message 
on the office voicemail saying she was planning a trip to 
Viroqua on July 30.  Attorney Lunde did not return the calls. 
¶12 On the morning of July 30, 2012, S.D. spoke with the 
Register in Probate for Vernon County about Z.S's funds.  While 
S.D. was present in the office, the Register in Probate called 
Attorney Lunde and told him that S.D. wanted to see him.  
Attorney Lunde said he did not have time and asked for S.D.'s 
phone number.  Despite obtaining the phone number, Attorney 
Lunde did not call S.D. 
¶13 During August and September 2012, S.D. called Attorney 
Lunde's office several more times to inquire about Z.S.'s funds.  
Each time Attorney Lunde's secretary either took a message, or 
S.D. left a voice mail message.  Attorney Lunde never returned 
any of the calls. 
¶14 On November 29, 2012, the OLR sent Attorney Lunde a 
letter informing that a grievance had been filed against him 
regarding the money he had received in trust from Met Life in 
the J.S. estate matter.  After Attorney Lunde failed to respond 
to the November 29, 2012, letter the OLR sent two more letters, 
No. 
2015AP2414-D   
 
5 
 
with the final one being personally served upon him by the 
Viroqua Police Department.  Attorney Lunde failed to respond to 
any of the letters. 
¶15 On March 5, 2013, this court issued an order to 
Attorney Lunde to show cause why his license to practice law 
should not be suspended for his willful failure to cooperate 
with the OLR's investigation.  Attorney Lunde failed to respond 
to the court order and on May 13, 2013, this court issued an 
order 
temporarily 
suspending 
Attorney 
Lunde's 
license 
to 
practice law.  The OLR subsequently reported to the court that 
Attorney Lunde was cooperating in the investigation of the 
grievance, and on June 5, 2013, this court issued an order 
reinstating Attorney Lunde's license. 
¶16 On July 10, 2013, Attorney Lunde told the OLR he had 
been unable to locate his trust account transaction register 
regarding the J.S. estate and that he had been unable to access 
information related to his trust account.  Attorney Lunde also 
told the OLR he assumed there were sufficient funds in the 
account to release to Z.S.  He said he contacted the bank and 
was informed his trust account was frozen and that the bank 
would not provide him with any other information about the 
account.   
¶17 On August 12, 2013, the OLR received records from the 
Wisconsin Trust Account Foundation, Inc. (WisTAF) in response to 
a subpoena.  The records revealed that on July 5, 2000, Attorney 
Lunde had opened his trust account with Fortress Bank and in 
2007 Fortress Bank merged into Lincoln State Bank.  In 2008, 
No. 
2015AP2414-D   
 
6 
 
Lincoln State Bank merged into Harris National Association, now 
known as BMO Harris Bank, N.A.  The earliest records obtained by 
the subpoena showed the balance in Attorney Lunde's trust 
account was $1,937.30 as of November 12, 2007.  The records 
showed no activity in the trust account since that date.   
¶18 Attorney Lunde has no monthly statements or records 
relating to the trust account and cannot explain why the amount 
of funds in the account as of November 12, 2007 was less than 
the amount of funds belonging to Z.S., which the circuit court's 
January 12, 2004 order had required Attorney Lunde hold in trust 
until further order of the court.  Attorney Lunde asserts that 
the trust account balanced and that the funds were in his 
account at the time he closed his business in May 2007 to become 
the Vernon County Corporation Counsel. 
¶19 By a letter to the OLR dated June 6, 2014, Attorney 
Lunde confirmed that he had not released to Z.S. the funds that 
Attorney Lunde was required to hold in trust pursuant to the 
circuit court's January 12, 2004 order.  Attorney Lunde stated 
he would pay Z.S. the funds to which he was entitled upon 
confirmation of Z.S.'s identity. 
¶20 Z.S. contacted Attorney Lunde by telephone on December 
12, 2014, and on December 19, 2014, Attorney Lunde issued a 
check to Z.S. in the amount of $6,334.27, representing one-half 
(after expenses), of the funds Attorney Lunde had received from 
Met Life.  The check was drawn on Attorney Lunde's personal 
account at WCCU Credit Union.  The check cleared. 
No. 
2015AP2414-D   
 
7 
 
¶21 In the stipulation, the parties agreed that the 
referee could enter the following conclusions of law: 
[Count 1] By failing to promptly pay Z.S. his portion 
of his mother's life insurance, [Attorney] Lunde 
violated SCR 20:1.15(d)(1).1 
[Count 2] By failing to keep the funds due and owing 
to Z.S. in his trust account, [Attorney] Lunde 
violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).2 
[Count 3] By failing to keep the remaining balance of 
the insurance proceeds in his trust account pending 
                                                 
1 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. 
SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) provides:  
Upon receiving funds or other property in which a 
client has an interest, or in which the lawyer has 
received notice that a 3rd party has an interest 
identified by a lien, court order, judgment, or 
contract, the lawyer shall promptly notify the client 
or 3rd party in writing. Except as stated in this rule 
or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the 
client, the lawyer shall promptly deliver to the 
client or 3rd party any funds or other property that 
the client or 3rd party is entitled to receive. 
2 SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) provides: 
A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the 
lawyer's own property, that property of clients and 
3rd parties that is in the lawyer's possession in 
connection with a representation. All funds of clients 
and 3rd parties paid to a lawyer or law firm in 
connection with a representation shall be deposited in 
one or more identifiable trust accounts. 
 
