Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. John E. Raftery

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2007 WI 137 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2006AP406-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against John E. Raftery, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
John E. Raftery, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST RAFTERY 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 11, 2007   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2007 WI 137
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2006AP406-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against John E. Raftery, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
John E. Raftery, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
DEC 11, 2007 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   We 
review 
a 
referee's 
report 
and 
recommendation concluding that Attorney John E. Raftery engaged 
in professional misconduct and recommending that his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for a period of six 
months.  The referee also recommended that Attorney Raftery pay 
the costs of the proceeding and that various conditions be 
imposed upon his resumption of the practice of law following his 
suspension. 
No. 
2006AP406-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
We conclude that the referee's findings of fact are 
supported by satisfactory and convincing evidence.  We also 
concur with the referee's conclusions of law.  We further 
determine that the seriousness of Attorney Raftery's misconduct 
warrants the suspension of his license to practice law for six 
months.  We also agree with the referee's recommendation that 
conditions should be imposed upon Attorney Raftery's resumption 
of the practice of law following his suspension, and we conclude 
that the costs of the proceeding, which are $4,777.88 as of 
October 10, 2007, should be assessed against him. 
¶3 
Attorney Raftery was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1977 and practices in Random Lake.  In 1998 he was 
privately reprimanded for failing to respond to requests for 
information from the Equal Rights Division (ERD) and failing to 
respond to a motion for summary judgment, causing the client's 
case to be dismissed; failing to notify the client about the 
summary judgment motion and failing to confer with the client 
about whether the client wished to pursue the action; and 
apparently withdrawing from the case without notice to the 
client, the court or the adverse party.  In 2001 Attorney 
Raftery was publicly reprimanded for entering into a business 
transaction with a client without giving the client a reasonable 
opportunity to seek the advice of independent counsel or without 
obtaining the client's consent to the transaction in writing; 
failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
preparing the transfer documents; failing to respond to the 
No. 
2006AP406-D   
 
3 
 
client's reasonable attempts to communicate with him; and 
failing to cooperate with the investigation of the grievance. 
¶4 
On February 20, 2006, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a complaint alleging ten counts of misconduct.  
Attorney Raftery filed an answer to the complaint on March 20, 
2006.  On January 5, 2007, he filed an amended answer admitting 
all factual allegations in the complaint.   
¶5 
James J. Winiarski was appointed referee in the 
matter.  On July 12, 2007, the parties filed a stipulation 
whereby they agreed that a six-month suspension of Attorney 
Raftery's license to practice law was the appropriate discipline 
for the misconduct.  The parties disagreed as to the date the 
suspension should begin and were allowed the opportunity to file 
briefs on that issue.  The OLR argued that the six-month 
suspension should be prospective.  Attorney Raftery requested 
that the six-month suspension be stayed.  Because of the 
substantial agreement of the parties on the pertinent issues, no 
hearing was ever held.  The referee issued his report and 
recommendation on September 24, 2007. 
¶6 
The 
first 
client 
matter 
detailed 
in 
the 
OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney Raftery's representation of P.C., 
who retained Attorney Raftery to represent her regarding a 
complaint she had previously filed with the ERD alleging that 
her employer had discriminated against her due to her race.  
After Attorney Raftery was retained, P.C. withdrew the ERD 
complaint and proceeded with a federal discrimination complaint 
before the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  The EEOC 
No. 
2006AP406-D   
 
4 
 
found reasonable cause to believe there had been a violation.  
On May 19, 2002, P.C. signed a retainer agreement with Attorney 
Raftery allowing him a one-third contingency fee from any 
settlement or judgment above $2,000.  On May 31, 2002, the EEOC 
issued a notice of right to sue.  On July 29, 2002, Attorney 
Raftery filed an action against P.C.'s employer in the Eastern 
District of Wisconsin alleging unlawful discrimination and 
retaliation.   
¶7 
The employer took P.C.'s deposition in April 2003.  
Attorney Raftery alleged that the deposition did not go well and 
that he informed P.C. she would need to hire another attorney.  
P.C. denied that Attorney Raftery ever informed her to seek 
another 
attorney. 
 
