Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Howard B. Mitz

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2015 WI 37 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2013AP2300-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against  Howard B. Mitz, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Howard B. Mitz, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MITZ 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 3, 3015 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2015 WI 37
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2013AP2300-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  Howard B. Mitz, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Howard B. Mitz, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 3, 2015 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   We 
review 
the 
report 
of 
Referee 
Jonathan V. Goodman, recommending that the court publicly 
reprimand Attorney Howard B. Mitz for professional misconduct 
and order him to pay the full costs of this disciplinary 
proceeding, which total $6,706.79 as of January 2, 2015. 
¶2 
No appeal has been filed from the referee's report and 
recommendation, so we review the matter pursuant to Supreme 
No. 
2013AP2300-D   
 
2 
 
Court Rule (SCR) 22.17(2).1  After considering the referee's 
report and the record in this matter, we agree that Attorney 
Mitz engaged in the acts of professional misconduct alleged in 
the Office of Lawyer Regulation's (OLR) complaint.  We further 
agree with the referee that a public reprimand is sufficient 
discipline.  We require Attorney Mitz to pay the full costs of 
this proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney Mitz was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin on August 28, 1973.  He practices in Mequon, 
Wisconsin.  He has no history of professional misconduct. 
¶4 
The misconduct giving rise to this proceeding stems 
from Attorney Mitz's representation of his first cousin, M.F.  
In December 2003, M.F. was injured in a car accident and unable 
to work.  In June 2004, Attorney Mitz filed a personal injury 
action on M.F.'s behalf against J.J.  
¶5 
In July 2006, M.F. sought financial advice from 
Attorney Mitz.  Attorney Mitz arranged for two loans totaling 
$2,500 each from Attorney Mitz's father and uncle, respectively.  
The loan proceeds were put into Attorney Mitz's trust account.  
M.F. also applied for a loan from PS Finance for the amount of 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) provides: 
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.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
No. 
2013AP2300-D   
 
3 
 
$8,000.  Attorney Mitz helped M.F. with those loan documents and 
notarized 
a 
number 
of 
documents, 
including 
an 
"Attorney 
Acknowledgement of Explanation of Terms to Plaintiff, of 
Revocable Lien and Assignment to Pre-Settlement Finance, LLC."  
¶6 
In May 2007, a settlement was reached with J.J.'s 
insurer, Badger Mutual Insurance, in the amount of $100,000.  
Attorney Mitz promptly used a portion of the settlement proceeds 
to repay M.F.'s loans from Attorney Mitz's father and uncle.  
Attorney Mitz failed to notify PS Finance of the settlement.  
¶7 
Between May 2007 and November 2008, Attorney Mitz 
distributed the remainder of the settlement proceeds, without 
any payment to PS Finance.  
¶8 
In February 2009, PS Finance learned that M.F.'s 
personal injury case had settled.  Through a series of 
conversations and emails made part of the underlying record, 
Attorney Mitz claimed that he hadn't received the settlement 
proceeds and that he was still trying to put numbers to the 
proper disbursements from the settlement, among various other 
excuses.  In October 2011, Attorney Mitz informed PS Finance 
that settlement proceeds were in his trust account but that no 
one had yet been paid.  Attorney Mitz claimed he would fax a 
letter to PS Finance confirming that the settlement funds were 
still in his trust account.  PS Finance never received the 
promised letter.  
¶9 
Eventually, in February 2012, PS Finance filed a 
grievance with the OLR.  In response to the OLR's inquiries, 
Attorney Mitz stated that he "first became aware that the loan 
No. 
2013AP2300-D   
 
