Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jeffrey A. Kingsley

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2006 WI 5 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2005AP1298-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jeffrey A. Kingsley, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Jeffrey A. Kingsley, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KINGSLEY 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
January 13, 2006   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2006 WI 5
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2005AP1298-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jeffrey A. Kingsley, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Jeffrey A. Kingsley, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JAN 13, 2006 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the referee's report and 
recommendation that the license of Attorney Jeffrey A. Kingsley 
to practice law in the state of Wisconsin be suspended for 60 
days, that Attorney Kingsley be ordered to pay restitution in 
the amount of $2000, and that he be ordered to pay the costs of 
this disciplinary proceeding.  Having conducted our independent 
review of the matter, we adopt the referee's findings of fact 
and conclusions of law.  Based on those conclusions, we believe 
No. 
2005AP1298-D   
 
2 
 
that a 60-day suspension is appropriate discipline, and agree to 
the imposition of restitution and costs. 
¶2 
On May 18, 2005, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
filed a complaint against Attorney Kingsley regarding his 
representation of client D.H.  The complaint alleged six 
violations of Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Professional 
Conduct.  Count 1 alleged that by failing to prepare and file 
two lawsuits as promised, Attorney Kingsley failed to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.3.1  Count 2 alleged that by failing to 
respond to the client's telephone calls and correspondence, 
Attorney Kingsley failed to keep the client reasonably informed 
as to the status of the matter and to comply promptly with 
reasonable requests for information, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a).2  
Count 3 alleged that by failing to hold the client's retainer in 
a client trust account, separate from his own property, Attorney 
Kingsley violated former SCR 20:1.15(a).3  Count 4 alleged that 
by failing to return the unearned portion of the client's 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.3 provides that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
2 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides that "[a] lawyer shall keep a 
client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and 
promptly comply with reasonable requests for information." 
3 Former SCR 20:1.15 applies to misconduct committed prior 
to July 1, 2004.  Former SCR 20:1.15(a) provides in relevant 
part that "[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."  
No. 
2005AP1298-D   
 
3 
 
retainer 
upon 
termination 
of the 
representation, Attorney 
Kingsley violated SCR 20:1.16(d).4  Count 5 alleged that by 
failing to respond to multiple investigative letters from the 
OLR and to provide a written response to the client's grievance, 
Attorney Kingsley willfully failed to cooperate with the 
investigation of a grievance, in violation of SCR 21.15(4),5 SCR 
22.03(2) and (6),6 thereby also violating a supreme court rule 
                                                 
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 
21.15(4) 
provides 
that 
"[e]very 
attorney 
shall 
cooperate 
with 
the 
office 
of 
lawyer 
regulation 
in 
the 
investigation, 
prosecution 
and 
disposition 
of 
grievances, 
complaints filed with or by the director, and petitions for 
reinstatement.  An attorney's wilful failure to cooperate with 
the office of lawyer regulation constitutes violation of the 
rules of professional conduct for attorneys." 
6 SCR 22.03 provides in relevant part:  Investigation. 
 
(2) 
Upon 
commencing 
an 
investigation, 
the 
director shall notify the respondent of the matter 
being investigated unless in the opinion of the 
director the investigation of the matter requires 
otherwise.  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.  
The director may allow additional time to respond.  
Following receipt of the response, the director may 
conduct further investigation and may compel the 
No. 
2005AP1298-D   
 
4 
 
governing the conduct of lawyers, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(f).7  
Finally, Count 6 alleged that by failing to notify the client of 
the temporary suspension of his law license and by failing to 
advise the client to seek other counsel, Attorney Kingsley 
failed to comply with the requirements of SCR 22.26(1)(a) and 
(b),8 thereby also violating SCR 20:8.4(f). 
                                                                                                                                                             
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents, and 
present 
any 
information 
deemed 
relevant 
to 
the 
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 misrepresentation in a 
disclosure are misconduct, regardless of the merits of 
the matters asserted in the grievance. 
7 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme 
court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers." 
8 SCR 22.26(1) provides:  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 all of 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. 
 
