Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Joseph L. Young

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2006 WI 109 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2005AP2598-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Joseph L. Young, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Joseph L. Young, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST YOUNG 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 27, 2006   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2006 WI 109
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2005AP2598-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Joseph L. Young, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Joseph L. Young, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 27, 2006 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of the referee, based on the parties' stipulation, that: 
(1) Attorney Joseph L. Young be publicly reprimanded for 
professional misconduct relating to his failure to file tax 
returns and to pay the taxes that were due, as well as to his 
willful failure to respond to the investigation of the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation (OLR); (2) certain conditions be placed upon 
No. 
2005AP2598-D   
 
2 
 
his continued practice of law in this state; and (3) he be 
ordered to pay the costs of this proceeding. 
¶2 
Neither the OLR nor Attorney Young has appealed the 
referee's recommendation.  Thus, the matter is submitted to the 
court for its review pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1  In conducting 
our review, we will affirm the referee's findings of fact unless 
they are clearly erroneous.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Sosnay, 209 Wis. 2d 241, 243, 562 N.W.2d 137 (1997).  
The referee's conclusions of law, however, are subject to 
de novo review.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 718.  
Finally, this court is free to impose whatever discipline it 
deems appropriate, regardless of the referee's recommendation.  
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, 
¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶3 
After our independent review of the record, we adopt 
the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law.  Further, 
after reviewing the parties' responses to this court's order to 
show cause why the discipline should not be a suspension rather 
than a public reprimand, we accept the referee's recommendation 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) provides:  Review; appeal. 
(2) 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. 
2005AP2598-D   
 
3 
 
that a public reprimand is appropriate discipline in this case.  
We also agree with the referee's recommendation that certain 
conditions should be placed upon Attorney Young's license to 
practice law in this state.  Finally, because the parties 
stipulated to both the misconduct and the appropriate discipline 
and because the OLR has not requested the imposition of costs, 
we determine that the costs of the disciplinary proceeding 
should not be imposed in this case.  
¶4 
The OLR filed its complaint in this matter on October 
18, 2005.  The complaint alleged that Attorney Young's failure 
to file state income tax returns for the years 1996 through 2003 
constituted a violation of a supreme court decision regulating 
the conduct of lawyers, thereby also violating SCR 20:8.4(f).2  
Count Two of the complaint alleged that Attorney Young's failure 
to file a written response to the OLR's investigative letters 
constituted violations of SCR 22.03(2)3 and (6),4 thereby also 
violating SCR 20:8.4(f). 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme 
court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers." 
3 SCR 22.03(2) provides:  Investigation. 
 
(2) 
Upon 
commencing 
an 
investigation, 
the 
director shall notify the respondent of the matter 
being investigated unless in the opinion of the 
director the investigation of the matter requires 
otherwise.  The respondent shall fully and fairly 
disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct within 20 days after being served 
by ordinary mail a request for a written response.  
The director may allow additional time to respond.  
No. 
2005AP2598-D   
 
4 
 
¶5 
Attorney Young initially filed a very short answer on 
November 17, 2005, admitting both the allegations in the 
complaint and the violations of the Supreme Court Rules of 
Professional Conduct.  His answer also stated that he simply 
awaited whatever discipline this court deemed appropriate. 
¶6 
On December 14, 2005, the OLR and Attorney Young filed 
a stipulation in this proceeding.  According to the stipulation, 
Attorney Young has not been the subject of prior disciplinary 
proceedings, 
but 
has 
had 
his 
license 
to 
practice 
law 
administratively suspended since June 2004 for failure to comply 
with continuing legal education (CLE) requirements. 
¶7 
The current disciplinary investigation began when the 
Wisconsin Department of Revenue (DOR) informed the OLR that 
Attorney Young had failed to file his state income tax returns 
for the years 1996 through 2003.  The OLR subsequently sent 
letters to Attorney Young on April 1 and April 27, 2004, 
requesting a response regarding the DOR's allegation.  Attorney 
Young failed to respond to the OLR's letters, although he signed 
a certified mail receipt for the second letter.   
                                                                                                                                                             
Following receipt of the response, the director may 
conduct further investigation and may compel the 
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents, and 
present 
any 
information 
deemed 
relevant 
to 
the 
investigation. 
4 SCR 22.03(6) provides 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. 
2005AP2598-D   
 
