Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. David G. Merriam

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2010 WI 21 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2008AP2043-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against David G. Merriam,  Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
David G. Merriam, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MERRIAM 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 25, 2010   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2010 WI 21
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2008AP2043-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against David G. Merriam, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
David G. Merriam, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
MAR 25, 2010 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a stipulation filed by the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney David G. Merriam.  
The stipulation sets forth ten counts of professional misconduct 
by Attorney Merriam.  It requests that the court suspend 
Attorney Merriam's license to practice law in Wisconsin for 90 
days, that the court require Attorney Merriam to provide 
quarterly certifications that he is complying with his health 
care provider's depression treatment recommendations for a 
period of two years, and that the court require Attorney Merriam 
No. 
2008AP2043-D   
 
2 
 
to join and participate in the State Bar of Wisconsin's 
Practice411 practice management service.  After reviewing the 
matter, we accept the stipulation and impose the requested 
discipline as well as the conditions on Attorney Merriam's post-
suspension practice of law. 
¶2 
Attorney Merriam was admitted to the practice of law 
in Wisconsin in 1972, and maintains a law practice in Madison.  
He received consensual private reprimands in 1992 and 1995 for, 
among other things, neglecting to file an estate tax return, 
failing to respond to client inquiries, and failing to cooperate 
with an investigation by the Board of Attorneys Professional 
Responsibility (BAPR).  In 2000 Attorney Merriam was publicly 
reprimanded for failing to conclude the probate of an estate in 
a 
timely 
manner 
and 
failing 
to 
cooperate 
with 
BAPR's 
investigation.  In 2003 Attorney Merriam was again publicly 
reprimanded for failing to provide a written response to an OLR 
investigation. 
¶3 
The first count of misconduct discussed in the current 
stipulation arises out of Attorney Merriam's representation of 
client D.H.  On October 14, 2005, Attorney Merriam filed a 
Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on behalf of D.H.  In the 
bankruptcy D.H. declared that she intended to reaffirm an 
automobile loan with Mazda American Credit (Mazda).  After Mazda 
learned of this intent to reaffirm, it sent a proposed 
reaffirmation agreement to Attorney Merriam, but he never 
forwarded it to D.H. for her signature and therefore the loan 
was not reaffirmed.  After the bankruptcy discharge order was 
No. 
2008AP2043-D   
 
3 
 
entered, D.H. discovered that her debt to Mazda had been 
discharged and that it could no longer be reaffirmed.   
¶4 
In addition, on November 22, 2005, the bankruptcy 
trustee's office requested documents and other information from 
Attorney Merriam in order to determine whether the Chapter 7 
proceeding should be dismissed due to D.H.'s ability to repay a 
substantial portion of her unsecured debts.  Although the 
request sought a response within 15 days, Attorney Merriam did 
not provide the requested information until April 10, 2006.  
Attorney Merriam's five-month delay caused the trustee to file 
two motions to extend the time for filing a motion to dismiss 
the bankruptcy petition.  Ultimately, the trustee did file a 
motion to dismiss the bankruptcy petition on March 22, 2006.  
When 
Attorney 
Merriam 
finally 
provided 
the 
requested 
information, the motion to dismiss was withdrawn, and a 
discharge order was entered shortly thereafter. 
¶5 
D.H. complained to the OLR, which asked Attorney 
Merriam for a response.  Attorney Merriam acknowledged that the 
failure to complete the reaffirmation agreement had been his 
fault and apologized for "whatever distress this has caused 
[D.H.]."  When the OLR issued a request for additional 
information about the grievance, however, Attorney Merriam 
failed to provide a timely response.  He did ultimately respond, 
although approximately three weeks late.  In his second 
response, he stated that he did not know why he had failed to 
provide the information requested by the trustee.  He did note 
that the events regarding the D.H. bankruptcy had occurred while 
No. 
2008AP2043-D   
 
