Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Mark A. Phillips
Citation: 2012 WI 119
Docket Number: 2011AP002962-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: November 29, 2012

2012 WI 119 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2011AP2962-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Mark A. Phillips, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
 
Mark A. Phillips, 
          Respondent.   
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PHILLIPS     
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 29, 2012   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2012 WI 119
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2011AP2962-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Mark A. Phillips, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Mark A. Phillips, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
NOV 29, 2012 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   We 
review 
a 
referee's 
report 
and 
recommendation filed May 22, 2012, concluding that Attorney 
Mark A. Phillips violated the rules of professional conduct in 
connection with his representation of V.S.  The referee 
recommended this court impose a public reprimand upon Attorney 
Phillips, order Attorney Phillips to complete a minimum of 20 
hours of continuing legal education (CLE) relating to the 
No. 
2011AP2962-D   
 
3 
 
ethical obligations of attorneys, order Attorney Phillips to pay 
restitution in the amount of $1,050 to the Wisconsin Lawyers' 
Fund for Client Protection (the Fund), and order Attorney 
Phillips to pay the full costs of this proceeding, which total 
$2,878.18 as of June 11, 2012.  No appeal has been filed. 
¶2 
We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law.  We agree with the referee's conclusion that 
Attorney Phillips' professional misconduct warrants a public 
reprimand.  We further order that Attorney Phillips make 
restitution to the Fund as described below, that he pay the full 
costs of this disciplinary proceeding, and that within 12 months 
of the date of this order he complete a minimum of 20 hours of 
CLE relating to the ethical obligations of attorneys. 
¶3 
Attorney Phillips was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1981.  He has been subject to disciplinary action 
twice before.  In 2006 this court suspended Attorney Phillips 
for one year for misconduct that included improperly obtaining 
loans from a client, engaging in dishonest conduct, failing to 
act 
with 
reasonable 
diligence 
and 
promptness 
in 
his 
representation of a client, failing to return a client's files 
promptly, and failing to file timely state income tax returns 
and to pay taxes that were due.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Phillips, 2006 WI 43, 290 Wis. 2d 87, 713 N.W.2d 629.   
¶4 
In 2007 
this court suspended Attorney Phillips' 
license for three years for committing a criminal act (willful 
attempted federal income tax evasion, for which he had been 
convicted and sentenced) that reflected adversely on his 
No. 
2011AP2962-D   
 
4 
 
honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other 
respects.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Phillips, 2007 
WI 63, 301 Wis. 2d 33, 732 N.W.2d 17.  As a result of these 
previous suspensions, Attorney Phillips' license remains under 
suspension.   
¶5 
On December 27, 2011, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a two-count complaint against Attorney Phillips.  
The OLR alleged that in 2002, Attorney Phillips charged an 
unreasonable fee in his representation of V.S. in violation of 
former SCR 20:1.5(a).1  The OLR further alleged that Attorney 
                                                 
1 Former SCR 20:1.5(a) applies to misconduct committed prior 
to July 1, 2007.  It provided:  
 
A lawyer's fee shall be reasonable. The factors 
to be considered in determining the reasonableness of 
a fee include the following:  
 
(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and 
difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill 
requisite to perform the legal service properly;  
 
(2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, 
that the acceptance of the particular employment will 
preclude other employment by the lawyer;  
 
(3) the fee customarily charged in the locality 
for similar legal services;  
 
(4) the amount involved and the results obtained;  
 
(5) the time limitations imposed by the client or 
by the circumstances;  
 
(6) the nature and length of the professional 
relationship with the client;  
 
(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of 
the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and  
 
(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent. 
No. 
2011AP2962-D   
 
5 
 
Phillips failed to refund unearned fees after his representation 
of 
V.S. 
ended, 
in 
violation 
of 
former 
and 
current 
SCR 20:1.16(d).2   
¶6 
Dennis J. Flynn was appointed as referee.  Attorney 
Phillips admitted service of the complaint but did not file an 
answer or otherwise appear.  The OLR moved for default judgment. 
¶7 
On May 22, 2012, the referee filed a report granting 
the OLR's motion for default judgment and making findings of 
fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation for disciplinary 
sanctions against Attorney Phillips.  The referee determined 
that Attorney Phillips charged an unreasonable fee in violation 
                                                 
