Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Mark E. Robinson
Citation: 2005 WI 88
Docket Number: 2004AP001238-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: June 24, 2005

2005 WI 88 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2004AP1238-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Mark E. Robinson, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Mark E. Robinson, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ROBINSON 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 24, 2005   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2005 WI 88
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2004AP1238-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Mark E. Robinson, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Mark E. Robinson, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 24, 2005 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the stipulation filed by 
Attorney Mark E. Robinson and the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) concerning Attorney Robinson's professional misconduct in 
his handling of legal matters for a number of clients.  The 
stipulation was submitted to Referee David R. Friedman.  The 
referee 
reviewed 
the 
stipulation 
and 
issued 
a 
report 
recommending the level of discipline to which the parties 
stipulated, a 
six-month 
suspension 
of 
Attorney Robinson's 
No. 
2004AP1238-D   
 
2 
 
license to practice law in Wisconsin.  In addition, the referee 
recommended that Attorney Robinson be ordered to pay the costs 
of the disciplinary proceeding, which are $4,716.62 as of April 
27, 2005.   
¶2 
We conclude that the referee's findings of fact are 
supported by satisfactory and convincing evidence.  We also 
agree with the referee's conclusions of law that Attorney 
Robinson engaged in professional misconduct and further agree 
that the seriousness of the misconduct warrants a six-month 
suspension of Attorney Robinson's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin. 
¶3 
Attorney Robinson was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1991.  He practices law in Janesville with the firm 
of Roethe, Krohn, Pope, McCarthy & Haas, LLP.  The OLR filed a 
complaint in May 2004, alleging that Attorney Robinson engaged 
in multiple counts of misconduct with respect to his handling of 
various client matters.  All of the misconduct involved real 
estate transactions.  The complaint alleged that in June of 
2000, M.R. signed a real estate listing contract for the sale of 
property she owned in Janesville which she operated as a day 
care facility.  M.R. added a restriction to the real estate 
listing contract prohibiting the sale of the property to any 
teachers who had formerly been associated with the day care 
center.  
On 
July 
6, 2000, 
Attorney 
Robinson 
drafted a 
residential offer to purchase the property on behalf of his 
client, A.B., a developer.  Attorney Robinson informed the real 
estate broker representing M.R. that his client was trying to 
No. 
2004AP1238-D   
 
3 
 
find a residence for a carpenter who would assist him with some 
rental properties.   
¶4 
On July 12, 2000, Attorney Robinson, acting as agent 
for A.B., drafted a second offer to purchase M.R.'s property.  
Before accepting the offer, M.R. asked her broker to inquire of 
Attorney Robinson as to the identity of the buyer and whether 
the buyer was in any way associated with the day care facility.  
Attorney Robinson told the broker that his client was purchasing 
the property for an employee and intended to resell the property 
to the employee on a land contract.  In reliance on those 
statements, M.R. accepted the offer to purchase. 
¶5 
Attorney Robinson subsequently became aware that A.B. 
was no longer interested in buying the property.  Attorney 
Robinson then contacted three teachers who had formerly been 
associated with the day care center about the possibility of 
them operating a day care business on the property.  In late 
July 2000, Attorney Robinson agreed with A.B. that Attorney 
Robinson would acquire the property from A.B.  Attorney Robinson 
and the former day care facility teachers agreed that the 
teachers would buy the property on or about September 1, 2000.  
Attorney Robinson began arranging financing for the purchase of 
the property in his own name and advised his banker that he 
intended to lease the property for use as a preschool. 
¶6 
A.B. deeded the property to Attorney Robinson and sent 
the deed to Attorney Robinson by overnight mail.  Attorney 
Robinson's 
legal assistant, 
acting 
on 
Attorney 
Robinson's 
instructions, notarized A.B.'s signature even though A.B. was 
No. 
2004AP1238-D   
 
