2015 WI 25

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2013AP2140-D

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings

Against

Thomas J. McClure, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Thomas J. McClure,

 Respondent.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MCCLURE

OPINION FILED: March 10, 2015

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT:

COUNTY:

JUDGE:

JUSTICES:

CONCURRED:

DISSENTED:

NOT PARTICIPATING: 

ATTORNEYS:
2015 WI 25

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2013AP2140-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Thomas J. McClure, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Thomas J. McClure,

 Respondent.

FILED

MAR 10, 2015

Diane M. Fremgen

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license 

suspended. 

¶1 PER CURIAM. We review, pursuant to Supreme Court 

Rule (SCR) 22.17(2), the report of the referee, Reserve Judge 

Dennis J. Flynn, recommending that the court suspend Attorney 

Thomas J. McClure's license to practice law in Wisconsin for a 

period of six months less one day for 20 counts of misconduct, 

and also recommending that Attorney McClure be required to 

complete continuing legal education (CLE) ethics courses. 
No. 2013AP2140-D 

2

¶2 Upon careful review of the matter, we adopt the 

referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law. We conclude, 

however, that a five-month suspension of Attorney McClure's 

license is an appropriate sanction for his misconduct. We also 

conclude that the full costs of the proceeding, which are 

$13,677.99 as of December 1, 2014, should be assessed against 

Attorney McClure. 

¶3 Attorney McClure was admitted to the practice of law 

in Wisconsin in 1980 and practices in Delafield. He has no 

prior disciplinary history.

¶4 On September 26, 2013, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 

(OLR) filed a complaint alleging that Attorney McClure committed 

21 counts of misconduct. Ten counts of misconduct arose out of 

his handling of three client manners. The remaining 11 counts 

consisted of various trust account violations.

¶5 Referee Flynn was appointed on February 18, 2014. On 

September 9, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation whereby 

Attorney McClure admitted the facts underlying Counts 1-19 of 

the OLR's complaint. An evidentiary hearing was held before the 

referee in October 2014. The referee issued his report and 

recommendation on November 10, 2014. The referee found that the 

OLR had met its burden of proof with respect to Counts 1-19 and 

Count 21 of the OLR's complaint. The referee found that the OLR 

did not meet its burden of proof as to Count 20.

¶6 Counts One-Six of the OLR's complaint arose out of 

Attorney McClure's representation of J.J. In or about May 2007, 

J.J. hired Attorney McClure to represent him regarding a claim 
No. 2013AP2140-D 

3

for personal injuries that resulted from a motor vehicle 

accident. As part of a mediation agreement signed by J.J. and 

Attorney McClure, J.J. agreed to settle his claim against the 

driver of the other vehicle and the driver's insurance company 

for a payment of $79,000. In a settlement statement to J.J., 

Attorney McClure specified that the McClure Law Offices' 

attorney fees and costs were $26,333.07; the attorneys costs, 

including a partial waiver of $72.67, were $747.80; the 

outstanding medical bills were $41,919.13; and the net 

settlement recovery to J.J. was $10,000.00.

¶7 J.J. received a net settlement proceeds check from 

Attorney McClure in the amount of $10,000 on June 10, 2008. 

That same day, Attorney McClure made payments with trust account 

checks to various medical providers totaling $12,567.20. Over 

the next two years, Attorney McClure made various withdrawals 

and wrote various checks out of his trust account which resulted 

in insufficient funds remaining in the trust account to pay 

J.J.'s outstanding medical bills as required by the settlement 

statement.

¶8 In July of 2010, J.J. wrote to Attorney McClure saying 

that several medical bills were still unpaid and were adversely 

affecting J.J.'s credit rating. Attorney McClure made the final 

payment to J.J.'s medical providers in February 2011. 

