Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. James T. Winch

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2009 WI 64 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2008AP3016-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against James T. Winch,  Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
James T. Winch, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST WINCH 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 3, 2009   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2009 WI 64
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2008AP3016-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against James T. Winch,  Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
James T. Winch, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 3, 2009 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a stipulation executed by 
Attorney James T. Winch and the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) pursuant to SCR 22.12.  In the stipulation, Attorney Winch 
admits that he committed 11 counts of professional misconduct.  
The parties jointly request that the court impose a three-year 
suspension of Attorney Winch's license to practice law in this 
state as discipline for his misconduct and require Attorney 
No. 
2008AP3016-D   
 
2 
 
Winch to pay restitution to an estate that Attorney Winch was 
retained to handle. 
¶2 
After independently reviewing the matter, we accept 
the stipulation and adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions 
of law.  We agree that Attorney Winch's professional misconduct 
warrants a three-year suspension of his license to practice law 
in Wisconsin.  We also agree that Attorney Winch should pay 
restitution for any amounts that he converted from the estate.  
Finally, we note that the OLR has stated that it is not seeking 
an assessment of costs against Attorney Winch, and we accede to 
that recommendation in light of the stipulated nature of the 
proceeding under SCR 22.12.1 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.12 provides:  Stipulation. 
(1) The director may file with the complaint a 
stipulation of the director and the respondent to the 
facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and 
discipline to be imposed.  The supreme court may 
consider the complaint and stipulation without the 
appointment of a referee.   
(2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation, 
it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of 
law and impose the stipulated discipline. 
(3) If the supreme court rejects the stipulation, 
a referee shall be appointed and the matter shall 
proceed as a complaint filed without a stipulation. 
(4) A stipulation rejected by the supreme court 
has no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to 
the respondent's defense of the proceeding or the 
prosecution of the complaint. 
No. 
2008AP3016-D   
 
3 
 
¶3 
Attorney Winch was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in June 1981.  He previously maintained a law practice 
in Mazomanie. 
¶4 
Attorney Winch has been disciplined on two prior 
occasions.  He was privately reprimanded in 1992 for improperly 
threatening a criminal prosecution.  In May 2007 Attorney 
Winch's license was suspended for one year for multiple trust 
account violations, for conversion of client funds, and for 
failing 
to 
cooperate 
in 
an 
OLR 
investigation. 
 
In 
re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Winch, 2007 WI 41, 300 Wis. 2d 
155, 730 N.W.2d 154.  That suspension remains in effect. 
¶5 
The first count addressed in the OLR's present 
complaint and the parties' stipulation relates to a criminal 
conviction in Dane County Circuit Court.  In March 2008 Attorney 
Winch pled guilty to ten counts of possession of child 
pornography, a Class D felony.  State v. Winch, Case No. 
2007CV1485.  The circuit court in May 2008 withheld sentence for 
these offenses and placed Attorney Winch on probation for a 
period of 15 years, with the condition that he serve one year in 
jail.  Attorney Winch has stipulated that his criminal conduct 
resulting in his conviction of ten felony counts of possession 
of child pornography constitutes a violation of SCR 20:8.4(b).2 
                                                 
2 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. 
2008AP3016-D   
 
4 
 
¶6 
Counts 2 through 6 of the complaint and stipulation 
relate to Attorney Winch's representation of L.D. concerning a 
civil claim by Starion Financial Wisconsin (Starion), who 
alleged that L.D. was required to repay a loan that she had co-
signed for her nephew.  Attorney Winch immediately determined 
that L.D. did not have a valid defense to Starion's claim, but 
failed to discuss his conclusion with her.   
¶7 
L.D.'s answer to Starion's complaint was due on 
January 24, 2007, but Attorney Winch did not file an answer 
until January 31, 2007.  He later explained to the OLR that the 
answer had been late because he had been involved in a fatal 
car-pedestrian 
accident 
in 
Florida 
on 
January 
20, 
2007.  
Attorney Winch, however, never asked opposing counsel for an 
extension of time and never filed a motion for leave to file an 
untimely answer. 
¶8 
Starion filed a motion to strike the late answer in 
March 2007.  Attorney Winch did not file a response or even 
inform L.D. of the motion.  He later told the OLR essentially 
that he did not bother with opposing the motion to strike 
because L.D. had no valid defense to Starion's claim.  Attorney 
Winch, however, never discussed with L.D. whether she was 
willing to allow a default judgment to be entered against her. 
¶9 
In January 2007 Attorney Winch had obtained from L.D. 
title documents for a piece of real estate so that he could 
prepare a quit claim deed transferring L.D.'s interest in the 
property to her husband in order to protect it from a subsequent 
judgment against L.D.  L.D. signed the deed on May 5, 2007, but 
No. 
2008AP3016-D   
 
