Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Bruce J. Meagher
Citation: 2003 WI 132
Docket Number: 2003AP001185-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: October 8, 2003

2003 WI 132 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
03-1185-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Bruce J. Meagher, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
Bruce J. Meagher,  
 
Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MEAGHER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 8, 2003   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: ROGGENSACK, J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2003 WI 132 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  03-1185-D  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Bruce J. Meagher, Attorney at  
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Bruce J. Meagher,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 8, 2003 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the stipulation filed by 
Attorney Bruce J. Meagher and the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) pursuant to SCR 22.12,1 which sets forth findings of fact 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.12 provides:  Stipulation.  
(1) The director may file with the complaint a 
stipulation of the director and the respondent to the 
facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and 
discipline to be imposed.  The supreme court may 
consider the complaint and stipulation without the 
appointment of a referee.  
No. 
03-1185-D   
 
2 
 
and conclusions of law regarding Attorney Meagher's professional 
misconduct.  The parties stipulated to a six-month suspension of 
Attorney Meagher's license to practice law in Wisconsin, to be 
imposed retroactive to the date of his temporary suspension, 
November 12, 2002.   
¶2 
We accept the parties' stipulation and recommendation 
that a suspension of six months, imposed retroactively, is 
appropriate discipline for Attorney Meagher's misconduct. 
¶3 
Attorney Meagher was admitted to practice in 1980.  On 
November 12, 2002, Attorney Meagher's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin was temporarily suspended, pursuant to SCR 22.20(1), 
in connection with his conviction for violation of a federal 
wire wagering law.  That conviction forms the basis for one of 
the counts of misconduct described herein.2  Attorney Meagher has 
no other disciplinary history. 
                                                                                                                                                             
(2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation, 
it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of 
law and impose the stipulated discipline.  
(3) If the supreme court rejects the stipulation, 
a referee shall be appointed and the matter shall 
proceed as a complaint filed without a stipulation.  
(4) A stipulation rejected by the supreme court 
has no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to 
the respondent's defense of the proceeding or the 
prosecution of the complaint. 
2 SCR 22.20(1) provides: 
Summary suspension.  Upon receiving satisfactory 
proof that an attorney has been found guilty or 
convicted of a serious crime, the supreme court may 
summarily suspend the attorney's license to practice 
law 
pending final disposition 
of 
a disciplinary 
No. 
03-1185-D   
 
3 
 
¶4 
On May 2, 2003, the OLR filed a complaint against 
Attorney Meagher, which alleged two counts of misconduct.  The 
complaint alleged that Attorney Meagher represented a client 
when the representation of that client was directly adverse to 
another client without reasonably believing the representation 
would not adversely affect the relationship with the other 
client and without obtaining each client's written consent in 
violation of SCR 20:1.7(a).3  The complaint further alleged that 
Attorney Meagher engaged in criminal conduct that reflects 
adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as 
a lawyer in other respects in violation of SCR 20:8.4(b).4 
¶5 
On or about May 20, 2003, the OLR and Attorney Meagher 
filed a stipulation pursuant to SCR 22.12, in which Attorney 
Meagher stipulated to the misconduct charged in the OLR's 
complaint and to the sanctions sought by the OLR.   
                                                                                                                                                             
proceeding, whether the finding of guilt or the 
conviction resulted from a plea of guilty or no 
contest or from a verdict after trial and regardless 
of the pendency of an appeal. 
3 SCR 20:1.7(a) provides:  "A lawyer shall not represent a 
client if the representation of that client will be directly 
adverse to another client, unless: (1) the lawyer reasonably 
believes the representation will not adversely affect the 
relationship with the other client; and (2) each client consents 
in writing after consultation." 
4 SCR 20:8.4(b) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to: commit a criminal act that reflects adversely 
on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer 
in other respects." 
No. 
03-1185-D   
 
4 
 
¶6 
The 
facts 
giving 
rise 
to 
the 
violation 
of 
SCR 20:1.7(a), relating to Attorney Meagher's representation of 
a client despite the existence of a conflict of interest are set 
forth in the stipulation, and described herein. 
¶7 
Kenneth Flannery (Flannery) is a Minnesota businessman 
who sold benefit and payroll services.  Flannery had an ongoing 
attorney-client relationship with Attorney Meagher.  Steve 
Haskins 
(Haskins) 
is 
a 
Minnesota 
businessman 
who 
was 
a 
consultant for and provider of employee benefits programs.   
¶8 
In January 1998 Flannery and Haskins asked Attorney 
Meagher to represent them in a joint business venture to develop 
an employee benefits software program.  Attorney Meagher was 
hired to set up one or more limited liability corporations 
(LLCs), intended to merge the businesses of Flannery and 
Haskins. 
 
