Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. James Paul O'Neil

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2003 WI 48 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
02-1029-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against James Paul O'Neil, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
James Paul O'Neil,  
 
Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST O'NEIL 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 28, 2003   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
BABLITCH, PROSSER, and SYKES, JJ., dissent. 
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2003 WI 48 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  02-1029-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against James Paul O'Neil, Attorney at  
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
James Paul O'Neil,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 28, 2003 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee, Konrad T. Tuchscherer, that Attorney James Paul O'Neil 
receive 
a 
public 
reprimand 
for 
professional 
misconduct 
consisting 
of 
revealing 
information 
relating 
to 
his 
representation of a client without the client's consent, and 
that he be required to pay the costs of the proceeding. 
No. 
02-1029-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
We determine that a public reprimand is appropriate 
discipline for Attorney O'Neil's misconduct.  We also order him 
to pay the costs of this proceeding.   
¶3 
Attorney O'Neil was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1988 and practices in Green Bay.  On November 21, 
1995, this court suspended Attorney O'Neil's license to practice 
law for 12 months as the result of misconduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against O'Neil, 197 Wis. 2d 224, 539 
N.W.2d 881 (1995).  Attorney O'Neil's license was reinstated on 
February 26, 1997.   
¶4 
On May 6, 1999, Attorney O'Neil was retained by Erik 
Gracia to file a divorce action against his wife, Colleen 
Gracia.  Mr. Gracia paid Attorney O'Neil a $1000 retainer and 
provided him with copies of various financial records.  Attorney 
O'Neil contacted the Brown County Family Court Commissioner's 
Office to schedule a date for a temporary hearing and prepared 
the necessary pleadings to commence a divorce action. 
¶5 
On May 11, 1999, Gracia filed the divorce petition and 
gave Attorney O'Neil the required filing fee.  That same day, 
before the divorce petition was filed, Colleen Gracia was found 
dead.  Newspaper accounts indicated that investigators initially 
thought the cause of her death was suicide, but two weeks later 
an autopsy established the cause of death as homicide by 
asphyxiation.  
¶6 
On May 12, 1999, Gracia called Attorney O'Neil to 
notify him of his wife's death and to request a refund of his 
No. 
02-1029-D   
 
3 
 
retainer.  Attorney O'Neil was out of the office that day but 
learned of Mrs. Gracia's death in a phone call to his office. 
¶7 
On May 14, 1999, Detective Zittel from the Green Bay 
Police Department contacted Attorney O'Neil's office and spoke 
to both Attorney O'Neil and his secretary.  The police report 
indicates that Attorney O'Neil told the detective that Erik 
Gracia said the reason he wanted a divorce was that his wife had 
a boyfriend.  The police report also indicates that Attorney 
O'Neil told the detective that Gracia said he and his wife were 
splitting up their property and that Gracia did not want any 
confrontation in the divorce and wanted the case to go smoothly.   
¶8 
The police report also indicates that Attorney O'Neil 
told Detective Zittel that when Erik Gracia came into his office 
his mother was with him.  Attorney O'Neil also told the 
detective that when he spoke to Erik Gracia the day after his 
wife's death Gracia told Attorney O'Neil to stop the divorce and 
refund the retainer money.  The police report further indicates 
that the detective asked Attorney O'Neil if he would jot down 
any conversations he might have in the future with Erik Gracia, 
and Attorney O'Neil said he would do so.  Although Attorney 
O'Neil denied the accuracy of some statements attributed to him, 
he admitted meeting with the detective and discussing the matter 
with him.  Attorney O'Neil did not request Gracia's consent to 
provide information relating to his representation of Gracia to 
the police.   
¶9 
On May 18, 1999, Gracia telephoned Attorney O'Neil and 
inquired about representation in defense of potential criminal 
No. 
02-1029-D   
 
