Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Joan M. Boyd

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2009 WI 59 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2008AP976-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Joan M. Boyd, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Joan M. Boyd, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BOYD 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 26, 2009   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2009 WI 59
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2008AP976-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Joan M. Boyd, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Joan M. Boyd, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 26, 2009 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that Attorney Joan M. Boyd's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin 
be 
suspended 
for 
six 
months 
for 
professional 
misconduct.  On July 14, 2008, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed an amended complaint alleging that Attorney Boyd 
engaged in 13 counts of misconduct arising from five separate 
matters.  Gary L. Olstad was appointed referee. 
No. 
2008AP976-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
On October 21, 2008, the parties entered into a 
stipulation in which Attorney Boyd: (1) withdrew her response 
and pled no contest to the amended complaint; (2) agreed the 
referee may use the amended complaint as the factual basis for a 
determination 
of 
misconduct; 
and 
(3) 
joined 
the 
OLR 
in 
recommending a six-month suspension of her Wisconsin law license 
and restitution. 
¶3 
The referee issued his report on February 2, 2009, 
adopting the amended complaint's fact statement and concluding 
Attorney Boyd engaged in unprofessional conduct as alleged.  No 
appeal has been filed.  We approve and adopt the referee's 
findings and conclusions.  We determine the seriousness of 
Attorney Boyd's professional misconduct warrants a suspension of 
her license to practice law for six months.  We also impose 
restitution and costs.  
¶4 
Attorney 
Boyd 
was 
admitted 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin in 1989 and resides in Shawano.  Attorney Boyd has 
been subject to the following previous discipline:  
• 
In 
2000 
Attorney 
Boyd 
forged 
her 
clients' 
endorsements on the back of a check that was 
issued by a bankruptcy trustee to the clients and 
arranged for the check to be deposited into her 
checking 
account. 
 
She 
also 
made 
a 
misrepresentation to the bankruptcy trustee's 
staff that the clients had endorsed the back of 
the check.  See Public Reprimand of Joan M. Boyd, 
2000-04.   
• 
In 
2006 
Attorney 
Boyd 
was 
again 
publicly 
reprimanded for failing to deposit a fee into her 
client trust account; commingling funds in her 
trust account; failing to provide the legal skill 
or preparation reasonably necessary to handle a 
No. 
2008AP976-D   
 
3 
 
federal civil rights claim; and charging a client 
an unreasonable fee.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Boyd, 
2006 
WI 
28, 
289 
Wis. 2d 351, 711 N.W.2d 268. 
• 
On 
August 
18, 
2008, 
a 
five-month 
license 
suspension was imposed in In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Boyd, 2008 WI 103, 314 
Wis. 2d 14, 752 N.W.2d 882, for five counts of 
misconduct in three client matters. 
Attorney Boyd's license remains suspended. 
¶5 
The referee found the following facts supported counts 
1 through 5.  Attorney Boyd represented J.R. in post-conviction 
proceedings arising from his 2002 felony conviction in Brown 
County circuit court.  Initially, J.R. had sought the services 
of the National Legal Professional Associates (NLPA).  Under 
NLPA's procedures, it would perform the necessary research and 
briefing and J.R. would retain counsel licensed in Wisconsin to 
file and serve the paperwork and appear in court.  NLPA 
recommended to J.R. that Attorney Boyd serve as local counsel to 
pursue post-conviction relief.   
¶6 
On her son's behalf, J.R's mother entered into a 
written fee agreement with Attorney Boyd, which provided for a 
$4,000 flat fee for legal services in connection with J.R.'s 
post-conviction motion and appeal.  The agreement stated 
Attorney 
Boyd 
would 
"finalize 
the 
Motion 
and 
Appeal 
in 
accordance with prevailing ethical standards, and, in accordance 
with the law of the State of Wisconsin," she would "prosecute 
the Motion and Appeal to the full extent of the law." 
¶7 
Attorney Boyd filed the motion papers she had received 
from NLPA.  The motion alleged ineffective assistance of counsel 
No. 
2008AP976-D   
 
