Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Christopher L. O'Byrne
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2002AP001374-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: November 15, 2002

2002 WI 123 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
02-1374-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Christopher L. O'Byrne, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
Christopher L. O'Byrne,  
 
Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST O'BYRNE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 15, 2002   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2002 WI 123 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  02-1374-D  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Christopher L. O'Byrne,  
Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Christopher L. O'Byrne,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
NOV 15, 2002 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that Attorney Christopher L. O'Byrne's license to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin 
be 
revoked 
for 
professional 
misconduct.  The referee also recommended that Attorney O'Byrne 
be required to make restitution to three clients and that he be 
required to pay the costs of the proceeding. 
No. 
02-1374-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
We 
determine 
that 
the 
seriousness 
of 
Attorney 
O'Byrne's professional misconduct warrants the revocation of his 
license to practice law in Wisconsin. 
¶3 
Attorney O'Byrne was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1986 and practiced in Port Washington.  In 1994 he 
consented to a public reprimand for misconduct consisting of 
engaging in conduct involving dishonesty and misrepresentation, 
failing 
to 
disclose 
facts 
necessary 
to 
correct 
a 
misapprehension, failing to fairly and fully disclose all facts 
and circumstances pertaining to an investigation, and failing to 
respond to a client's reasonable request for information.  On 
April 3, 2001, this court indefinitely suspended Attorney 
O'Byrne's license to practice law, effective April 16, 2001, for 
his willful failure to cooperate with two Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR) grievance investigations.  On November 21, 
2001, this court suspended Attorney O'Byrne's license for 60 
days, effective December 26, 2001, for failing to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in a probate matter and 
failing to cooperate with the OLR investigation.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against O'Byrne, 2001 WI 121, 248 
Wis. 2d 699, 635 N.W.2d 598.   
¶4 
On May 22, 2002, the OLR filed a complaint alleging 
misconduct with respect to Attorney O'Byrne's handling of 
matters for four separate clients.  The first client retained 
Attorney O'Byrne regarding the purchase of a business.  The 
purchase price for the business was $100,000.  Ten thousand 
dollars of the purchase price was to be held in escrow to assure 
No. 
02-1374-D   
 
3 
 
that the seller complied with various sale provisions.  At the 
closing, the seller was given a check for $90,000 and Attorney 
O'Byrne was given a check for $10,000 payable to the "McManus & 
O'Byrne Trust Account."  Attorney O'Byrne deposited the check 
into a personal checking account jointly owned by him and his 
wife rather than into the trust account.  By December 8, 1998, 
he had converted all of the escrowed funds to his own use. 
¶5 
Within approximately one week of the closing the 
seller had failed to comply with the terms of the agreement and 
had also failed to turn over a vehicle that was included in the 
purchase.  The client advised Attorney O'Byrne of these problems 
and Attorney O'Byrne said he would place a lien on the vehicle 
so it could not be sold.  Attorney O'Byrne later falsely told 
the client that he had obtained a lien against the vehicle.   
¶6 
The client asked Attorney O'Byrne about the $10,000 as 
frequently as three times a week.  Attorney O'Byrne told the 
client the seller needed to "sign off" on the funds before they 
could be released and that Attorney O'Byrne was working on 
obtaining a release of the escrowed funds.  In early June 2001 
the client retained new counsel.  New counsel secured a 
conditional authorization from the seller's attorney for release 
of the $10,000 thought to be held in Attorney O'Byrne's trust 
account.  Attorney O'Byrne failed to respond to letters from the 
client's new counsel and never returned the $10,000.  He also 
failed to cooperate with the OLR's investigation into the 
matter.   
No. 
02-1374-D   
 