4 
 
had in fact been closed and the existence of PS Finance's 
claimed lien in 2008, after the settlement with Badger Mutual."  
In August 2013, Attorney Mitz sent PS Finance a check in the 
amount of $11,637, the full balance due on the loan.   
¶10 In 
October 
2013, 
the 
OLR 
filed 
a 
disciplinary 
complaint against Attorney Mitz, alleging three counts of 
professional misconduct.  Attorney Mitz first sought dismissal 
of the OLR complaint; the referee denied that motion in a 
written decision.  Thereafter, Attorney Mitz filed an answer 
and, in October 2014, the referee conducted an evidentiary 
hearing, ultimately concluding that Attorney Mitz committed the 
misconduct, substantially as alleged in the OLR's complaint. 
¶11 The referee concluded that, by not timely notifying 
PS Finance of the settlement and delivering to PS Finance the 
funds to satisfy PS Finance's lien, Attorney Mitz violated 
SCR 20:1.15(d)(l)2 (Count One). 
¶12 The referee concluded that, by making false statements 
to PS Finance representatives on a number of occasions, 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) provides:  
Upon receiving funds or other property in which a 
client has an interest, or in which the lawyer has 
received notice that a 3rd party has an interest 
identified by a lien, court order, judgment, or 
contract, the lawyer shall promptly notify the client 
or 3rd party in writing.  Except as stated in this 
rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement 
with the client, the lawyer shall promptly deliver to 
the client or 3rd party any funds or other property 
that the client or 3rd party is entitled to receive. 
No. 
2013AP2300-D   
 
5 
 
including, but not limited to, that settlement proceeds were 
still in his trust account and that he was attempting to analyze 
the settlement disbursements, when there is no question that 
Attorney Mitz knew that settlement proceeds had already been 
disbursed from his trust account, Attorney Mitz violated 
SCR 20:4.1(a)(1)3 and SCR 20:8.4(c)4 (Count Two). 
¶13 The 
referee 
concluded 
that, 
by 
making 
misrepresentations in his March 29, 2012 letter to the OLR to 
the effect that he was unaware that M.F. had taken an $8,000 
loan from PS Finance or that PS Finance had a lien against 
M.F.'s personal injury claim until sometime in 2008, after 
Attorney Mitz had disbursed the $100,000 settlement proceeds 
from Badger Mutual Insurance, when in fact Attorney Mitz was 
aware 
of 
the 
PS 
Finance 
loan, 
Attorney 
Mitz 
violated 
SCR 20:8.4(c) (Count Three). 
¶14 The OLR sought a 60-day suspension and imposition of 
costs.  The referee acknowledged the seriousness of Attorney 
Mitz's professional misconduct, but ultimately recommended that 
the court impose a public reprimand.  The referee noted that in 
its brief addressing sanctions, the OLR cited a number of cases 
in which attorneys were suspended for similar misconduct.  The 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:4.1(a)(l) 
provides 
that, 
in 
the 
course 
of 
representing a client, a lawyer shall not knowingly "make a 
false statement of a material fact or law to a 3rd person." 
4 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. 
2013AP2300-D   
 
6 
 
referee observed, however, that the cases cited by the OLR 
involved attorneys who had previously committed misconduct.  
See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gorokhovsky, 
2013 WI 100, 351 Wis. 2d 408, 840 N.W.2d 126.  Here, the referee 
determined that, in view of Attorney Mitz's lack of any 
disciplinary history, the concept of progressive discipline 
renders a public reprimand more appropriate.  
¶15 We will affirm a referee's findings of fact unless 
they are found to be clearly erroneous, but we review the 
referee's conclusions of law on a de novo basis.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 
305 Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125.  We determine the appropriate 
level of discipline given the particular facts of each case, 
independent of the referee's recommendation, but benefitting 
from it.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 
2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶16 There is no showing that any of the referee's findings 
of fact are erroneous.  Accordingly, we adopt them.  We also 
agree with the referee's conclusions of law that Attorney Mitz 
violated the supreme court rules set forth above.  While the 
misconduct at issue is serious, the record reflects that 
Attorney Mitz has no prior discipline, did not personally 
benefit from the misconduct, and cooperated with the OLR.  We 
therefore accept the referee's recommendation for a public 
reprimand.  Finally, we agree with the referee that Attorney 
Mitz should be required to pay the full costs of the proceeding, 
No. 
2013AP2300-D   
 
7 
 
which are $6,706.79 as of January 2, 2015.  We accept the OLR's 
statement that restitution is not warranted in this matter.   
¶17 IT IS ORDERED that Attorney Howard B. Mitz is publicly 
reprimanded for his professional misconduct. 
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Howard B. Mitz shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, $6,706.79. 
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the director of the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation shall advise the court if there has not 
been full compliance with all conditions of this order. 
 
 
 
No. 
2013AP2300-D   
 
 
 
1