Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. William J. Grogan

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2014 WI 39 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2012AP2361-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
William J. Grogan, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GROGAN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 19, 2014 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
         
 
COUNTY: 
       
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: PROSSER, J., did not participate.    
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
2014 WI 39
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2012AP2361-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
William J. Grogan, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 19, 2014 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
revoked. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee, Reserve Judge Robert E. Kinney, that the license of 
Attorney William J. Grogan to practice law in Wisconsin be 
revoked due to professional misconduct.  The referee also 
recommended that Attorney Grogan be ordered to pay restitution 
No. 
2012AP2361-D   
 
2 
 
and the costs of this proceeding.  Attorney Grogan did not 
timely appeal the report and recommendation.1  
¶2 
We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and agree that the seriousness of Attorney 
Grogan's professional misconduct warrants the revocation of his 
law license.  We further agree that he should pay restitution in 
the amounts described below, and that he should pay the costs of 
this proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney Grogan was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1978.  He has practiced in the Appleton area. 
¶4 
Attorney Grogan has been previously disciplined for 
unprofessional conduct.  In 2007, Attorney Grogan was publicly 
reprimanded for failing to timely file income and withholding 
tax returns, and failing to provide information in a timely 
fashion 
during 
an 
Office 
of 
Lawyer 
Regulation 
(OLR) 
investigation.  See Public Reprimand of William J. Grogan, No. 
2007-6.  In 2011, Attorney Grogan's Wisconsin law license was 
                                                 
1 The referee filed an unsigned version of his report and 
recommendation on November 5, 2013, and filed the signature page 
on November 11, 2013.  Counting from the latter of these two 
dates, Attorney Grogan's appeal was due in early December of 
2013.  See SCR 22.17(1) (appeal due within 20 days after the 
filing of the referee's report).  On December 27, 2013, nearly 
four weeks after his appeal deadline, Attorney Grogan filed a 
hand-written "Petition to Grant Leave to File Notice of Appeal."  
Therein, 
Attorney 
Grogan 
claimed, 
without 
any 
supporting 
documentation, that he had been unable to timely file an appeal 
for health-related reasons.  Given both the unsupported nature 
of Attorney Grogan's request and his tendency, shown amply in 
the record, to offer unproven medical excuses for delay, we deny 
his request. 
No. 
2012AP2361-D   
 
3 
 
suspended for 60 days for misconduct consisting of five 
violations of trust account rules and one count of failing to 
cooperate with an OLR investigation.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
William 
J. 
Grogan, 
2011 
WI 
7, 
331 
Wis. 2d 341, 795 N.W.2d 745. 
¶5 
Since March 7, 2011, Attorney Grogan's Wisconsin law 
license has been suspended continuously.  Attorney Grogan has 
not satisfied certain conditions placed on the reinstatement of 
his license following the 60-day disciplinary suspension imposed 
in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against William J. Grogan, 331 
Wis. 2d 341, ¶¶16, 18.  Attorney Grogan's license is also 
presently suspended for failing to comply with continuing legal 
education requirements and failing to pay bar dues.  Finally, on 
June 16, 2011, and on January 24, 2012, this court temporarily 
suspended Attorney Grogan's license to practice law for his 
willful failure to cooperate in two separate OLR investigations 
concerning certain conduct underlying this opinion.  These 
temporary suspensions remain in effect. 
¶6 
The OLR's complaint against Attorney Grogan consists 
of some 33 counts of misconduct committed in eight separate 
client matters:  Charles B. (Counts 1-3); Clayton B. (Counts 4-
8); D.D. (Counts 9-11); L.J. (Counts 12-14); M.S.L. (Counts 15-
20); J.J.M. (Counts 21-26); D.K.K. (Counts 27-29); and C.T. 
(Counts 30-33).  Attorney Grogan answered the complaint with a 
general denial of all counts.  The referee held a six-day 
hearing on this matter and received post-hearing briefing, after 
which the referee filed a 93-page report concluding that 
No. 
2012AP2361-D   
 
