2016 WI 36

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2014AP2366-D

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Raymond M. Clark, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Raymond M. Clark,

 Respondent.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CLARK

OPINION FILED: May 17, 2016

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT:

COUNTY:

JUDGE:

JUSTICES:

CONCURRED:

DISSENTED:

NOT PARTICIPATING: 

ATTORNEYS:
2016 WI 36

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2014AP2366-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Raymond M. Clark, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Raymond M. Clark,

 Respondent.

FILED

MAY 17, 2016

Diane M. Fremgen

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license 

suspended. 

¶1 PER CURIAM. We review the report and recommendation 

of Referee Hannah C. Dugan that the license of Raymond M. Clark 

be suspended for 120 days for professional misconduct. The 

referee also recommends that Attorney Clark pay the full costs 

of the proceeding, which are $16,192.21 as of March 29, 2016, 

and that he be required to take six continuing legal education 
No. 2014AP2366-D 

2

credits in trust account management, to be approved by the 

Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR).

¶2 After careful review of this matter, we adopt the 

referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law. We agree 

that a four-month suspension of Attorney Clark's license is an 

appropriate sanction for his misconduct. We also agree that the 

full costs of the proceeding should be assessed against Attorney 

Clark, and we further agree that Attorney Clark should be 

required to obtain six continuing legal education credits in 

trust account management. 

¶3 Attorney Clark was admitted to practice law in 

Wisconsin in 1959. The most recent address furnished by 

Attorney Clark to the State Bar of Wisconsin is in Menomonee 

Falls, Wisconsin. Attorney Clark has no prior disciplinary 

history. 

¶4 On October 9, 2014, the OLR filed a complaint alleging 

that Attorney Clark had engaged in ten counts of misconduct. 

Attorney Clark filed an answer to the complaint on November 17, 

2014. The referee was appointed on December 17, 2014. 

¶5 An evidentiary hearing was held before the referee on 

March 5, 2015. At the hearing, the parties presented a signed 

stipulation, dated March 2, 2015. As part of the stipulation, 

Attorney Clark admitted five counts of the complaint and entered 

no contest pleas to four counts. During the course of the 

evidentiary hearing, the OLR made a motion to dismiss count ten 

of the complaint. In the stipulation, Attorney Clark agreed 

that the referee may use the allegations of the complaint as an 
No. 2014AP2366-D 

3

adequate factual basis in the record for a determination of 

misconduct as set forth in counts one through nine of the 

complaint. 

¶6 Counts one through five of the OLR's complaint arose 

out of Attorney Clark's representation of T.C. in Milwaukee 

County divorce proceedings. The complaint alleged that in March 

of 2008, the Milwaukee County circuit court entered findings of 

fact, conclusions of law, and a final judgment in the divorce, 

which incorporated by reference all of the terms of a Marital 

Settlement Agreement (MSA) signed by T.C. and her husband, J.C. 

The MSA listed the marital debts and stated that the parties 

were equally liable for their payment. The MSA provided that 

T.C.'s share of a retirement account would be forwarded to 

Attorney Clark and that Attorney Clark "shall withhold said 

monies in order to satisfy petitioner's [T.C's] financial 

responsibilities per the Marital Settlement Agreement. After 

petitioner's financial responsibilities have been satisfied in 

full, petitioner shall receive the remaining balance." 

¶7 In August 2008, Attorney Clark received T.C.'s share 

of the retirement account, totaling $9,341.84. He deposited 

that amount into his IOLTA trust account. Between August 13, 

2008 and September 26, 2008, Attorney Clark disbursed various 

checks from his trust account to himself, including $1,710 of 

the funds on deposit for T.C. On September 26, 2008, Attorney 

Clark made a cash withdrawal in the amount of $1,000 from the 

funds in his trust account attributable to his representation of 

T.C. 
No. 2014AP2366-D 

4

¶8 Although Attorney Clark told T.C. that he was working 

on negotiating several of the debts, as of January 26, 2009, he 

had not paid any of the creditors T.C. was obligated to pay 

pursuant to the MSA. 

¶9 Between January 30, 2009 and March 5, 2009, Attorney 

Clark disbursed another $1,850 of the retirement funds to 

himself. He also disbursed $300 of the funds to his client. He 

did not discuss the disbursements with opposing counsel, seek a 

modification of the MSA, or seek the court's authorization for 

the disbursements. 

