Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Edwin W. Conmey

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2005 WI 166 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2003AP517-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Edwin W. Conmey, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Edwin W. Conmey,  
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CONMEY 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 13, 2005   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
September 30, 2005   
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the respondent-appellant there were briefs by Edwin W. 
Conmey, Oconomowoc. 
 
For the complainant-respondent there was a brief by Marc T. 
McCrory and Brennan, Steil & Basting, S.C., Janesville. 
 
 
2005 WI 166
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2003AP517-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Edwin W. Conmey, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Edwin W. Conmey, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
Dec 13, 2005 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney Edwin W. Conmey has appealed 
from 
a 
referee's 
report 
concluding 
that 
he 
engaged 
in 
professional misconduct and recommending that his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin be revoked.   
¶2 
We conclude that the referee's findings of fact are 
supported by satisfactory and convincing evidence.  We further 
determine that the seriousness of Attorney Conmey's misconduct 
warrants the revocation of his license to practice law in 
No. 
2003AP517-D   
 
2 
 
Wisconsin.  We also agree with the referee that the costs of the 
proceeding should be assessed against Attorney Conmey and that 
he be required to make restitution to the State Bar of Wisconsin 
Client Security Fund. 
¶3 
Attorney Conmey was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1968 and practices in Oconomowoc.  He has not 
previously been the subject of a disciplinary action.   
¶4 
In June 2003 the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
filed an amended complaint alleging that Attorney Conmey engaged 
in eight counts of professional misconduct with respect to his 
handling of two estates.  The amended complaint alleged five 
counts of misconduct with respect to Attorney Conmey's handling 
of the C.G. estate.  Attorney Conmey drafted a last will and 
testament for C.G. which was executed in front of witnesses on 
March 15, 1991.  Attorney Conmey appointed himself as personal 
representative for the administration of the estate and provided 
that he would serve without bond.  C.G. died on March 31, 1995.  
On April 3, 1995, Attorney Conmey was appointed special 
administrator of C.G.'s estate, and on May 16, 1995, he was 
appointed personal representative.  The informal administration 
of the estate commenced in April 1995.  Attorney Conmey remained 
personal representative and attorney for the estate until 
September 4, 2001.   
¶5 
On May 6, 1999, Attorney Conmey filed a final account 
and petition indicating that the estate's assets consisted 
primarily of a residence on Okauchee Lake, personal property, a 
vehicle, miscellaneous investments, and collections of baseball 
No. 
2003AP517-D   
 
3 
 
cards, firearms, coins and comic books.  The final account 
listed the gross value of the estate at $432,227 and showed 
undistributed assets of $96,610.  The final account listed a 
claim for attorney fees in that same amount.  The amount of 
requested attorney fees was based on Attorney Conmey's invoice 
dated April 29, 1999 in the amount of $98,418 describing 
services rendered from March 31, 1995 through September 17, 
1997.  Attorney Conmey billed his time at rates up to $210 per 
hour.  The invoice claimed 548 hours were expended on the 
estate, including legal, nonlegal and nonlawyer time.  According 
to the OLR's amended complaint, the bill included hourly charges 
for attending C.G.'s funeral, snow removal, checking C.G.'s 
house, starting a dehumidifier, putting a battery charger on the 
estate's 
truck, 
setting 
a 
thermostat 
and 
plugging 
in 
a 
refrigerator.  
¶6 
The OLR's amended complaint alleged in less than a 
two-year period, Attorney Conmey distributed from two estate 
checking accounts and his trust account more than $97,000 of 
estate funds to himself and his law firm for fees.  The amended 
complaint alleged most of this money could not have been 
reasonably considered legal fees in light of the work Attorney 
Conmey performed for C.G.'s estate.  
¶7 
On May 1, 2000, a hearing was held before Judge Lee 
Dreyfus, 
Jr. 
for 
approval 
of 
Attorney 
Conmey's 
personal 
representative fees and attorney fees.  It became evident at the 
hearing that Attorney Conmey had been disbursing estate funds to 
himself during his administration of the estate.  On May 26, 
No. 
2003AP517-D   
 
