Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jay Andrew Felli

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2007 WI 49 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2005AP1939-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jay Andrew Felli, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Jay Andrew Felli, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST FELLI 
OPINION FILED: 
        
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2007 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. 2005AP1939-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jay Andrew Felli, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Jay Andrew Felli, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
MAY 9, 2007 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee to revoke Attorney Jay Andrew Felli's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin due to professional misconduct.  The 
misconduct 
involves 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c).1  No appeal has 
been filed.   
                                                 
1 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
No. 
2005AP1939-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
We 
approve 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law.  We determine that the seriousness of 
Attorney Felli's misconduct warrants revocation of his license 
to practice law.  We assess costs of the disciplinary proceeding 
against Attorney Felli. 
¶3 
Attorney Felli was admitted to practice in 1994 and 
practiced in Brookfield, Wisconsin.  His prior disciplinary 
history includes a public reprimand for failing to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; 
willfully failing to provide relevant information to the Office 
of 
Lawyer 
Regulation 
(OLR); 
and 
failing 
to 
admit 
misrepresentations 
to 
the 
OLR 
in 
connection 
with 
the 
investigation of two client matters.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Felli, 2005 WI 58, 281 Wis. 2d 25, 697 
N.W.2d 42 (Felli I).   
¶4 
Following a separate proceeding, Attorney Felli's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin was suspended for three 
years effective July 27, 2006, for professional misconduct.  The 
misconduct consisted of multiple rules violations in various 
estate matters, and included:  (1) SCR 20:7.3(f),2 prohibiting a 
lawyer from drafting documents which implied that his services 
be used in connection with that document by causing himself to 
be named trustee, personal representative, or guardian or by 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:7.3(f) provides that "[e]xcept as permitted under 
SCR 11.06, a lawyer, at his or her instance, shall not draft 
legal documents, such as wills, trust instruments or contracts, 
which require or imply that the lawyer's services be used in 
relation to that document." 
No. 
2005AP1939-D   
 
3 
 
providing himself with an actual power of attorney in the 
representation of these other clients; (2) SCR 20:1.7(b),3 
prohibiting conflicts of interest; (3) SCR 20:1.1,4 requiring 
competent representation; (4) SCR 20:8.4(c), prohibiting conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
and 
misrepresentation; 
(5) SCR 20:1.4(b),5 requiring explanations to permit the client 
to make informed decisions regarding representation, and (6) SCR 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:1.7(b) provides:  Conflict of interest: general 
rule 
 
(b) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the 
representation 
of that client may be materially 
limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another 
client or to a third person, or by the lawyer's own 
interests, unless: 
 
(1) 
the 
lawyer 
reasonably 
believes 
the 
representation will not be adversely affected; and 
 
(2) the client consents in writing after 
consultation.  When representation of multiple clients 
in a single matter is undertaken, the consultation 
shall include explanation of the implications of the 
common representation and the advantages and risks 
involved. 
4 SCR 20:1.1 states that "[a] lawyer shall provide competent 
representation to a client.  Competent representation requires 
the 
legal 
knowledge, 
skill, 
thoroughness 
and 
preparation 
reasonably necessary for the representation." 
5 SCR 20:1.4(b) states that "[a] lawyer shall explain a 
matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client 
to make informed decisions regarding the representation." 
No. 
2005AP1939-D   
 
4 
 
22:03(6),6 prohibiting a lawyer from willfully failing to provide 
information and making misrepresentations to the OLR.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Felli, 2006 WI 73, 291 Wis. 2d 
529, 718 N.W.2d 70 (Felli II). 
¶5 
In 
the 
instant 
matter, 
the 
OLR 
has 
filed 
a 
disciplinary 
complaint 
alleging 
that 
while 
trustee 
of 
a 
charitable trust which he had created on behalf of his client, 
J.G., Attorney Felli fraudulently wrote a $2500 check drawn on 
the trust as payable to a business he owned.  The disciplinary 
complaint alleges that Attorney Felli attempted to disguise the 
check as a charitable contribution on behalf of the trust.  The 
complaint charged Attorney Felli with engaging in conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation, 
contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c).   
¶6 
Following a June 27, 2005 hearing, the referee 
determined that the complaint's allegations were proven by 
clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence.  The referee found 
that after J.G. retained Attorney Felli, he drafted documents to 
create a lead charitable trust and appointed himself trustee.  
In August 2004 the trust was funded with $1 million deposited in 
a securities account.  Attorney Felli provided for trustee fees 
in the amount of 1.75 percent of the trust assets each year.  
                                                 