4 
 
Attorney 
Grogan 
had 
committed 
all 
33 
alleged 
acts 
of 
professional misconduct. 
¶7 
Given the volume of the factual findings and legal 
conclusions made by the referee, we do not repeat them all here.  
It is sufficient to provide the following summary information 
concerning the serious misconduct at issue in this matter. 
¶8 
The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that, 
contrary to SCR 20:1.3,2 Attorney Grogan willfully failed to act 
with diligence and promptness during his representation of 
Clayton B. (Count 4), M.S.L. (Count 15), and D.K.K. (Count 27). 
¶9 
The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that, 
contrary 
to 
SCR 
20:1.5(b)(3),3 
Attorney 
Grogan 
improperly 
retained funds in his trust account during his representation of 
C.T. (Count 31). 
¶10 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that, 
contrary to SCR 20:1.15(b)(1),4 Attorney Grogan failed to hold in 
trust, separate from his own property, the property of clients 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.3 states, "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client."  
3 SCR 20:1.5(b)(3) states, "A lawyer shall promptly respond 
to a client's request for information concerning fees and 
expenses." 
4 SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) states: 
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. 
No. 
2012AP2361-D   
 
5 
 
and third persons in his possession during his representation of 
J.J.M. (Count 21) and D.K.K. (Count 28). 
¶11 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that, 
contrary to SCR 20:1.15(d)(1),5 Attorney Grogan failed to 
promptly disburse funds that a third party was entitled to 
receive during his representation of J.J.M. (Count 22) and C.T. 
(Count 30). 
¶12 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that, 
contrary to SCR 20:1.15(d)(2),6 Attorney Grogan failed to provide 
a full written accounting of funds he received from J.J.M. 
(Count 23). 
¶13 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that, 
contrary to SCR 20:1.16(d),7 Attorney Grogan failed upon 
                                                 
5 SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) provides:  
 
Notice and disbursement.  Upon receiving funds or 
other property in which a client has an interest, or 
in which the lawyer has received notice that a 3rd 
party has an interest identified by a lien, court 
order, 
judgment, 
or 
contract, 
the 
lawyer 
shall 
promptly notify the client or 3rd party in writing.  
Except as stated in this rule or otherwise permitted 
by law or by agreement with the client, the lawyer 
shall promptly deliver to the client or 3rd party any 
funds or other property that the client or 3rd party 
is entitled to receive. 
6 SCR 
20:1.15(d)(2) 
states, 
"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." 
7 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides:  
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer 
shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable 
No. 
2012AP2361-D   
 
6 
 
termination of representation of Clayton B. to refund any 
unearned portion of an advanced fee (Count 6). 
¶14 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that, 
contrary to SCR 20:3.4(c),8 Attorney Grogan knowingly disobeyed a 
court order during his representation of J.J.M. (Count 24). 
¶15 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that, 
contrary to SCR 20:5.5(b)(2),9 Attorney Grogan held out to the 
public or otherwise represented that he was admitted to practice 
law at a time when his law license was suspended (Count 32). 
¶16 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that, 
contrary 
to 
SCR 
20:8.4(c),10 
Attorney 
Grogan 
engaged 
in 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation during his 
representation of Charles B. (Count 2), Clayton B. (Count 7), 
D.D. (Count 10), L.J. (Count 13), and M.S.L. (Count 18). 
                                                                                                                                                             
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 or expense that has not 
been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers 
relating to the client to the extent permitted by 
other law. 
8 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; . . . ." 
9 SCR 20:5.5(b)(2) states that a lawyer who is not admitted 
to practice in this jurisdiction shall not "hold out to the 
public or otherwise represent that the lawyer is admitted to the 
practice of law in this jurisdiction." 
10 SCR 20:8.4(c) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation; . . . ." 
No. 
2012AP2361-D   
 
