Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michelle L. Tully

Citation: 2005 WI 100

Docket Number: 2004AP001915-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2005-07-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
2005 WI 100 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2004AP1915-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Michelle L. Tully, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Michelle L. Tully, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST TULLY 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 6, 2005   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2005 WI 100
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2004AP1915-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Michelle L. Tully, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Michelle L. Tully, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 6, 2005 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report of the referee, 
Linda S. Balisle, in which she concludes that Attorney Michelle 
L. Tully engaged in multiple counts of misconduct.  The referee 
recommends that Attorney Tully's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin be suspended for two years, that she be ordered to pay 
restitution to one client, that she be required to pay the costs 
of the proceeding, and that conditions be placed upon her 
reinstatement.  We adopt the referee's findings of fact and 
No. 
2004AP1915-D   
 
2 
 
conclusions of law and also agree with the level of discipline 
recommended. 
¶2 
Attorney Tully was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1993.  The most recent address she has on file with 
the State Bar of Wisconsin is in Lake Villa, Illinois.  Other 
known 
addresses 
are 
Lake 
Geneva, 
Wisconsin 
and 
Antioch, 
Illinois.  On June 3, 2002, Attorney Tully's Wisconsin license 
was suspended for noncompliance with mandatory continuing legal 
education (CLE) reporting requirements.  Her license was 
reinstated on December 20, 2002.  Attorney Tully's Wisconsin 
license was again temporarily suspended on May 15, 2003, 
pursuant to SCR 22:03(4),1 for her failure to cooperate with two 
OLR grievance investigations.  Her license remains suspended. 
¶3 
In September 2004, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed an amended complaint alleging that Attorney Tully 
had engaged in 29 counts of misconduct.  The record indicates 
that Attorney Tully evaded service of the order to answer and 
amended complaint.  Many attempts were made to serve her with 
authenticated copies of the pertinent documents, as evidenced by 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.03(4) provides in pertinent part:  Investigation. 
 
(4) If the respondent fails to respond to the 
request for written response to an allegation of 
misconduct or fails to cooperate in other respects in 
an 
investigation, 
the 
director, 
or 
a 
special 
investigator acting under SCR 22.25, may file a motion 
with the supreme court requesting that the court order 
the respondent to show cause why his or her license to 
practice law should not be suspended for willful 
failure 
to 
respond 
or 
cooperate 
with 
the 
investigation. . . . 
No. 
2004AP1915-D   
 
3 
 
an affidavit from a special process server.  After making a 
number of attempts to serve Attorney Tully personally, the 
process server left the documents with Attorney Tully's father 
in Lake Villa, Illinois, at the most recent home address 
Attorney Tully had furnished to the State Bar of Wisconsin.  In 
addition, the OLR sent an authenticated copy of the documents, 
by certified mail, to Attorney Tully at that address. 
¶4 
The OLR's amended complaint alleged four counts of 
misconduct with respect to her representation of Diane C., who 
retained Attorney Tully to handle a post-divorce collection 
action against Diane's ex-husband.  Attorney Tully filed an 
order to show cause, and a hearing was scheduled for December 6, 
2001.  Diane's ex-husband did not appear at the hearing, and the 
court commissioner adjourned the matter to January 17, 2002, due 
to Attorney Tully's failure to file an affidavit in support of 
the order to show cause and her failure to have Diane's ex-
husband personally served.  Attorney Tully did not correct these 
deficiencies by the time of the January 17, 2002 hearing.  On 
the 
morning 
of 
the 
hearing, 
Attorney 
Tully's 
secretary 
telephoned Diane C. notifying her that Attorney Tully had 
cancelled the hearing due to a scheduling conflict.  Diane C. 
lost a day's wages due to Attorney Tully's cancellation of the 
hearing.  Diane C. and her boyfriend repeatedly tried to contact 
Attorney Tully to inquire about the status of their case, but 
Attorney Tully failed to respond to their inquiries.   
¶5 
On April 30, 2002, Diane C. forwarded correspondence 
to Attorney Tully, by certified mail, terminating Attorney 
No. 
2004AP1915-D   
 
