Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Daniel Parks

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2021 WI 74 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2016AP85-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Daniel Parks, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Daniel Parks, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY PARKS REINSTATEMENT PROCEEDINGS 
Reported at 395 Wis. 2d 500,953 N.W.2d 873 
PDC No:2021 WI 10 - Published 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
August 20, 2021   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam. 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2021 WI 74
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2016AP85-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Daniel Parks, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Daniel Parks, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
FILED 
 
AUG 20, 2021 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.   Reinstatement granted 
upon conditions.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Pending before the court is Attorney 
Daniel Parks' second petition for reinstatement of his license 
to practice law in Wisconsin.  Upon consideration of the 
reinstatement petition; Attorney Parks' affidavit in support of 
his reinstatement petition; the Office of Lawyer Regulation's 
(OLR) response pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.30(4); 
the parties' SCR 22.30(5)(a) stipulation; the OLR's memorandum 
in support of the stipulation (attaching Attorney Anthony 
O'Malley's comment in support of reinstatement); and Attorney 
No. 
2016AP85-D   
 
2 
 
Parks' response to the OLR's memorandum, we conclude that 
reinstatement, upon conditions, is appropriate. 
¶2 
Attorney Parks was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1991.  His license was unblemished until 2016, when 
the OLR filed a complaint alleging that Attorney Parks had 
committed 19 counts of professional misconduct.  The allegations 
derived from a grievance filed by Attorney Parks' former law 
firm stating, among other things, that it had discovered that 
Attorney Parks had performed unauthorized legal work "on the 
side" while employed by the firm.  
¶3 
Following extensive litigation, amended complaints, 
and an appeal, this court accepted the referee's conclusion that 
Attorney Parks had committed eight of 14 alleged counts of 
misconduct.1  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Parks, 
2018 WI 110, 384 Wis. 2d 635, 920 N.W.2d 505 (Parks I).  We 
suspended Attorney Parks' law license for 14 months for his 
violation of multiple supreme court rules:  for earning fees 
from non-firm legal work while employed by a law firm; arranging 
for two clients to perform work for him in exchange for a 
reduction of legal fees and otherwise reducing attorney fees 
without his law firm's permission; accepting an unauthorized 
$5,000 "gift" from two clients; working on client files on an 
unsecured offsite computer belonging to another person; and 
                     
1 The OLR twice amended its complaint, dismissing five 
counts.  This court then dismissed five of the alleged counts of 
misconduct. 
No. 
2016AP85-D   
 
3 
 
obtaining two signatures on a "release" designed to limit 
Attorney Parks' liability, without properly clarifying his role 
in the matter.  
¶4 
Attorney Parks first sought reinstatement in January 
2020.  The OLR initially declined to support his reinstatement 
petition based on concerns that Attorney Parks might have misled 
the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance (OCI) with respect 
to statements on Attorney Parks' insurance license renewal.  The 
OLR also expressed concern that Attorney Parks had not made 
restitution to the grievants in the underlying disciplinary 
proceeding, but acknowledged that the OLR had not sought 
restitution, the referee had not recommended restitution, and 
this court had not ordered Attorney Parks to pay restitution.   
¶5 
A referee was appointed and a reinstatement hearing 
was conducted on the first reinstatement petition.  By the time 
of the hearing, the OLR had identified a new concern:  that 
Attorney Parks may have claimed an improper tax deduction.  
However, at the evidentiary hearing, Attorney Parks presented 
evidence sufficient to satisfy the referee that Attorney Parks 
had relied on professional guidance in both matters and had 
dealt in good faith with the OCI and with the Internal Revenue 
Service (IRS).  On the question of restitution, the referee 
reasoned that the referee in the underlying disciplinary case 
had not recommended restitution, that this court had accepted 
the referee's recommendation, and had not ordered restitution.  
The referee recommended Attorney Parks' reinstatement. 
No. 
2016AP85-D   
 
