Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. David A. Goluba

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2013 WI 32 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2010AP1348-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against David A. Goluba, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Appellant, 
     v. 
David A. Goluba, 
          Respondent-Respondent.   
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GOLUBA     
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 17, 2013   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the Office of Lawyer Regulation, there were briefs by 
Sheryl St. Ores, assistant litigation counsel. 
 
For the respondent-respondent, there was a brief filed by 
David A. Goluba, pro se. 
  
 
 
2013 WI 32
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2010AP1348-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against David A. Goluba, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Appellant, 
 
     v. 
 
David A. Goluba, 
 
          Respondent-Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 17, 2013 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.    The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
appeals the report of James W. Mohr, Jr., referee, recommending 
that Attorney David A. Goluba's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin be suspended for six months and that he be ordered to 
pay restitution to three aggrieved parties including the 
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (the Fund).  The 
OLR alleged seven counts of misconduct and sought revocation of 
Attorney 
Goluba's 
license 
to 
practice 
law, 
along 
with 
No. 
2010AP1348-D   
 
2 
 
restitution.  The OLR contends the referee erred with respect to 
his finding that Attorney Goluba did not have ongoing knowledge 
of the misappropriation of certain client funds and erred in 
concluding that the OLR failed to establish that Attorney Goluba 
committed misconduct in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).  The OLR 
also appeals the recommended sanction, asserting that revocation 
is appropriate.  The OLR seeks assessment of the full costs of 
this proceeding.   
¶2 
We adopt the referee's findings of fact and his 
conclusions of law, with the exception of one conclusion 
relating to Count 1, as will be discussed herein.  We conclude 
that the referee's reasoning with respect to discipline is 
persuasive, and we agree that a six-month suspension of Attorney 
Goluba's license to practice law in Wisconsin is appropriate 
discipline for his misconduct.  We agree with the referee's 
recommendations regarding restitution.  Attorney Goluba shall 
reimburse the Fund in the amount of $30,000 plus legal interest, 
shall pay restitution to The Salvation Army in the amount of 
$2,655 for its legal fees incurred in connection with this 
matter, and shall pay $145 to client S.R.  We further conclude 
that it is appropriate to reduce the costs of this disciplinary 
proceeding.   
¶3 
Attorney Goluba was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1984.  He has no prior disciplinary history.  He is 
a solo practitioner in Ripon, Wisconsin.  His wife, Janice, has 
long served as his legal secretary. 
No. 
2010AP1348-D   
 
3 
 
¶4 
The complaint stems from two separate client matters: 
the Estate of W.S. and the matter of S.R.  On August 18, 2008, 
Attorney Goluba's license was suspended for failure to cooperate 
with the OLR investigations into the alleged misconduct.  
Attorney 
Goluba's 
law 
license 
was 
also 
administratively 
suspended on June 17, 2009, for noncompliance with Continuing 
Legal Education (CLE) reporting requirements and again on 
March 11, 2011, for nonpayment of State Bar dues.  His license 
remains suspended.   
¶5 
Attorney Goluba came to the OLR's attention in 
February 2007 when the Honorable Dee R. Dyer, Outagamie County 
circuit court, wrote a letter asking the OLR to investigate 
Attorney Goluba's handling of the Estate of W.S. because of a 
missing bequest owed The Salvation Army.  Subsequently, R.L., 
the personal representative of the Estate (who is also the 
mother of Janice Goluba and Attorney Goluba's mother-in-law) 
filed a grievance in same matter.   
¶6 
On June 2, 2010, the OLR filed a seven-count complaint 
against Attorney Goluba seeking revocation.  He filed an answer 
on June 21, 2010, proceeding pro se.  Referee Mohr was appointed 
on July 19, 2010.  Evidentiary proceedings encompassed ten days 
and were conducted between August 31, 2011, and November 1, 
2011.  The referee issued a thorough report and recommendation 
on February 11, 2012.  The OLR appeals. 
¶7 
A referee's findings of fact are to be affirmed unless 
they are clearly erroneous.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against 
Inglimo, 
2007 
WI 
126, 
¶5, 
305 
Wis. 2d 71, 
740 
No. 
2010AP1348-D   
 
4 
 
N.W.2d 125.  A referee's conclusions of law are reviewed de 
novo.  Id. 
¶8 
The allegations, findings, and conclusions regarding 
the matter of S.R. are uncontested on appeal, so we address them 
first.  S.R. was personal representative of her husband's 
estate.  She hired Attorney Goluba to help her with the probate.  
S.R. delivered to Attorney Goluba titles to three vehicles that 
were in her husband's name, asking Attorney Goluba to have them 
retitled in her name.  Attorney Goluba contends he did the work 
and mailed all the paperwork, together with S.R.'s check for the 
title transfer fees, to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) 
in Madison.  S.R. never received the titles.   
¶9 
S.R. made repeated telephone calls to the Goluba Law 
Office asking about the titles.  Attorney Goluba testified that 
the DMV advised his office that any title applications would be 
processed in the order they were received; he thought they were 
still being processed by the DMV.  Both Golubas testified they 
gave that information to S.R.  
¶10 After almost 18 months of waiting, S.R. went to the 
DMV in Madison and changed the names on the titles herself.  
Attorney Goluba claims that when S.R. stopped calling him, he 
assumed that she finally had received the titles back from the 
DMV. 
¶11 The OLR alleged and the referee agreed that Attorney 
Goluba committed three counts of misconduct in connection with 
this matter.  By failing to follow up on the missing titles, 
No. 
2010AP1348-D   
 
