Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Daniel W. Morse

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2019-05-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
2019 WI 53 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2016AP1288-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
Daniel W. Morse, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Daniel W. Morse, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MORSE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 21, 2019 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
      
 
 
2019 WI 53
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2016AP1288-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Daniel W. Morse, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Daniel W. Morse, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
FILED 
 
May 21, 2019 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney Daniel W. Morse has appealed a 
report filed by Referee James W. Mohr, Jr., concluding that 
Attorney Morse committed four counts of professional misconduct 
and recommending that his license to practice law in Wisconsin 
be suspended for two years.  In his appeal, Attorney Morse 
challenges only the referee's recommended sanction.  Attorney 
Morse argues that his misconduct warrants a public reprimand or, 
at most, a 60-day suspension. 
No. 
2016AP1288-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Upon careful review of this matter, we uphold the 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law.  We conclude, 
however, that rather than the two-year suspension recommended by 
the referee, a one-year suspension of Attorney Morse's license 
to practice law is an appropriate sanction for the misconduct at 
issue.  In addition, we find it appropriate to follow our usual 
custom of imposing the full costs of this proceeding, which are 
$11,038.85 as of December 18, 2018, on Attorney Morse.  The 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) notes that Attorney Morse has 
already made restitution and it is not seeking an additional 
restitution award. 
¶3 
Attorney Morse was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1979.  He is also licensed to practice law in 
Florida and Pennsylvania.  He has no prior disciplinary history. 
¶4 
On June 29, 2016, the OLR filed a complaint alleging 
six counts of misconduct with respect to Attorney Morse's 
handling of the estate of M.G.  Attorney Morse filed an answer 
on July 28, 2016.  Referee Mohr was appointed on October 8, 
2016, following Attorney Morse's motion for substitution of a 
previously appointed referee.  In May of 2017, the referee 
ordered the disciplinary proceeding stayed pending a criminal 
case filed against Attorney Morse arising out of the same fact 
situation that gave rise to this case.  The stay was lifted in 
May of 2018.  
¶5 
On June 21, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation 
whereby Attorney Morse stipulated to four of the counts of 
misconduct alleged in the OLR's complaint.  The OLR dismissed 
No. 
2016AP1288-D   
 
3 
 
the remaining two counts.  The parties agreed that the terms of 
the stipulation shall serve as the factual basis for the 
referee's determination of misconduct and, in addition to any 
evidence received in the disciplinary phase of the matter, the 
referee's recommendation as to discipline.  The parties agreed 
that the scope of the hearing in this matter would be limited to 
taking additional evidence and argument to facilitate the 
referee's recommendation as to the appropriate sanction.   
¶6 
The hearing with respect to the sanction was held on 
July 2, 2018.  The referee issued his report and recommendation 
on September 7, 2018.  The referee adopted the facts as stated 
in the stipulation.  The following recitation of facts is taken 
from the stipulation. 
¶7 
M.G. passed away on October 11, 2013.  Approximately 
four days later, Attorney Morse met with the heirs of the 
estate.  Since three of the four heirs resided outside of 
Wisconsin, and the fourth heir had physical limitations that 
prevented her from acting, it was agreed that Attorney Morse 
would be nominated as personal representative of the estate.  
Attorney Morse also served as attorney for the personal 
representative.  No fee agreement was entered into between 
Attorney 
Morse 
and 
the 
estate's 
heirs, 
although 
it 
was 
reasonably feasible that the total cost of the representation 
would exceed $1,000. 
¶8 
The estate was filed in Dodge County Circuit Court in 
November 2013.  No bills for Attorney Morse's services were sent 
to the heirs during his representation of the estate.   
No. 
2016AP1288-D   
 