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

misconduct with respect to Attorney McClure's handling of J.J.'s 

settlement:
No. 2013AP2140-D 

4

[COUNT ONE] By failing to inform [J.J.] that he 

had not promptly paid the medical providers from the 

settlement funds, and having paid one of the medical 

providers more than a year after the settlement, and 

again failing to inform [J.J.] that he had not paid 

several medical providers, McClure violated 

SCR 20:1.4(a)(3).1

[COUNT TWO] By failing to hold in trust the 

funds owed to numerous medical providers from the 

settlement, McClure violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).2

[COUNT THREE] By commingling his own funds with 

[J.J.'s] settlement funds in his trust account, 

McClure violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(3).3

[COUNT FOUR] By failing to promptly deliver 

funds to numerous medical providers, including six 

medical providers that did not receive their funds for 

more than two years after the settlement, McClure 

violated SCR 20:1.15(d)(1).4

 

1 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides that a lawyer shall "keep the 

client reasonably informed about the status of the matter."

2 SCR 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.

3 SCR 20:1.15(b)(3) provides that "[n]o 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."

4 SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) provides:

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 

(continued)
No. 2013AP2140-D 

5

[COUNT FIVE] By failing to maintain a subsidiary 

individual client ledger for [J.J.], McClure violated 

SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)b.5

[COUNT SIX] By converting [J.J.'s] settlement 

funds, which were owed to numerous medical providers, 

for his own personal use and/or delivering the funds 

to his other clients or third parties, McClure 

violated SCR 20:8.4(c).6

¶10 After observing various irregularities in Attorney 

McClure's trust account statements that came to light during the 

OLR's investigation into J.J.'s grievance, the OLR initiated an 

inquiry into Attorney McClure's trust account practices. That 

inquiry resulted in the 11 counts of misconduct as enumerated in 

the OLR's complaint:

 

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.

5 SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)b. provides:

A subsidiary ledger shall be maintained for each 

client or 3rd party for whom the lawyer receives trust 

funds that are deposited in an IOLTA account or any 

other pooled trust account. The lawyer shall record 

each receipt and disbursement of a client's or 3rd 

party's funds and the balance following each 

transaction. 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.

6 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct 

for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,

deceit or misrepresentation."
No. 2013AP2140-D 

6

[COUNT SEVEN] By failing to hold in trust his 

clients' funds, separate from his own personal funds, 

McClure violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).

[COUNT EIGHT] By commingling his own funds with 

the funds of clients and third-parties in his trust 

account for at least four years, McClure violated 

SCR 20:1.15(b)(3).

[COUNT NINE] By making at least 670 in-person 

cash withdrawals from his trust account, McClure 

violated SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)a.7

[COUNT TEN] Having his trust account check 

number 161 returned for insufficient funds, and 

therefore disbursing the funds from his trust account 

without the funds being available for disbursement, 

McClure violated SCR 20:1.15(e)(5)a.8

[COUNT ELEVEN] By failing to maintain a 

transaction register for his trust account, McClure 

violated SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)a.9

 

7 SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)a. provides that "[n]o 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.'"

8 SCR 20:1.15(e)(5)a. provides that "[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."

9 SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)a. provides:

The transaction register shall contain a 

chronological record of all account transactions, and 

shall include all of the following:

1. the date, source, and amount of all deposits;

2. the date, check or transaction number, payee 

and amount of all disbursements, whether by check, 

wire transfer, or other means;

3. the date and amount of every other deposit or 

deduction of whatever nature;

(continued)
No. 2013AP2140-D 

7

[COUNT TWELVE] By failing to maintain individual 

client ledgers for his clients, McClure violated 

SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)b.

[COUNT THIRTEEN] By failing to prepare and 

retain a printed reconciliation report on a regular 

and periodic basis not less frequently than every 30 

days, McClure violated SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)g.10

[COUNT FOURTEEN] By failing to file an overdraft 

notification agreement with OLR for his trust account, 

McClure violated SCR 20:1.15(h)(8).11

 

4. the identity of the client for whom funds were 

deposited or disbursed; and

5. the balance in the account after each 

transaction.

