Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Joan M. Boyd
Citation: 2010 WI 41
Docket Number: 2009AP000774-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: May 27, 2010

2010 WI 41 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2009AP774-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Joan M. Boyd, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Joan M. Boyd, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BOYD 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 27, 2010   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
BRADLEY, J., dissents (opinion filed).   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2010 WI 41
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2009AP774-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Joan M. Boyd, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Joan M. Boyd, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 27, 2010 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review Referee Dennis J. Flynn's 
recommendation that this court suspend Attorney Joan M. Boyd's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin for 12 months consecutive 
to disciplinary suspensions already imposed on her, direct her 
to pay restitution and the costs of the proceeding, as well as 
to secure 20 credits of Wisconsin—approved continuing legal 
education (CLE) ethics courses as set forth herein.  No appeal 
No. 
2009AP774-D   
 
2 
 
has been filed in this attorney disciplinary matter.  See SCR 
22.17(2).1 
¶2 
Attorney 
Boyd 
was 
admitted 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin in 1989 and resides in Shawano.  Attorney Boyd's 
license is currently suspended.  She has been subject to 
discipline on several previous occasions:  
• 
In 2000 Attorney Boyd received a public reprimand 
for forging her clients' endorsements on the back 
of a check that was issued by a bankruptcy 
trustee to the clients and arranging for the 
check to be deposited into her checking account.  
She 
also 
misrepresented 
to 
the 
bankruptcy 
trustee's staff that the clients had endorsed the 
back of the check.  See Public Reprimand of Joan 
M. Boyd, No. 2000-04.   
• 
In 
2006 
Attorney 
Boyd 
was 
again 
publicly 
reprimanded for failing to deposit a fee into her 
client trust account; commingling funds in her 
trust account; failing to provide the legal skill 
or preparation reasonably necessary to handle a 
federal civil rights claim; and charging a client 
an unreasonable fee.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Boyd, 
2006 
WI 
28, 
289 
Wis. 2d 351, 711 N.W.2d 268. 
• 
Effective August 18, 2008, this court suspended 
Attorney Boyd's license for five months for five 
counts of misconduct in three client matters.  
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Boyd, 
2008 WI 103, 314 Wis. 2d 14, 752 N.W.2d 882. 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) provides:  
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
No. 
2009AP774-D   
 
3 
 
• 
On June 26, 2009, this court ordered Attorney 
Boyd to pay restitution and suspended her license 
for six months for 13 counts of misconduct in 
five client matters.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Boyd, 
2009 
WI 
59, 
318 
Wis. 2d 281, 767 N.W.2d 226. 
¶3 
On March 25, 2009, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a disciplinary complaint alleging that Attorney Boyd 
committed 11 separate acts of misconduct in four client matters.  
Attorney Boyd filed an answer to the complaint; however, after 
preliminary scheduling hearings she advised the referee she 
would stipulate to all the facts contained in the complaint.  In 
July 2009 the parties entered into a stipulation, in which 
Attorney Boyd entered a no contest plea.   
¶4 
According 
to the stipulation, the referee would 
utilize the allegations of the complaint as an adequate factual 
basis for a determination of misconduct as to all 11 counts.  
The stipulation also made recommendations regarding discipline 
and restitution.   
¶5 
The referee accepted the stipulation, concluding that 
Attorney Boyd acted freely, knowingly, and voluntarily in 
entering into the stipulation and that the stipulation is not 
the product of any plea bargaining.  Attorney Boyd's misconduct 
as set forth in the stipulation and the referee's report is 
summarized as follows. 
I.  Client R.R. 
¶6 
In 2001 R.R. was convicted in Kenosha County and 
sentenced to prison.  R.R. hired Attorney Boyd in November 2005 
to represent him in a federal habeas corpus action.  R.R. paid 
No. 
2009AP774-D   
 