Attorney 
Meagher 
filed 
Minnesota 
Articles 
of 
Organization to create two new LLCs for Flannery and Haskins, 
for operation of the joint business venture. 
¶9 
On January 28, 1998, Attorney Meagher sent Flannery 
and Haskins, for discussion purposes, drafts of two operating 
agreements for the new LLCs.  These operating agreements 
contemplated that Flannery and his existing companies would own 
a 60 percent interest in each, and Haskins and his existing 
company would own a 40 percent interest.  Neither operating 
agreement was ever executed. 
¶10 Haskins' company wrote a check to Attorney Meagher in 
partial payment of Attorney Meagher's legal services.  Haskins' 
company made other payments on behalf of the new companies and 
No. 
03-1185-D   
 
5 
 
the development of the software program, totaling over $200,000.  
Haskins represents that those payments constituted his capital 
contribution to the new companies.  Attorney Meagher asserts 
that he did not know of these investments at the time they were 
made. 
¶11 The process for the new LLCs was never entirely 
concluded, in that the operating agreements were never signed.  
Flannery and Haskins continued to negotiate the terms of the 
joint business venture. 
¶12 During the spring, summer, and early fall of 1999, 
according 
to 
a subsequent 
arbitrator's 
decision, Flannery 
allegedly "waged a campaign to discredit" Haskins, steal away 
his existing clients, and to set up a competing business.  
Flannery also allegedly contacted two of Haskins' employees 
regarding creation of the new competing business (EBIG).  
¶13 Attorney 
Meagher 
was 
hired 
to incorporate 
EBIG.  
Although EBIG was intended to compete with Haskins' business, 
Attorney Meagher did not obtain consent from Haskins for this 
representation. 
¶14 As of October 1, 1999, the two employees left Haskins' 
firm and started doing business as EBIG.  They contacted 
Haskins' clients and encouraged them to switch to their new 
company. 
Flannery 
entered 
into separate negotiations 
with 
Haskins to purchase Haskins' existing company.  Haskins retained 
new counsel.  Attorney Meagher undertook representation of 
Flannery in the negotiations without seeking or obtaining 
No. 
03-1185-D   
 
6 
 
written consent from Haskins or Flannery regarding any conflict 
of interest. 
¶15 After intense negotiations in which Attorney Meagher 
was involved, Haskins and Flannery signed a sale agreement.  The 
sale price that Flannery was to pay Haskins was based on a 
percentage of the profits of the company over the next ten 
years. 
¶16 Haskins' counsel drafted documents, including a letter 
of intent, to effectuate the sale and presented them for 
Attorney Meagher's review.  Attorney Meagher responded that he 
and Flannery were "flabbergasted" to discover how much the 
proposed closing documents deviated from the letter of intent.  
Attorney Meagher threatened to file a lawsuit seeking specific 
performance. 
¶17 One of the provisions in the documents to which 
Attorney Meagher objected involved the new competing company, 
which Attorney Meagher had formed for Flannery and for Haskins' 
former employees.  In the midst of negotiations, Haskins wrote 
to Flannery requesting corporate information regarding the joint 
business venture in which he had invested some $200,000.  
Flannery denied that Haskins had any ownership interest in the 
joint business venture.  Attorney Meagher also asserted in 
subsequent correspondence that Haskins' requests for information 
about the joint venture, regarding which Attorney Meagher had 
previously provided legal representation, were "frivolous." 
¶18 The 
sale 
from 
Haskins 
to 
Flannery 
was 
never 
consummated.  Flannery sought to enforce the sale agreement 
No. 
03-1185-D   
 
7 
 
through arbitration proceedings.  Attorney Meagher did not 
represent Flannery in those proceedings, but did appear as a 
witness. 
¶19 The 
OLR 
complaint 
alleged 
that 
by 
representing 
Flannery when the representation of Flannery was directly 
adverse to Haskins, and when the representation adversely 
affected the relationship with Haskins, and by not obtaining 
written conflict waivers from Flannery or Haskins, Attorney 
Meagher represented a client when the representation of that 
client will be directly adverse to another client without 
reasonably believing the representation will not adversely 
affect the relationship with the other client and without each 
client's written consent, in violation of SCR 20:1.7(a).   
¶20 The stipulation executed by Attorney Meagher and the 
OLR also describes the facts giving rise to Attorney Meagher's 
violation of SCR 20:8.4(b).  In April 2002, Attorney Meagher 
entered a guilty plea to one count of violating the federal Wire 
Wagering Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1084, by virtue of his ownership 
interest in Gold Medal Sports (GMS), an offshore gambling 
operation that took sports bets from United States citizens via 
wire communications.  On July 18, 2002, Attorney Meagher was 
sentenced to one-month's imprisonment followed by five months of 
home confinement without electronic monitoring and one year of 
supervised release.  Attorney Meagher also paid a $20,000 fine.  
Attorney Meagher stipulated that this conviction and the 
circumstances surrounding it demonstrate that Attorney Meagher 
engaged in criminal conduct that reflects adversely on a 
No. 
03-1185-D   
 
8 
 
lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in 
other respects in violation of SCR 20:8.4(b).  
¶21 In addition to stipulating to the misconduct set forth 
above, the parties stipulated to discipline in the form of a 
six-month suspension of Attorney Meagher's license to practice 
law in Wisconsin, to be imposed retroactive to the date of his 
temporary 
suspension, 
November 
12, 
2002. 
The 
stipulation 
provides further that it is not the result of a plea bargain and 
reflects neither a reduction of the charges nor a reduction of 
the level of discipline originally sought by the OLR.  The OLR 
is not seeking imposition of costs in this matter. 
¶22 We approve the stipulation and adopt the stipulated 
facts and conclusions of law.   We agree that Attorney Meagher's 
misconduct warrants the suspension of his license to practice 
law.  We accept the parties' stipulation that a six-month 
suspension, imposed retroactive to November 12, 2002, the date 
his license was temporarily suspended, is appropriate discipline 
for this offense.  Therefore, 
¶23 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Bruce J. Meagher to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six 
months, effective November 12, 2002. 
¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if he has not already done 
so, Attorney Bruce J. Meagher must 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 PATIENCE D. ROGGENSACK, J., did not participate.
No. 
03-1185-D   
 
 
 
1