Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Thomas J. Molinaro
Citation: 2009 WI 61
Docket Number: 2007AP000869-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: July 1, 2009

2009 WI 61 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2007AP869-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Thomas J. Molinaro, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent-Cross-
Appellant, 
     v. 
Thomas J. Molinaro, 
          Respondent-Appellant-Cross-Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MOLINARO 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 1, 2009   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
February 5, 2009   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: BRADLEY, J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the respondent-appellant-cross-respondent there were 
briefs by Dean R. Dietrich and Ruder Ware, L.L.S.C., Wausau, and 
oral argument by Dean R. Dietrich. 
 
For the complainant-respondent-cross-appellant there was a 
brief by Keith L. Sellen and the Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
Madison, and oral argument by Keith L. Sellen. 
 
 
 
 
2009 WI 61
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2007AP869-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Thomas J. Molinaro, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent-Cross- 
          Appellant, 
 
     v. 
 
Thomas J. Molinaro, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant-Cross- 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 1, 2009 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney Thomas J. Molinaro has appealed 
that portion of a referee's report concluding that the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) met its burden of proof as to 8 of the 
13 counts of misconduct alleged in the OLR's complaint.  The 
issues raised in Attorney Molinaro's appeal are whether there is 
a sufficient basis to support the referee's findings of fact and 
conclusions of law as to the eight counts of misconduct; 
No. 
2007AP869-D   
 
2 
 
assuming that this court concludes that Attorney Molinaro did 
engage in misconduct, what is the appropriate sanction; and 
should Attorney Molinaro be required to pay the full costs of 
the proceeding?  The OLR has filed a cross-appeal raising two 
issues: whether there is a sufficient basis to support the 
referee's findings and conclusion that the OLR failed to meet 
its burden of proof as to count 10 of the complaint, and whether 
Attorney Molinaro should be required to make restitution to his 
client, R.M., in the amount of $9,630.   
¶2 
We conclude that the referee's findings of fact with 
respect to the total amount of the settlement in R.M.'s personal 
injury case, and the amount of attorney fees to which Attorney 
Molinaro was entitled out of the R.M. settlement are clearly 
erroneous.  We uphold the remainder of the referee's findings of 
fact and corresponding conclusions of law, including the 
findings and conclusions as to count 10 of the complaint.  We 
also conclude that the appropriate sanction for Attorney 
Molinaro's misconduct is a 60-day suspension of his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin.  Finally, we conclude that this case 
presents extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction in 
the amount of costs imposed. 
¶3 
Attorney Molinaro was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1979.  He has been a general practitioner in the 
Wausau area throughout his legal career.  He has no previous 
disciplinary history.  Prior to 2001 Attorney Molinaro earned a 
relatively modest income from his law practice. 
No. 
2007AP869-D   
 
3 
 
¶4 
In 2002 Attorney Molinaro represented J.K. in a 
workplace injury case that occurred in Indiana.  Attorney 
Molinaro retained an Indiana attorney to act as local counsel. 
J.K.'s case was settled for $1.1 million.  J.K. subsequently 
filed a grievance against Attorney Molinaro.  In the course of 
investigating 
J.K.'s 
grievance, 
the 
OLR 
audited 
Attorney 
Molinaro's trust and business accounts.  The audit turned up 
what the OLR viewed as improprieties in Attorney Molinaro's 
handling of the settlement in R.M.'s case.  Attorney Molinaro 
settled R.M.'s case for $1.4 million in the spring of 2001.  
R.M. had signed a contingent fee agreement on September 3, 1996, 
which 
provided, 
"In 
the 
event 
damages 
are 
recovered 
by 
settlement or trial and before notice of appeal is served, 
[Attorney Molinaro] is to receive 33 1/3 percent of the amount 
paid."  The OLR's investigation into Attorney Molinaro's 
handling of J.K.'s and R.M.'s cases and its auditing of his 
accounts lasted for 30 months prior to the matter being referred 
to the preliminary review committee. 
¶5 
On April 18, 2007, the OLR filed a complaint alleging 
13 counts of misconduct against Attorney Molinaro.  The first 
four counts arose out of his representation of J.K.  The 
complaint alleged that Attorney Molinaro failed to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing J.K.; failed 
to abide by J.K.'s decisions concerning the objective of the 
representation; 
failed 
to 
take 
steps 
to 
protect 
J.K.'s 
interests; and represented J.K. although the representation may 
No. 
2007AP869-D   
 
4 
 
have 
been 
materially 
limited 
by 
Attorney 
Molinaro's 
own 
interests.   
¶6 
The 
OLR's 
complaint 
also 
alleged 
that 
Attorney 
Molinaro settled R.M.'s personal injury case for $1.085 million 
plus an additional $215,000 in structured settlement proceeds 
for R.M.'s minor children.  The complaint alleged that pursuant 
to the written fee agreement, Attorney Molinaro was entitled to 
attorney fees of $361,666, which was one-third of the $1.085 
million settlement.  The complaint also alleged the minor 
settlement approved by the circuit court provided that the 
defendants in the case would pay Attorney Molinaro $90,000 for 
his attorney fees and costs in the minors' case.  According to 
the complaint, this would bring the fee to which Attorney 
Molinaro was entitled up to $451,666.   
¶7 
The complaint alleged that on May 17, 2001, Attorney 
Molinaro 
deposited 
two 
checks 
totaling 
$1.175 
million 
(consisting of the $1.085 million settlement and Attorney 
Molinaro's $90,000 fee for the minors' settlement) into a new 
savings account Attorney Molinaro opened that day in the name of 
his law firm at Marathon Savings Bank ("Marathon Account").  The 
complaint alleged although the checks were made payable to 
Attorney Molinaro's trust account and the majority of the funds 
belonged to R.M., the account was not identified as a trust 
account nor did R.M.'s name appear on the account.  The 
complaint alleged the full $1.175 million, including R.M.'s 
share of the money, and Attorney Molinaro's attorney fees, 
remained commingled in the account from May 17, 2001, through 
No. 
2007AP869-D   
 
