Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Mark S. Brown

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2005 WI 49 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2005AP205-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Mark S. Brown, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Mark S. Brown, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BROWN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 22, 2005   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2005 WI 49 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2005AP205-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Mark S. Brown, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Mark S. Brown, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 22, 2005 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the stipulation filed by 
Attorney Mark S. Brown and the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
pursuant to SCR 22.121 concerning Attorney Brown's professional 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.12 provides:  Stipulation. 
(1)  The director may file with the complaint a 
stipulation of the director and the respondent to the 
facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and 
discipline to be imposed. The supreme court may 
consider the complaint and stipulation without the 
appointment of a referee.  
No. 
2005AP205-D   
 
2 
 
misconduct in converting fees belonging to his law firm to his 
personal use.  The parties stipulated that the appropriate 
discipline to impose for that professional misconduct is the 
suspension of Attorney Brown's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin for 18 months.   
¶2 
We approve the stipulation and adopt the stipulated 
facts and conclusions of law.  We agree that the seriousness of 
Attorney Brown's misconduct warrants the suspension of his 
license to practice law. 
 
We also 
accept 
the parties' 
stipulation 
that 
an 
18-month 
suspension 
is 
appropriate 
discipline.   
¶3 
Attorney Brown was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1998.  He currently resides in South Carolina.  He 
has not previously been disciplined.  In June 1998, Attorney 
Brown began working as an independent contractor for the Wessel 
Law Firm.  Attorney Brown's pay was based on a percentage of the 
fees he collected.  He was not permitted to have independent 
clients, and he was required to turn over all earned legal fees 
to the Wessel Law Office.   
                                                                                                                                                             
(2)  If the supreme court approves a stipulation, 
it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of 
law and impose the stipulated discipline. 
(3)  If the supreme court rejects the stipulation, 
a referee shall be appointed and the matter shall 
proceed as a complaint filed without a stipulation. 
(4)  A stipulation rejected by the supreme court 
has no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to 
the respondent's defense of the proceeding or the 
prosecution of the complaint.  
No. 
2005AP205-D   
 
3 
 
¶4 
In 2002, Attorney Brown and Attorney Keith Wessel 
formed Wessel, Brown & Associates LLC.  All earned legal fees 
were to be processed through the law firm.  In June 2004, 
Attorney Brown approached Wessel with a $2000 cashier's check, 
alleging the check had mistakenly been made payable to the law 
firm rather than to Attorney Brown personally.  Attorney Brown 
asked Wessel to deposit the check into the firm's operating 
account and issue Brown a $2000 check.  Wessel declined to do 
this.  Several weeks later, Attorney Brown approached Kelly 
Mueller, one of the law firm's associates, who did the firm's 
bookkeeping.  Attorney Brown gave Mueller the same $2000 
cashier's check with instructions to deposit it to the firm's 
operating account.  Attorney Brown represented to Mueller that 
the check was in payment of a $2000 retainer fee from a client.  
Attorney Brown told Mueller that the client had paid the 
retainer fee in cash and in lieu of the cash Attorney Brown was 
giving the law firm the cashier's check that the bank had 
mistakenly made payable to the law firm rather than to Brown 
personally.   
¶5 
The law firm subsequently discovered that the client's 
retainer fee was actually $1000, rather than $2000 and that the 
client had paid the amount not in cash but via a check payable 
to Attorney Brown.  Attorney Brown altered the firm's copy of 
the client's signed fee agreement to make it appear that the 
retainer had been $2000.  The $2000 cashier's check actually 
represented fees paid by another client who had paid a $2000 
flat fee retainer to the law firm about one month earlier.  
No. 
2005AP205-D   
 
