Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Gerald Proost

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2005 WI 144 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2005AP1349-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Gerald Proost, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Gerald Proost, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PROOST 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 19, 2005   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2005 WI 144
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This order is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The 
final version will appear in the 
bound volume of the official 
reports.   
 
 
 
No.  2005AP1349-D  
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Gerald Proost, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Gerald Proost, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 19, 2005 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Court entered the following order on this date: 
 
Attorney Gerald Proost has filed a petition for consensual 
license revocation under SCR 22.19.  Attorney Proost was 
licensed to practice law in Wisconsin in 1952 and his license is 
currently in good standing.   
 
Attorney Proost is the subject of five pending Office of 
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) grievance investigations involving his 
representation of five clients.  In the first grievance 
investigation, Attorney Proost discussed with longtime client 
Anna P. a plan whereby he would invest her savings and earn 
seven percent interest.  Attorney Proost took Anna P., who was 
88 years old, to her bank where she signed various documents 
based on her belief that no money would be removed from her 
savings account and Attorney Proost’s promise that she would 
begin receiving monthly checks in the amount of $100.  Anna P. 
was unable to read the documents she was signing because she did 
not have her glasses.  Anna P. later learned that she had signed 
No.  2005AP1349-D 
 
2 
over to Attorney Proost a cashier’s check in the amount of 
$4500. 
 
Attorney 
Proost 
executed 
a 
promissory 
note 
and 
eventually repaid Anna P. all monies owed to her.  In addition, 
Attorney Proost drafted a will for Anna P., naming Attorney 
Proost’s brother as trustee and personal representative of Anna 
P.’s estate.  According to the OLR, this conduct violated SCR 
20:1.8(a),1 20:1.8(c)2 and SCR 20:8.4(c).3   
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.8(a) provides:  Conflict of interest: prohibited 
transactions  
(a) A lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction 
with a client or knowingly acquire an ownership, possessory, 
security or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client unless:  
(1) the transaction and terms on which the lawyer 
acquires the interest are fair and reasonable to the client 
and are fully disclosed and transmitted in writing to the 
client in a manner which can be reasonably understood by the 
client;  
(2) the client is given a reasonable opportunity to 
seek the advice of independent counsel in the transaction; 
and  
(3) the client consents in writing thereto.  
2 SCR 20:1.8(c) provides:  Conflict of interest: prohibited 
transactions 
(c) A lawyer shall not prepare an instrument giving the 
lawyer or a person related to the lawyer as parent, child, 
sibling, or spouse 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. (d) Prior to the conclusion of representation of a 
client, a lawyer shall not make or negotiate an agreement giving 
the lawyer literary or media rights to a portrayal or account 
based in substantial part on information relating to the 
representation.  
3 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  Misconduct  
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:  
... 
No.  2005AP1349-D 
 
3 
The second grievance under investigation involves Attorney 
Proost’s representation of Belva T. in various capacities.  In 
1990, Attorney Proost borrowed $15,000 from Belva T.  He 
executed a promissory note promising to repay the loan, plus 
interest, in one year.  At the time of Belva T.’s death in June 
of 2001, Attorney Proost still owed over $13,000 on the loan.  
Belva T.’s brothers filed suit against Attorney Proost.  During 
the course of the litigation, Attorney Proost sent Belva T.’s 
brothers’ attorney a check for $3500 as partial payment on the 
loan but there were insufficient funds in his account to cover 
the check.  Attorney Proost eventually sent the lawyer a 
cashier’s check to cover the check that had been returned for 
insufficient funds.  Judgment was subsequently entered against 
Attorney Proost.  He has not yet satisfied the judgment.  
Attorney Proost also sent the lawyer for Belva T.’s brothers a 
list of people to whom he owed money, several of whom were 
Attorney Proost’s clients.  According to the OLR, this conduct 
violated SCR 20:1.8(a) and SCR 20:8.4(c).   
 
The third grievance under investigation involves Attorney 
Proost’s representation of Gladys M. in various capacities over 
several years.  Between 1993 and 1997, Attorney Proost obtained 
three loans from Gladys M., totaling $82,000.  For each loan, 
Attorney Proost executed a promissory note.  All loans, with 
interest, were to be repaid by January 1998.  As of September 
2004, Attorney Proost had repaid Gladys M. approximately $26,500 
but the remaining balance remains unpaid.  According to the OLR, 
this conduct violates SCR 20:1.8(a) and SCR 20:8.4(c).   
 