5 
 
July 3, 2001.  The account earned interest at a rate varying 
between 2.25 percent and 2.75 percent.  
¶8 
The complaint alleged that on July 3, 2001, Attorney 
Molinaro transferred $950,000 of the R.M. settlement funds from 
the Marathon Account to his business checking account at Firstar 
Bank.  The complaint alleged that on July 5, 2001, a $470,000 
business account check was written to R.M.'s power of attorney 
from Attorney Molinaro's business account.  On July 18, 2001, a 
business account check was written to an expert witness for 
$2,409.50.  These two disbursements left a balance in the 
business checking account of $477,590.50 from the R.M. transfer.  
The complaint alleged Attorney Molinaro retained this balance as 
payment of his attorney fees and costs, and he did not prepare a 
settlement statement or provide an accounting to R.M. reflecting 
the amount of the fees and costs.  
¶9 
The complaint alleged that prior to the time of the 
R.M. settlement, Attorney Molinaro had maintained individual 
client ledgers for R.M. and other clients that recorded trust 
account transactions, incurred fees and costs, and payments 
received from each client.  The complaint alleged no entries 
were made on R.M.'s individual client ledger reflecting receipt 
of the $1.085 million settlement, nor were entries made 
regarding payment of Attorney Molinaro's fees and costs.  The 
complaint alleged that R.M.'s ledger showed that costs of 
$16,738 had been incurred up to the time of settlement, but 
those costs were "zeroed out" on the ledger without reflecting 
any payment.   
No. 
2007AP869-D   
 
6 
 
¶10 The complaint alleged that on December 31, 2001, 
Attorney Molinaro's office prepared two business checks totaling 
$44,500, for the purpose of transferring funds from the business 
checking account to the account in the Marathon Savings Bank.  A 
$35,000 
check 
was 
deposited 
to 
the 
Marathon 
Account 
on 
December 31, 2001, and a $9,500 check was deposited in the 
account on January 11, 2002.  The complaint alleged that on 
February 6, 2002, Attorney Molinaro transferred $44,500 from the 
Marathon Account back to his business checking account.  The 
complaint alleged as a result of those transfers, Attorney 
Molinaro did not report $44,500 in fees that he was originally 
paid in 2001 as income on his 2001 income tax return. 
¶11 The complaint alleged that TIG Insurance Company, 
R.M.'s worker's compensation carrier, was named as a co-
plaintiff in R.M.'s lawsuit and TIG held a lien on the 
settlement proceeds.  The complaint alleged that Attorney 
Molinaro failed to notify TIG of the settlement or send any 
written notice to TIG regarding his receipt of funds in which 
TIG held an interest.  The complaint alleged TIG learned of the 
R.M. settlement from a source other than Attorney Molinaro, and 
a TIG representative contacted Attorney Roland Cafaro for 
assistance in enforcing TIG's statutory lien rights. 
¶12 The complaint alleged that on October 10, 2001, 
Attorney Molinaro told Cafaro that the R.M. case had been 
settled for $1.4 million and that TIG would be paid its full 
statutory lien.  Cafaro asked Attorney Molinaro to provide 
copies of the settlement documents and a proposed third party 
No. 
2007AP869-D   
 
7 
 
proceeds distribution agreement.  The complaint alleged Attorney 
Molinaro did not promptly comply with this request.  The 
complaint alleged that in November 2001 Cafaro renewed his 
request for copies of the settlement documents and proposed 
third party distribution agreement and advised Attorney Molinaro 
that TIG's statutory lien was $66,934.18, and that TIG expected 
Attorney Molinaro, as a fiduciary of TIG, to hold in trust all 
funds due TIG.  The complaint alleged at that time Attorney 
Molinaro was not holding TIG's funds in a trust account, but 
rather in the Marathon Account he had opened in May of 2001.   
¶13 The complaint alleged that on November 20, 2001, 
Attorney Molinaro transferred $68,706.82 from the Marathon 
Account to his business checking account, and a $66,934.18 check 
was written from the business account to TIG for payment of its 
lien.  This left $1,772.64 of R.M.'s settlement funds in 
Attorney Molinaro's business checking account.  The complaint 
alleged that on November 21, 2001, Attorney Molinaro sent Cafaro 
the $66,934.18 check but did not enclose a proposed third party 
proceeds distribution agreement or any settlement documents.  
Cafaro again wrote to Attorney Molinaro requesting those 
documents.   
¶14 The complaint alleged that on December 20, 2001, 
Attorney Molinaro sent Cafaro a proposed distribution agreement 
that indicated the settlement was $1.175 million instead of the 
actual figure of $1.085 million.  The complaint alleged Attorney 
Molinaro reported his attorney fees and costs were $479,363.14, 
the exact amount left in Attorney Molinaro's business account 
No. 
2007AP869-D   
 
8 
 
after making the disbursements for R.M.  The complaint alleged 
Attorney Molinaro failed to provide a settlement statement or 
other settlement documents requested by Cafaro.  The complaint 
alleged on December 26, 2001, Cafaro advised Attorney Molinaro 
that if he did not receive all settlement-related court 
documents 
by 
January 
18, 
2002, 
he 
would 
initiate 
court 
proceedings to void the settlement. 
¶15 The complaint alleged that on January 9, 2002, 
Attorney Molinaro sent Cafaro copies of the release and minor 
settlement agreement in the R.M. case.  The complaint also 
alleged on January 18, 2002, Cafaro informed Attorney Molinaro 
that those documents were inconsistent with ones Attorney 
Molinaro had previously sent.  Cafaro advised Attorney Molinaro 
that he would consider the settlement agreement null and void 
unless Attorney Molinaro provided satisfactory documentation.   
¶16 The complaint alleged that on February 22, 2002, 
Attorney Molinaro provided Cafaro with a revised third party 
proceeds distribution agreement showing the settlement amount as 
$1.085 million and listing Attorney Molinaro's fees and costs as 
$380,753 rather than the $479,363.14 that Attorney Molinaro had 
earlier reported.  The complaint alleged Attorney Molinaro did 
not provide any cost statement as requested by Cafaro, but 
represented 
the 
total 
costs 
were 
approximately 
$23,000.  
Attorney Molinaro also indicated that his fee for the children's 
settlement was $100,000, out of which he had paid $10,000 to the 
guardian ad litem.  The complaint alleged the defendants had 
paid the guardian ad litem $10,000 directly.   
No. 
2007AP869-D   
 