5 
 
Attorney Goluba violated SCR 20:1.31 (Count 4).  By failing to 
return telephone calls to S.R., Attorney Goluba violated 
SCR 20:1.4(a)(4)2 (Count 5).  Referee Mohr, however, recommended 
the court dismiss Count 6 which alleged that, by failing to 
return S.R.'s original title documents and fees, Attorney Goluba 
violated SCR 20:1.16(d).3  The referee concluded that the OLR had 
failed to prove this violation.  Attorney Goluba could not 
return the original titles to S.R. because he no longer retained 
them; the referee found that he did send them to the DMV.  The 
referee agreed that by failing to timely respond to the OLR's 
investigation 
of this grievance, Attorney Goluba violated 
SCR 22.03(2),4 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h)5 (Count 7).  
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.3 states that a "lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
2 SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) provides that a lawyer shall "promptly 
comply 
with 
reasonable 
requests 
by 
the 
client 
for 
information; . . . ." 
3 SCR 20:1.16(d) states:  
 
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 or expense that has not 
been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers 
relating to the client to the extent permitted by 
other law. 
4 SCR 22.03(2) states as follows: 
 
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 
No. 
2010AP1348-D   
 
6 
 
¶12 The OLR does not dispute these findings or conclusions 
on appeal.  We conclude that the record supports the facts as 
found by the referee, and we adopt his findings and conclusions 
of law relating to S.R.  The referee recommended the court 
direct Attorney Goluba to pay restitution of $145 to client S.R. 
for the legal fees he charged her.   The OLR concurs with the 
recommended restitution, and we accept this recommendation as 
well.   
¶13 The 
second 
client 
matter 
is 
significantly 
more 
complicated and was litigated extensively in the proceedings 
before the referee.   
¶14 On January 11, 2004, W.S. died.  W.S. left a will 
naming R.L. as his personal representative.  R.L. is the mother 
of Janice Goluba, Attorney Goluba's wife.  Janice Goluba had 
been Attorney Goluba's legal secretary since 1984.  Attorney 
Goluba had previously done legal work for R.L. and did R.L.'s 
                                                                                                                                                             
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. 
5 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. 
2010AP1348-D   
 
7 
 
taxes every year.  Attorney Goluba never charged R.L. legal fees 
for this work.  He only collected out-of-pocket expenses. 
¶15 R.L. retained Attorney Goluba as her attorney to 
handle the probate of the W.S. Estate.  The will listed 13 
beneficiaries, including R.L.  At Attorney Goluba's suggestion, 
R.L. deposited $424,156.69 of the estate's funds into Attorney 
Goluba's trust account on May 25, 2004, reportedly to facilitate 
payment of the bequests.  The OLR deems this highly significant, 
noting this was the first time Attorney Goluba recommended R.L. 
deposit monies directly into his trust account. 
¶16 All the checks to beneficiaries, cover letters to 
beneficiaries, and beneficiary receipts were prepared.  The 
checks were signed by Janice Goluba, and the letters were signed 
by Attorney Goluba.  All of the letters and checks were mailed 
on or about May 29, 2004, with one exception.  
¶17 W.S. left The Salvation Army a bequest of $30,000.  
Janice Goluba prepared and signed a check to The Salvation Army 
in the amount of $30,000.  It was never sent.  Instead, the 
$30,000 was misappropriated and withdrawn from Attorney Goluba's 
trust account.  
¶18 Between May and October 2004, in a variety of checks 
each made payable to Attorney Goluba, the money was withdrawn in 
odd amounts of a few thousand dollars, until all $30,000 was 
used up.  The money was used to pay expenses of the Goluba 
household.  The Golubas were extremely short of cash that year, 
in part because of the economy and in part because Attorney 
Goluba had significant health problems that year. 
No. 
2010AP1348-D   
 
8 
 
¶19 In March 2005 The Salvation Army began calling and 
writing Attorney Goluba wanting to know when it would receive 
its $30,000 bequest.  After receiving no response, The Salvation 
Army hired Attorney Charles Maris in December 2005, who 
contacted Attorney Goluba.  At one point, Attorney Goluba's 
office sent Attorney Maris a copy of a letter of transmittal 
with a copy of a check for $30,000 made payable to The Salvation 
Army.  However, only a copy of the front of the check was 
enclosed, not the back of the check.  
¶20 Attorney Maris requested a copy of the back of the 
check.  When he did not receive it, he eventually entered an 
appearance in the probate matter and a hearing was conducted 
before 
Judge 
Dyer 
in 
Outagamie 
County 
circuit 
court 
on 
January 19, 2007.  
¶21 Judge Dyer asked Attorney Goluba for proof that The 
Salvation Army had been paid.  Attorney Goluba represented to 
the court that The Salvation Army had been paid and stated he 
had a copy of the cancelled check.  Judge Dyer ordered Attorney 
Goluba to produce a copy of both sides of the cancelled check 
within seven days and to furnish a copy to opposing counsel.   
¶22 Attorney Goluba could not produce a copy of the back 
side of the check.  Attorney Goluba asserted this was the first 
time he realized there was a significant problem with The 
Salvation 
Army 
bequest. 
 
