Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jeffrey A. Reitz

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2013 WI 27 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2010AP1576-D & 2011AP1764-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
Jeffrey A. Reitz, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Jeffrey A. Reitz, 
          Respondent-Appellant.   
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST REITZ     
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 29, 2013   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the respondent-appellant, there was a brief filed by 
Jeffrey A. Reitz, pro se. 
 
For the Office of Lawyer Regulation, there was a brief 
filed by Julie M. Spoke, Office of Lawyer Regulation. 
  
 
 
2013 WI 27
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
Nos.  2010AP1576-D & 2011AP1764-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jeffrey A. Reitz, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Jeffrey A. Reitz, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 29, 2013 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney Jeffrey A. Reitz appealed from 
a referee's report concluding that he engaged in professional 
misconduct and recommending that his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin be suspended for 12 months.  This case was originally 
on the December 4, 2012 oral argument calendar.  It was removed 
from the calendar after it was discovered that Attorney Reitz 
and the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) were in agreement that 
the referee erroneously included factual findings in her report 
Nos. 2010AP1576-D & 2011AP1764-D   
 
2 
 
that arose out of counts of misconduct that had been previously 
dismissed by the OLR.  The parties were directed to file a 
stipulation identifying the specific findings of fact in the 
referee's report that related to dismissed counts and thus 
should not be considered by this court in reaching its final 
decision.  The parties filed their stipulation on December 10, 
2012, and identified 47 paragraphs in the referee's report that 
they believe were erroneously included and should not be 
considered.  The parties also pointed out that paragraph two of 
the referee's report should be corrected to reflect the fact 
that Attorney Reitz was admitted to practice law in 1981 rather 
than 2001. 
¶2 
We agree with the parties that the 47 paragraphs from 
the referee's report identified in their stipulation related to 
counts that were dismissed by the OLR and thus should not be 
considered by the court in rendering its decision.  We conclude 
that the referee's remaining findings of fact are supported by 
satisfactory and convincing evidence.  We further determine that 
the 
appropriate 
sanction 
to 
impose 
for 
Attorney 
Reitz's 
misconduct is a ten-month suspension of his license to practice 
law in Wisconsin.  In addition, we conclude that the full costs 
of the proceeding, which are $6,943.09 as of December 13, 2012, 
should be assessed against Attorney Reitz.  We further conclude 
that, as part of the sanction for his misconduct, Attorney Reitz 
should be required to distribute all funds in his trust accounts 
to their rightful owners or, if those individuals cannot be 
located, Attorney Reitz should be required to transmit those 
Nos. 2010AP1576-D & 2011AP1764-D   
 
3 
 
funds 
to 
the 
state 
treasurer's 
office 
as 
unclaimed 
or 
unidentifiable property. 
¶3 
Attorney Reitz was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1981 and practices in Milwaukee.  He has been 
disciplined on two prior occasions.  In 2005, his license was 
suspended for five months for multiple counts of failure to act 
with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a 
client; having a client who was not represented by counsel sign 
a release of Attorney Reitz's partner, prospectively limiting 
the partner's liability for malpractice; knowingly assisting 
another attorney in violating the rules of professional conduct; 
two counts of failure to keep a client reasonably informed about 
the status of a matter and failure to comply with reasonable 
requests 
for 
information; 
engaging 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation; failure to 
explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit a 
client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; 
and failure to take steps reasonably practicable to protect a 
client's interests upon termination of representation.  In re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Reitz, 
2005 
WI 
39, 
279 
Wis. 2d 550, 694 N.W.2d 894. 
¶4 
In 2009, Attorney Reitz's license was suspended for 90 
days based on a finding that he had engaged in 15 counts of 
misconduct with regard to 15 separate clients.  All of the 
counts involved Attorney Reitz's failure to give a chiropractor 
written notice that settlement proceeds had been received in 
several cases and by failing to promptly deliver to the 
Nos. 2010AP1576-D & 2011AP1764-D   
 