4 
 
2000, the circuit court issued an order finding that the estate 
should pay Attorney Conmey attorney fees of $21,875 for his 
professional services based on a fee of $175 per hour for 125 
hours which was found by the court to be work of a professional 
legal nature.  The court also ordered C.G.'s estate to pay 
Attorney Conmey $8645 as a personal representative's commission, 
based on 2 percent of the value of the inventory of the assets 
as of April 30, 1999.  The court found that Attorney Conmey 
overcharged the estate by requesting a total of $98,418 for a 
combination of attorney fees and personal representative fees.  
The court ordered Attorney Conmey to repay the estate $67,338 of 
excess fees he took from the estate without court approval.  The 
court ruled that the vast majority of time spent by Attorney 
Conmey 
on 
the 
estate 
was 
personal 
representative 
time, 
compensation for which is capped by statute at 2 percent of the 
value of the estate.  The court further concluded that all legal 
billable time should have been completed by June 1996 and it 
found that the estate should have been closed in the year 1997.  
¶8 
The circuit court directed that all final documents 
and closing documentation for C.G.'s estate were to be filed 
within 30 days of May 1, 2000.  An order to show cause hearing 
was scheduled for July 21, 2000 at which time Attorney Conmey 
represented to the court that the estate would be closed when he 
received the closing certificate from the State of Wisconsin.  
Nine months later, on April 21, 2001, the estate was again 
before Judge Dreyfus, at which time Attorney Jeffrey Kaczmarski 
No. 
2003AP517-D   
 
5 
 
objected to any additional attorney fees being paid to Attorney 
Conmey. 
¶9 
Attorney 
Conmey 
asked 
to 
resign 
as 
personal 
representative of C.G.'s estate and asked the court to allow him 
30 days to close the estate.  On May 23, 2001, the matter was 
again before Judge Dreyfus to determine why the estate had not 
yet been closed.  Attorney Conmey said he was waiving any 
additional attorney fees he had previously requested, and he 
asked for an extension until the end of June 2001 to close the 
estate.  The court indicated if the estate was not closed by 
June 29, 2001 the court would discharge Attorney Conmey as 
personal representative and would appoint a successor personal 
representative.   
¶10 On September 6, 2001, Judge Dreyfus issued an order 
discharging Attorney Conmey as personal representative for the 
C.G. estate and appointed Attorney George Love as successor 
personal representative.  Shortly after Attorney Love was 
appointed successor personal representative, he filed a civil 
action on behalf of C.G.'s estate in Waukesha County Circuit 
Court alleging that Attorney Conmey had converted $67,338 of the 
estate to his own personal use.  The estate sought treble 
damages 
as 
it 
alleged 
the 
civil 
conversion 
constituted 
embezzlement for purposes of the criminal code and thus 
triggered the possibility of a treble damage award under Wis. 
Stat. § 895.80 (2001-02). 
¶11 Attorney Love filed a motion for summary judgment in 
February 2002.  The circuit court granted the estate's motion 
No. 
2003AP517-D   
 