4 
 
proceedings.  Attorney O'Neil referred Gracia to an attorney not 
associated with O'Neil's firm.  This was the last contact 
Attorney O'Neil had with Gracia.   
¶10 On June 8, 1999, the Brown County Circuit Court issued 
a subpoena for Attorney O'Neil's file for the Gracia divorce.  
The subpoena stated that, pursuant to an official felony 
criminal investigation, Attorney O'Neil was "requested" to 
furnish copies of "any file notes, records, and all other 
information concerning your work on behalf of Erik Garcia [sic] 
in his pending divorce action with Colleen Garcia [sic]."  In an 
affidavit supporting the subpoena the prosecutor stated a belief 
that Gracia had provided information to Attorney O'Neil that was 
relevant to the circumstances surrounding Colleen Gracia's 
death.  The subpoena was served on Attorney O'Neil on June 10, 
1999.  Attorney O'Neil did not request Gracia's consent to turn 
over the file or provide information to the police.  On June 14, 
1999, Attorney O'Neil turned over to police investigators the 
entire Gracia file, including notes, bank account records, and 
other financial information. 
¶11 The police report indicates that during a June 14, 
1999, interview Attorney O'Neil told a police investigator that 
when he initially met with Gracia, Gracia said he wanted 
Attorney O'Neil to set up custody arrangements and visitation 
with Colleen Gracia for their daughter and that Gracia did not 
want to talk to Colleen.  Attorney O'Neil told the investigator 
he thought it was strange that Gracia could not at least talk to 
his wife about these things.  Attorney O'Neil also told the 
No. 
02-1029-D   
 
5 
 
investigator that Gracia said Colleen had taken a second job to 
help pay for daycare for their daughter and this made Gracia 
mad.  
¶12 Attorney O'Neil told the police investigator that 
Gracia said he was not looking for any type of reconciliation 
with Colleen and that he just wanted to get divorced and get it 
over with.  Attorney O'Neil told police that during his initial 
interview with Gracia he probably would have told Gracia he 
would be obligated to pay 17 percent of his income for child 
support, along with other expenses.  Attorney O'Neil said Gracia 
neglected to tell him about his past record of domestic abuse.  
In looking over the financial form that Gracia had filled out 
Attorney O'Neil noted that Gracia made approximately $1100 a 
month after taxes and that his expenses were almost double his 
monthly income.  While Attorney O'Neil denied making some of the 
statements attributed to him in the investigator's report, he 
admitted meeting with the police investigator on June 14, 1999, 
and discussing the Gracia divorce case.  
¶13 Police investigators noted that one of the legal forms 
in the Gracia file had been signed by Gracia the day of 
Colleen's murder and had been notarized by Attorney O'Neil's 
secretary.  Attorney O'Neil, without seeking Gracia's consent, 
gave the police investigators permission to talk with his 
secretary about the times and dates she had contact with Gracia 
in the O'Neil law office.  The investigators did contact 
Attorney 
O'Neil's 
secretary 
who 
supplied 
them 
with 
the 
information they requested. 
No. 
02-1029-D   
 
6 
 
¶14 On July 28, 1999, criminal charges were filed against 
Gracia. 
 
He 
was 
subsequently 
convicted 
of 
first-degree 
intentional homicide in the death of his wife and is currently 
serving a life sentence.   
¶15 The complaint filed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) alleged that Attorney O'Neil never considered asserting 
the attorney-client privilege on behalf of Gracia, that he 
acknowledged he should have done so, and that he claimed to have 
provided 
the 
information 
to 
law 
enforcement 
investigators 
because he felt that by doing so he was best serving his 
client's interests.  The complaint alleged that Gracia contended 
the statements made by Attorney O'Neil to law enforcement 
investigators were used in the decision to issue criminal 
charges and that financial information that was disclosed from 
the divorce file was used by the prosecution to help establish a 
motive for the crime.   
¶16 The referee filed his report and recommendation on 
February 19, 2003.  The referee's report notes that prior to the 
Gracia murder trial the Brown County District Attorney agreed 
not to use any of the information received from Attorney O'Neil 
when filing the original and amended criminal complaints and, in 
fact, no documents received from Attorney O'Neil were used at 
Gracia's trial.  The referee's report also notes that neither 
Attorney O'Neil nor any member of his staff was called as a 
witness at the trial and none of the information disclosed by 
Attorney O'Neil was used in the prosecution of Gracia's case.  
The referee also notes that Gracia did not raise any issues 
No. 
02-1029-D   
 