4 
 
chiropractor the amount he was entitled to receive in accordance 
with documents signed by both the clients and Attorney Reitz's 
law firm entitling the chiropractor to payment out of settlement 
proceeds.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Reitz, 2009 WI 
90, 320 Wis. 2d 460, 769 N.W.2d 566. 
¶5 
On June 28, 2010, the OLR filed a complaint against 
Attorney Reitz alleging multiple counts of misconduct.  An 
amended complaint was filed on September 1, 2010.  The amended 
complaint alleged 30 counts of misconduct.  A separate complaint 
alleging five counts of misconduct was filed on August 2, 2011.  
The two cases were consolidated and Kim M. Peterson was 
appointed referee. 
¶6 
On March 30, 2012, the parties filed a stipulation 
whereby Attorney Reitz pled no contest to all five counts 
alleged in the August 2, 2011 complaint.  He also pled no 
contest to 17 counts alleged in the September 1, 2010 amended 
complaint.  The OLR agreed to dismiss the remaining 13 counts in 
the amended complaint.  The stipulation provided, "Reitz agrees 
that 
the 
referee 
may 
use 
the 
allegations 
of 
the 
[c]omplaint . . . and 
the 
[a]mended 
[c]omplaint . . . as 
an 
adequate factual basis in the record for a determination of 
misconduct as to each misconduct count to which Reitz has pled 
no contest." 
¶7 
The stipulation also provided that the OLR director 
and Attorney Reitz agreed that the appropriate level of 
discipline to impose for Attorney Reitz's misconduct in the two 
cases was a ten-month suspension of his license to practice law 
Nos. 2010AP1576-D & 2011AP1764-D   
 
5 
 
in Wisconsin.  The OLR director and Attorney Reitz also agreed 
that an appropriate condition of discipline was that Attorney 
Reitz be required, prior to petitioning for reinstatement, to 
provide the OLR with documentation that all funds in his trust 
account have been distributed to the rightful owners or, if 
those individuals cannot be located, that the funds be escheated 
to the state treasurer's office as unclaimed or unidentifiable 
property.  The parties jointly requested the referee to file a 
report finding facts based on Attorney Reitz's no contest pleas, 
and the parties requested the referee to recommend that Attorney 
Reitz's license be suspended for ten months. 
¶8 
All five counts of misconduct alleged in the August 
2011 complaint arose out of Attorney Reitz's representation of 
J.B. and/or P.B.  In July 2007 J.B. and P.B. hired Attorney 
Reitz to represent J.B. in a personal injury case arising out of 
a motorcycle accident that occurred in Illinois.  In July 2009 
this court ordered Attorney Reitz's license suspended for 90 
days effective September 14, 2009.  By letter dated August 4, 
2009, the OLR reminded Attorney Reitz of his obligations under 
SCR 22.26 stemming from his suspension, requiring him to notify 
all clients in pending matters both of the suspension and of his 
inability to act as their attorney after September 14, 2009.  
Attorney Reitz did not notify either J.B. or P.B. that his 
license was suspended. 
¶9 
On August 28, 2009, Attorney Reitz wrote to J.B. 
asking his consent to have Attorney James E. Parrot "assist us" 
with the case.  The letter did not mention Attorney Reitz's 
Nos. 2010AP1576-D & 2011AP1764-D   
 
6 
 
upcoming suspension.  Attorney Reitz drafted a document titled 
"Client Consent to Employment of Another Lawyer," which was 
signed by J.B. on August 31, 2009.  The agreement referred to 
the Reitz law firm's role as "co-counsel" with Attorney Parrot 
and said Reitz's firm "will retain responsibility for the 
performance of legal services" and "will share evenly with 
[A]ttorney James E. Parrot in the attorney's contingency fee."  
On September 15, 2009, a day after Attorney Reitz's license 
suspension began, Attorney Reitz sent J.B.'s file to Attorney 
Parrot. 
¶10 On October 9, 2009, the OLR received an affidavit from 
Attorney Reitz in which he said he had notified, by certified 
mail, all of his clients in pending matters.  The list of 
clients did not include either J.B. or P.B.  On December 15, 
2009, the OLR received a second affidavit from Attorney Reitz in 
connection with his reinstatement request.  In that affidavit 
Attorney Reitz said he had complied with the provisions of 
SCR 22.26 
following 
the 
suspension 
of 
his 
license. 
 