10 SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)g. provides:

For each trust account, the lawyer shall prepare 

and retain a printed reconciliation report on a 

regular and periodic basis not less frequently than 

every 30 days. Each reconciliation report shall show 

all of the following balances and verify that they are 

identical:

1. the balance that appears in the transaction 

register as of the reporting date;

2. the total of all subsidiary ledger balances 

for IOLTA accounts and other pooled trust accounts, 

determined by listing and totaling the balances in the 

individual client ledgers and the ledger for account 

fees and charges, as of the reporting date; and

3. the adjusted balance, determined by adding 

outstanding deposits and other credits to the balance 

in the financial institution's monthly statement and 

subtracting outstanding checks and other deductions 

from the balance in the monthly statement.

11 SCR 20:1.15(h)(8) provides: 

Every lawyer practicing or admitted to practice 

in Wisconsin shall comply with the reporting and 

(continued)
No. 2013AP2140-D 

8

[COUNT FIFTEEN] By filing false certificates 

with the State Bar of Wisconsin in which he certified 

that he had complied with each of the record-keeping 

requirements, McClure violated SCR 20:1.15(i)(4).12

[COUNT SIXTEEN] By placing all monies received 

by his office into his trust account in an effort to 

protect income from seizure at a time when he was the 

subject of Wisconsin Department of Revenue tax 

warrants, McClure violated SCR 20:8.4(c).

[COUNT SEVENTEEN] By failing to timely file his 

state and federal tax returns for the years of 2008, 

2009, and 2010, McClure violated SCR 20:8.4(f).13

¶11 The OLR's complaint also alleged three counts of 

misconduct arising out of Attorney McClure's representation of 

J.K. J.K. was charged in a Kenosha County case filed in June of 

2011 with Child Abuse-Intentionally Cause Harm, a class H 

felony; Battery, a class A misdemeanor; and Disorderly Conduct, 

a class B misdemeanor. 

¶12 On June 13, 2011, Attorney McClure sent an electronic 

response via a "legalmatch" website to M.K., J.K.'s mother, 

 

production requirements of this subsection, including 

filing of an overdraft notification agreement for each 

IOLTA account, each draft-type trust account and each 

draft-type fiduciary account that is not subject to an 

alternative protection under sub. (j)(9).

12 SCR 20:1.15(i)(4) provides that "[t]he 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."

13 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."
No. 2013AP2140-D 

9

saying that Attorney McClure was a respected former prosecutor 

with 20 years of private practice criminal defense experience 

and that Attorney McClure could help J.K. Attorney McClure told 

M.K. that he offered "a free consultation, convenient evening 

and weekend appointments and a simple up front flat fee." 

Attorney McClure went on to tell M.K., "The total fee that I 

would charge for this case is $2,500, pending more information 

from you. The entire fee payment is due when I take your case. 

Standard flat fee for domestic violence and felony child abuse 

charge."

¶13 On June 16, 2011, M.K. hired Attorney McClure to 

represent her son and paid Attorney McClure a flat fee of 

$2,500, which Attorney McClure deposited directly into his 

business account. There is no documentary evidence of a written 

fee agreement between Attorney McClure and M.K. and/or J.K. 

J.K. obtained successor counsel, whose appearance was entered on 

September 8, 2011.

¶14 M.K. and J.K. filed a grievance against Attorney 

McClure, alleging various concerns about his representation of 

J.K. M.K. stated in the grievance, "Attorney McClure informed 

me after I hired him that it would cost me an additional 

$2,500.00 if my son's case went to trial."

¶15 The OLR's complaint alleged three counts of misconduct 

with respect to Attorney McClure's handling of J.K.'s case:

[COUNT EIGHTEEN] By failing to have a written 

fee agreement communicating the requisite information 
No. 2013AP2140-D 

10

for his representation of [J.K.], McClure violated 

SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2).14

[COUNT NINETEEN] By depositing [J.K.'s] unearned 

advanced fee payment directly into his business bank 

account, without acting in a manner indicating an 

intention to use the alternative fee placement 

measures stated in SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m), McClure 

violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(4).15

[COUNT TWENTY] By informing his new client that 

he would charge her an additional fee for taking the 

matter to trial which was double the amount he said he 

would charge to handle the engagement, McClure 

violated SCR 20:8.4(c).

