Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jeffrey Reitz

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2009 WI 90 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2007AP2935-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  Jeffrey Reitz, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Jeffrey Reitz, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST REITZ 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 23, 2009   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
May 1, 2009   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the respondent-appellant there was a brief by Jeffrey 
Reitz and oral argument by Mark A. Kent (counsel for J. Reitz) 
and the Mark A. Kent Law Office, Wauwatosa. 
 
For the complainant-respondent there was a brief by Robert 
G. Krohn and Roethe Krohn Pope LLP, Edgerton, on behalf of the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, Madison, and oral argument by 
Robert G. Krohn. 
 
 
 
 
2009 WI 90
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2007AP2935-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jeffrey Reitz, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Jeffrey Reitz, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 23, 2009 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney Jeffrey Reitz appeals Referee 
Richard C. Ninneman's report recommending the court suspend 
Attorney Jeffrey Reitz's license to practice law for four months 
as 
discipline 
for 
his 
professional 
misconduct, 
require 
restitution to one client, and impose the costs of this 
proceeding.  Attorney Reitz does not challenge the referee's 
findings of facts or conclusions of law, and he does not oppose 
No. 
2007AP2935-D   
 
2 
 
the recommended restitution.  The only issue before the court is 
the appropriate discipline for Attorney Reitz's misconduct. 
¶2 
We agree with the referee's findings and conclusions 
of law, and we agree that restitution to one of Attorney Reitz's 
clients is appropriate.  However, we conclude that a 90-day 
suspension is adequate to address Attorney Reitz's misconduct.  
We also impose the full costs of the disciplinary proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney Reitz was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1981.  In 2005 Attorney Reitz was suspended for 5 
months for 13 counts of professional misconduct arising from 
Attorney 
Reitz's 
representation 
of 
6 
clients. 
 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Reitz, 
2005 
WI 
39, 
279 
Wis. 2d 550, 
694 
N.W.2d 894. 
 
The 
allegations 
in 
that 
disciplinary 
matter 
generally 
consisted 
of 
failure 
to 
communicate with clients and lack of diligence.  His law partner 
at the time of many of those violations was also sanctioned.  
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mandelman, 2006 WI 
45, 290 Wis. 2d 158, 714 N.W.2d 512. 
¶4 
All of the allegations in the current complaint 
involve a business referral relationship that Attorney Reitz's 
law firm ("the law firm") maintained with a chiropractor, Dr. D.  
Attorney Reitz or his partner, Attorney Mandelman, and certain 
clients would execute a doctor's lien whereby the client and the 
law firm agreed to pay for Dr. D.'s chiropractic services out of 
anticipated settlement proceeds.1  
                                                 
1 In at least one case Attorney Reitz executed the lien on 
behalf of the law firm. 
No. 
2007AP2935-D   
 
3 
 
¶5 
The OLR complaint alleged that in 15 cases where such 
a lien existed, the law firm failed to send proper written 
notice to Dr. D. when settlement funds were received.  In some 
cases the law firm did inform Dr. D. that a settlement had been 
received.  However, the referee ruled these communications did 
not satisfy the supreme court rule requirements, and Attorney 
Reitz does not contest that finding. 
¶6 
In many of these cases the law firm did not pay the 
full amount of the chiropractic bill.  Notably, neither Attorney 
Reitz nor the law firm necessarily benefited financially from 
the law firm's failure to pay these chiropractic bills in full.  
The record reflects the law firm or the client sought to 
negotiate a fee reduction in these cases. 
¶7 
At some point Dr. D. retained a collection firm to 
pursue these accounts.  On at least two occasions the law firm 
wrote checks in partial payment of a client's chiropractic bill 
with the intention of settling the fee dispute in full.  In both 
cases the proffered settlement check was promptly endorsed and 
cashed, but Dr. D. claimed he did not receive these monies.  The 
license of the collection firm employed by Dr. D. was later 
revoked for failing to turn over collected funds to clients.  
¶8 
Dr. D. initiated small claims cases against some of 
these clients to recoup his fees.  Eventually, Dr. D. agreed to 
take remaining fees held in the law firm's trust account in 
satisfaction of these obligations.  He obtained a judgment 
against the client in three matters.  
No. 
2007AP2935-D   
 
