Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. John Miller Carroll

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2005 WI 101 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2000AP1426-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against John Miller Carroll, Attorney at Law. 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation f/k/a Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility, 
          Complainant-Appellant-Respondent, 
     v. 
John Miller Carroll, 
          Respondent-Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CARROLL 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 6, 2005   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2005 WI 101
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2000AP1426-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against John Miller Carroll, Attorney at Law. 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation f/k/a Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility, 
 
          Complainant-Appellant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
John Miller Carroll, 
 
          Respondent-Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 6, 2005 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.  Reinstatement granted 
upon conditions.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that John Miller Carroll's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin be reinstated upon certain conditions.  We adopt the 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law and agree with 
his recommendation that John Miller Carroll's license to 
practice law be reinstated.  We also agree with the referee that 
it is appropriate to impose certain conditions upon the 
reinstatement.  In addition, we find it appropriate that Mr. 
No. 
2000AP1426-D   
 
2 
 
Carroll pay the costs of the reinstatement proceeding, which are 
$3695.31 as of June 17, 2005.   
¶2 
Mr. Carroll was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin 
in 1987.  In 1992 he received a private reprimand for failing to 
hold funds in trust in which both he and his former law firm 
claimed an interest.  In 1997 he received a private reprimand 
for performing work for a client after his services were 
terminated and for misrepresenting that he had filed a motion on 
behalf of the client.  In 1999 he received a public reprimand 
for neglect of a matter, failing to communicate with a client, 
and failing to return a retainer. 
¶3 
Mr. Carroll's license to practice law was suspended 
for one year commencing on January 10, 2002.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, 248 
Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 718.  In that disciplinary proceeding 
Mr. Carroll was found to have committed eight counts of 
professional misconduct, four of which related to trust account 
and associated retainer and legal fee matters.  The other four 
counts of misconduct involved failure to diligently pursue a 
client's claim, failure to keep a client reasonably informed 
about the status of a matter, failure to disclose to and 
cooperate 
with 
the 
Board 
of 
Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility 
(the 
predecessor 
to 
the 
Office 
of 
Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR)), and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation.  While suspended Mr. 
Carroll consented to the issuance of a public reprimand for pre-
No. 
2000AP1426-D   
 
3 
 
suspension conduct involving loaning funds to a personal injury 
client in conjunction with a pending litigation.   
¶4 
Mr. 
Carroll petitioned for 
reinstatement of his 
license to practice law in October 2002.  Following a hearing in 
April 2003, the referee issued a report recommending that the 
petition for reinstatement be denied.  Mr. Carroll filed an 
appeal.  After full briefing and oral argument, this court 
denied the petition for reinstatement.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Carroll, 2004 WI 19, 269 Wis. 2d 172, 675 
N.W.2d 792.  The opinion stated that Mr. Carroll could file a 
new petition for reinstatement of his license six months after 
the date of the court's decision. 
¶5 
Mr. 
Carroll 
filed 
his 
second 
petition 
for 
reinstatement in September 2004.  The referee, Judith Sperling-
Newton, held a hearing in January 2005, and issued her report on 
May 27, 2005.  In her report the referee noted that Mr. Carroll 
called seven witnesses at the hearing and also testified on his 
own behalf.  The referee said that for the most part all 
witnesses "had an absolute trust in petitioner's honesty and 
integrity, to the point of asking him to handle their personal 
real estate business."  The referee said there was no evidence 
that Mr. Carroll had engaged in the practice of law while he was 
suspended or that he in any other way violated the provisions of 
SCR 22.261 since the date of his suspension. 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.26 provides:  Activities following suspension or 
revocation. 
No. 
2000AP1426-D   
 
4 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
(1) On or before the effective date of license 
suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 
suspended or revoked shall do all of the following: 
(a) Notify by certified mail all clients being 
represented in pending matters of the suspension or 
revocation and of the attorney's consequent inability 
to act as an attorney following the effective date of 
the suspension or revocation. 
(b) Advise the clients to seek legal advice of 
their choice elsewhere. 
(c) Promptly provide written notification to 
the court or administrative agency and the attorney 
for each party in a matter pending before a court or 
administrative agency of the suspension or revocation 
and of the attorney's consequent inability to act as 
an attorney following the effective date of the 
suspension or revocation.  The notice shall identify 
the successor attorney of the attorney's client or, if 
there is none at the time notice is given, shall state 
the client's place of residence. 
(d) 
Within 
the 
first 
15 
days 
after 
the 
effective date of suspension or revocation, make all 
arrangements for the temporary or permanent closing or 
winding up of the attorney's practice.  The attorney 
may assist in having others take over clients' work in 
progress. 
(e) Within 25 days after the effective date of 
suspension or revocation, file with the director an 
affidavit showing all of the following: 
(i) Full compliance with the provisions of 
the suspension or revocation order and with the rules 
and procedures regarding the closing of the attorney's 
practice. 
(ii) A list of all jurisdictions, including 
state, federal and administrative bodies, before which 
the attorney is admitted to practice. 
(iii) A list of clients in all pending 
matters and a list of all matters pending before any 
No. 
2000AP1426-D   
 
