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

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2008 WI 121 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2008AP1900-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: 
October 29, 2008   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2008 WI 121
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2008AP1900-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 
 
OCT 29, 2008 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This is a reciprocal discipline matter.  
On August 1, 2008, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a 
complaint and motion pursuant to SCR 22.22 requesting that this 
court suspend the license of Attorney Michelle L. Tully for 
three years as reciprocal discipline identical to that imposed 
by the Illinois Supreme Court. 
¶2 
Attorney Tully was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1993, and was previously admitted to practice law 
No. 
2008AP1900-D   
 
2 
 
in Illinois in 1992.  Effective August 2005, this court 
suspended Attorney Tully's law license for two years for 
multiple 
counts 
of 
misconduct. 
 
See 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Tully, 2005 WI 100, 283 Wis. 2d 124, 699 
N.W.2d 882.  The misconduct in that action included failing to 
act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a 
client, continuing to practice law while suspended, and trust 
account violations.  Attorney Tully's Wisconsin license remains 
suspended.   
¶3 
The OLR's complaint noted that on September 20, 2006, 
the Illinois Supreme Court ordered Attorney Tully to be 
disbarred on consent for a minimum of three years.  The Illinois 
misconduct involved conversion of client funds.  The OLR's 
complaint noted that Attorney Tully failed to notify the OLR of 
the Illinois disciplinary action within 20 days of the effective 
date of that order, in violation of SCR 22.22(1).1  The OLR first 
learned of Attorney Tully's Illinois disciplinary ruling during 
February of 2008 through the ABA Center for Professional 
Responsibility. 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.22(1) provides:  Reciprocal discipline. 
 
An 
attorney 
on 
whom 
public 
discipline 
for 
misconduct 
or 
a 
license 
suspension 
for 
medical 
incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction 
shall promptly notify the director of the matter.  
Failure to furnish the notice within 20 days of the 
effective date of the order or judgment of the other 
jurisdiction constitutes misconduct. 
No. 
2008AP1900-D   
 
3 
 
¶4 
This court issued an order directing Attorney Tully to 
show cause why the imposition of the identical discipline 
imposed by the Illinois Supreme Court would be unwarranted.  
Attorney Tully failed to respond to the order to show cause.   
¶5 
Under SCR 22.22(3),2 in reciprocal discipline matters, 
this court shall impose the identical discipline unless three 
exceptions are shown.  There is no indication that any of the 
exceptions apply in this case.   
¶6 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Michelle L. Tully to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for three years, 
effective the date of this order. 
¶7 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Michelle L. Tully shall 
comply, if she has not already done so, with the requirements of 
SCR 22.26 pertaining to the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.  
                                                 
2 SCR 22.22(3) states as follows: 
(3) The supreme court shall impose the identical 
discipline or license suspension unless one or more of 
the following is present: 
(a) The procedure in the other jurisdiction was 
so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to 
constitute a deprivation of due process. 
(b) 
There 
was 
such 
an 
infirmity 
of 
proof 
establishing the misconduct or medical incapacity that 
the supreme court could not accept as final the 
conclusion in respect to the misconduct or medical 
incapacity. 
(c) 
The 
misconduct 
justifies 
substantially 
different discipline in this state. 
No. 
2008AP1900-D   
 
 
 
1