Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Gary A. Miller

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2005 WI 146 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2004AP2056-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Gary A. Miller, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Gary A. Miller, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MILLER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 25, 2005   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2005 WI 146
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2004AP2056-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Gary A. Miller, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Gary A. Miller, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 25, 2005 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   We 
review 
the 
findings 
of 
fact, 
conclusions 
of 
law 
and 
recommendation 
of 
referee 
Judith 
Sperling-Newton recommending that Attorney Gary A. Miller be 
publicly reprimanded for failing to disburse funds being held in 
his trust account after the trial court had ordered the funds to 
be granted to his client's ex-wife in a divorce property 
settlement. 
No. 
2004AP2056-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
We conclude that the referee's findings of fact are 
supported by satisfactory and convincing evidence.  We also 
agree with the referee's conclusions of law, and we agree that 
the appropriate discipline for the misconduct is a public 
reprimand.  In addition, we conclude that the costs of the 
proceeding, which are $5486.86, as of July 21, 2005, should be 
assessed against Attorney Miller. 
¶3 
Attorney Miller was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1970 and practices in Madison.  In 1995 he received 
a private reprimand for misconduct consisting of misrepresenting 
he had an attorney's lien as security for his fee in a personal 
injury matter and failing to promptly deliver his client's file 
materials to successor counsel.   
¶4 
In August 2004 the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
filed a complaint alleging three counts of misconduct involving 
two clients.  After conducting discovery the OLR withdrew one of 
the counts.  The remaining two counts of the complaint involved 
Attorney Miller's representation of D.E. in a divorce action 
filed by D.E.'s wife, J.E.  Attorney Miller spends about half of 
his professional time on family law-related matters and has 
handled between 500 and 700 divorce cases, 100 to 150 of which 
were contested. 
¶5 
At the time D.E. retained Attorney Miller, D.E. was 
represented by another lawyer in a personal injury case.  D.E. 
signed a written retainer agreement with Attorney Miller 
indicating that Attorney Miller would have a lien on the 
No. 
2004AP2056-D   
 
3 
 
proceeds of any settlement coming out of the personal injury 
action for payment of his attorney's fees. 
¶6 
On October 29, 1999, D.E.'s personal injury attorney 
forwarded $24,000, representing the settlement in the personal 
injury case, to Attorney Miller.  The check was made payable to 
both D.E. and J.E.  Upon receipt of the check, Attorney Miller 
notified J.E.'s attorney, Walter Stewart, and requested that 
J.E. sign a release.  Attorney Miller informed Attorney Stewart 
that he would deposit the check into his trust account and that 
the parties would attempt to resolve all of the remaining issues 
in the divorce matter.  Both D.E. and J.E. endorsed the check 
and Attorney Miller deposited it into his trust account on 
December 1, 1999.  At the time Attorney Miller gave notice to 
Attorney Stewart and deposited the funds into his trust account, 
a temporary order was in effect in the divorce action.  
¶7 
A trial of the divorce case was scheduled for July 18, 
2000, before Judge Gerald Nichol.  Prior to trial the parties 
tried, but were unable, to resolve three issues:  (1) how the 
marital property should be divided; (2) how the substantial 
marital debts should be allocated; and (3) whether J.E. was 
entitled 
to 
any 
money 
from 
the 
$24,000 
personal 
injury 
settlement.  At the trial, Judge Nichol found there was a loss 
of taxable income to D.E. and J.E. as a result of the personal 
injury and that J.E. was entitled to $7329 of the personal 
injury settlement.  The court made the following statement to 
Attorney Miller: 
No. 
2004AP2056-D   
 
4 
 
So, I'm saying she [J.E.] gets what's in [Stewart's] 
trust account, he gets what's in the tax refund of 
3,600 totally his, whatever the difference, which is 
like $114, if you're going [to] equally divide them, 
I'm applying toward attorneys fees and then I'm 
awarding out of your trust account the 73 and he gets 
the 13 or whatever it is. 
Attorney Miller replied, "Okay.  All right." 
¶8 
After the trial, Attorney Stewart drafted proposed 
findings of fact, conclusions of law and a judgment of divorce, 
which were signed by the court on February 6, 2001.  The 
judgment awarded J.E. a "cash settlement payment of $7,329 
representing a lost income portion of the March 10, 1998 traffic 
accident."  The judgment did not specifically state that the 
money should come from Attorney Miller's trust account, but the 
funds from the settlement check remained in his trust account. 
¶9 
From the time of the July 2000 divorce trial until 
March 
16, 
2001, 
Attorney 
Miller's 
trust 
account 
balance 
attributable to D.E. was $8089.  On March 16, 2001, Attorney 
Miller withdrew $760 from his trust account for attorney's fees, 
leaving $7329 in trust attributable to D.E., which was the 
amount awarded to J.E. in the divorce judgment.   
¶10 On March 19, 2001, D.E. requested the balance of the 
amount in Attorney Miller's trust account.  On March 30, 2001, 
despite an order from the circuit court awarding J.E. the $7329 
remaining in the trust account, Attorney Miller paid D.E. 
$4929.99 and paid the balance of his attorney's fees in the 
amount of $2400, leaving a zero balance in the trust account 
attributable to D.E.  
No. 
2004AP2056-D   
 