4 
 
Attorney Brown had misrepresented to the firm that he was taking 
that case pro bono.   
¶6 
In early July 2004, Wessel wrote Attorney Brown a memo 
advising Brown that he was compelled to report to the OLR 
concerning Brown's diversion of client funds.  Wessel further 
advised Brown that he wished to dissolve their partnership.  
Brown informed Wessel he would self-report his conduct to the 
OLR. 
¶7 
On July 14, 2004, Brown addressed a letter to the OLR 
stating that between May 2003 and June 2004, he had taken 
approximately six fee payments, totaling approximately $6180 
that belonged to the law firm.  He also reported that he had 
recently received two retainers totaling $3000 that he attempted 
to personally negotiate.  Both retainers were eventually turned 
over to the law firm.   
¶8 
OLR 
staff 
asked 
Attorney 
Brown 
for 
additional 
information.  In late August 2004, Brown, through his counsel, 
indicated that all the funds had been taken between June 2003 
and June 2004, and he identified seven clients whose fees he had 
personally kept.  Those fees totaled $8180.  Attorney Brown 
explained the discrepancy between that figure and the $6180 he 
had previously reported by saying that when he sent his initial 
letter to the OLR he had forgotten to include a $2000 payment he 
received in February 2004.  Brown informed the OLR he was 
totally forthcoming about the fees he had taken once he was 
confronted about his conduct.  He acknowledged he had not 
reported the fees he had personally taken in 2003 on his state 
No. 
2005AP205-D   
 
5 
 
and federal income tax returns and that he would need to file 
amended returns.   
¶9 
Attorney Brown explained his actions by saying that he 
had developed a gambling problem that caused financial problems.  
He acknowledged full responsibility for his actions and said he 
had been attending weekly meetings of Gamblers Anonymous.   
¶10 OLR staff contacted Attorney Wessel and inquired 
whether Wessel was satisfied that the seven clients Brown had 
identified were the only clients whose fees Brown had taken from 
the law firm.  Despite Brown's assertion that he had been 
forthcoming about all fees he had taken after Wessel confronted 
him, Wessel indicated the letter from OLR staff was the first 
itemization he had received naming the clients and the amounts 
Brown had taken. 
¶11 In late September 2004, Attorney Brown sent a memo to 
Wessel and Mueller stating he believed the total amount of funds 
he had diverted from the law firm was $8180.  Through a review 
of 
payment 
records, 
Mueller 
identified 
other 
potential 
misappropriations, some dating back to 1998.  Attorney Brown 
subsequently acknowledged 11 additional misappropriations that 
he had not previously reported to the OLR or the law firm.  
Brown then said he believed the total amount he had diverted was 
about $16,967.92.  Some of the acknowledged misappropriations 
occurred in 1998, 1999 and 2000.   
¶12 Brown and Wessel entered into a dissolution agreement 
on November 1, 2004.  As part of the agreement, Wessel received 
credit for the fees Brown had taken from the firm, plus an 
No. 
2005AP205-D   
 
6 
 
additional $7500 in damages.  Attorney Brown still owes the law 
firm approximately $2500 in restitution and damages. 
¶13 Attorney Brown and the OLR have stipulated that by 
converting over $16,000 in fees belonging to his law firm to his 
personal use, by attempting to convert another $3000 in fees 
from two other clients, by failing to report fee income on his 
personal income tax returns, by altering the retainer amount on 
his firm's copy of a previously-signed retainer agreement, and 
by making multiple misrepresentations to his law firm partner 
and associate, Attorney Brown violated SCR 20:8.4(c).2   
¶14 The parties further stipulated that by misrepresenting 
the amount of fees that he misappropriated from his law firm in 
two letters addressed to the OLR, by failing to disclose a 
number of misappropriations in response to a direct inquiry from 
OLR staff, and by misrepresenting in response to the OLR's 
inquiry that he had been fully forthcoming about all fees he had 
taken when confronted by his partner, Attorney Brown violated 
SCR 22.03(6).3 
¶15 The stipulation states that the terms were not 
bargained for or negotiated between the parties.  Attorney Brown 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to: (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."  
3 SCR 22.03(6) provides:  "(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." 
No. 
2005AP205-D   
 
7 
 
represents that he fully understands the misconduct allegations, 
he fully understands the ramifications should the court impose 
the stipulated level of discipline, he fully understands his 
right to contest the matter, he has consulted with and retained 
counsel, and he entered into the stipulation knowingly and 
voluntarily.  The stipulation also notes that the parties agree 
that an appropriate level of discipline to impose in response to 
Attorney Brown's misconduct is an 18-month suspension of his 
license to practice law in Wisconsin. 
¶16 We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law 
to which the parties have stipulated concerning Attorney Brown's 
professional misconduct.  We determine that the seriousness of 
the misconduct warrants the suspension of Attorney Brown's 
license to practice law for 18 months.   
¶17 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Mark S. Brown to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 18 
months, effective the date of this order. 
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Brown 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. 
2005AP205-D   
 
 
 
1