4 
 
he had been suffering from severe depression.  He stated he 
first realized he was depressed in November or December of 2006, 
at which time he sought and received help. 
¶6 
With 
respect 
to 
the 
D.H. 
representation, 
the 
stipulation provides that Attorney Merriam failed to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.1  
Attorney Merriam admits that he violated this rule. 
¶7 
The next set of ethical violations relate to Attorney 
Merriam's representation of client T.A., which also involved a 
bankruptcy proceeding. 
¶8 
T.A. sold his farm and gave $10,000 from the sale 
proceeds to his daughter at some point between January 5, 2005, 
and March 17, 2005.  Under then existing bankruptcy law, if T.A. 
filed a bankruptcy petition within one year of the transfer, 
there would be adverse consequences to T.A.   
¶9 
On March 17, 2005, T.A. retained Attorney Merriam for 
the purpose of filing a bankruptcy petition.  T.A. gave Attorney 
Merriam an initial payment of $810, $210 of which was for the 
filing fee and $600 of which was for Attorney Merriam's fees.  
Attorney Merriam placed this money into his business account 
instead of his client trust account.  Attorney Merriam learned 
of T.A.'s $10,000 gift either at the time that T.A. retained him 
or shortly thereafter.  Despite his knowledge of this event, 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.3 provides, "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
No. 
2008AP2043-D   
 
5 
 
Attorney Merriam still accepted and retained T.A.'s advance 
payment.   
¶10 Indeed, because of a change in bankruptcy law in late 
2005, T.A. arguably could not file a bankruptcy petition until 
March 2007 if he wished to avoid adverse consequences from his 
$10,000 gift to his daughter.  Attorney Merriam nonetheless 
continued to retain the advance payment.  Toward the end of 
2005, T.A. attempted to contact Attorney Merriam about the 
status of the bankruptcy filing, but he received no response. 
¶11 Another provision in the bankruptcy code required a 
debtor to attend a credit counseling session within 180 days 
prior to filing a bankruptcy petition and to attend a second 
session prior to discharge.  T.A. contacted Attorney Merriam in 
June 2006, and based on Attorney Merriam's advice, he attended 
the first required counseling session on June 14, 2006.  
Consequently, in order to comply with the bankruptcy code 
requirement that the first session be attended within 180 days 
prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition, Attorney Merriam 
would have needed to file the petition by approximately the 
middle of December 2006, well before the two-year anniversary of 
T.A.'s $10,000 gift to his daughter. 
¶12 Because Attorney Merriam had still failed to file the 
bankruptcy petition, T.A. filed a grievance with the OLR against 
Attorney Merriam in October 2006.  Shortly thereafter, T.A. 
became incarcerated.  In mid-November, he spoke with Attorney 
Merriam, who promised to visit him in the jail.  Attorney 
Merriam, however, failed to follow through on the visit.  An OLR 
No. 
2008AP2043-D   
 
6 
 
investigator 
subsequently 
spoke 
with 
Attorney 
Merriam 
on 
December 14, 2006, at which time Attorney Merriam told the 
investigator that he would meet with T.A. and file the 
bankruptcy petition by the end of December.  This did not occur.   
¶13 Beginning on January 2, 2007, T.A. began to call 
Attorney Merriam every weekday at 2:30 p.m., but Attorney 
Merriam did not answer the phone or return T.A.'s messages.  In 
early January 2007 Attorney Merriam told the OLR investigator 
that he would provide proof no later than January 20, 2007, that 
the bankruptcy petition had been filed.  No such proof was 
provided.  Consequently, the OLR referred the grievance for a 
formal investigation and directed Attorney Merriam to provide a 
written response to the grievance by March 5, 2007. 
¶14 On February 14, 2007, Attorney Merriam sent an $810 
refund check to T.A., stating that he would be unavailable for 
the next several weeks and promising to visit the jail where 
T.A. was incarcerated in early March in order to finalize the 
bankruptcy petition unless T.A. had hired a different attorney 
in the interim.  On March 8, 2007, Attorney Merriam did visit 
T.A., who instructed Attorney Merriam to proceed with filing the 
bankruptcy petition. 
¶15 On March 20, 2007, after the OLR had sent a second 
request for a written response to the grievance, Attorney 
Merriam belatedly responded to the OLR's written request for 
information. 
 
He 
admitted 
that 
he 
had 
not 
adequately 
communicated with T.A.  He stated to the OLR for the first time 
that he could not have filed the bankruptcy petition prior to 
No. 
2008AP2043-D   
 