4 
 
¶9 
The heirs eventually expressed to Attorney Morse their 
frustration at his lack of communication and his seeming neglect 
of the estate.  On August 31, 2014, the heirs wrote to Attorney 
Morse expressing a general concern for his lack of communication 
and attention to the estate.  The heirs' letter contained 
several specific requests for information about the estate, 
including but not limited to requests for an itemized bill for 
Attorney 
Morse's 
legal 
services, 
an 
accounting 
for 
all 
expenditures made on behalf of the estate, and the timing of 
payment of certain bills of the estate.  The heirs requested a 
response to their letter within ten days.  In a September 8, 
2014 email to the heirs, Attorney Morse stated he would respond 
to the August 31 letter that week, but he failed to do so. 
¶10 In October 2014, the heirs met with Attorney Allen 
Larson and requested that he replace Attorney Morse as personal 
representative for the estate.  From October 2014 through 
January 2015, Attorney Larson tried to communicate with Attorney 
Morse about the estate.  Attorney Larson told Attorney Morse 
that the heirs wanted Attorney Larson to replace Attorney Morse 
as personal representative.  Attorney Larson requested from 
Attorney Morse, among other things, an accounting of the estate 
and copies of the estate's banking records.  Attorney Morse was 
largely nonresponsive to Attorney Larson's communications and 
requests for information.   
¶11 On November 18, 2014, the probate court entered an 
order granting the stipulated substitution of Attorney Larson in 
No. 
2016AP1288-D   
 
5 
 
place of Attorney Morse as personal representative of the 
estate.   
¶12 On December 19, 2014, Attorney Larson received a 
package from Attorney Morse containing a $3,000 check made out 
to the estate drawn on Attorney Morse's law firm trust account 
along with unopened mail relating to the estate, including 
bills, some of which had arrived since Attorney Larson's 
substitution in place of Attorney Morse.  No accounting for the 
estate was enclosed, nor was there any explanation of the 
purpose for the check or why it was drawn on Attorney Morse's 
law firm trust account. 
¶13 Attorney Larson filed an inventory for the estate on 
January 23, 2015.  The due date for filing the inventory had 
passed during the period in which Attorney Morse represented the 
estate, but Attorney Morse never filed an inventory. 
¶14 As a result of his inability to obtain information 
about the estate from Attorney Morse, including an accounting 
and banking records, Attorney Larson filed an order to show 
cause on February 25, 2015 directed to Attorney Morse, along 
with an accompanying affidavit demonstrating over $26,000 in 
estate funds were unaccounted for by Attorney Morse. 
¶15 At a March 30, 2015 hearing on the order to show 
cause, Attorney Morse was ordered to make a payment to the 
estate in the amount of $26,037.19 by April 9, 2015.  This sum 
represented the amount of funds belonging to the estate for 
which Attorney Morse could not account.  Attorney Morse was also 
No. 
2016AP1288-D   
 
6 
 
ordered to provide to Attorney Larson all financial records and 
an accounting pertaining to the estate.   
¶16 Attorney Morse timely made the payment ordered by the 
probate court, but he never produced the financial records 
relating to the estate.   
¶17 At 
the 
March 
30, 
2015 
hearing, 
Attorney 
Morse 
presented for the first time a billing statement for fees he 
claimed he incurred in representing the estate.  The statement 
purported to show that the estate owed Attorney Morse over 
$7,500 for legal services rendered in connection with the 
estate.  In May of 2015, Attorney Larson asked Attorney Morse 
for substantiation of the various entries on the billing 
statement.  Attorney Morse did not reply, and the heirs never 
made any payment to Attorney Morse. 
¶18 Attorney 
Larson 
eventually 
obtained 
the 
banking 
records 
relating 
to 
the 
estate 
without 
Attorney 
Morse's 
assistance.  The records reflected that Attorney Morse wrote 
checks and made electronic fund transfers totaling over $25,000 
to himself or his law office.  Attorney Morse presented no 
evidence to the probate court or to OLR that the more than 
$25,000 in payments were related in any way to the estate.  Bank 
records reflected additional payments made from estate funds for 
Attorney Morse's personal benefit, including payment of rent for 
his office space and payment of his cable bill. 
¶19 By virtue of the stipulation, Attorney Morse admitted 
the following counts of misconduct: 
No. 
2016AP1288-D   
 
7 
 
Count 1:  By failing to take steps to advance the 
interests of the estate, including but not limited to:  
failing to file an inventory, failing to open mail 
related to the estate, and failing to pay bills owed 
by the estate, Attorney Morse violated SCR 20:1.3.1 
Count 2:  By failing to promptly deliver to Attorney 
Larson all documents in his possession relating to the 
estate, including but not limited to, financial 
records pertaining to the estate, Attorney Morse 
violated SCR 20:1.16(d).2 
Count 3:  By failing to abide by the probate court's 
March 30, 2015 order, that he turn over to Attorney 
Larson all financial records pertaining to the estate, 
Attorney Morse violated SCR 20:3.4(c).3 
Count 4:  By failing to keep in trust funds totaling 
over $25,000 belonging to the estate, and by instead 
paying those funds to his law firm and himself and 
using the funds to pay personal obligations, Attorney 
Morse violated SCR 20:8.4(c)4 and SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).5 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.3 provides:  "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client. 
2 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. 
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." 
No. 
2016AP1288-D   
 