4 
 
and sought vacation of the conviction and sentence.  At a 
September 2, 2005, motion hearing, Attorney Boyd asserted 
judicial bias, which was unsupportable by any facts or existing 
law.1  Attorney Boyd failed to investigate whether any bias or 
judicial misconduct actually supported the allegation.  The 
judge reacted in a strongly negative manner, observing that had 
Attorney Boyd done her homework, she would not have brought 
these allegations. 
¶8 
Following the hearing, Attorney Boyd advised J.R. he 
would have 90 days to appeal.  He decided to appeal.  After NLPA 
quoted additional fees that he could not afford, J.R. asked 
Attorney Boyd to prepare the appeal as required under the 
existing fee agreement.  Because of her disagreement with J.R. 
as to her obligations under the fee agreement, Attorney Boyd 
suggested seeking an extension of time to appeal to permit J.R. 
to raise additional funds.   
¶9 
On November 14, 2005, Attorney Boyd filed a motion to 
extend the time to appeal; the motion was denied on November 17, 
2005.  J.R. did not learn of the denial of the motion until 
December 14, 2005, after the 90-day time to appeal had expired.  
No appeal was taken.   
¶10 Attorney Boyd admitted to the OLR staff that the 
$4,000 she charged J.R. was to include her work in filing and 
arguing the post-conviction motion, as well as filing a court of 
                                                 
1 The motion had alleged a presumed acquaintance between her 
client's former wife and the trial judge. 
No. 
2008AP976-D   
 
5 
 
appeals brief.  Since the appeal was not filed, Attorney Boyd 
acknowledged she owed a $1,000 refund. 
¶11 The referee concluded Attorney Boyd's handling of 
J.R.'s post-conviction matter gave rise to five counts of 
misconduct:   
Count 1:  By filing a post-conviction motion 
alleging a presumed acquaintance between her client's 
former wife and the trial judge, without investigating 
whether such a relationship existed or there was a 
basis for any bias, and by filing a motion for an 
extension of time to take a post-conviction relief 
appeal that was not allowed under existing Wisconsin 
law, Attorney Boyd violated SCR 20:1.1.2  
Count 2:  By failing to proceed with an appeal on 
J.R.'s behalf, when her fee agreement stated she would 
represent J.R. in his post-conviction motion and 
appeal, and by failing to properly terminate her 
representation and protect J.R.'s interests while the 
matter was pending, Attorney Boyd violated SCR 20:1.3.3  
Count 3:  By failing to inform J.R. that Attorney 
Boyd's motion to extend the time to appeal was denied 
until after the time for filing an appeal had expired, 
                                                 
2 Effective July 1, 2007, substantial changes were made to 
the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct for 
Attorneys, SCR Chapter 20.  See S. Ct. Order 04-07, 2007 WI 4, 
293 Wis. 2d xv, 726 N.W.2d Ct.R-45 (eff. July 1, 2007); and 
S. Ct. 
Order 
06-04, 
2007 
WI 
48, 
297 
Wis. 2d xv, 
730 
N.W.2d Ct.R.-29 (eff. July 1, 2007).  Because the conduct 
underlying this case arose prior to July 1, 2007, unless 
otherwise indicated, all references to the Wisconsin Supreme 
Court Rules will be to those in effect prior to July 1, 2007. 
SCR 20:1.1 provides "[a] lawyer shall provide competent 
representation to a client.  Competent representation requires 
the 
legal 
knowledge, 
skill, 
thoroughness 
and 
preparation 
reasonably necessary for the representation." 
3 SCR 20:1.3 provides "[a] lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
No. 
2008AP976-D   
 
