Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Daniel R. Grade

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2007 WI 108 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2006AP814-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Daniel R. Grade, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Daniel R. Grade, 
          Respondent.   
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GRADE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 24, 2007   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2007 WI 108
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2006AP814-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Daniel R. Grade, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Daniel R. Grade, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 24, 2007 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   We 
review 
a 
referee's 
report 
and 
recommendation for discipline recommending that the license of 
Attorney Daniel R. Grade to practice law in Wisconsin be 
revoked.  The referee's report incorporates a stipulation 
entered into between Attorney Grade and the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR) whereby Attorney Grade stipulated to 36 counts 
of misconduct alleged in a complaint filed by the OLR on 
April 5, 2006.  We adopt the referee's findings of fact and 
No. 
2006AP814-D   
 
2 
 
conclusions of law and agree that Attorney Grade's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin should be revoked.  We also agree with 
the referee that Attorney Grade should be required to pay the 
entire costs of the proceeding.  
¶2 
Attorney Grade was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1993.  His most recent address, as furnished to the 
State Bar of Wisconsin, is in Wauwatosa.  Attorney Grade's 
license was administrative suspended in June 2004 due to his 
failure to report mandatory continuing legal education (CLE) 
requirements. 
 
His 
license 
was 
temporarily 
suspended 
on 
August 24, 2004, pursuant to SCR 22.03(4),1 due to his failure to 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.03(4) provides:  Investigation. 
 
(4) If the respondent fails to respond to the 
request for written response to an allegation of 
misconduct or fails to cooperate in other respects in 
an 
investigation, 
the 
director, 
or 
a 
special 
investigator acting under SCR 22.25, may file a motion 
with the supreme court requesting that the court order 
the respondent to show cause why his or her license to 
practice law should not be suspended for willful 
failure 
to 
respond 
or 
cooperate 
with 
the 
investigation. 
 
All 
papers, 
files, 
transcripts, 
communications, and proceedings on the motion shall be 
confidential and shall remain confidential until the 
supreme court has issued an order to show cause.  The 
license of an attorney suspended for willful failure 
to respond or cooperate with an investigation may be 
reinstated by the supreme court upon a showing of 
cooperation with the investigation and compliance with 
the terms of suspension.  The director or the special 
investigator shall file a response in support of or in 
opposition to the reinstatement within 20 days after 
the filing of an attorney's request for reinstatement.  
Upon a showing of good cause, the supreme court may 
extend the time for filing a response. 
No. 
2006AP814-D   
 
3 
 
cooperate with two OLR grievance investigations.  His license 
remains suspended.   
¶3 
As previously noted, in April 2006 the OLR filed a 
complaint alleging 36 counts of misconduct.  The majority of the 
counts of misconduct related to Attorney Grade's handling of 
probate matters.  He was also alleged to have engaged in 
misconduct 
while 
representing 
clients 
in 
a 
real 
estate 
transaction and a collection matter.  In addition, the complaint 
alleged that Attorney Grade willfully failed to cooperate with 
the OLR's investigation of various grievances. 
¶4 
Stanley F. Hack was appointed referee on May 10, 2006.  
Various telephone conferences were held.  A hearing before the 
referee was held on October 24, 2006, at which time testimony 
was taken from various witnesses and various exhibits were 
introduced and received.  At the close of the hearing Attorney 
Grade and the OLR entered into a stipulation whereby Attorney 
Grade stipulated to the misconduct alleged in all 36 counts of 
the OLR's complaint.   
¶5 
The referee issued his report and recommendation on 
February 22, 2007.  The referee noted that Attorney Grade 
admitted he had abandoned his practice of law without any 
notification to his clients or the courts and, as a result, 
breached his fiduciary duties to his clients, the court and the 
                                                                                                                                                             
The OLR's complaint alleged that Attorney Grade's 
license was suspended pursuant to SCR 22.23(4).  It is 
apparent that this citation was in error and that the 
applicable supreme court rule is SCR 22.03(4) as cited 
above. 
No. 
2006AP814-D   
 
4 
 
OLR.  The referee also noted that a receiver had been appointed 
to take over Attorney Grade's law practice, pursuant to SCR 
12.03(2).2   
¶6 
The referee found that all 36 counts of misconduct 
alleged in the OLR's complaint had been proven.  Specifically, 
the referee found that Attorney Grade violated SCRs 20:1.4(a),3 
20:1.3,4 20:8.4(c),5 20:1.5(b),6 20:8.4(f),7 20:1.16(d),8 20:3.2,9 
                                                 
2 SCR 
12.03(2) 
provides 
in 
relevant 
part: 
 
Sole 
practitioners; death or disappearance. 
 