8 
 
¶20 The 
OLR 
dismissed 
the 
remaining 
two 
counts 
of 
misconduct alleged in the complaint, saying the OLR director no 
longer believed that the OLR could prove either of those 
violations by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence.   
¶21 In his report, the referee discussed the various 
witnesses who testified at the July 2, 2018 hearing.  One of 
M.G.'s brothers and heirs testified by telephone and expressed 
his frustration over Attorney Morse's failure to handle key 
aspects of the estate and his failure to respond to the heirs' 
reasonable inquiries. 
¶22 Attorney Larson testified at the hearing.  The referee 
said Attorney Larson "seemed genuinely offended" by Attorney 
Morse's conduct, calling the conduct "inexcusable" and damaging 
to the public's perception of the legal profession. 
¶23 Attorney Morse testified at the hearing that he has 
been an attorney for 39 years and practices primarily in the 
areas of tax, estate planning, and estate administration.  
Although in the past he worked with a number of large firms in 
the Milwaukee area, he has been a solo practitioner since 2011.  
                                                                                                                                                             
5 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. 
2016AP1288-D   
 
9 
 
The referee said that Attorney Morse testified in a sincere and 
forthright manner and sounded quite embarrassed and genuinely 
remorseful about what he had done.  The referee said to Attorney 
Morse's credit, he did not deny the facts of the case or the 
ethical and moral lapses those facts represented.  He admitted 
he had done something wrong and said the entire matter had cost 
him over $80,000 and was an embarrassment to him and his family.  
He 
emphasized 
he 
would 
never 
again 
act 
as 
a 
personal 
representative.   
¶24 The referee noted that Attorney Morse offered several 
mitigating explanations for his misconduct.  He said he had to 
travel to Florida on numerous occasions to help his elderly 
mother.  He said he was suffering from several medical 
conditions that caused extreme pain in his lower back.  He 
admitted perhaps overusing drugs and alcohol to help deal with 
the pain, and he said the pain caused him to lose sleep and 
caused an inability to concentrate at work.  Attorney Morse 
testified he had back surgery in May of 2017 and the pain went 
away almost entirely.   
¶25 Attorney Morse also said his automobile was stolen in 
June of 2014 and included in the items of personal property in 
the car at the time were files, including much of the file for 
the M.G. estate.  Attorney Morse testified that he had signed a 
personal signature bond as personal representative of the M.G. 
estate in the amount of $50,000.  The referee said Attorney 
Morse readily admitted to comingling estate funds with his 
personal and business accounts and justified that behavior by 
No. 
2016AP1288-D   
 
10 
 
saying that, in light of the signature bond, he was ultimately 
responsible for the full value of the estate and that it did not 
matter if he used estate funds so long as he was ultimately 
"good for it." 
¶26 Attorney Morse was charged with five felonies and 
three misdemeanors over his handling of the M.G. estate funds.  
The referee noted that the criminal case was resolved by a plea 
agreement under the terms of which the felony counts were 
dismissed and Attorney Morse pled guilty to three counts of 
theft (embezzlement), Class A misdemeanors, on January 7, 2018.  
As part of the plea agreement, Attorney Morse agreed that he 
would not oppose the district attorney's recommendation that, as 
a condition of probation, Attorney Morse be prohibited from 
practicing law for a period of two years.  Attorney Morse also 
agreed to repay to the heirs and the estate an additional 
$10,710.17 in interest and attorney's fees.  He has repaid that 
amount. 
¶27 Attorney Morse was sentenced on the criminal charges 
on April 24, 2018.  The sentencing court stated there was an 
extremely low likelihood that Attorney Morse would do anything 
wrong in the future and the need to protect the public was also 
extremely low.  The sentencing court also did not believe 
Attorney Morse was in need of rehabilitation and that he would 
be sufficiently deterred from engaging in similar future 
conduct.  The circuit court imposed and stayed a sentence of six 
months in the House of Correction and placed Attorney Morse on 
probation for one year, without any conditions except for 40 
No. 
2016AP1288-D   
 