4 
 
¶6 
This court disagreed and denied Attorney Parks' first 
reinstatement petition.  The court accepted the referee's 
findings with respect to the questions involving the OCI and the 
IRS, but concluded that Attorney Parks' failure to make 
restitution precluded his reinstatement.  The court cited 
SCR 22.29(4m), observing that the obligation to make restitution 
to those harmed by the lawyer's misconduct applies, even if 
restitution 
is 
not 
ordered 
in 
the 
original 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Parks, 
2021 WI 10, ¶30, 395 Wis. 2d 500, 953 N.W.2d 873 (Parks II) 
(citing In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Woodard, 2012 WI 
41, 340 Wis. 2d 248, 812 N.W.2d 511).  Consequently, the court 
also concluded that Attorney Parks had not demonstrated that he 
possessed the requisite moral character to practice law in this 
state.  See (former) SCR 22.31(a).  The court indicated it would 
be "more favorably disposed" to a reinstatement petition "upon a 
showing that Attorney Parks has sought in good faith to address 
the requirements of SCR 22.29(4m)."  Parks II, ¶32. 
¶7 
In the wake of this court's adverse reinstatement 
decision, Attorney Parks promptly took steps to address the 
restitution issue.  Through counsel, Attorney Parks contacted 
each grievant by mail, broaching the issue of restitution.  
Former client L.E. informed Attorney Parks that she thought 
$4,500 was a satisfactory and appropriate amount of restitution.  
Attorney Parks' former law firm, Zacherl, O'Malley & Endejan, 
S.C., indicated that $10,000 would be a satisfactory amount of 
No. 
2016AP85-D   
 
5 
 
restitution. 
 
Attorney 
Parks 
then 
entered 
into 
payment 
agreements with each grievant to pay the requested restitution.2  
¶8 
On April 2, 2021, Attorney Parks filed his second 
reinstatement petition.3  The OLR investigated Attorney Parks' 
second petition and determined that there were no new concerns 
beyond those previously addressed in the first reinstatement 
proceeding.  The OLR noted that this court had denied Attorney 
Parks' initial reinstatement petition due to Attorney Parks' 
failure to pay restitution to persons or entities harmed by his 
misconduct.  Parks II, ¶31.  
¶9 
The OLR considered whether Attorney Parks' efforts at 
restitution would satisfy this court's concerns, as set forth in 
the initial, adverse reinstatement decision.4  The OLR determined 
                     
2 Each grievant agreed to an initial payment with the 
balance to be paid within one year of Attorney Parks' 
reinstatement.  Attorney Parks, though counsel, thus paid $1,000 
to L.E. and $3,000 to Zacherl, O'Malley & Endejan, S.C., along 
with a letter memorializing his commitment to complete the 
agreed-upon restitution within one year of reinstatement. 
3 This court permitted Attorney Parks to file a subsequent 
reinstatement petition in advance of the usual nine-month 
waiting period required by SCR 22.33(4).  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Parks, 2021 WI 10, ¶32, 395 Wis. 2d 500, 953 
N.W.2d 873 (Parks II). 
4 The OLR expressed some reservations about Attorney Parks' 
payment of restitution and/or costs appearing to be conditioned 
on his reinstatement.  The OLR therefore advised Attorney Parks' 
former firm and L.E. that their reinstatement agreements were 
not determinative of whether the OLR would support or oppose 
Attorney 
Parks' 
reinstatement 
petition. 
 