(2) Disappearance. 
 
(a) Upon the abandonment or disappearance of an 
attorney who is a sole practitioner that continues for 
not less than 21 days, any interested person or person 
licensed to practice law in this state may file a 
petition in the circuit court for the county in which 
the attorney resided or maintained his or her office 
alleging the abandonment or disappearance and that no 
satisfactory arrangements have been made to continue 
the practice.  The petition and a notice of hearing 
shall be served personally upon the attorney.  If 
personal 
service 
upon 
the 
attorney 
cannot 
be 
accomplished, notice by publication of a class 1 
notice, as provided in ch. 985 of the statutes, and 
mailing shall be sufficient service, except that the 
court 
may 
determine 
that 
additional 
notice 
is 
required.  Upon a finding that the attorney has 
disappeared or abandoned his or her practice, if no 
other satisfactory arrangements have been made to 
continue the practice, the court shall appoint a 
trustee attorney and notify the office of lawyer 
regulation of the appointment. 
3 SCR 20:1.4(a) states that "[a] lawyer shall keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly 
comply with reasonable requests for information." 
4 SCR 20:1.3 states that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
No. 
2006AP814-D   
 
5 
 
20:3.4(c),10 22.03(6),11 22.04(1),12 21.15(4),13 22.03(2),14 former 
20:1.15(b),15 and former 20:1.15(f).16   
                                                                                                                                                             
5 SCR 20:8.4(c) states that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
6 SCR 20:1.5(b) states that "[w]hen the lawyer has not 
regularly represented the client, the basis or rate of the fee 
shall be communicated to the client, preferably in writing, 
before or within a reasonable time after commencing the 
representation." 
7 SCR 20:8.4(f) states 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." 
8 SCR 
20:1.16(d) 
states: 
 
Declining 
or 
terminating 
representation. 
 
(d) Upon termination of representation, a lawyer 
shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable 
to protect a client's interests, such as giving 
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for 
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and 
property to which the client is entitled and refunding 
any advance payment of fee that has not been earned.  
The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to 
the extent permitted by other law. 
9 SCR 20:3.2 states that "[a] lawyer shall make reasonable 
efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of 
the client." 
10 SCR 20:3.4(c) states that a lawyer shall not "knowingly 
disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for 
an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation 
exists." 
11 SCR 22.03(6) states that "[i]n the course of the 
investigation, 
the 
respondent's wilful failure to provide 
relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 
documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure 
are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted 
in the grievance." 
No. 
2006AP814-D   
 
6 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
12 SCR 22.04(1) states that "[t]he director may refer a 
matter 
to 
a 
district 
committee 
for 
assistance 
in 
the 
investigation.  A respondent has the duty to cooperate specified 
in SCR 21.15(4) and 22.03(2) in respect to the district 
committee.  The committee may subpoena and compel the production 
of documents specified in SCR 22.03(8) and 22.42." 
13 SCR 
21.15(4) 
states 
that 
"[e]very 
attorney 
shall 
cooperate 
with 
the 
office 
of 
lawyer 
regulation 
in 
the 
investigation, 
prosecution 
and 
disposition 
of 
grievances, 
complaints filed with or by the director, and petitions for 
reinstatement.  An attorney's wilful failure to cooperate with 
the office of lawyer regulation constitutes violation of the 
rules of professional conduct for attorneys." 
14 SCR 22.03(2) states: Investigation. 
 
(2) 
Upon 
commencing 
an 
investigation, 
the 
director shall notify the respondent of the matter 
being investigated unless in the opinion of the 
director the investigation of the matter requires 
otherwise.  The respondent shall fully and fairly 
disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct within 20 days after being served 
by ordinary mail a request for a written response.  
The director may allow additional time to respond.  
Following receipt of the response, the director may 
conduct further investigation and may compel the 
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents, and 
present 
any 
information 
deemed 
relevant 
to 
the 
investigation. 
15 Former SCR 20:1.15 applies to misconduct committed prior 
to July 1, 2004.  Former SCR 20:1.15(b) stated:  Safekeeping 
property. 
 