11 
 
hours of community service.  No additional restitution was 
ordered, nor was there any requirement that Attorney Morse 
refrain from practicing law for any period of time. 
¶28 The referee noted that this case presented certain 
aggravating and mitigating circumstances.  The referee said the 
aggravating circumstances present were a dishonest or selfish 
motive, 
a 
pattern 
of 
misconduct, 
multiple 
offenses, 
and 
substantial experience in the practice of law.  The referee 
identified as mitigating factors the absence of any prior 
disciplinary record, personal or emotional problems, a timely 
good faith effort to make restitution, cooperation with the OLR, 
character or reputation, and remorse.  The referee said although 
Attorney Morse testified about medical and treatment issues 
related to back pain, the referee did not take those issues into 
account when deciding the appropriate sanction because there was 
no testimony or evidence sufficient to find a causal connection 
between any medical condition and the misconduct.   
¶29 The referee said in arriving at a recommendation for 
discipline, it was worth noting that Attorney Morse had 
previously agreed to a plea agreement in the criminal case which 
included his agreement not to practice law for a period of two 
years, although the sentencing court did not impose that 
condition as part of the sentence.  The referee said this case 
involves serious misconduct and although the referee believed it 
was unlikely that Attorney Morse's misconduct would recur, 
"nevertheless damage has been done to the public, the courts, 
the clients, and to the legal system and should not go 
No. 
2016AP1288-D   
 
12 
 
unpunished."  The referee said attorneys with Attorney Morse's 
level of experience should certainly understand that they are 
not supposed to comingle client trust funds with their own 
funds; that when called to account they must understand they 
cannot be allowed to wait until a court orders reimbursement; 
and that they must serve the public competently and promptly so 
that public trust in attorneys is maintained. 
¶30 The referee discussed a number of prior disciplinary 
cases that involved misuse or conversion of client funds and 
concluded that the fact situation here was similar to that 
presented in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Krezminski, 
2007 
WI 
21, 
299 
Wis. 2d 152, 
727 
N.W.2d 492. 
 
Attorney 
Krezminski was the personal representative of an estate and took 
possession of $37,000 in funds from the estate.  He began using 
some of the funds himself and was only able to forward 
approximately $16,000 of estate funds when the sole heir of the 
estate demanded payment.  Attorney Krezminski ultimately paid 
the balance of the funds, plus interest, to the heir.  Attorney 
Krezminski also failed to keep a different client informed of 
the status of his case.  Attorney Krezminski had previously been 
privately reprimanded.  This court suspended his license to 
practice law for two years.  The referee concluded that Attorney 
Morse's conduct warranted a similar sanction.  The referee again 
noted that, as part of his plea agreement, Attorney Morse had 
been willing to accept, as a condition of his sentence in the 
criminal case, a two-year suspension of his law license.   
No. 
2016AP1288-D   
 
13 
 
¶31 In his appeal, Attorney Morse argues that a two-year 
suspension is excessive and a public reprimand would be 
appropriate.  In the alternative, he says that if a suspension 
is to be imposed, the suspension should not exceed 60 days. 
¶32 Attorney Morse argues that the relevant mitigating 
factors weigh in favor of a much lesser sanction than that 
recommended by the referee.  He points out he has no prior 
discipline, either in Wisconsin or in the other jurisdictions 
where he is admitted to practice law.  He asserts that there was 
no dishonest or selfish motive and although he did mishandle the 
estate funds, "at the time he regarded it as a harmless 
convenience."  Attorney Morse says at the time he was handling 
the M.G. estate he was under significant stress, was new to solo 
practice, was trying to run offices in two states, and was 
helping his elderly mother.  He says in the midst of all those 
events, his car, which contained the M.G. estate file, was 
stolen.  He says there is no allegation that any of the heirs 
received less money than they should have in the absence of his 
misconduct.  He says he cooperated fully with the disciplinary 
process and freely entered into the stipulation.  He says while 
he questions the validity of the criminal charges he does not 
question the fact that he did violate this court's rules of 
professional responsibility. 
¶33 Attorney Morse describes himself as "an upstanding 
member of the community, a highly competent attorney, a good 
person, and a beloved family member."  While he agrees that his 
back pain did not directly cause the misconduct, he says "there 
No. 
2016AP1288-D   
 
