Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. John J. Doyle

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2013 WI 95 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2013AP1215-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
John J. Doyle, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
John J. Doyle, 
          Respondent.   
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DOYLE  
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 27, 2013 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2013 WI 95
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2013AP1215-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against John J. Doyle, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
John J. Doyle, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
NOV 27, 2013 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a stipulation filed by the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney John J. Doyle 
pursuant to SCR 22.121 requesting this court suspend Attorney 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.12 states as follows:  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.   
No. 
2013AP1215-D   
 
2 
 
Doyle's license to practice law in Wisconsin as reciprocal 
discipline identical to that imposed by the Michigan Attorney 
Discipline Board. 
¶2 
Attorney Doyle was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1992.  He was admitted to practice in Michigan the 
same year.  Attorney Doyle's Wisconsin license is currently 
suspended for noncompliance with CLE reporting requirements, 
failure to pay State Bar of Wisconsin dues, and failure to 
submit the required trust account certification to the State 
Bar.  Attorney Doyle has no prior disciplinary history in either 
state.  He most recently practiced in Michigan. 
¶3 
On December 14, 2012, the Michigan Attorney Discipline 
Board filed a formal complaint (the Michigan complaint) against 
Attorney 
Doyle 
alleging 
that 
he 
committed 
the 
following 
misconduct: 
 
Failing to hold property of his clients or third 
persons separate from his own and in an IOLTA, in 
violation of MRPC [Michigan Rules of Professional 
Conduct] 1.15(d);  
                                                                                                                                                             
 
(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. 
2013AP1215-D   
 
3 
 
 
Holding funds other than client or third person 
funds in an IOLTA, in violation of MRPC 1.15(a)(3);  
 
Depositing his own funds in the client trust 
account in excess of an amount reasonably necessary to 
pay financial institution service charges or fees or 
to obtain a waiver of service charges or fees, in 
violation of MRPC 1.15(f) and 8.4(b);   
 
Engaging in conduct that exposes the legal 
profession 
or 
the 
courts 
to 
obloquy, 
contempt, 
censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR [Michigan 
Court Rule] 9.104(2);  
 
Engaging in conduct that is contrary to justice, 
ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 
9.104(3); and 
 
Engaging in conduct in violation of the Rules of 
Professional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and 
MCR 9.104(4).  
¶4 
More specifically, the Michigan complaint alleged that 
Attorney Doyle wrote "many" checks from his IOLTA account that 
were personal or business-related and unrelated to any client 
matter he was handling.  Attorney Doyle also deposited client 
funds into and made disbursements of client funds from this 
IOLTA 
account, 
thus 
knowingly 
and 
improperly 
commingling 
personal and client funds in the IOLTA.  The Michigan complaint 
also alleged that Attorney Doyle improperly used his IOLTA to 
avoid a levy or garnishment of the funds by the federal 
government and the State of Michigan.   
¶5 
The parties to the Michigan disciplinary proceeding 
executed a stipulation in which Attorney Doyle admitted the 
allegations of misconduct.   
¶6 
On April 18, 2013, the Michigan Attorney Discipline 
Board approved the stipulation and suspended Attorney Doyle's 
No. 
2013AP1215-D   
 
4 
 
Michigan law license for 179 days, commencing June 1, 2013.2  The 
suspension order imposed certain conditions on Attorney Doyle, 
including: 
 
1. 
During the term of suspension, respondent 
shall arrange, pay for and participate in an audit of 
his practice to be conducted by the State Bar of 
Michigan Practice Management Resource Center (PMRC).  
 
2. 
Respondent agrees that a copy of the signed 
stipulation for consent order of discipline shall 
serve as a disclosure authorization and that the PMRC 
may provide and discuss the audit report with the 
Grievance Administrator's staff.  
 
3. 
Respondent shall promptly take any action 
necessary to implement all reasonable recommendations 
flowing from the PMRC audit and report his progress 
toward 
such 
implementation 
to 
the 
Grievance 
Administrator on a monthly basis.  
 
4. 
Respondent will attend the next presentation 
of the Tips and Tools for a Successful Practice 
Workshop to be presented by the State Bar of Michigan. 
The next presentation of the workshop is currently 
scheduled for May 7, 2013.  Respondent shall provide a 
written 
verification 
of 
attendance 
to 
both 
the 
Grievance Administrator and the Attorney Discipline 
Board within seven days of participation in this 
course. 
¶7 
On May 31, 2013, the OLR filed a disciplinary 
complaint (the OLR's complaint) against Attorney Doyle advising 
Attorney Doyle he is subject to reciprocal discipline in 
Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 22.22.3  The OLR also alleged that by 
                                                 
2 On May 16, 2013, the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board 
amended its suspension order to set the commencement date of 
Attorney Doyle's license suspension to May 14, 2013, rather than 
June 1, 2013. 
3 SCR 22.22 provides:  Reciprocal discipline. 
No. 
2013AP1215-D   
 
5 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
(1)  An attorney on whom public discipline for 
misconduct 
or 
a 
license 
suspension 
for 
medical 
incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction 
shall promptly notify the director of the matter.  
Failure to furnish the notice within 20 days of the 
effective date of the order or judgment of the other 
jurisdiction constitutes misconduct.  
 