6 
 
and ordered that the estate recover the amount of $67,338 plus 
interest of $20,658.  The court denied the estate's motion for 
summary judgment on the treble damages claim, finding there was 
an open issue on Attorney Conmey's intent.  
¶12 The intent issue was tried to a jury in October 2002.  
The jury returned a special verdict finding that Attorney Conmey 
had transferred, used and retained the sum of $67,338 of C.G.'s 
estate with the intent to convert the money to his own use.  
Following motions after verdict, a judgment was entered against 
Attorney Conmey on November 18, 2002 in the amount of $179,704.  
Of that amount, $67,338 was awarded to the State Bar of 
Wisconsin Client Security Fund, which had paid that amount to 
the C.G. estate after determining that Attorney Conmey had acted 
dishonestly in the matter.  The balance was awarded to C.G.'s 
estate. 
¶13 Attorney Conmey appealed the judgment.  The court of 
appeals summarily affirmed on February 25, 2004.  Attorney 
Conmey's principal argument on appeal was that the attorney who 
represented him in the civil action provided ineffective 
assistance of counsel.  This court denied a petition for review.  
To date Attorney Conmey has paid less than $2500 on the 
judgment. 
¶14 The OLR's amended complaint also alleged that Attorney 
Conmey engaged in misconduct with respect to his handling of the 
E.S. estate.  In 1983 Attorney Conmey prepared a will for E.S. 
in 
which 
he 
was 
designated 
as 
the 
alternate 
personal 
representative.  He became the primary personal representative 
No. 
2003AP517-D   
 
7 
 
upon the death of E.S.'s husband.  In 1995 Attorney Conmey 
prepared a codicil to E.S.'s will which addressed only her 
burial.  E.S. died in July 1998.  Attorney Conmey filed her will 
and codicil with the Waukesha County Circuit Court, and he was 
appointed personal representative.  The beneficiaries of the 
estate were E.S.'s son, K.S., and her grandchildren, M.S. and 
E.S-H. 
¶15 The E.S. estate was opened in July 1998.  Attorney 
Conmey failed to timely file the estate's inventory.  Wisconsin 
has an 18-month deadline to close estates.  In January 2000 the 
Waukesha County Register in Probate sent Attorney Conmey a 
notice of delinquent estate.  Attorney Conmey repeatedly 
requested and received extensions to close the E.S. estate, 
saying he needed additional time in order to prepare the final 
fiduciary income tax returns and obtain a closing certificate. 
¶16 Attorney Conmey filed a final account in the E.S. 
estate on November 14, 2000.  In the final account he indicated 
that he had received $8997 for attorney fees and he also listed 
$7856 to be paid to him for personal representative fees.  
Attorney Conmey did not obtain or seek court approval to pay 
himself both his attorney fees and personal representative fees 
prior to his receipt of the attorney fees.   
¶17 The Waukesha County Register in Probate objected to 
Attorney 
Conmey 
taking 
both 
attorney 
fees 
and 
personal 
representative fees without court approval.  Attorney Conmey was 
given the option to petition the court to allow both fees.  He 
indicated he would not ask the court to approve both fees and 
No. 
2003AP517-D   
 
8 
 
said he would take only the personal representative fee and 
would not retain the attorney fees.  
¶18 On February 20, 2001, Attorney Conmey filed a closing 
certificate for fiduciaries and informed the court he would be 
closing the estate within 30 days.  During a hearing on May 8, 
2001, Attorney Conmey said he was not taking the attorney fees, 
and he agreed to refund the $8997 he had previously paid himself 
from estate funds.  The circuit court required Attorney Conmey 
to file an amended final account and amended income tax return 
and obtain a new closing certificate from the Wisconsin 
Department of Revenue.  He filed amended tax returns in May 
2001.  During hearings in June and September 2001, he told the 
circuit court he was still waiting for the new closing 
certificate from the Wisconsin Department of Revenue.  In 
November 2001 he wrote to the Department of Revenue requesting 
the closing certificate. 
¶19 Because the estate was not closed, the circuit court 
held monthly status hearings from November 2001 to March 2002.  
During a hearing on December 18, 2001, Attorney Conmey presented 
the 
amended 
closing 
certificate 
and 
partial 
receipts 
on 
incorrect forms that did not include the distribution of $8997 
that he was supposed to return to the estate for attorney fees 
he had previously paid himself without court approval.   
¶20 On January 8, 2002, the Waukesha County Register in 
Probate requested formal probate proceedings before the probate 
judge due to Attorney Conmey's extreme delay in closing E.S.'s 
estate.  During hearings in January, February and March 2002, 
No. 
2003AP517-D   
 
