Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Linda L. Gray

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2018 WI 39 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2017AP1273-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Linda L. Gray, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Linda L. Gray, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GRAY 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 18, 2018 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
      
 
 
2018 WI 39
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2017AP1273-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Linda L. Gray, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Linda L. Gray, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 18, 2018 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Pending before the court is the report 
of referee Jonathan V. Goodman, following a hearing and the 
receipt of a stipulation and supplemental stipulation between 
the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and the respondent, 
Attorney Linda L. Gray.  Attorney Gray has opted to plead no 
contest to the sole misconduct count brought against her:  a 
violation of SCR 20:1.8(c)1 related to her drafting of the will 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.8(c) provides:  
(continued) 
No. 
2017AP1273-D   
 
2 
 
of M.A., who died at age 71 in January 2015.  Although Attorney 
Gray is not related to M.A., she received a significant 
testamentary gift from her:  the balance of her estate after 
specific bequests to charities were distributed, which resulted 
in Attorney Gray receiving $298,742.12.  Consistent with the 
parties' stipulation, the referee recommended that this court 
suspend Attorney Gray's Wisconsin law license for 60 days for 
her professional misconduct.  The referee further recommended 
that Attorney Gray should be assessed the full costs of the 
proceeding, which are $2,067.67 as of January 17, 2018.  The OLR 
does not seek the payment of restitution in these proceedings, 
and the referee does not recommend it. 
¶2 
No appeal has been filed so we review this matter 
pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).2  We approve and adopt the referee's 
                                                                                                                                                             
A lawyer shall not solicit any substantial gift 
from a client, including a testamentary gift, nor 
prepare an instrument giving the lawyer or a person 
related to the lawyer any substantial gift from a 
client, including a testamentary gift, except where 
(1) the client is related to the donee, (2) the donee 
is a natural object of the bounty of the client, (3) 
there is no reasonable ground to anticipate a contest, 
or a claim of undue influence or for the public to 
lose confidence in the integrity of the bar, and (4) 
the amount of the gift or bequest is reasonable and 
natural under the circumstances.  For purposes of this 
paragraph, related persons include a spouse, child, 
grandchild, parent, grandparent or other relative or 
individual 
with 
whom 
the 
lawyer 
or 
the 
client 
maintains a close, familial relationship. 
2 SCR 22.17(2) provides: 
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 
(continued) 
No. 
2017AP1273-D   
 
3 
 
findings and conclusions and we agree that a 60-day suspension 
is sufficient discipline for Attorney Gray's misconduct.  We 
further order that Attorney Gray pay the full costs of this 
disciplinary proceeding.  We decline to order restitution.   
¶3 
Attorney Gray was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in 1982.  She practiced law in East Troy, Wisconsin at 
the time of the filing of the complaint.  Her disciplinary 
history consists of one private reprimand imposed some time ago, 
in the 1980s.   
¶4 
Attorney Gray knew M.A. since the mid-1980s.  M.A. 
never married, had no children, and was estranged from her 
siblings and other relatives.  Attorney Gray and M.A. became 
close friends and remained so for many years preceding M.A.'s 
death.   
¶5 
M.A. died in January 2015 at age 71 after a battle 
with cancer.  During M.A.'s illness, Attorney Gray spent a great 
deal of time attending to M.A.'s needs, rendering what the 
referee described as "outstanding care and attention" that went 
"above and beyond the norm in her devotion to [M.A.] and her 
assistance and care in [M.A.'s] final years, months, and days."  
The care rendered by Attorney Gray included, but was not limited 
                                                                                                                                                             
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. 
2017AP1273-D   
 
4 
 
to, spending considerable time taking M.A. to and from her 
required medical treatments.  
¶6 
In 2013, M.A. asked Attorney Gray to draft a will to 
replace one that Attorney Gray had drafted for her many years 
earlier, in 2000.  Attorney Gray did so, and M.A signed the will 
before 
witnesses 
in 
September 
2013. 
 
M.A.'s 
drafting 
instructions for the will were clear:  no bequests were to be 
made to any of her relatives; specific bequests were to be made 
to certain charities; and the balance of her estate was to be 
distributed to Attorney Gray.  Attorney Gray drafted the will in 
accordance with these instructions, and M.A. signed the will in 
the presence of witnesses.  There is no dispute that M.A. had 
testamentary capacity at the time she signed her will. 
¶7 
After M.A.'s death, the will went through probate 
without 
contest. 
 