 

14 SCR 20:1.5(b), as relevant here, provides: 

(1) The scope of the representation and the basis 

or rate of the fee and expenses for which the client 

will be responsible shall be communicated to the 

client in writing, before or within a reasonable time 

after commencing the representation, except when the 

lawyer will charge a regularly represented client on 

the same basis or rate as in the past. If it is 

reasonably foreseeable that the total cost of 

representation to the client, including attorney's 

fees, will be $1000 or less, the communication may be 

oral or in writing. Any changes in the basis or rate 

of the fee or expenses shall also be communicated in 

writing to the client. 

(2) If the total cost of representation to the 

client, including attorney's fees, is more than $1000, 

the purpose and effect of any retainer or advance fee 

that is paid to the lawyer shall be communicated in 

writing.

15 SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) provides that, "[e]xcept as provided in 

par. (4m), unearned fees and advanced payments of fees shall be 

held in trust until earned by the lawyer, and withdrawn pursuant 

to sub. (g). Funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for 

payment of costs shall be held in trust until the costs are 

incurred."
No. 2013AP2140-D 

11

¶16 Finally, the OLR's complaint alleged one count of 

misconduct with respect to Attorney McClure's representation of 

C.G. On February 12, 2010, Attorney McClure sent an electronic 

response via the "legalmatch" website to a member of C.G.'s 

family, saying, "I am available immediately and do not charge

for the initial consultation. I practice in this court 

regularly and am a respected former Rock County Asst. DA." 

Attorney McClure stated that the total fee he would charge for 

the case was $2,500 and that the entire fee payment would be due 

when he took the case.

¶17 C.G. hired Attorney McClure to represent him on 

charges of possession of THC (second offense), a class I felony; 

Manufacture/Deliver THC, a class F felony; and Maintain Drug 

Trafficking Place, a class I felony. Attorney McClure was also 

hired to represent C.G. in a revocation case. Both cases were 

pending in Rock County.

¶18 On February 23, 2010, C.G.'s mother paid Attorney 

McClure $2,000 as a partial payment of the $2,500 flat fee. On 

April 2, 2010, C.G.'s brother paid Attorney McClure the final 

$500 of the flat fee.

¶19 In March of 2012, over a year after Attorney McClure's 

representation of C.G. concluded, C.G. filed a grievance with 

the OLR alleging various concerns regarding Attorney McClure's 

representation of C.G. As part of his response to the 

grievance, Attorney McClure provided the OLR with a copy of his 

entire file. The file contained no documentary evidence of a 
No. 2013AP2140-D 

12

written fee agreement beyond the electronic communication on 

"legalmatch."

¶20 The OLR's complaint alleged the following count of 

misconduct with respect to Attorney McClure's representation of 

C.G.:

[COUNT TWENTY-ONE] By failing to have a written 

fee agreement communicating the requisite information 

for his representation of [C.G.], McClure violated 

SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2).

¶21 By entering into the stipulation, Attorney McClure 

admitted the facts underlying Counts 1-19 of the OLR's 

complaint. He contested Counts 20 and 21. The referee 

concluded that the OLR failed to meet its burden of proof as to 

Count 20. The referee found that the OLR did meet its burden of 

proof as to Count 21. Thus, the referee found that Attorney 

McClure committed 20 counts of misconduct.