9 
 
Attorney Conmey told the court he needed to obtain receipts from 
one of the beneficiaries, M.S., who was traveling overseas.   
¶21 On 
March 
21, 
2002, 
Attorney 
Conmey 
sent 
final 
distribution checks to the three beneficiaries of the estate for 
the $8997 he had previously paid himself for attorney fees.  The 
checks were issued from Attorney Conmey's business checking 
account at First Bank Financial Center.  Checks were written to 
K.S. for $4498, to M.S. for $2249, and to E.S-H. for $2249.  Two 
of those checks bounced.   
¶22 An order to show cause hearing was held on April 29, 
2002 with K.S. and M.S. appearing by telephone and Attorney 
Conmey appearing in person.  The circuit court instructed K.S. 
and M.S. to redeposit their checks and appear at a further 
hearing on May 6, 2002.  In a letter dated May 2, 2002, M.S. 
informed the court and the register in probate that on April 30, 
2002 Attorney Conmey's bank had informed M.S. that Attorney 
Conmey's account did not have sufficient funds to cover the two 
outstanding checks, that Attorney Conmey left M.S. a message 
saying he had deposited sufficient funds that morning to cover 
the checks, and during the April 29, 2002 hearing, Attorney 
Conmey said he had sufficient funds in his account to cover the 
checks.  M.S. told the court that Attorney Conmey had made a 
number of misstatements relating to the dishonored checks.   
¶23 During a May 6, 2002 hearing, the circuit court called 
a recess and asked M.S. to call Attorney Conmey's bank to see if 
the check had cleared.  M.S. spoke with a bookkeeper at the bank 
and was informed his check had in fact cleared on May 1 and that 
No. 
2003AP517-D   
 
10 
 
K.S.'s check had cleared on May 3.  M.S. reported that 
conversation to the court when the hearing resumed.  The 
information from the bank that K.S.'s check had cleared, 
however, was incorrect.  K.S. called Attorney Conmey's bank that 
same day and was told by an assistant vice-president that the 
check payable to K.S. had been rejected for insufficient funds.  
In a letter to the court dated May 6, 2002, K.S. said Attorney 
Conmey had continued to give him false information regarding the 
final distribution check and also said the check had twice been 
presented and twice rejected for insufficient funds. 
¶24 First Bank Financial Center's assistant vice-president 
wrote to the register in probate on May 7, 2002 stating that 
Attorney Conmey's check to K.S. was presented for payment on May 
3, 2002 and on that date Attorney Conmey's business account had 
a balance of only $33, so presenting the check overdrew the 
account to a negative $4465.  The bank official said Attorney 
Conmey deposited $2400 into his account on May 4, 2002, which 
left a negative balance in the account of $2065.  The probate 
court held status conferences on May 13 and June 3, 2002.  At 
the June 3 conference K.S. informed the court that he had 
finally received his money and that all checks had cleared. 
¶25 The OLR's amended complaint alleged the following 
counts of misconduct with respect to the C.G. estate:   
Count 1: By failing to timely conclude and close the 
estate and to meet court imposed deadlines to do so, 
Conmey failed to act with reasonable diligence and 
No. 
2003AP517-D   
 
11 
 
promptness in representing the client in violation of 
SCR 20:1.3.1 
Count 2: By claiming a fee of $98,418.00 for an 
apparent combination of attorneys fees and personal 
representative fees when, in fact, the vast majority 
of the time expended was non-professional services, 
Conmey charged a fee that was unreasonable contrary to 
SCR 20:1.5(a).2 
Count 3: By disbursing funds from the estate to 
himself as legal fees without court approval and then 
failing to place those funds back in trust after 
learning that the beneficiaries disputed his fees, 
Conmey failed to treat the funds as trust property 
until there was an accounting and severance of his and 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.3 provides that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
2 SCR 20:1.5(a) provides that a lawyer's fee shall be 
reasonable. The factors to be considered in determining the 
reasonableness of a fee include the following:  
(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and 
difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill 
requisite to perform the legal service properly;  
(2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, 
that the acceptance of the particular employment will 
preclude other employment by the lawyer;  
(3) the fee customarily charged in the locality 
for similar legal services;  
(4) the 
amount 
involved 
and 
the 
results 
obtained;  
(5) the time limitations imposed by the client 
or by the circumstances;  
(6) the nature and length of the professional 
relationship with the client;  
(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of 
the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and  
(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent. 
No. 
2003AP517-D   
 
