Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Raymond M. Clark
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2014AP002366-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: May 17, 2016

2016 WI 36 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2014AP2366-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Raymond M. Clark, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Raymond M. Clark, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CLARK 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 17, 2016 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
 
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:    
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2016 WI 36
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2014AP2366-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Raymond M. Clark, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Raymond M. Clark, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 17, 2016 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.    Attorney's license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of Referee Hannah C. Dugan that the license of Raymond M. Clark 
be suspended for 120 days for professional misconduct.  The 
referee also recommends that Attorney Clark pay the full costs 
of the proceeding, which are $16,192.21 as of March 29, 2016, 
and that he be required to take six continuing legal education 
No. 
2014AP2366-D   
 
2 
 
credits in trust account management, to be approved by the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR). 
¶2 
After careful review of this matter, we adopt the 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law.  We agree 
that a four-month suspension of Attorney Clark's license is an 
appropriate sanction for his misconduct.  We also agree that the 
full costs of the proceeding should be assessed against Attorney 
Clark, and we further agree that Attorney Clark should be 
required to obtain six continuing legal education credits in 
trust account management.   
¶3 
Attorney Clark was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1959.  The most recent address furnished by 
Attorney Clark to the State Bar of Wisconsin is in Menomonee 
Falls, Wisconsin.  Attorney Clark has no prior disciplinary 
history.  
¶4 
On October 9, 2014, the OLR filed a complaint alleging 
that Attorney Clark had engaged in ten counts of misconduct.  
Attorney Clark filed an answer to the complaint on November 17, 
2014.  The referee was appointed on December 17, 2014.  
¶5 
An evidentiary hearing was held before the referee on 
March 5, 2015.  At the hearing, the parties presented a signed 
stipulation, dated March 2, 2015.  As part of the stipulation, 
Attorney Clark admitted five counts of the complaint and entered 
no contest pleas to four counts.  During the course of the 
evidentiary hearing, the OLR made a motion to dismiss count ten 
of the complaint.  In the stipulation, Attorney Clark agreed 
that the referee may use the allegations of the complaint as an 
No. 
2014AP2366-D   
 
3 
 
adequate factual basis in the record for a determination of 
misconduct as set forth in counts one through nine of the 
complaint.  
¶6 
Counts one through five of the OLR's complaint arose 
out of Attorney Clark's representation of T.C. in Milwaukee 
County divorce proceedings.  The complaint alleged that in March 
of 2008, the Milwaukee County circuit court entered findings of 
fact, conclusions of law, and a final judgment in the divorce, 
which incorporated by reference all of the terms of a Marital 
Settlement Agreement (MSA) signed by T.C. and her husband, J.C.  
The MSA listed the marital debts and stated that the parties 
were equally liable for their payment.  The MSA provided that 
T.C.'s share of a retirement account would be forwarded to 
Attorney Clark and that Attorney Clark "shall withhold said 
monies in order to satisfy petitioner's [T.C's] financial 
responsibilities per the Marital Settlement Agreement.  After 
petitioner's financial responsibilities have been satisfied in 
full, petitioner shall receive the remaining balance."   
¶7 
In August 2008, Attorney Clark received T.C.'s share 
of the retirement account, totaling $9,341.84.  He deposited 
that amount into his IOLTA trust account.  Between August 13, 
2008 and September 26, 2008, Attorney Clark disbursed various 
checks from his trust account to himself, including $1,710 of 
the funds on deposit for T.C.  On September 26, 2008, Attorney 
Clark made a cash withdrawal in the amount of $1,000 from the 
funds in his trust account attributable to his representation of 
T.C.  
No. 
2014AP2366-D   
 
