Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. John F. Scanlan

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2008 WI 116 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2004AP1930-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against John F. Scanlan, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Appellant, 
     v. 
John F. Scanlan, 
          Respondent-Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SCANLAN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
August 19, 2008   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: GABLEMAN, MICHAEL J., J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2008 WI 116
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2004AP1930-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against John F. Scanlan, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Appellant, 
 
     v. 
 
John F. Scanlan, 
 
          Respondent-Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
AUG 19, 2008 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.   Reinstatement granted 
upon conditions. 
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   We 
review 
a 
referee's 
report 
recommending that John F. Scanlan's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin be reinstated. 
¶2 
We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and conclude that Attorney Scanlan's license 
to practice law in Wisconsin should be reinstated upon the 
conditions recommended by the referee.  We further direct 
No. 
2004AP1930-D   
 
2 
 
Attorney 
Scanlan 
to 
pay 
the 
costs 
of 
the 
reinstatement 
proceeding, which total $6,212.07 as of June 17, 2008. 
¶3 
Attorney John Scanlan was admitted to practice in 
Illinois in 1992 and was admitted to practice in Wisconsin in 
1997.  For a number of years he conducted a solo practice in 
Door County.  In 2002 he closed his Door County practice and 
moved to Chicago where he served as in-house counsel for an 
equipment leasing and credit company.   
¶4 
In a decision issued on May 5, 2006, this court 
suspended Attorney Scanlan's license for six months, effective 
June 7, 2006, as a result of misconduct that occurred during 
2000 and 2002 with respect to his handling of nine client 
matters.  See In Re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Scanlan, 
2006 WI 38, 290 Wis. 2d 30, 712 N.W.2d 877.  Attorney Scanlan 
was ordered to pay the cost of the proceeding and was ordered to 
make restitution to a client in the amount of $3,086.67 plus 
interest, and was also ordered to make restitution to the 
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection in the amount of 
$2,000 plus interest.   
¶5 
On February 2, 2007, a reciprocal disciplinary action 
in Illinois resulted in the suspension of Attorney Scanlan's 
Illinois law license until such time as his license to practice 
law is reinstated in Wisconsin.   
¶6 
Attorney Scanlan filed a petition for reinstatement of 
his Wisconsin law license on October 5, 2007.  The Office of 
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a response opposing Attorney 
Scanlan's reinstatement.  Among other concerns raised in the 
No. 
2004AP1930-D   
 
3 
 
OLR's response was whether Attorney Scanlan's current mental 
health status allowed him to practice law without posing a 
danger to the public and the profession.   
¶7 
John R. Decker was appointed referee.  A hearing on 
the reinstatement petition was held on March 18, 2008.  The 
referee filed his report on May 29, 2008, recommending that 
Attorney Scanlan's petition for reinstatement of his Wisconsin 
law license be granted, subject to various conditions.   
¶8 
The referee found that Attorney Scanlan has not 
practiced law in Wisconsin during the period of his suspension; 
that he has fully paid restitution to his former client and has 
also paid the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection; and 
that he has reached an agreement with the OLR as to a payment 
plan for the costs of the disciplinary proceeding.  The referee 
also found that Attorney Scanlan has maintained competence and 
learning in the law during his suspension and that his conduct 
during the suspension has been exemplary and above reproach.  
The 
referee 
found 
that 
Attorney 
Scanlan 
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.  The referee found that Attorney Scanlan 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 an officer of the courts.   
No. 
2004AP1930-D   
 
4 
 
¶9 
The referee also found that Attorney Scanlan has fully 
complied with the requirements of SCR 22.26 as they pertain to 
the unique circumstances of this case.  The referee noted that 
the OLR expressed concern that Attorney Scanlan failed to file 
an 
affidavit 
showing 
compliance 
with 
the 
notification 
requirements of SCR 22.26, but conceded that his failure to do 
so under the circumstances presented here did not appear to be a 
significant impediment to reinstatement.   
¶10 The referee specifically found that Attorney Scanlan 
had no law practice in Wisconsin on the effective date of the 
suspension of his Wisconsin license; he last represented a 
client in Wisconsin in 2005; at the time of his Wisconsin 
suspension, he was not representing any Wisconsin clients; he 
wound up his Wisconsin law practice long before the time of his 
Wisconsin suspension; he has not practiced law anywhere since 
the suspension of his Illinois license; before the effective 
date of his Illinois license suspension, he advised his sole 
client of the suspension; and before the effective date of his 
Illinois suspension, he caused all opposing counsel and courts 
in which he appeared as counsel of record to be informed of his 
suspension and withdrew as counsel of record in all such 
matters.   
¶11 The referee noted that Attorney Scanlan has explained 
that his desire is to resume the practice of law in his home 
state of Illinois and reinstatement of his Wisconsin license is 
needed to achieve the Illinois reinstatement.  The referee 
pointed out when Attorney Scanlan and his wife divorced in 2001-
No. 
2004AP1930-D   
 