(b) 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 client or third person, shall 
render a full accounting regarding such property. 
No. 
2006AP814-D   
 
7 
 
¶7 
As to the appropriate sanction to be imposed for 
Attorney Grade's misconduct, the referee noted that Attorney 
Grade testified at the hearing that he suffered from depression.  
He implied his medical condition mitigated his misconduct.  The 
referee rejected this contention, noting that the depression was 
diagnosed significantly after most of the conduct alleged in the 
OLR's complaint had already occurred.  The referee also noted 
there was no physician testimony presented at the hearing, and 
the referee concluded the medical evidence was insufficient to 
support a connection between the misconduct and the medical 
condition.  
¶8 
The referee noted that the allegations in the OLR's 
complaint, which were fully stipulated, were very serious and 
involved the abandonment of Attorney Grade's law practice, 
neglect of many probate matters, misrepresentations to clients, 
failure to cooperate with the OLR, and a lack of effort to 
return funds owed to clients.  The referee recommended that 
                                                                                                                                                             
16 Former SCR 20:1.15(f) stated:  Safekeeping property. 
 
(f) 
Upon 
request 
of 
the 
office 
of 
lawyer 
regulation, or upon direction of the Supreme Court, 
the records shall be submitted to the office for its 
inspection, audit, use, and evidence under such 
conditions to protect the privilege of clients as the 
court may provide.  The records, or an audit thereof, 
shall be produced at any disciplinary proceeding 
involving the attorney wherever material.  Failure to 
produce the records shall constitute unprofessional 
conduct and grounds for disciplinary action. 
Currently, effective July 1, 2004, similar information is 
now cited as SCR 20:1.15(e)(7). 
No. 
2006AP814-D   
 
8 
 
Attorney Grade's license be revoked, that he be required to 
provide an accounting, that he make appropriate restitution, and 
that he pay the entire costs of the proceeding, which are 
$6621.52 as of March 14, 2007.   
¶9 
The allegations in the OLR's complaint, which were 
adopted by the referee, mentioned possible discrepancies in 
Attorney Grade's accounting and possible overcharges in a number 
of client matters detailed.  The precise amounts Attorney Grade 
might owe to any of his former clients were, however, unclear.  
For that reason, on April 17, 2007, this court issued an order 
requesting the OLR and Attorney Grade to submit written 
statements setting forth the amount of restitution they believed 
was owed and to whom it was owed.  Attorney Grade failed to 
respond.  The OLR filed a response saying it lacked sufficient 
records to determine the exact restitution that might be owed.  
It suggested this court order Attorney Grade to submit an 
accounting of funds regarding each client mentioned in the OLR's 
complaint and order him to reimburse any unearned fees to those 
clients. 
¶10 This court upholds a referee's findings of fact unless 
they are clearly erroneous.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 
718.  This court independently reviews the referee's legal 
conclusions.  Id.  Here, the record supports the referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
legal 
conclusions, 
and 
they 
are 
unchallenged.  Therefore, this court approves and adopts both 
the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law. 
No. 
2006AP814-D   
 
9 
 
¶11 It is ultimately this court's responsibility to 
determine the appropriate discipline to impose.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Reitz, 2005 WI 39, ¶74, 279 
Wis. 2d 550, 694 N.W.2d 894.  The seriousness of Attorney 
Grade's 
professional 
misconduct 
demonstrates 
that 
it 
is 
necessary to revoke his license to practice law in Wisconsin to 
protect the public, courts and legal system from the repetition 
of misconduct, as well as to impress upon Attorney Grade the 
seriousness of his misconduct and deter other attorneys from 
engaging in misconduct.  We also agree with the referee that 
Attorney Grade should pay the full costs of the proceeding. 
¶12 As to the issue of restitution, while it appears that 
Attorney Grade may very well owe restitution to one or more 
clients, the court is unable to determine from the record what 
amounts are owed and to whom they are owed.  Consequently, 
rather than making a specific award of restitution at this time 
we deem it appropriate to require Attorney Grade as a condition 
of the reinstatement of his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin, to provide a full accounting of funds regarding each 
client mentioned in the OLR's complaint and to reimburse any 
unearned fees to his clients. 
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Daniel R. Grade to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this 
order. 
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Daniel R. Grade pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If the costs are not 
No. 
2006AP814-D   
 
10 
 
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 Daniel R. Grade will remain revoked until further 
order of the court. 
¶15 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
as 
a 
condition 
of 
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin Daniel 
R. Grade furnish a complete accounting of funds regarding each 
client mentioned in the OLR's disciplinary complaint and 
reimburse any unearned fees to those clients.   
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent he has not 
already done so, Daniel R. Grade comply with the provisions of 
SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked. 
 
 
No. 
2006AP814-D   
 
 
 
1