5 
 
Attorney Winch did not record it until May 16, 2007.  On May 15, 
2007, however, Starion had filed a motion for default judgment.  
Again, Attorney Winch did not inform L.D. of the default 
judgment motion or respond to it.  He also did not inform L.D. 
that the transfer of her interest in the real estate could 
potentially be voided as a fraudulent conveyance. 
¶10 In April 2007 this court suspended Attorney Winch's 
license to practice law, effective May 31, 2007.  Attorney Winch 
never informed L.D. of this fact or of his need to withdraw from 
representing her because of the suspension.  Although his 
suspension took effect on May 31, 2007, Attorney Winch did not 
file a motion to withdraw from the L.D. representation until 
June 11, 2007.  His motion was granted on that same date. 
¶11 On June 14, 2007, the circuit court granted Starion's 
motions to strike L.D.'s untimely answer and for a default 
judgment against her. 
¶12 Beginning in April 2007 and for a number of subsequent 
months, L.D. called Attorney Winch to request the return of her 
documents.  Although Attorney Winch promised on multiple 
occasions during the spring and summer of 2007 to return them, 
even telling L.D. that he had her title documents "right here," 
he failed to do so.  When Attorney Winch provided his L.D. file 
to the OLR in October 2007, L.D.'s title documents were not in 
the file.  Attorney Winch was unable to explain their absence.  
Attorney Winch apparently was able to locate L.D.'s title 
documents in the summer of 2008 and returned them to her at that 
time. 
No. 
2008AP3016-D   
 
6 
 
¶13 Based on these stipulated facts, Attorney Winch agrees 
that he failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, 
in violation of SCR 20:1.3.3  He further agrees that his failure 
to advise L.D. of Starion's motions to strike and for default 
judgment and to discuss his intention not to respond to those 
motions violated former SCR 20:1.4(a)4 and former SCR 20:1.2(a).5  
He also admits that his failure to explain to L.D. that she had 
no valid defense to Starion's claims and that the transfer of 
her interest in the real estate to her husband could be 
invalidated as a fraudulent conveyance constituted violations of 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:1.3 provides, "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
4 Former SCR 20:1.4(a) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
provided, "[a] lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed 
about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable 
requests for information." 
5 Former SCR 20:1.2(a) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
provided: 
 
A lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions 
concerning the objectives of representation, subject 
to paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), and shall consult with 
the client as to the means by which they are to be 
pursued.  A lawyer shall inform a client of all offers 
of settlement and abide by a client's decision whether 
to accept an offer of settlement of a matter.  In a 
criminal case or any proceeding that could result in 
deprivation of liberty, the lawyer shall abide by the 
client's decision, after consultation with the lawyer, 
as to a plea to be entered, whether to waive jury 
trial and whether the client will testify. 
No. 
2008AP3016-D   
 
7 
 
former SCR 20:1.4(b).6  In addition, Attorney Winch acknowledges 
that he violated former SCR 20:1.16(d)7 by failing to advise L.D. 
that his suspension required him to withdraw from representing 
her and by failing to return her documents in a timely manner.  
Finally, 
Attorney 
Winch 
stipulates 
that 
he 
engaged 
in 
dishonesty, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 
20:8.4(c),8 by telling L.D. on multiple occasions that he would 
return certain documents to her when he knew at those times that 
he could not locate them. 
¶14 Counts 7 through 11 of the complaint and stipulation 
relate to Attorney Winch's handling of the estate of T.M.  In 
the spring and summer of 2004, Attorney Winch was retained to 
handle the estates of A.M. and his adult son, T.M., who died 
less than two months after A.M. 
                                                 
6 Former SCR 20:1.4(b) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
provided, "[a] lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent 
reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed 
decisions regarding the representation." 
7 Former SCR 20:1.16(d) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
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 or 
incurred. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the 
client to the extent permitted by other law. 
8 SCR 20:8.4(c) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation." 
No. 
2008AP3016-D   
 
8 
 
¶15 There is no allegation that Attorney Winch acted 
improperly with respect to the administration of A.M.'s estate.  
That estate was closed in February 2006.   
¶16 T.M.'s share of his father's estate was $6,231.68, 
which was disbursed to T.M.'s estate via a check.  Attorney 
Winch deposited that check into his client trust account on 
November 11, 2004. 
¶17 Attorney Winch never commenced any estate action in 
connection with T.M.'s estate, and no one was authorized to 
distribute any of the assets of the estate.  Despite this fact, 
Attorney Winch wrote four checks from his trust account with 
notations related to T.M.'s estate.  Two of those checks were 
payable to Attorney Winch in the total amount of $875.  Attorney 
Winch had not earned all of these fees.  A third check was 
payable to a funeral home, although that check was apparently 
intended to pay for A.M.'s funeral expenses as well as T.M.'s 
funeral expenses.  The fourth check, in the amount of $250, was 
payable to T.M.'s brother and apparently was intended to be a 
personal representative fee. 
¶18 Because of the small size of T.M.'s estate, his 
siblings could have distributed the assets in his estate by 
signing an appropriate affidavit and otherwise complying with 
the requirements of Wis. Stat. § 867.03.  Attorney Winch could 
not have signed an affidavit under that statute because he did 
not hold any position that would have authorized him to do so.  
Nonetheless, Attorney Winch told the OLR that he had completed 
such an affidavit for T.M.'s estate.  No such affidavit, 
No. 
2008AP3016-D   
 