9 
 
¶17 The complaint alleged that as of February 20, 2002, 
$163,704.40 of R.M.'s funds remained in the Marathon Account.  
The complaint also alleged Attorney Molinaro closed the Marathon 
Account that same day and transferred the remaining funds to his 
client trust account. 
¶18 The complaint alleged that Attorney Molinaro's wife 
filed a petition for divorce the following day.  In his sworn 
response to interrogatories served upon him in the divorce case, 
Attorney Molinaro represented that the $163,704.40 deposit 
pertained to a case that was settled in January 2002 and that 
Attorney Molinaro might receive an additional $4,601.22 fee if 
not claimed by a prior attorney.  The complaint alleged the R.M. 
case was settled in May 2001, not January 2002, and it involved 
no prior attorney. 
¶19 The complaint alleged that on June 18, 2003, more than 
a year after the Marathon Account was closed, a $1,482.57 trust 
account check was written to Attorney Molinaro's firm and 
attributed to R.M.'s trust account funds.  The check stub for 
the check read, "2001 tax on interest (51%)."  Attorney Molinaro 
did not account to R.M. for this payment.  The complaint alleged 
the balance of R.M.'s trust account funds were used to pay 
various medical expenses and to make two other distributions to 
an investment account for R.M., after which R.M.'s funds were 
fully disbursed.   
¶20 The 
complaint alleged the distributions paid to 
Attorney Molinaro from R.M.'s settlement proceeds in 2001 and 
2002 totaled $480,844.  The complaint alleged Attorney Molinaro 
No. 
2007AP869-D   
 
10 
 
was entitled to receive no more than $471,693 from the R.M. 
settlement, consisting of his one-third contingency fee of 
$361,666, his $90,000 fee from the minor children's settlement, 
the $16,738 in accrued costs recorded on R.M.'s client ledger, 
and an additional $3,289 for mileage, meals and office expenses 
that were not recorded on R.M.'s client ledger but that Attorney 
Molinaro specifically identified as pertaining to R.M.   
¶21 The complaint alleged that because Attorney Molinaro 
was owed, at the most, $471,693 from R.M.'s settlement funds, 
but he took $480,844, Attorney Molinaro owed R.M. restitution in 
the amount of $9,151 plus interest.   
¶22 The complaint alleged five counts of misconduct with 
respect to Attorney Molinaro's handling of R.M.'s case:   
 
(Count 5) By depositing over $1 million of client 
funds 
into a 
non-trust account; by subsequently 
transferring those funds to his business checking 
account 
for 
disbursement; 
and 
by 
temporarily 
commingling $44,500 of his own funds with client funds 
in the Marathon Account, Attorney Molinaro failed to 
deposit client funds to an identifiable trust account 
and commingled his own funds with client funds, in 
violation of former SCR 20:1.15(a).1 
                                                 
1 Because the conduct underlying this case arose prior to 
July 1, 2004, unless otherwise indicated, all references to the 
Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules will be to those in effect prior 
to July 1, 2004.  
Former SCR 20:1.15(a) provided: 
 
A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the 
lawyer's own property, that property of clients and 
third persons that is in the lawyer's possession in 
connection with a representation or when acting in a 
fiduciary capacity.  Funds held in connection with a 
representation or in a fiduciary capacity include 
funds held as trustee, agent, guardian, personal 
No. 
2007AP869-D   
 
11 
 
 
(Count 6) By failing to give prompt written 
notice to TIG regarding his receipt of $66,934.18 of 
its funds; by failing to deliver TIG's settlement 
funds until November 21, 2001, despite having received 
the funds on May 17, 2001; and, by failing to provide 
a full and accurate accounting of the settlement 
proceedings to TIG in response to requests for the 
same, Attorney Molinaro failed to promptly notify a 
client or third person of the receipt of any funds in 
which the client or third person held an interest, 
failed to promptly deliver the funds the client or 
third person were entitled to receive, and failed, 
upon request, to render a full accounting regarding 
the funds, in violation of former SCR 20:1.15(b). 2 
                                                                                                                                                             
representative of an estate, or otherwise.  All funds 
of clients and third persons paid to a lawyer or law 
firm shall be deposited in one or more identifiable 
trust accounts as provided in paragraph (c).  The 
trust account shall be maintained in a bank, savings 
bank, trust company, credit union, savings and loan 
association or other investment institution authorized 
to do business and located in Wisconsin.  The trust 
account shall be clearly designated as "Client's 
Account" or "Trust Account" or words of similar 
import.  No funds belonging to the lawyer or law firm, 
except funds reasonably sufficient to pay or avoid 
imposition 
of 
account 
service 
charges, 
may 
be 
deposited in such an account.  Unless the client 
otherwise directs in writing, securities in bearer 
form shall be kept by the attorney in a safe deposit 
box in a bank, savings bank, trust company, credit 
union, 
savings 
and 
loan 
association 
or 
other 
investment institution authorized to do business and 
located in Wisconsin.  The safe deposit box shall be 
clearly designated as "Client's Account" or "Trust 
Account" or words of similar import.  Other property 
of a client or third person shall be identified as 
such and appropriately safeguarded.  If a lawyer also 
licensed in another state is entrusted with funds or 
property 
in 
connection 
with 
an 
out-of-state 
representation, this provision shall not supersede the 
trust account rules of the other state. 
2 Former SCR 20:1.15(b) provided: 
No. 
2007AP869-D   
 
12 
 
 
(Count 7) By transferring R.M.'s settlement funds 
from the Marathon Account to his business checking 
account and keeping a portion of those transferred 
funds as his fees and costs without giving R.M. a 
settlement statement or any accounting——either in 
advance of, or after taking the funds——Attorney 
Molinaro failed to treat property in which both he and 
another person claimed interest as trust property 
until there was an accounting and severance of their 
interests, in violation of former SCR:1.15(d). 3 
 
(Count 8) By failing to record on a ledger the 
receipt and disbursement of over $1 million for R.M., 
and 
by 
paying 
fees 
and 
costs 
to 
himself 
by 
transferring funds to his business account, from which 
he made disbursements and kept the remainder, Attorney 
Molinaro failed to keep complete records of trust 
account funds and other trust property for at least 
six years after termination of the representation in 
violation of former SCR 20:1.15(e).4  
                                                                                                                                                             
 
Upon receiving funds or other property in which a 
client or third person has an interest, a lawyer shall 
promptly notify the client or third person in writing.  
Except as stated in this rule or otherwise permitted 
by law or by agreement with the client, a lawyer shall 
promptly deliver to the client or third person any 
funds or other property that the client or third 
person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the 
client or third person, shall render a full accounting 
regarding such property. 
3 Former SCR 20:1.15(d) provided: 
 