(b) Advise the clients to seek legal advice of 
their choice elsewhere. 
No. 
2005AP1298-D   
 
5 
 
¶3 
Ultimately, 
Attorney 
Kingsley 
entered 
into 
a 
stipulation and plea agreement whereby he pled no contest to 
each of the counts in the OLR's complaint.  Attorney Kingsley 
stipulated that the allegations of the complaint could be used 
by the referee appointed in this case, Konrad T. Tuchscherer, as 
an adequate factual basis for concluding as a matter of law that 
Attorney Kingsley had engaged in misconduct as set forth in each 
of the six counts of the OLR's complaint.  The parties further 
jointly requested that the referee recommend the imposition of a 
60-day 
suspension 
of 
Attorney 
Kingsley's 
law 
license, 
restitution in the amount of $2000 to the Wisconsin Fund for 
Client Protection (the Fund) and an order that Attorney Kingsley 
be responsible for paying the costs of the present proceeding, 
which were $486.10 as of August 25, 2005.   
¶4 
Pursuant to the parties' stipulation and Attorney 
Kingsley's no contest plea, the referee found that the factual 
allegations of the complaint had been proven and concluded as a 
matter of law that Attorney Kingsley had violated the supreme 
court rules as set forth in the complaint.  The referee also 
adopted the parties' recommendation as to the appropriate 
discipline.  Neither party has filed an appeal from the 
referee's report and recommendation.  Consequently, the matter 
is submitted to the court for its review pursuant to SCR 
22.17(2).9  
                                                 
9 SCR 22.17(2) provides:  Review; appeal. 
(2) If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme 
court shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject 
No. 
2005AP1298-D   
 
6 
 
¶5 
In reviewing a referee's report and recommendation, we 
affirm the referee's findings of fact unless they are clearly 
erroneous.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Sosnay, 
209 Wis. 2d 241, 243, 562 N.W.2d 137 (1997).  The referee's 
conclusions of law, however, we review on a de novo basis.  See 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, 
¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 718. 
¶6 
Attorney Kingsley was admitted to the practice of law 
in Wisconsin on July 20, 1993.  He has been the subject of two 
recent disciplinary proceedings.  On March 23, 2004, Attorney 
Kingsley's license was temporarily suspended due to his failure 
to cooperate with the OLR's grievance investigation in the 
present case.  His license was also administratively suspended 
on June 7, 2004, for failing to comply with his reporting 
requirements 
for 
continuing 
legal 
education. 
 
Attorney 
Kingsley's license remains suspended. 
¶7 
According to the stipulated facts found by the 
referee, in January 2003 Attorney Kingsley's law firm was 
retained by D.H. regarding potential lawsuits against Kenosha 
County and several City of Kenosha police officers.  The firm 
provided D.H. with the number of a bank account, into which D.H. 
deposited a $3000 retainer.  The account, however, was not a 
                                                                                                                                                             
or modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
No. 
2005AP1298-D   
 
7 
 
client trust account, and D.H.'s retainer was never transferred 
to such a trust account.   
¶8 
On February 6, 2003, Attorney Kingsley filed a notice 
of claim on behalf of D.H. with the Kenosha County Clerk's 
Office.  Attorney Kingsley also gave notice of D.H.'s potential 
claim to the Kenosha City Clerk.   
¶9 
D.H. subsequently requested and obtained a return of 
$1000 of her retainer.  The remaining $2000 retainer balance 
continued to remain in the firm's business account.   
¶10 On April 8, 2003, Attorney Kingsley met with D.H.  
Attorney Kingsley falsely indicated to her that he had already 
filed the federal lawsuit against Kenosha County, but had not 
yet filed suit against the individual police officers.  Attorney 
Kingsley told D.H. that he would file the second lawsuit within 
one week after his receipt of the names and addresses of the 
police officers.  D.H. immediately provided Attorney Kingsley 
with that information.  At that same meeting, D.H. executed a 
written fee agreement with Attorney Kingsley's firm providing 
that Attorney Kingsley would receive $150 per hour for the legal 
services that he rendered. 
¶11 Over the course of the next several months, D.H. left 
various messages at Attorney Kingsley's office regarding the 
status of her lawsuits, but Attorney Kingsley never responded.  
At one point, another attorney at the firm spoke with D.H. and 
informed her that Attorney Kingsley had "dropped the ball on all 
his clients" and left the state.  The attorney attempted to 
check into the matter and subsequently informed D.H. that the 
No. 
2005AP1298-D   
 