6 SCR 22.03(6) states that "[i]n 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. 
2005AP1939-D   
 
5 
 
Six percent of the assets were to be distributed to charity each 
year until the trust terminated on December 31, 2020.  The trust 
agreement did not specify the charitable beneficiaries to be 
selected.  Although Attorney Felli had sole authority to select 
the charitable beneficiaries, he had made clear to J.G. that she 
would have input on selection of the charitable beneficiaries 
and the beneficiaries would be jointly selected.   
¶7 
Attorney Felli owned a company called Phoenix Customs, 
LLC, located in Franklin, Wisconsin, of which he was the sole 
member.  The business built motorcycles and sold parts.  Phoenix 
Customs, LLC had an account with the Tri-City National Bank.   
¶8 
In November 2004 Attorney Felli wrote a $2500 check 
drawn on trust assets to "Phoenix."  The memo line on the check 
read "Ch. Contribution."  Attorney Felli admitted he wrote the 
check, but claimed that he intended it to be a contribution to a 
charity named Phoenix House, which operates shelters for women.  
J.G. testified she never had any discussions with Attorney Felli 
about the Phoenix House or any other entity with the name of 
Phoenix, 
and 
never 
authorized 
Attorney 
Felli 
to 
make 
a 
charitable distribution to an entity with Phoenix in its title.   
¶9 
Attorney Felli endorsed the check written out to 
"Phoenix."  On November 12, 2004, the check was deposited in his 
business, Phoenix Customs, account at Tri-City National Bank. 
Attorney Felli claims that the handwriting on the deposit slip 
is not his.   
¶10 J.G. became aware of the check to Phoenix on November 
17, 2004, when her son noticed a $2500 withdrawal and asked her 
No. 
2005AP1939-D   
 
6 
 
what it was for.  She stated she had not authorized Attorney 
Felli to pay $2500 to anyone, nor had she been informed that he 
was going to do so.  After obtaining a copy of the check, J.G. 
contacted another attorney who demanded Attorney Felli return 
the $2500 paid to Phoenix along with his trustee fees.  Attorney 
Felli complied on December 21, 2004.   
¶11 According to Attorney Felli, he had simply mishandled 
the check and he claimed he was innocent of any wrongdoing.  
Attorney Felli's initial response to the OLR stated that he 
apparently saw the Phoenix check, endorsed it, and deposited it 
into the "Phoenix Customs" account.  Later he stated that it was 
not until he saw the OLR's discovery materials that he noticed 
for the first time the deposit slip was not in his handwriting, 
so he could not have deposited the check.  The referee rejected 
Attorney Felli's explanations.  The referee found that Attorney 
Felli intentionally attempted to divert assets from his client's 
trust account to his motorcycle business, contrary to SCR 
20:8.4(c). 
¶12 With respect to discipline, the referee noted that 
repetitive offenses warrant progressively harsher sanctions.  
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Converse, 2006 WI 4, 
287 Wis. 2d 72, 707 N.W.2d 530.  The referee stated that both 
Felli I and Felli II involved serious misconduct related to the 
misconduct in the instant matter.  The referee stated this case 
involves Attorney Felli's substantial disregard of his fiduciary 
obligations and willingness to leverage his position of trust.  
The referee noted that while the amount Attorney Felli attempted 
No. 
2005AP1939-D   
 
7 
 
to take was relatively small, "the line that he crossed is an 
important one."  The referee stated that combined with the 
misconduct in Felli I and Felli II, Attorney Felli demonstrated 
an inability to conform to professional standards.  The referee 
also considered that each disciplinary proceeding involved the 
willful failure to disclose information to the OLR.  Therefore, 
the referee concluded that Attorney Felli's continued practice 
of law would create a substantial risk and nothing short of 
revocation would protect the public.   
¶13 This court upholds the referee's findings of fact 
unless 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 record supports the referee's fact 
findings and legal conclusions, and they are unchallenged.  This 
court approves and adopts the referee's findings of fact and 
conclusions of law.   
¶14 It is ultimately this court's responsibility to 
determine the appropriate discipline.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Reitz, 2005 WI 39, ¶74, 279 Wis. 2d 550, 694 
N.W.2d 894.  Proper considerations include the seriousness of 
the misconduct; the need to protect the public, 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, ¶78, 279 Wis. 2d 583, 694 N.W.2d 910.   
No. 
2005AP1939-D   
 
8 
 
¶15 The 
seriousness of Attorney Felli's most recent 
professional misconduct, combined with his disciplinary history, 
demonstrates that it is necessary to revoke his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin, to protect the public, courts, and 
legal system from the repetition of misconduct, as well as to 
impress upon Attorney Felli the seriousness of his misconduct 
and deter other attorneys from engaging in misconduct.   
¶16 The OLR filed a statement on December 18, 2006, of 
$8924.80 for costs.  Attorney Felli is ordered to pay the costs 
of this disciplinary proceeding.   
¶17 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Jay Andrew Felli to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this 
opinion. 
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Jay Andrew Felli 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 the costs within that time, the 
license of Jay Andrew Felli will remain revoked until further 
order of the court.     
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent he has not 
done so, Jay Andrew Felli comply with the provisions of SCR 
22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked. 
No. 
2005AP1939-D   
 
 
 
1