6 
 
and by failing to explain to J.R. the significance of 
the dismissal of the motion or that J.R. still had the 
option of filing an appeal at the time the motion to 
extend was denied, Attorney Boyd violated former SCR 
20:1.4(a)4 and SCR 20:1.4(b).5  
Count 4:  By failing to refund to J.R. a minimum 
of $1,000, which Attorney Boyd acknowledges she did 
not 
earn, 
Attorney 
Boyd 
violated 
former 
SCR 
20:1.16(d).6 
Count 5:  By asserting as a part of the post-
conviction 
motion 
unsupportable 
allegations 
challenging the integrity of a judge without properly 
investigating 
the 
truth 
or 
falsity 
of 
such 
allegations, 
including 
asserting 
a 
presumed 
acquaintance 
between 
the 
trial 
judge 
and 
the 
defendant's former wife as cause for bias, without 
investigating whether such a relationship existed, 
Attorney Boyd violated SCR 20:8.2(a).7  
                                                 
4 Former SCR 20:1.4(a) provided “[a] lawyer shall keep a 
client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and 
promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.” 
5 SCR 20:1.4(b) provides "[a] lawyer shall explain a matter 
to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make 
informed decisions regarding the representation." 
6 Former SCR 20:1.16(d) provided: 
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. 
7 SCR 20:8.2(a) provides: 
A lawyer shall not make a statement that the 
lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as 
to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications 
or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or 
No. 
2008AP976-D   
 
7 
 
¶12 The second matter involves C.C., and gave rise to 
counts 6 and 7.  Attorney Boyd hired C.C. to perform 
investigative work on a case on which she had been appointed by 
the State Public Defender (SPD).  When C.C. completed his work, 
he sent Attorney Boyd a bill for his services in the amount of 
$154.12.  In August 2006 Attorney Boyd submitted her own billing 
statement along with C.C.'s invoice to the SPD.  On August 21, 
2006, the Wisconsin Department of Administration issued a check 
to Attorney Boyd in the matter, which included payment for 
C.C.'s invoice.   
¶13 After receiving the check, Attorney Boyd failed to pay 
C.C.  C.C. sent Attorney Boyd e-mails relating to the unpaid 
invoice.  Eventually, on February 12, 2007, C.C. filed a 
grievance with the OLR alleging Attorney Boyd refused to pay him 
and failed to return his phone calls.  On March 27, 2007, 
Attorney Boyd sent C.C. a cashier's check for $154.12.  The 
payment came from funds in her law office business account.   
¶14 Attorney Boyd acknowledged to the OLR that after 
receiving the SPD's check, which included payment for C.C.'s 
investigative services, she cashed the check and used the 
proceeds to pay her personal bills.  Attorney Boyd stated she 
did not deposit the check into her trust account. 
¶15 The referee concluded Attorney Boyd's handling of this 
matter gave rise to two counts of misconduct:  
                                                                                                                                                             
public legal officer, or of a candidate for election 
or appointment to judicial or legal office. 
No. 
2008AP976-D   
 
8 
 
Count 6:  After receiving a check from the SPD in 
August 2006 which included funds to pay C.C.'s fee, 
Attorney Boyd failed to deposit the check into her 
client trust account in violation of former SCR 
20:1.15(b)(1).8 
Count 7:  After receiving the check from the SPD 
in August 2006 which included funds to pay C.C.'s fee, 
Attorney Boyd failed to promptly notify C.C. in 
writing or to promptly deliver the fee C.C. was 
entitled 
to 
receive, 
in 
violation 
of 
SCR 
20:1.15(d)(1).9 
¶16 The third client matter gave rise to counts 8 and 9.  
In the late 1980s, V.B. was convicted of several charges in 
Milwaukee County circuit court, and received an 80-year prison 
sentence.  His appeal and habeas corpus proceedings were 
unsuccessful.  He subsequently contacted NLPA to pursue new 
post-conviction motions.   
                                                 
8 Former SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) provided: 
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. 
9 SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) (effective July 1, 2004) provided:  
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. 
No. 
2008AP976-D   
 