We 
concur 
that 
agreements 
to 
pay 
restitution 
that 
are 
conditioned 
upon 
reinstatement are not ideal, but under the unique facts of this 
case, the terms should not preclude reinstatement. 
No. 
2016AP85-D   
 
6 
 
that Attorney Parks appears to have satisfactorily addressed the 
concerns raised with regard to his satisfaction of (former) 
SCR 22.29(4m).  The OLR notes that Attorney Parks' former 
colleague, Attorney Anthony O'Malley, now supports Attorney 
Parks' reinstatement.  The OLR thus concluded that Attorney 
Parks has, to the satisfaction of the OLR, met his burden to 
prove by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he 
has met all of the criteria for reinstatement.  Accordingly, the 
OLR and Attorney Parks executed a stipulation pursuant to 
SCR 22.30(5)(a) for Attorney Parks' reinstatement.  
¶10 The parties further stipulated that the court should 
impose the following conditions on Attorney Parks' reinstatement 
to the practice of law: 
 Attorney Parks must comply with his agreement to pay 
L.E. a total of $4,500 in restitution.  Under the 
terms of his agreement, the remaining $3,500 is due 
within one year of Attorney Parks' reinstatement. 
 Attorney Parks must comply with his agreement to pay 
his former firm a total of $10,000 in restitution.  
Under the terms of the agreement, the remaining $7,000 
is 
due 
within 
one 
year 
of 
Attorney 
Parks' 
reinstatement. 
 Attorney Parks must comply with his agreement to pay 
the OLR the costs of his discipline proceeding and his 
No. 
2016AP85-D   
 
7 
 
first reinstatement petition proceeding, by continuing 
to pay the OLR at least $500 monthly.5   
The OLR states that it will not seek an assessment of costs for 
this second reinstatement proceeding. 
¶11 The parties' joint stipulation for Attorney Parks' 
reinstatement is now before us for our review.  This is one of 
the first reinstatement petitions submitted to the court by 
stipulation under SCR 22.30(5)(a), effective January 1, 2021.6  
The new reinstatement provisions permit the court to consider a 
reinstatement petition by stipulation when, as here, the OLR 
concludes, 
upon 
investigation, 
that 
the 
petitioner 
has 
demonstrated, to the director's satisfaction, all of the 
reinstatement criteria.  SCR 22.3057 and SCR 22.29(4).  This 
                     
5 In the underlying disciplinary case Attorney Parks was 
ordered to pay costs totaling $42,226.26.  In the unsuccessful 
first reinstatement proceeding, Attorney Parks was ordered to 
pay an additional $6,370.43 in costs.  He has entered into a 
payment plan with the OLR and is current with his monthly 
payments.   
6 Effective January 1, 2021, substantial changes were made 
to the rules pertaining to lawyer disciplinary procedures, 
including the reinstatement rules, SCR 22.29 through 22.33.  
See S. Ct. Order 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 
19-12, 2020 WI 62  (issued June 30, 2020, eff. Jan. 1, 2021).  
7 SCR 22.305 (Standard for Reinstatement) provides: 
At all times relevant to the petition, the 
petitioner has the burden of demonstrating, by clear, 
satisfactory, and convincing evidence, all of the 
following:  
(1) That he or she has the moral character to 
practice law in Wisconsin.  
(continued) 
No. 
2016AP85-D   
 
8 
 
court then considers the petition and stipulation without the 
appointment of a referee and we may approve the stipulation and 
reinstate the petitioner's law license; we may reject the 
stipulation and refer the petition to a referee for a hearing; 
or we may direct the parties to consider modifications to the 
stipulation.  SCR 22.30(5)(b).  
¶12 As 
to 
Attorney 
Parks' 
representations 
in 
his 
reinstatement petition, the record - including several favorable 
character references - supports the parties' stipulation that 
those representations are substantiated:  Attorney Parks desires 
to have his law license reinstated, SCR 22.29(4)(a); Attorney 
Parks has not practiced law during the period of suspension, 
engaging in volunteer service and working as a property manager 
and a substitute teacher, SCR 22.29(4)(b); Attorney Parks has 
complied fully with the terms of his order of suspension and 
will continue to comply until he is reinstated, SCR 22.29(4)(c); 
Attorney Parks has maintained competence and learning in the law 
by attendance at identified educational activities, as evidenced 
                                                                  