4 
 
Tully's services and requesting a return of Diane C.'s file and 
her $250 retainer.  Attorney Tully failed to respond and did not 
return Diane C.'s file until December 18, 2002, more than seven 
months after Diane C.'s initial request.  In an envelope 
postmarked October 27, 2003, Diane C. received a $250 check from 
Attorney Tully that was dated August 4, 2003.   
¶6 
On July 16, 2002, the OLR forwarded correspondence to 
Attorney Tully requesting a response to Diane C.'s grievance.  
Attorney Tully submitted a one-paragraph response.  The OLR 
asked for a supplemental response but received none.   
¶7 
On December 10, 2002, this court issued an order 
pursuant to SCR 22:03(4) requiring Attorney Tully to show cause 
why her Wisconsin law license should not be suspended for her 
failure to cooperate in the OLR's investigation of the Diane C. 
matter.  Attorney Tully submitted a response but it did not 
fully address all issues raised by the OLR.  The OLR sent 
Attorney Tully a letter requesting an additional supplemental 
response.  Attorney Tully failed to respond to that letter.  She 
did subsequently submit a brief response to another letter from 
the OLR.  Diane C.'s grievance was forwarded to an OLR district 
committee for investigation.  Attorney Tully thereafter failed 
to respond to several faxes, letters and telephone calls from 
the district committee investigator.   
¶8 
The OLR's amended complaint alleged that by failing to 
file an affidavit in support of Diane C.'s motion to show cause 
and by failing to personally serve the adverse party by the 
No. 
2004AP1915-D   
 
5 
 
adjourned hearing date, Attorney Tully violated SCR 20:1.3.2  The 
amended complaint also alleged that by failing to timely notify 
Diane C. that the adjourned hearing was cancelled, and by 
failing to respond to Diane C.'s numerous telephonic and written 
inquiries, Attorney Tully violated SCR 20:1.4(a).3  The amended 
complaint alleged that by failing to timely return Diane C.'s 
file and refund the unearned fee, Attorney Tully violated SCR 
20:1.16(d).4  The amended complaint also alleged that by failing 
to file a supplemental written response to Diane C.'s grievance 
until after this court issued an order to show cause why her 
license should not be suspended for her failure to cooperate and 
by failing to respond to several requests from the district 
committee, 
Attorney 
Tully 
violated 
SCR 
22:03(2)5 and SCR 
20:8.4(f).6   
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.3 provides:  Diligence.  "A lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
3 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides:  Communication.  "(a) A lawyer 
shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a 
matter 
and 
promptly 
comply 
with 
reasonable 
requests 
for 
information." 
4 SCR 
20:1.16(d) 
provides: 
 
Declining 
or 
terminating 
representation. 
(d) 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 that has not been earned.  
The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to 
the extent permitted by other law. 
5 SCR 22.03(2) provides in pertinent part:  Investigation. 
No. 
2004AP1915-D   
 
6 
 
¶9 
The OLR's amended complaint also alleged two counts of 
misconduct arising out of Attorney Tully's handling of a divorce 
action for James K. during the time her Wisconsin law license 
was suspended for noncompliance with CLE mandatory reporting 
requirements.  Attorney Tully admitted in the petition for 
reinstatement she filed with the Board of Bar Examiners (BBE) 
that she filed the divorce while she was suspended.  The OLR's 
complaint alleged that by filing the divorce action while her 
license was suspended due to her failure to comply with 
mandatory CLE reporting requirements, Attorney Tully violated 
SCR 31.10(1)7 and SCR 20:8.4(f).  The OLR's amended complaint 
                                                                                                                                                             