9 
 
however, was filed with any court or third party, nor was any 
such affidavit ever provided to the OLR. 
¶19 The four checks written by Attorney Winch on the 
estate funds in his client trust account totaled $1,729.31 
(excluding the portion of the check to the funeral home that was 
apparently intended to cover A.M.'s funeral expenses).  Thus, 
without considering the propriety of those distributions, there 
should have been at least $4,502.37 belonging to T.M.'s estate 
in Attorney Winch's trust account as of December 13, 2004.  By 
August 19, 2005, however, Attorney Winch's client trust account 
was overdrawn by $263.78.  Consequently, all of the remaining 
assets of T.M.'s estate in Attorney Winch's client trust account 
had been used by him for purposes other than paying the lawful 
debts of the estate or distributing those assets to T.M.'s 
heirs. 
¶20 When Attorney Winch was initially retained to handle 
T.M.'s estate, he informed T.M.'s siblings that any assets 
remaining after the payment of T.M.'s debts and the costs of 
administration would be distributed equally to the siblings, 
unless the assets would be required to repay the state for 
medical assistance that T.M. might have received prior to his 
death.  At some point, T.M.'s siblings asked Attorney Winch for 
his file so that they could confirm that T.M.'s estate had been 
handled properly.  Attorney Winch never provided any documents 
regarding the estate to the siblings. 
¶21 Attorney Winch told the OLR that the Wis. Stat. 
§ 867.03 transfer affidavit he had allegedly completed had been 
No. 
2008AP3016-D   
 
10 
 
sent to the Medicaid Recovery Program to determine if the state 
would make a claim against the estate for repayment of medical 
assistance funds paid to T.M. during his lifetime.  He also told 
the OLR on two occasions that the estate funds in his client 
trust account had been exhausted through the payment of T.M.'s 
burial expenses, the nominal costs of administration of the 
estate, and the payment of a claim to the Medicaid Recovery 
Program.  These statements were false.  Attorney Winch did not 
make any payments to the Medicaid Recovery Program or to any 
other entity as repayment for medical assistance T.M. had 
received. 
¶22 The OLR sent letters to Attorney Winch in October 2007 
and June 2008 requesting certain information and documents 
relevant to its investigation concerning T.M.'s estate.  After 
the June 2008 letter was sent a second time, Attorney Winch 
responded that at one point in time he had located his file for 
T.M.'s estate, but that it had once again become "mislocated."  
Attorney Winch never complied with the OLR's requests for 
documents relating to T.M.'s estate. 
¶23 Attorney Winch has stipulated to five counts of 
misconduct with regard to his representation of T.M.'s estate 
and the OLR's subsequent investigation.  First, by failing to 
hold in trust $6,231.68 of assets belonging to the estate until 
directed to disburse the funds by a court or an authorized 
representative of the estate, Attorney Winch violated SCR 
No. 
2008AP3016-D   
 
11 
 
20:1.15(b)(1).9  Next, Attorney Winch violated SCR 20:8.4(c) by 
converting at least $4,502.37 of the estate's funds for Attorney 
Winch's own purposes or purposes unrelated to the estate.  Also, 
by misrepresenting to the OLR that the estate funds in his 
client trust account had been exhausted through payments to the 
Medicaid 
Recovery 
Program, 
Attorney 
Winch 
violated 
SCR 
22.03(6),10 
which 
is 
enforceable 
through 
SCR 
20:8.4(h).11  
Attorney Winch's failure to provide his file for T.M.'s estate 
when requested to do so by T.M.'s siblings violated SCR 
20:1.16(d).  Finally, Attorney Winch's failure to provide the 
OLR with a written response containing all of the information 
                                                 
9 SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) provides:   
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. 
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 
documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a 
disclosure are misconduct, regardless of the merits of 
the matters asserted in the grievance. 
11 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides it is professional misconduct for 
a lawyer to "fail to cooperate in the investigation of a 
grievance filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required 
by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), 
or SCR 22.04(1); . . . ." 
No. 
2008AP3016-D   
 
12 
 
and documents requested by the OLR constituted a violation of 
SCRs 22.03(2)12 and 20:8.4(h). 
¶24 The stipulation states that Attorney Winch agrees to 
the imposition of a three-year suspension of his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin, which is the discipline sought by the 
OLR's 
director. 
 
