2014 WI 39

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2012AP2361-D 

COMPLETE TITLE: Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

William J. Grogan,

 Respondent.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GROGAN

OPINION FILED: June 19, 2014

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT: 

COUNTY:

JUDGE:

JUSTICES:

CONCURRED: 

DISSENTED: 

NOT PARTICIPATING: PROSSER, J., did not participate. 

ATTORNEYS:
2014 WI 39

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2012AP2361-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

William J. Grogan,

 Respondent.

FILED

JUN 19, 2014

Diane M. Fremgen

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license 

revoked.

¶1 PER CURIAM. We review the recommendation of the 

referee, Reserve Judge Robert E. Kinney, that the license of 

Attorney William J. Grogan to practice law in Wisconsin be 

revoked due to professional misconduct. The referee also 

recommended that Attorney Grogan be ordered to pay restitution 
No. 2012AP2361-D 

2

and the costs of this proceeding. Attorney Grogan did not 

timely appeal the report and recommendation.1

¶2 We adopt the referee's findings of fact and 

conclusions of law and agree that the seriousness of Attorney 

Grogan's professional misconduct warrants the revocation of his 

law license. We further agree that he should pay restitution in 

the amounts described below, and that he should pay the costs of 

this proceeding.

¶3 Attorney Grogan was admitted to practice law in

Wisconsin in 1978. He has practiced in the Appleton area.

¶4 Attorney Grogan has been previously disciplined for 

unprofessional conduct. In 2007, Attorney Grogan was publicly 

reprimanded for failing to timely file income and withholding 

tax returns, and failing to provide information in a timely 

fashion during an Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 

investigation. See Public Reprimand of William J. Grogan, No. 

2007-6. In 2011, Attorney Grogan's Wisconsin law license was 

 

1 The referee filed an unsigned version of his report and 

recommendation on November 5, 2013, and filed the signature page 

on November 11, 2013. Counting from the latter of these two 

dates, Attorney Grogan's appeal was due in early December of 

2013. See SCR 22.17(1) (appeal due within 20 days after the 

filing of the referee's report). On December 27, 2013, nearly 

four weeks after his appeal deadline, Attorney Grogan filed a 

hand-written "Petition to Grant Leave to File Notice of Appeal." 

Therein, Attorney Grogan claimed, without any supporting 

documentation, that he had been unable to timely file an appeal 

for health-related reasons. Given both the unsupported nature 

of Attorney Grogan's request and his tendency, shown amply in 

the record, to offer unproven medical excuses for delay, we deny 

his request.
No. 2012AP2361-D 

3

suspended for 60 days for misconduct consisting of five 

violations of trust account rules and one count of failing to 

cooperate with an OLR investigation. In re Disciplinary 

Proceedings Against William J. Grogan, 2011 WI 7, 331 

Wis. 2d 341, 795 N.W.2d 745.

¶5 Since March 7, 2011, Attorney Grogan's Wisconsin law 

license has been suspended continuously. Attorney Grogan has 

not satisfied certain conditions placed on the reinstatement of 

his license following the 60-day disciplinary suspension imposed 

in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against William J. Grogan, 331 

Wis. 2d 341, ¶¶16, 18. Attorney Grogan's license is also 

presently suspended for failing to comply with continuing legal 

education requirements and failing to pay bar dues. Finally, on 

June 16, 2011, and on January 24, 2012, this court temporarily 

suspended Attorney Grogan's license to practice law for his 

willful failure to cooperate in two separate OLR investigations 

concerning certain conduct underlying this opinion. These 

temporary suspensions remain in effect.

¶6 The OLR's complaint against Attorney Grogan consists 

of some 33 counts of misconduct committed in eight separate 

client matters: Charles B. (Counts 1-3); Clayton B. (Counts 4-

8); D.D. (Counts 9-11); L.J. (Counts 12-14); M.S.L. (Counts 15-

20); J.J.M. (Counts 21-26); D.K.K. (Counts 27-29); and C.T. 