He 
acknowledged that notice had inadvertently not been sent to J.B. 
¶11 In early 2008, P.B. spoke to Attorney Reitz about a 
medical malpractice claim arising from possible radial nerve 
damage she suffered on January 22, 2002.  On January 22, 2003, 
P.B. filed an action against a hospital in Illinois.  She was 
originally represented in that case by Attorney Michael Lavelle 
of Chicago. 
¶12 Attorney Reitz made a verbal agreement with P.B. to 
handle her case.  There was no written fee agreement.  On 
Nos. 2010AP1576-D & 2011AP1764-D   
 
7 
 
March 29, 2008, Attorney Reitz's employee wrote to Attorney 
Lavelle to formally ask to assume representation of P.B.  The 
file was subsequently picked up from Attorney Lavelle's office. 
¶13 From time to time Attorney Reitz would refer medical 
malpractice cases to Attorney Bill Walker.  Attorney Walker met 
with Attorney Reitz's employee to discuss P.B.'s case. 
¶14 P.B.'s case was voluntarily dismissed in April 2008 
due to the ill health of Attorney Lavelle.  Under Illinois law, 
there was a one-year deadline to reopen the case.  A May 9, 2008 
letter from Attorney Reitz's office to Attorney Lavelle stated 
that P.B.'s malpractice suit would be handled by Attorney 
Walker.  That same day Attorney Reitz's office sent a letter to 
P.B. advising her the malpractice suit was being reviewed by 
Attorney Walker. 
¶15 Attorney Walker did review the malpractice suit but 
declined to represent P.B.  In mid-May 2008 Attorney Walker 
advised Attorney Reitz of his opinion that there were a number 
of substantial obstacles to the case, including insufficient 
evidence of negligence.  Attorney Walker returned the case file 
to Attorney Reitz on May 22, 2008.  Attorney Walker's office 
informed P.B. that the file had been returned to Attorney Reitz. 
¶16 Attorney Reitz did not personally share with P.B. the 
negative evaluation of the medical malpractice claim by Attorney 
Walker.  P.B. made repeated, frequent calls to Attorney Reitz's 
office asking about her malpractice suit.  Attorney Reitz failed 
to return the calls.  Each time P.B. would call Attorney Reitz's 
office, she was informed by a paralegal that Attorney Reitz was 
Nos. 2010AP1576-D & 2011AP1764-D   
 
8 
 
aware of the April 8, 2009 deadline to reopen the case and that 
he was handling the matter.  Attorney Reitz allowed the April 8, 
2009 deadline to pass without taking any action. 
¶17 The OLR's August 2011 complaint alleged the following 
counts of misconduct with respect to Attorney Reitz's handling 
of J.B. and P.B.'s cases: 
[COUNT 
ONE:] By 
failing 
to 
timely 
notify [J.B.], a client in a pending matter, 
of the suspension of his law license, Reitz 
violated SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b)1 and SCR 
20:8.4(f).2 
[COUNT TWO:] By filing an affidavit 
with [the] OLR containing misrepresentations 
concerning his compliance with the terms and 
conditions of the suspension, Reitz violated 
SCR 20:8.4(c).3 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b) states as follows:  
 
(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. 
2 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme 
court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers; . . . ." 
3 SCR 20:8.4(c) says it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation; . . . ." 
Nos. 2010AP1576-D & 2011AP1764-D   
 
9 
 
[COUNT THREE:] By repeatedly failing to 
return client [P.B.'s] telephone calls and 
failing to provide requested information to 
her concerning the status of his efforts to 
reopen her medical malpractice claim or find 
an attorney to represent her in the matter, 
Reitz violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4).4 
[COUNT FOUR:] By failing to explain to 
client [P.B.] the ramifications of another 
attorney's 
negative 
assessment 
of 
the 
client's 
medical 
malpractice 
claim 
and 
failing 
to 
share 
that 
malpractice 
specialist's written evaluation of the claim 
with 
the 
client, 
Reitz 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.4(b).5 
[COUNT 
FIVE:] By 
failing 
to 
timely 
notify his client that he was unilaterally 
abandoning his efforts to reopen her medical 
malpractice 
claim 
or 
to 
find 
another 
attorney to handle her claim and failing to 
return her medical malpractice claim file to 
her, Reitz violated SCR 20:1.16(d).6 
                                                 
