Title: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. Patrick B. Sheehan

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
97-1824-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Patrick B. Sheehan, Attorney at Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional  
Responsibility,  
 
Complainant-Respondent, 
v. 
Patrick B. Sheehan,  
 
Respondent-Appellant.  
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SHEEHAN 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
February 12, 1999 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
January 8, 1999 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
For the respondent-appellant there were briefs 
and oral argument by Patrick B. Sheehan, Milwaukee. 
 
 
For the complainant-respondent there was a brief 
by Robert G. Krohn and Roethe, Krohn, Pope & McCarthy, LLP, 
Edgerton and oral argument by Robert G. Krohn. 
 
No. 
97-1824-D 
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 97-1824-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against PATRICK B. SHEEHAN, Attorney at 
Law. 
Board of Attorneys Professional 
Responsibility,  
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Patrick B. Sheehan,  
          Respondent-Appellant. 
FILED 
 
FEB 12, 1999 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney’s 
license 
revoked.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM   Attorney Patrick B. Sheehan appealed from 
the report of the referee concluding that he engaged in 
professional misconduct in his representation of three clients 
and recommending that his license to practice law in Wisconsin 
be revoked as discipline for that misconduct. However, at oral 
argument, Attorney Sheehan withdrew his contention that he had 
been denied due process by not being able to call witnesses to 
testify 
at 
the 
disciplinary 
hearing 
regarding 
mitigating 
circumstances surrounding his conduct, and he stated that he did 
No. 
97-1824-D 
 
2 
not object to the referee’s recommendations that his license be 
revoked and that he be required to pay the costs of the 
disciplinary proceeding. He also accepted that the issue of 
restitution 
to 
the 
clients 
harmed 
by 
his 
misconduct 
be 
considered at such time as he seeks reinstatement of his license 
to 
practice 
law. 
Consequently, 
Attorney 
Sheehan’s 
appeal 
effectively was withdrawn, and the matter has proceeded as a 
review of the referee’s report.  
¶2 
Based on the stipulation of the parties to the facts 
and the violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct for 
Attorneys those facts constituted, the referee, Attorney Judith 
Sperling Newton, concluded as follows. Attorney Sheehan engaged 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation in three client matters, commingled his own 
funds with funds of clients, failed to hold client property in 
trust and keep requisite trust account records, represented 
multiple clients having different interests, failed to provide 
competent representation and act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness, and represented a client in a personal injury matter 
on a contingent fee basis without having obtained a written fee 
agreement.  
¶3 
We determine that the seriousness and extent of 
Attorney 
Sheehan’s 
professional 
misconduct 
warrant 
the 
revocation of his license to practice law. Among other things, 
he knowingly used a forged document to obtain money from a 
client and used funds belonging to clients for his own purposes. 
He thus has demonstrated a willingness to place his own 
No. 
97-1824-D 
 
3 
pecuniary interests over the interests, financial and otherwise, 
of clients whose representation he had undertaken and has 
established that he cannot be trusted to act on behalf of others 
in the legal system.  
¶4 
Attorney Sheehan was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1968 and practiced in Beloit. On October 20, 1997, 
the court suspended his license to practice law pending 
disposition of this disciplinary proceeding, as the Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board) had requested, 
based on allegations that he had commingled and misappropriated 
funds belonging to clients. In addition, he had been suspended 
from the practice of law June 3, 1997, for failure to comply 
with continuing legal education requirements and has not been 
reinstated from that suspension.  
¶5 
The facts concerning the first client matter to which 
the parties stipulated involve Attorney Sheehan’s representation 
in the summer of 1994 to pursue the sale of the business of a 
client he previously had represented in various legal matters. 
The client offered Attorney Sheehan a commission if he could 
locate a buyer, and another client of Attorney Sheehan’s, 
together 
with 
one 
of 
that 
client’s 
business 
associates, 
expressed interest in purchasing the business. Attorney Sheehan 
undertook to represent both the client selling the business and 
the client interested in buying it, despite the fact that he was 
aware that there could be no sale because the owner’s permit to 
operate the business could not be transferred.  
No. 
97-1824-D 
 