5 
 
¶8 
On May 25, 2004, Attorney Young was personally served 
with a letter from the OLR requesting a written response on the 
tax matter no later than June 1, 2004.  On June 3, 2004, the OLR 
received Attorney Young's initial written response.  Attorney 
Young admitted that he had not filed income tax returns for a 
number of years and that this conduct constituted a violation of 
SCR 20:8.4(f).  Attorney Young stated that he intended to file 
all past due tax returns within a short time. 
¶9 
On June 29, 2004, the OLR sent a letter to Attorney 
Young requesting additional information regarding his failure to 
file income tax returns.  Attorney Young failed to respond.  
Consequently, on July 29, 2004, the OLR personally served 
another letter on Attorney Young, again seeking the additional 
information requested in the OLR's June 29, 2004, letter.  
Attorney Young again failed to respond. 
¶10 As of the date of the parties' stipulation in December 
2005, Attorney Young acknowledged that he still had not filed 
the relevant state income tax returns. 
¶11 In the stipulation, the parties agreed that by failing 
to file state income tax returns for the years 1996 through 
2003, Attorney Young had violated a supreme court decision 
regulating the conduct of lawyers, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(f).  
See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Owens, 172 
Wis. 2d 54, 56-57, 492 N.W.2d 157 (1992) (failure to file income 
tax returns constitutes professional misconduct).  The parties 
further agreed that Attorney Young's failure to respond to the 
OLR's investigative requests had violated SCR 22.03(2) and (6), 
No. 
2005AP2598-D   
 
6 
 
which also constituted a violation of SCR 20:8.4(f).  The 
stipulation stated that the parties agreed that an appropriate 
level of 
discipline would 
be 
a 
public reprimand. 
 The 
stipulation further provided that the OLR would not seek an 
assessment of costs against Attorney Young. 
¶12 The referee, Attorney David R. Friedman, considered 
the stipulation and then filed his report and recommendation on 
December 30, 2005.  In his report, the referee adopted the 
stipulation's factual statements as his own findings.  Based on 
those facts, the referee agreed that Attorney Young had 
committed professional misconduct as alleged in the complaint 
and the stipulation. 
¶13 The referee, however, noted two concerns with the 
terms of the stipulation.  He believed that the supreme court's 
general practice has been to levy the full cost of disciplinary 
proceedings 
on 
the 
lawyer 
involved. 
 
Consequently, 
he 
recommended that the court impose the costs of the proceeding on 
Attorney Young.5 
¶14 The 
referee 
also 
stated 
his 
concern 
with 
the 
appropriateness of a public reprimand.  His concern related to 
whether a public reprimand was sufficient discipline in light of 
the fact that despite the fairly large window of time since the 
beginning of the OLR's investigation, Attorney Young had not 
                                                 
5 In light of the referee's recommendation, on January 18, 
2006, the OLR submitted a letter on the cost issue.  It 
confirmed that, pursuant to the stipulation, it was not seeking 
the assessment of costs against Attorney Young. 
No. 
2005AP2598-D   
 
7 
 
used that time to file the missing tax returns or to make 
arrangements for the payment of the back taxes.  The referee 
further stated his concern that the imposition of only a public 
reprimand would allow Attorney Young, once he brought his CLE 
reporting current, to resume his practice of law without having 
resolved the filing of the missing tax returns and the payment 
of the taxes due. 
¶15 Ultimately, 
despite 
his 
concerns, 
the 
referee 
concluded that a public reprimand was appropriate in this case.  
He stated that Attorney Young's ability to resolve his tax 
problems has been impacted by some personal problems.  Moreover, 
the referee noted that it appeared that a public reprimand had 
been imposed in other cases where the violations had been more 
severe than those committed by Attorney Young.   
¶16 Although he ultimately accepted the stipulated request 
for a public reprimand, the referee recommended that the court 
impose certain conditions on the reprimand to ensure that 
Attorney 
Young 
resolves 
the 
outstanding 
tax 
issues.  
Specifically, he suggested that the court require Attorney Young 
to inform the OLR every three months concerning his efforts to 
resolve the tax deficiencies until Attorney Young notifies the 
OLR that he has either filed all of the relevant tax returns or 
there is an agreed upon resolution with the Internal Revenue 
Service and the Wisconsin DOR. 
¶17 Sharing the referee's concern about Attorney Young's 
continued failure to file the missing tax returns, on March 15, 
2006, we ordered the parties to show cause why the discipline in 
No. 
2005AP2598-D   
 
