Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Thomas O. Mulligan

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2009 WI 12 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2008AP971-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Thomas O. Mulligan, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Thomas O. Mulligan, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPILINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MULLIGAN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
January 29, 2009   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: GABLEMAN, J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2009 WI 12
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2008AP971-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Thomas O. Mulligan, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Thomas O. Mulligan, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JAN 29, 2009 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a report and recommendation 
filed 
by 
the 
referee, 
Reserve 
Judge 
James 
R. 
Erickson, 
recommending this court accept the stipulation filed by the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Thomas O. 
Mulligan.  Consistent with the terms of that stipulation, the 
referee recommends 
this court publicly reprimand Attorney 
Mulligan for his professional misconduct.  No appeal has been 
filed. 
No. 
2008AP971-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Attorney Mulligan has been licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin since 1985.  In 1997 Attorney Mulligan received a 
consensual 
private 
reprimand 
for 
professional 
misconduct 
consisting of failing to properly communicate with his client, 
failing to return a client's file, failing to refund unearned 
fees 
upon 
termination 
of 
representation, 
and 
failing 
to 
communicate the basis or rate of his fee within a reasonable 
time after commencing the representation.  See Private Reprimand 
of Thomas O. Mulligan, 1997-25.  In 2005 Attorney Mulligan again 
received 
a 
consensual 
private 
reprimand 
for 
professional 
misconduct including failing to timely refund an advance payment 
of fee that had not been earned.  See Private Reprimand of 
Thomas O. Mulligan, 2005-10.   
¶3 
The present disciplinary matter involves allegations 
that Attorney Mulligan committed professional misconduct in 
connection with his handling of an appeal from an unfavorable 
judgment in a property dispute.   
¶4 
Attorney Mulligan was retained to represent D.C. in 
connection with a dispute about the terms of a Timber Sale 
Agency 
Agreement 
between 
D.C. 
and 
G.P. 
and 
J.P. 
More 
specifically, the parties disputed the amount of revenue that 
G.P. and J.P. should receive from timber harvested on their 
property by TnT Logging, Inc.  On September 30, 2002, G.P. and 
J.P. filed suit in Burnett County against D.C. individually and 
against the company.  They sought compensation for the timber 
removed from their property pursuant to the contract, incidental 
No. 
2008AP971-D   
 
3 
 
damages to a vehicle and a roadway, along with attorney fees and 
costs.   
¶5 
D.C. retained Attorney Mulligan to represent both him 
and the logging company in the lawsuit.  The matter was tried to 
a jury in August of 2003, and the jury returned a verdict in 
favor of the plaintiffs and against D.C. and the logging 
company.  In November 2003 the trial court entered judgment in 
favor of G.P. and J.P. in the total amount of $6,943.50.  The 
trial court declined the plaintiffs' request for attorney fees.   
¶6 
G.P. and J.P. appealed the trial court's decision not 
to award attorney fees.  D.C. retained Attorney Mulligan to 
represent him and the logging company on appeal. 
¶7 
On January 2, 2004, Attorney Mulligan filed a cross-
appeal seeking reversal of the jury's finding that a breach of 
contract had occurred.  He argued that the evidence at trial was 
not sufficient to support the jury's verdict.  However, Attorney 
Mulligan never obtained the transcripts from the trial and never 
filed a transcript from the jury trial with the court of 
appeals.  Attorney Mulligan never consulted with or advised D.C. 
that he was proceeding with the appeal without having obtained 
the trial transcripts.  Indeed, Attorney Mulligan did not 
communicate with his client after January 17, 2004——the date 
Attorney Mulligan received advance fees to pursue the appeal——
until June 3, 2005——the date he notified D.C. of the court of 
appeals' adverse decision. 
No. 
2008AP971-D   
 
4 
 
 
¶8 
In its decision, the court of appeals observed: 
On cross-appeal, [D.C] challenges the sufficiency 
of the evidence to support the jury's verdict.  His 
argument, 
however, 
is 
wholly 
undeveloped 
and 
unsupported by any reference to the record or trial 
testimony.  See Wis. Stat. (Rule) 809.19(1)(e) (2003-
04).  Because [D.C] proffers no argument susceptible 
to meaningful appellate review, we affirm the judgment 
against him.  
Emphasis added. 
¶9 
On April 18, 2008, the OLR filed a complaint alleging 
two counts of professional misconduct related to Attorney 
Mulligan's handling of the appeal.  Subsequently, the OLR moved 
to dismiss the first count of the complaint and modified the 
second count to allege that Attorney Mulligan violated former 
SCRs 20:1.2(a)1 and 20:1.4(b)2 by failing to consult with D.C. 
                                                 