Attorney 
Winch 
also 
stipulates 
to 
pay 
restitution to an appropriate representative of T.M.'s estate in 
the amount of $6,231.68 (the total amount initially deposited 
into Attorney Winch's client trust account for T.M.'s estate), 
less any amounts that Attorney Winch can demonstrate to the OLR 
were appropriately paid out for legitimate debts of the estate.  
Given the stipulated nature of this proceeding without the need 
for the appointment of a referee, the OLR is not seeking an 
assessment of costs. 
¶25 The OLR asserts that the stipulation was not the 
result of plea bargaining, but was Attorney Winch's voluntary 
admission of the charged misconduct and assent to the OLR's 
                                                 
12 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. 
No. 
2008AP3016-D   
 
13 
 
requested discipline.  The stipulation also contains a number of 
representations by Attorney Winch.  Attorney Winch states he 
understands the misconduct allegations against him and his right 
to contest those allegations; he understands the ramifications 
of the requested discipline in the event the court accepts the 
stipulation; he understands his right to consult counsel; he is 
entering the stipulation knowingly and voluntarily; and he is 
admitting his misconduct and assenting to the level and type of 
discipline sought by the OLR. 
¶26 After our independent review of the matter, we accept 
the stipulation.  The stipulated facts clearly support the 11 
counts of misconduct alleged against Attorney Winch. 
¶27 We also conclude that a three-year suspension of 
Attorney Winch's license to practice law in this state is an 
appropriate level of discipline.  Attorney Winch's multiple 
instances of misconduct, especially his criminal conviction, his 
conversion of client funds, and his misrepresentations to his 
client and the OLR, warrant a substantial period of suspension.  
See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Krezminski, 
2007 WI 21, 299 Wis. 2d 152, 727 N.W.2d 492 (imposing two-year 
suspension for converting client funds, knowingly offering false 
evidence, and failing to communicate with a client); In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Glynn, 225 Wis. 2d 202, 591 
N.W.2d 606 (1999) (one-year suspension imposed on attorney who, 
among other things, paid himself tens of thousands of dollars in 
excessive fees from guardianship and conservatorship estates and 
created documents falsely purporting to show that he had made 
No. 
2008AP3016-D   
 
14 
 
restitution); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bruckner, 
161 Wis. 2d 385, 467 N.W.2d 780 (1991) (imposing five-month 
suspension on attorney criminally convicted of importing child 
pornography).  A three-year suspension will be sufficient in 
this case to protect the public, to impress upon Attorney Winch 
the seriousness of his misconduct and the need to conform to the 
Wisconsin Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys, and to 
deter similar misconduct by other attorneys.  We note that after 
the period of suspension has been completed, Attorney Winch will 
need to complete the formal reinstatement process, which will 
require him to demonstrate, among other things, that he has the 
appropriate moral character to practice law in this state.  See 
SCR 22.31 (setting forth requirements that attorney petitioning 
for reinstatement must prove by clear, satisfactory, and 
convincing evidence). 
¶28 We further determine that the three-year suspension 
should be imposed as of the date of this order and not 
retroactively as of the expiration of Attorney Winch's prior 
one-year suspension.  At least some of the misconduct involved 
in the present disciplinary proceeding occurred after the 
misconduct 
that 
led 
to 
the 
prior, 
one-year 
suspension.  
Moreover, we conclude that making the suspension retroactive 
would not be commensurate with the gravity of Attorney Winch's 
misconduct. 
¶29 We also accept the provision of the stipulation 
requiring Attorney Winch to pay restitution to T.M.'s estate in 
the amount that Attorney Winch received and placed into his 
No. 
2008AP3016-D   
 
15 
 
client trust account, less any amounts that he can demonstrate 
to the OLR were appropriately disbursed for legitimate debts of 
the estate. 
¶30 Finally, in view of the fact that Attorney Winch 
stipulated to all of the counts of alleged misconduct and 
assented to the OLR's requested level of discipline prior to the 
appointment of a referee, we accede to the OLR's request that no 
costs be imposed on Attorney Winch. 
¶31 IT IS ORDERED that the license of James T. Winch to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of three 
years, effective as of the date of this order. 
¶32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 90 days of the date 
of this order, James T. Winch shall pay restitution to an 
appropriate representative of T.M.'s estate in the amount of 
$6,231.68, less any amounts that James T. Winch demonstrates to 
the OLR were appropriately paid for legitimate debts of the 
estate.  If restitution to T.M.'s estate is not paid within the 
time specified and absent a showing to this court of his 
inability to pay the restitution amount within that time, the 
license of James T. Winch to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
remain suspended until further order of this court. 
¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent he has not 
already done so, James T. Winch shall comply with the provisions 
of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
 
No. 
2008AP3016-D   
 
 
 
1