2 Former SCR 20:1.16(d) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
provided:  
 
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer 
shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable 
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 that has not been earned.  
The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to 
the extent permitted by other law. 
Current SCR 20:1.16(d) (effective July 1, 2007) provides as 
follows: 
 
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer 
shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable 
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. 
No. 
2011AP2962-D   
 
6 
 
of former SCR 20:l.5(a) when, after accepting $1,500 from V.S.'s 
parent as an advance legal fee payment against which he was to 
charge his legal work at $150 per hour, he kept the entire 
$1,500 after having performed only three hours of legal work.  
The referee further determined that, by refusing to refund to 
V.S. or her parent the $1,050 in advance legal fees which he had 
not earned, Attorney Phillips failed to take steps to protect 
V.S.'s interests upon termination of representation in violation 
of former and current SCR 20:1.16(d).  The referee also found 
that the Fund paid V.S.'s parent $1,050 as reimbursement for the 
money lost due to Attorney Phillips' failure to return the 
unearned legal fees. 
¶8 
In recommending discipline, the referee considered a 
number of factors, including the absence of any justifiable 
reason or 
satisfactory explanation for Attorney Phillips' 
billing practices, his prior disciplinary history, and his 
failure to appear in this disciplinary proceeding.  As a 
mitigating factor, the referee noted that Attorney Phillips' 
spouse died during the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding.  
In the end, the referee agreed with the OLR's request in its 
complaint and recommended the court impose a public reprimand.  
The referee further recommended that the court order Attorney 
Phillips to secure 20 hours of CLE relating to the ethical 
obligations of attorneys, to pay restitution in the amount of 
$1,050 to the Fund, and to pay the full costs of this 
proceeding, which total $2,878.18 as of June 11, 2012. 
No. 
2011AP2962-D   
 
7 
 
¶9 
The matter is now before this court to review the 
referee's report and recommendation.  No appeal has been filed, 
so 
this 
matter 
is 
submitted 
to 
the 
court 
pursuant 
to 
SCR 22.17(2).3 
¶10 We will not set aside the referee's fact findings 
unless 
they 
are 
clearly 
erroneous. 
 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 
740 N.W.2d 125.  We review conclusions of law de novo.  Id.  
Finally, we determine the appropriate level of discipline given 
the particular facts of each case, independent of the referee's 
recommendation, but benefiting from it.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 
N.W.2d 686. 
¶11 We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law 
set forth in the referee's report.  In addition, we accept the 
referee's recommended sanctions.  By charging and failing to 
return $1,050 in unearned legal fees, Attorney Phillips engaged 
in serious misconduct warranting a public reprimand.  We also 
deem it appropriate to require Attorney Phillips to make 
restitution to the Fund in the amount of $1,050.  We also 
                                                 
3 SCR 22.17(2) provides as follows: 
 
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. 
2011AP2962-D   
 
8 
 
conclude that requiring Attorney Phillips to participate in CLE 
relating to the ethical obligations of attorneys would help 
protect the public and correct Attorney Phillips' behavior.  
Finally, 
because 
this 
case 
presents 
no 
extraordinary 
circumstances, we further determine that Attorney Phillips 
should be required to pay the full costs of this matter.  See 
SCR 22.24(1m) (supreme court's general policy upon a finding of 
misconduct is to impose all costs upon the respondent attorney). 
¶12 IT IS ORDERED that Mark A. Phillips is publicly 
reprimanded 
for 
his 
professional 
misconduct. 
 
The 
court 
recognizes that Mark A. Phillips' Wisconsin law license is 
currently under suspension. 
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 12 months of the 
date of this order Mark A. Phillips shall complete a minimum of 
20 hours of continuing legal education relating to the ethical 
obligations of attorneys. 
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Mark A. Phillips shall pay restitution to the 
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection in the amount of 
$1,050. 
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Mark A. Phillips shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.   
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified 
above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation. 
No. 
2011AP2962-D   
 
9 
 
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the director of the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation shall advise the court if there has not 
been full compliance with all conditions of this order.