4 
 
¶8 
Although Attorney Clark told T.C. that he was working 
on negotiating several of the debts, as of January 26, 2009, he 
had not paid any of the creditors T.C. was obligated to pay 
pursuant to the MSA.  
¶9 
Between January 30, 2009 and March 5, 2009, Attorney 
Clark disbursed another $1,850 of the retirement funds to 
himself.  He also disbursed $300 of the funds to his client.  He 
did not discuss the disbursements with opposing counsel, seek a 
modification of the MSA, or seek the court's authorization for 
the disbursements.  
¶10 In May 2009, J.C.'s counsel filed a motion for an 
order to show cause due to T.C.'s failure to timely pay her 
portion of the marital debts.  Attorney Clark filed a cross 
motion asserting that J.C. had failed to comply with the law 
concerning financial disclosures, disputing that J.C. had paid 
his share of the debts, and asserting that J.C. had interfered 
with IRS refunds.  As of June 1, 2009, at least five debts to be 
paid by T.C., totaling $833.15, remained unpaid, but by this 
time Attorney Clark was holding insufficient funds in trust for 
T.C. to pay those debts.  
¶11 At a June 19, 2009 hearing, a Milwaukee County court 
commissioner held that she had no authority other than to 
enforce the MSA.  The commissioner ordered T.C. to pay her share 
of the marital debt and ordered that "any monies in trust [] be 
used for outstanding bills forthwith."  At the hearing, Attorney 
Clark failed to advise the court that he had already disbursed 
$4,360 of the retirement funds to himself and failed to advise 
No. 
2014AP2366-D   
 
5 
 
that he had made other disbursements and that only $59.73 of the 
retirement funds remained in his trust account.  
¶12 On July 14, 2009, Attorney Clark disbursed $600 to 
himself, exhausting the remaining retirement funds being held in 
trust for T.C. and disbursing funds that belonged to T.C. or 
others.  On August 13, 2009, Attorney Clark disbursed $50 from 
his trust account to T.C.  By that date, Attorney Clark was no 
longer holding any funds in his trust account attributable to 
T.C.  In February 2010, Attorney Clark deposited $1,846.05 in 
his trust account and identified the deposit as "return of fees" 
related to his representation of T.C.   
¶13 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Clark's representation of 
T.C.: 
[Count One]  By failing to take reasonable steps to 
advance [T.C.'s] interests in having her marital debts 
paid in a timely fashion, [Attorney] Clark failed to 
act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.1 
[Count Two]  By making a cash withdrawal from the 
funds he held in trust relating to his representation 
of 
[T.C.], 
[Attorney] 
Clark 
made 
a 
prohibited 
transaction by making a disbursement of cash from his 
trust account from funds held in trust for a client in 
violation of SCR 20:1.5(e)(4)a.2 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.3 provides:  "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
2 SCR 20:l.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." 
 
No. 
2014AP2366-D   
 
6 
 
[Count Three]  By failing to hold in trust the 
$1,341.84 entrusted to him for the payment of [T.C.'s] 
share of the marital debts as required under the 
Marital Settlement Agreement and by disbursing funds 
related to his representation of [T.C.] in excess of 
the funds he held in trust related to her case, 
[Attorney] Clark failed to hold in trust, separate 
from his own property, the property of his client and 
3rd parties held in [Attorney] Clark's possession in 
connection with his representation of a client, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).3 
[Count Four]  By failing to hold $9,341.84 in trust 
for the payment of [T.C.'s] share of the marital debts 
as part of the Marital Settlement Agreement as ordered 
by the court on March 14, 2008; and by failing to hold 
the remaining $59.73 in trust for the payment of 
[T.C.'s] share of the marital debts as ordered by the 
court on June 19, 2009, [Attorney] Clark knowingly 
disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, 
in violation of SCR 20:3.4(c).4 
[Count Five]  By disbursing to himself $4,960 of the 
$9,341.84 entrusted to him for the payment of [T.C.'s] 
share of the marital debts, without obtaining the 
prior authorization of the court or opposing counsel 
to do so, [Attorney] Clark engaged in professional 
                                                 
3 20:1.15(b)(1) provides:  
 
A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the 
lawyer's own property, that property of clients and 
3rd parties that is in the lawyer's possession in 
connection with a representation. All funds of clients 
and 3rd parties paid to a lawyer or law firm in 
connection with a representation shall be deposited in 
one or more identifiable trust accounts. 
 