He 
realized 
his 
wife 
had 
misappropriated the funds.  Janice Goluba has not denied this 
and repeatedly invoked her Fifth Amendment rights during her 
testimony at the evidentiary hearing, even after being advised 
No. 
2010AP1348-D   
 
9 
 
the referee could draw adverse inferences from her refusal to 
testify.  The OLR maintains Attorney Goluba knew all along that 
the funds had been misappropriated.   
¶23 In any event, approximately two weeks after the 
probate court hearing, the Golubas went together to R.L.'s home.  
The parties' versions of what transpired that evening are very 
different. 
¶24 The OLR alleges that Attorney Goluba deceived and 
intimidated R.L. into writing him a check for $30,000 to cover 
the misappropriation.  The OLR alleges that Attorney Goluba 
falsely told R.L. that she was personally responsible for this 
money because she was the personal representative for the 
estate.  The OLR contends that, out of fear, R.L. wrote the 
check to Attorney Goluba's trust account.  
¶25 Attorney Goluba admits that he and his wife visited 
R.L.'s home, but denies any misrepresentation.  He says that 
R.L. voluntarily offered to write the $30,000 check in order to 
protect her daughter, Janice Goluba.  Attorney Goluba used the 
check to pay The Salvation Army.  In March of 2007, Attorney 
Goluba closed his law office. 
¶26 Attorney Goluba then failed to respond to or otherwise 
cooperate 
with 
the 
OLR's 
investigation 
into 
the 
ensuing 
grievances.  In discovery, Attorney Goluba claimed that most of 
his financial records from this time were lost or destroyed.6  
                                                 
6 Attorney Goluba did not state that he intentionally 
destroyed relevant documents.  He claimed the OLR did not 
request certain documents and that older documents were shredded 
and some documents were missing. 
No. 
2010AP1348-D   
 
10 
 
The 
OLR 
subpoenaed 
the 
bank 
records 
and 
laboriously 
reconstructed Attorney Goluba's trust and business account 
transactions.  R.L. later sought and received reimbursement from 
the Fund in the amount of $30,000.  
¶27 The OLR alleged three counts of misconduct relating to 
this matter.  Count 1 alleged that by failing to hold in trust, 
and converting to his own purposes, $30,000 belonging to the 
W.S. Estate, Attorney Goluba violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(1)7 and 
SCR 20:8.4(c).8  Count 2 alleged that Attorney Goluba violated 
SCR 20:8.4(c) when he allegedly misrepresented to R.L., the 
                                                 
7 Some of the misconduct alleged in Count 1 occurred prior 
to July 1, 2004.  Therefore, there was a violation of former 
20:1.15(a) as well as the current rule.  Former SCR 20:1.15(a) 
applied to misconduct committed prior to July 1, 2004, and 
stated, in pertinent part, as follows: 
 
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.  . . .  All funds of clients and 
third persons paid to a lawyer or law firm shall be 
deposited 
in 
one 
or 
more 
identifiable 
trust 
accounts . . . ." 
Current SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) (effective July 1, 2004) states:   
 
Separate account.  A lawyer shall hold in trust, 
separate from the lawyer's own property, that property 
of clients and 3rd parties that is in the lawyer's 
possession in connection with a representation.  All 
funds of clients and 3rd parties paid to a lawyer or 
law firm in connection with a representation shall be 
deposited in one or more identifiable trust accounts. 
8 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation; . . . ." 
No. 
2010AP1348-D   
 
11 
 
personal representative, that she was responsible for paying the 
$30,000, thereby inducing her to write a check to his trust 
account so that he could reimburse The Salvation Army.  Count 3 
alleged that Attorney Goluba failed to cooperate with the OLR's 
investigation, thereby violating SCRs 22:03(2) and 22.03(6),9 
enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h).   
¶28 Prior to the evidentiary hearing, Referee Mohr granted 
summary judgment to the OLR on Count 3 (W.S. Estate) and Count 7 
(S.R.), concluding that Attorney Goluba had failed to cooperate 
with the OLR in both matters.  Neither party appeals this 
conclusion. 
¶29 Evidentiary 
proceedings 
were 
conducted 
on 
the 
remaining counts between August 31, 2011, and November 1, 2011.  
The referee issued his report and recommendation on February 11, 
2012.   
¶30 The referee's report is thorough and well written.  
The referee carefully explains that he considered the voluminous 
documentary evidence.  He explains that he insisted on having 
R.L. testify in person.  He explains further that while there 
were differences between the language in her grievance and her 
                                                 
9 SCR 22.03(6) states:   
 
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. 
No. 
2010AP1348-D   
 
12 
 
subsequent testimony, he believed R.L.'s testimony at the 
hearing.   
¶31 The referee emphasizes that the evidentiary hearing 
lasted ten days and produced thousands of pages of exhibits and 
over 2,000 pages of transcript.  The referee implies that this 
was excessive, but does not explicitly make a finding to that 
effect.  The OLR staunchly defends the need for "meticulous" 
recreation of the financial records and testimony about the 
Golubas' financial transactions.   
¶32 The referee emphasizes that he listened carefully to 
all of the testimony, read many of the exhibits, re-read the 
transcript and his notes of the hearing, and reviewed all of the 
briefs submitted by the parties. 
¶33 Ultimately, the referee found that Attorney Goluba 
discovered The Salvation Army had not been paid after the 
January 19, 2007 hearing before Judge Dyer, and realized, for 
the first time, that Janice Goluba had misappropriated the 
$30,000 bequest to The Salvation Army.   
¶34 The referee was not persuaded by the OLR's theory that 
Attorney Goluba then preyed on R.L.  The referee noted that the 
OLR had implied R.L. was "confused, fragile, of weak mind and of 
even weaker health."  The referee states he "found just the 
contrary":  
 