4 
 
Attorney Boyd $3,000 for the retainer fee.  Attorney Boyd filed 
the petition in federal court, but did not use the form required 
by local rule in habeas corpus cases.  R.R. also filed a pro se 
motion and petition.  The federal court denied all the pleadings 
and allowed Attorney Boyd to file an amended petition for writ 
of habeas corpus on a specified form on or before May 5, 2006.  
Attorney Boyd did not advise R.R. of the court's rulings or that 
she filed a motion for an order to hold in abeyance the petition 
for a writ of habeas corpus.  An amended petition was never 
filed on behalf of R.R.  Attorney Boyd and R.R. agreed Attorney 
Boyd should withdraw from the representation.  
¶7 
R.R. requested Attorney Boyd return the $3,000 advance 
payment, but Attorney Boyd did not return the fee.  The federal 
court received a communication from R.R. and directed Attorney 
Boyd 
to 
apprise the court why Attorney Boyd failed to 
communicate the court's ruling to her client.  Attorney Boyd did 
not respond to that court's directive.  R.R. wrote Attorney Boyd 
and asked questions about his case.  Attorney Boyd did not 
respond.  In June 2006 the federal court ordered Attorney Boyd 
to show cause regarding her representation of R.R.  Ultimately, 
Attorney Boyd withdrew the petition for habeas corpus.  A new 
petition was filed in federal court, but it was not timely.  
Attorney Boyd did not ask the court to reopen the earlier case 
that had been timely filed.  On May 8, 2007, the federal court 
denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and dismissed 
the case.  
No. 
2009AP774-D   
 
5 
 
¶8 
With respect to Attorney Boyd's representation of 
R.R., the referee found as follows: 
Count 1.  Attorney Boyd violated SCR 20:1.12 by not 
providing competent representation to R.R.   
Count 2.  Attorney Boyd violated SCR 20:1.33 by failing 
to file an amended habeas corpus petition, by failing to 
submit a timely response to the court, by delaying the 
filing of a new habeas corpus petition until after the 
statutory deadline had expired, and by failing to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing her 
client.  
Count 3.  Attorney Boyd violated former SCR 20:1.4(a)4 
by failing to inform R.R. she had filed a particular 
motion, by failing to inform R.R. of the federal court's 
order denying all petitions, by failing to keep her client 
reasonably informed as to the status of his case, and by 
failing to promptly comply with reasonable requests for 
information.  
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.1 provides, "A lawyer shall provide competent 
representation to a client.  Competent representation requires 
the 
legal 
knowledge, 
skill, 
thoroughness 
and 
preparation 
reasonably necessary for the representation." 
3 SCR 20:1.3 states, "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
4 Former SCR 20:1.4(a) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
provided, "A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed 
about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable 
requests for information." 
No. 
2009AP774-D   
 
6 
 
Count 4.  Attorney Boyd violated former SCR 20:1.5(a)5 
by accepting a $3,000 fee and then failing to provide 
services that were necessary to preserve the client's 
rights. 
The 
referee 
agreed 
the 
legal 
fee 
was 
not 
reasonable.  
II.  Client M.D. 
¶9 
Attorney Boyd represented M.D. in March and April 
2007.  M.D. retained Attorney Boyd to file a post-conviction 
motion on his behalf within three weeks.  Attorney Boyd agreed 
                                                 
5 Former SCR 20:1.5(a) (effective through June 30, 2007), 
provided:  Fees. 
A lawyer's fees 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; 
(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. 
No. 
2009AP774-D   
 
7 
 
and M.D. paid her $4,800 as a retainer fee.  The motion was not 
prepared or filed and no court appearance was arranged.  
¶10 M.D. attempted to contact Attorney Boyd concerning the 
status of the representation and to express his concerns why 
nothing had been done in his case.  Ultimately, M.D. terminated 
the lawyer-client relationship with Attorney Boyd and asked for 
a refund of the retainer.  Attorney Boyd returned $2,000 of the 
fee representing an "initial refund".  
¶11 Regarding Attorney Boyd's representation of M.D., the 
referee concluded as follows: 
Count 5.  By failing to file a post-conviction motion 
and have her client appear in court as agreed, Attorney 
Boyd failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing M.D. in violation of SCR 20:1.3. 
Count 6.  Attorney Boyd failed to keep M.D. reasonably 
informed about the status of his matter and failed to 
comply with reasonable client requests for case information 
in violation of former SCR 20:1.4(a) (effective through 
June 30, 2007).  
III.  Client G.W. 
¶12 G.W. was sentenced to 25 years in prison by the 
Milwaukee County circuit court.  In late 2006 he hired Attorney 
Boyd to handle a post-conviction motion.  G.W. paid Attorney 
Boyd a retainer fee of $1,800.  Attorney Boyd prepared the 
requested motion and legal memorandum and sent them to G.W. for 
review before filing.  G.W. reviewed the documents and wrote to 
Attorney Boyd informing her that the motion appeared to be 
No. 
2009AP774-D   
 