¶10 In May 2009, J.C.'s counsel filed a motion for an 

order to show cause due to T.C.'s failure to timely pay her 

portion of the marital debts. Attorney Clark filed a cross 

motion asserting that J.C. had failed to comply with the law 

concerning financial disclosures, disputing that J.C. had paid 

his share of the debts, and asserting that J.C. had interfered 

with IRS refunds. As of June 1, 2009, at least five debts to be 

paid by T.C., totaling $833.15, remained unpaid, but by this 

time Attorney Clark was holding insufficient funds in trust for 

T.C. to pay those debts. 

¶11 At a June 19, 2009 hearing, a Milwaukee County court 

commissioner held that she had no authority other than to 

enforce the MSA. The commissioner ordered T.C. to pay her share 

of the marital debt and ordered that "any monies in trust [] be 

used for outstanding bills forthwith." At the hearing, Attorney 

Clark failed to advise the court that he had already disbursed 

$4,360 of the retirement funds to himself and failed to advise 
No. 2014AP2366-D 

5

that he had made other disbursements and that only $59.73 of the 

retirement funds remained in his trust account. 

¶12 On July 14, 2009, Attorney Clark disbursed $600 to 

himself, exhausting the remaining retirement funds being held in 

trust for T.C. and disbursing funds that belonged to T.C. or 

others. On August 13, 2009, Attorney Clark disbursed $50 from 

his trust account to T.C. By that date, Attorney Clark was no 

longer holding any funds in his trust account attributable to 

T.C. In February 2010, Attorney Clark deposited $1,846.05 in 

his trust account and identified the deposit as "return of fees" 

related to his representation of T.C. 

¶13 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 

misconduct with respect to Attorney Clark's representation of 

T.C.:

[Count One] By failing to take reasonable steps to 

advance [T.C.'s] interests in having her marital debts 

paid in a timely fashion, [Attorney] Clark failed to 

act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 

representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.1

[Count Two] By making a cash withdrawal from the 

funds he held in trust relating to his representation 

of [T.C.], [Attorney] Clark made a prohibited 

transaction by making a disbursement of cash from his 

trust account from funds held in trust for a client in 

violation of SCR 20:1.5(e)(4)a.2

 

1 SCR 20:1.3 provides: "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 

diligence and promptness in representing a client."

2 SCR 20:l.15(e)(4)a provides: "No disbursement of cash 

shall be made from a trust account or from a deposit to a trust 

account, and no check shall be made payable to "Cash."
No. 2014AP2366-D 

6

[Count Three] By failing to hold in trust the 

$1,341.84 entrusted to him for the payment of [T.C.'s] 

share of the marital debts as required under the 

Marital Settlement Agreement and by disbursing funds 

related to his representation of [T.C.] in excess of 

the funds he held in trust related to her case, 

[Attorney] Clark failed to hold in trust, separate 

from his own property, the property of his client and 

3rd parties held in [Attorney] Clark's possession in 

connection with his representation of a client, in 

violation of SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).3

[Count Four] By failing to hold $9,341.84 in trust 

for the payment of [T.C.'s] share of the marital debts 

as part of the Marital Settlement Agreement as ordered 

by the court on March 14, 2008; and by failing to hold 

the remaining $59.73 in trust for the payment of 

[T.C.'s] share of the marital debts as ordered by the 

court on June 19, 2009, [Attorney] Clark knowingly 

disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, 

in violation of SCR 20:3.4(c).4

[Count Five] By disbursing to himself $4,960 of the 

$9,341.84 entrusted to him for the payment of [T.C.'s] 

share of the marital debts, without obtaining the 

prior authorization of the court or opposing counsel 

to do so, [Attorney] Clark engaged in professional 

 

3 20:1.15(b)(1) provides: 

A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the 

lawyer's own property, that property of clients and 

3rd parties that is in the lawyer's possession in 

connection with a representation. All funds of clients 

and 3rd parties paid to a lawyer or law firm in 

connection with a representation shall be deposited in 

one or more identifiable trust accounts.