I found [R.L.] to be charming, intelligent and 
with a remarkably good memory.  She was 87 years old 
when she testified and, like a lot of people that age, 
she wasn't as spry as she used to be.  She felt less 
competent than the actual impression she gave.  A lot 
of people, attorney[s], children, grandchildren, and 
No. 
2010AP1348-D   
 
13 
 
others have worked with and talked to her, but when 
she was testifying, by herself at the hearing, I found 
her remarkably lucid, intelligent, confident, and with 
a good recall of events.  Although her complaint and 
affidavits were somewhat contrary to the testimony she 
gave, I derived almost all of my conclusions from her 
live testimony. I was then able to view and judge her 
credibility the best. 
The referee "found no evidence . . . that [Attorney] Goluba 
preyed upon [R.L.]."  
¶35 The referee acknowledges that the OLR produced a 
detailed spreadsheet of each check that went in and out of 
Attorney Goluba's business and trust accounts.  This spreadsheet 
shows that in 2004 the business account was constantly overdrawn 
and was kept alive only with the misappropriated funds.  
¶36 The referee notes, however, that Attorney Goluba does 
not dispute any of this.  Attorney Goluba does not dispute that 
The Salvation Army never received its check or that the money 
was misappropriated from his trust account.  He also agrees that 
most, if not all, of the money was used to pay personal expenses 
of the Goluba household.  Indeed, the referee noted that "[a]s 
far as I can tell, he has admitted this from the beginning." 
¶37 However, the referee explicitly found that Attorney 
Goluba was not aware of the ongoing misappropriation of funds.  
The referee reached this finding based on record evidence and 
testimony of the people involved.  He found that "it [was] 
absolutely clear who ran the details and the business of the 
Goluba Law Office.  It was Janice Goluba.  [Attorney Goluba] 
trusted her implicitly and gave her responsibility to handle 
most of the affairs of the office."  The referee found and the 
No. 
2010AP1348-D   
 
14 
 
record supports his finding that Attorney Goluba experienced 
health problems unrelated to this case and was not able to 
function as efficiently as he had in the past.  As a result, 
Janice Goluba assumed extensive responsibility for the office 
including 
keeping 
Attorney 
Goluba's 
calendar, 
making 
his 
appointments, drafting his letters, making his phone calls, 
picking up the mail, taking messages, handling all the billing 
and receipts, and making all of the payments.  The referee 
stated, "In short, other than practicing law, she did everything 
else in the Goluba Law Office.  [Attorney Goluba] trusted her 
implicitly and, to the best of his knowledge, she had never 
breached that trust." 
¶38 The referee also made findings relating to the 
relationship between the Golubas and R.L., finding that "[o]ver 
the years [R.L.] gave substantial sums of money to her 
son . . . and also to her daughter, Janice [Goluba]."  
¶39 The referee explicitly asked the question whether 
Attorney Goluba knew Janice Goluba had taken the $30,000 bequest 
and, based on the evidence from the hearing, found that he did 
not.   
¶40 The referee rejected the OLR's theory that Attorney 
Goluba 
deceived 
and 
intimidated 
R.L. 
into 
producing 
the 
additional $30,000 used to reimburse The Salvation Army.  The 
referee acknowledged R.L. stated that happened in both her 
grievance and in an affidavit signed by her, but the referee 
noted that she did not prepare either document; they were 
prepared by an attorney who represented R.L. during a period of 
No. 
2010AP1348-D   
 
15 
 
time 
she 
was 
estranged from the Golubas.  The referee 
specifically stated: 
When I had the opportunity to see and hear [R.L.] in 
person, observe her demeanor, her recollection and 
credibility, there is hardly any doubt in my mind that 
[R.L.] was not intimidated, misled or frightened.  I 
believe she was concerned for her daughter, as she had 
been many times in the past, and she simply asked what 
she could do to help out her daughter.  She testified 
quite 
forthrightly 
that 
she 
wrote 
the 
check 
voluntarily, not because she was threatened or misled, 
but because she wanted to help her daughter.  David 
Goluba accepted the check, put it in his Trust 
Account, and paid off The Salvation Army. 
Thus, with respect to Count 2 the referee stated, "I do not find 
that 
[Attorney] 
Goluba 
engaged 
in 
any 
intimidation 
or 
misrepresentation with respect to [R.L.], and I do not believe 
OLR has proven that by clear, satisfactory and convincing 
evidence." 
¶41 After detailing his factual findings the referee 
concluded that the OLR had proved by clear, satisfactory, and 
convincing 
evidence, 
that 
Attorney 
Goluba 
violated 
SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) for his failure to hold in trust $30,000 from 
the W.S. Estate which was properly the property of The Salvation 
Army (Count 1).   
¶42 The referee concluded that the OLR failed to prove, by 
evidence which is clear, satisfactory, and convincing, that 
Attorney Goluba engaged in misrepresentations or intimidation 
toward R.L. concerning her responsibility for paying the 
$30,000, and therefore had not proven that Attorney Goluba 
violated SCR 20:8.4(c) (Count 2). 
No. 
2010AP1348-D   
 