(2) 
Upon 
commencing 
an 
investigation, 
the 
director shall notify the respondent of the matter 
being investigated . . . . 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. . . . [T]he director may conduct 
further investigation and may compel the respondent to 
answer questions, furnish documents, and present any 
information deemed relevant to the investigation. 
6 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides:  Misconduct.  "It is professional 
misconduct for a lawyer to: (f) violate a statute, supreme court 
rule, supreme court order or supreme court decision regulating 
the conduct of lawyers." 
7 SCR 31.10(1) provides:  Noncompliance. 
(1) If a lawyer fails to comply with the 
attendance requirement of SCR 31.02, fails to comply 
with the reporting requirement of SCR 31.03(1), or 
fails to pay the late fee under SCR 31.03(2), the 
board shall serve a notice of noncompliance on the 
lawyer.  This notice shall advise the lawyer that the 
state 
bar 
membership 
of 
the 
lawyer 
shall 
be 
automatically suspended for failing to file evidence 
of compliance or to pay the late fee within 60 days 
No. 
2004AP1915-D   
 
7 
 
also alleged that by failing to file a written response to the 
matter until this court issued an order to show cause why her 
license should not be suspended for her failure to cooperate, 
Attorney Tully violated SCR 22.03(6)8 and SCR 20.8.4(f).   
¶10 The OLR's amended complaint alleged six counts of 
misconduct arising out of Attorney Tully's representation of 
Carolyn I. in a real estate transaction while Attorney Tully's 
license was suspended for noncompliance with mandatory CLE 
reporting requirements.  Attorney Tully failed to disclose her 
representation of Carolyn I. in the reinstatement petition she 
filed with the BBE.  In addition to handling the real estate 
matter while her license was suspended, the amended complaint 
alleged that the deed and transfer return prepared by Attorney 
Tully for Carolyn I. were not properly prepared and the 
documents were returned to Attorney Tully by the register of 
deeds on two occasions.   
¶11 The amended complaint also alleged that Attorney Tully 
failed to return several of Carolyn I.'s phone calls and failed 
                                                                                                                                                             
after service of the notice.  The board shall certify 
the names of all lawyers so suspended under this rule 
to the clerk of the supreme court and to each judge of 
a court of record in this state.  A lawyer shall not 
engage in the practice of law in Wisconsin while his 
or her state bar membership is suspended under this 
rule. 
8 SCR 22.03(6) provides:  Investigation.  "(6) In the course 
of the investigation, the respondent's wilful failure to provide 
relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 
documents 
and 
the 
respondent's 
misrepresentations 
in 
a 
disclosure are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the 
matters asserted in the grievance." 
No. 
2004AP1915-D   
 
8 
 
to respond to a certified letter from Carolyn I. in which she 
requested a return of her documents and a refund of the $375 she 
had paid Attorney Tully.   
¶12 The amended complaint alleged that by failing to 
timely record Carolyn I.'s deed and transfer return with the 
register of deeds, Attorney Tully violated SCR 20:1.3; by 
failing to respond to Carolyn I.'s telephone calls and her 
certified letter, Attorney Tully violated SCR 20:1.4(a); by 
failing to timely refund Carolyn I.'s unearned fee, Attorney 
Tully violated SCR 20:1.16(d); by representing Carolyn I. in a 
real estate transaction while her license was suspended for her 
failure to comply with mandatory CLE reporting requirements, 
Attorney Tully violated SCR 31.10(1) and SCR 20:8.4(f); by 
failing to disclose her representation of Carolyn I. on her 
sworn petition for reinstatement filed with the BBE, Attorney 
Tully violated SCR 20:8.4(c)9; and by failing to file a written 
response to the Carolyn I. grievance investigation, Attorney 
Tully violated SCR 22.03(6) and SCR 20:8.4(f).   
¶13 The amended complaint further alleged six counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Tully's handling of two 
personal injury matters for William I. while her license was 
suspended due to her failure to comply with mandatory CLE 
reporting requirements.  Attorney Tully failed to disclose her 
representation of William I. in the reinstatement petition she 
                                                 
9 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  Misconduct.  "It is professional 
misconduct for a lawyer to: (c) engage in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." 
No. 
2004AP1915-D   
 