She 
also 
said 
she 
never 
received 
correspondence that Attorney Raftery claimed he sent her telling 
her she needed to either settle the case or find a different 
lawyer.  Attorney Raftery continued to represent P.C. in the 
lawsuit.  On May 30, 2003, Attorney Raftery received a request 
for production of documents.  He met with P.C. on June 24, 2003, 
to prepare answers to the discovery request, but he failed to 
respond to the discovery request by the deadline.  The day after 
the deadline, Attorney Raftery filed a response to the request 
for production of documents indicating that some missing 
telephone records would be sent by fax and mail immediately 
after they were received.   
¶8 
On August 6, 2003, the parties filed a stipulation 
requesting that the deadline for dispositive motions be moved to 
September 30.  The stipulation stated that Attorney Raftery's 
No. 
2006AP406-D   
 
5 
 
delay in filing the responses was due to medical circumstances 
concerning an immediate family member.  Attorney Raftery 
submitted a letter to the OLR which he contended he sent to P.C. 
on August 6, 2003, informing her he had entered into a 
stipulation to extend the deadlines due to P.C.'s inability to 
find successor counsel.  P.C. said she never received this 
correspondence.  Attorney Raftery received the missing telephone 
records around August 18, 2003, but there is no evidence he 
forwarded them to opposing counsel.   
¶9 
P.C.'s employer filed a motion for summary judgment on 
September 30, 2003.  Attorney Raftery never advised P.C. the 
motion was filed.  Attorney Raftery submitted correspondence to 
the OLR dated October 1, 2003, that he claimed he sent to P.C., 
indicating he believed it was fruitless to take the case any 
further.  P.C. did not receive the correspondence.  Attorney 
Raftery submitted other correspondence to the OLR that he 
claimed he sent to P.C. on December 1, 2003, informing her the 
case had been dismissed.  P.C. never received the letter and 
claimed she still believed the case was set for trial on 
December 15, 2003.  Attorney Raftery did not inform P.C. the 
case had been dismissed until she contacted him on December 15 
to set up a time and place to meet for the trial.  Although 
Attorney Raftery informed P.C. he would send her copies of the 
dismissal documents, P.C. never received them. 
¶10 P.C. filed a grievance against Attorney Raftery in 
June 2004.  Attorney Raftery failed to respond to the OLR's 
repeated requests for information about the grievance.  The OLR 
No. 
2006AP406-D   
 
6 
 
subsequently filed a motion seeking the temporary suspension of 
Attorney Raftery's Wisconsin law license due to his failure to 
cooperate with an OLR grievance investigation.  Attorney Raftery 
failed to respond to this court's order to show cause, and his 
license to practice law was temporarily suspended on January 11, 
2005.  Attorney Raftery subsequently provided the OLR with a 
response sufficient to permit it to continue its investigation.  
Attorney Raftery's license to practice law in Wisconsin was 
reinstated effective June 3, 2005.   
¶11 The OLR's complaint alleged, and the referee found, 
that by failing to timely respond to discovery requests, seek 
evidence and witnesses to support P.C.'s claim, and failing to 
respond to the summary judgment motion leading to a dismissal of 
his client's claim, Attorney Raftery failed to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in 
violation of former SCR 20:1.3;1 by failing to keep P.C. informed 
of the status of her matter, including his failure to notify her 
of the summary judgment motion, failing to promptly notify P.C. 
that the case was dismissed, and failing to provide the 
                                                 
