Title: OLR v. Michael F. Bishop
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2016AP000358-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: October 18, 2016

2016 WI 85 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2016AP358-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Michael F. Bishop, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Michael F. Bishop, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BISHOP 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 18, 2016 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
 
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2016 WI 85
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2016AP358-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Michael F. Bishop, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Michael F. Bishop, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 18, 2016 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a stipulation filed pursuant 
to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.121 by the Office of Lawyer 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.12 provides as follows:  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, in which case the supreme 
(continued) 
No. 
2016AP358-D   
 
2 
 
Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Michael F. Bishop.  In the 
stipulation, Attorney Bishop admits the misconduct alleged by 
the OLR and agrees to a 60-day suspension of his Wisconsin law 
license.  
¶2 
We adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law.  
We 
agree 
that 
Attorney 
Bishop's 
misconduct 
warrants 
the 
suspension of his Wisconsin law license for a period of 60 days. 
The OLR does not seek either restitution or the costs of this 
proceeding and we decline to impose either upon him.  
                                                                                                                                                             
court 
may 
approve 
the 
stipulation, 
reject 
the 
stipulation, 
or 
direct 
the 
parties 
to 
consider 
specific modifications to the stipulation. 
(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 a stipulation, a 
referee shall be appointed and the matter shall 
proceed as a complaint filed without a stipulation. 
(3m) If the supreme court directs the parties to 
consider specific modifications to the stipulation, 
the parties may, within 20 days of the date of the 
order, file a revised stipulation, in which case the 
supreme court may approve the revised stipulation, 
adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law, and 
impose the stipulated discipline. If the parties do 
not file a revised stipulation within 20 days of the 
date of the order, 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. 
No. 
2016AP358-D   
 
3 
 
¶3 
Attorney Bishop was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1993.  He practices in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. In 
2014, Attorney Bishop received a consensual public reprimand for 
several trust account violations.  Public Reprimand of Michael 
F. 
Bishop, 
2014-2 
(electronic 
copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/002658.html).  
¶4 
The matter presently before the court also involves 
trust account violations, coupled with a failure to cooperate 
with the OLR.   
¶5 
Between 2012 and 2014, Attorney Bishop maintained a 
client trust account at BMO Harris Bank (BMO).  On August 19, 
2013, OLR sent Attorney Bishop a letter, informing him that it 
had received notice of an overdraft on his client trust account.  
The OLR directed Attorney Bishop to provide a written response 
within 20 days of his receipt of the letter, and to provide 
copies of his trust account's bank statements for May 2013 and 
June 2013, a copy of his transaction register for May 2013 and 
June 2013, and a copy of his client ledger relating to an 
alleged $50 withdrawal.  Attorney Bishop did not respond.  He 
also failed to respond to two subsequent notices from the OLR.  
¶6 
On January 10, 2014, OLR filed a motion asking this 
court to issue an order to show cause as to why Attorney 
Bishop's law license should not be suspended for his willful 
failure to cooperate in the OLR investigation concerning his 
conduct.  This court issued the requested order.  By January 22, 
2014, 
Attorney 
Bishop 
had 
provided 
the 
OLR 
with 
enough 
No. 
2016AP358-D   
 
4 
 
information to allow the OLR to continue its investigation, so 
the OLR withdrew its motion and the investigation continued.   
¶7 
By letter dated February 26, 2014, the OLR directed 
Attorney Bishop to inform the OLR whether he had opened a 
business account subsequent to September 1, 2012, but Attorney 
Bishop failed to respond.   
¶8 
On May 28, 2014, the OLR sent Attorney Bishop a second 
letter requesting the same information.  This time, Attorney 
Bishop responded by email, stating "I have not had a business 
account since 2012 ..."   
¶9 
During its investigation, the OLR discovered that in a 
Waukesha County case in which Attorney Bishop represented the 
defendant, the court ordered the return of $3,000 from the bail 
deposit to be paid to Attorney Bishop.  The Waukesha County 
Clerk of Courts paid the $3,000 to Attorney Bishop and Attorney 
Bishop deposited the check directly into his BMO trust account, 
describing the deposit as a "$3,000.00 deposit for monies past 
due."  These funds should have been placed in a business 
account.   
¶10 On August 17, 2015, Attorney Bishop advised the OLR 
that a chargeback on his trust account had resulted in an 
overdraft.  In response, the OLR requested certain trust account 
records, including bank statements, a transaction register, and 
client ledgers.  Attorney Bishop provided some information, but 
did not submit a transaction register or client ledgers for his 
trust account.  The OLR investigation revealed that Attorney 
Bishop made numerous cash withdrawals from his trust account. 
No. 
2016AP358-D   
 