9 
 
filed with the BBE.  In addition she failed to respond to 
several messages left by William I. and failed to forward copies 
of documents that he had requested.   
¶14 The amended complaint alleged that by failing, after 
being retained by William I., to perform any work on his behalf, 
Attorney Tully violated SCR 20:1.3; by failing to respond to 
William I.'s telephone calls and failing to provide him with the 
requested documents, Attorney Tully violated SCR 20:1.4(a); by 
failing to timely notify William I. and the insurance companies 
involved in the personal injury actions of her withdrawal from 
representation of William I. in the personal injury claims, 
Attorney Tully violated SCR 20:1.16(d); by representing William 
I. in the two personal injury matters while her license was 
suspended for her failure to comply with mandatory CLE reporting 
requirements, Attorney Tully violated SCR 31.10(1) and SCR 
20:8.4(f); by failing to disclose her representation of William 
I. in his personal injury claims on her sworn petition for 
reinstatement filed with the BBE, Attorney Tully violated SCR 
20:8.4(c); and by failing to file a written response to the 
William I. grievance investigation, Attorney Tully violated SCR 
22.03(2) and SCR 20:8.4(f).   
¶15 The amended complaint also alleged seven counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Tully's representation of 
Andrew S. in a personal injury matter during the time her 
license was suspended for failing to comply with mandatory CLE 
reporting requirements.  Attorney Tully failed to disclose her 
No. 
2004AP1915-D   
 
10 
 
representation of Andrew S. in the reinstatement petition she 
filed with the BBE.   
¶16 Attorney Tully settled Andrew S.'s personal injury 
matter for $20,000.  Attorney Tully is also licensed to practice 
law in Illinois and maintains a client trust account at an 
Illinois bank that is not authorized to do business in 
Wisconsin.  Attorney Tully does not maintain a client trust 
account authorized to do business in Wisconsin and located in 
Wisconsin.   
¶17 Attorney Tully deposited the $20,000 settlement check, 
less $250 cash, in her Illinois trust account.  Attorney Tully 
had Andrew S. sign a settlement sheet and she then disbursed 
various funds.  Attorney Tully received a total of $7900 in 
attorney's fees from the settlement, $1233.34 more than she was 
entitled to receive.  The settlement sheet signed by Andrew S. 
indicated that Attorney Tully was withholding $1000 from the 
settlement amount to pay Libertyville Imaging and that she was 
withholding an additional $306 to pay Salem Rescue.  After the 
settlement was disbursed, Andrew S. began receiving bills from 
Libertyville Imaging and Salem Rescue advising they had not 
received payment from Attorney Tully and that they had tried 
unsuccessfully to contact her.  Andrew S. made several attempts 
to contact Attorney Tully concerning the bills, and Attorney 
Tully failed to respond.  Andrew S. ended up paying Libertyville 
Imaging $1000 and Salem Rescue $306.   
¶18 The amended complaint alleged that by continuing to 
represent Andrew S. in a personal injury claim while her license 
No. 
2004AP1915-D   
 
11 
 
was suspended for her failure to comply with mandatory CLE 
reporting requirements, Attorney Tully violated SCR 31.10(1) and 
SCR 20:8.4(f); by failing to disclose her representation of 
Andrew S. in his personal injury matter on her sworn petition 
for reinstatement filed with the BBE, Attorney Tully violated 
SCR 20:8.4(c); by maintaining a trust account in an Illinois 
institution not licensed to do business, or located in Wisconsin 
and by maintaining Andrew S.'s settlement funds in her Illinois 
trust account, Attorney Tully violated SCR 20:1.15(a)10; by 
disbursing $1233.34 more to herself in attorney's fees from the 
Andrew 
S. 
settlement 
than 
she 
was 
entitled 
to 
receive, 
converting said funds for her own use, Attorney Tully violated 
SCR 20:8.4(c); by failing to respond to Andrew S.'s telephone 
calls regarding his medical bills, Attorney Tully violated SCR 
20:1.4(a); by failing to pay two of Andrew S.'s medical 
creditors after receiving the settlement proceeds and by 
withholding the amounts due to the creditors from the settlement 
proceeds, Attorney Tully violated SCR 20:1.15(b)11; and by 
                                                 
10 SCR 20:1.15(a) provides in pertinent part:  Safekeeping 
property. 
(a) A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from 
the lawyer's own property, that property of clients 
and third persons that is in the lawyer's possession 
in connection with a representation or when acting in 
a fiduciary capacity. . . .  The trust account shall 
be maintained in a bank, savings bank, trust company, 
credit union, savings and loan association or other 
investment institution authorized to do business and 
located in Wisconsin. . . . 
11 SCR 20:1.15(b) provides:  Safekeeping property. 
No. 
2004AP1915-D   
 