¶22 The referee noted that the main focus of the 

evidentiary hearing was on the appropriate sanction to be 

imposed in this case. The referee noted that both parties 

recommended some period of license suspension, with the OLR 

seeking a two-year suspension and Attorney McClure seeking a 

suspension in the three to five month range. The referee said 

the case presented both aggravating and mitigating factors, with 

the aggravating factors including the fact that there were 20 

counts of misconduct that occurred over a number of years and 

involved several clients. The referee said Attorney McClure's 

intent as to the misconduct can be discerned from the incidents 

related to the tax warrants, the comingling of personal and 
No. 2013AP2140-D 

13

trust account funds, the withholding of payments due to J.J.'s 

medical providers, and the use of trust account funds for 

personal purposes. In addition, the referee noted that J.J.'s 

credit was negatively affected as a result of the late payments 

made from settlement funds to medical providers, and the referee 

found that Attorney McClure engaged in deceit with respect to 

failure to maintain client communication with J.J.

¶23 The referee found that numerous mitigating factors 

existed in this matter, including the fact that no monies were 

lost to clients or medical providers with respect to any of the 

trust account anomalies; Attorney McClure has no prior 

disciplinary history; Attorney McClure cooperated fully with the 

OLR in its investigation; Attorney McClure has made a real 

effort to provide restitution to J.J. for the injury to his 

credit; and Attorney McClure had many serious personal problems 

that impacted his actions, including the death of his first 

grandchild, caring for his elderly parents, attending the needs 

of his mentally ill older brother, and taking on an excessive 

number of pro bono cases. The referee found that Attorney 

McClure was genuinely remorseful. The referee said Attorney 

McClure is and has been throughout his legal career a lawyer 

respected by his clients, his peers, and the judges before whom 

he practiced, and was known for his willingness to help others 

and for not seeking personal wealth. The referee said Attorney 

McClure has publicly acknowledged his misconduct to the faith 

community at his church as part of his personal rehabilitation, 
No. 2013AP2140-D 

14

and the referee said this demonstrates the attorney's commitment 

to not again engage in lawyer misconduct.

¶24 After noting that the OLR's complaint alleged 21 

separate acts of misconduct, the referee said:

But something is unusual. Why are there so many 

separate Counts charged here? It appears that 

Complainant decided to include in its Complaint every 

possible wrong it could find. While that is its 

right, it still causes the Referee to wonder why this 

happened in a case where the attorney of over 33 years 

here in Wisconsin had never had any prior discipline 

and no client or medical provider lost any funds and 

OLR knew of the personal hardships which impacted that 

attorney during the period of misconduct. OLR has not 

challenged Respondent's assertion of him having many, 

many serious personal issues affecting him during the 

time period of the misconduct. It appears to the 

referee from the case record that the reason for 

Complainant bringing so many Counts was/is to create, 

for the Sanction portion of the proceeding, an 

impression that a great wrong has occurred because of 

the number of findings of misconduct and, therefore, a 

major and significant penalty should be imposed.

The danger with that approach is that the 

prosecutor then is forever encouraged to overcharge in 

cases where there is clear wrong-doing on one or a few 

Counts in order to argue for and obtain the imposition 

of ever more severe sanctions. Here the Respondent 

acknowledged his wrongdoing as can be seen by the 

stipulation that was received into the case record. 

But when all is said and done the Respondent still is 

seen to have committed acts of misconduct in the areas 

of his Trust Account, his fee agreement/communication 

document and dishonesty. Saying the foregoing is in 

no way an effort to diminish the misconduct that 

occurred. But did Respondent's conduct warrant a 

complaint with 21 separate Counts? A schoolyard 

metaphor would be that piling on was occurring by 

youngsters during the recess.

. . . .
No. 2013AP2140-D 

15

In this case it appears that the prosecutor has 

filed an unreasonable and excessive number of Counts, 

not because it could meet its burden, but in order to 

coerce and unfairly impact that portion of the 

proceedings that addresses sanctions. The referee 

doesn't know what should be the exact number of Counts 

in this case, but 21 would appear clearly excessive 

and intended to influence the sanctions that should be 

imposed. . . . .

¶25 The referee went on to say:

Respondent is a very good, but not a perfect, man 

and attorney. On balance in his 33-plus years as a 

lawyer he has labored hard and brought great credit to 

the legal profession. . . . That said, however, it 

is also clear that he has violated . . . the Supreme 

Court Rules that regulate all attorneys in this State. 