4 
 
not personally present.  Prior to the closing of the property, 
M.R.'s real estate broker, on at least one occasion, advised 
Attorney Robinson that M.R. did not want to sell the property to 
anyone who had been formerly associated with her day care 
center.  The sale of the property closed in late July 2000.  At 
the closing M.R. questioned Attorney Robinson about the identity 
of the purchaser.  Attorney Robinson failed to disclose that he 
would be purchasing the property from A.B. and selling it to 
three teachers formerly employed by M.R. at her day care 
facility.   
¶7 
Attorney Robinson formed JAC, LLC, a limited liability 
company, whose members were the three teachers formerly employed 
by M.R.'s day care facility.  Attorney Robinson became the 
attorney for the LLC and its members.  He entered into a land 
contract with JAC, LLC, conveying the property to the teachers.  
The teachers sent out solicitations for a new day care center to 
be operated on the property.  If M.R. had known that Attorney 
Robinson intended to convey the property to three former 
employees she could have refused to close the sale.  Attorney 
Robinson's concealment of the identity of the ultimate owners of 
the property was intended to, and in fact did, deceive M.R.   
¶8 
The OLR's complaint alleged, and the referee agreed, 
that by instructing his legal assistant to notarize a signature 
indicating that the signer of the deed was present when in fact 
No. 
2004AP1238-D   
 
5 
 
he was not, Attorney Robinson violated SCR 20:5.3(c)(1),1 which 
would also be a violation of SCR 20:8.4(c)2, if done by Attorney 
Robinson himself.  The complaint further alleged, and the 
referee agreed, that by intentionally misrepresenting to M.R. 
and others the identity of the buyer of M.R.'s property, 
Attorney Robinson violated SCR 20:8.4(c).  The complaint also 
alleged that by failing to obtain written conflict waivers 
during 
his 
representation 
of 
multiple 
parties 
who 
were 
participants in the same real estate transaction, in which 
Attorney Robinson also had a personal interest, Attorney 
Robinson violated SCR 20:1.7(b).3   
¶9 
The OLR's complaint also alleged that on November 20, 
2001, Attorney Robinson sent a letter to occupants of a building 
located on Mt. Zion Avenue in Janesville advising the occupants 
that the previous owner of the building, M.K., no longer owned 
the building 
and 
that 
the 
building 
was 
owned 
by 
Cajun 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:5.3(c)(1) provides:  Responsibilities regarding 
nonlawyer assistants. "(c) A lawyer shall be responsible for 
conduct of such a person that would be a violation of the Rules 
of Professional Conduct if engaged in by a lawyer if: (1) the 
lawyer orders or, with the knowledge of the specific conduct, 
ratifies the conduct involved." 
2 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: Misconduct.  "It is professional 
misconduct for a lawyer to: (c) engage in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." 
3 SCR 20:1.7(b) provides: Conflict of interest: general 
rule.  "(b) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the 
representation of that client may be materially limited by the 
lawyer's responsibilities to another client or to a third 
person, or by the lawyer's own interests." 
No. 
2004AP1238-D   
 
6 
 
Properties, an enterprise controlled by Attorney Robinson.  On 
November 21, 2001, Attorney Robinson sent a letter to M.K. 
advising him that M.K. was in default on his agreement regarding 
the purchase of the property and that the agreement had been 
assigned to Attorney Robinson's interest.  That same day 
Attorney Larry Barton sent a letter to Attorney Robinson 
advising that Attorney Barton represented M.K. and that all 
future communications about M.K.'s real estate should be 
directed to Attorney Barton.  Thereafter, on several occasions 
while Attorney Barton was still representing M.K., Attorney 
Robinson attempted to contact M.K. directly and through a third 
party.  The OLR's complaint alleged, and the referee agreed, 
that by attempting to contact M.K. directly and through a third 
party, despite M.K.'s counsel directing Attorney Robinson to 
have no further contact with M.K., Attorney Robinson violated 
SCR 20:8.4(a)4 by attempting to violate SCR 20:4.2.5 
¶10 The OLR's complaint further alleged that Attorney 
Robinson was introduced to G.W. through A.B., the developer 
involved in the purchase of the day care facility.  After G.W. 
                                                 