7 
 
March 17, 2007, without adverse consequences because of T.A.'s 
$10,000 gift to his daughter.  He again stated the events 
regarding the T.A. representation had occurred while he had been 
seriously depressed. 
¶16 Attorney Merriam did not actually file the bankruptcy 
petition for T.A. until July 10, 2007.  In preparation for that 
filing, Attorney Merriam recognized that the Certificate of 
Counseling given to T.A. for his June 2006 attendance was too 
old to satisfy the bankruptcy credit counseling requirement.  
Attorney Merriam therefore contacted the credit counselor, who 
created a false certificate showing that T.A. had attended a 
counseling session on May 1, 2007, and faxed it to Attorney 
Merriam.  Attorney Merriam also had T.A. execute a Statement of 
Compliance with Credit Counseling Requirement, which falsely 
stated under penalty of perjury that T.A. had complied with the 
pre-filing counseling requirement.  Attorney Merriam filed the 
false Statement of Compliance and the false Certificate of 
Counseling with the bankruptcy petition. 
¶17 In June and July 2007, Attorney Merriam again failed 
to respond to the OLR's requests for additional information 
about the status of the bankruptcy petition.  He finally 
submitted a response, dated July 31, 2007, in which he asserted 
that the delay in filing the bankruptcy petition had been caused 
by a delay in payment from the sheriff's office, which had 
control over T.A.'s money while he had been in jail. 
¶18 The bankruptcy trustee ultimately issued a Report of 
No Distribution/No Assets, which meant that T.A. could obtain a 
No. 
2008AP2043-D   
 
8 
 
discharge order as soon as he completed the second credit 
counseling session.  Attorney Merriam, however, did not advise 
T.A. of this fact.  Despite the fact that the bankruptcy court 
sent two notices to Attorney Merriam indicating that it needed 
to receive the Certificate of Completion for the second 
counseling session or the bankruptcy case could be prematurely 
closed, Attorney Merriam did not forward the notices to T.A. or 
speak with him about the required second counseling session. 
¶19 In February and April 2008 the OLR again attempted to 
communicate with Attorney Merriam via letter and voice-mail 
message, but Attorney Merriam failed to respond until April 30, 
2008.  In that belated response, Attorney Merriam indicated that 
he had finally instructed T.A. to schedule the required second 
counseling session.  T.A. attended a second counseling session 
within a few weeks. 
¶20 With respect to the T.A. representation, Attorney 
Merriam has stipulated that he committed five counts of 
misconduct.  His deposit of T.A.'s initial $810 advance payment 
into his business account instead of his client trust account 
violated former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4).2  His failure to keep T.A. 
adequately informed of the status of the bankruptcy petition, 
including 
the 
need 
to 
complete 
the 
credit 
counseling 
                                                 
2 Former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) (effective July 1, 2004, through 
June 30, 2007) provided as follows:  "Unearned fees and advanced 
payments of fees shall be held in trust until earned by the 
lawyer, and withdrawn pursuant to SCR 20:1.15(g).  Funds 
advanced by a client or 3rd party for payment of costs shall be 
held in trust until the costs are incurred." 
No. 
2008AP2043-D   
 
9 
 
requirements, violated both former and present SCR 20:1.4.3  
Attorney Merriam's filing of the counselor's false Certificate 
of Counseling and T.A.'s false certification of the accuracy of 
that 
Certificate 
of 
Counseling 
violated 
SCR 
20:3.3(a).4  
                                                 
3 Former SCR 20:1.4(a) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
stated, "A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about 
the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable 
requests for information." 
Current SCR 20:1.4 (effective July 1, 2007) provides: 
(a) A lawyer shall: 
(1) Promptly inform the client of any decision or 
circumstance with respect to which the client's 
informed consent, as defined in SCR 20:1.0(f), is 
required by these rules;  
(2) reasonably consult with the client about the 
means by which the client's objectives are to be 
accomplished; 
(3) keep the client reasonably informed about the 
status of the matter;  
(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests by 
the client for information; and 
(5) consult with the client about any relevant 
limitation on the lawyer's conduct when the lawyer 
knows that the client expects assistance not permitted 
by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law. 
(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent 
reasonably necessary to permit the client to make 
informed decisions regarding the representation. 
4 SCR 20:3.3(a) provides:  
A lawyer shall not knowingly: 
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a 
tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of 
No. 
2008AP2043-D   
 