The public must be protected from misconduct by an 

attorney that causes resources to be converted and 

diminishes respect for the rule of law. While 

respondent's misconduct was real and over a 

substantial period of time, it is mitigated by his 

very positive and exemplary 33 year career as a 

practicing lawyer, his actions taken to correct the 

consequences of his misconduct, and by the great 

number of personal struggles that confronted and 

motivated him as he lost his moral compass during the 

very period when the misconduct occurred. . . . As a 

59 year old man with no prior lawyer misconduct, he is 

seeking an opportunity to be sanctioned fairly and 

appropriately. 

¶26 The referee recommended that Attorney McClure's 

license to practice law be suspended for a period of six months 

less one day, the result being that the attorney would be able 

to obtain the reinstatement of his law license upon 

demonstrating, through an affidavit, that he is in full 

compliance with all terms and conditions of the order of 

suspension. See SCR 22.28(2). The referee also recommended 

that Attorney McClure be ordered to successfully complete 15 

hours of CLE ethics courses, at least eight of which should 
No. 2013AP2140-D 

16

focus on trust account administration. The referee further 

recommended that Attorney McClure be responsible for the full 

costs of the disciplinary proceeding. The referee said the 

sanctions are significant and are appropriate to address the 

wrongdoing that occurred here as well as to achieve the 

important goal of deterrence in the future.

¶27 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, 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. 

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

of fact are clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we adopt them. We 

also agree with the referee's conclusions of law that Attorney 

McClure violated the supreme court rules set forth above.

¶29 With respect to the appropriate level of discipline, 

upon careful review of the matter, we conclude that a five-month 

suspension is appropriate. As the referee pointed out, Attorney 

McClure's law practice now spans more than 34 years and he has 

no prior disciplinary history. It is also significant to 

reiterate that no clients or medical providers lost any funds, 

and that Attorney McClure fully cooperated with the OLR and 

entered into a stipulation whereby he admitted virtually all the 

facts alleged in the complaint. We also find it significant 

that the referee, who was in the best position to judge witness 
No. 2013AP2140-D 

17

credibility, found Attorney McClure to be genuinely remorseful. 

In addition, the OLR does not dispute the fact that Attorney 

McClure was faced with a multitude of personal problems during 

the time period at issue in this case.

¶30 We also share the referee's concern that there was 

perhaps an element of overcharging, or at least parsing the 

misconduct into more counts than was truly warranted. We fully 

agree with the referee that Attorney McClure's misconduct was 

not insignificant and warrants a suspension. However, after 

careful consideration of the matter, including the various 

aggravating and mitigating factors identified by the referee, we 

conclude that a five-month suspension will sufficiently protect 

the public from similar misconduct as well as impose upon 

Attorney McClure the gravity of his offenses. While no two 

attorney disciplinary cases are precisely the same, a five-month 

suspension is generally consistent with the sanctions imposed in 

somewhat analogous situations. See, e.g., In re Disciplinary 

Proceedings Against Wood, 2013 WI 11, 345 Wis. 2d 279, 

825 N.W.2d 473 (six-month suspension imposed for 28 counts of 

misconduct, including multiple trust account violations). We 

further agree with the referee's recommendation that Attorney 

McClure should be required to successfully complete 15 hours of 

CLE ethics courses, with at least eight of those hours focusing 

on trust account administration. Finally, we agree with the 

referee that Attorney McClure should bear the full costs of this 

proceeding.
No. 2013AP2140-D 

18

¶31 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Thomas J. McClure to 

practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of five 

months, effective April 9, 2015.

¶32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of the 

reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin, 

Thomas J. McClure shall successfully complete 15 hours of 

continuing legal education ethics courses, with at least eight 

of those hours focusing on trust account administration.

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

of this order, Thomas J. McClure should pay to the Office of

Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 

$13,677.99.

¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Thomas J. McClure 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. 

¶35 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 

conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See

SCR 22.28(2).
No. 2013AP2140-D 

1