4 SCR 20:3.4(c) provides:  "A lawyer shall not: . . . . 
knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, 
except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid 
obligation exists." 
No. 
2014AP2366-D   
 
7 
 
misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or 
misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).5 
¶14 Counts six through nine in the OLR's complaint arose 
out of the OLR's investigation and audit of Attorney Clark's 
trust account.  Those counts alleged:   
[Count Six]  By engaging in a course of conduct to 
protect or hide income and assets from the Wisconsin 
Department of Revenue and/or the Internal Revenue 
Service, including by depositing earned fees and funds 
belonging to [Attorney] Clark and/or the Law Offices 
of Raymond M. Clark in his client trust account, 
[Attorney] Clark placed and retained funds in his 
trust account that did not reasonably relate to 
monthly 
service 
charges, 
in 
violation 
of 
SCR 
20:1.15(b)(3).6 
[Count Seven]  By engaging in a course of conduct to 
protect or hide income and assets from the Wisconsin 
Department of Revenue and/or the Internal Revenue 
Service, including by depositing earned fees and funds 
belonging to [Attorney] Clark and/or the Law Offices 
of Raymond M. Clark in his client trust account, 
[Attorney] Clark placed and retained funds in his 
trust account that did not reasonably relate to 
monthly 
service 
charges, 
in 
violation 
of 
SCR 
20:8.4(c). 
[Count Eight]  By taking cash withdrawals from his 
client trust account, taking cash from his deposits to 
his client trust account, and by issuing checks 
payable to cash from his client trust account, 
[Attorney] Clark made prohibited transactions from his 
                                                 
5 20:8.4(c) provides: "It is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to: . . . . engage in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." 
6 SCR 20:l:15(b)(3) provides: "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." 
No. 
2014AP2366-D   
 
8 
 
client trust account and from deposits to his client 
trust account, in violation of SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)a. 
[Count Nine]  By disbursing funds from his client 
trust account in excess of the amount he was then 
holding 
in 
trust 
for 
specified 
client 
matters, 
[Attorney] Clark disbursed funds from an IOLTA account 
and created a negative balance with respect to 
individual clients or matters, in violation of SCR 
20:1.15(f)(1)b.7 
¶15 Count ten of the OLR's complaint alleged that by 
making misrepresentations to the OLR about the purpose and 
intent of his course of conduct that included depositing earned 
fees and funds belonging to Attorney Clark and/or his law office 
into his trust account, Attorney Clark wilfully failed to 
provide relevant information, failed to answer questions fully, 
or to furnish documents to OLR, in violation of SCR 22.03(6)8 and 
SCR 20:8.4(h).9  
¶16 The referee granted the OLR's motion to dismiss count 
ten of the complaint.  In her report and recommendation, the 
                                                 
7 SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)b provides, in part:  . . . . A lawyer 
shall not disburse funds from an IOLTA account or any pooled 
trust account that would create a negative balance with respect 
to any individual client or matter. 
8 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." 
9 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme 
court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers." 
No. 
2014AP2366-D   
 
9 
 
referee also concluded that, in spite of the fact that Attorney 
Clark had entered a plea of no contest to count five, the OLR 
had failed to meet its burden of proof with respect to count 
five.  The referee said that count five included obligations 
that were not included in the divorce court's orders related to 
T.C.'s family law case and the MSA.  The referee said during the 
evidentiary hearing, neither party could establish that the 
court ordered deposits and disbursals of funds required that 
Attorney Clark obtain the prior authorization of the court or 
opposing counsel or that he be required to return to the 
tribunal to obtain authorization to disburse the funds.  For 
these reasons, the referee concluded that OLR failed to meet its 
burden of proof with respect to establishing that prior 
authorization needed to be obtained as pled in count five.  The 
referee found that the OLR did meet its burden of proof with 
respect to the other eight counts of misconduct alleged in the 
complaint.   
¶17 Turning to the appropriate level of discipline, the 
referee noted that the complaint sought a 15-month suspension of 
Attorney Clark's license.  The referee noted that in the 
stipulation, Attorney Clark did not contest and stipulated to 
OLR's request for a 15-month suspension.  Nevertheless, the 
referee concluded that a 15-month suspension was too harsh a 
sanction. The referee commented that count ten of the complaint, 
which the OLR ultimately moved to dismiss, contained substantial 
allegations constituting rule violations that, if proven, would 
justify an enhanced sanction. The referee reasoned that if the 
No. 
2014AP2366-D   
 