12 
 
the beneficiaries' interests, in violation of [former] 
SCR 20:1.15(d).3 
Count 4: By converting funds from the estate to his 
own use during his representation of the [C.G.] 
estate, 
Conmey 
engaged 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
and 
misrepresentation 
contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c).4 
Count 5: By drafting a will which named him as the 
personal representative of the estate, Conmey drafted 
a will which required or implied that his services 
were to be used in relationship to that will, contrary 
to SCR 20:7.3(f).5 
¶26 The OLR's amended complaint also alleged the following 
counts of misconduct with respect to the E.S. estate: 
Count 6: By failing to timely conclude and close the 
[E.S.] estate and meet court-imposed deadlines in that 
matter, Conmey failed to act with reasonable diligence 
and promptness in representing the client in violation 
of SCR 20:1.3. 
Count 7: By disbursing funds from the [E.S.] estate 
to himself as legal fees and disbursing additional 
                                                 
3 Former SCR 20:1.15 applies to misconduct committed prior 
to July 1, 2004.  Former SCR 20:1.15(d) Safekeeping property 
provides: 
(d) When, in the representation, a lawyer is in 
possession of property in which both the lawyer and 
another person claim interests, the property shall be 
treated by the lawyer as trust property until there is 
an accounting and severance of their interests.  If a 
dispute arises concerning their respective interests, 
the portion in dispute shall continue to be treated as 
trust property until the dispute is resolved. 
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." 
5 SCR 20:7.3(f) provides that "[e]xcept as permitted under 
SCR 11.06, a lawyer, at his or her instance, shall not draft 
legal documents, such as wills, trust instruments or contracts, 
which require or imply that the lawyer's services be used in 
relation to that document." 
No. 
2003AP517-D   
 
13 
 
estate funds to himself as personal representative 
fees, without first obtaining court approval, Conmey 
violated a statute regarding the conduct of lawyers 
[Wis. Stat. § 857.05(3)], contrary to SCR 20:8.4(f).6 
Count 8: By issuing refund checks to beneficiaries in 
the [E.S.] estate from his business account when he 
knew or acted with reckless disregard as to whether 
there were insufficient funds in his account to cover 
the 
checks, Conmey 
engaged in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation 
contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c). 
¶27 Attorney Eugene A. Gasiorkiewicz was appointed referee 
in this matter.  The OLR filed a motion for partial summary 
judgment.  After receiving briefs, the referee issued an order 
dated February 26, 2004 granting the OLR's motion for summary 
judgment with respect to Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 of the 
amended complaint.   
¶28 A hearing was held before the referee on April 12, 
2004 on the remaining counts.  The referee issued his report on 
June 10, 2004.  He concluded that the OLR failed to meet its 
burden of proof with respect to Count 5 of the amended 
complaint, but he found that the OLR did meet its burden of 
proof with respect to Count 6.   
¶29 With respect to the appropriate discipline to impose 
for the misconduct, the referee noted that the conversion of 
funds to an attorney's personal use has long been considered an 
offense punishable by revocation.  The referee said: 
I 
have 
searched 
the 
record 
to 
find 
some 
explanation for this conduct.  Mr. Conmey appears in 
                                                 
