Title: BAPR v. Charles Glynn

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2011 WI 9 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
1997AP3058-D 
1999AP2223-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Charles Glynn, Attorney at Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, 
n/k/a Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
                Complainant-Respondent-Cross- 
                Appellant,    
            v. 
Charles Glynn, 
                Respondent-Appellant-Cross- 
                Respondent. 
__________________________________________________ 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Charles Glynn, Attorney at Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, 
n/k/a Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
                Complainant, 
            v. 
Charles Glynn, 
                Respondent. 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GLYNN  
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 15, 2011   
SUBMITTED ON 
BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 COURT: 
        
 COUNTY: 
        
 JUDGE: 
      
  
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 CONCURRED: 
        
 DISSENTED: 
        
 NOT 
PARTICIPATING: 
PROSSER, J., did not participate.   
  
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
2011 WI 9
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
Nos.   1997AP3058-D and 1999AP2223-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Charles Glynn, Attorney at Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, 
n/k/a Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent-Cross- 
          Appellant, 
     v. 
 
Charles Glynn, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant-Cross- 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 15, 2011 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Charles Glynn, Attorney at Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, 
n/k/a Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Charles Glynn, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.   Reinstatement granted. 
 
Nos. 1997AP3058-D and 1999AP2223-D   
 
2 
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   We 
review 
a 
referee's 
report 
recommending that Attorney Charles Glynn's license to practice 
law in Wisconsin be reinstated subject to certain conditions.  
The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) does not oppose that 
recommendation.  No appeal was filed so we review this matter 
pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1   
¶2 
After careful consideration, we adopt the referee's 
findings of fact and conclusions of law and conclude that 
Attorney Glynn's license to practice law should be reinstated.  
We need not impose any conditions upon Attorney Glynn's 
reinstatement 
because 
Attorney 
Glynn 
has 
satisfied 
the 
conditions recommended by the referee.  We direct Attorney Glynn 
to pay the costs of the reinstatement proceeding, which total 
$3,753.16 as of November 2, 2010.2 
¶3 
Attorney Glynn was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1991.  He practiced in Milwaukee.  In April 1999 
Attorney Glynn's license to practice law was suspended for one 
year, effective June 14, 1999, based upon misconduct committed 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) states: 
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
2 By letter dated December 21, 2010, Attorney Glynn advised 
the court he was waiving any objection to the costs of this 
reinstatement proceeding. 
Nos. 1997AP3058-D and 1999AP2223-D   
 
3 
 
while he served as guardian for two estates and conservator for 
a third estate.  Attorney Glynn collected unreasonable fees 
without the approval of the court, failed to file necessary 
reports with the court, failed to act competently and timely, 
and used false statements and documents to justify his excessive 
fee and to mislead the person investigating his misconduct.  See 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Glynn, 225 Wis. 2d 202, 
591 N.W.2d 606 (1999).  The referee in that matter noted that 
Attorney Glynn had "reaped substantial financial benefits from 
the modest Estates of persons effectively unable to protect 
themselves, 
while 
performing 
no 
services 
of 
commensurate 
value . . . ."  Id. at 211.  The court found the large sums 
taken by Attorney Glynn from vulnerable victims and the 
purposeful pattern of deception he employed required his 
suspension in order to protect the legal system and the public 
from similar misconduct.  Attorney Glynn was ordered to pay 
restitution to his clients and to a bonding company, as well as 
to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding.  Id. at 213-14. 
¶4 
Attorney Glynn was also convicted of one count of 
Theft from a Business Setting, Greater than $1,000 but less than 
$2,500, a class E felony, related to his handling of two of the 
estates for which he served as guardian.  He was placed on 
probation for three years.  He was released from probation in 
2003.  
¶5 
In 1998 
Ohio Casualty, Attorney Glynn's bonding 
company, obtained a $78,000 judgment against Attorney Glynn for 
the claims it paid on the two estates for which Attorney Glynn 
Nos. 1997AP3058-D and 1999AP2223-D   
 
4 
 
served as guardian.  Attorney Glynn had already made restitution 
to the conservatorship from his own funds.  
¶6 
In October 2000 Attorney Glynn's Wisconsin law license 
was suspended again, this time for nine months3 retroactive to 
the date of his earlier suspension, June 14, 2000.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Glynn, 2000 WI 117, 238 
Wis. 2d 860, 618 N.W.2d 740.  Attorney Glynn's misconduct in 
this matter consisted of failing to act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing three clients, failing 
to explain matters reasonably necessary to permit two of those 
clients 
to 
make 
informed 
decisions 
regarding 
their 
representation, and failing to cooperate with the investigation 
into his misconduct.  Id. 
¶7 
On July 29, 2008, Attorney Glynn filed a petition 
seeking reinstatement of his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin.  On July 31, 2008, Attorney Glynn filed an amended 
petition 
for 
reinstatement. 
 
