Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michael J. Collins
Citation: 2004 WI 9
Docket Number: 2003AP002688-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: February 12, 2004

2004 WI 9 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
03-2688-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Michael J. Collins, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Michael J. Collins,  
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST COLLINS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 12, 2004   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2004 WI 9 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  03-2688-D  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Michael J. Collins, Attorney at  
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Michael J. Collins,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 12, 2004 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
No. 
03-2688-D   
 
2 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the stipulation filed by 
Attorney Michael J. Collins and the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) pursuant to SCR 22.12.1 
¶2 
On October 13, 2003, the OLR filed a complaint in this 
court alleging eight separate counts of misconduct against 
Attorney 
Collins involving 
three 
separate 
client matters.  
Collins did not file an answer but instead, he and the OLR filed 
a stipulation in which Collins admitted the facts and misconduct 
as alleged in the OLR's complaint and agreed to the level of 
discipline the OLR sought in this disciplinary matter——a 60-day 
suspension of Collins' license to practice law in this state.  
¶3 
We approve the stipulation and adopt the stipulated 
facts and conclusions regarding Collins' eight counts of 
misconduct as alleged in the OLR's complaint.  We determine that 
the 
seriousness 
of 
Attorney 
Collins' 
misconduct 
warrants 
suspension of his license to practice law for a period of 60 
days. 
¶4 
Michael J. Collins was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1977 and most recently he practiced in Madison.  
                                                 
1 Effective 
October 
1, 
2000, 
Wisconsin's 
attorney 
disciplinary process was substantially restructured.  The name 
of the body responsible for investigating and prosecuting cases 
involving attorney misconduct was changed from the Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR) to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation and the supreme court rules applicable to the 
lawyer regulation were also revised in part.  Some of the 
conduct underlying this case arose prior to October 1, 2000.  
However, the complainant in this case will be referred to as the 
OLR.  All references to supreme court rules will be to the 
current version of the supreme court rules unless otherwise 
noted.  
No. 
03-2688-D   
 
3 
 
Collins has previously received two public reprimands for 
disciplinary violations.2 
¶5 
The OLR's disciplinary complaint alleged that Collins 
had committed eight separate counts of misconduct.  The alleged 
misconduct to which he now stipulates includes two counts of 
neglect, two trust account violations, two instances of failing 
to 
cooperate 
with 
the 
OLR 
investigations, 
one 
count 
of 
disobeying a court order, and one count of failure to keep a 
client reasonably informed about a hearing in her case.  Collins 
admits to the facts as alleged in the OLR complaint.  Briefly 
summarized, the allegations are these: 
 
CLIENT R.S. 
¶6 
The OLR complaint alleged, and Collins now stipulates, 
that Collins represented R.S. in a divorce action in Rock 
county.  R.S.'s wife, J.S.S. had been involved in an auto 
accident which damaged a 1988 station wagon.  After that 
                                                 
2 In June 1989 Collins consented to a public reprimand for 
his misconduct in failing to timely file answers to an opposing 
party's interrogatories or otherwise pursue his client's legal 
action, neglecting a legal matter, stating to his client that 
the interrogatories had been answered when Collins had not done 
so, misrepresenting the status of the lawsuit to his client, and 
signing, though not negotiating, a settlement agreement, failing 
to cooperate with the BAPR investigation and neglecting a legal 
matter entrusted to him.  
In January 1995 Collins again consented to a public 
reprimand for his misconduct in failing to promptly inform his 
client about developments in the client's case and for failing 
to timely pursue an appeal or motion for reconsideration on his 
client's behalf. 
No. 
03-2688-D   
 
4 
 
accident, J.S.S. began using the parties' 1995 van.  J.S.S. 
subsequently received an insurance settlement check——in R.S.'s 
name——in the amount of $3300 for damage to the 1988 station 
wagon.  J.S.S. received that settlement check before January 10, 
1997, the date on which a temporary order hearing in the divorce 
action was held.  As of that date, the monthly payments of 
$436.80 for the 1995 van for November and December 1996 had not 
been made to the lien holder on the van.   
¶7 
After the January 10, 1997, hearing, the circuit court 
ordered that the $3300 proceeds from the insurance settlement 
for the damage to the 1988 station wagon be placed in Collins' 
trust account; also, Collins was directed to contact the lien 
holder on the van and make arrangements to "catch up" on the 
past due payments and to find out if the lien holder would 
agree, after it received the $3300 cash payment from Collins' 
trust account, to reduce the principal balance and renegotiate 
the loan on the van so as to permit a lower monthly payment.   
¶8 
On January 18, 1997, the attorney representing J.S.S. 
in the divorce action forwarded the $3300 insurance settlement 
check J.S.S. had received to Collins.  Although Collins knew the 
circuit court's order required him to deposit that check into 
his trust account and to then make arrangements with the lien 
holder on the van, Collins failed to deposit the check into his 
trust account.  
¶9 
In addition, Collins failed to instruct his client, 
R.S., to come to his office to endorse that settlement check so 
No. 
03-2688-D   
 