(Counts 30-33). Attorney Grogan answered the complaint with a 

general denial of all counts. The referee held a six-day 

hearing on this matter and received post-hearing briefing, after 

which the referee filed a 93-page report concluding that 
No. 2012AP2361-D 

4

Attorney Grogan had committed all 33 alleged acts of 

professional misconduct.

¶7 Given the volume of the factual findings and legal 

conclusions made by the referee, we do not repeat them all here. 

It is sufficient to provide the following summary information 

concerning the serious misconduct at issue in this matter.

¶8 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that, 

contrary to SCR 20:1.3,2 Attorney Grogan willfully failed to act 

with diligence and promptness during his representation of 

Clayton B. (Count 4), M.S.L. (Count 15), and D.K.K. (Count 27).

¶9 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that, 

contrary to SCR 20:1.5(b)(3),3 Attorney Grogan improperly 

retained funds in his trust account during his representation of 

C.T. (Count 31).

¶10 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that, 

contrary to SCR 20:1.15(b)(1),4 Attorney Grogan failed to hold in 

trust, separate from his own property, the property of clients 

 

2 SCR 20:1.3 states, "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 

diligence and promptness in representing a client." 

3 SCR 20:1.5(b)(3) states, "A lawyer shall promptly respond 

to a client's request for information concerning fees and 

expenses."

4 SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) states:

Separate account. 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.
No. 2012AP2361-D 

5

and third persons in his possession during his representation of 

J.J.M. (Count 21) and D.K.K. (Count 28).

¶11 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that, 

contrary to SCR 20:1.15(d)(1),5 Attorney Grogan failed to 

promptly disburse funds that a third party was entitled to 

receive during his representation of J.J.M. (Count 22) and C.T. 

(Count 30).

¶12 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that, 

contrary to SCR 20:1.15(d)(2),6 Attorney Grogan failed to provide 

a full written accounting of funds he received from J.J.M. 

(Count 23).

¶13 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that, 

contrary to SCR 20:1.16(d),7 Attorney Grogan failed upon 

 

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

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.

6 SCR 20:1.15(d)(2) states, "Accounting. Upon final 

distribution of any trust property or upon request by the client 

or a 3rd party having an ownership interest in the property, the 

lawyer shall promptly render a full written accounting regarding 

the property."

7 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides: 

Upon termination of representation, a lawyer 

shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable 
No. 2012AP2361-D 

6

termination of representation of Clayton B. to refund any 

unearned portion of an advanced fee (Count 6).

¶14 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that, 

contrary to SCR 20:3.4(c),8 Attorney Grogan knowingly disobeyed a 

court order during his representation of J.J.M. (Count 24).

¶15 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that, 

contrary to SCR 20:5.5(b)(2),9 Attorney Grogan held out to the 

public or otherwise represented that he was admitted to practice 

law at a time when his law license was suspended (Count 32).

¶16 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that, 

contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c),10 Attorney Grogan engaged in 

dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation during his 

representation of Charles B. (Count 2), Clayton B. (Count 7), 

D.D. (Count 10), L.J. (Count 13), and M.S.L. (Count 18).

 

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.

8 SCR 20:3.4(c) states that 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; . . . ."

9 SCR 20:5.5(b)(2) states that a lawyer who is not admitted 

to practice in this jurisdiction shall not "hold out to the 

public or otherwise represent that the lawyer is admitted to the 

practice of law in this jurisdiction."

10 SCR 20:8.4(c) states it is professional misconduct for a 

lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 

or misrepresentation; . . . ."
No. 2012AP2361-D 

7

¶17 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that, 

contrary to SCR 22.03(2),11 Attorney Grogan failed to fully and 

fairly disclose to the OLR all facts and circumstances 

pertaining to alleged misconduct that occurred during his 

representation of Clayton B. (Count 8), D.D. (Count 11), L.J. 

(Count 14), M.S.L. (Count 20), and D.K.K. (Count 29).