8 
 
the present case should not be a suspension rather than a public 
reprimand and to address the enforcement of any conditions we 
might impose on Attorney Young's continued practice of law in 
this state.   
¶18 The OLR responded that it continued to stand by its 
position that a public reprimand was appropriate discipline in 
this case.  The OLR stated that it had considered various other 
cases involving similar conduct and believed, in light of the 
facts of this case, that the imposition of a public reprimand 
was appropriate discipline. 
¶19 In his response, 
Attorney 
Young 
again 
expressed 
remorse, acknowledging that "[t]his whole matter is my fault."  
He noted that the present investigation had forced him to 
confront some personal problems that had been plaguing him for a 
number of years.  He further stated that he had been working 
toward fulfilling his CLE requirements and was quite close to 
bringing those current.  Nevertheless, he acknowledged that he 
deserves whatever discipline this court imposes.  Moreover, he 
stated that he believed that the imposition of conditions like 
those suggested by the referee was appropriate to ensure that he 
will remedy his problems.  He also acknowledged that he will 
face additional sanctions if he does not comply with the 
conditions and take care of his tax delinquencies. 
¶20 Although we remain troubled by the fact that there is 
no evidence in the record that Attorney Young has worked toward 
resolving the issue of failing to file tax returns and to pay 
the tax due for a substantial number of years, we nonetheless 
No. 
2005AP2598-D   
 
9 
 
decide that a public reprimand is appropriate discipline under 
the specific facts of this case.  We agree with the referee, 
however, that there should be conditions imposed on Attorney 
Young's license to practice law in Wisconsin to ensure that he 
makes progress on his tax delinquencies.  Thus, we will require 
Attorney Young to report to the OLR on a quarterly basis 
regarding his efforts to remedy his tax-related problems. 
¶21 We 
further 
decide, 
contrary 
to 
the 
referee's 
recommendation, that the imposition of costs is not required in 
this case.  The history of this court's practice of imposing 
costs in disciplinary proceedings was explained in Chief Justice 
Abrahamson's concurrence in a prior disciplinary proceeding.  
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Konnor, 2005 WI 37, 
¶¶37-70, 279 Wis. 2d 284, 694 N.W.2d 376 (Abrahamson, C.J., 
concurring).6 
¶22 In the present case, Attorney Young has, from the 
initial filing of his answer, admitted both the factual 
allegations of the OLR's complaint and that his conduct violated 
the rules of professional conduct.  He also essentially 
                                                 
6 On May 1, 2006, the court issued an order in response to 
Rule Petition 05-01, which created SCR 22.24(1m) and amended SCR 
22.24(2).  In re Amendments to Supreme Court Rules relating to 
Cost Assessments in the Lawyer Regulation System, 2006 WI 34, __ 
Wis. 2d __, 714 N.W.2d Ct.R-21.  Those amendments set forth the 
court's general policy regarding the imposition of costs in 
disciplinary proceedings and the factors that it considers in 
determining whether to impose costs and in what amount.  The May 
1, 2006, order stated it applies prospectively to disciplinary 
proceedings, medical incapacity proceedings, or reinstatement 
proceedings filed on or after July 1, 2006.  Thus, it does not 
apply to the present proceeding involving Attorney Young. 
No. 
2005AP2598-D   
 
10 
 
stipulated to the discipline requested by the OLR.  A referee 
was appointed, however, before a formal stipulation could be 
drafted and executed.  Moreover, the OLR has not requested the 
imposition of costs in this case, either in the stipulation or 
in response to the referee's recommendation.  Thus, under the 
specific facts of this case, we disagree with the referee's 
recommendation and decide that imposing the costs of this 
disciplinary proceeding against Attorney Young is not warranted. 
¶23 IT IS ORDERED that Joseph L. Young is publicly 
reprimanded for his professional misconduct. 
¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Joseph L. Young shall, on a 
quarterly basis, file written reports with the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation that describe his efforts and progress in filing the 
delinquent tax returns and paying the appropriate taxes.  
Attorney Young shall file such written reports until such time 
as he certifies in writing to the OLR that either he has filed 
all of the required tax returns or he has entered into a written 
agreement with the Wisconsin Department of Revenue that resolves 
all outstanding issues related to Attorney Young's failure to 
file tax returns and to pay the taxes that were due.  Attorney 
Young's failure to comply with this condition or to make 
reasonable progress toward resolving his tax delinquencies may 
provide the basis for the imposition of further discipline. 
¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no costs shall be imposed 
in this disciplinary proceeding. 
No. 
2005AP2598-D   
 
 
 
1