10 
 
Similarly, by knowingly preparing and providing T.A. with a 
false 
Statement 
of 
Compliance 
with 
Credit 
Counseling 
Requirement, Attorney Merriam violated SCR 20:1.2(d).5  Finally, 
Attorney Merriam's multiple failures to respond to the OLR's 
requests for a written response to T.A.'s grievance and to the 
OLR's 
supplemental 
requests 
for 
information 
constituted 
violations of SCRs 22.03(2), 22.03(6),6 and 21.15(4),7 which are 
                                                                                                                                                             
material fact or law previously made to the tribunal 
by the lawyer; 
(2) fail 
to disclose to the tribunal legal 
authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the 
lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the 
client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or 
(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be 
false.  If a lawyer, the lawyer's client, or a witness 
called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence 
and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the 
lawyer 
shall 
take 
reasonable 
remedial 
measures, 
including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A 
lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the 
testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter that the 
lawyer reasonably believes is false. 
5 SCR 20:1.2(d) states: 
A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or 
assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is 
criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the 
legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct 
with a client and may counsel or assist a client to 
make a good faith effort to determine the validity, 
scope, meaning or application of the law. 
6 SCRs 22.03(2) and (6) provide as follows: 
(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 
No. 
2008AP2043-D   
 
11 
 
enforceable through SCR 20:8.4(f).8  Attorney Merriam's failure 
to respond in 2008 also violated SCR 20:8.4(h), which became 
effective as of July 1, 2007.9 
                                                                                                                                                             
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.  
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. 
. . .  
(6) In 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. 
7 SCR 21.15(4) states: 
Every attorney shall cooperate with the office of 
lawyer regulation in the investigation, prosecution 
and disposition of grievances, complaints filed with 
or by the director, and petitions for reinstatement.  
An attorney's wilful failure to cooperate with the 
office of lawyer regulation constitutes violation of 
the rules of professional conduct for attorneys. 
8 SCR 20:8.4(f) states 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; . . . ." 
9 SCR 20:8.4(h) says it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "fail to cooperate in the investigation of a grievance 
filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required by SCR 
21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), or SCR 
22.04(1); . . . ." 
No. 
2008AP2043-D   
 
12 
 
¶21 The third set of violations committed by Attorney 
Merriam relate to his representation of R.K. and M.K.  As with 
the prior representations described above, R.K. and M.K. also 
retained Attorney Merriam to represent them in a bankruptcy 
proceeding.  They made an initial payment in October 2007 of 
$1,300, which was to cover the $300 bankruptcy filing fee and 
Attorney Merriam's flat attorney fee of $1,000. 
¶22 R.K. 
and 
M.K. 
informed 
Attorney 
Merriam 
that 
approximately two years earlier, on October 13, 2005, they had 
executed a quit claim deed that had transferred a remainder 
interest in their home to their daughters while reserving a life 
estate in the property for themselves.  Attorney Merriam did not 
advise R.K. and M.K. as to the effect the transfer of the 
remainder interest might have on a bankruptcy petition or the 
effect that the bankruptcy petition might have on the transfer. 
¶23 Attorney Merriam filed the bankruptcy petition on 
November 20, 2007.  Attorney Merriam listed the life estate on 
the schedule of assets, with a value of $29,900.  The life 
estate in the home was listed as an exempt asset. 
¶24 At the first meeting of creditors on December 20, 
2007, the bankruptcy trustee asked questions about the 2005 quit 
claim deed and postponed conclusion of the meeting.  Attorney 
Merriam subsequently admitted to R.K. and M.K. that he had made 
a mistake regarding the amount of time that needed to pass after 
the 2005 transfer in order to avoid the risk of the transfer 
being nullified in a bankruptcy action.  R.K. and M.K. were led 
to believe that Attorney Merriam was attempting to address this 
No. 
2008AP2043-D   
 
13 
 
problem, but Attorney Merriam took no steps to negotiate with 
the trustee or otherwise resolve the issue.  When R.K. and M.K. 
subsequently tried to contact Attorney Merriam, he failed to 
respond to their telephone calls. 
¶25 On May 13, 2008, the trustee sent a letter to the 
daughters of R.K. and M.K. expressing his opinion that the 
transfer of the remainder interest to them was voidable, and 
that the bankruptcy court would transfer that interest to the 
trustee in order to satisfy the claims of their parents' 
creditors.  The trustee suggested the daughters should confer 
with an attorney and make a proposal. 
¶26 R.K. and M.K. thereafter again tried to contact 
Attorney 
Merriam, 
but 
he 
did 
not 
respond. 
 