4 
 
¶9 
On February 4, 2006, after Dr. D. had filed a series 
of grievances against Attorney Mandelman, the law firm and 
Attorney Mandelman (in his personal capacity) filed a civil 
action against Dr. D. seeking a declaratory judgment that all 
chiropractic fees due and owing to Dr. D. had been paid.  Dr. D. 
did not respond to the complaint.  On June 22, 2006, the 
Milwaukee County circuit court issued a default judgment ruling 
that if the law firm transferred amounts remaining in the law 
firm's trust account to Dr. D., this transfer would satisfy the 
law firm's obligations to Dr. D. in full.  The judgment did not 
absolve clients of potential indebtedness to Dr. D. 
¶10 The OLR filed the complaint in this disciplinary 
proceeding on December 21, 2007.  The OLR complaint alleges that 
by failing to give Dr. D. written notice that settlement 
proceeds were received in several cases in which he was the 
treating chiropractor, and by failing to promptly deliver to 
Dr. D. the amount he was entitled to receive in accordance with 
the document signed by both the client and the law firm 
entitling Dr. D. to payment out of settlement proceeds, Attorney 
Reitz violated former SCR 20:1.15(b).2 
                                                 
2 Former SCR 20:1.15(b) (effective through June 30, 2004) 
provided as follows: 
Upon receiving funds or other property in which a 
client or third person has an interest, a lawyer shall 
promptly notify the client or third person in writing.  
Except as stated in this rule or otherwise permitted 
by law or by agreement with the client, a lawyer shall 
promptly deliver to the client or third person any 
funds or other property that the client or third 
person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the 
No. 
2007AP2935-D   
 
5 
 
 ¶11 The individual client matters at issue are summarized 
as follows:   
April 1999  
P.D. obtained a $10,000 settlement. 
Her chiropractic bill was $2,211.72.  
The law firm retained or disbursed 
only $426.75. 
May 1999 
A.R. obtained a $10,000 settlement. 
His $977.40 chiropractic bill was not 
paid.   
May 1999 
E.R. obtained a $10,000 settlement.  
His $505.40 chiropractic bill was not 
paid. 
June 1999 
J.N. obtained a $10,000 settlement.  
The law firm paid $1,200 of his 
$1,905.10 
chiropractic 
bill 
in 
February 2002. 
January 2000 
G.R. obtained a $10,700 settlement. 
The 
law 
firm 
paid 
$54.15 
of 
a 
$4,523.10 chiropractic bill. 
July 2000 
D.W. obtained a $12,000 settlement.  
The law firm paid one-half of his 
$1,172 chiropractic bill. 
August 2000 
J.S. obtained a $25,000 settlement. 
The law firm sent $1,400.64 to a 
collection 
agency 
to 
cover 
the 
$1,445.65 bill, but Dr. D. did not 
receive the payment. 
January 2001 
G.B. obtained a $3,967 settlement.  
The law firm sent Dr. D. $322.33 to 
satisfy his $890 chiropractic bill. 
January 2001 
J.K. obtained a $6,900 settlement.  
Dr. D. eventually accepted $405 in 
settlement of his $865 bill after 
                                                                                                                                                             
client or third person, shall render a full accounting 
regarding such property. 
No. 
2007AP2935-D   
 
6 
 
filing a small claims action against 
J.K. 
May 2001 
E.G. obtained a $6,250 settlement.  
Dr. 
D. 
obtained 
a 
small 
claims 
judgment against E.G. in the amount of 
$3,409.  It appears this was not paid. 
May 2001 
S.R. obtained a $6,250 settlement.  
Dr. 
D. 
obtained 
a 
$3,451 
default 
judgment against S.R.  It appears this 
was not paid. 
October 2001 
J.H. obtained an $82,500 settlement.  
The law firm sent a check in the 
amount of $1,299.64 in satisfaction of 
a $2,565.10 chiropractic bill, but 
Dr. D. denies receiving the payment. 
August 2002 
J.Z. received a $20,000 settlement.  
The law firm did not pay a $2,443.89 
chiropractic bill. 
March 2003 
A.G. received a $3,300 settlement.  
The law firm retained in trust $500 
toward a $4,813.60 chiropractic bill.  
It appears Dr. D. did not receive 
payment in this matter. 
¶12 In February 2001 client B.S. obtained a $23,000 
settlement. The client's file contained two bills from Dr. D.  
One bill was from 1999 and was in the amount of $6,616.88.  The 
other bill was from February 2001 and was in the amount of 
$3,400.04.  The law firm had retained $8,717.88 in trust.  
Dr. D. initiated collection proceedings against B.S. when the 
law firm failed to pay his bill.  The law firm then failed to 
confirm the correct amount of the chiropractic bill and sent a 
check to the collection agency in the amount of $5,600.  The 
collection agency promptly endorsed and cashed this check, but 
Dr. D. never received the funds.  Dr. D. then initiated a small 
No. 
2007AP2935-D   
 
