Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Virginia Rose Ray
Citation: 2002 WI 116
Docket Number: 2001AP001784-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: October 2, 2002

2002 WI 116 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
01-1784-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Virginia Rose Ray, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, f/k/a Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
Virginia Rose Ray,  
 
Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST RAY 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 2, 2002   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2002 WI 116 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  01-1784-D  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Virginia Rose Ray, Attorney at  
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, f/k/a Board  
of Attorneys Professional Responsibility,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Virginia Rose Ray,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 2, 2002  
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.    
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   We 
review 
the 
findings 
of 
fact, 
conclusions of law, and recommendations for sanctions of the 
No. 
01-1784-D   
 
2 
 
referee, John Schweitzer,1 pursuant to former SCR 21.09(5).2  
Attorney Virginia Rose Ray was found to have engaged in 
unprofessional conduct in the course of her practice of law and 
to have failed to cooperate with an investigation of grievances 
filed against her with the Board, all in violation of the Rules 
of Professional Conduct.  The referee recommended a 60-day 
                                                 
1 Effective 
October 
1, 
2000, 
Wisconsin's 
attorney 
disciplinary process underwent a substantial restructuring.  The 
name of the body responsible for investigating and prosecuting 
cases involving attorney misconduct was changed from the Board 
of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board) to the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation, and the Supreme Court rules applicable to 
the lawyer regulation system were also revised.  Since the 
conduct underlying this case arose prior to October 1, 2000, all 
references will be to the Board and to the Supreme Court rules 
in effect prior to October 1, 2000.   
2 Former SCR 21.09(5) provided: 
(5) The referee shall, within 30 days of the 
conclusion of the hearing, file with the clerk of the 
supreme court a report stating his or her findings and 
disposition 
of 
the 
complaint 
or 
petition 
by 
recommendation 
of 
dismissal 
or 
imposition 
of 
discipline as provided in SCR 21.06 or suspension or 
conditions upon the continued practice of law for 
medical incapacity.  The board or the attorney may 
file an appeal of the referee's report with the 
supreme court within 20 days of the filing of the 
report.  If no appeal is timely filed, the supreme 
court shall review the referee's report and determine 
appropriate discipline in cases of misconduct and 
appropriate action in cases of medical incapacity and 
may, on its own motion, within 30 days of the 
expiration of the time for appeal, order the parties 
to file briefs in the matter or extend the time in 
which it may order briefs.  The supreme court's final 
disposition of disciplinary and medical incapacity 
proceedings 
shall 
be 
published 
in 
the 
official 
publications specified 
in 
SCR 80.01. 
 
(Emphasis 
added.)   
No. 
01-1784-D   
 
3 
 
suspension of Attorney Ray's license to practice law, payment to 
a former client of $4000 with interest, and the payment of the 
costs of these proceedings.  
¶2 
We 
approve 
the 
findings, 
conclusions, 
and 
recommendations and determine that the seriousness of Attorney 
Ray's misconduct warrants the imposition of these sanctions.  
¶3 
Attorney Ray was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in 1988 and currently practices in Dodgeville, 
Wisconsin.  She has no prior disciplinary history.   
¶4 
On July 2, 2001, the Board issued a complaint against 
Attorney Ray ordering her to answer within 20 days.  She 
eventually answered and, after the referee was appointed, a 
hearing was held on November 19, 2001.  Prior to that Attorney 
Ray had stipulated that she had violated counts five and six of 
the 18-count complaint.  The referee issued his report, 
containing 
findings 
of 
fact, 
conclusions 
of 
law, 
and 
a 
recommended disposition, on March 14, 2002.   
¶5 
The counts of the complaint relate to Attorney Ray's 
involvement in five cases.   
CASE ONE 
¶6 
The 
first 
six 
counts 
relate 
to 
Attorney 
Ray's 
representation of a client in a divorce action in 1998.  The man 
paid Attorney Ray $4000 as a flat fee to cover all legal 
services 
through 
final 
judgment. 
 