16 
 
¶43 The referee also concluded that the OLR proved by 
clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that Attorney 
Goluba made at least two statements to the probate court of 
Outagamie County, Wisconsin, which were misrepresentations and 
thereby constituted a violation of SCR 20:8.4(c) (Counts 1 and 
2).  
¶44 The OLR appeals several aspects of the referee's 
report and specifically disputes the appropriate discipline and 
urges imposition of full costs. 
¶45 With respect to the allegations in Count 1, the 
referee 
concluded 
that 
Attorney 
Goluba 
violated 
SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) by failing to hold property in trust, stating 
"indisputably, [since] the $30,000.00 was not held in trust and 
the Rule requires a lawyer to do so, there is a violation of 
this Rule."  The facts of record support this conclusion, and we 
adopt it. 
¶46 Count 1 also alleges that Attorney Goluba engaged in 
misrepresentation in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).   
¶47 The referee found that Attorney Goluba engaged in 
misrepresentation by filing a final account with the probate 
court representing that The Salvation Army had been paid 
$30,000, and by stating to the court on January 19, 2007, that 
The Salvation Army had been paid and that he had a cancelled 
check.  The referee thus concluded that Attorney Goluba violated 
SCR 20:8.4(c) ("I find that Attorney Goluba, by filing a Final 
Account with the Probate Court, representing that The Salvation 
Army had been paid $30,000.00; and by stating to the Court on 
No. 
2010AP1348-D   
 
17 
 
January 19, 2007 that The Salvation Army had been paid and that 
he had a cancelled check, engaged in misrepresentations and 
therefore violated that Rule.") 
¶48 This 
conclusion 
depends 
on 
the 
definition 
of 
misrepresentation used by the referee.  The referee states that 
the 
terms 
"dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation 
. . . are not generally defined."  The referee then uses a 
definition of misrepresentation from First Nat'l Bank & Trust 
Co. of Racine v. Notte, 97 Wis. 2d 207, 293 N.W.2d 530 (1980).  
That case involved a claim of fraudulent representation by a 
lender in a contract negotiation.  The court, considering 
whether a contract can be voided for mutual mistake of fact, 
stated "[a] misrepresentation is an assertion that does not 
accord with facts as they exist."  Id. at 222.  The Notte court 
then 
stated that 
liability may be imposed even when a 
misrepresentation was innocent, i.e., the person lacked actual 
knowledge 
they 
were 
making 
a 
factual 
misrepresentation.  
However, the definition of misrepresentation stated in Notte 
does not apply to lawyer disciplinary cases.   
¶49 The 
Wisconsin Rules of Professional Conduct for 
Attorneys, 
SCR 
Chapter 20, defines "misrepresentation" as 
follows:  
 
"Misrepresentation" denotes communication of an 
untruth, either knowingly or with reckless disregard, 
whether by statement or omission, which if accepted 
would lead another to believe a condition exists that 
does not actually exist. 
SCR 20:1.0(h).   
No. 
2010AP1348-D   
 
18 
 
¶50 Misrepresentation under the Wisconsin ethics rules 
requires communication of an untruth, either knowingly or with 
reckless disregard for truth.  Whether the communication was 
made knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth may be 
inferred from circumstances.  See SCR 20:1.0(g) (a person's 
knowledge may be inferred from circumstance). 
¶51 Here, the referee decisively found that Janice Goluba 
misappropriated the funds10 and that Attorney Goluba lacked 
knowledge of the misappropriation of funds until after the court 
hearing.  The referee's report contains the following factual 
findings made in connection with this issue:   
• 
"From May, 2004 through October, 2004 Janice Goluba 
withdrew money from the Trust Account to pay 
personal and family expenses.  David Goluba was 
unaware of these withdrawals at the time they were 
made" (emphasis added).  
• 
"Janice Goluba did not put in the appropriate 
files, and did not give to her husband, much if not 
all of the correspondence from The Salvation Army 
or their attorney pertaining to the [W.S.] Estate.  
Likewise Mrs. Goluba did not advise Attorney Goluba 
of telephone calls received from Maris or The 
Salvation Army, concerning The Salvation Army's 
bequest from the [W.S.] Estate" (emphasis added).  
• 
"Attorney 
Maris 
again 
wrote 
to 
Goluba 
on 
October 13, 2006, asking again for a copy of the 
back of the check.  Attorney Goluba did not see and 
did not respond to that letter" (emphasis added).  
In narrative the referee stated:   
• 
"When one reads the transcript of that hearing, one 
is left with the clear impression that Goluba 
                                                 
10 The referee states that "it is concluded that Janice 
Goluba unlawfully misappropriated the $30,000.00." 
No. 
2010AP1348-D   
 
