Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Leo Barron Hicks

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2004 WI 12 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
02-2197-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Leo Barron Hicks, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Leo Barron Hicks,  
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HICKS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 27, 2004   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: ABRAHAMSON, C.J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2004 WI 12 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  02-2197-D  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Leo Barron Hicks, Attorney at  
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Leo Barron Hicks,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 27, 2004 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee, Amy Gentz, that Attorney Leo Barron Hicks receive a 
public reprimand for professional misconduct consisting of 
failing to hold a client's property in trust, separate from the 
lawyer's own property; failing to take remedial action when a 
lawyer knows of misconduct by another lawyer in the firm; and 
failing to treat property in which both the lawyer and another 
person claim interests as trust property until there has been an 
No. 
02-2197-D   
 
2 
 
accounting and severance of their interests.  The referee also 
recommends that Attorney Hicks be required to pay the costs of 
the proceeding.  
¶2 
We determine that a public reprimand is appropriate 
discipline for Attorney Hicks' misconduct.  We also order him to 
pay the costs of this proceeding.   
¶3 
Attorney Hicks was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1985.  His license has been under suspension since 
October 31, 2001, for failure to pay state bar dues and since 
June 3, 2002, for failure to comply with mandatory Continuing 
Legal Education (CLE) reporting requirements.  Attorney Hicks 
currently resides in Texas.  
¶4 
Attorney Hicks formerly practiced law in Madison in 
association with Attorney Lauren Brown-Perry.  In 1997 a client 
was referred to the law firm by a legal services plan.  The 
client's case involved a prospective buyer who had backed out of 
an agreement to purchase real estate from the client shortly 
before the closing.  Attorney Brown-Perry accepted the client's 
case and did most, if not all, of the client's legal work.   
¶5 
The client made advance payments of $1500 toward the 
legal fees and signed a fee agreement that provided the retainer 
would be applied toward hourly fees and expenses but would not 
be placed in a trust account.  The agreement did not state an 
hourly rate but the legal services plan required the fee to be 
set at a maximum of $70 per hour.  The agreement also provided 
the client would receive monthly billing statements.   
No. 
02-2197-D   
 
3 
 
¶6 
The case was settled in July of 1998 with the 
prospective buyer and the realtor each paying the client $2000.  
The client was not provided with any monthly billing statements 
as required by the fee agreement.  The client said she 
understood that her $1500 retainer fee covered all or nearly all 
of her fees, and she expected to receive a check for the full 
amount of the $4000 settlement.   
¶7 
At the time the two settlement checks were received, 
the law firm did not have a client trust account so Attorney 
Brown-Perry deposited the two settlement checks into the law 
firm's business checking account.  Prior to the date the first 
check was deposited the account had a balance of $2439.10.  In 
the next week 14 checks cleared the account, 10 signed by 
Attorney Hicks and 4 signed by Attorney Brown-Perry.  The checks 
signed by Attorney Hicks included a late payment to the Internal 
Revenue Service, two checks to Attorney Brown-Perry, and three 
checks to Attorney Hicks personally.  Five days after the 
client's second settlement check was deposited, the balance in 
the account was only $3520.21, which was less than the $4000 in 
settlement proceeds allegedly being held for the client.  In the 
next two weeks numerous other checks were written on the 
account, several deposits were received, and the account became 
overdrawn.  No distribution had yet been made to the client. 
¶8 
Attorney Hicks said he was advised by Attorney Brown-
Perry that she would deposit the client's settlement funds into 
an account with the law firm.  Attorney Hicks said it was his 
understanding that Attorney Brown-Perry intended to promptly 
No. 
02-2197-D   
 
4 
 
satisfy the client's claim, but no payment was made to the 
client for four months after her settlement proceeds were 
received.  In late November 1998 Attorney Hicks signed a check 
payable to the client in the amount of $2028.  Attorney Brown-
Perry mailed the check to the client indicating the settlement 
balance was enclosed but she provided no explanation for the 
deduction of $1982 from the $4000 settlement.   
¶9 
Although Attorney Brown-Perry's cover letter to the 
client said a billing statement was enclosed, no billing 
statement was in fact enclosed, nor had one been prepared.  The 
client did not cash the check.  Instead she made frequent phone 
calls to the law firm asking for an explanation why the check 
was written for less than the $4000 settlement.  Attorney Hicks 
personally took some of the phone calls from the client 
inquiring 
about 
the 
balance 
of 
her 
settlement 
proceeds.  
Attorney Hicks said he advised Attorney Brown-Perry of the calls 
and requested that she take appropriate action.   
¶10 In February 1999 Attorney Hicks opened a money-market 
savings account entitled "Hicks & Brown-Perry Law Office, 
[client] Account" and deposited fee payments totaling $2587 into 
the account.  No checks were ever written on the account, and 
the client never received an accounting or billing statement.   
¶11 In April 1999, while the check previously sent to the 
client was still outstanding, the law firm closed the business 
account on which the check had been written and transferred the 
remaining funds into a new account.  A new check was not 
No. 
02-2197-D   
 