8 
 
legally defective because it did not include all the grounds for 
possible relief they had discussed, and it failed to allege that 
post-conviction counsel was ineffective in the original appeal.  
Attorney Boyd did not respond to G.W. and subsequently filed the 
pleadings as originally prepared.   
¶13 In May 2007 the court denied the motion based on the 
same rationale cited by G.W.  Attorney Boyd advised G.W. of the 
ruling, that the ruling could be appealed, and that her fee for 
the appeal would be $2,000.  G.W. agreed to the appeal, and 
Attorney Boyd filed a timely notice of appeal with the court of 
appeals.  However, Attorney Boyd did not pay the required filing 
fee.  Thereafter, G.W. advised Attorney Boyd he was terminating 
her representation and he would pursue the matter pro se.  
¶14 Regarding Attorney Boyd's representation of G.W., the 
referee concluded: 
Count 7.  By failing to consider the input and wishes 
of G.W. and, instead, filing an unrevised motion that 
turned out to be legally inadequate and ineffective, 
Attorney Boyd did not provide competent representation to 
G.W., thereby violating SCR 20:1.1. 
Count 8.  Attorney Boyd violated former SCR 20:1.2(a)6 
by 
not 
considering 
G.W.'s 
decisions 
concerning 
the 
                                                 
6 SCR 20:1.2(a) (effective through June 30, 2007) provides: 
A lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions 
concerning the objectives of representation, subject 
to paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), and shall consult with 
the client as to the means by which they are to be 
pursued.  A lawyer shall inform a client of all offers 
No. 
2009AP774-D   
 
9 
 
objectives of the representation and by failing to consult 
with G.W. as to how the representation would be pursued. 
¶15 On August 5, 2009, G.W. filed a motion in this court 
objecting to the stipulation between Attorney Boyd and the OLR. 
In particular, he was concerned the stipulation did not 
contemplate restitution to him.  He also asked the court to 
reinstate certain post-conviction rights. 
¶16 On August 12, 2009, the OLR filed a response to G.W.'s 
motion explaining that G.W. has no standing to bring this 
motion.  The OLR also explained why it did not seek restitution 
in the G.W. matter.  G.W. filed a reply on August 21, 2009, 
reiterating his requests for relief.   
IV.  Client B.J. 
¶17 B.J. was sentenced to 25 years in prison in 1998 and 
all direct appeal options had been exhausted.  In November 2002 
B.J. retained Attorney Boyd to prepare and file a post-
conviction motion on his behalf and paid Attorney Boyd a 
retainer fee.  Attorney Boyd filed the motion and the circuit 
court issued a written decision in October 2004 denying the 
motion.  Attorney Boyd immediately sent the court's decision to 
B.J. and advised him the next step would be to file an appeal.  
                                                                                                                                                             
of settlement and abide by a client's decision whether 
to accept an offer of settlement of a matter.  In a 
criminal case or any proceeding that could result in 
deprivation of liberty, the lawyer shall abide by the 
client's decision, after consultation with the lawyer, 
as to a plea to be entered, whether to waive jury 
trial and whether the client will testify. 
No. 
2009AP774-D   
 