4 
¶6 
Attorney Sheehan prepared what purported to be an 
offer to purchase at a price of $800,000 and witnessed the 
purported signature of the buyer, knowing that the signature was 
not that of the person who signed the offer. Attorney Sheehan 
then gave the offer to his client, who accepted it, and received 
from that client $8000 as partial payment of the commission. 
Attorney Sheehan deposited that money into his client trust 
account.  
¶7 
Over the next several months, Attorney Sheehan led his 
client to believe that there would be a closing on the sale, 
knowing all the while that the signature on the offer to 
purchase was a forgery and that the document did not constitute 
a bona fide offer. In February 1995 he told his client, who was 
vacationing in Florida, that he should return to Wisconsin 
immediately to sign the necessary documents to close the sale. 
The client shortened his vacation by a month and returned to 
Wisconsin, whereupon he learned that there would be no sale. 
When he demanded the return of the $8,000 commission, Attorney 
Sheehan paid him by means of a $2,000 check drawn on his client 
trust account and $6,000 in cash payments.  
¶8 
Bank 
records of 
Attorney 
Sheehan’s 
client 
trust 
account disclosed that Attorney Sheehan had used the $8,000 he 
had received from the client to pay other clients whose funds 
were no longer in his client trust account and to pay one of his 
employees. Attorney Sheehan was unable to produce copies of a 
client ledger sheet for the client in this matter or any other 
No. 
97-1824-D 
 
5 
trust account documentation concerning the $8,000 he had been 
paid.  
¶9 
Attorney Sheehan asserted that he had hoped to be able 
to repay the $8,000 and tell the client there was no financing 
available for the sale to be accomplished. He did not intend to 
tell the client what he had done, namely, take the $8,000 under 
false pretenses and use it to cover other expenses. The referee 
found that the client was greatly embarrassed by the “scam” he 
had been involved in and was forced to retract statements he had 
made to his friends and business associates regarding the sale 
of his business and his plans for investing the proceeds.  
¶10 The second matter to which the parties stipulated and 
for which the referee made appropriate findings concerned 
Attorney Sheehan’s representation of a couple who retained him 
in December of 1994 to complete the sale of their business and 
dissolve their corporation. Attorney Sheehan told the clients 
they were going to incur a large tax liability and said he could 
save them a substantial amount of money by preparing their tax 
returns. In late December 1994 he asked the clients for and 
received from them a check for $15,400 to cover estimated 
federal and state taxes relating to their personal returns, fees 
to an accountant for preparation of the federal and state 
corporate returns and estimated taxes related to them, and fees 
and costs to himself for preparing the clients’ personal returns 
and for services to be performed in connection with the 
dissolution of the corporation.  
No. 
97-1824-D 
 
6 
¶11 On the same day he received that payment and in the 
presence of his clients, Attorney Sheehan wrote out seven checks 
on one of his client trust accounts totaling $15,400, including 
a $4,000 payment to the Internal Revenue Service for the federal 
corporate return, $1,900 to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue 
for the state corporate return, $3,000 to the IRS for the 
federal personal return, $1,500 to the Wisconsin Department of 
Revenue for the state personal return, $3,400 to the accountant, 
and two checks to himself, one for $1,200 and the other for 
$300. He placed five of those seven checks in the clients’ file, 
but they were never sent to the payees.  
¶12 The following day, the clients’ $15,400 check was 
deposited into one of Attorney Sheehan’s trust accounts, which 
then had a balance of $5,183.51. He deposited the two checks to 
himself into his own accounts. Bank records disclosed that 
Attorney Sheehan used the clients’ $15,400 to make disbursements 
to himself and to other clients.  
¶13 On their respective due dates, Attorney Sheehan told 
his clients not to worry about their corporate and personal tax 
returns, as he had filed for extensions, adding that they would 
be receiving a $600 refund from the Department of Revenue. In 
August 1995 the clients were notified by the Department of 
Revenue that an adjustment had been made in their 1994 personal 
tax return, as it showed an incorrect amount for the itemized 
deduction credit and incorrectly indicated that $1,500 in 
estimated taxes had been paid. In fact, no estimated taxes had 
No. 
97-1824-D 
 
