Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michael C. Trudgeon

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2010 WI 103 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2009AP2764-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Michael C. Trudgeon, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Michael C. Trudgeon, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST TRUDGEON 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
August 13, 2010   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2010 WI 103
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2009AP2764-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Michael C. Trudgeon, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Michael C. Trudgeon, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
AUG 13, 2010 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of 
Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   On November 2, 2009, the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a disciplinary complaint against 
Attorney Michael C. Trudgeon alleging 56 counts of professional 
misconduct involving 13 separate clients.  Reserve Judge 
Timothy L. Vocke was appointed referee.  Referee Vocke has filed 
his 
report recommending revocation of Attorney Trudgeon's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin.  Referee Vocke also 
No. 
2009AP2764-D   
 
2 
 
recommends Attorney Trudgeon be ordered to pay restitution and 
the costs of this proceeding.   
¶2 
No appeal has been filed.  We review the matter 
pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1  We conclude the serious nature of 
Attorney Trudgeon's numerous ethical violations warrants the 
revocation of his license to practice law in this state.  In 
addition, we order Attorney Trudgeon to pay restitution and 
costs. 
¶3 
Attorney Trudgeon was admitted to the practice of law 
in Wisconsin in 2003.  He has practiced in Beloit.  His law 
license was suspended, effective May 27, 2008, for his failure 
to comply with mandatory continuing legal education reporting 
requirements.  On July 28, 2008, his license was suspended for 
his failure to cooperate with ongoing OLR investigations.  His 
license remains suspended. 
¶4 
On October 9, 2009, this court publicly reprimanded 
Attorney Trudgeon for eight counts of professional misconduct in 
two 
client 
matters, 
which 
included 
failure 
to 
act 
with 
reasonable diligence, lack of communication with his client, and 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) states, in pertinent part: 
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline. 
No. 
2009AP2764-D   
 
3 
 
misrepresentation.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Trudgeon, 2009 WI 96, 321 Wis. 2d 560, 774 N.W.2d 469.   
¶5 
In the present matter, Attorney Trudgeon entered a 
stipulation admitting numerous counts of misconduct alleged in 
the OLR complaint and pleading no contest to the remaining 
counts.  Because Attorney Trudgeon did not dispute committing 
the 56 alleged violations, the only question for the referee to 
address at the disciplinary hearing was the level of the 
sanction to be imposed. 
¶6 
Attorney Trudgeon's representation of K.R. serves as 
the basis for the first five counts.  On February 11, 2008, 
Attorney Trudgeon became counsel of record for K.R. in a family 
law action.  After Attorney Trudgeon's license suspensions, he 
did not provide notice to the court of his need to withdraw from 
representation.  As of the date of the OLR complaint, Attorney 
Trudgeon remained K.R.'s counsel of record. 
¶7 
As part of his representation of K.R., Attorney 
Trudgeon engaged in negotiations with opposing counsel regarding 
a proposed waiver of future child support.  Attorney Trudgeon 
proposed that if the opposing party would agree to waive all 
future child support, certain concessions would follow.  The OLR 
notes that a parent cannot waive future child support for a 
minor child or enter into a binding contract to refrain from 
seeking child support.  See In re Marriage of Ondrasek v. 
Tenneson, 158 Wis. 2d 690, 462 N.W.2d 915 (Ct. App. 1990).  
Thus, the OLR alleges that if the opposing party had agreed to 
No. 
2009AP2764-D   
 
4 
 
Attorney Trudgeon's proposed child support waiver, K.R. would 
nonetheless remain liable for child support.  
¶8 
Due 
to 
Attorney 
Trudgeon's 
license 
suspension, 
opposing counsel advised Attorney Trudgeon that he believed he 
had an obligation to report to the OLR Attorney Trudgeon's 
continued practice of law.  Attorney Trudgeon told opposing 
counsel he would self-report and he would also notify K.R. that 
he could not represent him.  Attorney Trudgeon did not report 
his actions to the OLR.  In an unrelated matter, Attorney 
Trudgeon filed with the OLR an affidavit dated August 25, 2008, 
stating he had not engaged in the practice of law since March of 
2008 and that his license had been suspended due to failure to 
comply with continuing legal education requirements.  Attorney 
Trudgeon did not disclose to the OLR that he had continued to 
practice law after March 2008. 
¶9 
Opposing 
counsel 
notified 
the 
OLR 
of 
Attorney 
Trudgeon's negotiations.  By letter dated September 4, 2008, the 
OLR notified Attorney Trudgeon of its investigation of the 
grievance and requested certain information and documents.  
Attorney Trudgeon did not file a substantive response to the 
grievance 
and 
did 
not 
respond 
to 
the 
OLR's 
preliminary 
investigative report. 
¶10 In accordance with Attorney Trudgeon's stipulation, 
Referee Vocke found five counts of misconduct with respect to 
the representation of K.R.  The referee concluded that by 
attempting to negotiate a waiver of future child support on 
behalf of a client, when such an agreement is unenforceable in 
No. 
2009AP2764-D   
 