12 
 
failing to file a written response to the Andrew S. grievance 
investigation, Attorney Tully violated SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 
20:8.4(f).   
¶19 Finally, the OLR's amended complaint alleged four 
counts of misconduct with respect to Attorney Tully's appearance 
in front of a court commissioner on behalf of Brian R., after 
her Wisconsin law license was suspended on May 15, 2003, for her 
failure to cooperate with two OLR grievance investigations.  The 
OLR's amended complaint noted that this court's May 15, 2003 
order stated that Attorney Tully was to comply with all 
requirements of SCR 22.2612 relating to the suspension of her 
license to practice law in this state. 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
(b) Upon receiving funds or other property in 
which a client or third person has an interest, a 
lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third 
person in writing.  Except as stated in this rule or 
otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the 
client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client 
or third person any funds or other property that the 
client or third person is entitled to receive and, 
upon request by the client or third person, shall 
render a full accounting regarding such property. 
12 SCR 22.26 provides in pertinent part:  Activities 
following suspension or revocation. 
(1) On or before the effective date of license 
suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 
suspended or revoked shall do . . .  the following: 
(a) Notify by certified mail all clients being 
represented in pending matters of the suspension or 
revocation and of the attorney's consequent inability 
to act as an attorney following the effective date of 
the suspension or revocation.  
No. 
2004AP1915-D   
 
13 
 
¶20 The amended complaint alleged that by continuing to 
represent Brian R. after her Wisconsin law license was suspended 
due to 
her failure to 
cooperate 
with an 
OLR 
grievance 
investigation, Attorney Tully violated SCR 22.26(2)13 and SCR 
20:8.4(f); by failing to notify Brian R. by certified mail of 
her license suspension and by failing to advise him to seek 
legal advice elsewhere, Attorney Tully violated SCR 22.26(1)(a) 
and (b) and SCR 20:8.4(f); by failing to provide notification to 
the circuit court in the Brian R. matter of her license 
suspension until an August 14, 2003 court appearance, Attorney 
                                                                                                                                                             
(b) Advise the clients to seek legal advice of 
their choice elsewhere. 
(c) Promptly provide written notification to 
the court of administrative agency and the attorney 
for each party in a matter pending before a court or 
administrative agency of the suspension or revocation 
and of the attorney's consequent inability to act as 
an attorney following the effective date of the 
suspension or revocation.  The notice shall identify 
the successor attorney of the attorney's client or, if 
there is none at the time notice is given, shall state 
the client's place of residence. 
(d)  
13 SCR 22.26(2) provides:  Activities following suspension 
or revocation. 
 
(2) An attorney whose license to practice law is 
suspended or revoked or who is suspended from the 
practice of law may not engage in this state in the 
practice 
of 
law 
or 
in 
any 
law 
work 
activity 
customarily done by law students, law clerks, or other 
paralegal personnel, except that the attorney may 
engage in law related work in this state for a 
commercial employer itself not engaged in the practice 
of law. 
No. 
2004AP1915-D   
 
14 
 
Tully violated SCR 22.26(1)(c) and SCR 20:8.4(f); and by failing 
to file a written supplemental response in the Brian R. matter, 
Attorney Tully violated SCR 22.03(6) and SCR 20:8.4(f). 
¶21 Attorney Tully did not answer the amended complaint.  
The OLR filed a motion for default judgment.  A telephone 
hearing was held on December 22, 2004.  Attorney Tully did not 
appear.  The referee issued her report on March 1, 2005.   
¶22 The referee found that the OLR exercised reasonable 
diligence in attempting to serve Attorney Tully by personal 
service in the manner set forth in Wis. Stat. § 801.11(1) and 
that Attorney Tully could not be served in that manner.  The 
referee found that Attorney Tully was properly served under SCR 
22.13(1), which provides that if, with reasonable diligence, the 
respondent cannot be served under Wis. Stat. § 801.11(1)(a) or 
(b), "service may be made by sending by certified mail an 
authenticated copy of the complaint and order to answer to the 
most recent address furnished by the respondent to the state 
bar."  
¶23 The referee concluded that the OLR had met its burden 
of proof with respect to all of the 29 counts of misconduct 
alleged in the amended complaint.  The referee said Attorney 
Tully's misconduct 
warranted 
substantial discipline. 
 The 
referee said the misconduct was aggravated by Attorney Tully's 
failure to respond in any substantive way to this disciplinary 
matter, her willingness to make false statements to the BBE, and 
her willingness to continue representing clients and filing new 
claims while her license to practice law was suspended.  The 
No. 
2004AP1915-D   
 