4 SCR 20:8.4(a) provides:  Misconduct.  "It is professional 
misconduct for a lawyer to: (a) violate or attempt to violate 
the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce 
another to do so, or do so through the acts of another." 
5 SCR 
20:4.2 
provides: 
 
Communication 
with 
person 
represented by counsel.  "In representing a client, a lawyer 
shall not communicate about the subject of the representation 
with a party the lawyer knows to be represented by another 
lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the 
other lawyer or is authorized by law to do so." 
No. 
2004AP1238-D   
 
7 
 
told A.B. that he wanted to refinance his home, A.B. suggested 
that G.W. set up a limited liability corporation to be used to 
refinance G.W.'s home and later to purchase some rental 
properties.  During September 2000, Attorney Robinson drafted 
documents to establish a legal entity entitled GW Properties, 
LLC, with G.W. as the sole member and Attorney Robinson as the 
registered agent.  In drafting the documents, Attorney Robinson 
acted as attorney for G.W.  After Attorney Robinson prepared the 
documents creating GW Properties, LLC, G.W. and the LLC 
purchased two properties through Attorney Robinson and A.B. via 
land contracts.  At the time of the purchase, Attorney Robinson 
did not give G.W. any actual written, signed land contracts.   
¶11 Attorney Robinson had previously created a series of 
limited liability companies which he used on his own behalf 
and/or on behalf of others in acquiring various properties.  
Some of the companies he created were Caveland, LLC, Peregrine 
Cliff, LLC, Northeast Partners, LLC, and Cajun Properties, LLC.  
The various LLCs made offers to purchase five parcels of real 
estate.  The offers for all five parcels were signed in ways 
that may have made them unenforceable by the sellers.  All 
offers to purchase were drafted by Attorney Robinson.   
¶12 Sometime in November 2000, Attorney Robinson called 
G.W. and told him the land contracts were ready for the two 
properties G.W. had purchased earlier and that G.W. should come 
to Attorney Robinson's office to sign them.  In late November 
2000, G.W. signed documents at Attorney Robinson's office 
relating to the two real estate purchases.  Although the land 
No. 
2004AP1238-D   
 
8 
 
contracts were signed by G.W., they were never signed by the 
seller and they were never recorded. 
¶13 While in Attorney Robinson's office signing the land 
contracts, G.W. also signed a warranty deed transferring all 
five properties on which the various LLCs had made offers from 
GW Properties, LLC, to Cajun Properties.  Attorney Robinson did 
not reveal to or discuss with G.W. the fact that G.W. was 
signing the five-parcel deed or that G.W. was involved in any 
transaction concerning the five parcels.  At the time G.W. 
signed the deed, GW Properties, LLC, did not have title to any 
of the five properties that the deed purportedly conveyed.  On 
December 1, 2000, the five parcels were conveyed to GW 
Properties, LLC, at a closing in Janesville.  G.W. was unaware 
of any closing involving GW Properties, LLC, and did not attend 
the closing.  Attorney Robinson never notified G.W. that a 
closing would take place.   
¶14 At the closing, Attorney Robinson signed the transfer 
tax return and buyer's closing statement for the purchase of the 
five parcels, representing that he was the agent of GW 
Properties, LLC, for that purpose.  Attorney Robinson's status 
as registered agent did not authorize him to act as the agent of 
GW Properties, LLC, in closing the transactions, and GW 
Properties, LLC, did not authorize Attorney Robinson to act as 
its agent for those purchases. 
¶15 On the same day Attorney Robinson closed on the five 
parcels conveyed to GW Properties, LLC, Attorney Robinson had 
Cajun Properties acquire the five parcels from GW Properties, 
No. 
2004AP1238-D   
 
9 
 
LLC, using the warranty deed previously executed by G.W.  
Neither G.W. nor any representative of GW Properties, LLC, 
Peregrine Cliff, LLC, or Northeast Partners, LLC, was consulted 
about the multiple representation by Attorney Robinson and none 
of them consented in writing to the multiple representation. 
¶16 At the time of the various transactions, G.W. was 
married 
to 
T.D. 
 