1 Effective July 1, 2007, substantial changes were made to 
the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct for 
Attorneys, SCR Chapter 20. See Supreme Court Order No. 04-07, 
2007 WI 4, 293 Wis. 2d xv; and Supreme Court Order No. 06-04, 
2007 WI 48, 297 Wis. 2d xlvii. Since the conduct underlying this 
case arose prior to July 1, 2007, unless otherwise indicated, 
all references to the supreme court rules will be to those in 
effect prior to July 1, 2007. 
Former SCR 20:1.3 provides that a lawyer "shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
No. 
2006AP406-D   
 
7 
 
documents explaining why the case had been dismissed, Attorney 
Raftery failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the 
status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests 
for information, in violation of former SCR 20:1.4(a);2 by 
willfully failing to provide a response to P.C.'s grievance and 
failing to respond to follow-up questions from OLR staff, and by 
misrepresenting to the OLR that he had told P.C. to retain new 
counsel, that he promptly informed P.C. her case had been 
dismissed, and that he sent various letters addressed to P.C. 
that he never actually sent, Attorney Raftery violated SCRs 
22.03(2) and 22.03(6).3   
                                                 
2 Former SCR 20:1.4(a), states that "[a] lawyer shall keep a 
client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and 
promptly comply with reasonable requests for information." 
3 SCRs 22.03(2) and (6) state as follows:  Investigation.  
 
(2) 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.   
 
 . . .  
 
(6) 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 
No. 
2006AP406-D   
 
8 
 
¶12 The 
other 
client 
matter 
detailed 
in 
the 
OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney Raftery's representation of S.J., 
who retained Attorney Raftery to represent her in an employment 
claim.  In March 2004 Attorney Raftery filed a complaint with 
the ERD.  Attorney Raftery failed to respond to repeated 
requests for information from the ERD.  As a result, the ERD 
dismissed S.J.'s complaint on June 7, 2004.  On June 25, 2004, 
Attorney Raftery filed a notice of appeal attaching information 
he had been asked to provide two months earlier.  He failed to 
copy S.J. with the correspondence.  The ERD upheld the dismissal 
based on Attorney Raftery's earlier failure to respond.  On 
September 9, 2004, S.J. sent a letter to the ERD filing an 
appeal, stating Attorney Raftery had failed to send her any 
correspondence regarding her claim.  The Labor and Industry 
Review Commission (LIRC) reversed the dismissal, noting that 
correspondence had only been sent to S.J.'s attorney when the 
statute required that correspondence also be sent to S.J.  
Attorney Raftery continued to represent S.J. on the claim.   
¶13 S.J. filed a grievance against Attorney Raftery in 
September 2004.  Attorney Raftery failed to respond to the OLR's 
repeated requests for information.   
¶14 The OLR's complaint alleged, and the referee found, 
that by failing to respond to the ERD's request for information 
in a timely manner, resulting in the dismissal of S.J.'s initial 
                                                                                                                                                             
disclosure are misconduct, regardless of the merits of 
the matters asserted in the grievance. 
No. 
2006AP406-D   
 
9 
 
complaint, Attorney Raftery violated former SCR 20:1.3, and by 
willfully failing to respond to S.J.'s grievance, Attorney 
Raftery violated SCRs 22:03(2) and 22.03(6).   
¶15 The final four counts of misconduct alleged in the 
OLR's complaint arose out of Attorney Raftery's failure to 
comply with the requirements of SCR 22.26 following the 
January 11, 2005, temporary suspension of his license to 
practice law.  Attorney Raftery failed to file his SCR 22.26 
affidavit and failed to notify his clients, the courts, or 
opposing counsel of his suspension.  OLR staff also received 
reports that Attorney Raftery continued to practice law after 
his suspension.  Court records indicated that Attorney Raftery 
remained attorney of record during the period of his suspension 
in an estate matter pending in Sheboygan County.   
¶16 The OLR's complaint alleged, and the referee found, 
that by failing to notify his clients, the courts, and opposing 
counsel of his suspension; failing to wind up his law practice 
within 15 days of the suspension order; failing to file a timely 
and accurate affidavit after receiving the suspension order 
requiring him to comply with SCR 22.26; and by continuing to 
practice law after receiving the suspension order, Attorney  
 
No. 
2006AP406-D   
 
10 
 
Raftery violated SCRs 20:8.4(f),4 22.26(1) and 22.26(2).5  The 
                                                 
4 Former SCR 20:8.4(f) states that it is misconduct for a 
lawyer to "violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme court 
order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers;  . . . " 
5 SCRs 22.26(1) and (2) state:   
SCR 
22.26 
 
Activities 
following 
suspension 
or 
revocation. 
 