19 
 
believed he had a cancelled check.  He claims when 
he went to look through the records, [he] could 
find nothing.  He then confronted his wife, and 
learned for the first time, he says, that she had 
misappropriated the $30,000.00.  Quite honestly, 
that has the ring of truth to it" (emphasis added). 
• 
"In fact, there is no evidence anywhere in the 
record 
that 
Goluba 
actually 
knew 
the 
misappropriations 
were 
taking 
place 
until 
immediately after the conference with Judge Dyer on 
January 19, 2007" (emphasis added). 
• 
"It seems quite clear to me, based upon all of the 
testimony I heard, that Goluba's wife undertook the 
misappropriation; hid pertinent information about 
the [W.S.] file from Goluba, including all requests 
for information from The Salvation Army; and never 
advised Goluba of what documentation was needed to 
close the probate file."   
• 
"I don't believe he would have boldly told Judge 
Dyer that he had a copy of a cancelled check, nor 
would he have filed a Final Account with the 
Probate Court certifying that The Salvation Army 
had been paid, without honestly believing those two 
statements were true" (emphasis added). 
¶52 The 
OLR 
does 
not 
address 
the 
definition 
of 
misrepresentation used by the referee.  The OLR focuses its 
argument on its assertion that the record evidence demonstrates 
that Attorney Goluba knew of the misappropriation such that the 
referee's 
factual 
findings 
to 
the 
contrary 
are 
clearly 
erroneous.   
¶53 The OLR argues, vehemently, that the "record proves 
Goluba knew of the misappropriation of $30,000 of [W.S.] Estate 
funds which Goluba had deposited to his trust account."  The OLR 
points to the following facts of record to support this 
assertion:  
No. 
2010AP1348-D   
 
20 
 
• 
Attorney Goluba requested R.L. place $424,156.69 into 
his trust account.  
• 
Attorney Goluba claims to have lost, misplaced, or 
can't find essentially all of his trust account records and 
business records for a time period from 2002 to February 2, 
2007. 
• 
There was no cancelled check paid to The Salvation 
Army from May 2004 until February 2007. 
• 
In less than five months, Attorney Goluba had an 
influx of $30,000 into his personal bank account. 
• 
Attorney Goluba signed some of the trust checks at the 
time of conversion. 
• 
Attorney Goluba admits he knew during 2004 that he was 
having a bad year financially, with insufficient cash flow to 
support himself, his family, and his home.  
• 
Janice Goluba repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment 
as to theft of the $30,000 of trust funds. 
• 
Attorney Goluba testified that he prepared the federal 
and state tax returns for the business and federal and state 
joint income tax returns.  A review of the 2001-2007 returns 
shows that Attorney Goluba would have had to review all records 
of income and expense, including bank statements for both the 
business and the personal joint income, to prepare an accurate 
tax return. 
¶54 In making these arguments, the OLR also defends its 
decision 
to 
create 
a 
"meticulous" 
and 
"full 
record" 
by 
"tracing . . . Goluba's use of his trust account."  And, the 
No. 
2010AP1348-D   
 
21 
 
record does contain "copious data" and "[s]ummaries as to 
contacts between the probate division, the judge, the banks to 
Goluba, [The] Salvation Army, Attorney Maris, and others."   
¶55 We readily acknowledge that circumstantial evidence 
may support a finding of misrepresentation.  See, e.g., In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Marks, 2003 WI 114, 265 
Wis. 2d 1, 
665 
N.W.2d 836. 
 
Here, 
however, 
the 
referee 
considered the extensive documentary and testimonial evidence 
and found that Attorney Goluba did not know his wife had 
misappropriated the money.  In making this finding, the referee 
referenced and considered the documentary evidence; it cannot be 
said that the referee did not consider the voluminous record 
prepared by the OLR.   
¶56 The OLR focuses on the referee's statement that 
Attorney Goluba did not sign any of the checks drawing 
misappropriated monies from the trust account, contending this 
is clearly erroneous.  The OLR points out that the record 
indicates he did, indeed, endorse some of these checks.11   
                                                 
11 The 
referee 
stated 
that 
"[a]lthough 
each 
of 
the 
misappropriated checks from the Trust Account was written in his 
name, none of the endorsements on the checks appear to bear his 
signature."  The OLR notes that Attorney Goluba admitted in his 
deposition that his signature was on trust account checks dated 
in 2004, with misappropriated trust funds occurring at the time 
he endorsed checks during 2004.  Specifically, it appears he 
endorsed check no. 1702 for $3,500; check no. 1724 for 
$4,454.86; check no. 1003, Estate of W.S. signed by R.L. in the 
amount of $4,300; possibly a cashier's check for approximately 
$2,900; and check no. 1827, which appeared to be for $1,300 
although Attorney Goluba testified it was not his signature on 
that check. 
No. 
2010AP1348-D   
 
22 
 
¶57 The referee noted, however, that the checks had been 
subpoenaed from the bank and were "poor" photocopies at best.  
The referee notes that Attorney Goluba testified he did not 
think it was actually his signature on these checks.  The 
referee did not explicitly find that Janice Goluba signed her 
husband's name, but states, "[i]t would appear that the checks 
were written by his wife, made payable to Goluba, and then 
endorsed by his wife."  
¶58 Even if the referee's finding that Attorney Goluba did 
not endorse some of these checks is error, it does not make the 
referee's finding regarding Attorney Goluba's knowledge of the 
misappropriation clearly erroneous.  Considering the proper 
standard of misrepresentation applicable in disciplinary cases, 
together with the referee's clear factual findings, we accept 
the referee's factual findings, but reject the conclusion that 
Attorney Goluba violated SCR 20:8.4(c) as alleged in Count 1 
because 
the 
referee 
found 
Attorney 
Goluba 
lacked 
actual 
knowledge 
of 
the 
misappropriation 
when 
he 
made 
the 
representations at issue to the court. 
¶59 Thus, we agree with the referee's conclusions that 
Attorney Goluba violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) as alleged in Count 
1; Count 2 should be dismissed because the OLR failed to 
demonstrate Attorney Goluba violated SCR 20:8.4(c) regarding his 
interactions with R.L.; Attorney Goluba violated SCRs 22.03(2) 
and 22.03(6), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h), by failing to 
cooperate in the investigation of the W.S. Estate matter, as 
alleged in Count 3; Attorney Goluba violated SCR 20:1.3 when he 
No. 
2010AP1348-D   
 