7 
 
¶17 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that, 
contrary to SCR 22.03(2),11 Attorney Grogan failed to fully and 
fairly 
disclose 
to 
the 
OLR 
all 
facts 
and 
circumstances 
pertaining to alleged misconduct that occurred during his 
representation of Clayton B. (Count 8), D.D. (Count 11), L.J. 
(Count 14), M.S.L. (Count 20), and D.K.K. (Count 29). 
¶18 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that, 
contrary to SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6),12 Attorney Grogan 
failed to fully and fairly disclose to the OLR all facts and 
circumstances pertaining to alleged misconduct that occurred 
during his representation of J.J.M. and C.T., and also willfully 
failed to provide relevant information, fully and truthfully 
answer 
questions, 
or 
furnish 
documents 
during 
the 
OLR's 
                                                 
11 SCR 22.03(2) states: 
 
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. 
12 SCR 22.03(6) states, "In 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. 
2012AP2361-D   
 
8 
 
investigation into his work on these same matters (Counts 25 and 
33). 
¶19 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that, 
contrary to SCR 22.03(6), Attorney Grogan willfully failed to 
provide relevant information, fully and truthfully answer 
questions, or furnish documents in the course of the OLR's 
investigation into his representation of J.J.M. (Count 26). 
¶20 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that, 
contrary to SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b),13 Attorney Grogan failed to 
notify Clayton B. and M.S.L. by certified mail of his license 
suspension and failed to advise them to seek legal advice of 
their choice elsewhere (Counts 5 and 17). 
¶21 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that, 
contrary to SCR 22.26(1)(c),14 Attorney Grogan failed to promptly 
                                                 
13 SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b) state: 
On or before the effective date of license 
suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 
suspended or revoked shall do . . . 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. 
14 SCR 22.26(1)(c) states: 
On or before the effective date of license 
suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 
suspended or revoked shall do . . . the following: 
. . . . 
No. 
2012AP2361-D   
 
9 
 
provide written notification of his license suspension to the 
circuit court in the M.S.L. matter (Count 19). 
¶22 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that, 
contrary to SCR 22.26(2),15 Attorney Grogan engaged in the 
practice of law after his license had been suspended during his 
representation of Charles B. (Count 1), D.D. (Count 9), L.J. 
(Count 12), and M.S.L. (Count 16). 
¶23 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that, 
contrary to SCR 10.03(2),16 Attorney Grogan failed to report 
changes to his office address to the State Bar (Count 3). 
                                                                                                                                                             
(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. 
15 SCR 22.26(2) provides as follows: 
 
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. 
16 SCR 10.03(2) states as follows: 
Enrollment.  Every person who becomes licensed to 
practice law in this state shall enroll in the state 
bar by registering his or her name and social security 
number with the association within 10 days after 
No. 
2012AP2361-D   
 
10 
 
¶24 After making a determination of misconduct as to all 
33 
counts 
summarized 
above, 
the 
referee 
evaluated 
the 
appropriate discipline for Attorney Grogan.  The referee 
recommended the revocation of Attorney Grogan's law license.  
The 
referee 
wrote 
that 
Attorney 
Grogan's 
misconduct 
was 
"blatant."  He "grossly mistreated" his clients, many of whom 
were financially challenged or otherwise vulnerable.  Referring 
to Attorney Grogan's conduct in representing L.J., the referee 
wrote that "[w]e now have the spectacle of a suspended attorney, 
a former district attorney, no less, meeting clients at Burger 
King, taking their money, and essentially disappearing into the 
night. 
 
The 
damage 
done 
to 
the 
profession 
is 
truly 
incalculable." 
¶25 The referee vigorously rejected Attorney Grogan's 
defenses to the OLR's allegations.  The referee variously 
described Attorney Grogan's defenses as "entirely incredible," 
"riddled with inconsistency," "baseless," and "advanced without 
a shred of supporting documentary evidence . . . , and in the 
face of a mountain of contemporaneous written evidence to the 
contrary."  The referee wrote that one of Attorney Grogan's 
arguments during the six-day disciplinary hearing "literally 
                                                                                                                                                             
admission to practice.  Every change after enrollment 
in any member's office address or social security 
number shall be reported promptly to the state bar.  
The social security number of a person enrolling in 
the state bar may not be disclosed to any person or 
entity except the supreme court and its agencies, or 
as otherwise provided by supreme court rules. 
No. 
2012AP2361-D   
 
11 
 
destroyed any remaining credibility he possessed."  The referee 
also commented that Attorney Grogan's noncooperation with the 
disciplinary process rose "to a level never before seen by this 
referee. 
 