5 
 
¶11 On February 22, 2016, OLR filed a disciplinary 
complaint in this matter, as amended on July 1, 2016.  The OLR 
complaint alleged the following seven counts of misconduct:  
Count 
1: 
By 
failing 
to 
cooperate 
with 
OLR's 
investigation of a May 20, 2013 overdraft on his trust 
account by failing to respond to OLR's letters of 
August 19, 2013, September 23, 2013 and December 3, 
2013, and by failing to respond to OLR's letter of 
February 26, 2014, Bishop violated SCR 22.03(2) and 
(6),2 as enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).3 
                                                 
2 SCR 22.03(2) and (6) provides as follows:  
(2) 
Upon 
commencing 
an 
investigation, 
the 
director shall notify the respondent of the matter 
being investigated unless in the opinion of the 
director the investigation of the matter requires 
otherwise. The respondent shall fully and fairly 
disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct within 20 days after being served 
by ordinary mail a request for a written response. The 
director 
may 
allow 
additional 
time 
to 
respond. 
Following receipt of the response, the director may 
conduct further investigation and may compel the 
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents, and 
present 
any 
information 
deemed 
relevant 
to 
the 
investigation. 
(6) provides as follows:  In the course of the 
investigation, the respondents willful 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. 
3 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides as follows:  "It is professional 
misconduct 
for 
a 
lawyer 
to 
fail 
to 
cooperate 
in 
the 
investigation of a grievance filed with the office of lawyer 
regulation as required by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 
22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6) or SCR 22.04(1)." 
No. 
2016AP358-D   
 
6 
 
Count 2: By failing to maintain a business account 
from 2012 through at least May of 2014, despite the 
fact that he had a trust account during that time, 
Bishop violated SCR 20:1.15(e)(8).4 
Count 3: By depositing into and retaining in his Trust 
Account at least $3,000 in earned fees, Bishop 
violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(3).5   
Count 4: By making at least 199 cash withdrawals from 
his trust account between May 2, 2013 and July 1, 
2015, 
totaling 
$50,097.82, 
Bishop 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.15(e)(4)a.6 
Count 5: By failing to maintain a transaction register 
and client ledgers and failing to comply with record 
keeping 
requirements, 
Bishop 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.15(f)(l)a, b. and g.7  
                                                 
4 Effective July 1, 2016, substantial changes were made to 
Supreme Court Rule 20:1.15, the "trust account rule."  See S. 
Ct. Order 14-07, (issued Apr. 4, 2016, eff. July 1, 2016).  
Because the conduct underlying this case arose prior to July 1, 
2016, unless otherwise indicated, all references to the supreme 
court rules will be to those in effect prior to July 1, 2016. 
SCR 20:1.15(e)(8) provides as follows:  "Each lawyer who 
receives trust funds shall maintain at least one draft account, 
other than the trust account, for funds received and disbursed 
other than in the lawyer's trust capacity, which shall be 
entitled 
'Business 
Account,' 
'Office 
Account,' 
'Operating 
Account,' or words of similar import." 
5 SCR 20:1.15(b)(3) provides as follows:  
"No funds 
belonging to the lawyer or law firm except funds reasonably 
sufficient to pay monthly account service charges, may be 
deposited or retained in a trust account." 
6 SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)a provides as follows:  "No disbursement 
of cash shall be made from a trust account, or from a deposit to 
a trust account, and no check shall be made payable to 'cash.'" 
7 SCR 20:1.15(f)(l)a., b., and g., provides as follows: 
(f) Record-keeping requirements for all trust 
accounts. 
(continued) 
No. 
2016AP358-D   
 
7 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
(1) Draft accounts. Complete records of a trust 
account that is a draft account shall include a 
transaction register; individual client ledgers for 
IOLTA accounts and other pooled trust accounts; a 
ledger for account fees and charges, if law firm funds 
are held in the account pursuant to sub. (b)(3); 
deposit 
records; 
disbursement 
records; 
monthly 
statements; and reconciliation reports, subject to all 
of the following: 
a. Transaction register. The transaction register 
shall contain a chronological record of all account 
transactions, and shall include all of the following:  
1. the date, source, and amount of all deposits; 
2. the date, check or transaction number, payee 
and amount of all disbursements, whether by check, 
wire transfer, or other means; 
3. the date and amount of every other deposit or 
deduction of whatever nature;  
4. the identity of the client for whom funds were 
deposited or disbursed; and  
5. 
the 
balance 
in 
the 
account 
after 
each 
transaction. 
b. Individual client ledgers. A subsidiary ledger 
shall be maintained for each client or 3rd party for 
whom 
the 
lawyer 
receives 
trust 
funds 
that 
are 
deposited in an IOLTA account or any other pooled 
trust account.  The lawyer shall record each receipt 
and disbursement of a client's or 3rd party's funds 
and the balance following each transaction. A lawyer 
shall not disburse funds from an IOLTA or any pooled 
trust account that would create a negative balance 
with respect to any individual client or matter. 
 . . .  
g. 
Reconciliation 
reports. 
For 
each 
trust 
account, the lawyer shall prepare and retain a printed 
reconciliation report on a regular and periodic basis 
not 
less 
frequently 
than 
every 
30 
days. 
Each 
(continued) 
No. 
2016AP358-D   
 