When, in the representation, a lawyer is in the 
possession of property in which both the lawyer and 
another person claim interests, the property shall be 
treated by the lawyer as trust property until there is 
an accounting and severance of their interests.  If a 
dispute arises concerning their respective interests, 
the portion in dispute shall continue to be treated as 
trust property until the dispute is resolved. 
4 Former SCR 20:1.15(e) provided: 
 
Complete records of trust account funds and other 
trust property shall be kept by the lawyer and shall 
be preserved for a period of at least six years after 
No. 
2007AP869-D   
 
13 
 
 
(Count 9) By taking approximately $9,151 more of 
R.M.'s funds than he was entitled to receive as fees 
and costs; by disguising his receipt of those funds by 
giving 
no 
accounting 
to 
R.M. 
and 
inaccurate 
accountings to Cafaro; by failing to report receipt of 
$44,500 of income he received in 2001 on his 2001 
business or personal tax returns and using the 
Marathon Account to attempt to hide that income; and 
by 
making 
representations 
on 
sworn 
answers 
to 
interrogatories propounded in his divorce, Attorney 
Molinaro engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of 
20:8.4(c).5  
                                                                                                                                                             
termination of the representation.  Complete records 
shall include: (i) a cash receipts journal, listing 
the 
sources 
and 
date 
of 
each 
receipt, 
(ii) 
a 
disbursements journal, listing the date and payee of 
each disbursement, with all disbursements being paid 
by check, (iii) a subsidiary ledger containing a 
separate page for each person or company for whom 
funds have been received in trust, showing the date 
and amount of each receipt, the date and amount of 
each disbursement, and any unexpended balance, (iv) a 
monthly schedule of the subsidiary ledger, indicating 
the balance of each client's account at the end of 
each month, (v) a determination of the cash balance 
(checkbook balance) at the end of each month, taken 
from the cash receipts and cash disbursements journals 
and a reconciliation of the cash balance (checkbook 
balance) with the balance indicated in the bank 
statement, and (vi) monthly statements, including 
canceled 
checks, 
vouchers 
or 
share 
drafts, 
and 
duplicate deposit slips.  A record of all property 
other than cash which is held in trust for clients or 
third persons, as required by paragraph (a) hereof, 
shall also be maintained. All trust account records 
shall be deemed to have public aspects as related to 
the lawyer's fitness to practice. 
5 SCR 20:8.4(c) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation; . . . ." 
No. 
2007AP869-D   
 
14 
 
 
¶23 Count 10 of the OLR's complaint alleged: 
 
By providing OLR with a number of conflicting and 
inaccurate accountings regarding the disposition of 
R.M.'s funds; by failing to provide OLR with a 
complete accounting that accurately showed the amount 
of funds that Attorney Molinaro had received from 
R.M.'s 
settlement 
including 
the 
disbursement 
of 
interest; by misrepresenting that the $44,500 transfer 
between his business account and the Marathon Account 
pertained to a worker's compensation dispute; and by 
misrepresenting the purpose and calculation of the 
$1,482.52 trust account check to his firm, Attorney 
Molinaro did, in the course of an OLR investigation, 
willfully fail to provide relevant information, answer 
questions fully, or furnish documents, and made a 
misrepresentation in a disclosure to OLR, in violation 
of SCR 22.03(6).6 
¶24 Finally, the OLR's complaint alleged the following 
additional violations: 
 
(Count 11) By failing to keep a cash receipts 
journal, a disbursements journal, or general ledger or 
transaction register showing a chronological history 
of transactions in the account and the clients to 
which they were attributable, and by failing to create 
and retain a monthly schedule of subsidiary ledgers 
indicating the balance of each client's account at the 
end of each month, Attorney Molinaro failed to keep 
complete 
and 
accurate 
trust 
account 
records 
as 
required under former SCR 20:1.15(e). 
 
(Count 12) By depositing 41 earned fee payments 
totaling $15,919.80 into his client trust account in 
                                                 
6 SCR 22.03(6) provides as follows: 
 
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. 
2007AP869-D   
 
15 
 
November 
and 
December 
2001, 
Attorney 
Molinaro 
commingled personal and client funds in a client trust 
account, in violation of former SCR 20:1.15(a). 
 
(Count 13) By depositing $15,919.80 in earned 
fees and costs to his client trust account for the 
purpose of hiding income and avoiding taxation on 
those fees in the year in which they were received, 
Attorney 
Molinaro 
engaged 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in 
violation of SCR 20:8.4(c). 
¶25 Attorney Molinaro filed an answer to the OLR's 
complaint on June 15, 2007.  Russell L. Hanson was appointed 
referee.  A three-day hearing was held in October 2007.  At the 
hearing, Nancy Warner, an OLR investigator, testified at length 
about her audit of Attorney Molinaro's accounts and her 
conclusion that he overcharged R.M. by approximately $9,600.  
Attorney Cafaro, who represented the worker's compensation 
carrier in the R.M. case, testified about his dealings with 
Attorney Molinaro regarding the worker's compensation carrier's 
subrogated interest in the R.M. settlement. 
¶26 Attorney Molinaro testified at length regarding the 
calculation of his fees in R.M.'s case and explained that he was 
entitled to one-third of the total settlement, which was $1.4 
million.  With respect to the transfer of $44,500 from his 
business account to the Marathon Account, Attorney Molinaro 
testified he was not attempting to hide income, but was 
reserving money to cover possible future expenses, including 
medical bills.  Attorney Molinaro testified that after R.M.'s 
case was settled, R.M. was hospitalized and there were potential 
large bills outstanding, and he did not know if the worker's 
No. 
2007AP869-D   
 