4 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4) states a lawyer shall "(3) keep 
the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter; 
[and] (4) promptly comply with reasonable requests by the client 
for information; . . . ." 
5 SCR 20:1.4(b) provides: 
A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent 
reasonably necessary to permit the client to make 
informed decisions regarding the representation. 
6 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides: 
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 or expense that has not 
been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers 
relating to the client to the extent permitted by 
other law. 
Nos. 2010AP1576-D & 2011AP1764-D   
 
10 
 
¶18 By virtue of the March 30, 2012 stipulation, Attorney 
Reitz pled no contest to all five counts. 
¶19 Eight of the counts of misconduct in the September 1, 
2010 amended complaint, to which Attorney Reitz pled no contest, 
involved untimely delivery of client trust account funds.  In 
1999, Attorney Reitz joined Michael Mandelman's law firm.  The 
firm practiced primarily in the area of personal injury and 
criminal law.  Prior to his association with Attorney Reitz, 
Mandelman had client trust accounts at M&I and TCF banks.  When 
Attorney 
Reitz 
joined the firm in 1999, the firm used 
Mandelman's M&I trust account as its active trust account.  
Mandelman did not close the TCF trust account until December 
2006.  In December 2002 Mandelman and Attorney Reitz stopped 
using the M&I trust account and opened a new trust account at 
Tri City Bank.  The M&I account remained dormant for at least 
six years. 
¶20 In May of 2005, while Attorney Reitz's license was 
suspended, Mandelman stopped using the Tri City Bank trust 
account and opened a new trust account at Pyramax Bank.  The Tri 
City account then remained dormant for more than three years.  
Mandelman's license to practice law was suspended for nine 
months effective June 21, 2006.  Prior to that time a new trust 
account was opened at Pyramax Bank in the name of Reitz, Parker 
and Lawent, S.C. (RPL).  In July and August of 2008, a majority 
of undistributed client funds in Mandelman's Pyramax trust 
account were transferred to the RPL trust account. 
Nos. 2010AP1576-D & 2011AP1764-D   
 
11 
 
¶21 The OLR's September 1, 2010 amended complaint alleged 
that Attorney Reitz failed to distribute trust account checks to 
clients for periods ranging from one to more than seven years; 
deposited monthly settlement payments in his client trust 
account but failed to distribute the funds; failed to negotiate 
with subrogated carriers; failed to take steps necessary to 
resolve the division of ownership of trust account funds; failed 
to pay a client money withheld from a 2002 personal injury 
settlement until at least October 2008; and failed to distribute 
or reissue 47 uncashed checks written on his client trust 
account between 2000 and 2005; and, as of July 30, 2008, having 
an additional 14 checks outstanding for periods of at least 
three months and up to two years after Mandelman's suspension. 
¶22 The OLR alleged, and by virtue of his March 30, 2012 
stipulation Attorney Reitz agreed, that he violated SCRs 
20:1.15(b) (in effect prior to July 1, 2004),7 20:1.15(d)(1) 
(effective July 1, 2004),8 and 20:1.3.9 
                                                 
7 SCR 20:1.15(b) (in effect prior to July 1, 2004) stated as 
follows: 
 
Upon receiving funds or other property in which a 
client or third person has an interest, a lawyer shall 
promptly notify the client or third person in writing.  
Except as stated in this rule or otherwise permitted 
by law or by agreement with the client, a lawyer shall 
promptly deliver to the client or third person any 
funds or other property that the client or third 
person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the 
client or third person, shall render a full accounting 
regarding such property. 
8 SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) provides:   
Nos. 2010AP1576-D & 2011AP1764-D   
 