They 
then 
communicated directly with the trustee by letter, telling him 
that Attorney Merriam had admitted making a mistake in filing 
the petition when he had.  They offered to make monthly payments 
in an effort to avoid invalidating the transfer.  In the 
alternative, R.K. and M.K. expressed a desire to have the 
bankruptcy petition "thrown out."  They sent a second letter to 
the trustee indicating that they had been unable to reach either 
Attorney Merriam or the trustee to work out a solution to their 
problem. 
¶27 When R.K. and M.K. apparently still did not receive 
any response, they wrote to the bankruptcy administrator, 
explaining that they had been unable to communicate with 
Attorney Merriam.  They indicated they would like to terminate 
No. 
2008AP2043-D   
 
14 
 
the bankruptcy proceeding and inquired what the next step should 
be. 
¶28 On June 9, 2008, R.K. and M.K. filed a grievance 
against Attorney Merriam.  They asserted that for the preceding 
six months they had believed Attorney Merriam was working on a 
solution for his mistake in filing the bankruptcy petition when 
he had, but Attorney Merriam had done nothing and had abandoned 
them.   
¶29 An OLR investigator spoke with Attorney Merriam about 
the situation on July 8, 2008.  Attorney Merriam stated he had 
been waiting for all of the creditors to submit their claims 
before he would speak with the trustee and offer to have R.K. 
and M.K. pay 50 percent of the claims.  He acknowledged that he 
had made a mistake in filing the bankruptcy petition during a 
time when the transfer could be voided in bankruptcy. 
¶30 In a written response to the grievance, Attorney 
Merriam admitted that all of the allegations by R.K. and M.K. 
were true.  He again stated that his behavior had been due, in 
part, to his depression.  He stated he was seeking medical help 
for the depression. 
¶31 Attorney Merriam subsequently wrote to R.K. and M.K. 
and apologized for his conduct.  He said he could no longer 
represent them because of personal reasons.  He did not offer to 
refund any of the fees they had paid.  After he subsequently 
received the OLR's investigative report, which found that 
Attorney Merriam had failed to refund an unearned advance fee, 
he did send a $1,000 refund check to them. 
No. 
2008AP2043-D   
 
15 
 
¶32 The stipulation sets forth four counts of misconduct 
related to the representation of R.K. and M.K.  Attorney 
Merriam's failure to determine the effect that a bankruptcy 
filing would have on the transfer of the remainder interest in 
their home and his failure to take any steps to address this 
problem after the filing constituted a failure to provide 
competent representation, in violation of SCR 20:1.1.10  Attorney 
Merriam's failure to communicate with the trustee about the 
transfer issue and to take any steps that furthered his 
representation of R.K. and M.K. after the initial meeting of 
creditors 
on 
December 
20, 
2007, 
until 
he 
withdrew 
on 
September 25, 2008, constituted a failure to act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.  Attorney 
Merriam's failure to consult with R.K. and M.K. about the 
appropriate strategy for reaching their objectives and to 
explain the options available to them violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(2) 
and SCR 20:1.4(b).  Further, his general failure to respond to 
R.K.'s 
and 
M.K.'s 
numerous 
telephone 
calls 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.4(a)(4).  Finally, Attorney Merriam's abandonment of his 
representation of R.K. and M.K. without taking any steps to 
protect their interests and his failure to refund in a timely 
manner a fee that had not been earned violated SCR 20:1.16(d).11 
                                                 
10 SCR 20:1.1 says, "A lawyer shall provide competent 
representation to a client. Competent representation requires 
the 
legal 
knowledge, 
skill, 
thoroughness 
and 
preparation 
reasonably necessary for the representation." 
11 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides: 
No. 
2008AP2043-D   
 
16 
 
¶33 The stipulation provides that, as discipline for the 
misconduct described above, Attorney Merriam agrees with the 
OLR's request for a 90-day suspension of his license to practice 
law in this state.  The stipulation further provides for 
conditions to be placed on Attorney Merriam's license.  First, 
Attorney Merriam agrees that for a period of two years he will 
provide to the OLR quarterly certifications from his treating 
health care provider that he is in compliance with all treatment 
recommendations for his depression.  Second, Attorney Merriam 
agrees that he will join the State Bar of Wisconsin's 
Practice411 practice management electronic list, that he will 
provide to the OLR written confirmation that he has registered 
to receive Practice411, and that for a period of two years he 
will file with the OLR quarterly written reports regarding his 
participation in the Practice411 service. 
¶34 In the stipulation, Attorney Merriam verifies that he 
understands the allegations against him, that he understands and 
assents to the level of discipline sought by the OLR, that he 
understands the ramifications of that discipline, and that he 
understands his rights to consult with counsel and to contest 
                                                                                                                                                             
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer 
shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable 
to protect a client's interests, such as giving 
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for 
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and 
property to which the client is entitled and refunding 
any advance payment of fee or expense that has not 
been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers 
relating to the client to the extent permitted by 
other law. 
No. 
2008AP2043-D   
 