7 
 
claims action against B.S., obtaining a default judgment.  It is 
undisputed that the client is entitled to $2,199.96 reflecting 
an overpayment made to the collection agency. 
¶13 Following an evidentiary hearing at which each of 
these matters was presented, the referee concluded there was 
clear and convincing evidence that Attorney Reitz violated 
former SCR 20:1.15(b) in these 15 client matters.  The referee 
recommended restitution to client B.S. in the amount of 
$2,199.96 
because 
of 
the 
law 
firm's 
overpayment 
to 
the 
collection agency.   
¶14 Attorney 
Reitz does not challenge the referee's 
findings and does not challenge the recommended restitution.  
Rather, he contends that the recommended suspension of four 
months is excessive. 
¶15 This court will adopt a referee's findings of fact 
unless they are 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 sees fit 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.   
¶16 The 
OLR 
points out that in In the Matter of 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Riegleman, 2003 WI 3, 259 
Wis. 2d 1, 657 N.W.2d 339, Attorney Riegleman received a 60-day 
suspension for a single instance of conduct similar to the 15 
separate counts of misconduct committed by Attorney Reitz.  
However, Attorney Riegleman actually endorsed a check made out 
No. 
2007AP2935-D   
 
8 
 
to the lienholder without permission, thus violating SCR 
20:8.4(c) as well as failing to promptly notify the insurer, in 
writing, of funds in which the insurer had an interest, thus 
also violating SCR 20:1.15(b).  
¶17 The OLR also cites In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Collins, 2004 WI 9, 268 Wis. 2d 441, 674 N.W.2d 566, in 
which this court imposed a 60-day suspension for eight separate 
counts of misconduct involving three separate client matters.  
Attorney Collins had previously received two public reprimands.  
Again, however, this matter is distinguishable on its facts. 
¶18 Attorney Collins engaged in two counts of neglect, two 
trust account violations, two instances of failing to cooperate 
with the OLR investigations, one count of disobeying a court 
order, and one count of failure to keep a client reasonably 
informed about a hearing in her case.  Attorney Collins failed 
to deposit a settlement check into his trust account and failed 
to instruct his client to endorse that settlement check so a 
lienholder could receive payment.  He also failed to timely file 
a guardianship report in another matter involving a minor, 
failed to cooperate with the board and the administrator in the 
investigation, prosecution and disposition of a grievance, and 
failed to appear at certain hearings or advise clients of 
hearings.  We deem Attorney Collins' misconduct more egregious 
than the misconduct committed by Attorney Reitz in this matter.   
¶19 We do find In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
McNeeley, 
2008 
WI 
91, 
313 
Wis. 2d 283, 
752 
N.W.2d 857, 
instructive.  Attorney McNeeley was suspended for 60 days in 
No. 
2007AP2935-D   
 
9 
 
connection with his distribution of settlement proceeds without 
obtaining proper conflict waivers or providing proper notice to 
potentially interested parties.  There, as here, Attorney 
McNeeley failed to comply with certain notice requirements but 
did not benefit financially from that failure.  However, while 
we are mindful that Attorney Reitz did not personally benefit 
from the admitted trust account violations, we note that he has 
been previously disciplined for misconduct. 
¶20 Ultimately, 
imposition 
of 
discipline 
in 
attorney 
disciplinary cases is not an exact science.  Upon careful 
consideration of the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude 
that a 90-day suspension is adequate discipline for Attorney 
Reitz's misconduct together with restitution to B.S. in the 
amount of $2,199.96 and imposition of the costs of the 
disciplinary proceedings, which total $9,488.08 as of May 15, 
2009. 
¶21 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Jeffrey A. Reitz to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 90 days, 
effective August 31, 2009.   
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jeffrey A. Reitz shall 
comply with the requirements of SCR 22.26 pertaining to 
activities following suspension if he has not already done so. 
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Jeffrey A. Reitz shall pay restitution to B.S. in 
the amount of $2,199.96 as recommended in the referee's report.  
If the restitution is not paid within the time specified and 
absent a showing to this court of his inability to pay the 
No. 
2007AP2935-D   
 
10 
 
restitution within that time, Jeffrey A. Reitz's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further 
order of the court. 
¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Jeffrey A. Reitz shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  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 Jeffrey A. Reitz to practice law in Wisconsin 
shall remain suspended until further order of the court. 
¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution to B.S. is 
to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation. 
 
No. 
2007AP2935-D   
 
 
 
1