Attorney 
Ray 
put 
an 
undetermined number of hours into the case during the first 
month and shortly thereafter the client discharged her.  He then 
No. 
01-1784-D   
 
4 
 
sought the unearned portion of the $4000 and Attorney Ray 
refused to refund it.   
¶7 
When the client complained to the Board and it 
investigated the matter, Attorney Ray failed to respond to the 
Board's first two initial letters of inquiry.  Subsequent 
requests by the Board to her to provide a written response to 
the complaint also went unheeded.  Attorney Ray eventually did 
grant the Board an interview during which she claimed that it 
was a non-refundable fee.   
¶8 
Counts one and two alleged that Attorney Ray had 
failed to hold the $4000 in a proper client trust fund as 
required by SCR 20:1.15(a)3 and had otherwise failed to properly 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:1.15(a) provides: 
(a) 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 
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 
No. 
01-1784-D   
 
5 
 
hold the funds in trust as required by SCR 20:1.15(d).4  These 
counts had been withdrawn by the Board prior to the hearing and 
thus are no longer part of this proceeding. 
¶9 
Count three alleged that Attorney Ray failed to 
perform sufficient services to justify the $4000 fee as required 
by SCR 20:1.5(a).5  However, the referee found that the Board had 
                                                                                                                                                             
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. 
4 SCR 20:1.15(d) provides: 
(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. 
5 SCR 20:1.5(a) provides: 
(a) 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;  
No. 
01-1784-D   
 
6 
 
failed to prove this count.  He found that there was no evidence 
regarding the amount of time Attorney Ray spent working on the 
case and that it was possible that she spent at least 14 hours 
working on it which would justify the fee if calculated at the 
rate of $300 per hour, what the referee perceived to be the 
upper end of the range of reasonable attorney fees for this type 
of matter.  
¶10 Count four alleged that Attorney Ray did not take 
proper steps upon termination of the representation to protect 
her client's interest as required by SCR 20:1.16(d).6  The 
                                                                                                                                                             
(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.  
6 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides: 
(d) 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.  
No. 
01-1784-D   
 
7 
 
referee also found that the Board failed to provide adequate 
proof of a violation in this regard.  
¶11 As previously noted, counts five and six were admitted 
by Attorney Ray.  They alleged that she had failed to respond to 
the Board as required by former SCR 22.07(2)7 and had failed to 
cooperate with the Board's investigation as required by former 
SCR 21.03(4).8 
CASE TWO 
¶12 Counts 
seven 
and 
eight 
concern 
Attorney 
Ray's 
representation of a father in 1998 to re-establish joint custody 
of his two children after his former spouse moved them without 
his 
permission 
from 
Georgia 
to 
Wisconsin 
and 
then 
to 
Pennsylvania, the home of their maternal grandmother.  Attorney 
                                                                                                                                                             
The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to 
the extent permitted by other law. 
7 Former SCR 22.07(2) provided: 
(2) During the course of an investigation, the 
administrator or a committee may notify the respondent 
of the subject being investigated.  The respondent 
shall 
fully 
and 
fairly 
disclose 
all 
facts 
and 
circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct or 
medical incapacity within 20 days of being served by 
ordinary mail a request for response to a grievance.  
The administrator in his or her discretion may allow 
additional time to respond.  Failure to provide 
information or misrepresentation in a disclosure is 
misconduct.  The administrator or committee may make a 
further investigation before making a recommendation 
to the board.  
8 Former SCR 21.03(4) provided: "(4) Every attorney shall 
cooperate 
with 
the 
board 
and 
the 
administrator 
in 
the 
investigation, prosecution and disposition of grievances and 
complaints filed with or by the board or administrator." 
No. 
01-1784-D   
 
8 
 
Ray, her client, her client's new spouse, and a police officer, 
went to the home of the ex-spouse's sister who lived in 
Wisconsin.  Attorney Ray began yelling at the woman about hiding 
the children while they had been in this state.  She threatened 
the sister that she would go to jail for interference with the 
child custody order or for conspiracy to kidnap.  She also made 
similar threats against a friend of the sister who was present 
during this confrontation and who Attorney Ray thought might 
have also been involved in this matter.  The friend was 
apparently so intimidated by Attorney Ray that she later "turned 
herself in" for arrest to the local sheriff's department.  On 
several subsequent occasions, Attorney Ray engaged in similarly 
abusive 
telephone 
conversations 
with 
the 
sister 
and 
the 
grandmother.   
¶13 Count seven alleged a violation of SCR 20:3.109 which 
prohibits an attorney from threatening to present criminal 
charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.  
However, the referee found that there had been no such violation 
because, giving Attorney Ray the benefit of the doubt, she might 
have been more interested in simply getting the children under 
the jurisdiction of a Wisconsin 
court than 
she was in 
necessarily obtaining an advantage for her client.  
                                                 
9 SCR 20:3.10 provides: "Threatening criminal prosecution. A 
lawyer shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten 
to present criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage in a 
civil matter." 
No. 
01-1784-D   
 