16 
 
compensation carrier, Medicare, or some other source would pay 
for them.  He testified he believed he was entitled not to claim 
fees for tax purposes until he was satisfied his client was 
protected and that was why the $44,500 was not reported as 
income until 2002.   
¶27 The referee issued his report and recommendation on 
January 21, 2008.  He concluded that the OLR had failed to meet 
its burden of proof with respect to the first four counts of the 
complaint, i.e., those counts involving J.K.  The referee also 
found that the OLR failed to meet its burden of proof as to 
count 10 of the complaint, which alleged that Attorney Molinaro 
failed to cooperate with the OLR in the course of its 
investigation 
and 
made 
conflicting 
and 
inaccurate 
representations.  The referee said, "Virtually all information 
entered at the hearing was supplied by the Respondent and it 
appears he made a good faith effort to come up with the 
information the Complainant was requesting."  
¶28 The referee concluded that the OLR did meet its burden 
of proof on counts 5 through 9 and 11 through 13.  As to count 
5, the referee said Attorney Molinaro admitted that he failed to 
deposit the R.M. settlement funds into an identifiable trust 
account.  As to counts 6 and 7, the referee said Attorney 
Molinaro received the R.M. settlement funds on May 17, 2001.  
The referee found that TIG was a co-plaintiff and held a lien on 
the settlement funds, but Attorney Molinaro failed to notify TIG 
he had received the funds and Attorney Cafaro learned about the 
settlement from another source.  The referee found that Attorney 
No. 
2007AP869-D   
 
17 
 
Molinaro did pay TIG the full amount of its lien, but he did not 
do so until November 20, 2001, more than six months after he 
received the funds.  The referee also concluded Attorney 
Molinaro never gave TIG a full accounting.   
¶29 As to count 8, the referee concluded Attorney Molinaro 
failed to provide evidence that he gave a written accounting to 
R.M., and the referee also noted Attorney Molinaro did not 
provide the testimony of a representative of R.M. to the effect 
that a written accounting had been given.  The referee concluded 
Attorney Molinaro knew how to maintain his trust account records 
since he was properly recording entries in other client matters 
during this same time period. 
¶30 With respect to count 9, the referee concluded 
Attorney Molinaro took more of R.M.'s funds than he was entitled 
to receive as fees and costs and his taking and keeping the 
excess funds was dishonest.7  The referee concluded Attorney 
Molinaro gave a false accounting of his fees and costs to 
Attorney Cafaro and that he gave contradictory statements about 
his fees to the OLR.   
¶31 With respect to the allegations in count 9 that 
Attorney Molinaro failed to report receipt of $44,500 of income 
                                                 
7 On page 28 of his report, the referee referred to Attorney 
Molinaro's "taking approximately $89,151 more of [R.M.'s] funds 
than he was entitled to receive . . . ."  As the OLR pointed out 
in its reply brief, the $89,151 figure was a typographical 
error.  The amount of the overcharge alleged in the OLR's 
complaint was $9,151. The OLR asserts the actual amount of the 
overcharge proven at the hearing was $9,630. 
No. 
2007AP869-D   
 
18 
 
he received in 2001 on his 2001 business or personal tax 
returns, the referee concluded that Attorney Molinaro shifted 
income from 2001 to 2002 and achieved an unlawful federal tax 
advantage of approximately $6,019.  The referee specifically 
rejected Attorney Molinaro's assertion that the transfer of the 
$44,500 was due to the dispute with TIG.  The referee said that 
Attorney Molinaro determined to move the funds without informing 
TIG; he moved the funds from his business account the very last 
day of the tax year; he made inconsistent statements regarding 
the purpose of the transfer; and he returned the funds to his 
business account before the dispute with TIG was resolved. 
¶32 The referee also concluded that the OLR met its burden 
of proof on counts 11, 12, and 13 of the complaint. 
¶33 The OLR had sought a two-year suspension of Attorney 
Molinaro's license.  The referee's entire discussion as to the 
appropriate sanction is as follows: 
 
It appears that except for the violations I have 
found, Mr. Molinaro has been a competent and honorable 
member of his profession.  Nevertheless, his conduct 
in this matter is so serious that I must recommend 
suspension of his license to practice law for a 30 
month period. 
¶34 Attorney Molinaro has appealed the referee's findings 
and conclusions as to counts 5 through 9 and 11 through 13 of 
the complaint.  He also challenges the referee's recommendation 
for a 30-month suspension.  The OLR has appealed the referee's 
conclusion that it failed to meet its burden of proof on count 
10.  The OLR has not appealed the referee's conclusion that the 
No. 
2007AP869-D   
 
19 
 
OLR failed to meet its burden of proof with respect to counts 1 
through 4 of the complaint.   
¶35 Attorney Molinaro challenges many of the referee's 
findings of fact and also challenges the referee's conclusions 
that Attorney Molinaro's conduct violated any ethical rule.  
Attorney Molinaro argues that his fee for representing R.M. was 
properly 
based 
on 
the full amount of the $1.4 million 
settlement.  He says the referee's conclusion that the R.M. 
settlement was $1.085 million and the attorney fees for the 
minor children's settlement was $90,000 is inaccurate and 
results in a miscalculation of the amount of attorney fees to 
which Attorney Molinaro was entitled.  Attorney Molinaro argues 
that throughout the negotiations leading to a final resolution 
of the R.M. litigation, it was clear that Attorney Molinaro was 
entitled to a total fee of $466,666.  He says the finding that 
he received $9,630 more than he was entitled to is inaccurate. 
¶36 Attorney Molinaro asserts there was some confusion 
about his fee because R.M. contributed $15,000 from his $1.1 
million settlement to the children's portion of the settlement.  
He also asserts that he and the children's guardian ad litem 
agreed there was no reason to create an "unnecessary paper 
trail" 
(and 
possibly 
delaying 
the 
funding 
of 
the 
minor 
settlement) and for this reason the minor settlement documents 
do not reflect the additional $15,000 that R.M. contributed to 
the children's settlement.  Attorney Molinaro agrees that the 
guardian ad litem was paid $10,000 directly by the insurance 
No. 
2007AP869-D   
 
20 
 
company but he argues this does not change the fact that he was 
entitled to one-third of the total $1.4 million settlement. 
¶37 Attorney 
Molinaro 
asserts 
that 
he 
correctly 
administered the Marathon Account as a trust account throughout 
his representation of R.M.  While he admits the account was not 
properly titled as a client trust account, he says the 
settlement 
proceeds 
placed 
in 
the 
account 
were 
properly 
administered as client trust funds.  He also argues that 
although he did not maintain records of the R.M. funds in a 
manner deemed acceptable to the OLR, he complied with the 
requirements of former SCR 20:1.15.   
¶38 While Attorney Molinaro also acknowledges there were 
errors in the documents he initially provided to Attorney 
Cafaro, he says those errors were corrected in subsequent 
correspondence, and he asserts TIG was in no way harmed and 
received all the funds it was entitled to as a subrogated payor. 
¶39 Attorney Molinaro also admits that he did not provide 
R.M. a written final accounting, but he asserts his failure does 
not mean that he improperly administered the R.M. settlement 
proceeds.  Attorney Molinaro explains that he has been longtime 
friends with R.M.'s brother and sister-in-law, W.M. and J.M., 
R.M.'s agents.  Attorney Molinaro says he maintained constant 
contact with W.M. and J.M., and regularly gave them information 
about the expenditure of funds on behalf of R.M.  He points out 
there has never been a complaint from R.M. or his agents about 
the handling of the settlement proceeds. 
No. 
2007AP869-D   
 