12 
 
¶23 By virtue of his stipulation, Attorney Reitz also 
admitted disbursing funds from his trust account that created 
negative balances with respect to the subsidiary accounts for 
two clients and with respect to a law firm subsidiary account 
for bank charges.  He also admitted distributing funds such that 
there was a $9,000 shortage in funds that should have been held 
for clients in the RPL trust account as of July 31, 2008.  
Attorney 
Reitz 
admitted 
violating 
SCRs 
20:1.15(e)(5)a. 
(effective July 1, 2004),10 20:1.15(f)(1)b. (effective July 1, 
2004 through December 31, 2009),11 and SCR 20:1.15(a) (effective 
prior to July 1, 2004).12 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
Notice and disbursement.  Upon receiving funds or 
other property in which a client has an interest, or 
in which the lawyer has received notice that a 3rd 
party has an interest identified by a lien, court 
order, 
judgment, 
or 
contract, 
the 
lawyer 
shall 
promptly notify the client or 3rd party in writing.  
Except as stated in this rule or otherwise permitted 
by law or by agreement with the client, the lawyer 
shall promptly deliver to the client or 3rd party any 
funds or other property that the client or 3rd party 
is entitled to receive. 
9 SCR 20:1.3 states "[a] lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
10 SCR 20:1.15(e)(5)a. provides:   
Standard for trust account transactions.  A lawyer 
shall not disburse funds from any trust account unless 
the deposit from which those funds will be disbursed 
has 
cleared, 
and 
the 
funds 
are 
available 
for 
disbursement. 
11 SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)b. provides:   
 
A subsidiary ledger shall be maintained for each 
client or matter for which the lawyer receives trust 
Nos. 2010AP1576-D & 2011AP1764-D   
 
13 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
funds, and the lawyer shall record each receipt and 
disbursement of that client's funds and the balance 
following each transaction.  A lawyer shall not 
disburse funds from the trust account that would 
create 
a 
negative 
balance 
with 
respect 
to 
any 
individual client or matter. 
12 SCR 20:1.15(a) (effective prior to July 1, 2004) provided 
as follows:  Safekeeping property. 
 
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.  Funds held in connection with a 
representation or in a fiduciary capacity include 
funds held as trustee, agent, guardian, personal 
representative of an estate, or otherwise.  All funds 
of clients and third persons paid to a lawyer or law 
firm shall be deposited in one or more identifiable 
trust accounts as provided in paragraph (c).  The 
trust account shall be maintained in a bank, savings 
bank, trust company, credit union, savings and loan 
association or other investment institution authorized 
to do business and located in Wisconsin.  The trust 
account shall be clearly designated as "Client's 
Account" or "Trust Account" or words of similar 
import.  No funds belonging to the lawyer or law firm, 
except funds reasonably sufficient to pay or avoid 
imposition 
of 
account 
service 
charges, 
may 
be 
deposited in such an account.  Unless the client 
otherwise directs in writing, securities in bearer 
form shall be kept by the attorney in a safe deposit 
box in a bank, savings bank, trust company, credit 
union, 
savings 
and 
loan 
association 
or 
other 
investment institution authorized to do business and 
located in Wisconsin.  The safe deposit box shall be 
clearly designated as "Client's Account" or "Trust 
Account" or words of similar import.  Other property 
of a client or third person shall be identified as 
such and appropriately safeguarded.  If a lawyer also 
licensed in another state is entrusted with funds or 
property 
in 
connection 
with 
an 
out-of-state 
representation, this provision shall not supersede the 
trust account rules of the other state. 
Nos. 2010AP1576-D & 2011AP1764-D   
 
14 
 
¶24 Attorney Reitz also admitted, by virtue of his 
stipulation, that by failing to create and retain complete trust 
account 
records 
for 
the 
RPL 
trust 
account, 
he 
violated 
SCR 20:1.15(e)(6).13  He further admitted that by failing to 
provide RPL trust account records requested by the OLR and 
providing only incomplete and inaccurate records, he violated 
SCR 20:1.15(e)(7),14 20:8.4(h),15 and 22.03(6).16  He also 
                                                 
13 SCR 20:1.15(e)(6) provides:   
Record retention.  A lawyer shall maintain complete 
records of trust account funds and other trust 
property and shall preserve those records for at least 
6 
years 
after 
the 
date 
of 
termination 
of 
the 
representation. 
14 SCR 20:1.15(e)(7) provides:   
 
Production of records.  All trust account records 
have public aspects related to a lawyer's fitness to 
practice.  Upon request of the office of lawyer 
regulation, or upon direction of the supreme court, 
the records shall be submitted to the office of lawyer 
regulation 
for 
its 
inspection, 
audit, 
use, 
and 
evidence under any conditions to protect the privilege 
of clients that the court may provide.  The records, 
or an audit of the records, shall be produced at any 
disciplinary proceeding involving the lawyer, whenever 
material.  Failure to produce the records constitutes 
unprofessional conduct and grounds for disciplinary 
action. 
15 SCR 20:8.4(h) states 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); . . . ." 
16 SCR 22.03(6) provides:  
 