8 
 
complaints for her lawsuits had been prepared, but had not been 
filed. 
¶12 Subsequently, on July 25, 2003, D.H. contacted the OLR 
concerning her situation.  D.H. continued to leave numerous 
messages on Attorney Kingsley's answering machine inquiring as 
to the status of her cases, but Attorney Kingsley failed to 
return any of her calls. 
¶13 Finally, 
on 
August 
22, 
2003, 
Attorney 
Kingsley 
informed D.H. that he would file the complaints the following 
Monday.  The OLR attempted to contact Attorney Kingsley three 
times over the course of the next week to inquire whether 
Attorney Kingsley had in fact filed D.H.'s complaints.  On 
September 4, 2003, Attorney Kingsley told the OLR's intake staff 
that he could not file the lawsuits against the individual 
police officers because they were without merit.  That same day, 
the OLR sent a letter to Attorney Kingsley requesting that he 
respond to D.H.'s grievance within the next two weeks.  Attorney 
Kingsley failed to respond.  
¶14 On September 9, 2003, D.H. wrote to Attorney Kingsley 
inquiring 
whether 
he 
would 
continue 
with 
her 
cases 
and 
requesting that he file the lawsuits by September 26, 2004.  If 
Attorney Kingsley did not wish to proceed with the lawsuits, 
D.H. requested that he return her remaining $2000 retainer.  
Attorney Kingsley again failed to respond. 
¶15 OLR staff wrote letters to Attorney Kingsley on 
October 21, November 20 and December 28, 2003, requesting that 
No. 
2005AP1298-D   
 
9 
 
Attorney Kingsley submit a written response to D.H.'s grievance.  
Attorney Kingsley failed to respond to each of the letters. 
¶16 On January 10, 2004, D.H. wrote to the OLR indicating 
that she had been forced to let her claims lapse because 
Attorney Kingsley had failed to file her complaints or return 
her $2000 retainer so she could retain other counsel.  D.H. 
continued her attempts to contact Attorney Kingsley, but he did 
not respond to her calls.  Ultimately, D.H. submitted a claim to 
the Fund, which approved a payment of $2000 to reimburse D.H. 
for the money she had lost due to Attorney Kingsley's failure to 
return her retainer.  Attorney Kingsley was notified of this 
payment. 
¶17 Because of Attorney Kingsley's ongoing failure to 
respond or cooperate with the OLR's investigation of D.H.'s 
grievance, this court temporarily suspended Attorney Kingsley's 
license to practice law in an order dated March 23, 2004.  On 
March 25, 2004, the OLR sent notice to Attorney Kingsley of his 
responsibilities relating to the suspension of his practice 
pursuant to SCR 22.26.  Those responsibilities include sending a 
notice by certified mail to each client in a pending matter 
informing the client that the attorney's license has been 
suspended and that the attorney will be unable to continue with 
the representation.  Attorney Kingsley failed to provide such 
notice to D.H. and to advise her that she needed to seek legal 
representation with another lawyer.   
¶18 As noted above, Attorney Kingsley ultimately did 
communicate with the OLR and entered into a stipulation 
No. 
2005AP1298-D   
 
10 
 
admitting misconduct as alleged in the six counts of the OLR's 
complaint.  Consequently, there was a sufficient basis for the 
factual findings of the referee, which we adopt.  Moreover, the 
factual allegations of the complaint, as found by the referee, 
adequately support the referee's conclusions of law that 
Attorney Kingsley's conduct in the representation of D.H. and in 
response to the OLR's investigation of D.H.'s grievance violated 
SCR 
20:1.3, 
SCR 
20:1.4(a), 
former 
SCR 20:1.15(a), 
SCR 
20:1.16(d), SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.03(2) and (6), SCR 22.26(1)(a) 
and (b), and SCR 20:8.4(f). 
¶19 With respect to the level of discipline, we believe 
that a 60-day suspension is warranted.  Although Attorney 
Kingsley has not been the subject of disciplinary proceedings 
prior to the present case, his abandonment of D.H. caused 
substantial prejudice to her and constituted serious misconduct.  
Moreover, his failure to comply with his obligations after the 
temporary suspension of his license to practice law indicates a 
disregard for the profession's regulations. 
¶20 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Jeffrey A. 
Kingsley to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period 
of 60 days, effective as of the date of this order. 
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 30 days of the date 
of this order, Attorney Kingsley shall pay restitution to the 
Wisconsin Fund for Client Protection in the amount of $2000, 
plus interest at the legal rate of five percent (5%) per annum 
for the period from the date of the Fund's payment to D.H. until 
the date of Attorney Kingsley's payment to the Fund. 
No. 
2005AP1298-D   
 
11 
 
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Attorney Kingsley shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If the costs 
are not paid within the time specified and absent a showing to 
this court of his inability to pay those costs within that time, 
the license of Attorney Kingsley to practice law in Wisconsin 
shall remain suspended until further order of the court. 
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if he has not already done 
so, Attorney Kingsley shall 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. 
2005AP1298-D   
 
 
 
1