23 
 
engaged in practice reflecting a lack of diligence in the S.R. 
matter as alleged in Count 4; Attorney Goluba violated SCR 
20:1.4(a)(4) when he failed to communicate in the S.R. matter as 
alleged in Count 5; the allegation in Count 6 should be 
dismissed because the OLR did not prove that Attorney Goluba 
failed to return client property in the S.R. matter; and 
Attorney Goluba violated SCR 22.03(2), enforceable via SCR 
20:8.4(h), 
when 
he 
failed 
to 
cooperate 
in 
the 
OLR's 
investigation regarding the S.R. matter as alleged in Count 7.  
We also dismiss the misrepresentation claim alleged in Count 1. 
¶60 We consider the appropriate discipline for Attorney 
Goluba's misconduct.  The referee recommended restitution as 
follows:  $145 to client S.R. for fees incurred when Attorney 
Goluba failed to complete the transfer of her vehicle titles; 
$30,000 to reimburse the Fund for monies paid to R.L.; and 
$2,655 in legal fees incurred by The Salvation Army to recover 
their bequest.  No party has objected to these recommendations, 
they seem wholly reasonable, and we accept them.   
¶61 The referee also recommends that Attorney Goluba, 
prior to reinstatement, take a trust account management seminar 
within one year, successfully complete its requirements, and 
furnish quarterly reports to the OLR of activities in his trust 
account for a period of two years after resuming practice, 
including furnishing any and all trust, fiduciary and/or 
business account records requested by the OLR.  No party has 
objected to these recommendations, they seem wholly reasonable, 
and we accept them.   
No. 
2010AP1348-D   
 
24 
 
¶62 We reject the OLR's request for revocation.  Attorney 
Goluba has, indeed, committed serious misconduct that warrants 
suspension of his license.  However, the referee decisively 
rejected the OLR's assertion that Attorney Goluba had ongoing 
knowledge 
of 
the 
misappropriation 
of 
funds 
or 
that 
he 
manipulated R.L. into writing him a check to cover that 
misappropriation.  
Upon learning of the misappropriation, 
Attorney Goluba promptly took steps to ensure The Salvation Army 
was paid.  His mother-in-law, R.L., has disavowed any claim that 
she was manipulated into paying Attorney Goluba.  Accordingly, 
the most serious ethical charges against Attorney Goluba fail.  
¶63 We have considered the decisions cited by the OLR 
concerning trust account misappropriation by attorneys.  See, 
e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gedlen, 2007 WI 
121, 
305 
Wis. 2d 34, 
739 
N.W.2d 274; 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Sheehan, 2007 WI 3, 298 Wis. 2d 317, 725 
N.W.2d 627; In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ham, 2006 WI 
30, 289 Wis. 2d 359, 711 N.W.2d 649; and In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against O'Byrne, 2002 WI 123, 257 Wis. 2d 8, 653 
N.W.2d 111.   
¶64 As the referee observed, however, in these cases the 
attorneys knowingly committed the misappropriation.  We respect, 
as we must, the referee's reasoned decision to rely on his 
credibility determinations over the record evidence submitted by 
the OLR.   
¶65 We consider the cases cited by the referee more 
helpful in ascertaining the appropriate discipline.  See, e.g., 
No. 
2010AP1348-D   
 
25 
 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Brandt, 2009 WI 43, 317 
Wis. 2d 266, 766 N.W.2d 194 (imposing public reprimand on 
attorney whose legal secretary embezzled money from several of 
the attorney's accounts, including his trust account, noting the 
attorney admitted that he failed to make reasonable efforts to 
ensure that his secretary's conduct was compatible with the 
obligations of attorneys as required by SCR 20:5.3); In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Guenther, 2005 WI 133, 285 
Wis. 2d 587, 700 N.W.2d 260 (imposing six-month suspension on 
attorney who violated trust account rules because of his failure 
to keep appropriate trust account records); In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Usow, 214 Wis. 2d 596, 571 N.W.2d 162 (1997) 
(imposing a six-month suspension on an attorney charged with 
misrepresentation and trust account violations that were found 
to be committed without intent and due to a failure to properly 
supervise his office staff).  
¶66 Attorney Goluba's failure to pay attention to his 
trust account and financial situation was serious.  He failed to 
adequately supervise his office and his lack of oversight 
facilitated a misappropriation of $30,000 from a charitable 
organization.  We agree with the referee that a six-month 
suspension is appropriate discipline, and we note that a 
suspension of this length will require him to undergo a formal 
reinstatement proceeding before he will be eligible to practice 
law again. 
¶67 We turn next to the issue of costs.  The OLR seeks 
full costs which total $45,676.36 as of July 9, 2012.  Attorney 
No. 
2010AP1348-D   
 
26 
 
Goluba filed a timely objection requesting a reduction in the 
costs. 
¶68 Assessment of costs in OLR matters is governed by 
SCR 22.24(1m).  Our general policy is that upon a finding of 
misconduct it is appropriate to impose all costs, including the 
expenses of counsel for the OLR, upon the respondent.  In cases 
involving extraordinary circumstances the court may, in the 
exercise of its discretion, reduce the amount of costs upon a  
respondent.  SCR 22.24(1m).  In making this determination we 
consider the submissions of the parties and all of the following 
factors: 
 
(a) The number of counts charged, contested, and 
proven. 
 