15 
 
referee said Attorney Tully's actions did not appear to reflect 
a lack of knowledge about proper procedures or ethics, but 
instead evinced an outright unwillingness to act with promptness 
and diligence on her clients' behalf or to take seriously the 
OLR's concerns about her misconduct.  The referee noted that 
although Attorney Tully has not been formally disciplined in the 
past, her misconduct over a period spanning several years 
indicates she is unlikely to change her actions in the future 
and her blatant disregard for prior temporary suspensions of her 
license indicates she does not appreciate the gravity of her 
misconduct.   
¶24 The referee recommended that Attorney Tully's license 
to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for a minimum of two 
years; that she be ordered to pay full restitution to Andrew S. 
in the amount of $1306, totaling the amounts he was required to 
personally pay to his medical creditors; and that she be 
required to pay the full costs of the proceeding, which are 
$1878.01 as of March 23, 2005.  The referee recommended that 
this court not make the suspension retroactive to the date of 
the 
current 
temporary 
suspension 
because 
Attorney 
Tully 
practiced law numerous times during the temporary suspensions 
and she should not benefit from a retroactive suspension and the 
ability to petition for the reinstatement of her license at an 
earlier date.  Finally, the referee recommended that during the 
period of suspension Attorney Tully be required to attend 
continuing legal education courses and that before she is 
reinstated she be required to demonstrate an understanding of 
No. 
2004AP1915-D   
 
16 
 
the 
relationship 
between 
her 
misconduct 
and 
both 
the 
consequences suffered by her clients and the damage to the 
public's perception of the legal profession. 
¶25 A referee's findings of fact are to be affirmed unless 
they are clearly erroneous.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Sosnay, 209 Wis. 2d 241, 243, 562 N.W.2d 137 (1997).  
Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 
636 N.W.2d 718.  The record supports the referee's findings of 
fact and conclusions of law and we adopt them.  
¶26 We also adopt the referee's recommendation regarding 
the discipline to be imposed in this case.  Attorney Tully 
engaged in multiple counts of misconduct involving multiple 
clients.  Her repeated willingness to continue practicing law 
during the time she knew 
her license was 
suspended is 
particularly troublesome and exhibits a blatant disregard for 
this court's rules and orders.  A two-year suspension of her 
license to practice law, coupled with the additional conditions 
recommended 
by 
the 
referee, 
is 
an 
appropriate 
level 
of 
discipline for her misconduct.  
¶27 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Michelle L. 
Tully to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 
two years effective August 17, 2005. 
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if she has not already 
done so, Attorney Tully comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 
concerning the duties of an attorney whose license to practice 
law has been suspended. 
No. 
2004AP1915-D   
 
17 
 
¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Tully shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If those costs are not 
paid within the time specified, and absent a showing to this 
court of an inability to pay those costs within that time, the 
license of Attorney Tully to practice law shall remain suspended 
indefinitely until further order of the court. 
¶30 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Tully shall pay full restitution to 
Andrew S. in the amount of $1306. 
¶31 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of her 
reinstatement to the practice of law in Wisconsin in the future, 
during the time of her suspension Attorney Tully shall attend 
continuing legal education courses and, as a further condition 
of her reinstatement, she shall be required to demonstrate an 
understanding of the relationship between her misconduct and 
both the consequences suffered by her clients and the damage to 
the public's perception of the legal profession. 
No. 
2004AP1915-D   
 
 
 
1