1 Effective July 1, 2007, substantial changes were made to 
the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct for 
Attorneys, SCR Chapter 20.  See S. Ct. Order 04-07, 2007 WI 4, 
293 Wis. 2d xv, 726 N.W.2d Ct.R-45 (eff. July 1, 2007); and 
S. Ct. 
Order 
06-04, 
2007 
WI 
48, 
297 
Wis. 2d xv, 
730 
N.W.2d Ct.R.-29 (eff. July 1, 2007).  Because the conduct 
underlying this case arose prior to July 1, 2007, unless 
otherwise indicated, all references to the Wisconsin Supreme 
Court Rules will be to those in effect prior to July 1, 2007. 
Former SCR 20:1.2(a) provided: 
A lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions 
concerning the objectives of representation, subject 
to paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), and shall consult with 
the client as to the means by which they are to be 
pursued. A lawyer shall inform a client of all offers 
of settlement and abide by a client’s decision whether 
to accept an offer of settlement of a matter.  In a 
criminal case or any proceeding that could result in 
deprivation of liberty, the lawyer shall abide by the 
No. 
2008AP971-D   
 
5 
 
regarding his intent to proceed with the appeal without 
obtaining the trial transcripts and regarding his decision to 
seek only de novo review of the Timber Sale Contract.3   
¶10 On October 24, 2008, the parties executed a written 
stipulation in which they stipulated to the facts set forth 
therein, stated their agreement as to appropriate sanctions, and 
jointly 
requested 
Referee 
Erickson 
file 
a 
report 
making 
findings, conclusions, and a recommendation for discipline.   
¶11 On October 24, 2008, Referee Erickson filed a report 
approving the stipulation and, consistent with the terms of the 
stipulation, recommending a public reprimand.  He also accepted 
the parties' agreement that Attorney Mulligan should complete 
six 
hours 
of 
continuing 
legal 
education 
(CLE) 
on 
legal 
research/writing and six hours of CLE on appellate practice by 
December 31, 2009.  In accepting the stipulation and agreeing 
with the recommended discipline, the referee noted that he was 
"satisfied that the discipline proposed by the parties and 
counsel 
is 
fair 
and 
reasonable 
under 
all 
the 
circumstances . . . ."  He explicitly noted that no harsher 
                                                                                                                                                             
client's decision, after consultation with the lawyer, 
as to a plea to be entered, whether to waive jury 
trial and whether the client will testify. 
2 Former SCR 20:1.4(b) provided that, "a lawyer shall 
explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit 
the 
client 
to 
make 
informed 
decisions 
regarding 
the 
representation." 
3 Referee Erickson granted the motion to dismiss count one 
of the complaint and issued an order modifying count two of the 
complaint on October 8, 2008. 
No. 
2008AP971-D   
 
6 
 
sanction seemed warranted.  Finally, he recommended this court 
impose the costs of the proceeding on Attorney Mulligan.  Those 
costs total $6,114.71 as of November 13, 2008. 
¶12 We adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusion 
that Attorney Mulligan violated former SCRs 20:1.2(a) and 
20:1.4(b) by failing to consult with D.C. regarding his intent 
to 
proceed 
with 
the 
appeal 
without 
obtaining 
the 
trial 
transcripts and regarding his decision to seek only de novo 
review of the Timber Sale Contract.  In determining the 
appropriate discipline for professional misconduct, we consider 
the seriousness of the misconduct, the need to protect the 
public, the courts, and the legal system from repetition of 
misconduct, 
the 
need 
to 
impress 
upon 
the 
attorney 
the 
seriousness of the misconduct, and the need to deter other 
attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct. See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Arthur, 2005 WI 40, 279 
Wis. 2d 583, 694 N.W.2d 910.  Here, we are satisfied that a 
public reprimand, together with requiring Attorney Mulligan to 
complete six hours of CLE on legal research/writing and six 
hours 
of 
CLE 
on 
appellate 
practice 
will 
achieve 
lawyer 
discipline objectives.  We also impose the costs of this 
proceeding.  
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that Thomas O. Mulligan is publicly 
reprimanded for professional misconduct. 
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by December 31, 2009, 
Thomas O. Mulligan shall complete six hours of CLE-approved 
No. 
2008AP971-D   
 
7 
 
coursework on legal research/writing and six hours of CLE-
approved coursework on appellate practice. 
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Thomas O. Mulligan pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, provided that 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 Thomas O. Mulligan to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall be suspended until further order of the court. 
¶16 MICHAEL J. GABLEMAN, J., did not participate.   
No. 
2008AP971-D   
 
 
 
1