(2)  Upon the receipt of a certified copy of a 
judgment or order of another jurisdiction imposing 
discipline for misconduct or a license suspension for 
medical incapacity of an attorney admitted to the 
practice of law or engaged in the practice of law in 
this state, the director may file a complaint in the 
supreme court containing all of the following:  
 
(a)  A certified copy of the judgment or order 
from the other jurisdiction. 
 
(b)  A motion requesting an order directing the 
attorney to inform the supreme court in writing within 
20 days of any claim of the attorney predicated on the 
grounds set forth in sub. (3) that the imposition of 
the identical discipline or license suspension by the 
supreme court would be unwarranted and the factual 
basis for the claim. 
 
(3)  The supreme court shall impose the identical 
discipline or license suspension unless one or more of 
the following is present: 
 
(a)  The procedure in the other jurisdiction was 
so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to 
constitute a deprivation of due process. 
 
(b)  There 
was 
such 
an 
infirmity 
of 
proof 
establishing the misconduct or medical incapacity that 
the supreme court could not accept as final the 
conclusion in respect to the misconduct or medical 
incapacity. 
 
(c)  The 
misconduct 
justifies 
substantially 
different discipline in this state. 
 
(4)  Except as provided in sub. (3), a final 
adjudication in another jurisdiction that an attorney 
has engaged in misconduct or has a medical incapacity 
No. 
2013AP1215-D   
 
6 
 
failing to notify the OLR of the suspension of his Michigan law 
license 
within 
20 
days 
of 
the 
effective 
date 
of 
that 
jurisdiction's imposition of public discipline for professional 
misconduct, Attorney Doyle violated SCR 22.22(1). 
¶8 
Attorney Doyle entered into a stipulation with the 
OLR.  He agrees that the facts alleged in the OLR's complaint 
and documents attached thereto form a basis for the discipline 
requested.  Attorney Doyle states he does not claim that any of 
the conditions listed in SCRs 22.22(3)(a)-(c) prevent the 
imposition of reciprocal discipline in this case.  
¶9 
The stipulation properly provides that it did not 
result from plea bargaining.  Attorney Doyle represents he fully 
understands: 
 
(1) 
the 
misconduct 
allegations, 
(2) 
the 
ramifications should the court impose the stipulated level of 
discipline, (3) his right to contest this matter, and (4) his 
                                                                                                                                                             
shall 
be 
conclusive 
evidence 
of 
the 
attorney's 
misconduct or medical incapacity for purposes of a 
proceeding under this rule. 
 
(5)  The supreme court may refer a complaint 
filed under sub. (2) to a referee for a hearing and a 
report and recommendation pursuant to SCR 22.16.  At 
the hearing, the burden is on the party seeking the 
imposition 
of 
discipline 
or 
license 
suspension 
different from that imposed in the other jurisdiction 
to demonstrate that the imposition of identical 
discipline or license suspension by the supreme court 
is unwarranted. 
 
(6)  If the discipline or license suspension 
imposed in the other jurisdiction has been stayed, any 
reciprocal discipline or license suspension imposed by 
the supreme court shall be held in abeyance until the 
stay expires.  
No. 
2013AP1215-D   
 
7 
 
right to consult with counsel.  He further avers that his entry 
into the stipulation was made knowingly and voluntarily and 
represents his decision not to contest the misconduct alleged or 
the discipline sought by the OLR.   
¶10 Attorney Doyle and the OLR jointly request that 
Attorney Doyle's license to practice law in this state be 
suspended for the same period of time imposed by the State of 
Michigan Attorney Discipline Board, 179 days, and that the 
disciplinary order direct Attorney Doyle to comply with all 
court-ordered conditions placed upon his practice by the State 
of Michigan Attorney Discipline Board.  The OLR does not 
recommend imposition of any costs in this matter. 
¶11 Based upon our independent review, we determine that 
the SCR 22.12 stipulation should be accepted, and that Attorney 
Doyle's license to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended as 
discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the State of Michigan 
Attorney 
Discipline 
Board. 
 
We 
further 
determine 
it 
is 
appropriate to suspend Attorney Doyle's license to practice law 
in this state for the same period of time imposed by the State 
of Michigan Attorney Discipline Board, 179 days.  We further 
direct 
Attorney 
Doyle 
to 
comply 
with 
all 
court-ordered 
conditions placed upon his practice by the State of Michigan 
Attorney Discipline Board.  We agree that no costs shall be 
imposed in this matter. 
No. 
2013AP1215-D   
 
8 
 
¶12 IT IS ORDERED that the license of John J. Doyle to 
practice law in the State of Wisconsin is suspended for a period 
of 179 days, effective the date of this order.4 
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that John J. Doyle shall comply 
with the conditions imposed by the State of Michigan Attorney 
Discipline Board. 
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that John J. Doyle shall 
continue compliance with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning 
the duties of a person whose license to practice law in 
Wisconsin has been suspended. 
 
                                                 
4 Attorney Doyle is reminded that his license to practice 
law in Wisconsin remains administratively suspended.  Before 
Attorney Doyle may practice law in Wisconsin, he must provide 
evidence to this court that he has satisfied his obligations 
relating 
to 
trust 
account 
certification 
and 
bar 
dues, 
assessments, and fees, or demonstrated that he has obtained a 
waiver from the State Bar of Wisconsin.  See SCR 22.28(1). 
No. 
2013AP1215-D   
 
 
 
1