(b) The nature of the misconduct. 
 
(c) The 
level of discipline sought by the 
parties and recommended by the referee. 
 
(d) The 
respondent's 
cooperation 
with 
the 
disciplinary process. 
 
(e) Prior discipline, if any. 
 
(f) Other relevant circumstances. 
SCR 22.24(1m)(a)-(f). 
¶69 We conclude, after careful consideration, that there 
are aspects of this litigation that warrant reduction of costs.  
The complaint alleged seven counts of misconduct (encompassing 
eight potential rule violations) and sought revocation of 
Attorney Goluba's license to practice law.  The referee 
ultimately concluded, and we agree, that Attorney Goluba 
No. 
2010AP1348-D   
 
27 
 
committed five of the eight charged ethical violations resulting 
in a six-month suspension. 
¶70 The referee explicitly noted that the misconduct 
pertaining to S.R. warranted a reprimand.  Attorney Goluba was 
exonerated on the most serious allegations involving fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation.  Attorney Goluba has practiced law 
for over 20 years with no prior disciplinary history.  See 
SCR 22.24(1m)(c).   
¶71 Admittedly, Attorney Goluba failed to cooperate with 
the OLR early in the investigation; however, it appears he was 
cooperative during the proceedings before the referee.   
¶72 Our review of the costs incurred in this proceeding 
indicates that most of the costs are counsel, referee, and court 
reporter 
fees 
reflecting 
the 
length 
of 
the 
evidentiary 
proceeding, including production of voluminous banking records.  
Attorney Goluba argues that most of these costs were incurred in 
the OLR's unsuccessful attempt to prove he had ongoing knowledge 
and involvement in the misappropriation of funds.  He questions 
the fairness of this when he admitted the misappropriation 
occurred from the beginning and was ultimately exonerated by the 
referee on the question of his knowing involvement in the 
misappropriation.   
¶73 On balance we agree with Attorney Goluba.  Although we 
do not reduce costs based solely on the fact that a lawyer 
prevailed on certain charges, here, the OLR opted to engage in a 
thorough, time-consuming, and ultimately very expensive endeavor 
to convince the referee of Attorney Goluba's ongoing knowledge 
No. 
2010AP1348-D   
 
28 
 
of and involvement with the misappropriation of client funds.  
This effort was unsuccessful.  The referee found: 
[T]here is absolutely no evidence that Goluba ordered 
the 
misappropriation 
of 
funds. 
 
There 
is 
only 
inferential evidence (and certainly not evidence that 
rises to the standard of clear, satisfactory and 
convincing) that Goluba knew the conduct was going on 
and ratified it . . . .  [T]here is no evidence that 
Goluba knew of the misappropriation at a time when its 
consequences could be avoided or mitigated but failed 
to take reasonable remedial action.  
Indeed, the referee found that "there is no evidence anywhere in 
the record that Goluba actually knew the misappropriations were 
taking place until immediately after the conference with Judge 
Dyer on January 19, 2007."   
¶74 In view of this outcome, we decline to impose the 
entire costs of this expensive effort on Attorney Goluba, a solo 
practitioner with no prior discipline.  On consideration of the 
facts and the record, we impose one-half of the costs of this 
proceeding.  Our determination is not the result of the 
application of a precise mathematical formula, but is based on 
our thorough consideration of the record, the manner in which 
this case developed, and the factors set forth in SCR 22.24(1m).  
We 
note, 
further, 
that 
Attorney 
Goluba's 
allegations 
of 
financial 
hardship 
are 
an 
appropriate 
consideration 
for 
establishment of a payment plan with the OLR.   
No. 
2010AP1348-D   
 
29 
 
¶75 IT IS ORDERED that the license of David A. Goluba to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six 
months, effective the date of this order.12   
¶76 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if he has not already done 
so, Attorney David A. Goluba shall comply with the requirements 
of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
¶77 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
prior 
to 
seeking 
reinstatement of his license to practice law, David A. Goluba 
shall take a trust account management seminar, successfully 
complete its requirements, and furnish quarterly reports to the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation of activities in his trust account 
for a period of two years after resuming practice, including 
furnishing any and all trust, fiduciary and/or business account 
records requested by the Office of Lawyer Regulation.  
¶78 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order David A. Goluba shall pay restitution as follows: 
(1) $30,000 plus legal interest to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund 
for Client Protection; (2) $2,655 to The Salvation Army; and (3) 
$145 to client S.R.  
                                                 
12 Attorney Goluba is reminded that his license to practice 
law remains administratively suspended.  Before Attorney Goluba 
may practice law in Wisconsin, he must provide evidence to this 
court that he has satisfied his obligations relating to trust 
account certification and bar dues, assessments, and fees, or 
demonstrated that he has obtained a waiver from the State Bar of 
Wisconsin.  See SCR 22.28(1). 
No. 
2010AP1348-D   
 
30 
 
¶79 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, David A. Goluba shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation one-half of the costs of this proceeding, which total 
$45,676.36 as of July 9, 2012.   
¶80 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified 
above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation. 
¶81 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.29(4)(c). 
 
No. 
2010AP1348-D   
 
 
 
1