6 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." 
No. 
2003AP517-D   
 
14 
 
good health.  Mr. Conmey appeared intelligent and 
articulate in his presentation at the hearing in this 
matter.  He believes that he was entitled to the 
monies he took in at least the [C.G.] estate. . . . 
In 
view 
of 
Mr. 
Conmey's 
unwillingness 
to 
recognize his errors in these matters, I am unable to 
state that they would not happen again.  He has 
continued to offer explanation as to why he was 
entitled to the totality of his claimed fee in the 
[C.G.] estate, even after judicial review had taken 
place, and finds justification in issuing worthless 
checks in the [E.S.] estate. 
Mr. Conmey has refused to settle with the [C.G.] 
estate the legal fee dispute, and has not settled with 
the 
subrogated 
State 
Bar 
of 
Wisconsin 
Client's 
Security Fund.  The Court of Appeals found that Mr. 
Conmey's appeal "borders on the frivolous."  He 
disbursed to himself and utilized nearly one-fifth of 
the [C.G.] Estate assets without court approval.  When 
ordered to repay the estate, he neither complied nor 
placed the disputed amount in his trust account. 
¶30 The referee concluded that revocation of Attorney 
Conmey's license was the appropriate sanction for his numerous 
violations.  The referee also recommended that Attorney Conmey 
be ordered to repay the State Bar of Wisconsin Client Security 
Fund $67,338.15 plus interest from October 16, 2002 forward, and 
that he be ordered to pay the costs of this proceeding, which 
are $9963.35 as of October 3, 2005. 
¶31 Attorney 
Conmey 
appealed 
the 
referee's 
decision, 
arguing that the referee improperly relied on the court of 
appeals decision upholding the treble damage award in the C.G. 
estate and that the referee improperly relied on three unsworn 
testimony letters in the E.S. estate circuit court file.  As to 
the C.G. estate, Attorney Conmey's principal argument is that 
because he was "charged with the crime of theft," he was 
No. 
2003AP517-D   
 
15 
 
entitled to the effective assistance of counsel.  He blames the 
attorney who represented him in the civil lawsuit for his 
problems.  He argues that his attorney intentionally kept him in 
the dark, and he asserts that by failing to meet court imposed 
deadlines for jury instructions, his attorney failed to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing him and 
denied him the opportunity to make informed decisions.   
¶32 Attorney Conmey continues to argue that his accounts 
in the C.G. estate "were detailed, open and honest," and he 
believes he was entitled to the money he took as fees.  
¶33 With respect to the E.S. estate, Attorney Conmey 
argues that the referee improperly relied on three unsworn 
letters that were in the E.S. estate court file.  The letters at 
issue were written by beneficiaries of the E.S. estate to the 
circuit court.  One of the letters said that Attorney Conmey had 
been 
"untrustworthy, 
uncommunicative, 
and 
unprofessional."  
Another letter said, "Mr. Conmey has given false information and 
failed to follow through on promises he has made to cover this 
check."   
¶34 While the referee did not make any specific findings 
of fact based on these letters, in finding of fact number 79, 
the referee said, "[b]eneficiaries of the [E.S.] estate called 
[the register in probate] on multiple occasions and sent letters 
to the court complaining about the delay in Mr. Conmey's 
handling of the estate."  Attorney Conmey argues that the 
hearsay 
rule 
prevents 
the 
admission 
of 
unsworn 
written 
statements in court proceedings, and since the writers of the 
No. 
2003AP517-D   
 