8 
 
Count 6: By making 11 cash withdrawals from his trust 
account, totaling $2,025.00, between August 4, 2015 
and 
August 
28, 
2015, 
Bishop 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.15(e)(4)a.8   
Count 7: By failing to produce a transaction register 
and client ledgers for his trust account, Bishop 
violated SCR 20:1.15(e)(7).9 
                                                                                                                                                             
reconciliation report shall show all of the following 
balances and verify that they are identical:  
1. The balance that appears in the transaction 
register as of the reporting date;  
2. the total of all subsidiary ledger balances 
for IOLTA accounts and other pooled trust accounts, 
determined by listing and totaling the balances in the 
individual client ledgers and the ledger for account 
fees and charges, as of the reporting date; and  
3. the adjusted balance, determined by adding 
outstanding deposits and other credits to the balance 
in the financial institution's monthly statement and 
subtracting outstanding checks and other deductions 
from the balance in the monthly statement. 
8 SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)a provides: "No disbursement of cash 
shall be made from a trust account or from a deposit to a trust 
account, and no check shall be made payable to 'Cash.'" 
9 SCR 20:1.15(e)(7) provides:  
(7) All trust account records have public aspects 
related to a lawyer's fitness to practice. Upon 
request of the office of lawyer regulation, or upon 
direction of the supreme court, the records shall be 
submitted to the office of lawyer regulation for its 
inspection, 
audit, 
use, 
and 
evidence 
under 
any 
conditions to protect the privilege of clients that 
the court may provide.  The records, or an audit of 
file records, shall be produced at any disciplinary 
proceeding involving the lawyer, whenever material. 
Failure 
to 
produce 
the 
records 
constitutes 
unprofessional conduct and grounds for disciplinary 
action. 
No. 
2016AP358-D   
 
9 
 
¶12 In August 2016, the OLR and Attorney Bishop executed 
the stipulation now before the court. 
 In addition to 
stipulating to the facts as set forth above, the parties 
stipulated to discipline in the form of a 60-day suspension of 
Attorney Bishop's Wisconsin law license.  
¶13 The stipulation provides that it is not the result of 
a plea bargain.  Attorney Bishop also verifies that he fully 
understands the allegations of misconduct, the ramifications if 
this court should impose the stipulated level of discipline, his 
right to contest the matter, and his right to consult with 
counsel.  He further verifies that his entry into the 
stipulation was made knowingly and voluntarily, and that it 
represents his admission of all misconduct and his assent to the 
level and type of discipline sought by the OLR director. 
¶14 The 
OLR 
filed 
a 
memorandum 
in 
support 
of 
the 
stipulation.  The memorandum discusses attorney disciplinary 
cases that resulted in 60-day suspensions for misconduct, 
including In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Grogan, 2011 WI 
7, 331 Wis. 2d 341, 795 N.W.2d 745.  Attorney Grogan received a 
60-day suspension for misconduct that is virtually identical to 
the facts alleged in the complaint filed against Attorney 
Bishop.  Attorney Grogan failed to maintain a business account; 
commingled funds; made cash withdrawals from the trust account 
and failed to maintain certain trust account records.  Attorney 
Grogan also failed to cooperate with the OLR's investigations.  
In addition, Attorney Grogan, like Attorney Bishop, had a prior 
public reprimand.  It also bears noting that the court imposed 
No. 
2016AP358-D   
 
10 
 
several conditions on Attorney Grogan, one of which was a 
requirement 
that 
he 
provide 
the 
OLR 
with 
"documentation 
establishing that [he] has a business account."  Id. at 349. 
¶15 We adopt the stipulation and the stipulated facts and 
conclusions of law, and we impose the stipulated discipline.  We 
agree that the seriousness of Attorney Bishop's misconduct 
warrants the suspension of his Wisconsin law license for 60 
days.  The OLR does not seek restitution, so we impose none.  
The OLR also does not seek costs, and, mindful that the 
stipulation obviates the need for a referee, we do not impose 
costs.  
¶16 In its complaint, the OLR recommended that, as a 
condition of his reinstatement, Attorney Bishop provide the OLR 
with documentation establishing that he has established a 
separate business account.  The stipulation and supportive 
memorandum do not address this condition, but we deem it 
appropriate to impose this requirement to better ensure Attorney 
Bishop's prospective compliance with the trust account rules. 
¶17 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Michael F. Bishop to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective November 28, 2016. 
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Michael F. Bishop shall 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended.  
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of his 
reinstatement, and no later than two weeks prior to the date he 
No. 
2016AP358-D   
 
11 
 
is eligible for reinstatement, Michael F. Bishop shall provide 
the OLR with written notice and evidence that he has established 
a business account.  
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See 
SCR 22.28(2). 
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no costs will be imposed in 
this matter. 
 
 
 
 
No. 
2016AP358-D   
 
 
 
1