Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Bridget E. Boyle

Citation: 2012 WI 54

Docket Number: 2010AP002566-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2012-05-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
2012 WI 54 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2010AP2566-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Bridget E. Boyle, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Bridget E. Boyle, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BOYLE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 23, 2012   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
February 17, 2012   
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
ABRAHAMSON, C.J. dissents (Opinion filed). 
BRADLEY, J. joins dissent.   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the respondent-appellant there were briefs by Jonathan 
C. Smith and Kohn & Smith Law Offices, Milwaukee. 
 
For the complainant-respondent there were briefs by Robert 
G. Krohn and Roethe Pope Roethe LLP, Edgerton. 
 
 
 
 
2012 WI 54
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2010AP2566-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Bridget E. Boyle, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Bridget E. Boyle, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 23, 2012 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney Bridget E. Boyle appeals the 
report 
of 
Christine 
Harris 
Taylor, 
referee, 
recommending 
discipline of a 60-day license suspension, the imposition of 
costs, and restitution to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client 
Protection (the Fund) in the amount of $5,000 plus legal 
interest.  The referee found that Attorney Boyle committed all 
11 charged counts of misconduct, which included failing to act 
with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a 
No. 
2010AP2566-D   
 
2 
 
client; failing to communicate appropriately with a client; 
failing 
to 
promptly 
respond 
to 
a 
client's 
request 
for 
information concerning fees and expenses; failing to take steps 
to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's 
interest; failing to cooperate with an OLR investigation into 
her conduct; willfully failing to provide relevant information, 
fully answer questions, or furnish documents in the course of an 
OLR investigation; and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.  The only issue on appeal 
is whether the recommended discipline is appropriate. 
¶2 
We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law.  We conclude that the referee's reasoning 
with respect to discipline is persuasive.  Accordingly, this 
court concludes that a 60-day suspension of Attorney Boyle's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin is an appropriate sanction 
for her violations.  We further agree with the referee that 
Attorney Boyle shall bear the costs of this disciplinary 
proceeding, and shall reimburse the Fund in the amount of $5,000 
plus legal interest. 
¶3 
Attorney Boyle was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1995 and practices in Milwaukee.  In 2008 Attorney 
Boyle was privately reprimanded for failing to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; 
failing to keep the client reasonably informed about the status 
of a matter; failing to promptly comply with reasonable requests 
for information; and failing to explain a matter to the extent 
No. 
2010AP2566-D   
 
3 
 
reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed 
decisions regarding the representation. 
¶4 
The 11 counts in this disciplinary proceeding concern 
Attorney Boyle's work for three clients and her cooperation with 
the OLR investigations into her work.1  
¶5 
Counts 1 through 3 arise out of Attorney Boyle's 
representation of an individual who sought collateral post-
conviction review of a criminal conviction.   Attorney Boyle's 
law firm collected a $5,000 advance fee in May 2002.  During the 
course of the next several years, Attorney Boyle failed to file 
any pleadings on the client's behalf.  She failed to return many 
of the client's phone calls and other requests for information, 
and failed to follow through on repeated promises to keep the 
client advised on the status of his case.  Attorney Boyle also 
failed to comply with the client's demand for the return of his 
advance fee and his file.  The OLR complaint alleges that by 
virtue of this conduct, Attorney Boyle failed to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing this client 
in violation of SCR 20:1.3;2 failed to communicate appropriately 
                                                 
1 This court recognizes that the Seventh Circuit Court of 
Appeals recently disbarred Attorney Boyle from further practice 
in that court for the abandonment of her client in a criminal 
case.  In re Bridget Boyle-Saxton, 668 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2012).  
The facts involved in that matter are not before this court. 
2 SCR 20:1.3 provides that, "A lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
No. 
2010AP2566-D   
 