5 
 
Wisconsin, Attorney Trudgeon violated SCR 20:1.1.2  The referee 
further concluded that by proposing terms for negotiation in a 
pending lawsuit at a time when his license to practice law was 
suspended for failure to comply with mandatory continuing legal 
education reporting requirements and for failure to cooperate 
with ongoing OLR investigations, Attorney Trudgeon violated 
SCRs 22.26(2)3 and 31.10(1),4 via SCR 20:8.4(f).5 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.1 provides, "A lawyer shall provide competent 
representation to a client.  Competent representation requires 
the 
legal 
knowledge, 
skill, 
thoroughness 
and 
preparation 
reasonably necessary for the representation." 
3 SCR 22.26(2) provides: 
An attorney whose license to practice law is 
suspended or revoked or who is suspended from the 
practice of law may not engage in this state in the 
practice 
of 
law 
or 
in 
any 
law 
work 
activity 
customarily done by law students, law clerks, or other 
paralegal personnel, except that the attorney may 
engage in law related work in this state for a 
commercial employer itself not engaged in the practice 
of law. 
4 SCR 31.10(1) states: 
If a lawyer fails to comply with the attendance 
requirement of SCR 31.02, fails to comply with the 
reporting requirement of SCR 31.03(1), or fails to pay 
the late fee under SCR 31.03(2), the board shall serve 
a notice of noncompliance on the lawyer.  This notice 
shall advise the lawyer that the lawyer's state bar 
membership 
shall 
be 
automatically 
suspended 
for 
failing to file evidence of compliance or to pay the 
late fee within 60 days after service of the notice.  
The board shall certify the names of all lawyers so 
suspended under this rule to the clerk of the supreme 
court, all supreme court justices, all court of 
appeals and circuit court judges, all circuit court 
commissioners appointed under SCR 75.02(1) in this 
state, all circuit court clerks, all juvenile court 
No. 
2009AP2764-D   
 
6 
 
¶11 The referee further concluded that by failing to 
promptly notify the court of the suspension of his license to 
practice law, Attorney Trudgeon violated SCR 22.26(1)(c)6 via 
SCR 20:8.4(f).  The referee also determined that Attorney 
Trudgeon's misrepresentations to the OLR in his correspondence 
and affidavit violated SCR 20:8.4(c).7  Additionally, the referee 
concluded that by failing to provide OLR with a timely written 
response containing the information requested by the OLR, 
                                                                                                                                                             
clerks, all registers in probate, the executive 
director of the state bar of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin 
State Public Defender's Office, and the clerks of the 
federal district courts in Wisconsin.  A lawyer shall 
not engage in the practice of law in Wisconsin while 
his or her state bar membership is suspended under 
this rule. 
5 SCR 20:8.4(f) states 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; . . . ." 
6 SCR 22.26(1)(c) states that on or before the effective 
date of license suspension, an attorney whose license is 
suspended shall: 
Promptly provide written notification to the 
court or administrative agency and the attorney for 
each party in a matter pending before a court or 
administrative agency 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.  The notice shall identify 
the successor attorney of the attorney's client or, if 
there is none at the time notice is given, shall state 
the client's place of residence. 
7 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation; . . . ." 
No. 
2009AP2764-D   
 
7 
 
Attorney Trudgeon violated SCRs 22.03(2)8 and 22.03(6),9 via 
SCR 20:8.4(h).10  
¶12 The referee found that Attorney Trudgeon committed 51 
additional violations in 12 other client matters.  In several 
cases the misconduct was similar to that committed in the K.R. 
client matter in that Attorney Trudgeon engaged in dishonest 
conduct, failed to provide information as requested by the OLR, 
and failed to notify the court of his suspension.  Other 
                                                 
8 SCR 22.03(2) states:   
(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 
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents, and 
present 
any 
information 
deemed 
relevant 
to 
the 
investigation. 
9 SCR 22.03(6) states: 
(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. 
10 SCR 20:8.4(h) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "fail to cooperate in the investigation of a grievance 
filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required by SCR 
21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), or SCR 
22.04(1); . . . ." 
No. 
2009AP2764-D   
 
8 
 
misconduct involved his assertion that he represented an 
individual without the authority to do so.  The referee also 
found 
that 
Attorney 
Trudgeon 
had 
failed 
to 
maintain 
confidentiality 
of 
files 
which 
he 
had 
left 
unsecured.  
Additional misconduct included the lack of diligence in client 
matters, failing to communicate with clients, failing to refund 
an unearned fee, trust account violations, engaging in an ex 
parte communication with the court, and making a false statement 
to a tribunal. 
¶13 In another matter, Attorney Trudgeon converted to his 
own use at least $24,500 of settlement funds he received on 
behalf of client B.W. in connection with a car accident.11  The 
referee also found that Attorney Trudgeon had lied to his 
clients and, on at least one occasion, Attorney Trudgeon falsely 
authenticated a document.  The referee observed Attorney 
Trudgeon's misconduct was extremely damaging not only to clients 
but also to the legal system.  For example, the referee found 
that Attorney Trudgeon failed to appear for a scheduled pretrial 
conference in one matter and failed to appear at a jury trial in 
another matter.  The referee stated that the damage the failure 
to appear at a scheduled jury trial does to the court system is 
enormous. 
¶14 The referee also concluded that Attorney Trudgeon had 
essentially abandoned his clients on a number of occasions.  The 
                                                 