5 
 
that Collins could then deposit it in his trust account and make 
the van payments.   
¶10 On April 9, 1997, R.S. received a Notice of Right to 
Cure Default from the lien holder regarding the van.  R.S. faxed 
that document to Collins and called him but Collins did not 
return the call.  During the latter half of April 1997, R.S. 
made 
several 
additional 
unsuccessful 
attempts 
to 
contact 
Collins.  R.S. was finally able to reach Collins on April 30, 
1997.   
¶11 On May 9, 1997, R.S. learned that he needed to endorse 
the settlement check and he then did so on that date.   
¶12 Subsequently, in November of 1999, R.S. filed a 
grievance against Collins with the BAPR (OLR's predecessor 
agency).  BAPR and Collins corresponded regarding that grievance 
throughout February of 2000.   
¶13 On April 27, 2000, BAPR staff wrote to Collins asking 
for additional information and a response no later than May 11, 
2000.  Collins, however, failed to respond.   
¶14 On May 16, 2000, BAPR staff again wrote to Collins and 
asked for his response; again, he did not respond.  
¶15 BAPR 
staff 
subsequently 
referred 
the 
grievance 
investigation to its district investigative committee.  While 
that investigation was pending, this state's lawyer regulation 
system was restructured and the disciplinary agency was renamed 
the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR).   
¶16 On February 28, 2001, Collins met with the OLR's 
district investigative committee and was asked to provide 
No. 
03-2688-D   
 
6 
 
additional information regarding his communication with the 
attorney who had represented J.S.S. in the divorce action.  
Collins 
also 
promised 
to 
provide 
additional 
information 
regarding his failure to respond to the BAPR staff investigative 
letters. 
 
Collins 
agreed 
that he 
would 
supply all the 
information no later than March 7, 2001.  Collins, however, 
failed to provide any further information to the investigative 
committee regarding R.S.'s grievance. 
¶17 This course of conduct resulted in Counts One through 
Five as alleged in the OLR's complaint.  Those counts of 
misconduct to which Collins now stipulates are:  
A. 
Count One.  By failing to deposit the insurance 
settlement check into his trust account, Collins 
failed to hold in trust, property of clients or 
third persons in his possession in connection 
with a representation or when acting in a 
fiduciary 
capacity 
in 
violation 
of 
SCR 
20:1.15(a). 
B. 
Count Two.  By failing to promptly deliver the 
funds to the lien holder, despite the court's 
temporary 
order, 
Collins 
failed 
to, 
upon 
receiving funds or other property in which a 
client or third person has an interest, promptly 
notify the client or third person in writing, and 
failed to promptly deliver to the client or third 
person any funds or other property that the 
client or third person is entitled to receive, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.15(b). 
C. 
Count Three.  By taking four months to deposit 
the insurance settlement check instead of timely 
depositing the money into his trust account and 
by failing during that time to make past due 
payments to his client's lien holder, Collins 
failed to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing a client, in violation 
of SCR 20:1.3. 
No. 
03-2688-D   
 
7 
 
D. 
Count Four.  By failing to follow the court's 
temporary order requiring him to deposit an 
insurance 
settlement 
check 
into 
his 
trust 
account, and make arrangements with the parties' 
bank to catch up on any past due payments, 
Collins knowingly disobeyed an obligation under 
the rules of a tribunal, in violation of SCR 
20:3.4(c). 
E. 
Count 
Five.  By 
failing 
to 
respond 
to 
two 
requests for information from the BAPR staff and 
by failing to provide information to the district 
committee as agreed, Collins failed to cooperate 
with the investigative committee; Collins failed 
to cooperate with the OLR in the investigation, 
prosecution and disposition of a grievance; and 
by failing to fully and fairly disclose all facts 
and 
circumstances 
pertaining 
to 
the 
alleged 
misconduct, 
Collins 
engaged 
in 
professional 
misconduct, in violation of SCR 21:03(4) (1998), 
SCR 22.07(3) (1998), SCR 22.04(1), SCR 21.15(4), 
and SCR 22.03(2) (October 1, 2000). 
 