The fourth grievance under investigation involves Attorney 
Proost’s representation of Doris Z. in the sale of her home at a 
time when she was suffering from dementia and was living in a 
nursing home.  Doris Z. turned over the proceeds from the sale 
of the house, approximately $150,000, to Attorney Proost to 
invest.  Shortly after the sale of the home, Doris Z.’s 
daughter, Kathleen M., was named Doris Z.’s guardian.  Kathleen 
M. requested an accounting of the proceeds from the sale of the 
house from Attorney Proost.  Attorney Proost failed to provide 
an accounting.  Kathleen M. then made a demand for the proceeds 
from the sale of the house, together with the interest earned on 
the proceeds.  Despite indicating he had made arrangements to 
                                                                                                                                                             
 (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation.  
 
No.  2005AP1349-D 
 
4 
withdraw the proceedings from the investment vehicle and return 
them to Kathleen M., Attorney Proost failed to do so.  In 
addition, in May of 1999, Attorney Proost obtained a $35,000 
loan from Doris Z.  That loan was payable in June of 1999 but 
remains unpaid.  According to the OLR, this conduct violates SCR 
20:1.7(b),4 SCR 1.8(a), SCR 20:1.15(d)(2)5 and SCR 20:8.4(c).   
 
The final grievance under investigation  involves Attorney 
Proost’s representation of Roy H. and Fekjire and Nuredin L. in 
various transactions.  Attorney Proost facilitated a transaction 
whereby Roy H. tendered $100,000 to the L’s in reliance on a 
mortgage and note drafted by Attorney Proost.  Although the L’s 
failed to comply with the terms of the mortgage and note, 
Attorney Proost drafted a satisfaction of mortgage and later 
authenticated a fraudulent signature on the satisfaction of 
mortgage.  According to the OLR, this conduct violated SCR 
20:1.1,6 20:1.2(d),7 SCR 20:1.7(a) and (b),8 20:4.1(a) and (b)9 
and SCR 20:8.4(b).10 
                                                 
4 SCR 20:1.7(b) provides:  Conflict of interest: general rule  
 (b) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the 
representation of that client may be materially limited by the 
lawyer's responsibilities to another client or to a third person, 
or by the lawyer's own interests, unless:  
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation 
will not be adversely affected; and  
(2) the client consents in writing after consultation. 
When representation of multiple clients in a single matter 
is undertaken, the consultation shall include explanation of 
the implications of the common representation and the 
advantages and risks involved.  
5 SCR 20:1.15(d)(2) provides:  Safekeeping property; trust 
accounts and fiduciary accounts.  
(d) Prompt notice and delivery of property. 
 (2) Accounting. Upon final distribution of any trust 
property or upon request by the client or a 3rd party having 
an ownership interest in the property, the lawyer shall 
promptly render a full written accounting regarding the 
property. 
 
6 SCR 20:1.1 provides:  Competence 
No.  2005AP1349-D 
 
5 
                                                                                                                                                             
A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. 
Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, 
thoroughness and preparation 
reasonably 
necessary for the 
representation.  
7 SCR 20:1.2(d) provides:  Scope of representation 
(d) A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist 
a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or 
fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of 
any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or 
assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the 
validity, scope, meaning or application of the law.  
8 SCR 20:1.7(b) provides: Conflict of interest: general rule  
 (b) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the 
representation of that client may be materially limited by the 
lawyer's responsibilities to another client or to a third person, 
or by the lawyer's own interests, unless:  
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation 
will not be adversely affected; and  
(2) the client consents in writing after consultation. 
When representation of multiple clients in a single matter 
is undertaken, the consultation shall include explanation of 
the implications of the common representation and the 
advantages and risks involved. 
9 SCR 20:4.1(a) and (b) provide:  Truthfulness in statements to 
others  
In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not 
knowingly:  
(a) make a false statement of a material fact or law to 
a third person; or  
(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person 
when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal 
or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is 
prohibited by Rule 1.6.  
10 SCR 20:8.4(b) provides:  Misconduct 
 
... 
(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the 
lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other 
respects; 
No.  2005AP1349-D 
 
6 
 
Attorney Proost admits under SCR 22.19(2) that he cannot 
successfully defend against the allegations of the grievance 
investigations.  The OLR supports Attorney Proost’s petition for 
consensual license revocation.   
 
IT IS ORDERED that the petition for consensual license 
revocation is granted. 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of Gerald Proost to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked effective the date of this 
order. 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Gerald Proost shall comply with 
the requirements of SCR 22.26 relating to activities following 
revocation.   
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Gerald Proost be required to 
satisfy the judgment entered against him in the lawsuit brought 
on behalf of Belva T.’s brothers; that he be required to make 
restitution to Gladys M. in the amount of $55,500, plus 
interest; and that he be required to satisfy the judgments 
entered against him as a result of his failure to turn over the 
proceeds from the sale of Doris Z.’s home and his failure to 
repay a loan to her.   
 
 
 
 
No.  2005AP1349-D 
 
7