The 
referee 
conducted 
an 
evidentiary hearing on August 16, 2010. 
                                                 
3 Attorney Glynn never petitioned for reinstatement after 
the first disciplinary proceeding so he has not practiced law 
since June 14, 1999.  
Nos. 1997AP3058-D and 1999AP2223-D   
 
5 
 
¶8 
Supreme court rule 22.31(1)4 provides the standards to 
be met for reinstatement.  Specifically, the petitioner must 
show by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he or 
she has the moral character to practice law, that his or her 
                                                 
4 SCR 22.31 provides as follows:  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 
[(4m)] 
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. 
(2) The reinstatement hearing shall be public.  
(3) The referee shall appoint a person to act as 
court reporter to make a verbatim record of the 
proceeding as provided in SCR 71.01 to 71.03. 
(4) The petitioner and the director or a person 
designated by the director shall appear at the 
hearing.  The petitioner may be represented by 
counsel. 
(5) The hearing shall be conducted pursuant to 
the rules of civil procedure.  The rules of evidence 
shall not apply, and the referee may consider any 
relevant information presented.  Interested persons 
may present information in support of or in opposition 
to reinstatement.  
Nos. 1997AP3058-D and 1999AP2223-D   
 
6 
 
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 order of suspension.  In addition to these requirements, 
SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(4m)5 provides additional requirements that an 
                                                 
5 SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(4m) states 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 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. 
Nos. 1997AP3058-D and 1999AP2223-D   
 
7 
 
attorney seeking reinstatement must show.  All of these 
additional 
requirements 
are 
effectively 
incorporated 
into 
SCR 22.31(1).   
¶9 
When we review a referee's report and recommendation, 
we 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.   
¶10 Here, the referee concluded Attorney Glynn had met his 
burden of demonstrating that his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin should be reinstated.  Attorney Glynn asserted and the 
referee found that Attorney Glynn desires to have his license 
reinstated and that he has not practiced law during the period 
of suspension.  SCRs 22.29(4)(a) and (b).  At the evidentiary 
hearing the referee elicited a full description of Attorney 
Glynn's business activities during his suspension, as required 
by SCR 22.29(4)(k). 
                                                                                                                                                             
(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. 
(4m) The petitioner has made restitution to or 
settled all claims of persons injured or harmed by 
petitioner's misconduct, including reimbursement to 
the Wisconsin lawyers’ fund for client protection for 
all payments made from that fund, or, if not, the 
petitioner's explanation of the failure or inability 
to do so. 
Nos. 1997AP3058-D and 1999AP2223-D   
 
8 
 
¶11 After his suspension Attorney Glynn worked at Roundy's 
warehouse and then sold title insurance.  He then worked at the 
Milwaukee Child Welfare Bureau and also worked part-time at 
St. Charles Youth and Family Services (St. Charles).  In 2003 he 
began working full-time for St. Charles in a supervisory 
position and is still employed there.  He also works part-time 
for the Wisconsin Athletic Club.  While working at St. Charles 
he and others at St. Charles, together with judges, district 
attorneys, and defense attorneys, developed a Focus Program for 
youth offenders to break their cycle of juvenile criminal 
activities.  This program has been in effect for about seven 
years.  The referee found Attorney Glynn worked 10 to 14 hours a 
day to make sure the needs of the young men at St. Charles were 
met, and he used creative programming to inspire hope in their 
young lives.  In 2007, at the request of Dane County, Attorney 
Glynn established a Focus Program in Madison.  This effort took 
about two years.  He worked with judges, district attorneys, 
probation officers, and public defenders in Dane County to make 
the Focus Program a success.  Attorney Glynn has supervised 
programs that have generated millions of dollars in revenue for 
St. Charles.  He has handled tens of thousands of dollars in 
petty cash funds, has access to all agency vehicles and 
equipment, and has traveled to training and conferences across 
the country using a St. Charles credit card.  
¶12 There is no evidence in this record that Attorney 
Glynn has engaged in any improper conduct since his suspension.  
SCR 22.29(4)(e).  The referee found that Attorney Glynn 
Nos. 1997AP3058-D and 1999AP2223-D   
 