(1) On or before the effective date of license 
suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 
suspended or revoked shall do all of the following: 
 
(a) Notify by certified mail all clients being 
represented in pending matters of the suspension or 
revocation and of the attorney's consequent inability 
to act as an attorney following the effective date of 
the suspension or revocation. 
 
(b) Advise the clients to seek legal advice of 
their choice elsewhere.  
 
(c) Promptly provide written notification to the 
court or administrative agency and the attorney for 
each party in a matter pending before a court or 
administrative agency of the suspension or revocation 
and of the attorney's consequent inability to act as 
an attorney following the effective date of the 
suspension or revocation.  The notice shall identify 
the successor attorney of the attorney's client or, if 
there is none at the time notice is given, shall state 
the client's place of residence.   
 
(d) Within the first 15 days after the effective 
date 
of 
suspension 
or 
revocation, 
make 
all 
arrangements for the temporary or permanent closing or 
winding up of the attorney's practice.  The attorney 
may assist in having others take over clients' work in 
progress.  
 
(e) Within 25 days after the effective date of 
suspension or revocation, file with the director an 
affidavit showing all of the following: 
 
(i) Full compliance with the provisions of the 
suspension or revocation order and with the rules and 
procedures regarding the closing of the attorney's 
practice. 
No. 
2006AP406-D   
 
11 
 
OLR's complaint also alleged, and the referee found, that by 
failing to fully and fairly disclose all facts and circumstances 
pertaining to the alleged misconduct in violation of SCR 
22.03(2), and by failing to timely conclude the probate of the 
Sheboygan County estate, Attorney Raftery violated former SCR 
20:1.3.   
¶17 As previously noted, the parties agreed that a six-
month suspension of Attorney Raftery's license to practice law 
was appropriate discipline for the misconduct, but disagreed as 
to whether the suspension should be prospective, as argued by 
the OLR, or whether the suspension should be stayed, as argued 
by Attorney Raftery.  The referee noted that Attorney Raftery's 
request that the six-month suspension be stayed was based on his 
assertion that all of the misconduct was the result of his 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
(ii) A 
list 
of 
all 
jurisdictions, 
including 
state, federal and administrative bodies, before which 
the attorney is admitted to practice. 
    (iii) A list of clients in all pending matters and 
a list of all matters pending before any court or 
administrative agency, together with the case number 
of each matter.   
 
(f) Maintain records of the various steps taken 
under this rule in order that, in any subsequent 
proceeding instituted by or against the attorney, 
proof of compliance with the rule and with the 
suspension or revocation order is available.   
 
(2) An attorney whose license to practice law is 
suspended or revoked or who is suspended from the 
practice of law may not engage in this state in the 
practice 
of 
law 
or 
in 
any 
law 
work 
activity 
customarily done by law students, law clerks, or other 
paralegal personnel, except that the attorney may 
engage in law related work in this state for a 
commercial employer itself not engaged in the practice 
of law.   
No. 
2006AP406-D   
 