4 
 
with this client in violation of former SCR 20:1.4(a)3 and 
current SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4);4 and failed to promptly respond 
to the client's request for information concerning fees and 
expenses in violation of SCR 20:1.5(b)(3).5  The OLR also has 
informed the court that this client applied for and received 
reimbursement from the Fund in the amount of the $5,000 advance 
fee that he paid to Attorney Boyle's firm. 
¶6 
Count 6 concerned Attorney Boyle's failure to return a 
different client's file after Attorney Boyle unsuccessfully 
represented the client on a direct appeal of his criminal 
conviction.  In November 2007 the client wrote to Attorney Boyle 
to request a complete copy of his file, including the trial 
transcripts.  Attorney Boyle never forwarded the client the 
complete file.  The OLR complaint alleges that by virtue of this 
conduct, Attorney Boyle failed to take steps to the extent 
reasonably practicable to protect the client's interest in 
violation of SCR 20:1.16(d).6  
                                                 
3 Former SCR 20:1.4(a) applies to misconduct committed prior 
to July 1, 2007.  It provided as follows:  "A lawyer shall keep 
a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and 
promptly comply with reasonable requests for information." 
4 SCRs 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4) provide that a lawyer shall: 
"(3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the 
matter;" and "(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests by 
the client for information; . . . ." 
5 SCR 20:1.5(b)(3) provides, "A lawyer shall promptly 
respond to a client's request for information concerning fees 
and expenses." 
6 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides as follows: 
No. 
2010AP2566-D   
 
5 
 
¶7 
The remaining seven counts concerned Attorney Boyle's 
level of cooperation and honesty during the OLR's investigation 
in 2009 into the two client grievances described above, as well 
as a third client grievance that did not result in charges of 
misconduct.  During the OLR investigations, Attorney Boyle 
failed to provide timely and complete responses to the client 
grievances and to the OLR's queries for information.  Attorney 
Boyle also dated letters to the OLR on or before the deadlines 
imposed by the OLR to give the false appearance that she had 
complied with the established deadlines, when in fact she had 
not.  The OLR complaint alleges two counts of failing to 
cooperate with an OLR investigation and failing to fully and 
fairly disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to 
alleged misconduct, in violation of SCR 22.03(2),7 enforced via 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
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. 
7 SCR 22.03(2) states: 
 
Upon commencing an investigation, the director 
shall notify the respondent of the matter being 
investigated unless in the opinion of the director the 
investigation of the matter requires otherwise.  The 
respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts 
and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct 
within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail a 
request for a written response.  The director may 
allow additional time to respond.  Following receipt 
No. 
2010AP2566-D   
 
6 
 
SCR 20:8.4(h);8 three counts of willfully failing to provide 
relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 
documents to the OLR, in violation of SCR 22.03(6),9 enforced via 
SCR 20:8.4(h); and two counts of engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, in violation of 
SCR 20:8.4(c).10 
¶8 
Following a hearing on the complaint, the referee 
determined that the OLR had proven misconduct in all 11 counts 
charged.   
¶9 
In 
support 
of 
her 
recommendation 
for 
a 
60-day 
suspension, the referee noted that, in both this disciplinary 
matter and Attorney Boyle's earlier private reprimand, Attorney 
Boyle displayed a pattern of failing to act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing her clients and failing 
                                                                                                                                                             
of the response, the director may conduct further 
investigation and may compel the respondent to answer 
questions, 
furnish 
documents, 
and 
present 
any 
information deemed relevant to the investigation. 
8 SCR 20:8.4(h) states 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(2), SCR 22.03(6), or 
SCR 22.04(1); . . . ." 
9 SCR 22.03(6) provides as follows:  "In the course of the 
investigation, the respondent's willful 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." 
10 SCR 20:8.4(c) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation; . . . ."   
No. 
2010AP2566-D   
 