9 
 
¶17 On April 22, 2004, V.B.'s sister sent NLPA a check for 
$2,000 to prepare a case evaluation for V.B.  On or about 
April 27, 2004, NLPA referred V.B. to Attorney Boyd for possible 
future representation in seeking post-conviction relief. 
¶18 On May 1, 2004, V.B. signed a "Client Authorization" 
form noting to NLPA that he had selected Attorney Boyd to 
represent him.  Thereafter, NLPA sent Attorney Boyd its case 
evaluation.  NLPA also wrote V.B. stating he needed to hire an 
investigator before a post-conviction motion could be prepared.  
V.B. hired J.J. to investigate.   
¶19 On December 23, 2004, V.B.'s sister paid a $3,000 
retainer to Attorney Boyd.  Attorney Boyd provided no written 
fee agreement. 
¶20 Between March 2005 and July 2006, J.J. provided at 
least three reports of his investigative findings to Attorney 
Boyd, all of which indicated the victims would not recant their 
testimony.  On July 7, 2006, Attorney Boyd sent J.J.'s notes to 
NLPA.  NLPA advised Attorney Boyd it "cannot, at this time, 
recommend that a post-conviction motion be filed on [V.B.'s] 
behalf."   
¶21 Between December 29, 2004, and July 19, 2006, Attorney 
Boyd had no contact with V.B. or his sister.  On July 19, 2006, 
Attorney 
Boyd 
sent 
a 
letter 
to 
V.B., 
echoing 
NLPA's 
recommendation.  In August 2006 V.B.'s sister filed a grievance 
with the OLR, and V.B. asked Attorney Boyd for his file.  
Attorney Boyd replied by announcing a new strategy that would be 
mapped out and recommended that V.B. grant her permission to 
No. 
2008AP976-D   
 
10 
 
hold 
the 
case open for further review.  Attorney Boyd 
recommended pursuing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. 
¶22 In September 2006 V.B. requested an itemized statement 
of services from Attorney Boyd.  In April and June 2007 the OLR 
district committee investigator made the same request.  Attorney 
Boyd's notes indicate she had two conferences with V.B. and his 
sister in September and October 2006.  In January 2007 Attorney 
Boyd requested copies of court records in V.B.'s cases and 
forwarded copies to V.B.  V.B. replied that Attorney Boyd had 
not obtained copies of the discovery and other documents from 
his file and requested she contact the district attorney 
directly.  Attorney Boyd did so by letter of March 6, 2007, but 
as of April 10, 2007, no additional material had been provided.   
¶23 In April 2007, unbeknownst to V.B., Attorney Boyd 
contacted 
Legal 
Research 
Center, 
Inc., 
of 
Minneapolis, 
Minnesota, seeking services for research regarding V.B.'s post-
conviction motion.  However, V.B. wanted Attorney Boyd to stop 
working on his case and to refund the $3,000 retainer.  In 
November 2007 Attorney Boyd provided to the OLR a statement of 
her services, explaining that her delay was due to an oversight. 
¶24 The referee concluded Attorney Boyd's handling of 
V.B.'s case gave rise to two counts of misconduct.  
Count 8:  By failing to request court documents 
until January 27, 2007, only after the client had 
filed a grievance and the grievance was referred to 
OLR's district committee for investigation, and after 
being paid a $3,000 fee in December 2004 to provide 
various legal services, including to seek some court 
No. 
2008AP976-D   
 
11 
 
documents that were missing from the case file, 
Attorney Boyd violated SCR 20:1.3. 
Count 9:  After her client made a request on 
September 22, 2006, for an itemized statement of the 
services that Attorney Boyd had performed, by failing 
to provide the itemized statement until November 12, 
2007, despite two requests for the statement from 
OLR's district committee investigator on April 10, 
2007, and June 20, 2007, Attorney Boyd violated former 
SCR 20:1.4(a). 
¶25 The fourth client matter gave rise to counts 10 and 
11.  In May 2005 R.O. was sentenced to prison as a result of 
multiple criminal convictions.  R.O. was diagnosed with a 
medical 
condition 
while 
incarcerated 
and 
learned 
he 
was 
ineligible for treatment due to the short length of his 
sentence.  R.O. asked his parents to speak with Attorney Boyd 
regarding a motion to modify his sentence based upon his medical 
condition.   
¶26 Attorney Boyd requested a retainer of $1,800 from 
R.O.'s parents, which they paid on December 1, 2005.  In January 
2006, however, Attorney Boyd refused to file a motion for 
sentence modification based on R.O.'s health condition because 
she considered it to be a frivolous motion.  R.O. ultimately 
directed Attorney Boyd not to file anything on his behalf and 
asked her to refund his retainer.  He also requested his file.  
Attorney Boyd replied the file had been lost.  R.O.'s parents 
also requested Attorney Boyd discontinue any work on the case 
and provide a statement for services and a refund.   
¶27 The OLR district committee investigator requested 
Attorney Boyd provide copies of: (1) records that would show 
No. 
2008AP976-D   
 
12 
 
telephone contacts with R.O.; (2) any schedules she might have 
relating to telephone calls to R.O. in prison; and (3) any 
retainer agreement and memoranda relating to the sentencing 
adjustment issue.  Attorney Boyd provided only a copy of a 
letter from R.O. in September 2006 demanding a refund of $500 to 
his parents.  Attorney Boyd never provided an accounting of the 
$1,800 fee she received to represent R.O.   
¶28 Upon receipt of the district committee report, the OLR 
wrote to Attorney Boyd in October 2007 requesting information.  
In November 2007 Attorney Boyd replied she would attempt to 
retrieve the information from her old computer.  Attorney Boyd 
did not submit the information or contact the OLR on the issue.   
¶29 The referee concluded Attorney Boyd's conduct in 
handling the R.O. matter gave rise to the following two 
violations:   
Count 10:  By failing to provide an accounting of 
the $1,800 fee she had received to represent R.O. for 
a sentence modification motion, when Attorney Boyd had 
not filed such a motion after concluding it was 
frivolous to do so, and after other family members had 
inquired of Attorney Boyd about receiving a partial 
refund, Attorney Boyd violated former SCR 20:1.16(d). 
Count 11:  By failing to provide telephone 
records to OLR's district committee, by failing to 
provide a memorandum of law to OLR, and by failing to 
provide the R.O. client file, which was purportedly 
lost 
or 
misplaced, 
Attorney 
Boyd 
violated 
SCR 
22.03(6)10 and SCR 22.04(1).11  
                                                 
10 SCR 22.03(6) provides: 
In 
the 
course 
of 
the 
investigation, 
the 
respondent’s 
wilful 
failure 
to 
provide 
relevant 
information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 
No. 
2008AP976-D   
 
13 
 
¶30 The final matter gave rise to counts 12 and 13.  R.B. 
was previously employed as a police officer.  R.B. arrested 
Attorney Boyd on September 7, 2004.  Attorney Boyd was initially 
charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.  The 
police report indicated Attorney Boyd recorded a preliminary 
breath test with a blood alcohol concentration of .117%.  After 
her arrest, Attorney Boyd paid for the following advertisement 
in a local newspaper:  
In Pursuit of Justice: 
Stop Police Misconduct 
Former Officer R.B. of the 
MTPD has pepper- 
sprayed minor females 
until rendered helpless and 
then committed a sexual 
assault against them.  To 
pursue a civil rights 
action, send statement to 
Legal Action Centre 
P.O. Box 648 
Shawano, WI 54166 
(715)526-2155 
Attorney Boyd did not list her name in the advertisement but 
used her post office box and telephone number. 
                                                                                                                                                             
documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a 
disclosure are misconduct, regardless of the merits of 
the matters asserted in the grievance.   
11 SCR 22.04(1) provides: 
 
The 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. 
No. 
2008AP976-D   
 
14 
 
¶31 The criminal complaint against Attorney Boyd was 
amended to add a count of misdemeanor battery against a police 
officer.  In January 2008 Attorney Boyd reported the charges 
against her were resolved by her plea of no contest to a count 
of misdemeanor disorderly conduct.  The referee concluded 
Attorney Boyd's conduct supported the following two violations:   
Count 12:  By failing to include her name in an 
advertisement that she ran in a local newspaper during 
the autumn of 2004 when she was the only lawyer 
responsible for the ad's content, Attorney Boyd 
violated former SCR 20:7.1(c).12  
Count 13:  By engaging in acts during her arrest 
in September 2004 resulting in a criminal conviction 
of disorderly conduct, Attorney Boyd violated SCR 
20:8.4(b).13  
¶32 The referee noted Attorney Boyd's conduct reflected 
violations similar to those in her previous disciplinary 
proceeding:  providing inadequate representation, failing to act 
with reasonable diligence and promptness, and conduct involving 
fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation.  The referee recommended 
Attorney Boyd's license to practice law in Wisconsin be 
suspended for six months, effective August 18, 2008, consecutive 
to the five-month suspension imposed in Boyd, 2008 WI 103, 314 
Wis. 2d 14.   
                                                 
12 Former SCR 20:7.1(c) provided that "[a]ny communication 
made pursuant to this rule shall include the name of at least 
one lawyer responsible for its content."   
13 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. 
2008AP976-D   
 
15 
 
¶33 The 
referee also recommended Attorney Boyd make 
restitution plus interest at the legal rate as follows: (1) to 
R.O. 
in 
the 
amount 
of 
$1,500 
with 
interest 
commencing 
January 31, 2006, to the date of payment; (2) to J.R. in the 
amount of $1,000 with interest commencing November 18, 2005, to 
the date of payment; and (3) to V.B.'s sister, the unearned 
portion of the $3,000 fee with interest commencing April 1, 
2007, to the date of payment.14  He also recommended Attorney 
Boyd be required to pay the full costs of this proceeding.15   
¶34 We approve the referee's recommended sanction with one 
modification.  To impose the suspension directly following the 
date her previous suspension expired would in effect be a 
suspension retroactive to August 2008.  A retroactive suspension 
is generally not favored in the absence of some compelling 
circumstance, and no compelling circumstance is shown here.  
Although we take into account the referee's recommendation as to 
discipline, we do not accord the referee's recommendation any 
conclusive weight.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.  It is 
this 
court's 
responsibility 
to 
determine 
the 
appropriate 
discipline to be imposed for an attorney's misconduct.  Id.  
                                                 
14 No 
objection 
has 
been 
made 
to 
the 
referee's 
recommendation 
that 
the 
amount 
of 
the 
refund 
should 
be 
calculated using the itemized statement Attorney Boyd provided 
to the OLR on November 12, 2007.  The amount of the refund shall 
be calculated in accordance with the referee's recommendation. 
15 The OLR filed its cost statement on February 17, 2009, 
seeking costs and disbursements in the amount of $2,762.14. 
No. 
2008AP976-D   
 
16 
 
Based on the seriousness of the misconduct and Attorney Boyd's 
disciplinary history, we impose a six-month license suspension 
effective the date of this decision.   
¶35 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Joan M. Boyd to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six 
months, effective the date of this order. 
¶36 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent she has not 
yet done so, Joan M. Boyd shall comply with SCR 22.26 regarding 
the duties of a person whose license to practice law in 
Wisconsin has been suspended. 
¶37 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
Joan 
M. 
Boyd 
pay 
restitution plus interest at the legal rate.  See Wis. Stat. 
§ 138.04.  Restitution shall be paid as follows:  to R.O. in the 
amount of $1,500 with interest commencing January 31, 2006, to 
the date of payment; to J.R. in the amount of $1,000 with 
interest commencing November 18, 2005, to the date of payment; 
and to V.B.'s sister, the unearned portion of the $3,000 fee 
with interest commencing April 1, 2007, to the date of payment.  
If restitution is not paid within 60 days of the date of this 
order, Joan M. Boyd's license shall remain suspended until 
further order of the court. 
¶38 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 90 days of the date 
of this order Joan M. Boyd 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 her inability to pay the costs within that time, 
No. 
2008AP976-D   
 
17 
 
Joan M. Boyd's license to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain 
suspended until further order of the court.    
¶39 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution is to be 
completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation. 
 
No. 
2008AP976-D   
 
 
 
1