¶18 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that, 

contrary to SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6),12 Attorney Grogan 

failed to fully and fairly disclose to the OLR all facts and 

circumstances pertaining to alleged misconduct that occurred 

during his representation of J.J.M. and C.T., and also willfully 

failed to provide relevant information, fully and truthfully 

answer questions, or furnish documents during the OLR's 

 

11 SCR 22.03(2) states:

Upon commencing an investigation, the director 

shall notify the respondent of the matter being 

investigated unless in the opinion of the director the 

investigation of the matter requires otherwise. The 

respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts 

and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct 

within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail a 

request for a written response. The director may 

allow additional time to respond. Following receipt 

of the response, the director may conduct further 

investigation and may compel the respondent to answer 

questions, furnish documents, and present any 

information deemed relevant to the investigation.

12 SCR 22.03(6) states, "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."
No. 2012AP2361-D 

8

investigation into his work on these same matters (Counts 25 and 

33).

¶19 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that, 

contrary to SCR 22.03(6), Attorney Grogan willfully failed to 

provide relevant information, fully and truthfully answer 

questions, or furnish documents in the course of the OLR's 

investigation into his representation of J.J.M. (Count 26).

¶20 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that, 

contrary to SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b),13 Attorney Grogan failed to 

notify Clayton B. and M.S.L. by certified mail of his license 

suspension and failed to advise them to seek legal advice of 

their choice elsewhere (Counts 5 and 17).

¶21 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that, 

contrary to SCR 22.26(1)(c),14 Attorney Grogan failed to promptly 

 

13 SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b) state:

On or before the effective date of license 

suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 

suspended or revoked shall do . . . 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.

14 SCR 22.26(1)(c) states:

On or before the effective date of license 

suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 

suspended or revoked shall do . . . the following:

. . . .
No. 2012AP2361-D 

9

provide written notification of his license suspension to the 

circuit court in the M.S.L. matter (Count 19).

¶22 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that, 

contrary to SCR 22.26(2),15 Attorney Grogan engaged in the 

practice of law after his license had been suspended during his 

representation of Charles B. (Count 1), D.D. (Count 9), L.J. 

(Count 12), and M.S.L. (Count 16).

¶23 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that,

contrary to SCR 10.03(2),16 Attorney Grogan failed to report 

changes to his office address to the State Bar (Count 3).

 

(c) Promptly provide written notification to the 

court or administrative agency and the attorney for 

each party in a matter pending before a court or 

administrative agency 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. The notice shall identify 

the successor attorney of the attorney's client or, if 

there is none at the time notice is given, shall state 

the client's place of residence.

15 SCR 22.26(2) provides as follows:

An attorney whose license to practice law is 

suspended or revoked or who is suspended from the 

practice of law may not engage in this state in the 

practice of law or in any law work activity 

customarily done by law students, law clerks, or other 

paralegal personnel, except that the attorney may 

engage in law related work in this state for a 

commercial employer itself not engaged in the practice 

of law.

16 SCR 10.03(2) states as follows:

Enrollment. Every person who becomes licensed to 

practice law in this state shall enroll in the state 

bar by registering his or her name and social security 

number with the association within 10 days after 
No. 2012AP2361-D 

10

¶24 After making a determination of misconduct as to all 

33 counts summarized above, the referee evaluated the 

appropriate discipline for Attorney Grogan. The referee 

recommended the revocation of Attorney Grogan's law license. 

The referee wrote that Attorney Grogan's misconduct was

"blatant." He "grossly mistreated" his clients, many of whom 

were financially challenged or otherwise vulnerable. Referring 

to Attorney Grogan's conduct in representing L.J., the referee 

wrote that "[w]e now have the spectacle of a suspended attorney, 

a former district attorney, no less, meeting clients at Burger 

King, taking their money, and essentially disappearing into the 

night. The damage done to the profession is truly 

incalculable."

¶25 The referee vigorously rejected Attorney Grogan's 

defenses to the OLR's allegations. The referee variously 

described Attorney Grogan's defenses as "entirely incredible," 

"riddled with inconsistency," "baseless," and "advanced without 

a shred of supporting documentary evidence . . . , and in the 

face of a mountain of contemporaneous written evidence to the 

contrary." The referee wrote that one of Attorney Grogan's 

arguments during the six-day disciplinary hearing "literally 

 

admission to practice. Every change after enrollment 

in any member's office address or social security 

number shall be reported promptly to the state bar. 