21 
 
¶40 With respect to the transfer of the $44,500 from the 
business account to the Marathon Account and back again, 
Attorney Molinaro insists that he set the money aside until such 
time as he was satisfied R.M. was not at risk of having to pay 
additional funds.  He argues the referee's conclusion that the 
transfers were an attempt to hide money and avoid taxes is in 
error. 
¶41 As to the referee's conclusion that Attorney Molinaro 
made misrepresentations on sworn answers to interrogatories in 
his divorce action regarding his fees in the R.M. case, Attorney 
Molinaro 
argues 
his 
misstatement 
in 
the 
answer 
to 
the 
interrogatory was simply an error and a misunderstanding on his 
part about the focus of the question.  Attorney Molinaro also 
asserts that his failure to maintain various trust account 
records, as alleged in count 11 of the OLR's complaint, does not 
warrant the level of discipline recommended by the referee.  He 
argues his trust account was properly balanced each month and 
there was no finding of a misappropriation of funds.  While he 
admits that separate journals and registers were not kept on a 
regular basis, he asserts there is nothing to show he mishandled 
any funds on behalf of any of his clients.   
¶42 Attorney 
Molinaro 
argues 
that 
the 
referee's 
recommendation for a 30-month suspension of his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin is excessive and not supported by the 
record.  He points out that at the time the OLR filed its 
complaint, it sought a 24-month suspension.  He also points out 
that the referee concluded the OLR failed to prove 5 of the 13 
No. 
2007AP869-D   
 
22 
 
counts of misconduct alleged in the complaint.  Attorney 
Molinaro 
argues 
the 
referee 
provided 
no 
rationale 
for 
recommending a 30-month suspension.  He points to his nearly 30-
year unblemished career in which he has served a myriad of 
clients.  He argues that, assuming this court were to find that 
he engaged in any misconduct, a public reprimand would be an 
appropriate level of discipline.  Attorney Molinaro also argues 
that the full costs of the proceeding should not be assessed 
against him.   
¶43 The OLR argues that the referee properly concluded 
that Attorney Molinaro violated counts 5 through 9 and 11 
through 13 of the complaint.  As to count 5, the OLR points out 
that Attorney Molinaro admitted the Marathon Account into which 
the R.M. settlement proceeds were deposited, and the $44,500 was 
later commingled, was not a trust account.  The OLR also asserts 
Attorney Molinaro's claim that the funds in the account were 
properly administered is contradicted by the fact that he made 
no client ledger entries upon depositing the settlement money, 
transferred 
funds 
into 
his 
business 
account 
to 
make 
disbursements, and gave no accounting to his client. 
¶44 As to count 6 of the complaint, the OLR alleges the 
referee correctly concluded that the duty to notify TIG of the 
settlement arose upon receipt of the funds; Attorney Molinaro 
failed to notify TIG and it learned about the settlement from 
another source; and Attorney Molinaro did not pay TIG the money 
to which it was entitled for more than six months after 
receiving the funds and he never gave TIG a full accounting. 
No. 
2007AP869-D   
 
23 
 
¶45 As to count 7, the OLR notes Attorney Molinaro admits 
he transferred client settlement funds into his business 
checking account, and kept a portion of his fees and costs 
without giving R.M. a settlement statement or accounting.  As to 
count 8, the OLR says the referee appropriately found that 
Attorney Molinaro knew how to maintain proper records and failed 
to sufficiently explain why he would not have used his normal 
recordkeeping procedures in the R.M. case.   
¶46 As to count 9, the OLR argues that Attorney Molinaro 
dishonestly converted $9,630 of R.M.'s funds.  The OLR notes the 
referee found that Attorney Molinaro gave no accounting to R.M.; 
he gave a false accounting to TIG; he falsely asserted he had 
paid the guardian ad litem; and he gave contradictory statements 
regarding his fees to the OLR.  The OLR also asserts the referee 
appropriately found that Attorney Molinaro failed to report 
receipt of $44,500 of income he received in 2001 on his 2001 
income tax returns and used the Marathon Account to hide that 
income.  The OLR asserts Attorney Molinaro obtained a tax 
advantage by diverting that income until 2002.  The OLR also 
argues 
the 
referee 
appropriately 
concluded 
that 
Attorney 
Molinaro made a misrepresentation on a sworn answer to an 
interrogatory in his divorce as to when the R.M. settlement 
proceeds were received, and he also stated in the interrogatory 
answer that a prior attorney might be claiming a portion of the 
amount as a fee when in fact there was no prior attorney 
involved in the case.   
No. 
2007AP869-D   
 
24 
 
¶47 As to count 11, the OLR argues the referee properly 
found that Attorney Molinaro failed to keep a cash receipts 
journal, 
a 
disbursements 
journal, 
a 
general 
ledger 
or 
transaction register, or a monthly schedule of subsidiary 
ledgers.  As to count 12, the OLR argues the referee 
appropriately found that Attorney Molinaro commingled 41 earned 
fee payments into his client trust account in late 2001.  As to 
count 13, the OLR argues the referee appropriately found that 
Attorney Molinaro deposited $15,919.80 in earned fees and costs 
into his trust account for the purpose of hiding income and 
avoiding taxation on those fees in the year received.   
¶48 The OLR has cross-appealed the referee's conclusion 
that the OLR failed to meet its burden of proof as to count 10.  
While the OLR does not dispute the referee's findings of fact on 
this count, it argues this court should review de novo the 
referee's conclusion and find a violation of SCR 22.03(6).  The 
OLR asserts the referee found sufficient facts to prove that 
Attorney 
Molinaro 
provided 
the 
OLR 
with 
conflicting 
and 
inaccurate accountings and that he misrepresented the purpose 
for the transfer of the $44,500.  The OLR also asserts the 
record supports an order that Attorney Molinaro make restitution 
of $9,630 plus interest to R.M.   
¶49 As to the appropriate sanction, the OLR says the 
referee's recommendation of a 30-month suspension is reasonable 
and should receive due consideration.  The OLR says that its 
initial request for a two-year suspension, with an order for 
No. 
2007AP869-D   
 