4 SCR 20:3.4(c) provides: "A lawyer shall not: . . . . 

knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, 

except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid 

obligation exists."
No. 2014AP2366-D 

7

misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or 

misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).5

¶14 Counts six through nine in the OLR's complaint arose 

out of the OLR's investigation and audit of Attorney Clark's 

trust account. Those counts alleged: 

[Count Six] By engaging in a course of conduct to 

protect or hide income and assets from the Wisconsin 

Department of Revenue and/or the Internal Revenue 

Service, including by depositing earned fees and funds 

belonging to [Attorney] Clark and/or the Law Offices 

of Raymond M. Clark in his client trust account, 

[Attorney] Clark placed and retained funds in his 

trust account that did not reasonably relate to 

monthly service charges, in violation of SCR 

20:1.15(b)(3).6

[Count Seven] By engaging in a course of conduct to 

protect or hide income and assets from the Wisconsin 

Department of Revenue and/or the Internal Revenue 

Service, including by depositing earned fees and funds 

belonging to [Attorney] Clark and/or the Law Offices 

of Raymond M. Clark in his client trust account, 

[Attorney] Clark placed and retained funds in his 

trust account that did not reasonably relate to 

monthly service charges, in violation of SCR 

20:8.4(c).

[Count Eight] By taking cash withdrawals from his 

client trust account, taking cash from his deposits to 

his client trust account, and by issuing checks 

payable to cash from his client trust account, 

[Attorney] Clark made prohibited transactions from his 

 

5 20:8.4(c) provides: "It is professional misconduct for a 

lawyer to: . . . . engage in conduct involving dishonesty, 

fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."

6 SCR 20:l:15(b)(3) provides: "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."
No. 2014AP2366-D 

8

client trust account and from deposits to his client 

trust account, in violation of SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)a.

[Count Nine] By disbursing funds from his client 

trust account in excess of the amount he was then 

holding in trust for specified client matters, 

[Attorney] Clark disbursed funds from an IOLTA account 

and created a negative balance with respect to 

individual clients or matters, in violation of SCR 

20:1.15(f)(1)b.

7

¶15 Count ten of the OLR's complaint alleged that by 

making misrepresentations to the OLR about the purpose and 

intent of his course of conduct that included depositing earned 

fees and funds belonging to Attorney Clark and/or his law office 

into his trust account, Attorney Clark wilfully failed to 

provide relevant information, failed to answer questions fully, 

or to furnish documents to OLR, in violation of SCR 22.03(6)8 and 

SCR 20:8.4(h).9

¶16 The referee granted the OLR's motion to dismiss count 

ten of the complaint. In her report and recommendation, the 

 

7 SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)b provides, in part: . . . . A lawyer 

shall not disburse funds from an IOLTA account or any pooled 

trust account that would create a negative balance with respect 

to any individual client or matter.

8 SCR 22.03(6) provides: "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 disclosure 

are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted 

in the grievance."

9 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides: "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."
No. 2014AP2366-D 

9

referee also concluded that, in spite of the fact that Attorney 

Clark had entered a plea of no contest to count five, the OLR 

had failed to meet its burden of proof with respect to count 

five. The referee said that count five included obligations 

that were not included in the divorce court's orders related to 

T.C.'s family law case and the MSA. The referee said during the 

evidentiary hearing, neither party could establish that the 

court ordered deposits and disbursals of funds required that 

Attorney Clark obtain the prior authorization of the court or 

opposing counsel or that he be required to return to the 

tribunal to obtain authorization to disburse the funds. For 

these reasons, the referee concluded that OLR failed to meet its 

burden of proof with respect to establishing that prior 

authorization needed to be obtained as pled in count five. The 

referee found that the OLR did meet its burden of proof with 

respect to the other eight counts of misconduct alleged in the 

complaint. 

¶17 Turning to the appropriate level of discipline, the 

referee noted that the complaint sought a 15-month suspension of 

Attorney Clark's license. The referee noted that in the 

stipulation, Attorney Clark did not contest and stipulated to 

OLR's request for a 15-month suspension. Nevertheless, the 

referee concluded that a 15-month suspension was too harsh a 

sanction. The referee commented that count ten of the complaint, 

which the OLR ultimately moved to dismiss, contained substantial 

allegations constituting rule violations that, if proven, would 

justify an enhanced sanction. The referee reasoned that if the 
No. 2014AP2366-D 

10

allegations in count ten were not proven, then a reduced 

sanction warranted consideration. 