9 
 
¶14 However, the referee did find a violation of count 
eight based on SCR 40.15 which states that an attorney is to 
abstain from all displays of an offensive personality, which is 
part of the attorney's oath,10 as well as SCR 20:8.4(g)11 which 
designates as unprofessional conduct a violation of that oath.  
The referee was particularly influenced by the testimony of the 
sister's friend who had no vested interest in the matter.  The 
referee considered her testimony to be more reliable than that 
of Attorney Ray who had denied that her conduct could be fairly 
described as reflecting an offensive personality. 
CASE THREE 
¶15 Counts 
nine 
and 
ten 
involve 
Attorney 
Ray's 
representation of another divorce client.  Another attorney was 
appointed by the court to serve as the guardian ad litem for the 
minor child of the marriage.  The counts centered on a 1998 
conference in the chambers of Circuit Court Judge William Dyke.  
The allegations generally alleged that Attorney Ray interrupted, 
                                                 
10 SCR 40.15 provides, in pertinent part:  
The oath or affirmation to be taken to qualify 
for admission to the practice of law shall be in 
substantially the following form:  
 . . . . 
I 
will 
abstain 
from 
all 
offensive 
personality . . . .  
11 SCR 20:8.4(g) provides: "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to: (g) violate the attorney's oath." 
No. 
01-1784-D   
 
10 
 
contradicted, and talked back to Judge Dyke as well as the 
guardian ad litem and opposing counsel.   
¶16 Specifically, count nine alleged a violation of SCR 
20:3.5(c),12 which prohibits engaging in conduct intended to 
disrupt a tribunal.  Although Attorney Ray interrupted the other 
attorneys at the conference by stating, "Oh, brother," and "Oh, 
what crap," and continued to argue with Judge Dyke after he told 
her that her conduct was inappropriate, the referee found no 
violation.  Although he found that she had disrupted the 
tribunal, he could not find evidence that she had intended such 
a result.  Rather he perceived that she was frustrated by the 
entire situation and, although completely in the wrong, did not 
violate the rule. 
¶17 Count ten had alleged that Attorney Ray violated SCR 
20:8.4(g) in failing to maintain the respect due to courts of 
justice and judicial officers, as well as SCR 40.1513 which 
demands this of attorneys as part of their oath.  In this 
instance the referee found a violation based on statements 
                                                 
12 SCR 20:3.5(c) provides: "A lawyer shall not: (c) engage 
in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal." 
13 SCR 40:15 provides, in pertinent part: 
The oath or affirmation to be taken to qualify 
for admission to the practice of law shall be in 
substantially the following form: 
 . . . . 
I will maintain the respect due to courts of 
justice and judicial officers. 
No. 
01-1784-D   
 
11 
 
Attorney Ray made in letters to Judge Dyke that her client would 
not comply with the court's visitation order, by reiterating 
this at the conference, and by arguing with Judge Dyke that her 
conduct in general at the conference was appropriate.   
CASE FOUR 
¶18 Counts 11 and 12 stem from Attorney Ray's failure to 
respond to requests for information from the Board with respect 
to a grievance filed by a man who claimed that she had attempted 
to intimidate him regarding a legal matter during a telephone 
call and had also made false statements regarding the matter in 
a communication to a public body.  Count 11 alleged a violation 
of SCR 21.03(4) which requires that an attorney cooperate with 
the Board in the investigation, prosecution, and disposition of 
grievances and complaints.  Count 12 alleged a violation of SCR 
22.07(2) requiring that an attorney fully and fairly disclose 
all facts and circumstances pertaining to alleged misconduct 
within 20 days of being served a request for a response.  
¶19 Attorney Ray told the Board investigator that she 
would not respond to the grievance because she was a sole 
practitioner, had no secretary, the matter was not worthy of 
investigation, and that she generally did not have time for the 
procedure.  She then hung up on the investigator.  Attorney Ray 
later failed to respond to a certified letter sent by the Board 
regarding the matter.   
¶20 Based on Attorney Ray's admission that she had 
generally refused to cooperate with the Board, the referee found 
a violation of both counts.  
No. 
01-1784-D   
 