7 
been paid, and the clients then owed $991.16 in additional taxes 
and interest.  
¶14 The clients also received notice from the IRS that 
adjustments had been made on their federal personal return: 
there was an underpayment of $4,811 in taxes, with penalties and 
interest of $1,681.17, as a result of an incorrect amount 
claimed as estimated tax payments and credits. During the fall 
of 1995, the clients also learned that the corporate dissolution 
papers had not been filed. In early December 1995 the clients 
were notified by the IRS that they owed $1,523.81 for the 
underpayment 
of 
corporate 
taxes, 
including 
penalties 
and 
interest.  
¶15 The clients retained another attorney to recover money 
owed to them by virtue of Attorney Sheehan’s failure to pay 
estimated taxes and to obtain the return of the $15,400 they had 
paid him. On September 1, 1995, Attorney Sheehan wrote a check 
for $4,213 on one of his client trust accounts as partial 
repayment of the $15,400 and other checks in the succeeding 
three months, one for $5,500, one for $1,000 and the third for 
$1,500. He made no payments to them after mid-February 1996. The 
clients claimed that Attorney Sheehan owes them approximately 
$7,000 plus interest.  
¶16 The 
third 
matter 
considered 
in 
this 
proceeding 
concerned Attorney Sheehan’s representation of a man who had 
cerebral palsy, suffered mental problems, and was physically 
dependent on others. The man’s sister asked Attorney Sheehan to 
help 
her 
brother 
with 
several 
matters, 
including 
minor 
No. 
97-1824-D 
 
8 
altercations with the police. Attorney Sheehan represented the 
man for one and one-half years without compensation.  
¶17 In April 1995 the client was struck by an automobile 
and suffered serious injuries. The client asked Attorney Sheehan 
to settle the personal injury claim, but there was no written 
contingency fee agreement for that representation.  
¶18 At about this time, another sister of the client 
sought a permanent guardianship for her brother and was 
appointed temporary guardian. The court denied the petition for 
permanent guardianship, finding the man to be competent.  
¶19 Attorney Sheehan settled the client’s personal injury 
case in October 1995, receiving a settlement check for $85,000, 
which he deposited into one of his client trust accounts. The 
client, who had been residing with his other sister between the 
fall of 1995 and May 1996, was left to live at a homeless 
shelter.  
¶20 In 
June 
1996 
another 
petition 
for 
permanent 
guardianship was filed by the client’s sister, and the sister’s 
attorney asked Attorney Sheehan for copies of all documents 
relating to the personal injury settlement and for an accounting 
of 
the 
proceeds. 
The 
court 
appointed 
Attorney 
Sheehan 
conservator and directed the man’s sister to turn over any funds 
remaining from the man’s Social Security checks she had been 
receiving on his behalf. During a meeting to discuss the 
personal injury settlement and the manner in which it was 
disbursed, Attorney Sheehan stated that he did not have an exact 
accounting of the client’s money because of accrued interest and 
No. 
97-1824-D 
 
9 
because the investments in which he had placed it involved other 
clients’ funds, but he promised a detailed accounting at a later 
date. He ultimately provided a copy of payments he asserted had 
been made on behalf of the client.  
¶21 Bank records disclosed that following the deposit of 
the $85,000, Attorney Sheehan made payments of $32,665.94 on 
behalf of his client but did not show a disbursement of a one-
third contingent fee to himself. Even if Attorney Sheehan had 
left that fee in his trust account, there should have been 
$31,061.06 of the client’s funds in that account on December 31, 
1995. In fact, the account balance on that date was $10,080.51. 
Attorney Sheehan used a portion of the client’s funds to make 
disbursements to himself and to other clients.  
¶22 In January 1997 the court removed Attorney Sheehan as 
conservator and directed him to submit a final accounting of 
funds being held on the man’s behalf. Attorney Sheehan provided 
a final accounting, but it did not indicate from which account 
each of the several disbursements made on behalf of the man had 
come. 
Based 
on 
that 
accounting, 
there 
should 
have 
been 
$30,986.06 of the client’s funds in that account on December 31, 
1995; the actual balance on that date was $10,080.51.  
¶23 The referee found that the client regarded Attorney 
Sheehan as his friend and someone he could trust, but as a 
result of the mismanagement of his funds, he came to believe 
Attorney Sheehan stole his money and now finds it difficult to 
trust anyone. The referee also found that Attorney Sheehan has 
No. 
97-1824-D 
 