CLIENT M.T. 
¶18 The OLR complaint further alleged, and Collins now 
stipulates, that in May 1998, M.T. retained Collins as counsel 
in a divorce action then pending in the Dane County Circuit 
Court.  Collins was the fourth attorney M.T. had retained in 
that divorce action.   
¶19 Opposing counsel in the divorce action subsequently 
filed a motion seeking a firm date and a time for completion of 
a property exchange between M.T. and her former husband.  On 
October 29, 1998, the circuit court scheduled a hearing on that 
motion for Monday, November 9, 1998.  Collins, however, 
intentionally did not timely inform his client, M.T., of that 
scheduled hearing because he believed that her presence at that 
No. 
03-2688-D   
 
8 
 
hearing might be disruptive.  It was not until Friday, November 
6, 1998, that Collins mailed M.T. notice of the hearing then 
scheduled for the next Monday; he knew that that notice would 
probably not reach M.T. in time for her to arrange to be present 
at the hearing the following Monday. 
¶20 M.T. in fact did not appear at that November 9, 1998, 
hearing.  Because she was not present at that hearing, Collins 
did not raise certain issues she wanted addressed.  In M.T.'s 
absence, the circuit court set a date and time for M.T.'s 
husband to retrieve his personal property from M.T.'s home.   
¶21 This course of conduct as alleged in the OLR's 
complaint resulted in Count Six to which Collins now stipulates: 
A. 
Count Six.   By deliberately not informing a client 
of a post-divorce hearing Collins failed to keep a 
client reasonably informed about the status of a 
matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests 
for information, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a). 
 
CLIENT N.M. 
¶22 The OLR alleged, and Collins now stipulates, that he 
was appointed to act as guardian of 16-year-old N.M. in Sauk 
County.  Upon N.M.'s 18th birthday in November 1999, Collins was 
required to file his final guardian report detailing the funds 
collected and bills paid in the matter.  When Collins' final 
report was overdue, the circuit court scheduled a hearing for 
December 1999.  Collins failed to appear at that hearing even 
though he had notice of it.  
No. 
03-2688-D   
 
9 
 
¶23 By early 2000 when Collins still had not filed his 
final report regarding N.M.'s guardianship, the circuit court 
scheduled another hearing; again, Collins failed to appear. 
¶24 On April 4, 2000, the circuit court sent Collins 
another letter.  When his final report in the N.M. guardianship 
still had not been filed by May 3, 2000, the circuit court 
reported Collins' neglect of his duties as guardian in N.M.'s 
case to BAPR.  Collins finally filed his report in late May of 
2000.   
¶25 On May 25, 2000, a BAPR investigator contacted Collins 
and asked him to respond to this grievance by June 14, 2000.  
Collins did not respond by that deadline.  
¶26 BAPR staff then sent Collins a follow-up letter at the 
new address he had provided; Collins was given a new deadline of 
July 3, 2000, to respond to the grievance concerning the N.M. 
guardianship.  Collins did not respond until August 2, 2000.   
¶27 This course of conduct as alleged in the OLR's 
complaint resulted in Counts Seven and Eight to which Collins 
now stipulates.  
A. 
Count 
Seven.  By 
failing 
to 
timely 
file 
a 
guardianship report and by failing to attend two 
hearings, Collins failed to act with reasonable 
diligence 
and 
promptness 
in 
representing 
a 
client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. 
B. 
Count Eight.  By failing to timely respond to 
requests for information by the BAPR, Collins 
failed to cooperate with the board and the 
administrator in the investigation, prosecution, 
and disposition of a grievance; and failed to 
fully 
and 
fairly 
disclose 
all 
facts 
and 
circumstances 
pertaining 
to 
the 
alleged 
No. 
03-2688-D   
 
10 
 
misconduct in violation of SCR 21.03(4) (1998) 
and SCR 22.07(2) (1998).  
¶28 As noted, Collins has now stipulated to these eight 
counts of misconduct as alleged by the OLR in its complaint.  He 
admits the facts and the misconduct as alleged, and he agrees 
that a 60-day suspension of his license to practice law in this 
state is an appropriate sanction for that misconduct.  
¶29 We approve the stipulation and determine that the 
seriousness 
of 
Attorney 
Collins' 
misconduct 
warrants 
the 
suspension of his license to practice law for 60 days.  We view 
Collins' 
actions 
as 
serious 
violations 
of 
the 
Rules 
of 
Professional 
Conduct 
governing 
lawyers 
in 
this 
state.  
Accordingly,  
¶30 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Michael J. Collins 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 
days, effective March 18, 2004. 
¶31 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Michael J. Collins comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended.  
No. 
03-2688-D   
 
 
 
1