16 
 
letters were not called to testify, he was unable to challenge 
the weight of the unsworn statements.  He asserts if he had been 
given the opportunity to cross-examine the persons writing the 
letters 
he 
could 
have 
exposed 
the 
writers' 
motives 
and 
prejudices and shown "that their posturing was pure and simple a 
pitch to the probate court in a futile attempt to force 
respondent to refund his personal representative's fee as well 
as his attorney's fees." 
¶35 With respect to the referee's recommendation that his 
license to practice law be revoked, Attorney Conmey argues, 
"[t]hat is a pretty severe sanction in view of respondent's 
thirty-five years of law practice and the fact that he has not 
been the subject of disciplinary proceedings before and was 
cooperative with the investigation in this matter."   
¶36 The OLR argues that the referee relied on the record 
when finding that Attorney Conmey converted funds from the C.G. 
estate, and the OLR says nothing in the referee's summary 
judgment decision of February 26, 2004 reflecting that the 
referee even knew the court of appeals had ruled on the appeal 
in the treble damages action on February 25, 2004.  The OLR 
argues that the referee was able to rule on the C.G. estate 
misconduct based solely on Attorney Conmey's admissions in his 
answer, his prior testimony in the circuit court litigation, and 
the court records. 
¶37 The OLR also asserts that Attorney Conmey's argument 
that the referee improperly relied on three unsworn testimony 
letters lacks merit.  It says again the referee's findings of 
No. 
2003AP517-D   
 
17 
 
fact with respect to the E.S. estate are based entirely on 
Attorney Conmey's own admissions and testimony.  The OLR points 
out that Attorney Conmey admitted in his deposition, which was 
read to him at the referee's hearing, that he wrote checks in 
the E.S. estate when he knew he did not have money in his 
account to cover them.  While the OLR notes that the referee did 
discuss the three "unsworn" letters in his report, he did so 
outside the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the 
portion of the report discussing the aggravating and mitigating 
circumstances of the case.  In that regard the referee noted 
that during the pendency of the E.S. estate various letters 
written to the court summarized the damage done by Attorney 
Conmey to the legal profession.  The OLR says the letters were 
not offered at the hearing to prove the truth of the matters 
contained therein, and it says the referee appropriately used 
some direct quotes from the letters to echo his own sentiment 
that 
Attorney 
Conmey's 
misconduct 
has 
hurt 
the 
public's 
perception of the legal profession. 
¶38 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless 
clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.  
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 
14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  The court may impose 
whatever sanction 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.  
Since the referee's findings of fact in this case have not been 
shown to be clearly erroneous, we adopt them.  We also agree 
No. 
2003AP517-D   
 
18 
 
with the referee's conclusions of law.  We further agree with 
the referee's recommendation that Attorney Conmey's license be 
revoked and that he be required to repay the Client Security 
Fund and pay the costs of this proceeding. 
¶39 Conversion of client funds by an attorney is a very 
serious offense.  Attorney Conmey overpaid himself more than 
$67,000 in the C.G. estate and so far has repaid less than 
$2500.  Throughout the civil suit and the OLR proceeding, 
Attorney Conmey has refused to admit any wrongdoing, instead 
blaming the lawyer he hired to represent him in the civil case.  
His arguments that the referee improperly relied on the court of 
appeals decision in the civil suit filed in the C.G. estate and 
that the referee improperly relied on unsworn letters sent to 
the circuit court in the E.S. estate are meritless.   
¶40 As the referee noted, the conversion of funds to a 
lawyer's personal use has long been considered an offense 
punishable by revocation.  See, e.g., In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Landa, 157 Wis. 2d 510, 461 N.W.2d 141 
(1990).  Given the amount of money involved and Attorney 
Conmey's complete lack of remorse, there is no reason to depart 
from that general rule here.  It is also appropriate to order 
Attorney Conmey to repay the Client Security Fund the money that 
it has paid out plus interest, and to require him to pay the 
costs of this proceeding. 
¶41 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Edwin W. 
Conmey to practice law in Wisconsin is hereby revoked, effective 
January 24, 2006. 
No. 
2003AP517-D   
 
19 
 
¶42 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Edwin W. Conmey repay the 
State Bar of Wisconsin Client Security Fund the amount of 
$67,338.61 plus interest from October 16, 2002. 
¶43 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Edwin W. Conmey pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
¶44 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Edwin W. Conmey 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. 
2003AP517-D   
 
 
 
1