Title: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. Kevin C. O'Keefe
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2000AP000882-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: July 13, 2000

2000 WI 99 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
00-0882-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Kevin C. O'Keefe, Attorney at Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional  
Responsibility,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
Kevin C. O'Keefe,  
 
Respondent.  
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST O'KEEFE 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
July 13, 2000 
Submitted on Briefs: 
      
Oral Argument: 
      
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
      
 
Dissented: 
      
 
Not Participating:       
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
      
 
 
 
2000 WI 99 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 00-0882-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Kevin C. O'Keefe, Attorney at  
Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional  
Responsibility,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Kevin C. O'Keefe,  
 
          Respondent.  
 
FILED 
 
JUL 13, 2000 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that Attorney Kevin C. O'Keefe be reprimanded as 
discipline 
for 
professional 
misconduct. 
 
That 
misconduct 
consists of his failure to keep a client reasonably informed of 
the status of her legal matter, failure to hold property in 
trust in connection with that matter until there was an 
undisputed agreement to an accounting and severance of competing 
interests in that property, and providing representation in the 
No. 
00-0882-D 
 
2 
matter to two clients with a conflict of interest without 
obtaining the clients' written consent.  In addition to the 
reprimand, the referee recommended that Attorney O'Keefe be 
required to pay restitution to one client in the matter. 
¶2 
We 
determine 
that 
the 
seriousness 
of 
Attorney 
O'Keefe's professional misconduct warrants a public reprimand.  
He failed to meet his professional obligations in representing a 
client on a claim for damages arising out of a personal injury 
and impermissibly applied funds belonging to the spouse of the 
client to pay the costs incurred in pursuing the client's 
action.  As this is the first time he has been the subject of a 
disciplinary proceeding and his misconduct appears to have been 
the result of inattention and carelessness, rather than an 
intentional conversion of property to his own use, a public 
reprimand is sufficient to apprise him of the seriousness of 
that misconduct and to deter other attorneys from engaging in 
like misconduct. 
¶3 
Attorney O'Keefe was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1983 and previously practiced in La Crosse, 
Wisconsin.  He currently practices law in Seattle, Washington.  
He has not been the subject of a prior attorney disciplinary 
proceeding, but he was suspended from practice in Wisconsin in 
June 2000 for noncompliance with continuing legal education 
requirements.  He did not answer or otherwise appear in this 
disciplinary 
proceeding, 
and 
the 
referee, 
Attorney 
Janet 
Jenkins, made findings of fact and conclusions of law in 
No. 
00-0882-D 
 
3 
response to the motion of the Board of Attorneys Professional 
Responsibility (Board) for default judgment. 
¶4 
While representing a client in September 1995 on a 
claim for injuries resulting from an auto accident, Attorney 
O'Keefe learned that the client's wife had sustained an injury 
from an accident on a treadmill two years earlier.  Attorney 
O'Keefe undertook to represent the wife on her claim in the 
spring of 1996.   
¶5 
Attorney O'Keefe filed an action on the client-wife's 
behalf in October 1996 but had difficulty obtaining medical and 
liability experts to support the client's claim.  The defendants 
moved for summary judgment in mid-June 1997 and two weeks later 
offered to settle the case for $7500 if Attorney O'Keefe could 
obtain releases from three subrogated insurers.  The client 
agreed to settle for that amount plus a new treadmill.  The 
defendants were not willing to include a treadmill as part of 
the settlement, but Attorney O'Keefe led his client to believe 
that a new treadmill was a part of the settlement, intending to 
purchase one for her with a portion of the fee he was to receive 
in the matter. 
¶6 
Attorney O'Keefe was able to obtain a release from 
only one of the three subrogated insurers, but he did not oppose 
the motion for summary judgment, which was granted toward the 
end of July 1997.  Opposing counsel then wrote to remind him 
that the $7500 settlement was contingent on his obtaining 
waivers of more than $20,000 in medical liens.  Attorney O'Keefe 
did not respond to that letter or move to reopen the client's 
No. 
00-0882-D 
 
4 
case.  He had no further contact with the other subrogated 
insurers until early September 1997, and he obtained waivers 
from them at the end of that month.  When he sent the insurers' 
releases to opposing counsel with a letter stating that he 
intended to proceed with the $7500 settlement, opposing counsel 
informed him that there was nothing left to settle, as the case 
had been dismissed, and that the manufacturer of the treadmill 
had filed for bankruptcy.   
¶7 
During this period, when the client contacted him from 
time to time to inquire about her claim, Attorney O'Keefe did 
not tell her of the summary judgment but led her to believe he 
was waiting for the settlement check.  At the end of October 
1997, he told the client that the settlement was in jeopardy and 
encouraged her to bring a small claims action against the 
retailer who had sold the treadmill to seek enforcement of the 
settlement agreement.  The client chose not to do so.  
¶8 
While her case was pending, the client received 
periodic bills from Attorney O'Keefe's office itemizing expenses 
that had been incurred and was told that she need not pay those 
bills until the conclusion of the case.  After the case had been 
dismissed, unpaid expenses and finance charges added to them 
totaled $2790.98.  When the husband-client's personal injury 
claim settled in February 1998, Attorney O'Keefe sent a 
settlement check to him with a letter stating that he had 
deducted from that settlement the expenses that had been 
incurred in the wife's case.  Attorney O'Keefe had not obtained 
either client's consent to do so.   
No. 
00-0882-D 
 