12 
 
longstanding chronic depression, for which he had received both 
inpatient and outpatient treatment.  The referee said he could 
not make such a finding.  While the referee noted that Attorney 
Raftery's medical experts were of the opinion that Attorney 
Raftery had suffered from chronic depression for years, the 
referee said there was no evidence in the record that the 
medical experts related each and every count of misconduct that 
occurred in this case solely to the chronic depression.  The 
referee pointed out that many of the counts of misconduct 
related to deliberate misrepresentations by Attorney Raftery to 
the 
OLR 
during 
its 
investigation 
of 
the 
various 
client 
grievances and to Attorney Raftery's failure to comply with 
supreme court rules following his temporary suspension.  The 
referee concluded that this misconduct was not solely the result 
of Attorney Raftery's being "paralyzed" by depression, but 
rather was intentional misconduct undertaken in an effort to 
deceive the OLR and the public.  Rather than viewing Attorney 
Raftery's chronic depression as an excuse for his misconduct, 
the referee found it to be a mitigating circumstance to be 
considered in recommending an appropriate discipline.  The 
referee recommended a prospective six-month license suspension, 
and also recommended that Attorney Raftery pay the full costs of 
the proceeding. 
¶18 The referee said he was very concerned with whether 
Attorney Raftery could be trusted to properly handle client 
matters once his suspension ended. The referee noted that 
Attorney Raftery and his current employer, Attorney Ritger, 
No. 
2006AP406-D   
 
13 
 
proposed a plan for the oversight and accountability of Attorney 
Raftery's practice of law in the Ritger Law Office.  The referee 
recommended that various conditions be imposed on Attorney 
Raftery's resumption of the practice of law following his 
suspension. 
¶19 No appeal has been filed from the referee's report and 
recommendation.   
¶20 This court will adopt a referee's findings of fact 
unless they are clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law are 
reviewed de novo.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  The 
court may impose whatever sanction it sees fit regardless of the 
referee's recommendation.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.  
Attorney Raftery has admitted all of the factual allegations in 
the OLR's complaint. 
¶21 The referee's findings of fact in this case have not 
been shown to be clearly erroneous, and we adopt them.  We also 
agree with the referee's conclusions of law.  We further agree 
with the referee's recommendation for a six-month prospective 
suspension of Attorney Raftery's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin, and we agree with the referee's recommendation that 
conditions be imposed upon Attorney Raftery's resumption of the 
practice of law following his suspension.  Finally, we find it 
appropriate to require Attorney Raftery to pay the full costs of 
this proceeding. 
No. 
2006AP406-D   
 
14 
 
¶22 IT IS ORDERED that the license of John E. Raftery to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six 
months, effective January 8, 2008. 
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, John E. Raftery 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 E. Raftery to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
remain suspended under further order of the court. 
¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
yet done so, John E. Raftery comply with the provisions of SCR 
22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.   
¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for a period of two years 
following his resumption of the practice of law, the following 
conditions shall be imposed upon John E. Raftery's practice of 
law: 
A. 
John E. Raftery's law practice shall be monitored as 
set 
forth 
in 
the 
"Suggested 
plan 
for 
oversight 
and 
accountability of John E. Raftery by the Ritger Law Office," 
previously filed in this matter. 
B. 
John E. Raftery shall be required to submit to OLR, on 
a quarterly basis, a report that he is in compliance with the 
"Suggested plan for oversight and accountability of John E. 
Raftery by the Ritger Law Office."  The report shall disclose 
No. 
2006AP406-D   
 
15 
 
any patterns of neglect of client matters.  Such quarterly 
reports shall include the written approval of Attorney Ritger. 
C. 
John E. Raftery shall be required to submit to OLR, on 
a 
semiannual 
basis, 
a 
report 
from 
his 
treating 
psychologist/psychiatrist outlining his ongoing treatment.  The 
reports should disclose any recurrences of the depression, and 
if any, whether such recurrences pose an unreasonable risk to 
the public if John E. Raftery is then permitted to continue the 
practice of law. 
D. 
Should John E. Raftery, for any reason, leave the 
Ritger Law Office, he shall immediately inform OLR, and any 
continuance of his practice of law shall be subject to 
monitoring and a plan similar to the above.   
 
No. 
2006AP406-D   
 
 
 
1