10
no appreciation of the client’s feelings of distrust and his 
concern about how his funds were accounted for and invested.  
¶24 On the basis of those facts, the referee made the 
following 
conclusions 
of 
law, 
to 
which 
the 
parties 
had 
stipulated: Attorney Sheehan 
engaged 
in conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of 
SCR 20:8.4(c), by witnessing the signature on the offer to 
purchase knowing that it had been forged, presenting that offer 
to his client without disclosing that it was invalid and 
contained a forged signature, inducing the client to pay him an 
$8,000 partial commission on the purportedly valid contract 
knowing it was invalid and that no sale would occur, depositing 
that commission into his client trust account and withdrawing 
portions of it to pay other clients, his office personnel, and 
himself, repeatedly leading his client to believe for some 10 
months that the offer to purchase was valid and that the sale 
would close, and using $2,000 in client trust funds belonging to 
unidentified clients as partial repayment of the $8,000 to his 
client. In respect to this matter, the referee also concluded 
that Attorney Sheehan commingled his own funds with the funds of 
clients, in violation of SCR 20:1.15(a),1 represented multiple 
clients having differing interests in the same matter, contrary 
                     
1  At the time relevant to this proceeding, SCR 20:1.15 
provided, in pertinent part: Safekeeping property 
(a) A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the 
lawyer’s own property, property of clients or third persons that 
is 
in 
the 
lawyer’s 
possession 
in 
connection 
with 
a 
representation.  . . .  
No. 
97-1824-D 
 
11
to SCR 20:1.7(b),2 and failed to keep the requisite records of 
his 
client 
trust 
account 
dealings, 
in 
violation 
of 
SCR 
20:1.15(e).3  
                     
2  SCR 20:1.7 provides, in pertinent part: Conflict of 
interest: general rule 
 . . .  
(b) 
A lawyer 
shall 
not 
represent a 
client if the 
representation of that client may be materially limited by the 
lawyer’s responsibilities to another client or to a third 
person, or by the lawyer’s own interests, unless: 
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will 
not be adversely affected; and 
(2) the client consents in writing after consultation. When 
representation of multiple clients in a single matter is 
undertaken, the consultation shall include explanation of the 
implications of the common representation and the advantages and 
risks involved.  
3 SCR 20:1.15 provides, in pertinent part: Safekeeping 
property 
 . . .  
No. 
97-1824-D 
 
12
¶25 In respect to the second matter, the referee concluded 
that Attorney Sheehan failed to provide competent representation 
and act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing 
the couple who retained him to dissolve their corporation and 
prepare their tax returns, in violation of SCR 20:1.14 and 1.3.5 
                                                                  
(e) Complete records of trust account funds and other trust 
property shall be kept by the lawyer and shall be preserved for 
a period of at least six years after termination of the 
representation. Complete records shall include: (i) a cash 
receipts journal, listing the sources and date of each receipt, 
(ii) a disbursements journal, listing the date and payee of each 
disbursement, with all disbursements being paid by check, (iii) 
a subsidiary ledger containing a separate page for each person 
or company for whom funds have been received in trust, showing 
the date and amount of each receipt, the date and amount of each 
disbursement, and any unexpended balance, (iv) a monthly 
schedule of the subsidiary ledger, indicating the balance of 
each client’s account at the end of each month, (v) a 
determination of the cash balance (checkbook balance) at the end 
of 
each 
month, 
taken 
from 
the 
cash 
receipts 
and 
cash 
disbursement journals and a reconciliation of the cash balance 
(checkbook balance) with the balance indicated in the bank 
statement, and (vi) monthly statements, including canceled 
checks, vouchers or share drafts, and duplicate deposit slips. A 
record of all property other than cash which is held in trust 
for clients or third persons, as required by paragraph (a) 
hereof, shall also be maintained. All trust account records 
shall be deemed to have public aspects as related to the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice.  
4  SCR 20:1.1 provides: Competence 
A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a 
client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, 
skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the 
representation.   
5  SCR 20:1.3 provides: Diligence 
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client.   
No. 
97-1824-D 
 
13
In addition to failing to file personal state and federal tax 
returns correctly reflecting the amount of their liability, 
which resulted in additional taxes, penalties, and interest, 
Attorney Sheehan failed to file corporate dissolution papers 
with the state and failed to forward corporate tax returns to 
the accountant for review prior to filing them, despite promises 
to the client that he would do so.  
¶26 Also, he engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation, 
in 
violation 
of 
SCR 
20:8.4(c), by advising the clients to deposit $15,400 into his 
client trust account and then failing to make withdrawals in 
accordance with the statement he had presented to them showing 
the amount of disbursements to be made with the filing of 
personal and corporate tax returns. He also engaged in such 
misconduct by withdrawing funds belonging to those clients to 
pay other clients and himself and using other clients’ funds as 
partial repayment of the money he owed the tax clients. In 
addition, he failed to hold the clients’ property in trust, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.15(a), and failed to keep the requisite 
trust account records, in violation of SCR 20:1.15(e).  
 