7 
 
to communicate appropriately with her clients.  The referee also 
noted 
that 
in 
this 
disciplinary 
matter, 
Attorney 
Boyle 
consistently refused to cooperate with the OLR and back-dated 
documents to make it appear as though she had timely cooperated 
with deadlines set by the OLR.  The referee also noted that 
during the hearing, Attorney Boyle expressed very little remorse 
with respect to her conduct toward her clients and the OLR.  
¶10 As to the appropriate monetary sanctions, the referee 
recommended that Attorney Boyle should be assessed the entire 
costs of the disciplinary proceeding, which total $10,971.70 as 
of January 27, 2012.  The referee further recommended that 
Attorney Boyle be required to make restitution to the Fund in 
the amount of $5,000 plus legal interest.   
¶11 Attorney Boyle appeals.  The level of discipline is 
the only dispute.  In particular, Attorney Boyle challenges the 
appropriateness of the recommended 60-day suspension and the 
recommended $5,000 restitution award to the Fund.  She urges the 
court to issue a public reprimand and impose "a restriction on 
her license concerning post-conviction practice for a period of 
time not exceeding two years."  She objects to paying any 
restitution to the Fund.   
¶12 Attorney Boyle does not specifically challenge the 
referee's findings of fact.  Instead, she argues that the 
recommended discipline does not sufficiently take into account 
various mitigating factors, which include her allegation that 
she was not deliberately indifferent toward either the grievants 
or the OLR, and her allegation that she experienced medical 
No. 
2010AP2566-D   
 
8 
 
issues during a portion of the time that the OLR was 
investigating her conduct, and her allegation that any apparent 
back-dating of her responses to the OLR was the result of 
typographical errors or postage delays that were beyond her 
control.  She also challenges the referee's recommendation that 
she pay restitution to the Fund for its reimbursement to her 
client for the $5,000 advance fee he paid to her firm.  In 
particular, Attorney Boyle claims she is being unfairly punished 
for her lack of success in that particular client matter, and 
that her efforts in that case demonstrate that she did not 
procure the $5,000 by dishonest conduct. 
¶13 The 
OLR 
argues 
that 
a 
60-day 
suspension 
is 
appropriate.  It argues that the record fails to disclose any 
legitimate mitigating factors.  It claims that suspensions are 
frequently predicated on misconduct like that at issue here; 
i.e., misconduct that spans multiple clients, incorporates 
multiple 
counts 
of 
professional 
wrongdoing, 
and 
involves 
uncooperativeness during an OLR investigation.  The OLR also 
argues that the referee's report contains sufficient factual 
findings to justify the recommended $5,000 restitution award. 
¶14 This court concludes there is no claim that the 
referee's findings are clearly erroneous.  The findings are 
supported by the record and are adopted.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 
675 N.W.2d 747.  We also agree with the referee that those 
factual findings demonstrate that Attorney Boyle committed each 
No. 
2010AP2566-D   
 
9 
 
of the 11 counts of professional misconduct alleged in the 
complaint. 
¶15 With respect to the discipline to be imposed, we 
determine 
the 
appropriate 
level 
of 
discipline 
given 
the 
particular facts of each case, independent of the referee's 
recommendation, but benefiting from it.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 
N.W.2d 686.  After careful consideration of the report and 
recommendation, the record in this matter, and the written 
statements 
of 
the 
parties, 
we 
accept 
the 
referee's 
recommendation regarding suspension, restitution, and costs.   
The misconduct at issue here was serious, and Attorney Boyle 
offers no legitimate excuse for her failure to diligently 
represent her clients and her failure to provide them with 
information about their cases, fees, and expenses in spite of 
their numerous requests that she do so.  Nor does she offer a 
legitimate excuse for her failure to fully and honestly 
cooperate with the OLR's investigation into her conduct.  Given 
the length of time over which the misconduct occurred and the 
number of instances of misconduct involved, Attorney Boyle's 
excuses for her behavior ring hollow.  The fact that, as the 
referee noted, Attorney Boyle expresses little remorse for her 
misconduct suggests that Attorney Boyle may not appreciate the 
seriousness of her misconduct.  A period of suspension is 
necessary in this case to impress upon Attorney Boyle the 
seriousness of her professional misconduct and to protect the 
public from similar misconduct in the future. 
No. 
2010AP2566-D   
 