14 
 
is good reason to conclude that adding pain, medication, and 
sleep deprivation to an otherwise high-stress period in Attorney 
Morse's life temporarily eroded his good judgment."  He says 
that he has already been sanctioned by virtue of the criminal 
conviction.  He says the Florida attorney regulatory authorities 
were notified about this case, his law license has been 
suspended in Florida, and it appears all but certain that he 
will be disbarred there.  He notes that this case has been the 
subject 
of 
newspaper 
articles, 
which 
have 
caused 
him 
embarrassment.  He says he is remorseful.  He says he is not 
appealing the sentence in the criminal case, but he is appealing 
whether the transfers he made as personal representative 
constitute the crime of theft under Wis. Stat. § 943.20(1)(b).6 
¶34 Attorney Morse cites a number of cases in which 
attorneys who mishandled or converted client funds received 
sanctions less than a two-year suspension.  Attorney Morse 
argues that the two-year suspension recommended by the referee 
"is drastic overkill." 
¶35 Attorney Morse faults the referee for saying that 
Attorney Morse, as part of the plea agreement, agreed "not to 
practice law for a period of two years."  Attorney Morse says 
the actual terms of the plea agreement were that he would not 
oppose the State's request for such a condition.  While he says 
                                                 
6 The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction.  
State v. Morse, 2018AP1293, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. 
Mar. 19, 2019).  No petition for review was filed. 
No. 
2016AP1288-D   
 
15 
 
if the sentencing court had imposed that condition he would have 
complied with it, he asserts his attorney advised him it was 
improbable the condition would be imposed and indeed it was not.   
¶36 Attorney Morse also faults the referee for attaching 
significance to the fact that Attorney Morse failed to turn over 
estate records when ordered to do so by the probate court.  He 
says those findings by the referee overlooked the fact that 
Attorney Morse's car, with the estate file in it, had been 
stolen, which left him with no ability to provide the estate 
records.  While he says the referee is also correct that he did 
not make payment to the heirs until a court ordered him to do 
so, that was because he did not know what amount to pay.  He 
says it is undisputed that once Attorney Larson provided his 
accounting to the probate court, Attorney Morse promptly paid 
the amount ordered.  Attorney Morse says while the referee does 
not indicate to what degree the terms of the plea agreement and 
the failure to turn over records and make repayment to the 
estate played a role in the recommendation for a two-year 
suspension, to the extent those factors are cited at all, they 
are inconsistent with the evidence.   
¶37 The OLR argues that a two-year suspension is an 
appropriate sanction for Attorney Morse's admitted misconduct.  
The OLR notes that the primary goals of attorney discipline are 
to address the seriousness of the misconduct; to protect the 
public, courts, and the system from repetition of misconduct; to 
impress upon the attorney the seriousness of the misconduct; and 
to deter other attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct.  
No. 
2016AP1288-D   
 
16 
 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Arthur, 2005 WI 40, ¶78, 
279 Wis. 2d 583, 694 N.W.2d 910.  The OLR says the referee's 
report was extremely thorough and well-reasoned. 
¶38 The OLR says that Attorney Morse misappropriated more 
than $25,000 of the estate's funds for his own personal use.  
The OLR notes that while in his brief Attorney Morse tries to 
recast his criminal conversion of estate funds as a "harmless 
convenience" that lacked any dishonest or selfish motive, at the 
sanctions hearing he agreed that the mishandling of the funds 
involved intentional acts and was not just a function of sloppy 
recordkeeping. 
¶39 The OLR says while Attorney Morse now complains that 
he was unable to calculate the amount due to the estate and was 
unable to furnish estate records because the estate files were 
in his stolen car and he no longer had access to the estate bank 
accounts 
after 
Attorney 
Larson 
replaced 
him 
as 
personal 
representative, Attorney Morse did not advance either of those 
arguments at the order to show cause hearing before the probate 
court.  The OLR also says Attorney Morse fails to identify where 
in the referee's report the referee attributed undue weight to 
those facts.  The OLR says even if the referee had given undue 
weight to the facts, it is unclear why such reliance would be 
inappropriate 
given 
that 
Attorney 
Morse 
stipulated 
to 
a 
misconduct count of failing to abide by the probate court's 
order to turn over to Attorney Larson all financial records 
pertaining to the estate. 
No. 
2016AP1288-D   
 