10 
 
However, the record reflects that Attorney Boyd did not inform 
B.J. about the timelines for any appeal and the procedures for 
filing the appeal so as to protect his appellate rights.  
¶18 B.J. asked Attorney Boyd to work with him concerning 
Attorney Boyd's request for additional fees for the appeal.  A 
notice of appeal was not filed.  Attorney Boyd never told B.J. 
she was terminating her representation.  On or about January 31, 
2005, after the appeal deadline had passed, B.J. paid Attorney 
Boyd a $2,000 retainer.  At a meeting on April 26, 2005, 
Attorney Boyd informed B.J. the time for filing an appeal had 
passed.   
¶19 B.J. 
and 
Attorney 
Boyd 
subsequently 
agreed 
the 
additional $2,000 attorney fee would be used to pay Attorney 
Boyd 
to 
investigate 
whether 
the 
sentencing 
court 
had 
unconstitutionally applied a sentence enhancer and to seek 
modification of the sentence.  Thereafter, B.J. sent Attorney 
Boyd several letters regarding the matter.  Attorney Boyd failed 
to respond to many of B.J.'s letters.  Attorney Boyd did not 
file any motion and did not provide B.J. with any time records 
regarding her work on his matters.  B.J. eventually filed his 
own motion, pro se, with the court addressing both the enhancer 
statute and sentence credit issues.  
¶20 With regard to Attorney Boyd's representation of B.J., 
the referee found: 
Count 9.  By failing to investigate the sentence 
enhancer issue after accepting a retainer to do so, 
Attorney Boyd failed to act with reasonable diligence and 
No. 
2009AP774-D   
 
11 
 
promptness in her representation of B.J., in violation of 
SCR 20:1.3.  
Count 10.  By failing to respond to B.J.'s letters 
requesting case information, Attorney Boyd failed to keep 
her client reasonably informed as to the status of his 
matter and to promptly comply with the client's reasonable 
requests for case information in violation of former SCR 
20:1.4(a) (effective through June 30, 2007).  
Count 11.  By failing to give B.J. written notice of 
his statutory appellate deadline and by failing to advise 
B.J. she was terminating her representation after the 
court's denial of B.J.'s post-conviction motion, Attorney 
Boyd violated former SCR 20:1.4(b).7  
¶21 The referee discussed the terms of the stipulation.  
He also discussed Attorney Boyd's previous disciplinary history 
as well as the fact that another, separate disciplinary 
proceeding was also pending against Attorney Boyd.  The referee 
observed that the "conduct of Attorney Boyd is serious and 
repetitive."   
                                                 
7 Former SCR 20:1.4(b) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
provided, "A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent 
reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed 
decisions regarding the representation." 
No. 
2009AP774-D   
 
12 
 
¶22 Ultimately, the referee recommended this court impose 
a 12-month suspension of Attorney Boyd's law license8 to run 
consecutive to any other disciplinary suspension, order Attorney 
Boyd to pay restitution and the costs of this proceeding, as 
well as require Attorney Boyd to complete 20 credits of 
Wisconsin—approved CLE ethics courses. 
¶23 Specifically, the referee recommended the court direct 
Attorney Boyd to pay restitution, as follows: 
•  Client R.R.:  $3,000 with legal interest at the rate of 
5 percent from November 5, 2005, until paid.  
•  Client M.D.:  $4,800 with legal interest at the rate of 
5 percent from March 28, 2007, until paid.  
•  Client B.J.:  $1,500 with legal interest at the rate of 
5 percent from January 31, 2004, until paid.  
¶24 We agree with the referee's recommendations regarding 
a 
12-month 
suspension 
to 
run 
consecutive 
to 
existing 
disciplinary 
suspensions, 
restitution, 
additional 
ethics 
coursework, and payment of the costs of this proceeding.9   
¶25 However, 
the 
question 
whether 
G.W. 
should 
have 
received restitution warrants further discussion.  As noted, the 
referee did not recommend restitution be paid to G.W. and G.W. 
has strongly objected to this omission.  The OLR has stated it 
                                                 
8 While the stipulation recommended a nine-month consecutive 
suspension, the referee recommended 12 months and Attorney Boyd 
did not appeal this recommendation.  We agree that a 12-month 
suspension is more appropriate for the misconduct involved in 
this matter. 
9 As of August 24, 2009, the OLR's costs total $4,347.14. 
No. 
2009AP774-D   
 