No. 
2015AP2414-D   
 
8 
 
further order of the circuit court, [Attorney] Lunde 
violated SCR 20:3.4(c).3 
[Count 4] By maintaining a trust account balance that 
fell below the amount of funds received and to be held 
on behalf of Z.S., [Attorney] Lunde converted at least 
a portion of E.S.'s money in violation of SCR 
20:8.4(c).4 
[Count 5] By failing to respond to the OLR's November 
29, 2012, January 16, 2013 and February 12, 2013 
investigative letters, [Attorney] Lunde violated SCR 
22.03(2) and 22.03(6), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).5 
¶22 As noted above, the parties also agreed that an 
appropriate level of discipline for Attorney Lunde's misconduct 
was a 60-day suspension of his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin.  The referee agreed. 
¶23 The referee's July 21, 2016 report and recommendation 
found that the OLR met its burden of proof with respect to the 
five counts of misconduct identified above.  The referee noted 
that the misconduct in this case arose from Attorney Lunde's 
apparent failure to properly close his private law practice in 
2007 
when 
he 
accepted 
employment 
as 
the 
Vernon 
County 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:3.4(c) provides:  "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." 
4 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
5 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to fail to cooperate in the investigation of a 
grievance filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required 
by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(6), or SCR 
22.04(1)."   
No. 
2015AP2414-D   
 
9 
 
Corporation Counsel.  The referee noted that the stipulation did 
not say that Attorney Lunde failed to make a proper trust 
account payment to J.S's older child, D.B., when he turned 18 in 
2005.  The referee opined that a proper reconciliation of the 
trust account at the time Attorney Lunde closed his private law 
practice would have avoided the problems that occurred here. 
¶24 The referee found that the case presented both 
aggravating and mitigating factors.  As to aggravating factors, 
the referee noted that when Z.S. turned 18 in 2012 and first 
made inquiries about the funds, Attorney Lunde's conduct 
resulted in a delay of more than two years before the funds were 
finally paid to Z.S.  In addition, the referee said that 
Attorney Lunde's failure to cooperate and respond to the OLR's 
various inquiries was flagrant and required unnecessary efforts 
on the OLR's part.   
¶25 As to mitigating factors, the referee again noted that 
the OLR did not contend that Attorney Lunde failed to make a 
proper trust account payment to D.B. when he turned 18 in 2005.  
The referee said that although the payment to Z.S. was delayed, 
Attorney Lunde did make full restitution of the proper amount, 
presumably out of his personal funds.  The referee noted that 
Attorney Lunde ceased the active practice of law due to health 
reasons in April 2016 and has no present intention of resuming 
the active practice of law.  The referee also noted that 
although Attorney Lunde did previously receive a consensual 
public reprimand, he has not been the subject of further 
discipline for more than 20 years. 
No. 
2015AP2414-D   
 
10 
 
¶26 The referee agreed that a 60-day suspension was an 
appropriate sanction for Attorney Lunde's misconduct.  The 
referee noted that a 60-day suspension was ordered by this court 
in the recent case of In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Bartz, 2015 WI 61, 362 Wis. 2d 752, 864 N.W.2d 881.  After 
Attorney Bartz settled a personal injury claim, there was an 
outstanding 
chiropractic 
bill. 
 
The 
settlement 
statement 
required Attorney Bartz to hold funds in trust while he tried to 
negotiate a lower payment on the bill.  Although an agreement 
was promptly reached, Attorney Bartz subsequently disbursed six 
trust account checks payable to himself, leaving no funds in 
trust attributable to either the chiropractic bill or the 
balance owed to the client.  This court approved a stipulation 
by the parties which called for a 60-day license suspension.   
¶27 The referee in this matter opined that Attorney 
Bartz's misconduct was much more egregious than the conduct of 
Attorney 
Lunde 
in 
that 
Attorney 
Bartz 
intentionally 
misappropriated monies held in trust by disbursing checks 
payable to himself.  The referee said there were no facts of 
record establishing that Attorney Lunde intentionally disbursed 
trust account checks payable to himself.  Rather, based on the 
stipulated facts, the referee said Attorney Lunde's misconduct 
appeared to involve neglect and sloppiness rather than true 
misappropriation. 
 
The 
referee 
concluded 
that 
a 
60-day 
suspension was warranted. 
¶28 This court will adopt a referee's findings of fact 
unless they are clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law are 
No. 
2015AP2414-D   
 
11 
 
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 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. 
¶29 We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law that Attorney Lunde violated the Supreme 
Court Rules as alleged in the five counts set forth above.  We 
also agree with the referee that a 60-day suspension of Attorney 
Lunde's license to practice law in Wisconsin is appropriate.  In 
addition to the Bartz case, we note that a 60-day suspension was 
also imposed in In re Disciplinary Proceedings against Barrock, 
2007 WI 24, 299 Wis. 2d  207, 727 N.W.2d 833 (six counts of 
misconduct arising out of attorney's failure to hold settlement 
funds subject to third-party claim in trust account) and In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Riegleman, 2003 WI 3, 259 
Wis. 2d 1, 657 N.W.2d 339 (three counts of misconduct arising 
out of attorney's failure to notify lienholder of settlement and 
unauthorized endorsement of settlement check).  We find the 
misconduct at issue here to be generally analogous.  We also 
find it appropriate, as is our usual custom, to impose the full 
costs of this disciplinary proceeding on Attorney Lunde. 
¶30 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Gregory M. Lunde to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective the date of this order.   
No. 
2015AP2414-D   
 
12 
 
¶31 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Gregory M. Lunde shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$1,357.73.  
¶32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Gregory M. Lunde 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. 
¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See SCR 
22.28(2).    
 
 
No. 
2015AP2414-D   
 
 
 
1