9 
 
demonstrates a proper understanding of and attitude toward the 
standards 
that 
are 
imposed 
upon 
members 
of 
the 
bar.  
SCR 22.29(4)(f).  The referee was satisfied that Attorney Glynn 
will act in conformity with these standards.  Indeed, Attorney 
Glynn appears to have taken responsibility for his prior 
misconduct, stating that he is "embarrassed, ashamed, and deeply 
sorry" for his misconduct.  Attorney Glynn was drinking during 
the time he engaged in the misconduct leading to his suspension.  
In July 2000 Attorney Glynn acknowledged his alcoholism and 
joined Alcoholics Anonymous (AA).  He has remained sober since 
that time and regularly attends AA meetings.  He celebrated ten 
years of sobriety on July 10, 2010.  Two references noted that 
Attorney Glynn's recovery is "exceptional."  Attorney Glynn also 
filed several positive character references from attorneys, 
employers, and personal friends.  The referee thus concluded 
that 
Attorney 
Glynn 
had 
satisfied 
the 
requirements 
of 
SCR 22.29(4)(g).  The referee found further that Attorney Glynn 
complied with SCR 22.26 after his suspension.  SCR 22.29(4)(h).  
If reinstated Attorney Glynn intends to practice juvenile and 
criminal law within a law firm or in an association with other 
lawyers.  SCR 22.29(4)(j). 
¶13 The OLR did not oppose Attorney Glynn's reinstatement 
but expressed concern about certain aspects of his petition.  
The OLR noted that at the time of the evidentiary hearing 
Attorney Glynn had not, in fact, complied fully with the terms 
of the order of suspension because he has not yet paid full 
restitution.  SCR 22.29(4)(c).  All of the individual clients 
Nos. 1997AP3058-D and 1999AP2223-D   
 
10 
 
from whom Attorney Glynn took money were reimbursed by the 
bonding company, Ohio Casualty, and Ohio Casualty obtained a 
judgment for the amount they paid, plus interest.  Attorney 
Glynn had yet to pay full restitution to Ohio Casualty.  The 
referee noted that Attorney Glynn has paid Ohio Casualty 
approximately $16,500 of the restitution and at the time of the 
reinstatement hearing he was in the process of negotiating a 
compromised 
settlement 
of 
the 
judgment. 
 
Attorney 
Glynn 
requested that he be granted 90 days to file a satisfaction of 
judgment in the Ohio Casualty matter and the OLR did not object 
to this request.  While this reinstatement petition was pending 
Attorney Glynn filed the satisfaction of judgment, fulfilling 
his restitution obligation. 
¶14 Attorney Glynn also did not attend any CLE courses 
during his suspension.  See SCR 22.29(4)(d).  He requested that 
as a condition of his receiving his license, he be allowed 90 
days to fulfill CLE obligations required of him by the Board of 
Bar Examiners (BBE).  The referee recommended granting Attorney 
Glynn's request regarding the CLE requirements.  By memorandum 
dated December 15, 2010, the BBE advised the court that Attorney 
Glynn had fulfilled the CLE requirements necessary for his 
reinstatement. 
¶15 Attorney Glynn has refrained from all alcohol for ten 
years.  He has held positions of significant trust and has 
managed finances of St. Charles and the Wisconsin Athletic Club.  
Both 
employers 
have 
indicated 
their 
belief 
in 
his 
trustworthiness and have recommended his reinstatement.  In 
Nos. 1997AP3058-D and 1999AP2223-D   
 
11 
 
short, Attorney Glynn has changed his life during the suspension 
period.  
¶16 
Accordingly, after careful review of the record we 
agree that Attorney Glynn has established by clear, satisfactory, 
and convincing evidence that he has satisfied the criteria 
necessary for reinstatement.  We therefore adopt the referee's 
findings of fact and conclusions of law and we accept the 
referee's recommendation to reinstate Attorney Glynn's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin.  We need not impose any conditions 
upon Attorney Glynn's reinstatement because Attorney Glynn has 
satisfied the conditions recommended by the referee.   
¶17 IT IS ORDERED that Charles Glynn's license to practice 
law in Wisconsin is reinstated effective the date of this order. 
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Charles Glynn 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 Charles Glynn to practice law in Wisconsin shall be 
suspended until further order of the court. 
¶19 DAVID T. PROSSER, J., did not participate. 
 
 
Nos. 1997AP3058-D and 1999AP2223-D   
 
 
 
1