5 
 
¶6 
The referee noted that SCR 22.31(1)2 provides the 
standard to be met for reinstatement.  Specifically, the 
                                                                                                                                                             
court or administrative agency, together with the case 
number of each matter. 
(f) Maintain records of the various steps taken 
under this rule in order that, in any subsequent 
proceeding instituted by or against the attorney, 
proof of compliance with the rule and with the 
suspension or revocation order is available. 
(2) An attorney whose license to practice law is 
suspended or revoked or who is suspended from the 
practice of law may not engage in this state in the 
practice 
of 
law 
or 
in 
any 
law 
work 
activity 
customarily done by law students, law clerks, or other 
paralegal personnel, except that the attorney may 
engage in law related work in this state for a 
commercial employer itself not engaged in the practice 
of law. 
(3) Proof of compliance with this rule is a 
condition precedent to reinstatement of the attorney's 
license to practice law. 
2 SCR 22.31(1) provides: Reinstatement hearing.   
(1) 
The 
petitioner 
has 
the 
burden 
of 
demonstrating, by clear, satisfactory, and convincing 
evidence all of the following: 
(a) That he or she has the moral character to 
practice law in Wisconsin. 
(b) That his or her resumption of the practice 
of law will not be detrimental to the administration 
of justice or subversive of the public interest. 
(c) That his or her representations in the 
petition, including the representations required by 
SCR 
22.29(4)(a) 
to 
(m) 
and 
22.29(5), 
are 
substantiated. 
(d) That he or she has complied fully with the 
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and 
with the requirements of SCR 22.26. 
No. 
2000AP1426-D   
 
6 
 
petitioner must show by clear, satisfactory and convincing 
evidence that he or she has the moral character to practice law, 
that his or her resumption of the practice of law will not be 
detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of 
the public interest, and that he or she has complied with SCR 
22.26 and the terms of the suspension.  In addition to these 
requirements, SCR 22.29(4)3 states related requirements that a 
                                                 
3 SCR 22.29(4) provides:  Petition for reinstatement. 
 
(4) The petition for reinstatement shall show all 
of the following: 
(a) 
The 
petitioner 
desires 
to 
have 
the 
petitioner's license reinstated. 
(b) The petitioner has not practiced law 
during the period of suspension or revocation. 
(c) The petitioner has complied fully with the 
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and 
will 
continue 
to 
comply 
with 
them 
until 
the 
petitioner's license is reinstated. 
(d) The petitioner has maintained competence 
and learning in the law by attendance at identified 
educational activities. 
(e) 
The 
petitioner's 
conduct 
since 
the 
suspension or revocation has been exemplary and above 
reproach. 
(f) The petitioner has a proper understanding 
of and attitude toward the standards that are imposed 
upon members of the bar and will act in conformity 
with the standards. 
(g) The petitioner can safely be recommended 
to the legal profession, the courts and the public as 
a person fit to be consulted by others and to 
represent them and otherwise act in matters of trust 
and 
confidence 
and 
in 
general 
to 
aid 
in 
the 
No. 
2000AP1426-D   
 
7 
 
petition for reinstatement must show.  All of these additional 
requirements are effectively incorporated into SCR 22.31(1).  
The referee concluded that Mr. Carroll met all of the criteria 
for reinstatement and met his burden of demonstrating that his 
license to practice law in Wisconsin should be reinstated.   
¶7 
The referee recommended that, for two years following 
the reinstatement of his license, Mr. Carroll be subject to the 
following conditions:  (1) that the court impose a reporting and 
monitoring requirement relating to Mr. Carroll's trust account; 
(2) that Mr. Carroll be required to provide the OLR with 
quarterly reports showing that his trust account management and 
record keeping comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct; 
(3) that Mr. Carroll be required to provide promptly to the OLR 
any and all additional trust account or client records that the 
OLR may request; and (4) that the OLR have the authority in its 
supervisory capacity to ensure that Attorney Carroll is at all 
                                                                                                                                                             
administration of justice as a member of the bar and 
as an officer of the courts. 
(h) The petitioner has fully complied with the 
requirements set forth in SCR 22.26. 
(j) The petitioner's proposed use of the 
license if reinstated. 
(k) 
A 
full 
description 
of 
all 
of 
the 
petitioner's business activities during the period of 
suspension or revocation. 
(m) The petitioner has made restitution to or 
settled all claims of persons injured or harmed by 
petitioner's misconduct or, if not, the petitioner's 
explanation of the failure or inability to do so. 
No. 
2000AP1426-D   
 
8 
 
times in compliance with the provisions of an office management 
plan which he furnished to the OLR on February 14, 2005.  The 
OLR informed the court that after receiving and reviewing the 
referee's report and recommendation, the OLR would not be filing 
an appeal. 
¶8 
After a review of the record we conclude that John 
Miller Carroll has established by clear, satisfactory and 
convincing evidence that he has satisfied all the criteria for 
reinstatement.  Accordingly, we adopt the referee's findings of 
fact and conclusions of law and we agree with the referee's 
recommendation that Mr. Carroll's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin be reinstated. 
¶9 
IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement of 
the license of John Miller Carroll to practice law in Wisconsin 
is granted, effective the date of this order.   
¶10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of 
reinstatement, for a period of two years John Miller Carroll 
shall submit to an audit of his client trust account, at his own 
expense, at least quarterly, as required by the OLR. 
¶11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of 
reinstatement, for a period of two years John Miller Carroll 
shall be required to provide the OLR with quarterly reports 
showing that his trust account management and record keeping 
comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct. 
¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of 
reinstatement, for a period of two years John Miller Carroll 
shall be required to provide promptly to the OLR any and all 
No. 
2000AP1426-D   
 
9 
 
additional trust account or client records that the OLR may 
request. 
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of 
reinstatement, for a period of two years the OLR shall have the 
authority in its supervisory capacity to ensure that John Miller 
Carroll is at all times in compliance with the provisions of the 
office management plan which he furnished to the OLR on February 
14, 2005. 
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order John Miller Carroll 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 John Miller Carroll to practice law in Wisconsin 
shall be suspended until further order of the court. 
 
No. 
2000AP1426-D   
 
 
 
1