10 
 
allegations in count ten were not proven, then a reduced 
sanction warranted consideration.  
¶18 The referee noted that Attorney Clark admitted or pled 
no contest to multiple counts of misconduct.  She noted that 
during the evidentiary hearing, the OLR commented about Attorney 
Clark's cordiality and his cooperation and remorse.  The referee 
also pointed out that Attorney Clark has no prior discipline and 
has practiced law for 56 years.   
¶19 In support of her conclusion that a 120-day suspension 
was 
appropriate, 
the 
referee 
cited 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Smith, 2013 WI 98, 351 Wis. 2d 368, 841  
N.W.2d 278 and In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Thibodeau, 
2007 WI 118, 305 Wis. 2d 121, 738 N.W.2d 558.  Attorney 
Thibodeau received a 60-day suspension for multiple counts of 
misconduct that included holding personal funds in his trust 
account in order to avoid the seizure of those funds by tax 
authorities; failing to hold in trust, separate from his own 
property, property of clients and third persons; and failing to 
comply with recordkeeping requirements.  The referee noted that, 
like Attorney Clark, Attorney Thibodeau had not been disciplined 
previously, had entered into a stipulation to resolve the 
matter, and had practiced for a length of time. The referee said 
unlike Attorney Thibodeau, Attorney Clark stipulated to two more 
counts involving three more supreme court rule violations.  
Attorney Clark also violated a court order and had almost twice 
as many years of law practice experience as Attorney Thibodeau.   
No. 
2014AP2366-D   
 
11 
 
¶20 Attorney Smith received a six-month suspension for 20 
counts of misconduct that included failing to promptly deposit 
client and third party funds into her trust account; failing to 
promptly apply client and third party funds toward the payment 
of agreed upon taxes owed by a client and third party; failing 
to comply with court orders; and noncooperation with the OLR.  
The referee said both Attorney Clark and Attorney Smith have the 
aggravating factor of having practiced for a length of time.  
The 
referee 
said 
unlike 
Attorney 
Smith, 
Attorney 
Clark 
stipulated to 11 fewer counts of misconduct, cooperated with the 
OLR and other authorities, and was not required to pay 
restitution. 
Attorney 
Smith 
had 
previously 
been 
publicly 
reprimanded.  
¶21 The referee ultimately concluded that a 120-day 
suspension of Attorney Clark's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin was an appropriate sanction, considering past case 
law, mitigating and aggravating circumstances, and the fact that 
Attorney Clark entered into a stipulation. The referee also 
recommended that Attorney Clark pay the full costs of the 
proceeding and that he be required to undertake six continuing 
legal education credits in trust account management, to be 
approved by the OLR. 
¶22 No appeal has been filed.  A referee's findings of 
fact are affirmed unless clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law 
are reviewed de novo.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against 
Eisenberg, 
2004 
WI 
14, 
¶5, 
269 
Wis. 2d 43, 
675 
N.W.2d 747.  The court may impose whatever sanction it sees fit, 
No. 
2014AP2366-D   
 
12 
 
regardless 
of 
the 
referee's 
recommendation. 
 
See 
In 
re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 
Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶23 There is no showing that any of the referee's findings 
of fact are clearly erroneous, and we adopt them.  We also agree 
with the referee's conclusions of law that Attorney Clark 
violated the supreme court rules set forth above.   
¶24 Upon careful review of the matter, we agree with the 
referee's recommendation for a four-month suspension of Attorney 
Clark's license to practice law in Wisconsin.  Attorney Clark 
has no prior disciplinary history and has expressed remorse for 
his actions.  In addition to the Smith and Thibodeau cases cited 
by the referee, it appears that a four-month suspension is 
generally consistent with the sanction imposed in In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Krogman, 2015 WI 113, 365 
Wis. 2d 628, 872 N.W.2d 657 (attorney's license suspended for 
four months for misconduct including trust account violations) 
and In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Tobin, 2007 WI 50, 
300 Wis. 2d 250, 730 N.W.2d 896 (attorney's license suspended 
for 
four 
months 
for 
misconduct 
including 
trust 
account 
violations and conversions).  We also agree that Attorney Clark 
should be required to undertake six continuing legal education 
credits in trust account management and that he should pay the 
full costs of the proceeding.   
¶25 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Raymond M. Clark to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of four 
months, effective June 20, 2016. 
No. 
2014AP2366-D   
 
13 
 
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Raymond M. Clark shall 
undertake six continuing legal education credits in trust 
account management, to be approved by the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation.  
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Raymond M. Clark shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$16,192.21.  If the costs are not paid within the time 
specified, and absent a showing to this court of his inability 
to pay the costs within that time, the license of Raymond M. 
Clark to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until 
further order of the court.   
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Raymond M. Clark 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.  
¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See SCR 
22.28(2). 
 
No. 
2014AP2366-D   
 
 
 
1