7 
 
about Attorney O'Neil's representation in his criminal appeal.  
In its opinion affirming Gracia's judgment of conviction the 
court of appeals pointed to the overwhelming circumstantial 
evidence 
of 
Gracia's 
guilt, 
including 
his 
inconsistent 
statements, DNA evidence, and admissions against interest. 
¶17 The OLR's complaint alleged that Attorney O'Neil 
violated SCR 20:1.6.1  The referee's report notes that, in 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.6 provides:  Confidentiality of information.  
(a) A 
lawyer 
shall 
not 
reveal 
information 
relating to representation of a client unless the 
client 
consents 
after 
consultation, 
except 
for 
disclosures that are impliedly authorized in order to 
carry out the representation, and except as stated in 
paragraphs (b), (c) and (d). 
(b) A lawyer shall reveal such information to the 
extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to 
prevent the client from committing a criminal or 
fraudulent act that the lawyer reasonably believes is 
likely to result in death or substantial bodily harm 
or in substantial injury to the financial interest or 
property of another.  
(c) A lawyer may reveal such information to the 
extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:  
(1) to rectify the consequences of a client's 
criminal or fraudulent act in the furtherance of which 
the lawyer's services had been used;  
(2) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of 
the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the 
client, to establish a defense to a criminal charge or 
civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in 
which the client was involved, or to respond to 
allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer's 
representation of the client. 
(d) This rule does not prohibit a lawyer from 
revealing the name or identity of a client to comply 
No. 
02-1029-D   
 
8 
 
defense of his admitted violation of the rule, Attorney O'Neil 
suggested he was trying to help Gracia by divulging information 
in his client's file which showed that the divorce was amicable 
and that the Gracias were attempting to split up the marital 
property without a contest.  The referee also notes that 
Attorney O'Neil claimed he did not know he was violating SCR 
20:1.6 when he made the disclosures to police.  The referee's 
report states that Attorney O'Neil said since the filing of the 
grievance he has become familiar with SCR 20:1.6, has advised 
his staff with respect to the importance of confidentiality, and 
attended a seminar on the subject.   
¶18 The referee concluded that by disclosing his client's 
file and discussing its contents with the Green Bay Police 
Department, Attorney O'Neil revealed information relating to 
representation of a client without the client's consent, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.6.  The referee concluded that although 
Attorney O'Neil was previously suspended from practicing law for 
12 months, and although the violations committed in the instant 
case 
were 
unrelated 
to 
those 
resulting 
in 
the 
previous 
suspension, and there did not appear to be a pattern of 
misconduct, the time period between Attorney O'Neil being 
reinstated to practice and the commitment of the violation in 
this matter was only 27 months.   
                                                                                                                                                             
with ss. 19.43 and 19.44, Stats. 1985-86, the code of 
ethics for public officials and employees. 
 
No. 
02-1029-D   
 
9 
 
¶19 The 
referee 
concluded 
that 
although 
misconduct 
occurred, it was not of a significantly serious nature given the 
mitigating circumstances.  The referee also concluded there was 
no need to protect the public from Attorney O'Neil since he has 
indicated he now understands SCR 20:1.6 and has said he will 
conduct his practice accordingly.  The referee also noted that 
the referee cooperated fully with the OLR and for the most part 
made full and free disclosures showing a cooperative attitude 
toward the proceedings.  The referee recommended that Attorney 
O'Neil be given a public reprimand and that he be required to 
pay the costs of the proceeding, which totaled $11,438.82 as of 
March 12, 2003.  
¶20 We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law.  Attorney O'Neil's misconduct with respect 
to his disclosure of information relating to representation of a 
client without the client's consent is a serious failing.  As 
discipline for the professional misconduct we impose a public 
reprimand and order Attorney O'Neil to pay the costs of this 
proceeding, as recommended by the referee.  
¶21 IT IS ORDERED that Attorney James Paul O'Neil be 
publicly reprimanded for his professional misconduct. 
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney James Paul O'Neil shall pay to the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding in the amount 
of $11,438.82.  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 Attorney James 
No. 
02-1029-D   
 
10 
 
Paul O'Neil to practice law in Wisconsin shall be suspended 
until further order of the court.   
¶23 WILLIAM A. BABLITCH, DAVID T. PROSSER, and DIANE S. 
SYKES, JJ., dissent as to the amount of costs and find the costs 
to be excessive.   
No. 
02-1029-D   
 
 
 
1