The social security number of a person enrolling in 

the state bar may not be disclosed to any person or 

entity except the supreme court and its agencies, or 

as otherwise provided by supreme court rules.
No. 2012AP2361-D 

11

destroyed any remaining credibility he possessed." The referee 

also commented that Attorney Grogan's noncooperation with the 

disciplinary process rose "to a level never before seen by this 

referee. [Attorney Grogan] has made engaging in basic 

communication with him a monumental struggle. The jobs of OLR 

investigators, Court clerks, and even this referee were 

needlessly magnified by his avoidance behavior."

¶26 As mentioned above, the referee ultimately recommended 

the revocation of Attorney Grogan's law license. The referee 

wrote that "[w]hile it is almost unfathomable to think that an 

attorney would risk censure over such trifling amounts as 

[Attorney Grogan] took in this case, it is the blatant nature of 

the violations, combined with a long pattern of unremorseful 

behavior, which tips the scale."

¶27 Concerning monetary sanctions, the referee recommended 

that Attorney Grogan be ordered to pay restitution as follows:

• Charles B. matter: $300 to the State Bar's Wisconsin 

Lawyers Fund for Client Protection ("Fund"); 

• Clayton B. matter: $875 to the Fund; 

• D.D. matter: $220 to D.D.; 

• L.J. matter: $500 to the Fund; 

• M.S.L. matter: $65 to M.S.L.; 

• J.J.M. matter: $6,500 to the Fund, $1,000 to J.J.M.; 

and

• C.T. matter: $2,000 to C.T.'s mother, C.V.G. 
No. 2012AP2361-D 

12

¶28 The referee also recommended that Attorney Grogan be 

ordered to pay costs of $37,718.88, a figure which represents 

costs through November 26, 2013.

¶29 The OLR did not appeal from the referee report, and, 

as mentioned earlier,17 Attorney Grogan did not timely file an 

appeal. Accordingly, this court's review proceeds pursuant to 

SCR 22.17(2).18 In conducting our review, we will affirm the 

referee's findings of fact unless they are found to be clearly 

erroneous, but we will review the referee's conclusions of law 

on a de novo basis. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 

Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125. 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.

¶30 Based upon our review of the record, we approve and 

adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law. We 

determine that the seriousness of Attorney Grogan's misconduct 

demonstrates that his law license must be revoked to protect the 

public, courts, and legal system from the repetition of the 

 

17 See n.1.

18 SCR 22.17(2) provides:

If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 

shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 

modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 

remand the matter to the referee for additional 

findings; and determine and impose appropriate 

discipline. The court, on its own motion, may order 

the parties to file briefs in the matter.
No. 2012AP2361-D 

13

misconduct; to impress upon Attorney Grogan the seriousness of 

his misconduct; and to deter other attorneys from engaging in 

similar misconduct. We also agree with and adopt the referee's 

recommendation that Attorney Grogan be ordered to pay 

restitution and costs as described above.

¶31 IT IS ORDERED that the license of William J. Grogan to 

practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective as of the date 

of this order.

¶32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the temporary license 

suspensions of June 16, 2011 and January 24, 2012, which arose 

out of William J. Grogan's willful failure to cooperate with two 

separate OLR grievance investigations in this matter, are 

lifted.

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

of this order William J. Grogan shall pay restitution as 

follows:

• Charles B. matter: $300 to the Fund; 

• Clayton B. matter: $875 to the Fund; 

• D.D. matter: $220 to D.D.; 

• L.J. matter: $500 to the Fund; 

• M.S.L. matter: $65 to M.S.L.; 

• J.J.M. matter: $6,500 to the Fund, $1,000 to J.J.M.; 

and

• C.T. matter: $2,000 to C.T.'s mother, C.V.G. 

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

of this order, William J. Grogan shall pay to the Office of 

Lawyer Regulation the imposed costs of this proceeding.
No. 2012AP2361-D 

14

¶35 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified 

above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of 

Lawyer Regulation.

¶36 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that William J. Grogan shall 

comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 

a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 

revoked.

¶37 DAVID T. PROSSER, J., did not participate.
No. 2012AP2361-D 

1