(2) That his or her resumption of the practice of 
law will not be detrimental to the administration of 
justice or subversive of the public interest. 
(3) That his or her representations in the 
petition, including the representations required by 
SCR 
22.29(4)(a) 
to 
(m) 
and 
22.29(5), 
are 
substantiated.  
(4) That he or she has complied fully with the 
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and 
with the requirements of SCR 22.26. 
No. 
2016AP85-D   
 
9 
 
by a June 17, 2021 memorandum from the Board of Bar Examiners 
confirming his CLE and EPR compliance, SCR 22.29(4)(d); Attorney 
Parks' conduct since his suspension has been exemplary and 
beyond reproach, SCR 22.29(4)(e); Attorney Parks has a proper 
understanding of and attitude toward the standards that are 
imposed upon members of the bar and will act in conformity with 
those standards, SCR 22.29(4)(f); Attorney Parks can safely be 
recommended to the legal profession, the courts, and the public 
as a person fit to be consulted by others and to represent them 
and otherwise act in matters of trust and confidence and in 
general to aid in the administration of justice as a member of 
the bar and as an officer of the courts, SCR 22.29(4)(g); 
Attorney Parks has satisfactorily fully complied with the 
requirements set forth in SCR 22.26, SCR 22.29(4)(h); if 
reinstated, Attorney Parks intends to return to the practice he 
left when his license was suspended, practicing with one other 
attorney, SCR 22.29(4)(j); and Attorney Parks satisfactorily 
described 
his 
business 
activities 
during 
his 
suspension, 
engaging in community service, serving as a substitute teacher 
and as a property manager, SCR 22.29(4)(k).  
¶13 As discussed above, Attorney Parks has now also 
satisfactorily made restitution to or settled all claims of 
persons injured or harmed by his misconduct, thereby resolving 
our concerns about his compliance with (former) SCR 22.29(4m) 
and (former) SCR 22.31(a), SCR 22.29(4)(m). 
¶14 Based on the stipulation and noting that the record 
contains no evidence to the contrary, we conclude that Attorney 
No. 
2016AP85-D   
 
10 
 
Parks has the moral character to practice law in Wisconsin, 
SCR 22.305(1); his resumption of the practice of law will not be 
detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of 
the public interest, SCR 22.305(2); his representations in his 
petition, 
including 
the 
representations 
required 
by 
SCR 22.29(4)(a) to (m) 
and 
SCR 22.29(5), 
are 
substantiated, 
SCR 22.305(3); and he has complied fully with the terms of the 
suspension orders and with the requirements of SCR 22.26, 
SCR 22.305(4).  Accordingly, we accept the parties' stipulation 
pursuant to SCR 22.30(5)(b), and we reinstate Attorney Parks' 
license to practice law in Wisconsin, effective the date of this 
order, upon the stipulated conditions. 
¶15 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement of 
Daniel Parks is granted, effective the date of this order, upon 
the following conditions: 
 Daniel Parks shall comply with his agreement to pay 
L.E. a total of $4,500 in restitution.  Under the 
terms of his agreement, the remaining $3,500 is due 
within one year of Daniel Parks' reinstatement. 
 Daniel Parks shall comply with his agreement to pay 
his former firm a total of $10,000 in restitution.  
Under the terms of the agreement, the remaining $7,000 
is due within one year of Daniel Parks' reinstatement. 
 Daniel Parks shall comply with his agreement to pay 
the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of his 
discipline proceeding and his first reinstatement 
No. 
2016AP85-D   
 
11 
 
petition proceeding, by continuing to pay the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation at least $500 monthly.   
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Daniel Parks' failure to 
abide by the aforementioned conditions, absent a showing of 
inability to pay, may result in the further suspension of Daniel 
Parks' license to practice law in Wisconsin. 
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no costs will be imposed in 
connection with this reinstatement proceeding.   
 
 
No. 
2016AP85-D   
 
 
 
1