5 
 
¶11 Attorney Stewart sent several letters to Attorney 
Miller requesting that he forward to J.E. the $7329 which he was 
supposed to be holding in his trust account.  Attorney Miller 
did not object to complying with that request until May 4, 2001, 
when he wrote to Attorney Stewart saying Attorney Stewart had 
overstated or misstated what was required by the judgment of 
divorce and that J.E. had been awarded only a money judgment.  
Attorney Miller told Attorney Stewart that D.E. had requested 
the funds in the trust account and, without an order requiring 
him to hold the funds, Attorney Miller said he was required to 
comply with his client's request.  Attorney Miller informed 
Attorney Stewart that it "made better practical sense to file 
bankruptcy, which would include [J.E.'s] money judgment and 
[Attorney Stewart's] claims for attorney fees." 
¶12 On April 1, 2002, Attorney Stewart filed a motion on 
J.E.'s behalf to find Attorney Miller in contempt of court.  The 
family court commissioner denied the motion, and J.E. appealed.  
Judge Nichol reviewed the family court commissioner's decision 
de novo and in October 2002 issued a written decision finding 
Attorney Miller in contempt of court and ordered him to pay J.E. 
$7329, plus interest from March 30, 2001, and to reimburse her 
for her attorney's fees and costs within 30 days of the 
decision.  On October 26, 2002, Attorney Miller paid J.E. the 
amount initially ordered by Judge Nichol, plus interest.  
Attorney Miller then appealed Judge Nichol's decision to the 
court of appeals and on September 25, 2003, the court of appeals 
affirmed.   
No. 
2004AP2056-D   
 
6 
 
¶13 Referee Sperling-Newton held a hearing in February 
2005 and she issued her decision on June 20, 2005.  The OLR's 
complaint alleged and the referee agreed that by failing to 
disburse to J.E. the $7329 that was being held in Attorney 
Miller's trust account pending the outcome of the divorce 
proceeding, which funds the trial court had ordered to be 
granted to J.E. in the divorce property settlement, Attorney 
Miller violated former SCR 20:1.15(a).1   
¶14 The OLR's complaint also alleged and the referee 
agreed that by failing to comply with the trial court's order to 
disburse to J.E. $7329 of the proceeds from a personal injury 
settlement held in Attorney Miller's trust account and instead 
dispersing such funds to himself and his client, Attorney Miller 
violated SCR 20:3.4(c).2   
¶15 In discussing the appropriate discipline to be imposed 
for the misconduct, the referee said that aggravating factors in 
the case were Attorney Miller's prior disciplinary record 
consisting of a private reprimand and the nearly three year 
delay in making restitution to J.E.  The referee said a 
                                                 
1 Former SCR 20:1.15 applies to misconduct committed prior 
to July 1, 2004.  Former SCR 20:1.15(a) provided in pertinent 
part: "A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the lawyer's 
own property, that property of clients and third persons that is 
in the lawyer's possession in connection with a representation 
or when acting in a fiduciary capacity." 
2 SCR 20:3.4(c) provides 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." 
No. 
2004AP2056-D   
 
7 
 
mitigating factor was the fact that Attorney Miller did 
eventually make restitution to J.E., although he did so three 
years after the funds were disbursed from his trust account. 
¶16 A referee's findings of fact are to be affirmed unless 
they are clearly erroneous.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Sosnay, 209 Wis. 2d 241, 243, 562 N.W.2d 137 (1997).  
Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 
636 N.W.2d 718.  The record supports the referee's findings of 
fact and conclusions of law and we adopt them. 
¶17 We also agree with the referee's recommendation that a 
public reprimand is an appropriate level of discipline to impose 
for the misconduct at issue in this case.   
¶18 IT IS ORDERED that Attorney Gary A. Miller is publicly 
reprimanded for his professional misconduct.   
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Attorney Gary A. Miller pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, provided that if 
the costs are not paid within the time specified and absent a 
showing to this court of an inability to pay those costs within 
that time, the license of Attorney Gary A. Miller to practice 
law in Wisconsin shall be suspended until further order of the 
court. 
 
No. 
2004AP2056-D   
 
 
 
1