In 
the 
course 
of 
the 
investigation, 
the 
respondent's 
wilful 
failure 
to 
provide 
relevant 
Nos. 2010AP1576-D & 2011AP1764-D   
 
15 
 
admitted that by falsely certifying on his fiscal year 2007 
State Bar of Wisconsin dues statement that he had filed 
overdraft reporting agreements with the OLR, and by falsely 
certifying on his fiscal year 2008 State Bar of Wisconsin dues 
statement 
that 
he 
had 
complied 
with 
the 
trust 
account 
recordkeeping requirements for the listed accounts, he violated 
SCR 20:1.15(i)(4).17 
¶25 Attorney Reitz further admitted that by depositing 
earned legal fees for clients into his client trust account and 
distributing those fees through the trust account instead of 
through 
the 
law 
firm's 
business 
account, 
he 
violated 
SCR 20:1.15(a) 
(effective 
prior 
to 
July 
1, 
2004), 
and 
SCR 20:1.15(b)(3) (effective July 1, 2004).18  He also admitted 
that by depositing checks to his client trust account that were 
                                                                                                                                                             
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. 
17 SCR 20:1.15(i)(4) provides:   
 
Suspension for non-compliance.  The failure of a 
state bar member to file the certificate is grounds 
for automatic suspension of the member's membership in 
the state bar in the same manner provided in SCR 
10.03(6) for nonpayment of dues.  The filing of a 
false certificate is unprofessional conduct and is 
grounds for disciplinary action. 
18 SCR 20:1.15(b)(3) provides:   
Lawyer funds.  No funds belonging to the lawyer or law 
firm, 
except 
funds reasonably sufficient to pay 
monthly account service charges, may be deposited or 
retained in a trust account. 
Nos. 2010AP1576-D & 2011AP1764-D   
 
16 
 
payable to Attorney Mandelman, written on checks from an account 
from a California law firm that were allegedly in payment of law 
firm fees, he violated SCR 20:1.15(a) (effective prior to 
July 1, 2004), and SCR 20:1.15(b)(3) (effective July 1, 2004). 
¶26 Attorney Reitz further admitted that by failing to 
file tax returns and pay tax on income earned by the RPL law 
firm 
he 
violated 
the 
standard 
of 
professional 
conduct 
established in cases, including In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Owens, 172 Wis. 2d 54, 56, 492 N.W.2d 157 (1992), 
contrary to SCRs 20:8.4(f) and 20:8.4(c). 
¶27 In addition, Attorney Reitz admitted that by failing 
to file an action on behalf of a client prior to the expiration 
of the statute of limitations, he violated SCR 20:1.3.  The 
client subsequently obtained a money judgment against Attorney 
Reitz for $101,190.17.  He admitted to another violation of 
SCR 20:1.3 by failing to either obtain and present a settlement 
offer 
to 
a minor 
child's parents, place the matter in 
litigation, or advise the clients he did not believe the case 
was worth pursuing and that they should pursue another attorney 
if they wished to proceed.  Although a $5,000 offer to settle 
the claim had been tendered, Attorney Reitz never presented the 
offer to the minor's parents. 
¶28 On June 15, 2012, the referee found that the parties' 
stipulation 
set 
forth 
an 
adequate 
factual 
basis 
for 
a 
determination of misconduct for each of the counts to which 
Attorney Reitz had pled no contest.  The referee concluded that 
a 12-month suspension, rather than the ten months proposed by 
Nos. 2010AP1576-D & 2011AP1764-D   
 