5 
 
provided to the client so the check she was holding would no 
longer have been honored had it been presented for payment.  
¶12 On April 14, 1999, Attorneys Hicks and Brown-Perry 
signed a new account authorization for removing the client's 
name from the account Attorney Hicks had previously opened for 
her and retitled the account as the law firm's IOLTA Trust 
Account.  Attorneys Hicks and Brown-Perry reported this account 
as their firm's trust account to the state bar and the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation (OLR).   
¶13 The client hired a lawyer to file a small claims 
action against Attorney Brown-Perry to recover her settlement 
proceeds.  The small claims case was concluded in December of 
1999, more than 16 months after the law firm had received the 
settlement funds, with an agreement that Attorney Brown-Perry 
would pay the client the full amount of the settlement plus an 
additional $1000, for a total payment of $5000.  Part of the 
settlement was paid out of the firm's IOLTA Trust Account.  
Attorney Hicks' association with Attorney Brown-Perry ended soon 
thereafter. 
¶14 The 
OLR 
filed 
a 
disciplinary 
complaint 
against 
Attorney Brown-Perry arising out of her mishandling of the 
client's funds.  Her license was suspended as a result of her 
misconduct.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Brown-Perry, 
2003 WI 151, 267 Wis. 2d 184, 672 N.W.2d 287.   
No. 
02-2197-D   
 
6 
 
¶15 On August 19, 2002, the OLR filed a complaint alleging 
that Attorney Hicks violated SCR 20:1.15(a),1 SCR 20:5.1(c)(2),2 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.15(a) provides: 
(a) 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. 
2 SCR 20:5.1(c)(2) provides: 
(c) A lawyer shall be responsible for another 
lawyer's 
violation of 
the Rules 
of Professional 
Conduct if:  
No. 
02-2197-D   
 
7 
 
and SCR 20:1.15(d).3  Attorney Hicks filed an answer, affirmative 
defenses, and counterclaim in which he asserted that he lacked 
knowledge of when Attorney Brown-Perry deposited the checks and 
that he did not become personally aware, nor should he have 
become aware, that his partner had commingled the client's funds 
until the OLR's inquiry in August of 2000.   
¶16 In September of 2003 the parties entered into a 
stipulation whereby Attorney Hicks withdrew his answer to the 
OLR's complaint and pled no contest to each and every allegation 
of misconduct contained in the complaint.  The stipulation 
further provided that the complaint could be relied upon by the 
referee as the basis for establishing the factual record in the 
matter.   
¶17 The referee issued her report and recommendation on 
October 28, 2003.  She found that all of the factual allegations 
in the OLR's complaint had been proven and concluded that 
                                                                                                                                                             
(2) the lawyer is a partner in the law firm in 
which the other lawyer practices, or has direct 
supervisory authority over the other lawyer, and knows 
of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be 
avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable 
remedial action. 
3 SCR 20:1.15(d) provides: 
(d) When, in the representation, a lawyer is in 
possession of property in which both the lawyer and 
another person claim interests, the property shall be 
treated by the lawyer as trust property until there is 
an accounting and severance of their interests. If a 
dispute arises concerning their respective interests, 
the portion in dispute shall continue to be treated as 
trust property until the dispute is resolved. 
No. 
02-2197-D   
 
8 
 
Attorney Hicks had violated the three supreme court rules as 
alleged in the complaint.  She recommended that this court 
impose a public reprimand on Attorney Hicks, and she further 
recommended that the costs of the proceeding be assessed against 
him.   
¶18 Attorney Hicks filed an objection to the OLR's 
statement of costs, asserting that the OLR is estopped from 
requesting an assessment of costs because in early 2002, before 
the complaint was filed, the OLR offered Attorney Hicks the 
opportunity to consent to a public reprimand and informed him 
that if he so consented no costs would be sought.  The OLR 
responds 
that 
although 
it 
did 
offer 
Attorney 
Hicks 
the 
opportunity to resolve the matter without costs prior to the 
filing of the complaint, it was unreasonable for Attorney Hicks 
to assume that no costs would be assessed after the disciplinary 
complaint was filed and after he litigated the case nearly up to 
the date of the scheduled hearing before the referee.  
¶19 We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law.  Attorney Hicks' misconduct with respect to 
the handling of the client's funds and the mishandling of his 
firm's trust account are serious failings.  As discipline for 
the professional misconduct we impose a public reprimand.  We 
also order Attorney Hicks to pay the costs of this proceeding, 
as recommended by the referee.  Attorney Hicks chose to litigate 
the matter, and the OLR incurred costs which are appropriately 
assessed against Attorney Hicks. 
No. 
02-2197-D   
 
9 
 
¶20 IT IS ORDERED that Attorney Leo Barron Hicks be 
publicly reprimanded for his professional misconduct.  
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Leo Barron Hicks shall pay to the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding in the amount 
of $1644.84.  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 Attorney Leo 
Barron Hicks to practice law in Wisconsin shall be suspended 
until further order of the court.  
¶22 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J., did not participate.  
 
No. 
02-2197-D   
 
 
 
1