[Attorney 
Grogan] 
has 
made 
engaging 
in 
basic 
communication with him a monumental struggle.  The jobs of OLR 
investigators, 
Court 
clerks, 
and 
even 
this 
referee 
were 
needlessly magnified by his avoidance behavior." 
¶26 As mentioned above, the referee ultimately recommended 
the revocation of Attorney Grogan's law license.  The referee 
wrote that "[w]hile it is almost unfathomable to think that an 
attorney would risk censure over such trifling amounts as 
[Attorney Grogan] took in this case, it is the blatant nature of 
the violations, combined with a long pattern of unremorseful 
behavior, which tips the scale." 
¶27 Concerning monetary sanctions, the referee recommended 
that Attorney Grogan be ordered to pay restitution as follows: 
• 
Charles B. matter:  $300 to the State Bar's Wisconsin 
Lawyers Fund for Client Protection ("Fund");  
• 
Clayton B. matter:  $875 to the Fund;  
• 
D.D. matter:  $220 to D.D.;  
• 
L.J. matter:  $500 to the Fund;  
• 
M.S.L. matter:  $65 to M.S.L.;  
• 
J.J.M. matter:  $6,500 to the Fund, $1,000 to J.J.M.; 
and 
• 
C.T. matter:  $2,000 to C.T.'s mother, C.V.G.  
No. 
2012AP2361-D   
 
12 
 
¶28 The referee also recommended that Attorney Grogan be 
ordered to pay costs of $37,718.88, a figure which represents 
costs through November 26, 2013. 
¶29 The OLR did not appeal from the referee report, and, 
as mentioned earlier,17 Attorney Grogan did not timely file an 
appeal.  Accordingly, this court's review proceeds pursuant to 
SCR 22.17(2).18  In conducting our review, we will affirm the 
referee's findings of fact unless they are found to be clearly 
erroneous, but we will review the referee's conclusions of law 
on a de novo basis.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125.  The 
court may impose whatever sanction it sees fit regardless of the 
referee's recommendation.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶30 Based upon our review of the record, we approve and 
adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law.  We 
determine that the seriousness of Attorney Grogan's misconduct 
demonstrates that his law license must be revoked to protect the 
public, courts, and legal system from the repetition of the 
                                                 
17 See n.1. 
18 SCR 22.17(2) provides: 
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. 
No. 
2012AP2361-D   
 
13 
 
misconduct; to impress upon Attorney Grogan the seriousness of 
his misconduct; and to deter other attorneys from engaging in 
similar misconduct.  We also agree with and adopt the referee's 
recommendation 
that 
Attorney 
Grogan 
be 
ordered 
to 
pay 
restitution and costs as described above. 
¶31 IT IS ORDERED that the license of William J. Grogan to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective as of the date 
of this order. 
¶32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the temporary license 
suspensions of June 16, 2011 and January 24, 2012, which arose 
out of William J. Grogan's willful failure to cooperate with two 
separate OLR grievance investigations in this matter, are 
lifted. 
¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order William J. Grogan shall pay restitution as 
follows: 
• 
Charles B. matter:  $300 to the Fund;  
• 
Clayton B. matter:  $875 to the Fund;  
• 
D.D. matter:  $220 to D.D.;  
• 
L.J. matter:  $500 to the Fund;  
• 
M.S.L. matter:  $65 to M.S.L.;  
• 
J.J.M. matter:  $6,500 to the Fund, $1,000 to J.J.M.; 
and 
• 
C.T. matter:  $2,000 to C.T.'s mother, C.V.G.  
¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, William J. Grogan shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the imposed costs of this proceeding. 
No. 
2012AP2361-D   
 
14 
 
¶35 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified 
above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation. 
¶36 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that William J. Grogan 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. 
¶37 DAVID T. PROSSER, J., did not participate. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
No. 
2012AP2361-D   
 
 
 
1