11 The referee recommended restitution as discussed in ¶17, 
infra. 
No. 
2009AP2764-D   
 
9 
 
referee stated, "There's nothing that does more damage to the 
legal system, as was pointed out by the [clients] today, than an 
attorney that essentially abandons them and their case[s].  
That's exactly the type of thing which is most likely to bring 
disrepute on the legal profession." 
¶15 The 
referee 
noted 
Attorney 
Trudgeon 
had 
been 
cooperative and truly remorseful.  Nonetheless, the referee 
observed that to a great extent, Attorney Trudgeon attempted to 
rationalize or excuse his behavior.  The referee rejected 
Attorney Trudgeon's explanations concerning his mental condition 
of depression and his marital problems.  The referee concluded 
that the nature and number of the counts, and the number of 
victims, were aggravating factors warranting revocation. 
¶16 The referee recommended restitution.  The referee 
found that client C.S. (counts 17 through 23) was entitled to 
restitution in the sum of $650.  Client L.W. (counts 24 through 
29) was entitled to restitution in the sum of $600.  The referee 
also found that the Estate of W.W. (counts 49 through 53) was 
entitled to restitution of $1,162. 
¶17 With respect to the amount converted in the B.W. 
client matter (counts 30 through 35), the referee determined 
B.W. was entitled to restitution of $12,000 and Dean Health 
Plan, Inc., was entitled to restitution of $13,000.  The OLR 
advises that after the referee issued his report, client B.W. 
and the Dean Health Plan, Inc., were reimbursed by the Wisconsin 
Lawyer's Fund for Client Protection (the Fund).  The OLR 
requests 
that 
if 
the 
court 
would 
adopt 
Referee 
Vocke's 
No. 
2009AP2764-D   
 
10 
 
recommendation, the restitution be paid to the Fund rather than 
to B.W. and Dean Health Plan. 
¶18 The referee further recommended that Attorney Trudgeon 
pay the costs incurred by the OLR.  On June 1, 2010, the OLR 
filed a statement seeking $4,514.06 in costs.  No objection to 
the costs has been filed.   
¶19 This court upholds a referee's findings of fact unless 
they are clearly erroneous. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 
N.W.2d 718.  This court independently reviews the referee's 
legal conclusions.  Id.  Here, the stipulation supports the 
referee's findings of fact and legal conclusions as to Attorney 
Trudgeon's professional misconduct.  They are unchallenged. 
Therefore, this court approves and adopts the referee's findings 
of fact and conclusions of law. 
¶20 It is ultimately this court's responsibility to 
determine the appropriate discipline to impose.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Reitz, 2005 WI 39, ¶74, 279 
Wis. 2d 550, 694 N.W.2d 894.  The seriousness of Attorney 
Trudgeon's 
misconduct 
with 
respect 
to 
the 
56 
violations 
involving 13 clients demonstrates the need to revoke his law 
license to protect the public, courts, and legal system from the 
repetition of misconduct, as well as to impress upon Attorney 
Trudgeon the seriousness of his misconduct and deter other 
attorneys from engaging in misconduct.   
¶21 We further conclude Attorney Trudgeon shall make 
restitution as determined by the referee, with the exception 
No. 
2009AP2764-D   
 
11 
 
that restitution arising from counts 30 to 35 be made to the 
Fund, rather than to B.W. and Dean Health Plan. 
¶22 We 
impose 
full 
costs 
of 
$4,514.06. 
 
Under 
SCR 22.24(1m),12 the court's general policy is to impose costs on 
the respondent.  To award less than full costs, the court must 
find "extraordinary circumstances."  Attorney Trudgeon has not 
objected to costs and has not claimed any extraordinary 
circumstances to justify a reduction in costs.   
¶23 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Michael C. Trudgeon 
to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of 
this order. 
¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Michael C. Trudgeon comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
revoked. 
¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Michael C. Trudgeon make restitution as follows: 
                                                 
12 SCR 22.24(1m) reads, in part:  
The court's general policy is that upon a finding 
of misconduct it is appropriate to impose all costs, 
including the expenses of counsel for the office of 
lawyer regulation, upon the respondent.  In cases 
involving extraordinary circumstances the court may, 
in the exercise of its discretion, reduce the amount 
of costs imposed upon a respondent. 
No. 
2009AP2764-D   
 
12 
 
 
L.W. 
$   600 
C.S. 
$   650 
W.W. Estate 
$ 1,162 
Wisconsin Lawyer's Fund 
  for Client Protection 
$25,000 
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 70 days of the date 
of this order, Michael C. Trudgeon pay the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that restitution is to be 
completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation.  
 
No. 
2009AP2764-D   
 
 
 
1