13 
 
is "not unsympathetic" to G.W.'s request for restitution and the 
question gave this court pause, as well.  On November 10, 2009, 
this court issued an order directing the parties to show cause 
why the stipulation did not provide for restitution to G.W.  
Attorney Boyd filed no response.  The OLR filed a response on 
November 23, 2009.   
¶26 The OLR formulated a policy on restitution in 2007.  
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Nussberger, 2009 WI 
103, ¶20, 321 Wis. 2d 576, 775 N.W.2d 525.  Its policy is to 
seek restitution only under the following circumstances: 
•  The grievant's or respondent's rights in a collateral 
proceeding will not likely be prejudiced; 
•  The funds to be restored do not constitute incidental or 
consequential damages; 
•  The funds to be restored were in the respondent lawyer's 
direct control; and 
•  There is a reasonably ascertainable amount. 
¶27 The OLR states that although G.W. did pay a flat fee 
of $1,800 to Attorney Boyd, Attorney Boyd was able to produce 
timesheets reflecting 25.2 hours of work which, at a customary 
hourly rate, "would have surpassed the flat fee that was 
actually paid."  As such, OLR concluded that prosecution for an 
unreasonable fee was not authorized.  The OLR also "took note of 
the fact that prior to filing the disciplinary complaint [G.W.] 
had not filed an application for reimbursement with the State 
Bar of Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection."   
No. 
2009AP774-D   
 
14 
 
¶28 The fact that G.W. did not file an application for 
reimbursement with the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection does 
not 
determine 
whether 
G.W. 
was 
entitled 
to 
restitution.  
However, SCR Chapter 12, which governs the Lawyers' Fund for 
Client Protection, does provide some guidance as to what 
constitutes a "reimbursable loss."  It requires, inter alia, 
that the loss was caused by "the dishonest conduct of an 
attorney . . . " (emphasis added).  See SCR 12.045(7)(a)(1).  
Similarly, SCR 21.16(2m) involving discipline for professional 
misconduct, provides that restitution may be ordered when a 
client's 
money 
or 
property 
was 
"misappropriated 
or 
misapplied . . . " (emphasis added).  See SCR 21.16(2m)(a)1.  
Here, 
G.W. 
paid 
$1,800 
for 
very 
substandard——indeed  
incompetent——legal work.  While G.W. may have grounds for a 
civil action against Attorney Boyd, it appears that the $1,800 
fee does not meet the criteria the OLR uses to assess whether 
restitution is reasonable.  
¶29 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Joan M. Boyd to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 12 
months, to run consecutive to existing disciplinary suspensions 
already imposed by this court. 
¶30 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent she has not 
yet done so, Joan M. Boyd shall comply with SCR 22.26 regarding 
the duties of a person whose license to practice law in 
Wisconsin has been suspended. 
No. 
2009AP774-D   
 
15 
 
¶31 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
Joan 
M. 
Boyd 
pay 
restitution plus interest at the legal rate.  See Wis. Stat. 
§ 138.04.  Restitution shall be paid as follows:   
A. 
Client R.R.:  $3,000 with legal interest at the rate 
of 5 percent from November 5, 2005, until paid.  
B. 
Client M.D.: $4,800 with legal interest at the rate of 
5 percent from March 28, 2007, until paid.  
C. 
Client B.J.: $1,500 with legal interest at the rate of 
5 percent from January 31, 2004, until paid.  
If restitution is not paid within 60 days of the date of this 
order, Joan M. Boyd's license shall remain suspended until 
further order of the court. 
¶32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Joan M. Boyd is directed to 
obtain advance approval of and complete 20 credits of Wisconsin—
approved continuing legal education ethics courses prior to 
seeking reinstatement.  
¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 90 days of the date 
of this order Joan M. Boyd pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If the costs are not 
paid within the time specified and absent a showing to this 
court of her inability to pay the costs within that time, 
Joan M. Boyd's license to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain 
suspended until further order of the court.    
¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution is to be 
completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation. 
No. 
2009AP774-D.awb   
 
 
 
1 
 
¶35 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.   (dissenting in part).  I agree 
with the imposition of a 12-month suspension and the ordered 
restitution.  I write separately, however, because I would also 
order restitution in the amount of $1,800 to Attorney Boyd's 
client, G.W.