Attorney 
Gray 
served 
as 
the 
personal 
representative.   
¶8 
As explained above, under the terms of the will, 
Attorney Gray received over $290,000 from M.A.'s estate.  Her 
receipt of this money triggered a complaint to the OLR by a 
relative of M.A. who had little in the way of a relationship 
with M.A. during her lifetime.  
¶9 
The parties stipulated and the referee concluded that 
Attorney Gray had violated SCR 20:1.8(c) by drafting M.A.'s 
will, given that Attorney Gray was not related to M.A. and 
received a significant residuary gift from the will.  On the 
basis of this professional misconduct, the parties stipulated to 
a 60-day suspension of Attorney Gray's license.  The referee 
No. 
2017AP1273-D   
 
5 
 
adopted that stipulation as his recommendation to the court.  He 
wrote that, although one could "easily conclude" that a public 
reprimand would be appropriate here, a 60-day suspension is 
appropriate given the gravity of the offense and the need to 
deter other attorneys from engaging in similar conduct.   
¶10 The referee held an evidentiary hearing to evaluate 
whether this court should order Attorney Gray to reimburse 
M.A.'s estate for the nearly $300,000 residuary gift she 
received.  After hearing testimony from Attorney Gray and two of 
M.A.'s long-time friends, the referee recommended against a 
restitution order, citing Attorney Gray's age (70 years old), 
the loss of business and income she incurred as a result of 
adverse publicity generated by these proceedings, and "the lack 
of evidence of any undue influence" by Attorney Gray on M.A. 
¶11 After careful review of the matter, we conclude that 
the 
record 
supports 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact.  
Accordingly, we adopt them.  
¶12 We further agree with the referee's conclusion of law 
that Attorney Gray violated SCR 20:1.8(c).  As an admitted non-
relative of M.A., Attorney Gray had a duty to refuse to draft a 
will in which she would receive a testamentary gift.  See State 
v. Collentine, 39 Wis. 2d 325, 332–33, 159 N.W.2d 50 (1968).  
She was obliged to advise M.A. to consult another attorney if 
M.A. insisted on making such a bequest.  Id.  Attorney Gray 
violated this duty when she drafted M.A.'s will and included 
herself as a beneficiary. 
No. 
2017AP1273-D   
 
6 
 
¶13 We 
further 
agree 
that 
a 
60-day 
suspension 
is 
appropriate.  Our case law dictates that a suspension, rather 
than a reprimand, is required.  In State v. Beaudry, 53 
Wis. 2d 148, 
191 
N.W.2d 842 
(1971), 
we 
concluded 
that 
a 
reprimand was appropriate for an attorney-beneficiary who 
selected another attorney to act as a mere scrivener, not as an 
independent legal advisor, in drafting a client's will in which 
the selecting attorney was named the primary beneficiary.  We 
warned that "we consider the seriousness of this reprimand to be 
but a notch or a hairline from suspension."  Id. at 156.  Here, 
no daylight separates Attorney Gray's actions from what we have 
demarked as unethical behavior, both by rule and by precedent. 
¶14 But like the referee, we see no need to order a 
suspension 
longer 
than 
the 
parties' 
stipulated 
60-day 
suspension.  A 60-day suspension is, generally, our minimum 
suspension length.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Grady, 188 Wis. 2d 98, 108–09, 523 N.W.2d 564 (1994).  A minimum 
suspension length is appropriate here given Attorney Gray's 
scant disciplinary history and the absolute absence of evidence 
in the record that she took advantage of M.A., her longtime 
friend.  By all indications, Attorney Gray's preparation of 
M.A.'s will was misguided, not malevolent. 
¶15 We turn next to the issue of restitution.  We agree 
with 
the 
referee's 
determination, 
based 
on 
the 
parties' 
stipulation and the testimony received at an evidentiary 
hearing, that a restitution order would be inappropriate.  
M.A.'s will has been fully probated and the estate is closed.  
No. 
2017AP1273-D   
 
7 
 
Ordering Attorney Gray to make restitution of the amount of her 
residuary gift here would undo the results of those probate 
proceedings——something we decline to do, particularly given the 
facts of this case.   
¶16 Finally, we turn to the issue of costs.  The referee 
has recommended that Attorney Gray pay the full costs of this 
proceeding, which total $2,067.67 as of January 17, 2018.  
Attorney Gray has not objected to this recommendation.  In the 
absence of any objection, and consistent with our general 
practice, we impose full costs.  See SCR 22.24(1m). 
¶17 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Linda L. Gray to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective May 30, 2018.   
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Linda L. Gray shall comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Linda L. Gray shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $2,067.67 as 
of January 17, 2018. 
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See SCR 
22.29(4)(c). 
 
 
 
 
1