Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Perry P. Lieuallen

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2007 WI 119 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2000AP3136-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Perry P. Lieuallen, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation f/k/a Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Perry P. Lieuallen, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST LIEUALLEN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
September 25, 2007   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: BRADLEY, J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2007 WI 119
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2000AP3136-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Perry P. Lieuallen, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation f/k/a Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Perry P. Lieuallen, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
SEP 25, 2007 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.  Reinstatement granted. 
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   We 
review 
a 
referee's 
report 
recommending that Perry P. Lieuallen's license to practice law 
in Wisconsin be reinstated.  The Board of Bar Examiners (BBE) 
has joined in that favorable recommendation.   
¶2 
We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and conclude that Attorney Lieuallen's 
license to practice law should be reinstated.  We further direct 
Attorney Lieuallen to pay the costs of the reinstatement 
proceeding, which total $5890.69 as of July 17, 2007. 
No. 
2000AP3136-D   
 
2 
 
¶3 
Attorney Lieuallen was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1973.  On June 1, 2001, this court revoked his 
license to practice law as the result of multiple counts of 
professional misconduct including engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation and converting 
client funds to his own use; failing to properly deliver funds 
to clients or third persons who were entitled to said funds; 
failing to hold property of clients or third persons in trust; 
and falsely certifying to the State Bar of Wisconsin that he was 
in compliance with the recordkeeping requirements for attorneys 
holding Wisconsin trust accounts.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Lieuallen, 2001 WI 50, 243 Wis. 2d 478, 626 
N.W.2d 802.   
¶4 
Attorney Lieuallen now seeks reinstatement of his 
license to practice law in Wisconsin.  Russell L. Hanson was 
appointed referee in the matter and conducted a formal hearing 
on the reinstatement petition.  The referee filed his report and 
recommendation on June 28, 2007, and recommended that this court 
grant the petition for reinstatement. 
¶5 
Supreme Court Rule 22.31(1) provides the standard to 
be met for reinstatement of a law license.  The petitioner has 
the burden of demonstrating "by clear, satisfactory, and 
convincing evidence" that the lawyer has the moral character to 
practice law, that the lawyer's resumption of the practice of 
law will not be detrimental to the administration of justice or 
subversive of the public interest, and that the lawyer has 
complied with SCR 22.26 and the terms of the suspension.  In 
No. 
2000AP3136-D   
 
3 
 
addition, SCR 22.29(4) sets forth related requirements that a 
petition for reinstatement must show.  All of these additional 
requirements are effectively incorporated into SCR 22.31(1).1   
¶6 
The referee in this case concluded that Attorney 
Lieuallen had met all of the criteria for reinstatement.  The 
referee noted that while at the time of Attorney Lieuallen's 
revocation it was found that there were 15 separate instances of 
conversion of client funds, the parties now agree that the 
correct number of instances of conversion was 5 rather than 15.  
The referee said it appeared that restitution or arrangements 
for satisfactory restitution have been made as to those five 
clients.  He also said it appeared that much of what was termed 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.31(1) provides: 
Reinstatement hearing. 
(1) The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating, by 
clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence, all of the 
following: 
(a) That he or she has the moral character to practice law 
in Wisconsin. 
(b) That his or her resumption of the practice of law will 
not 
be 
detrimental 
to 
the 
administration 
of 
justice 
or 
subversive of the public interest. 
(c) That his or her representations in the petition, 
including the representations required by SCR 22.29(4)(a) to (m) 
and 22.29(5), are substantiated.   
(d) That he or she has complied fully with the terms of the 
order of suspension or revocation and with the requirements of 
SCR 22.26. 
No. 
2000AP3136-D   
 
4 
 
"conversion" could best be characterized as sloppy recordkeeping 
and a failure to memorialize agreements with clients. 
¶7 
The referee said it was reasonably clear that prior to 
his suspension Mr. Lieuallen had been an attorney of better than 
average quality, and it appeared the factors that led to the 
revocation of his license were a difficult domestic situation, 
significant depression, some suggestion of unwise use of 
alcohol, and taking on more legal work that he could reasonably 
hope to accomplish.  The referee said he was impressed by the 
love and respect that Mr. Lieuallen showed for the practice of 
law, and it was clear he earnestly desired to get back to work.  
The referee said it was clear Mr. Lieuallen earnestly desired to 
have his license reinstated and was extremely contrite regarding 
his past misconduct.   
¶8 
The referee found that Mr. Lieuallen demonstrated by 
clear, 
satisfactory, 
and 
convincing 
evidence 
all 
of 
the 
requirements for reinstatement of his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin.  The referee specifically found that Mr. Lieuallen's 
reinstatement will not be detrimental to the public but, given 
the record of quality legal work prior to his revocation, 
reinstatement was likely to serve the public interest.  The 
referee said Mr. Lieuallen's reinstatement should be contingent 
upon his continuing to comply with all agreements he previously 
entered into for reimbursement of his former clients.   
¶9 
After careful consideration of the record, we agree 
that Attorney Lieuallen has established by clear, satisfactory, 
and convincing evidence that he has satisfied all the criteria 
No. 
2000AP3136-D   
 
5 
 
necessary 
for 
reinstatement. 
 
Accordingly, 
we 
adopt 
the 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law, and we accept 
the referee's recommendation to reinstate Attorney Lieuallen's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin, subject to his continued 
compliance with all agreements he previously entered into for 
reimbursement of his former clients. 
¶10 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement of 
the license of Perry P. Lieuallen to practice law in Wisconsin 
is granted, effective the date of this order.   
¶11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the reinstatement of 
Attorney Lieuallen's license to practice law be subject to his 
continued compliance with all agreements for reimbursement of 
his former clients. 
¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within six months of the 
date of this order, Perry P. Lieuallen 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 Perry P. Lieuallen to practice law in Wisconsin 
shall be suspended until further order of the court. 
¶13 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J., did not participate. 
 
No. 
2000AP3136-D   
 
 
 
1