Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Joseph M. Engl

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2013 WI 36 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2013AP314-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Joseph M. Engl, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Joseph M. Engl, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ENGL     
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 30, 2013   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
2013 WI 36
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2013AP314-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Joseph M. Engl, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Joseph M. Engl, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 30, 2013 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a stipulation filed pursuant 
to SCR 22.121 by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.12 states as follows:  Stipulation. 
 
(1) The director may file with the complaint a 
stipulation of the director and the respondent to the 
facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and 
discipline to be imposed.  The supreme court may 
No. 
2013AP314-D   
 
2 
 
Attorney Joseph M. Engl.  In the stipulation, Attorney Engl 
agrees that he committed two acts of professional misconduct, 
including engaging in crimes that reflect adversely on his 
honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other 
respects.  He also agrees that the revocation of his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin is a proper level of discipline for 
his misconduct.  There is no request in this matter for a 
restitution award nor is there a request in the stipulation for 
the imposition of costs against Attorney Engl. 
¶2 
After fully reviewing the matter, we approve the 
stipulation and revoke Attorney Engl's license to practice law 
in this state.  The crimes and professional misconduct committed 
by Attorney Engl are disturbing and, given the prior discipline 
he received for similar conduct, support his removal from the 
practice of law.  Because this matter is being resolved without 
the appointment of a referee, we do not impose any costs on 
Attorney Engl. 
                                                                                                                                                             
consider the complaint and stipulation without the 
appointment of a referee.   
 
(2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation, 
it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of 
law and impose the stipulated discipline. 
 
(3) If the supreme court rejects the stipulation, 
a referee shall be appointed and the matter shall 
proceed as a complaint filed without a stipulation. 
 
(4) A stipulation rejected by the supreme court 
has no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to 
the respondent's defense of the proceeding or the 
prosecution of the complaint. 
No. 
2013AP314-D   
 
3 
 
¶3 
Attorney Engl was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in May 2002.  He previously maintained a law practice 
in Manitowoc.  The most recent address he provided to the State 
Bar was in Sheboygan.   
¶4 
Attorney 
Engl 
has 
been 
the 
subject 
of 
public 
discipline on one prior occasion.  In 2005 this court accepted 
an SCR 22.12 stipulation that Attorney Engl reached with the OLR 
and publicly reprimanded him.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Engl, 2005 WI 102, 283 Wis. 2d 140, 698 N.W.2d 821.  The 
misconduct at issue in that proceeding was Attorney Engl's 
conviction for one count of using a computer to facilitate a 
child sex crime.  Specifically, while working at a law firm, 
Attorney Engl used his computer to enter an Internet chat room 
and to communicate his interest in having sexual intercourse 
with an individual he believed to be a 14-year-old girl, but who 
was actually a police detective posing as a teenage girl.  When 
Attorney Engl subsequently went to the location where he had 
arranged to meet the girl, he was arrested by the police. 
¶5 
As in the prior disciplinary proceeding, in the 
current matter Attorney Engl has entered into a stipulation with 
the OLR pursuant to SCR 22.12.  In the stipulation, Attorney 
Engl agrees that the factual allegations in the OLR's complaint 
are accurate and that he committed the professional misconduct 
charged in that complaint.  He further agrees with the OLR's 
request that the appropriate discipline for his misconduct is 
the revocation of his license to practice law in Wisconsin.   
No. 
2013AP314-D   
 
4 
 
¶6 
The 
stipulation states that Attorney Engl fully 
understands the nature of the misconduct allegations against 
him, 
his 
right 
to 
contest 
those 
allegations, 
and 
the 
ramifications that would follow from this court's imposition of 
the stipulated level of discipline.  It also states that 
Attorney Engl understands his right to consult with counsel.  
Finally, in the stipulation Attorney Engl verifies that he is 
entering the stipulation knowingly and voluntarily and that his 
entry into the stipulation represents his decision not to 
contest this matter. 
¶7 
The 
complaint to which Attorney Engl stipulated 
addresses two matters.  The first matter is similar to the 
conduct that resulted in the 2005 public reprimand.  According 
to the criminal complaint filed against him, Attorney Engl 
engaged in e-mail communication with a female, who explicitly 
informed him that she was 15 years old.  Their communications 
included discussions about meeting in person for the purpose of 
having sexual intercourse.  On November 19, 2011, Attorney Engl 
drove to the girl's workplace and picked her up.  Attorney Engl 
engaged in sexual contact with the girl and had her perform oral 
sex on him. 
¶8 
In March 2012 the State charged Attorney Engl with six 
felonies.  State v. Engl, Manitowoc County Case No. 2012CF108.  
Ultimately, in October 2012, Attorney Engl pled no contest to 
two felonies:  child enticement-sexual contact and sexual 
assault of a child under 16 years of age.  The remaining four 
felony charges were dismissed upon the prosecutor's motion and 
No. 
2013AP314-D   
 