12 
 
CASE FIVE 
¶21 Counts 13 to 18 involved Attorney Ray's representation 
of Pamela Kuehni in a 1995 divorce.  The client paid her a $4000 
retainer fee which was to apply to all services through final 
judgment.  After an initial meeting which lasted only one hour 
the client heard nothing from Attorney Ray for two months.  When 
she went back to see Attorney Ray, the latter swore at her and 
made derogatory comments about her.  This prompted the client to 
leave and she later called Attorney Ray to terminate the 
attorney-client relationship and to seek a refund.  Attorney Ray 
admitted to the client that she was entitled to the refund but 
then told her that she did not have the money to pay her and 
would not have the funds for more than one year.  
¶22 Count 13 alleged a violation of SCR 20:1.15(a) which 
requires that an attorney hold all client funds in a trust 
account.  The referee found that Attorney Ray had failed to 
deposit the $4000 into her client trust account as required. 
¶23 Count 14 alleged a violation of SCR 20:1.15(d) which 
requires that the attorney treat property in which both the 
attorney and another person claim interest as trust property 
until there is an accounting and severance of their interests.  
The referee further found that the failure to place the $4000 
into a client trust account violated this rule.  
¶24 Count 15 alleged a violation of SCR 20:1.5(a) which 
requires that attorney fees be reasonable.  The referee found 
that because Attorney Ray had performed minimal legal services 
No. 
01-1784-D   
 
13 
 
for 
the 
client, 
the 
retention 
of 
the 
full 
$4000 
was 
unreasonable.   
¶25 Count 16 alleged a violation of SCR 20:1.16(d) which 
requires that upon termination of representation the attorney is 
to take steps to protect the client's interest including a 
refund of any advance payment that has not been earned.  Once 
again the referee found that Attorney Ray's conduct constituted 
a violation.  
¶26 Count 17 alleged a violation of SCR 22.07(2) which 
requires that the attorney fully and fairly disclose all facts 
and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct within 20 
days of being served by the Board with a request for a response.  
The referee found that Attorney Ray had failed to respond to the 
Board investigator's letter and subsequent oral request for a 
written response to the grievance. 
¶27 Finally, count 18 alleged a violation of SCR 21.03(4) 
which requires that attorneys cooperate with the Board in the 
investigation, prosecution, and disposition of grievances and 
complaints.  The referee also found that Attorney Ray's failure 
to respond to the Board violated this rule. 
RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE 
¶28 To summarize, the 
referee 
found 
violations 
with 
respect to 12 of the complaint's original 18 counts, two having 
been dismissed by the Board.  Six of the violations concern her 
failure to cooperate with the Board investigation; two are trust 
account violations; two are excessive fee violations; and, two 
No. 
01-1784-D   
 
14 
 
are 
offensive 
personality/failure 
to 
maintain 
respect 
violations.  
¶29 The Board asked for a suspension of six months or more 
and a restitution order for the fee of $4000 in case number one 
and the Kuehni fee of $4000.  Attorney Ray agreed to refund the 
$4000 to Kuehni, without interest or penalties, but requested 
dismissal of all other counts although she agreed to a letter of 
reprimand for her failures to respond to the Board. 
¶30 The referee has recommended a 60-day suspension, 
refund of $4000 plus interest to Kuehni, and payment of the 
costs of this proceeding.  The referee indicated that a 
suspension was necessary to motivate Attorney Ray to renew her 
familiarity with, and appreciation of, the rules of procedure, 
civility, cooperation with authority, and trust accounting.  The 
referee further indicated the belief that anything less than the 
suspension might fail to have the necessary sufficient impact 
upon Attorney Ray and her behavior in the future.  Further, it 
was his opinion that although some of her actions were quite 
serious, because she had not previously been the subject of 
disciplinary proceedings, a 60-day suspension would be adequate.   
CONCLUSION 
¶31 We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law 
of the referee.  Attorney Ray's misconduct, as described above, 
represents a serious failure to comply with the specified rules 
of 
professional 
conduct. 
 
Furthermore, 
the 
referee's 
recommendation of sanctions is appropriate discipline for this 
misconduct.   
No. 
01-1784-D   
 
15 
 
¶32 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Virginia 
Rose Ray to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period 
of 60 days, effective November 6, 2002. 
¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Virginia Rose Ray 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
an attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended. 
¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Virginia Rose Ray shall pay to Pamela 
Kuehni $4000 with interest at 5% from June 8, 1999.  In the 
event that Kuehni has already obtained a civil judgment against 
Attorney Ray, she shall satisfy the specific amount of that 
judgment. 
¶35 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Virginia Rose Ray shall pay $10,015.22 to 
the Board representing the cost of this proceeding.  If these 
costs, and the refund to the client, are not paid within the 
time specified, and absent a showing to this court of her 
inability to pay the costs within that time, the license of 
Attorney Virginia Rose Ray to practice law shall remain 
suspended indefinitely until further order of the court.  
No. 
01-1784-D   
 
 
 
1