17 
 
the parties, was an appropriate sanction for Attorney Reitz's 
misconduct.  The referee said the misconduct was serious and the 
trust account records maintained by Attorney Reitz were in a 
serious state of disarray.  The referee said that due to the 
poor recordkeeping, Attorney Reitz's law firm overpaid itself 
fees from one trust account, resulting in a negative trust 
account balance.  The referee also said Attorney Reitz's client 
trust accounts were used as a personal checkbook for the law 
firm's attorneys, with payments being made from the trust 
accounts to both Attorney Reitz and his partner on numerous 
occasions. 
¶29 The referee said despite the fact that Attorney Reitz 
has been disciplined on two other occasions, he has continued to 
fail to comply with supreme court rules.  The referee found it 
especially disturbing that while Attorney Reitz was being 
investigated by the OLR for trust account violations he was 
still committing additional misconduct.  The referee concluded 
that the severity of the misconduct, the need to protect the 
public, and the need to impress upon Attorney Reitz the 
seriousness of his misconduct demonstrates that a 12-month 
suspension is appropriate.  The referee also recommended that as 
a condition of reinstatement Attorney Reitz be required to 
provide the OLR with sufficient documentation to demonstrate 
that all funds in his trust accounts were distributed to the 
rightful owner, and the referee suggests that if Attorney 
Reitz's license is reinstated, the OLR should monitor his trust 
account activity for at least two years. 
Nos. 2010AP1576-D & 2011AP1764-D   
 
18 
 
¶30 Attorney Reitz appealed raising two issues: (1) are 
many of the factual findings of the referee unsupported by the 
record and improperly relied upon in forming a basis for her 
recommendations; and (2) are the recommendations for sanction of 
the referee appropriate under the facts and findings of this 
case. 
¶31 Attorney 
Reitz's 
appeal 
did 
not 
challenge 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
relating 
to 
those 
counts 
of 
misconduct to which he pled no contest.  He argued, however, 
that many of the referee findings of fact related to the 13 
counts of misconduct which were dismissed by the OLR.  As to the 
appropriate sanction, Attorney Reitz argued that the ten-month 
suspension recommended by the parties, rather than the 12-month 
suspension recommended by the referee, was an appropriate level 
of discipline. 
¶32 The OLR agreed that many of the referee's findings of 
fact related to misconduct counts that were dismissed.  The OLR 
also agreed that a ten-month suspension was appropriate.  In 
response to a court order, on December 10, 2012, the parties 
filed a stipulation identifying the findings of fact in the 
referee's report that relate to counts that were dismissed. 
¶33 A referee's findings of fact will not be set aside 
unless 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.  This court is 
free to impose whatever discipline it deems appropriate, 
regardless 
of 
the 
referee's 
recommendation. 
 
See 
In 
re 
Nos. 2010AP1576-D & 2011AP1764-D   
 
19 
 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 
Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶34 After careful review of the entire record, we agree 
with the parties that the referee's findings of fact identified 
in their December 10, 2012 stipulation related to counts of 
misconduct that were dismissed.  As a result we deem those 
findings of fact clearly erroneous and will not consider them in 
reaching our decision in this case.  We adopt the referee's 
remaining findings of fact and further determine that those 
findings support the legal conclusion that Attorney Reitz 
engaged in all of the counts of professional misconduct set 
forth in the parties' stipulation. 
¶35 We now turn to the appropriate level of discipline to 
impose for Attorney Reitz's professional misconduct.  The 
majority of the misconduct counts in this case involve trust 
account violations.  Trust account violations are serious.  The 
comment to SCR 20:1.15 provides, "A lawyer must hold the 
property of others with the care required of a professional 
fiduciary."  Attorney Reitz has admitted that he failed to 
create and retain complete trust account records and that he 
provided only incomplete and inaccurate records to the OLR in 
the course of its investigation.  In a recent case involving 
trust account violations, we found instructive the South 
Carolina Supreme Court's holding in Matter of Miles, 335 
S.C. 242, 516 S.E.2d 661 (1999): "When disciplinary counsel 
presents 
clear 
and 
convincing 
evidence 
of 
trust 
account 
violations or other inadequate recordkeeping, a lawyer's records 
Nos. 2010AP1576-D & 2011AP1764-D   
 