17 
 
¶40 The OLR goes on to argue that the estate was 
vulnerable to Attorney Morse's predatory conversions because he 
was unsupervised.  It points that Attorney Morse had substantial 
experience in the practice of law when he agreed to handle 
M.G.'s estate.  The OLR says Attorney Morse's conduct was not 
just unethical, it was illegal, as evidenced by the criminal 
conviction. 
¶41 The OLR argues that Attorney Morse presented no 
medical evidence that his back pain caused him to commit 
misconduct so that cannot be considered a mitigating factor.  
While Attorney Morse says he was under stress at the time of the 
misconduct, the OLR says he again presented no medical evidence 
that the stress caused him to embezzle from the estate or commit 
any of the other admitted misconduct.  The OLR says it does not 
generally dispute Attorney Morse's position that he has been 
cooperative with the disciplinary process.  However, the OLR 
observes that Attorney Morse's willingness to enter into the 
misconduct stipulation occurred only after the conclusion of the 
criminal case. 
¶42 The OLR acknowledges that the referee found Attorney 
Morse to appear genuinely remorseful at the sanctions hearing.  
The OLR says while it generally agrees with that conclusion, it 
says the remorse does not appear to be categorical because while 
Attorney Morse may not have appealed his sentence, he did appeal 
his conviction, continuing to question whether his actions 
constituted a crime.  The OLR argues that Attorney Morse's 
No. 
2016AP1288-D   
 
18 
 
attack on the criminal conviction undercuts his claims of 
remorse and acceptance of responsibility for his actions.   
¶43 The OLR agrees with the referee that the fact 
situation at issue here is similar to that presented in 
Krezminski and warrants a similar sanction, i.e. a two-year 
suspension.  The OLR argues that Attorney Morse's proposed 
discipline of either a public reprimand or a 60-day suspension 
seriously undermines multiple goals of attorney discipline. 
¶44 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless 
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 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. 
¶45 We conclude there has been no showing that any of the 
referee's findings of fact, which incorporate the terms of the 
parties' stipulation, are clearly erroneous.  Accordingly, we 
adopt them.  We further agree with the referee's conclusions of 
law that Attorney Morse violated the supreme court rules set 
forth above. 
¶46 Turning to the appropriate level of discipline, 
although no two disciplinary proceedings are identical, we find 
this fact situation to be somewhat comparable to In re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Bauer, 
2018 
WI 
49, 
381 
Wis. 2d 474, 912 N.W.2d 108.  Attorney Bauer misused trust funds 
belonging to seven clients, transferred large sums of trust 
No. 
2016AP1288-D   
 
19 
 
account money from one client fund to another, but ultimately 
repaid all balances in the clients' accounts.  Like Attorney 
Morse, Attorney Bauer had substantial experience in practicing 
law and had no prior disciplinary history.  Like Attorney Morse, 
Attorney Bauer cooperated with the OLR and entered into a 
partial stipulation.  The sums of money involved in Bauer were 
significantly greater than the instant matter, but in this case 
there was a criminal prosecution and conviction that did not 
exist in Bauer.  
¶47 It appears that the referee may have accorded undue 
weight to the fact that, as part of the plea agreement in the 
criminal case, Attorney Morse agreed not to oppose the State's 
request for a condition of the sentence imposed that he not 
practice law for two years.  For that reason, we conclude that a 
two-year suspension is excessive.  However, acceding to Attorney 
Morse's request for either a public reprimand or a 60-day 
suspension would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the 
misconduct at issue here.  It cannot be overstated that Attorney 
Morse converted estate funds to his own personal use, and his 
conduct resulted in a criminal conviction.  After careful review 
of the matter, we conclude that a one-year suspension of his 
license to practice law is an appropriate sanction for his 
admitted misconduct.  As is our usual custom, we find it 
appropriate to assess the full costs of the proceeding against 
him. 
No. 
2016AP1288-D   
 
20 
 
¶48 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Daniel W. Morse to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of one year, 
effective July 2, 2019. 
¶49 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Daniel W. Morse shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $11,038.85 as 
of December 18, 2018. 
¶50 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Daniel W. Morse shall 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
an attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended. 
¶51 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
22.29(4)(c). 
 
No. 
2016AP1288-D   
 
 
 
1