On 
the 
application 
for 
a 
taxpayer 
identification number for GW Properties, LLC, Attorney Robinson 
used T.D.'s social security number without her authorization or 
consent and without having 
established 
an 
attorney-client 
relationship with T.D.  Attorney Robinson also wrote a letter to 
Toyota Motor Corporation in which he asserted he was T.D.'s 
attorney.  Attorney Robinson never obtained T.D.'s authorization 
or consent to act on her behalf. 
¶17 The OLR's complaint alleged, and the referee agreed, 
that by representing to G.W. that he had legally purchased 
rental property, when in fact the properties were purchased on 
incomplete and unrecordable land contracts, and by transferring 
properties to or through GW Properties, LLC, without G.W.'s 
knowledge or consent, Attorney Robinson violated SCR 20:8.4(c).  
The complaint also alleged, and the referee agreed, that by 
using T.D.'s social security number to obtain a taxpayer 
identification number for GW Properties, LLC, without T.D.'s 
permission and without ever establishing an attorney-client 
relationship with her and by contacting Toyota Motor Corporation 
purporting to represent T.D. when in fact he did not, Attorney 
Robinson violated SCR 20:8.4(c).   
No. 
2004AP1238-D   
 
10 
 
¶18 The complaint also alleged that in November 1999, 
Attorney Robinson organized Peregrine Cliff, LLC, with the 
Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions and designated 
himself as its registered agent.  A.B., the developer, was the 
sole member of Peregrine.  In September 2000, D.V.B. established 
an attorney-client relationship with Attorney Robinson for 
assistance in a residential real estate transaction with respect 
to a piece of property located on Caroline Street in Janesville.  
Attorney Robinson drafted and delivered to D.V.B. a residential 
offer to purchase showing Peregrine Cliff, LLC, as the buyer. 
¶19 The purported signature for Peregrine Cliff, LLC, on 
the offer to purchase may have created an ambiguity as to the 
validity of the contract between D.V.B. and any other party.  
Attorney Robinson intended that D.V.B. rely on the offer to 
purchase as a binding contract for the sale of real estate.  
D.V.B. and his wife accepted the offer from Peregrine Cliff, 
LLC, and took their home off the market.  The sale of the 
property was scheduled to close on October 23, 2000, but was 
delayed and rescheduled several times.  By letter dated March 
28, 2001, Attorney Robinson informed D.V.B. that Peregrine no 
longer wished to purchase the property.  D.V.B. believed he had 
a binding offer to purchase from Peregrine and that he had a 
cause of action against Peregrine for breach of contract for not 
proceeding with the closing.  At no time did Attorney Robinson 
disclose to D.V.B. that he was also the attorney for Peregrine. 
¶20 The OLR's complaint alleged, and the referee agreed, 
that by simultaneously representing the conflicting interests of 
No. 
2004AP1238-D   
 
11 
 
Peregrine Cliff, LLC, and D.V.B., without prior consultation and 
without obtaining a written conflict waiver, Attorney Robinson 
violated SCR 20:1.7(a). 
¶21 The parties' stipulation states that Attorney Robinson 
is entering pleas of "no contest" to the charges against him.  
As noted above, the referee issued a report incorporating the 
stipulation and adopting the recommended six-month suspension as 
well as the recommendation that Attorney Robinson pay the costs 
of the proceeding.   
¶22 We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law 
to which the parties have stipulated, as also adopted by the 
referee.  We determine that the seriousness of Attorney 
Robinson's misconduct warrants the suspension of his license to 
practice law for six months.  We further agree that he should be 
required to pay the costs of the proceeding.   
¶23 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Mark E. Robinson to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six 
months, effective August 6, 2005. 
¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Robinson comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended.   
¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Mark E. Robinson shall pay to the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, provided that 
if the costs are not paid within the time specified and absent a 
showing to this court of his inability to pay those costs within 
No. 
2004AP1238-D   
 
12 
 
that time, the license of Attorney Mark E. Robinson to practice 
law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of 
the court. 
No. 
2004AP1238-D   
 
 
 
1