20 
 
must be sufficiently detailed to overcome the allegations."  Id. 
at 663.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Weigel, 2012 
WI 124, ¶47, 345 Wis. 2d 7, 823 N.W.2d 798. 
¶36 Attorney Weigel's trust account violations resulted in 
the revocation of his license to practice law in Wisconsin.  By 
Attorney Weigel's own admission, his law firm's trust account 
ran a deficit of between $100,000 and $1,000,000 for over 13 
years.  We stated, "A six- or seven-figure deficit in an account 
that 
holds client 
funds is an ethical failure of epic 
proportions" and "it would be difficult to imagine a more 
aggravated pattern of misconduct. . . ."  As a result, we 
concluded that any sanction less than revocation would undermine 
the public's confidence in the honesty and integrity of the bar.  
Id., ¶52.  Although Attorney Reitz's misconduct, in the 
management of his trust accounts and otherwise, is serious, it 
does not reach the "epic proportions" of the Weigel case and 
thus warrants a lesser sanction. 
¶37 The OLR cited a number of cases in support of its 
recommendation that a ten-month license suspension would be an 
appropriate level of discipline.  The OLR notes that in In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Van Groll, 2005 WI 140, 286 
Wis. 2d 41, 704 N.W.2d 905, the attorney's license was suspended 
for one year for nine counts of misconduct arising out of his 
handling of client trust funds, failing to provide full and 
truthful information during the OLR's investigation, filing 
false State Bar of Wisconsin certifications, and failing to file 
income tax returns for five years.  In the OLR's opinion, 
Nos. 2010AP1576-D & 2011AP1764-D   
 
21 
 
Attorney Reitz's misconduct is less serious than Attorney Van 
Groll's. 
¶38 The OLR also notes that in In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Scanlan, 2006 WI 38, 290 Wis. 2d 30, 712 
N.W.2d 877, the attorney's license was suspended for six months 
for misconduct arising out of nine grievance matters consisting 
of practicing law while suspended, failing to deposit advanced 
fees in a trust account, failing to return an unearned fee, and 
failing to timely respond to the OLR's investigation.   
¶39 The OLR also believes that Attorney Reitz's conduct is 
similar to that at issue in In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Schuster, 2006 WI 21, 289 Wis. 2d 23, 710 N.W.2d 458, in 
which the attorney's license was suspended for nine months for 
various trust account issues and making misrepresentations to 
the OLR.  The OLR says Attorney Reitz's misconduct is aggravated 
by the fact that he committed more violations than did Attorneys 
Scanlan or Schuster, and he also has a more serious disciplinary 
history.  In mitigation of Attorney Reitz's misconduct, the OLR 
notes that Attorney Reitz has the absence of a dishonest or 
selfish motive and has cooperated with the OLR during the course 
of this disciplinary proceeding. 
¶40 Upon careful consideration, we conclude that a ten-
month suspension of Attorney Reitz's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin is an appropriate sanction.  A ten-month suspension is 
generally consistent with the level of discipline imposed in 
prior cases and adheres to the court's general practice of 
imposing progressive discipline.  We agree with the referee that 
Nos. 2010AP1576-D & 2011AP1764-D   
 
22 
 
Attorney Reitz should be required to pay the full costs of the 
proceeding.  We also deem it appropriate to require him to 
disburse all funds in his trust accounts to their rightful 
owners; if the rightful owners cannot be located, to transfer 
the funds to the state treasurer's office as unclaimed or 
unidentifiable property.  Although the parties and the referee 
recommended that these disbursements should be made as a 
condition 
of 
Attorney 
Reitz's 
reinstatement, 
we 
find 
it 
appropriate to order the payments made as part of the sanction 
as well as a condition of reinstatement.  We also agree with the 
referee that, upon his resumption of the practice of law 
Attorney Reitz's trust account should be subject to monitoring 
by the OLR for a period of two years. 
¶41 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Jeffrey A. Reitz to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of ten 
months effective May 3, 2013.   
¶42 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jeffrey A. Reitz shall 
distribute all funds in his trust accounts to their rightful 
owners.  If the rightful owners cannot be located, Jeffrey A. 
Reitz shall transfer those funds to the state treasurer's office 
as unclaimed or unidentifiable property.  Jeffrey A. Reitz shall 
provide documentation to the OLR that all funds in his trust 
accounts have been so distributed. 
¶43 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Jeffrey A. Reitz shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$6,943.09. 
Nos. 2010AP1576-D & 2011AP1764-D   
 
23 
 
¶44 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jeffrey A. Reitz shall 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
an attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended. 
¶45 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, upon his resumption of the 
practice of law, Jeffrey A. Reitz's trust account shall be 
subject to monitoring by the OLR for a period of two years. 
¶46 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See SCR 
22.29(4)(c).  
 
 
 
Nos. 2010AP1576-D & 2011AP1764-D   
 
 
 
1