4 
 
¶7 
The second claim of misconduct alleged in the OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney O'Byrne's handling of collection 
matters for a health care group.  The health care group referred 
approximately 290 collection matters to Attorney O'Byrne, and he 
performed services on about 95 of those referrals.  Attorney 
O'Byrne was retained with the understanding that he would 
receive 25% of whatever he collected, regardless of whether the 
patient paid him or the health care group.  He was to forward 
all funds he collected to the health care group and then bill 
them monthly for his services.  He was not authorized to deduct 
any fees from the funds he collected.   
¶8 
The OLR's audit of Attorney O'Byrne's trust account 
revealed that he failed to turn over between $23,258.89 and 
$24,968.16 owed to the health care group.  When the OLR asked 
Attorney O'Byrne to explain his handling of the funds, Attorney 
O'Byrne, through counsel, invoked the Fifth Amendment.   
¶9 
Attorney O'Byrne disbursed a trust account check to 
the health care group in payment of funds collected for them, 
but there were insufficient funds in the account to cover the 
check.  Attorney O'Byrne subsequently deposited a check drawn on 
his personal account that allowed the check to clear.  Attorney 
O'Byrne, through counsel, informed the OLR that the overdraft in 
his trust account was the result of an error in withdrawing 
funds from the trust account rather than his business account. 
¶10 Attorney O'Byrne's counsel also provided the OLR 
"originals" of bank statements, cancelled checks and deposit 
slips for Attorney O'Byrne's trust account.  The OLR had 
No. 
02-1374-D   
 
5 
 
previously subpoenaed these records from the bank because of 
Attorney O'Byrne's failure to produce them.  In comparing the 
subpoenaed checks with the "originals" produced by Attorney 
O'Byrne, the OLR discovered that four of the "original" checks, 
each payable to Attorney O'Byrne, had been altered.   
¶11 The third claim of misconduct alleged in the OLR's 
complaint involved a client who retained Attorney O'Byrne in 
March of 2000 to represent him regarding a Class E felony charge 
in Ozaukee county.  The client wanted the charge to be reduced 
to a misdemeanor.  During their initial meeting Attorney O'Byrne 
advised the client he did not expect any trouble getting the 
charge reduced.  Attorney O'Byrne suggested that the client 
provide him with the funds to make restitution to the victim.  
Attorney O'Byrne said he could hold the restitution funds in his 
trust account and that it would be a sign of good faith when he 
began talking to the district attorney.   
¶12 On April 5, 2000, the client gave Attorney O'Byrne two 
checks.  One check was for Attorney O'Byrne's legal fees.  The 
other check, in the amount of $1850, was for restitution.  
Attorney O'Byrne deposited the $1850 restitution check in his 
trust account.  Over the next two and one-half months Attorney 
O'Byrne issued checks from the trust account to himself and by 
June 19, 2000, the entire $1850 had been converted to Attorney 
O'Byrne. 
¶13 In September 2000 the client entered a no contest plea 
to the felony charge based on Attorney O'Byrne's representation 
that the district attorney had refused to discuss a reduction in 
No. 
02-1374-D   
 
6 
 
the charge.  When Attorney O'Byrne asked the district attorney 
to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor he never mentioned that he 
had received funds from the client to pay restitution to the 
victim.  The district attorney first learned that the client had 
given Attorney O'Byrne funds to pay restitution after the client 
advised his probation officer of this fact.  The district 
attorney said if she had known the restitution had been paid up 
front, she would have seriously reconsidered the offer she had 
made to resolve the case.  In November 2000 the client was 
convicted of a felony, based on his plea, and placed on three 
years' probation.  He was also ordered to pay $1921, which 
included the $1850 restitution, plus costs, and was required to 
serve 30 days in jail.  Attorney O'Byrne told the client to have 
his probation officer contact him about the restitution so that 
Attorney  O'Byrne could forward the funds. 
¶14 In January 2001 the client informed his probation 
officer that Attorney O'Byrne had the money to pay the 
restitution.  Attorney O'Byrne told the probation officer he 
would forward the restitution payment.  The client eventually 
received a check from Attorney O'Byrne for the $1850, dated 
April 19, 2001, drawn on Attorney O'Byrne's law office account 
rather than his trust account.  Although the check was 
originally returned for insufficient funds, the bank put it 
through a second time and the check cleared the next day.  
Attorney O'Byrne failed to respond to the OLR's request for 
information concerning the grievance filed by the client.  
No. 
02-1374-D   
 