5 
 
2002, Attorney Scanlan's ex-wife relocated to the Chicago area 
to secure employment.  In order to facilitate visitation and 
custody of the parties' four children, Attorney Scanlan and the 
children also relocated to the Chicago area.   
¶12 The 
referee concluded that Attorney Scanlan has 
established all of the necessary elements of his petition for 
reinstatement by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence.  
Consequently, the referee recommended that Attorney Scanlan's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin be reinstated, subject to 
the conditions set forth in this court's May 5, 2006, decision, 
which were that his trust account practices and medications be 
monitored quarterly to the satisfaction of the OLR for a period 
of one year from the effective date of reinstatement.  The 
referee 
also 
recommended 
an 
additional 
precondition 
to 
readmission, which is that Attorney Scanlan submit the report of 
a treating psychiatrist or psychologist offering the opinion 
that it is safe and appropriate for Attorney Scanlan to resume 
the practice of law at the time of readmission, and setting 
forth with specificity the regimen of counseling, treatment, 
and/or medication which he reasonably needs to follow.   
¶13 The 
referee 
commented 
that 
Attorney 
Scanlan 
is 
extremely 
intelligent 
and 
articulate 
and 
that 
the 
only 
reservation expressed by those attorneys who recommended his 
reinstatement related to his medical condition.  The referee 
said the record established that Attorney Scanlan's mental 
health issues can successfully be treated and also showed that 
No. 
2004AP1930-D   
 
6 
 
the emotional crises of 2001 incident to the Scanlans' divorce 
have long since subsided.   
¶14 The 
referee noted that during the reinstatement 
proceedings, a misunderstanding developed between the OLR and 
Attorney Scanlan's treating psychiatrist, Dr. Patricia Mueller.  
The referee said based on the OLR's unilateral interpretation of 
some of Dr. Mueller's notes, it argued at the reinstatement 
hearing that Dr. Mueller's testimony at the prior disciplinary 
hearing was misleading.  The referee granted leave to Attorney 
Scanlan to reopen the record to add a handwritten letter from 
Dr. Mueller in which she clarified certain points. 
¶15 The referee said he was satisfied as to the foundation 
of Dr. Mueller's opinion that Attorney Scanlan can safely 
practice 
law. 
 
However, 
the 
referee 
recommended 
as 
a 
precondition to readmission the submission of a supplemental 
report to reconfirm Attorney Scanlan's health at the time of 
readmission and to clearly delineate the counseling, treatment, 
and/or medications which, in a treating health professional's 
opinion, are reasonably necessary.  The referee said he 
recommended this in part to establish baseline information at 
the time of Attorney Scanlan's reinstatement and to reduce the 
potential for additional disagreements or misunderstandings as 
the OLR undertakes its charge to monitor his medications on a 
quarterly basis after readmission.   
¶16 The referee also noted that the OLR opposed Attorney 
Scanlan's reinstatement on the ground of allegedly deficient job 
performance as in-house counsel in Illinois as he ceased his 
No. 
2004AP1930-D   
 