¶18 The referee noted that Attorney Clark admitted or pled 

no contest to multiple counts of misconduct. She noted that 

during the evidentiary hearing, the OLR commented about Attorney 

Clark's cordiality and his cooperation and remorse. The referee 

also pointed out that Attorney Clark has no prior discipline and 

has practiced law for 56 years. 

¶19 In support of her conclusion that a 120-day suspension 

was appropriate, the referee cited In re Disciplinary 

Proceedings Against Smith, 2013 WI 98, 351 Wis. 2d 368, 841 

N.W.2d 278 and In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Thibodeau, 

2007 WI 118, 305 Wis. 2d 121, 738 N.W.2d 558. Attorney 

Thibodeau received a 60-day suspension for multiple counts of 

misconduct that included holding personal funds in his trust 

account in order to avoid the seizure of those funds by tax 

authorities; failing to hold in trust, separate from his own 

property, property of clients and third persons; and failing to 

comply with recordkeeping requirements. The referee noted that, 

like Attorney Clark, Attorney Thibodeau had not been disciplined 

previously, had entered into a stipulation to resolve the 

matter, and had practiced for a length of time. The referee said 

unlike Attorney Thibodeau, Attorney Clark stipulated to two more 

counts involving three more supreme court rule violations. 

Attorney Clark also violated a court order and had almost twice 

as many years of law practice experience as Attorney Thibodeau. 
No. 2014AP2366-D 

11

¶20 Attorney Smith received a six-month suspension for 20 

counts of misconduct that included failing to promptly deposit 

client and third party funds into her trust account; failing to 

promptly apply client and third party funds toward the payment 

of agreed upon taxes owed by a client and third party; failing 

to comply with court orders; and noncooperation with the OLR. 

The referee said both Attorney Clark and Attorney Smith have the 

aggravating factor of having practiced for a length of time. 

The referee said unlike Attorney Smith, Attorney Clark 

stipulated to 11 fewer counts of misconduct, cooperated with the 

OLR and other authorities, and was not required to pay 

restitution. Attorney Smith had previously been publicly 

reprimanded. 

¶21 The referee ultimately concluded that a 120-day 

suspension of Attorney Clark's license to practice law in 

Wisconsin was an appropriate sanction, considering past case 

law, mitigating and aggravating circumstances, and the fact that 

Attorney Clark entered into a stipulation. The referee also 

recommended that Attorney Clark pay the full costs of the 

proceeding and that he be required to undertake six continuing 

legal education credits in trust account management, to be 

approved by the OLR.

¶22 No appeal has been filed. A referee's findings of 

fact are affirmed 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. The court may impose whatever sanction it sees fit, 
No. 2014AP2366-D 

12

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.

¶23 There is no showing that any of the referee's findings 

of fact are clearly erroneous, and we adopt them. We also agree 

with the referee's conclusions of law that Attorney Clark 

violated the supreme court rules set forth above. 

¶24 Upon careful review of the matter, we agree with the 

referee's recommendation for a four-month suspension of Attorney 

Clark's license to practice law in Wisconsin. Attorney Clark 

has no prior disciplinary history and has expressed remorse for 

his actions. In addition to the Smith and Thibodeau cases cited 

by the referee, it appears that a four-month suspension is 

generally consistent with the sanction imposed in In re 

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Krogman, 2015 WI 113, 365 

Wis. 2d 628, 872 N.W.2d 657 (attorney's license suspended for 

four months for misconduct including trust account violations) 

and In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Tobin, 2007 WI 50, 

300 Wis. 2d 250, 730 N.W.2d 896 (attorney's license suspended 

for four months for misconduct including trust account 

violations and conversions). We also agree that Attorney Clark 

should be required to undertake six continuing legal education 

credits in trust account management and that he should pay the 

full costs of the proceeding. 

¶25 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Raymond M. Clark to 

practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of four 

months, effective June 20, 2016.
No. 2014AP2366-D 

13

¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Raymond M. Clark shall 

undertake six continuing legal education credits in trust 

account management, to be approved by the Office of Lawyer 

Regulation. 

¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 

of this order, Raymond M. Clark shall pay to the Office of 

Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 

$16,192.21. 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 Raymond M. 

Clark to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until 

further order of the court. 

¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Raymond M. Clark shall 

comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 

a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 

suspended. 

¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 

conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See SCR

22.28(2).
No. 2014AP2366-D 

1