7 
 
¶15 The fourth incident of misconduct alleged in the OLR's 
complaint concerned Attorney O'Byrne's representation of a 
client who retained him to represent her regarding a visitation 
matter in a pending Ozaukee county case.  The client gave 
Attorney 
O'Byrne 
a 
$500 
money 
order 
to 
commence 
the 
representation.  Attorney O'Byrne deposited the money order into 
a personal joint checking account belonging to him and his wife.  
On April 16, 2001, this court suspended Attorney O'Byrne's 
license for failing to cooperate with the OLR investigations.  
Attorney O'Byrne never performed any work for the client.  The 
client requested that Attorney O'Byrne refund the $500 and he 
agreed to do so but never did.  
¶16 Attorney O'Byrne did not file an answer to the OLR's 
complaint and never appeared in the matter.  Lance S. Grady was 
appointed as referee.  The OLR moved for default judgment.  The 
referee issued a report granting the motion for default 
judgment.   
¶17 The referee concluded that by depositing funds that 
were to be held in trust into personal accounts, Attorney 
O'Byrne violated SCR 20:1.15(a).1  The referee also found that by 
                                                 
1 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 
No. 
02-1374-D   
 
8 
 
converting to his own purposes $10,000 that he was supposed to 
hold in escrow for the first client, by misappropriating and 
failing to hold in trust funds that he had collected on behalf 
of the health care group, and by failing to hold in trust the 
$1850 which the third client gave him to pay as restitution, 
Attorney O'Byrne violated SCR 20:8.4(b).2   
¶18 The referee further found that by misrepresenting to 
the first client that he could not release escrow money without 
                                                                                                                                                             
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 SCR 20:8.4(b) provides: "It is professional misconduct for 
a lawyer to: (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely 
on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer 
in other respects." 
No. 
02-1374-D   
 
9 
 
obtaining the seller's consent and that he was attempting to 
obtain that consent when he actually had converted the client's 
funds; by misrepresenting to the OLR that overdrafts on his 
trust account were the result of an error in withdrawing funds 
from the trust account rather than his business account; by 
altering checks he provided to the OLR during the course of the 
investigation; and by failing to disclose to the district 
attorney during plea negotiations that the third client had 
given him funds to pay restitution because Attorney O'Byrne had 
converted those funds to his own use, Attorney O'Byrne violated 
SCR 20:8.4(c).3 
¶19 The referee also concluded that by failing to return 
the $10,000 to the first client or the client's new attorney 
after the representation was terminated, and by failing to 
refund the $500 fee to the fourth client after performing no 
services for her, Attorney O'Byrne violated SCR 20:1.16(d).4  The 
referee also concluded that by continuing to represent the third 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: "It is professional misconduct for 
a lawyer to: (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation."  
4 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. 
The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to 
the extent permitted by other law.  
No. 
02-1374-D   
 
10 
 
client after converting the funds the client had given him to 
pay restitution, thereby compromising the client's opportunity 
to obtain a better plea bargain rather than reveal his 
conversion of the client's funds, Attorney O'Byrne violated SCR 
20:1.7(b).5  The referee also found that by failing to promptly 
deliver the $1850 to either the client or the client's probation 
agent, Attorney O'Byrne violated SCR 20:1.15(b).6  Finally, the 
referee 
found 
that 
by 
failing 
to 
respond 
to 
the 
OLR 
                                                 
5 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.  
6 SCR 20:1.15(b) provides: 
(b) 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. 
No. 
02-1374-D   
 
11 
 
investigative requests regarding the grievances filed by his 
clients, Attorney O'Byrne violated SCR 22.03(6).7 
¶20 We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law.  Attorney O'Byrne's misconduct with respect 
to his handling of the four client matters, including converting 
nearly $34,000 of client funds to his own use, consists of very 
serious failings warranting the revocation of his license to 
practice law.  
¶21 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Christopher L. 
O'Byrne to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked effective the 
date of this order. 
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Christopher L. O'Byrne 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
revoked.  
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Christopher L. O'Byrne make restitution to the 
first client in the amount of $10,000, to the health care group 
in the amount of $23,258.89, and to the fourth client in the 
amount of $500. 
                                                 
7 SCR 
22.03(6) 
provides: 
"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. 
02-1374-D   
 
12 
 
¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Christopher L. O'Byrne pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  
¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that restitution to Christopher 
L. O'Byrne's clients is to be paid prior to paying costs to the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation.  
No. 
02-1374-D   
 
 
 
1