25 
 
$9,630 restitution to R.M., is consistent with this court's past 
precedent.   
¶50 This court will adopt a referee's findings of fact 
unless they are 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.   
¶51 From our independent review of the record, we conclude 
that the referee's finding that Attorney Molinaro settled R.M.'s 
personal injury case for $1.085 million, plus an additional 
$215,000 in structured settlement proceeds for R.M.'s minor 
children, is clearly erroneous.  We also deem the referee's 
finding that Attorney Molinaro collected excessive fees from the 
R.M. settlement to be clearly erroneous. 
¶52 The record clearly and unequivocally demonstrates that 
the total amount of the R.M. settlement was $1.4 million.  
Attorney Molinaro's contingent fee agreement with R.M. clearly 
and unequivocally provided that Attorney Molinaro was entitled 
to receive 33 1/3 percent of the total settlement amount, or 
$466,666.  This is precisely the amount that Attorney Molinaro 
retained as fees in the R.M. case.  In addition, he was entitled 
to recover the costs of the proceeding.  The contingent fee 
agreement and settlement documents are clear and unambiguous.  
The OLR's contention that Attorney Molinaro overcharged R.M. by 
$9,630 is simply not borne out by the record. 
No. 
2007AP869-D   
 
26 
 
¶53 The OLR has devoted a significant amount of time in 
its complaint, at the hearing, and on appeal, to breaking the 
$1.4 
million 
settlement 
into 
various 
component 
parts, 
calculating 33 1/3 percent of each of those parts and then 
adding those sums together in an effort to deduce the amount of 
fees to which Attorney Molinaro was entitled.  We conclude that 
this process unnecessarily complicates the issue and results in 
an incorrect fee amount.  The amount of fees to which Attorney 
Molinaro was entitled as the result of the R.M. settlement is 
greater than the sum of those component parts.   
¶54 The total settlement in the R.M. case was $1.4 
million.  Attorney Molinaro was entitled to 33 1/3 percent of 
that amount.  After the fee was deducted from the $1.4 million, 
many other amounts were paid from the remaining balance, 
including the guardian ad litem fee, the minor settlement, and 
the payment to TIG.  We conclude that the OLR failed to prove by 
clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that Attorney 
Molinaro overcharged R.M.  Consequently, we conclude that the 
OLR failed to meet its burden of proof with respect to the first 
part of count 9 of the complaint, and we also conclude that no 
reimbursement is owed to R.M. 
¶55 We uphold the remainder of the referee's findings of 
fact and conclusions of law, including the referee's conclusion 
that the OLR failed to meet its burden of proof on count 10 of 
the complaint.  Attorney Molinaro admitted that the Marathon 
Account was not denominated as a trust account.  He also 
admitted failing to keep proper ledgers, and failing to give 
No. 
2007AP869-D   
 
27 
 
R.M. a full accounting.  The record also supports the referee's 
conclusion that Attorney Molinaro failed to give TIG prompt 
written notice of the R.M. settlement, and failed to render TIG 
a full accounting.   
¶56 Attorney Molinaro claimed that he had a legitimate 
business reason for transferring the $44,500 from his business 
account to the Marathon Account on the last day of business of 
2001 and then transferring it back in 2002, and he asserts the 
transfer was not made for the purpose of avoiding taxes in 2001.  
The referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law in this 
regard turn largely on credibility determinations.  The referee 
apparently found Attorney Molinaro's explanation about the 
reason for the transfer was not credible.  "It is the referee's 
function 
to 
assess 
credibility 
of 
witnesses." 
 
In 
re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Steinberg, 2007 WI 113, ¶16, 
304 Wis. 2d 577, 735 N.W.2d 527.  While Attorney Molinaro's 
explanation regarding the transfer is plausible, based on the 
record before us, we are unable to declare any of the referee's 
findings on the issues clearly erroneous, and we adopt them.  We 
also agree with the conclusions of law that flow from the 
referee's findings of fact in this regard.   
¶57 We now turn to the appropriate sanction to impose for 
Attorney Molinaro's misconduct.  In support of his argument that 
a public reprimand is appropriate, Attorney Molinaro cites 
previous disciplinary cases in which a public reprimand was 
issued, including In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Boyd, 
2006 WI 28, 289 Wis. 2d 351, 711 N.W.2d 268, and In re 
No. 
2007AP869-D   
 
28 
 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jacobson, 2005 WI 76, 281 
Wis. 2d 619, 697 N.W.2d 831.   
¶58 In support of its argument that a lengthy suspension 
is warranted, the OLR cites a variety of cases, including In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ward, 176 Wis. 2d 1, 499 
N.W.2d 172 
(1993); 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Krezminski, 2007 WI 21, 299 Wis. 2d 152, 727 N.W.2d 492; and In 
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Edgar, 230 Wis. 2d 205, 601 
N.W.2d 284 (1999).  Based on our review of the record, we 
conclude that this case falls somewhere between the conduct at 
issue in Boyd and Jacobson and that at issue in Ward, 
Krezminski, and Edgar. 
¶59 In Boyd and Jacobson, the attorneys were publicly 
reprimanded for commingling funds and failing to provide a full 
accounting of the distribution of settlement proceeds.  The 
conduct in the instant case is more serious since the referee 
also found that Attorney Molinaro failed to report a significant 
amount of income he received in 2001 on his 2001 tax returns and 
instead transferred those earned fees to his trust account for 
the purpose of avoiding taxation on those fees in the year in 
which they were received.  The referee also concluded that 
Attorney Molinaro engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation by making misrepresentations 
on sworn answers to interrogatories propounded in his divorce.  
The attorneys in Ward, Krezminski, and Edgar were all found to 
have converted client funds in addition to other counts of 
misconduct, some of which included trust account violations.  We 
No. 
2007AP869-D   
 