17 
 
the allegations in the complaint against him.  Attorney Merriam 
further states that he has entered the stipulation knowingly and 
voluntarily and admits that he engaged in the misconduct 
described above. 
¶35 The OLR has submitted a memorandum in support of the 
stipulation, which cites a number of disciplinary cases in 
support of a 90-day suspension of Attorney Merriam's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin.  See, e.g., In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Boyd, 2008 WI 103, 314 Wis. 2d 14, 752 
N.W.2d 882; In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Woods, 2008 
WI 79, 311 Wis. 2d 213, 751 N.W.2d 840; In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Hahnfeld, 2007 WI 123, 305 Wis. 2d 48, 739 
N.W.2d 280; In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mauch, 2007 
WI 109, 304 Wis. 2d 541, 736 N.W.2d 141; In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Trewin, 2004 WI 116, 275 Wis. 2d 116, 684 
N.W.2d 121.   
¶36 The OLR's memorandum also discusses a number of 
aggravating and mitigating factors.  As mitigation, the OLR 
notes that Attorney Merriam suffered from depression during the 
relevant time periods, but he is now obtaining treatment for 
that condition.  On the aggravating side, however, the OLR 
points to the fact that Attorney Merriam engaged in dishonesty 
by preparing and filing false documents with a bankruptcy court, 
that his failure to reaffirm the automobile loan for D.H. caused 
actual injury to her, that Attorney Merriam already has 
previously received two public and two private reprimands, and 
No. 
2008AP2043-D   
 
18 
 
that the current matter involves multiple clients and a 
significant number of rule violations. 
¶37 After fully reviewing the matter, we accept the 
stipulation and adopt the stipulated facts and the legal 
conclusions of misconduct.  We also conclude that a 90-day 
suspension of Attorney Merriam's license to practice law in this 
state is an appropriate level of discipline.  In particular, we 
believe that this level of discipline is supported by the 90-day 
suspension imposed in the Mauch disciplinary proceeding.  304 
Wis. 2d 541, ¶29.  In that case, Attorney Mauch pled no contest 
to ten counts of misconduct.  He acknowledged that he had failed 
to act with reasonable diligence in two cases for the same 
client.  In the first case, Attorney Mauch's lack of diligence 
led to the action being dismissed.  In the second case, without 
consulting with his client, Attorney Mauch stipulated to the 
dismissal of his client's claims against one defendant and he 
failed to oppose a motion to dismiss by another defendant.  His 
lack of diligence in this instance led to a cost judgment being 
entered against his client without the client's knowledge.  Like 
Attorney Merriam, Attorney Mauch then engaged in dishonesty to 
cover up his lack of diligence, falsely telling his client that 
he had settled the case for $60,000 and even making some 
"settlement" payments to the client out of his personal funds.  
Attorney Mauch also failed to submit requested information to 
the OLR and then provided documents that attempted to mislead 
the OLR.  Attorney Mauch's misconduct, although not precisely 
the same as Attorney Merriam's, is sufficiently similar to 
No. 
2008AP2043-D   
 
19 
 
support the imposition of a 90-day license suspension on 
Attorney Merriam. 
¶38 We also accept the stipulated conditions to be placed 
on Attorney Merriam's license.  They provide protection for the 
public and ensure that Attorney Merriam is receiving the 
necessary treatment and support so that he can avoid a 
repetition of his misconduct. 
¶39 IT IS ORDERED that the license of David G. Merriam to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 90 days, 
effective as of May 3, 2010. 
¶40 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for a period of two years 
beginning on the effective date of the license suspension 
identified in the preceding paragraph, David G. Merriam shall 
provide to the OLR quarterly written certifications from his 
treating health care provider that he is in compliance with all 
treatment recommendations for his depression. 
¶41 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that prior to the effective date 
of the license suspension identified above, David G. Merriam 
shall register to join the State Bar of Wisconsin's Practice411 
practice 
management 
service 
and 
shall 
provide 
written 
confirmation of his registration for Practice411 to the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation. 
¶42 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for a period of two years 
beginning on the effective date of the license suspension 
identified above, Attorney Merriam shall provide to the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation quarterly written reports explaining his 
participation in the Practice411 service. 
No. 
2008AP2043-D   
 
20 
 
¶43 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that David G. Merriam comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
 
No. 
2008AP2043-D   
 
 
 
1