10 
 
¶16 In light of the circumstances presented, we are 
persuaded that the referee's reasoning is sound.  We conclude 
that a 60-day license suspension is sufficient to advance the 
objectives of lawyer discipline.   
¶17 We further conclude that full costs are to be imposed 
on Attorney Boyle.  Neither the OLR nor Attorney Boyle disputes 
the appropriateness of assessing Attorney Boyle with the full 
costs of this disciplinary proceeding. 
¶18 We further conclude that Attorney Boyle must make a 
restitution payment to the Fund in the amount of $5,000 plus 
legal interest.  Although Attorney Boyle challenges whether the 
Fund should have reimbursed her client for his $5,000 advance 
fee payment, the Fund's decision to reimburse this client is not 
appealable.  SCR 12.12.  In any event, in light of Attorney 
Boyle's failure to provide any meaningful services to this 
client, we agree with the referee that Attorney Boyle should be 
required to pay the Fund restitution in the amount of $5,000 
plus legal interest. 
¶19 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Bridget E. Boyle to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective June 27, 2012. 
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bridget E. Boyle 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. 
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Bridget E. Boyle shall pay the Wisconsin Lawyers' 
No. 
2010AP2566-D   
 
11 
 
Fund for Client Protection $5,000 restitution plus interest at 
the legal rate.  See Wis. Stat. § 138.04. 
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Bridget E. Boyle shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the imposed costs of this proceeding.  If the 
imposed costs are not paid within the time specified and 
Bridget E. Boyle has not entered into a payment plan approved by 
the Office of Lawyer Regulation, then the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation is authorized to move this court for a further 
suspension of the license of Bridget E. Boyle to practice law in 
Wisconsin. 
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution is to be 
completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation. 
 
No.  2010AP2566-D.ssa 
 
1 
 
¶24 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J. (dissenting)  I agree with 
the referee and the justices joining the per curiam opinion that 
Attorney Bridget Boyle committed 11 counts of misconduct 
involving three clients.  She failed to perform services for her 
clients.  She engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation.  She failed to cooperate with the 
OLR investigations into her work.  I also note, as did the per 
curiam, that in 2008 Attorney Boyle was privately reprimanded 
for misconduct in failing her clients.  Furthermore, I agree 
that earlier this year the federal Seventh Circuit Court of 
Appeals disbarred Attorney Boyle from further practice in that 
court for her abandonment of her client in a criminal case.   
¶25 The per curiam imposes a 60-day period of suspension 
from the practice of law in the present case.  Any suspension 
from the practice of law imposes a serious hardship on an 
attorney, teaches a lesson that should be remembered, and serves 
to protect the public.  Nevertheless, I disagree with the 60-day 
suspension imposed in the present case.   
¶26 As a result of the per curiam opinion, Attorney Boyle 
will be able to resume the practice of law in Wisconsin with the 
passage of 60 days.  She will not have to make any showing that 
she has taken steps to avoid similar misconduct in the future.   
¶27 Any discipline imposed on Attorney Boyle should, in my 
opinion, require her to demonstrate to this court, before she 
resumes practice, that she has made efforts to remedy the causes 
of her repeated failures to serve her clients.  Attorney Boyle 
must demonstrate that she is competent to practice law. 
No.  2010AP2566-D.ssa 
 
2 
 
¶28 For the reasons set forth, I dissent.  I conclude that 
a 60-day period of discipline, with automatic re-admission to 
the practice of law, is not adequate to protect the public in 
the present case.  
¶29 I am authorized to state that Justice ANN WALSH 
BRADLEY joins this opinion. 
No.  2010AP2566-D.ssa 
 
 
 
1