5 
 
read in for sentencing purposes.  The circuit court accepted 
Attorney Engl's pleas.  The court sentenced him on the child 
enticement-sexual contact count to three years of initial 
confinement and three years of extended supervision.  On the 
sexual assault of a child count, the circuit court imposed and 
stayed a sentence of an additional four years of initial 
confinement and five years of extended supervision and placed 
Attorney Engl on probation for a period of six years, which was 
to run consecutive to the six-year sentence imposed on the child 
enticement-sexual contact count.  
¶9 
On the basis of these facts, the parties stipulated 
that Attorney Engl's convictions of the two felonies constituted 
violations of SCR 20:8.4(b).2 
¶10 The 
second 
matter 
relates 
to 
Attorney 
Engl's 
representation of K.W. and R.W., who retained Attorney Engl to 
represent them in a bankruptcy proceeding.  K.W. and R.W. gave 
Attorney Engl advance fees that totaled $2,300, which he was 
obligated to hold in trust until earned.  Because Attorney Engl 
did not maintain a client trust account at the time he received 
these advance fees, he gave them to an attorney with whom he 
shared office space, who placed the funds into that attorney's 
client trust account.  Attorney Engl did not have any formal 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:8.4(b) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the 
lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in 
other respects; . . . ." 
No. 
2013AP314-D   
 
6 
 
professional association with the attorney whose trust account 
contained K.W. and R.W.'s funds.   
¶11 After K.W. and R.W. learned of the felony charges 
against Attorney Engl, they concluded that he would be unable to 
represent them in their bankruptcy and requested a full refund 
of the advance fees they had paid to him.  K.W. and R.W. did 
ultimately receive a full refund of their money. 
¶12 Attorney Engl's handling of K.W. and R.W.'s advance 
fees supports a second count of misconduct.  By failing to 
maintain his own trust account and instead placing the clients' 
advance fees into a trust account that he neither owned nor 
controlled, 
thereby 
placing 
the 
funds 
at 
risk 
of 
being 
improperly used by a third party with whom he had no recognized 
professional 
association, 
Attorney 
Engl 
violated 
SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) and (4).3 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) and (4) states:   
 
(1) Separate account.  A lawyer shall hold in 
trust, separate from the lawyer's own property, that 
property of clients and 3rd parties that is in the 
lawyer's 
possession 
in 
connection 
with 
a 
representation.  All funds of clients and 3rd parties 
paid to a lawyer or law firm in connection with a 
representation shall be deposited in one or more 
identifiable trust accounts. 
 
. . .  
 
(4)  Unearned fees and cost advances.  Except as 
provided in par. (4m), unearned fees and advanced 
payments of fees shall be held in trust until earned 
by the lawyer, and withdrawn pursuant to sub. (g).  
Funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for payment of 
costs shall be held in trust until the costs are 
incurred. 
No. 
2013AP314-D   
 
7 
 
¶13 Having 
considered 
this 
matter, 
we 
approve 
the 
stipulation and adopt the stipulated facts and legal conclusions 
of professional misconduct.  Given the seriousness of the felony 
criminal convictions that underlie Count One of the OLR's 
complaint in this matter and the fact that Attorney Engl was 
previously disciplined for a similar criminal conviction, we 
agree that the revocation of his license to practice law in this 
state is an appropriate level of discipline.  Because K.W. and 
R.W. ultimately received a full refund of their advance fees, we 
do not impose any restitution.  Finally, because Attorney Engl 
entered into 
a comprehensive stipulation under SCR 22.12, 
thereby obviating the need for the appointment of a referee and 
a full disciplinary proceeding, we do not impose costs in this 
matter. 
¶14 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Joseph M. Engl to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this 
order. 
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Joseph M. Engl shall comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
revoked.