¶27 In the third matter, the referee concluded that 
Attorney Sheehan engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation by disbursing a portion of his 
client’s settlement to other clients and to himself and by making 
disbursements on behalf of the client from other accounts, one of 
them a trust account, that did not contain funds belonging to 
No. 
97-1824-D 
 
14
that client. Also, he failed to hold that client’s property in 
trust and commingled his own funds with client funds, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.15(a). His failure to keep an accurate 
accounting of the disbursements made on the client’s behalf and 
to keep other requisite trust account records violated SCR 
20:1.15(e). Finally, by representing the client in a personal 
injury matter on a contingency fee basis without having obtained 
a written contingent fee agreement setting forth the percentage 
fee in the event of settlement, trial, or appeal, as well as how 
litigation expenses were to be deducted, he violated SCR 
20:1.5(c).6  
¶28 In recommending license revocation as discipline for 
Attorney Sheehan’s misconduct, the referee noted a number of 
mitigating factors asserted by Attorney Sheehan, most of which 
                     
6  SCR 20:1.5 provides, in pertinent part: Fees 
 . . .  
(c) A fee may be contingent on the outcome of the matter 
for which the service is rendered, except in a matter in which a 
contingent fee is prohibited by paragraph (d) or other law. A 
contingent fee agreement shall be in writing and shall state the 
method by which the fee is to be determined, including the 
percentage or percentages that shall accrue to the lawyer in the 
event of settlement, trial or appeal, litigation and other 
expenses to be deducted from the recovery, and whether such 
expenses are to be deducted before or after the contingent fee 
is calculated. Upon conclusions of a contingent fee matter, the 
lawyer shall provide the client with a written statement stating 
the outcome of the matter and if there is a recovery, showing 
the 
remittance 
to 
the 
client 
and 
the 
method 
of 
its 
determination.  
No. 
97-1824-D 
 
15
she found unconvincing. She gave some weight to the facts that he 
has not been the subject of prior discipline, made some good 
faith efforts to make restitution or rectify the consequences of 
his misconduct in two of the three matters, and paid back most of 
the client funds he had misappropriated.  
¶29 The 
referee 
considered 
the 
following 
factors 
in 
aggravation of the seriousness of Attorney Sheehan’s misconduct 
and the severity of discipline to impose for it. He exhibited a 
dishonest, selfish motive; there was a clear and disturbing 
pattern of misconduct similar in all three of the matters; there 
were multiple offenses, each with several acts of misconduct; his 
clients were particularly vulnerable and dependent on him as a 
trusted professional; he had substantial experience in the 
practice of law; he appeared indifferent to making further 
restitution, despite promises he made to do so. Most important, 
the 
referee 
asserted, 
was 
Attorney 
Sheehan’s 
refusal 
to 
acknowledge his wrongful conduct and appreciate how egregious 
that conduct was and the effect it had on his clients. Despite 
his many excuses for that conduct, the referee took into 
consideration that Attorney Sheehan never understood or took full 
responsibility for the harm he had done to his clients and showed 
no genuine remorse.  
¶30 In addition to the license revocation, the referee 
recommended that in the event Attorney Sheehan fails to make 
No. 
97-1824-D 
 
16
adequate payment of restitution as his clients have requested, a 
hearing 
be 
held 
to 
determine 
an 
appropriate 
payment 
of 
restitution to each of them. The Board took the position in the 
appeal that as the precise amount owing to each of the clients 
has not been determined, determination of the restitution issue 
should be left to such time as Attorney Sheehan seeks to have his 
license to practice law reinstated.  
¶31 We adopt the referee’s findings of fact and conclusions 
of law in respect to Attorney Sheehan’s professional misconduct 
established in this proceeding, and we determine that the license 
revocation 
recommended 
by 
the 
referee 
is 
the 
appropriate 
discipline to impose for it. In addition, we require Attorney 
Sheehan to pay the costs of this proceeding and leave the issue 
of restitution to his clients for future determination at such 
time as Attorney Sheehan seeks license reinstatement.  
¶32 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Patrick B. Sheehan to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this 
order.  
¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Patrick B. Sheehan pay to the Board of Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility the costs of this disciplinary 
proceeding.  
No. 
97-1824-D 
 
17
¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Patrick B. Sheehan comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law has been revoked. 
 
 
1