7 
 
Wisconsin practice.  The referee said the claimed deficiencies 
in Attorney Scanlan's performance related to attendance issues 
and work styles, and the referee said the inference he drew from 
the 
employment 
records 
was 
that 
there 
was 
a 
clash 
of 
personalities 
between 
Attorney 
Scanlan 
and 
his 
immediate 
supervisor and this colored the job performance evaluations 
accordingly.  The referee said notwithstanding the claims made 
by the immediate supervisor, the company's senior management 
wanted to keep Attorney Scanlan in the company's employ. 
¶17 The referee noted the OLR's final objection to 
Attorney Scanlan's reinstatement stemmed from its view that he 
was uncooperative with the OLR's investigation following the 
filing of his reinstatement petition.  The referee noted that 
serious 
disagreements 
arose 
between 
the 
parties 
over 
dissemination of Attorney Scanlan's medical records and over 
access to a settlement agreement between Attorney Scanlan and 
his former Illinois employer which contained a bilateral 
confidentiality agreement.  The referee noted that through a 
series of telephone conference calls between himself and the 
attorneys, these disagreements were resolved and OLR eventually 
conceded the validity of Attorney Scanlan's concerns as to 
confidentiality.   
¶18 The Board of Bar Examiners submitted a memo on 
January 4, 2008, recommending Attorney Scanlan's reinstatement. 
¶19 The OLR has not appealed the referee's report and 
recommendation.   
No. 
2004AP1930-D   
 
8 
 
The standards to be met for reinstatement of a law license 
are set forth in SCR 22.31(1).1  The petitioner has the burden of 
demonstrating "by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence" 
that the lawyer has the moral character to practice law, that 
the lawyer's resumption of the practice of law will not be 
detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of 
the public interest, and that the lawyer has complied with SCR 
22.26 and the terms of the suspension.  In addition, SCR 
22.29(4)2 sets forth related requirements that a petition for 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.31(1) provides:   
The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating, 
by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence, all 
of the following: 
(a) That he or she has the moral character to 
practice law in Wisconsin. 
(b) 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. 
(c) That his or her representations in the 
petition, including the representations required by 
SCR 
22.29(4)(a) 
to 
[(4m)] 
and 
22.29(5), 
are 
substantiated. 
(d) 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(4) states:   
The petition for reinstatement shall show all of 
the following: 
(a) 
The 
petitioner 
desires 
to 
have 
the 
petitioner's license reinstated. 
No. 
2004AP1930-D   
 
9 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
(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. 
(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. 
(4m) 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. 
No. 
2004AP1930-D   
 
10 
 
reinstatement must show.  All of these additional requirements 
are effectively incorporated into SCR 22.31(1). 
¶20 After review of the record, we agree with the referee 
that Attorney Scanlan has established by clear, satisfactory, 
and convincing evidence that he has satisfied all the criteria 
necessary 
for 
reinstatement. 
 
Accordingly, 
we 
adopt 
the 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law, and we accept 
the referee's recommendation to reinstate Attorney Scanlan's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin.  We also find it 
appropriate to impose the conditions recommended by the referee, 
and we further direct Attorney Scanlan to pay the costs of the 
reinstatement proceedings. 
¶21 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement of 
the license of John F. Scanlan is granted, conditioned upon this 
court's receipt, within 30 days of the date of this order, of a 
supplemental report from a treating psychiatrist or psychologist 
offering the opinion that it is safe and appropriate for 
Attorney Scanlan to resume the practice of law and clearly 
delineating the counseling, treatment, and/or medications which, 
in the treating health professional's opinion, are reasonably 
necessary for Attorney Scanlan to continue the practice of law.  
The Office of Lawyer Regulation shall have 14 days from the date 
the supplemental report is filed to review the report and file 
any objection.  If after 14 days, there is no objection filed by 
the Office of Lawyer Regulation to the supplemental report, the 
license of John F. Scanlan to practice law in Wisconsin shall be 
No. 
2004AP1930-D   
 
11 
 
reinstated. The reinstatement will be effective 14 days from the 
date of the filing of the supplemental report. 
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Scanlan's trust 
account practices and medications shall be monitored quarterly 
by the Office of Lawyer Regulation for a period of one year from 
the effective date of his reinstatement. 
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, John F. Scanlan shall 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 his inability to pay the costs within that time, the 
license of John F. Scanlan to practice law in Wisconsin shall be 
suspended until further order of the court. 
¶24 All work on this opinion was completed on or before 
July 31, 2008, at a time when Justice Louis B. Butler, Jr., was 
a member of the court. 
¶25 MICHAEL J. GABLEMAN, J., did not participate. 
No. 
2004AP1930-D   
 
 
 
1