Title: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. James O'Neil

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

No. 94-3118-D 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
 
 
 
 
No.  94-3118-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN             :                IN SUPREME COURT 
                                                                   
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against JAMES P. O'NEIL, Attorney at Law. 
 
FILED 
 
 
NOV 21, 1995 
 
 
 Marilyn L. Graves 
  Clerk of Supreme Court 
  
Madison, WI  
 
                                                                
   
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney's 
license 
suspended. 
 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the referee 
that the license of James P. O'Neil to practice law in Wisconsin 
be suspended for 12 months as discipline for engaging in 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation by retaining and 
failing to report to his law firm approximately $26,700 in fees 
for professional services he rendered as court-appointed guardian 
ad litem and in numerous files he had opened but did not disclose 
to his law firm at the time he separated from employment.  In 
addition, he retained a check from Brown county knowing it was a 
 
No. 94-3118-D 
 
 
 
2 
duplicate payment of guardian ad litem fees the firm already had 
been paid.   
 
We determine that, under the circumstances presented, the 
recommended one-year license suspension is appropriate discipline 
to impose for Attorney O'Neil's professional misconduct.  By 
failing to report his receipt of fees for his legal services to 
which his law firm was entitled and keeping a county check knowing 
it constituted a double payment of his fees as court-appointed 
guardian ad litem, Attorney O'Neil has seriously breached his duty 
of honesty and his fiduciary obligation in respect to the firm 
that employed him, as well as his duty of honest dealing with the 
county that retained him for legal services. 
 
Attorney O'Neil was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in 1988 and practices in Green Bay.  He has not 
previously been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding.  The 
referee, Attorney John E. Shannon, Jr., made findings of fact 
based on Attorney O'Neil's stipulation.   
 
Although there was no written employment agreement, it was 
understood that the law firm in which Attorney O'Neil began 
practice in June, 1988 was entitled to all fees generated by him 
while employed at the firm.  In January, 1992, the compensation 
arrangement between him and the firm changed, and he was to 
receive a base salary and a percentage of all net fees generated 
above a specified amount.  All fees were to be billed through and 
paid to the firm.   
 
No. 94-3118-D 
 
 
 
3 
 
Attorney O'Neil took a leave of absence from the firm from 
December, 1990 to July, 1991, while on active duty in the U.S. 
Army Reserve, serving in the Gulf War.  Following his return to 
the firm, Attorney O'Neil learned that it had terminated his 
pension plan by not making payments to it while he was on active 
duty.  In addition, the firm began excluding him from social 
activities.   
 
When it was decided in May, 1993 that his employment with the 
firm would terminate, Attorney O'Neil submitted a list of what he 
represented as all active files he currently was working on.  In 
fact, that list was not complete.  Soon after his departure, the 
firm received a check for some $8400 from Brown county circuit 
court addressed to Attorney O'Neil, but it found no record of the 
case in which he had served as guardian ad litem and the fees for 
which the check represented.  The firm's subsequent investigation 
disclosed that Attorney O'Neil had served in the matter from 1991 
to 1993.   
 
When the firm confronted him concerning that check, Attorney 
O'Neil admitted that it was payment for services he had rendered 
as guardian ad litem during the time he was employed with the 
firm.  At the same time he produced a list of 43 files he had 
opened during that period but failed to disclose to the firm at 
the time of his termination.  It was determined that he had 
retained approximately $26,700 of fees he generated on files and 
cases, including the guardian ad litem fee.   
 
No. 94-3118-D 
 
 
 
4 
 
During the investigation into this matter conducted by the 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, it was discovered 
that in September, 1992 Attorney O'Neil had deposited into his 
personal account a Brown county check for approximately $2130 in 
payment of his fees in a guardian ad litem case for which the firm 
already had received payment.  An employee of the firm reported 
having given that check to Attorney O'Neil, telling him it was a 
duplicate payment, and that Attorney O'Neil said he would take 
care of it.  The investigation also disclosed that Attorney O'Neil 
had retained another duplicate payment from the county but he 
denied knowledge that the firm previously had been paid for those 
services.   
 
The referee concluded, consistent with Attorney O'Neil's 
admissions, 
that 
the 
misconduct 
in 
this 
matter 
involved 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation, in violation of 
SCR 20:8.4(c).1  In recommending a 12-month license suspension, 
the referee acknowledged the testimony of six character witnesses 
who testified on Attorney O'Neil's behalf, one of them his current 
law partner.  The referee also found that Attorney O'Neil has 
admitted his misconduct, expressed remorse for it and made full 
restitution to his firm and to the county.  The referee expressed 
                     
     1  SCR 20:8.4 provides, in pertinent part:  Misconduct 
 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:   
 
. . . 
 
(c)  engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or 
misrepresentation.   
 
No. 94-3118-D 
 
 
 
5 
his belief that Attorney O'Neil is not likely to repeat the 
misconduct and that he has rehabilitated himself, as evidenced by 
his competent and ethical practice of law in another firm.   
 
We adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of 
law and determine, in view of the factors considered by the 
referee, that the recommended license suspension is appropriate 
discipline 
to 
impose 
for 
Attorney 
O'Neil's 
professional 
misconduct.  In addition, we require that Attorney O'Neil pay the 
costs of this proceeding, as the referee had recommended.   
 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney James P. O'Neil to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of one year, 
commencing December 21, 1995. 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this 
order James P. O'Neil pay to the Board of Attorneys Professional 
Responsibility the costs of this proceeding, provided that if the 
costs are not paid within the time specified and absent a showing 
to this court of his inability to pay the costs within that time, 
the license of James P. O'Neil to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
remain suspended until further order of the court.   
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that James P. O'Neil comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.   
 
No. 94-3118-D 
 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
                                                              
 
Case No.: 
 
94-3118-D 
                                                              
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary  
 
 
 
Proceedings Against 
 
 
 
James P. O'Neil, 
 
 
 
Attorney at Law. 
 
 
 
___________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST O'NEIL 
 
                                                              
 
Opinion Filed:  
November 21, 1995 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
                                                              
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
                                                              
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating: 
 
                                                              
 
ATTORNEYS: