Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Coral Dawn Pleas

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2022 WI 29 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2020AP724-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Coral Dawn Pleas, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Coral Dawn Pleas, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
REINSTATEMENT PETITION OF PLEAS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 10, 2022   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam. 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2022 WI 29
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
 
 
No.  2020AP724-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Coral Dawn Pleas, Attorney at Law. 
 
 
Complainant,   
 
 
v. 
 
Coral Dawn Pleas, 
 
 
Respondent.   
FILED 
 
MAY 10, 2022 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.   Reinstatement granted.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   The court has before it the parties' joint 
stipulation for Attorney Coral Dawn Pleas' reinstatement of her 
license to practice law in Wisconsin.   
¶2 
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.30(5)(b), the 
court may consider a reinstatement petition by stipulation when, 
as here, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) concludes after 
investigation that the petitioner has demonstrated, to the OLR's 
director's satisfaction, that all of the reinstatement criteria 
No. 
2020AP724-D   
 
2 
 
have been met.  See SCR 22.3051 and SCR 22.29.2  The court then 
considers the petition and stipulation without the appointment of 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.305 provides: 
At all times relevant to the petition, the 
petitioner has the burden of demonstrating, by clear, 
satisfactory, and convincing evidence, all of the 
following:  
(1) That he or she has the moral character to 
practice law in Wisconsin. 
(2) 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.  
(3) That his or her representations in the 
petition, including the representations required by SCR 
22.29(4)(a) to (m) and 22.29(5), are substantiated.  
(4) 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 SCR 22.29 provides in pertinent part:  
(4) 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. 
No. 
2020AP724-D   
 
3 
 
a referee.  SCR 22.30(5)(b).  The court may approve the stipulation 
and reinstate the petitioner's law license, or reject the 
                                                 
(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.  
(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.  
(m) 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.  
 . . . . 
(5) A 
petition 
for 
reinstatement 
shall 
be 
accompanied by an advance deposit in an amount to be set 
by the supreme court for payment of all or a portion of 
the costs of the reinstatement proceeding. The supreme 
court may extend the time for payment or waive payment 
in any case in which to do otherwise would result in 
hardship or injustice. 
No. 
2020AP724-D   
 
4 
 
stipulation and refer the petition to a referee for a hearing, or 
direct the parties to consider modifications to the stipulation.  
Id.   
¶3 
Upon consideration of Attorney Pleas' reinstatement 
petition, the OLR's response pursuant to SCR 22.30(4), the parties' 
stipulation pursuant to SCR 22.30(5)(a), and the OLR's memorandum 
in support of the stipulation pursuant to SCR 22.30(5)(a), we 
conclude that reinstatement is appropriate. 
¶4 
Attorney Pleas was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin 
in 1993.  On September 29, 2020, based on a stipulation between 
Attorney Pleas and the OLR, this court suspended Attorney Pleas' 
Wisconsin law license for six months for misconduct arising out of 
her representation of a client, V.B., regarding two automobile 
accidents that injured V.B.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Pleas, 2020 WI 77, 394 Wis. 2d 6, 948 N.W.2d 901.  The 
court determined that, during her representation of V.B. regarding 
the first automobile accident, Attorney Pleas committed misconduct 
by failing to promptly notify V.B. and V.B.'s health insurer of 
her receipt of $25,000 in settlement funds; failing to promptly 
deliver to V.B. and V.B.'s health insurer the funds to which they 
were entitled; failing to hold the settlement funds in trust; 
making disbursements from her trust account via internet banking 
transactions; failing to provide V.B. and V.B.'s health insurer 
with an accounting following final distribution of trust property; 
and converting the $25,000 in settlement funds to her own use.  
See id., ¶¶18-19, 24.  The court also determined that, during her 
representation of V.B. regarding the second automobile accident, 
No. 
2020AP724-D   
 
5 
 
Attorney Pleas committed misconduct by failing to file a personal 
injury lawsuit prior to the expiration of the statute of 
limitations.  See id.  The court also determined that, during her 
representation of V.B. regarding both automobile accidents, 
Attorney Pleas committed misconduct by failing to communicate 
sufficiently with V.B., including regarding the fact that the 
statute of limitations had expired on the second accident claim.  
See id.  Finally, the court determined that Attorney Pleas 
committed misconduct by failing to file an overdraft notification 
agreement with the OLR.  See id.   
¶5 
In addition to imposing a six-month license suspension, 
effective November 10, 2020, the court ordered Attorney Pleas to 
pay restitution to V.B.'s health insurer in the amount of $8,333.33 
within 60 days of the date of the disciplinary decision.  Id., 
¶¶25-26.3  The court further ordered Attorney Pleas to comply with 
the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin have been suspended.  Id., 
¶27. 
¶6 
On November 5, 2021, Attorney Pleas filed a petition for 
the reinstatement of her Wisconsin law license.   
¶7 
On January 19, 2022, the OLR filed a response to Attorney 
Pleas' reinstatement petition, as required by SCR 22.30(4).  In 
its response, the OLR explains that it investigated Attorney Pleas' 
                                                 
3 Attorney Pleas had negotiated this amount as a compromise 
of a larger medical lien, but had yet to pay it out of the $25,000 
she had received in settlement of V.B.'s first accident claim.  
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Pleas, 2020 WI 77, ¶¶15-
17, 394 Wis. 2d 6, 948 N.W.2d 901. 
No. 
2020AP724-D   
 
6 
 
petition and found she has satisfied the criteria for reinstatement 
listed in SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(m).   
¶8 
Examining SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(m) criteria one by one, the 
OLR notes in its response that Attorney Pleas desires to have her 
law license reinstated, SCR 22.29(4)(a), and has not practiced law 
during the period of suspension, SCR 22.29(4)(b).  She has instead 
done non-legal work for a local community organization. 
¶9 
As for the requirement in SCR 22.29(4)(c) that Attorney 
Pleas demonstrate full compliance with the terms of the order of 
suspension, the OLR notes in its response that Attorney Pleas has 
met this requirement, except for minor deviations that, in its 
view, do not warrant the denial of Attorney Pleas' reinstatement 
petition.  One way the OLR identifies that Attorney Pleas did not 
strictly comply with our September 29, 2020 disciplinary decision 
is that, while we ordered Attorney Pleas to pay $8,333.33 in 
restitution to V.B.'s health insurer within 60 days of the decision 
date (i.e., by late November 2020), Attorney Pleas did not pay 
this amount until well later, in October 2021.  In another 
deviation from the terms of our disciplinary decision, while we 
required Attorney Pleas to notify her clients of her suspension by 
certified mail,4 she did so by regular mail.  The OLR also reports 
that, while we required Attorney Pleas to file, within 25 days 
after her suspension date, an affidavit showing full compliance 
                                                 
4 See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Pleas, 394 
Wis. 2d 6, ¶27, (requiring Attorney Pleas to comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26); see also SCR 22.26(1)(a) (requiring a 
suspended lawyer to send, by certified mail, written notice of the 
lawyer's suspension to all clients in pending matters). 
No. 
2020AP724-D   
 
7 
 
with her post-suspension obligations,5 she filed this affidavit 
belatedly. 
¶10 Nevertheless, the OLR states in its response that 
Attorney Pleas "in an overall sense ultimately substantially 
complied with the Court's September 2020 decision."  The OLR 
credits Attorney Pleas' explanation that she satisfied her 
restitution obligation beyond the date we ordered because she was 
financially unable to do so earlier.  The OLR accepts Attorney 
Pleas' representation that her finances were seriously compromised 
by her personal health problems, the adverse effect of COVID-19 on 
her pre-suspension business income, and her limited post-
suspension income.  The OLR notes that Attorney Pleas' troubled 
finances are documented in her tax returns and Chapter 13 
bankruptcy filings.  The OLR also notes that, in Attorney Pleas' 
belated post-suspension affidavit, she detailed the steps she took 
to wind down her practice by her suspension date, including 
successfully petitioning this court for a 30-day extension to the 
suspension date to allow her additional time to wind down her 
practice, refraining from taking any new cases, communicating with 
her clients verbally and via mail (albeit not certified mail) that 
she had been suspended, assisting her clients in transitioning 
their cases to successor counsel, advising all courts and adverse 
counsel of her impending suspension, and otherwise taking all 
                                                 
5 See id., ¶27 (requiring Attorney Pleas to comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26); see also SCR 22.26(1)(e) (requiring a 
suspended lawyer to file an affidavit with the OLR director, within 
25 days after the suspension date, showing compliance with his or 
her post-suspension obligations). 
No. 
2020AP724-D   
 
8 
 
necessary steps to ensure her clients suffered no prejudice due to 
her suspension.   
¶11 As for the reinstatement criteria set forth in 
SCR 22.29(4)(d)-(k), the OLR notes in its response that Attorney 
Pleas has maintained competence and learning in the law by 
attendance at identified educational activities, as evidenced by 
a January 12, 2022 memorandum from the Board of Bar Examiners 
confirming her compliance with continuing legal education and 
ethics 
and 
professional 
responsibility 
requirements, 
SCR 22.29(4)(d); that her conduct since her suspension has been 
exemplary and beyond reproach, SCR 22.29(4)(e); that she has a 
proper understanding of and attitude toward the standards that are 
imposed upon members of the bar and will act in conformity with 
those standards, SCR 22.29(4)(f); that, as evidenced by several 
character reference letters, she 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, SCR 22.29(4)(g); and that, as discussed above, she 
has complied with the requirements set forth in SCR 22.26, SCR 
22.29(4)(h).  The OLR also notes that, in accordance with SCR 
22.29(4)(j), Attorney Pleas has explained her proposed use of her 
license if reinstated:  running a home-based practice handling 
simple wills, municipal and traffic matters, entity formation for 
small businesses, and other small matters for family and friends.  
The OLR also notes that Attorney Pleas satisfactorily described 
No. 
2020AP724-D   
 
9 
 
her business activities during her suspension in accordance with 
SCR 22.29(4)(k), as she explained that she works as a Program Coach 
for the Martin Luther King Economic Development Corporation in 
Milwaukee and has served as a caretaker for her mother. 
¶12 The OLR next examines in its response the requirement in 
SCR 22.29(4)(m) that Attorney Pleas either:  (1) show she has made 
restitution to or settled all claims of persons injured or harmed 
by her misconduct; or (2) provide an explanation of her failure or 
inability to do so.  The OLR notes that it received written 
comments on this point from V.B., the client involved in Attorney 
Pleas' earlier disciplinary matter.6  In her written comments, V.B. 
states that she seeks compensation for Attorney Pleas' failure to 
timely file a personal injury lawsuit regarding V.B.'s second 
automobile accident.  V.B. notes that she retained a lawyer who 
brought a malpractice lawsuit against Attorney Pleas, but her 
lawyer ultimately dismissed this lawsuit because Attorney Pleas 
had no malpractice insurance during the relevant time period and 
had commenced bankruptcy proceedings.  V.B. notes that Attorney 
Pleas sent her lawyer in the malpractice action an offer to pay 
V.B. a small amount of compensation under a payment plan, but 
V.B.'s lawyer did not accept that proposal.  V.B. states that she 
does not believe that Attorney Pleas has the moral character to 
practice law.  V.B. further asks that, if this court reinstates 
Attorney Pleas' Wisconsin law license, the reinstatement should be 
                                                 
6 Consistent with SCR 22.30(5)(a), the OLR attached a copy of 
V.B.'s comments to its memorandum in support of the stipulation 
for Attorney Pleas' reinstatement. 
No. 
2020AP724-D   
 
10 
 
conditioned on Attorney Pleas reimbursing her for expenses that 
she may have recovered had Attorney Pleas timely filed a personal 
injury lawsuit regarding V.B.'s second automobile accident. 
¶13 In its response to Attorney Pleas' reinstatement 
petition, the OLR states that V.B.'s objection should not preclude 
Attorney Pleas' reinstatement.  The OLR reasons that Attorney Pleas 
has already been disciplined for her failure to timely file a 
personal injury lawsuit regarding V.B.'s second automobile 
accident by way of the six-month suspension imposed in this court's 
September 29, 2020 disciplinary decision.  As for any damages V.B. 
was unable to recover by virtue of Attorney Pleas' failure to 
timely file such a lawsuit, the OLR explains that these are 
consequential damages, as opposed to funds that were under Attorney 
Pleas' direct control.  Thus, the OLR writes, the situation "did 
not meet OLR's restitution policy, either when the disciplinary 
proceeding was pending or at present."   
¶14 On February 14, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation in 
which the OLR states that Attorney Pleas has met her SCR 22.305 
burden to prove by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence: 
(1) That she has the moral character to practice law in 
Wisconsin. 
(2) That her resumption of the practice of law will not be 
detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of the 
public interest. 
(3) That her representations in the petition, including the 
representations required by SCR 22.29(4)(a) to (m) and 22.29(5), 
are substantiated. 
No. 
2020AP724-D   
 
11 
 
(4) That she has complied fully with the terms of the order 
of suspension or revocation and with the requirements of SCR 22.26. 
¶15 Also on February 14, 2022, the OLR filed a memorandum in 
support of the stipulation in which it reiterates that Attorney 
Pleas 
has 
satisfactorily 
complied 
with 
the 
criteria 
for 
reinstatement.  The OLR further notes that it did not identify any 
adverse material issues during its investigation of Attorney 
Pleas' reinstatement petition that would justify denial of 
reinstatement.   
¶16 Upon consideration of all of the above, we approve the 
parties' stipulation, adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions 
of law, and reinstate Attorney Pleas' Wisconsin law license.   
¶17 In doing so, we note that we agree with the OLR's 
assessment that, despite some missteps and delay, Attorney Pleas 
ultimately complied with the terms of this court's September 29, 
2020 disciplinary decision.  See SCR 22.29(4)(c).  There is no 
dispute that Attorney Pleas served her period of license 
suspension; that she fully paid the restitution we ordered her to 
pay in what appears to be as timely a manner as possible given her 
troubled financial circumstances; that she in fact notified 
clients of her license suspension (albeit not by certified mail); 
and that she filed a post-suspension affidavit with the OLR 
director (albeit belatedly).  Under the circumstances presented 
here, the court will not penalize Attorney Pleas for her imperfect, 
but ultimately effective, efforts to comply with the terms of our 
September 29, 2020 disciplinary decision. 
No. 
2020AP724-D   
 
12 
 
¶18 We further agree with the OLR that V.B.'s written 
comments should not preclude Attorney Pleas' reinstatement, nor 
trigger the imposition of restitution to V.B. as a condition of 
reinstatement.  We did not order Attorney Pleas to pay restitution 
to V.B. in our September 29, 2020 disciplinary decision.7  Although 
we recently denied reinstatement to a lawyer for a failure to make 
restitution even though restitution was not expressly ordered in 
the original disciplinary proceeding, see In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Parks, 2021 WI 10, 395 Wis. 2d 500, 953 
N.W.2d 873, in that instance the restitution at issue consisted of 
funds that the lawyer had wrongfully obtained.  Id., ¶¶20-32 
(denying reinstatement petition due to lawyer's failure to 
voluntarily reimburse his former law firm for legal fees he 
diverted from it, or his clients for an improperly solicited 
"gift").  By comparison, in this case, V.B. seeks consequential 
damages; i.e., damages resulting from Attorney Pleas' alleged 
malpractice in failing to timely bring a personal injury lawsuit 
regarding her second automobile accident.  The disciplinary 
process is neither intended nor designed to handle the questions 
of causation, contributory negligence, mitigation, burdens of 
                                                 
7 We specifically noted that, with respect to V.B.'s first 
accident claim, Attorney Pleas eventually paid V.B. a portion of 
the $25,000 settlement that she negotiated on V.B.'s behalf and 
refunded the full attorney's fee to V.B.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Pleas, 394 Wis. 2d 6, ¶¶16-17.  We did not 
discuss the issue of restitution with respect to Attorney Pleas' 
failure to timely file a personal injury lawsuit regarding V.B.'s 
second accident claim. 
No. 
2020AP724-D   
 
13 
 
proof, and other issues that would need to be resolved in order to 
determine V.B.'s consequential damages.  As we have explained: 
Whereas the goal of a legal malpractice action is to put 
clients in the position they would have occupied had the 
attorney not been negligent, the goal of a disciplinary 
proceeding is something else entirely:  to protect the 
public, the courts, and the legal profession from 
attorneys who fail to meet minimum standards of conduct.  
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Harman, 137 
Wis. 2d 148, 151, 403 N.W.2d 459 (1987). "It is not the 
purpose of lawyer discipline," we have noted, "to make 
whole those harmed by attorney misconduct."  Id.  
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Boyle, 2015 WI 110, ¶44, 
365 Wis. 2d 649, 872 N.W.2d 637. 
¶19 We note, too, that V.B. states in her written comments 
that Attorney Pleas contacted V.B.'s lawyer in her malpractice 
action and offered to pay a small amount of compensation to V.B. 
under a payment plan, but V.B.'s lawyer did not accept this 
proposal and dismissed the action.  Thus, it is not the case that 
Attorney Pleas "has made no effort at all to make restitution to 
or settle all claims of persons injured or harmed by [her] 
misconduct," as was the case for the respondent-lawyer in In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Parks, 395 Wis. 2d 500, ¶32.  We 
therefore conclude that, under the circumstances presented here, 
Attorney Pleas has satisfied her burden to demonstrate compliance 
with SCR 22.29(4)(m).  
¶20 In sum, then, we conclude that Attorney Pleas has the 
moral character to practice law in Wisconsin, SCR 22.305(1); that 
her resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to 
the administration of justice or subversive of the public interest, 
SCR 22.305(2); that her representations in her petition, including 
No. 
2020AP724-D   
 
14 
 
the representations required by SCR 22.29(4)(a) to (m) and SCR 
22.29(5), are substantiated, SCR 22.305(3); and that she has 
complied fully with the terms of the suspension order and with the 
requirements of SCR 22.26, SCR 22.305(4).  Accordingly, we accept 
the parties' stipulation pursuant to SCR 22.30(5)(b), and we 
reinstate Attorney Pleas' license to practice law in Wisconsin, 
effective the date of this order. 
¶21 IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement of Coral 
Dawn Pleas to practice law in Wisconsin is granted, effective the 
date of this order. 
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no costs will be imposed in 
connection with this reinstatement proceeding. 
 
 
No. 
2020AP724-D   
 
 
 
1