29 
 
have concluded that Attorney Molinaro did not overcharge R.M., 
and thus did not convert funds.  Consequently, we find those 
cases to be inapposite as well.   
¶60 Two cases that we find to be somewhat analogous are In 
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Steinberg, 2007 WI 113, 304 
Wis. 2d 577, 735 N.W.2d 527, and In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Brown, 2007 WI 110, 304 Wis. 2d 601, 735 N.W.2d 909.  In 
Steinberg the attorney was publicly reprimanded for multiple 
trust account violations as well as for engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.  One 
distinguishing factor is that the referee concluded Attorney 
Steinberg was confused about how to manage his trust account. 
Attorney Molinaro has 30 years experience in private practice, 
does not claim he was confused about proper trust account 
handling, and admits he did not comply with various trust 
account rules.  In addition, Attorney Molinaro was found to have 
transferred earned fees to his trust account in order to gain a 
tax 
advantage, 
and 
he 
was 
also 
found 
to 
have 
made 
a 
misrepresentation in answering a divorce interrogatory.  These 
additional factors weigh in favor of imposing discipline greater 
than that imposed in Steinberg.   
¶61 In Brown the attorney received a 90-day suspension 
after 
stipulating 
to 
multiple 
trust 
account 
violations, 
including failing to perform a reconciliation of his trust 
account for over three years; failing to maintain complete trust 
account records; depositing his own personal funds into the 
trust account on at least two occasions; and allowing earned 
No. 
2007AP869-D   
 
30 
 
fees to remain in trust without disbursing them.  Attorney Brown 
also admitted to failing to hold client or third-party funds in 
trust by using client or third-party funds to pay checks issued 
in matters related to other clients and failing to promptly 
notify clients of the receipt of funds in which the clients had 
an interest.  Attorney Brown stipulated to ten total trust 
account violations, and also agreed to the imposition of a 90-
day suspension.  The number and nature of the violations in 
Brown are somewhat analogous to the instant case.   
¶62 Although the referee did not specifically identify any 
mitigating factors, he did note that except for the violations 
found here, Attorney Molinaro "has been a competent and 
honorable member of his profession."  We also note the following 
mitigating factors: (1) the lack of harm to any clients; (2) no 
previous professional discipline; and (3) while some counts were 
serious, others were technical in nature.  Upon consideration of 
the record and all of the relevant factors, we conclude that a 
60-day suspension of Attorney Molinaro's license to practice law 
in this state is appropriate. 
¶63 The remaining issue before us is the appropriate 
amount of costs to assess against Attorney Molinaro.  On 
February 18, 2009, the OLR filed a supplemental statement of 
costs showing total costs in the amount of $23,748.28.  The OLR 
director recommends that the full amount be assessed against 
Attorney Molinaro.  Attorney Molinaro has objected to the 
supplemental statement of costs and has moved the court for an 
No. 
2007AP869-D   
 
31 
 
order reducing the amount of costs assessed.  He has not 
indicated what amount of costs he would deem appropriate.  
¶64 SCR 22.24(1m) provides that the court's general policy 
upon a finding of misconduct is to impose all costs of the 
proceeding upon the respondent attorney, but it also states that 
in cases involving extraordinary circumstances the court may, in 
the exercise of its discretion, reduce the amount of costs 
imposed upon a respondent.  When exercising this discretion, the 
court will consider the submissions of the parties and the 
following factors: (a) the number of counts charged, contested, 
and proven; (b) the nature of the misconduct; (c) the level of 
discipline sought by the parties and recommended by the referee; 
(d) the respondent's cooperation with the disciplinary process; 
(e) 
prior 
discipline, 
if 
any; 
and 
(f) 
other 
relevant 
circumstances.   
¶65 In the present case, we determine that these factors 
show an extraordinary circumstance that warrants a reduction of 
the costs to be imposed on Attorney Molinaro.  We further 
conclude that it would be just to assess $12,000 in costs 
against Attorney Molinaro.  
¶66 The OLR charged 13 counts of professional misconduct.  
The referee found a failure of proof as to five counts, 
including the four counts arising out of Attorney Molinaro's 
representation of J.K.  The four counts involving J.K. provided 
the impetus for the OLR to commence its investigation into 
Attorney Molinaro's conduct in 2004.  The OLR would not have 
learned of Attorney Molinaro's representation of R.M. had it not 
No. 
2007AP869-D   
 
32 
 
been for the grievance filed by J.K.  The OLR did not appeal the 
referee's decision with respect to the J.K. counts.  
¶67 The most serious allegation of misconduct found by the 
referee was Attorney Molinaro's alleged $9,630 overcharge in the 
R.M. personal injury settlement.  It appears that the question 
of what was the appropriate fee in the R.M. settlement was the 
most hotly debated issue in this case, and that this single 
issue accounted for a substantial amount of the total time——and 
resulting fees and costs——expended by the OLR in prosecuting 
this matter.  We have concluded that the OLR failed to meet its 
burden of proof on its allegation that Attorney Molinaro 
overcharged R.M.  We also rejected the OLR's cross-appeal and 
agreed with the referee that Attorney Molinaro fully cooperated 
with the investigation into his conduct.  
¶68 We agree that the remaining counts of misconduct are 
serious 
failings 
which 
warrant 
a 
suspension 
of 
Attorney 
Molinaro's license to practice law.  However, the failure to 
maintain proper records is a technical violation, and although 
we did not overturn the referee's factual findings as to why 
Attorney Molinaro deferred income from one year to the next, we 
did agree that his explanation for the deferral was plausible.  
¶69 While the OLR sought a two-year suspension and the 
referee recommended a 30-month suspension, this court has deemed 
it appropriate to impose a much lesser sanction, a 60-day 
suspension.  
¶70 Attorney Molinaro has practiced law for almost 30 
years and has no prior disciplinary history.  This matter has 
No. 
2007AP869-D   
 
33 
 
been pending for a significant period of time.  The conduct at 
issue occurred between 2001 and 2003.  The OLR's investigation 
lasted for 30 months before the matter was referred to the 
preliminary review committee.  A complaint was not filed until 
2007.  
¶71 In view of all of these factors, we conclude that it 
would not be fair under the circumstances of this case to hold 
Attorney Molinaro responsible for the full amount of costs.  We 
conclude that extraordinary circumstances are present and that 
Attorney Molinaro should be required to pay $12,000 in costs. 
¶72 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Thomas J. Molinaro 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for 60 days, 
commencing August 10, 2009. 
¶73 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Thomas J. Molinaro comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
¶74 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Thomas J. Molinaro shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation $12,000 as the costs of this proceeding.  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 Thomas J. Molinaro to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of this 
court. 
¶75 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J., did not participate. 
 
No. 
2007AP869-D   
 
 
 
1