5 
¶9 
During the course of his representation of the client-
wife, at least one of the subrogated health insurers assigned 
its subrogation claim to the client and then retained Attorney 
O'Keefe in the matter.  Attorney O'Keefe did not obtain his 
client's written consent to the resulting dual representation of 
persons with conflicting interests.   
¶10 On the basis of those facts, the referee concluded as 
follows: by failing to discuss the dismissal of the client's 
action and its resulting impact with his client from July 
through October 1997, Attorney O'Keefe failed to keep the client 
reasonably informed of the status of the matter, in violation of 
SCR 20:1.4;1 his deducting expenses incurred in one client's case 
from settlement proceeds belonging to that client's husband in 
another case without authorization of either client constituted 
a failure to hold property in trust until there was an 
undisputed agreement to an accounting and severance of interests 
in the funds, in violation of SCR 20:1.15(d);2 by providing 
                     
1 SCR 20:1.4 provides: Communication. 
(a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about 
the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable 
requests for information.  
(b) A 
lawyer 
shall 
explain 
a 
matter 
to 
the 
extent 
reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed 
decisions regarding the representation.  
2 SCR 20:1.15(d) provides: 
No. 
00-0882-D 
 
6 
concurrent representation to the injured client and to the 
subrogated 
insurer 
without 
obtaining 
the injured client's 
written consent to the dual representation, Attorney O'Keefe 
failed to obtain a client's written consent to a technical 
conflict of interest, in violation of SCR 20:1.7(b).3 
¶11 As discipline for that professional misconduct, the 
referee recommended that Attorney O'Keefe be reprimanded and 
ordered to pay restitution to the client from whose settlement 
he deducted costs incurred in representation of that client's 
wife in another action, with interest on that amount of 5% per 
year from and after March 2, 1998.  The referee recommended 
further that if the restitution were not paid within 60 days of 
the court's order in this proceeding, Attorney O'Keefe's license 
                                                                  
(d) When, in the representation, a lawyer is in 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.   
3 SCR 20:1.7(b) provides: 
(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, unless:  
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will 
not be adversely affected; and  
(2) the client consents in writing after consultation. When 
representation of multiple clients in a single matter is 
undertaken, the consultation shall include explanation of the 
implications of the common representation and the advantages and 
risks involved.  
No. 
00-0882-D 
 
7 
to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended until further order of 
the court.  Finally, the referee recommended that Attorney 
O'Keefe be required to pay the costs of this proceeding. 
¶12 In 
her 
report, 
the 
referee 
emphasized 
the 
impossibility of ascertaining Attorney O'Keefe's mental state at 
the time of his misconduct, owing to his not having participated 
in this disciplinary proceeding.  As a consequence, the referee 
had no information, nor do we, of any possible mitigating 
factors or of Attorney O'Keefe's attitude or potential for 
rehabilitation.  Consequently, the referee's recommendation and 
our determination of appropriate discipline are based solely on 
the nature and seriousness of the misconduct itself, the impact 
it had on the clients, and the fact that Attorney O'Keefe has 
not previously been disciplined for misconduct.  
¶13 We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and determine that the appropriate discipline 
for Attorney O'Keefe's professional misconduct is a public 
reprimand.  We also determine that Attorney O'Keefe should be 
required to make restitution to the client whose settlement 
proceeds he used to pay the client's spouse's costs incurred in 
the separate matter.  Lastly, we require Attorney O'Keefe to pay 
the costs of this proceeding. 
¶14 IT IS ORDERED that Attorney Kevin C. O'Keefe is 
publicly reprimanded for professional misconduct established in 
this proceeding. 
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Attorney Kevin C. O'Keefe make restitution to his 
No. 
00-0882-D 
 
8 
former client pursuant to the terms recommended by the referee 
in this proceeding, provided that if the restitution is not made 
within the time specified and absent a showing to this court of 
his inability to make the restitution within that time, the 
license of Kevin C. O'Keefe to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
be suspended until further order of the court. 
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Attorney Kevin C. O'Keefe pay to the Board of 
Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility 
the 
costs 
of 
this 
proceeding, provided that in the event 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 
Kevin C. O'Keefe to practice law in Wisconsin shall be suspended 
until further order of the court.  
 
 
1