Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Tommy D. Payne
Citation: 2012 WI 109
Docket Number: 2012AP001044-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: October 9, 2012

2012 WI 109 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2012AP1044-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Tommy D. Payne, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Tommy D. Payne, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PAYNE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 9, 2012   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
  
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:  
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2012 WI 109
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2012AP1044-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Tommy D. Payne, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Tommy D. Payne, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 9, 2012 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   In this disciplinary proceeding, we 
consider whether to impose discipline on Attorney Tommy D. Payne 
reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme Court of Illinois.  
Attorney Payne has not alleged, and we do not find, that any 
exception to reciprocal discipline in SCR 22.22(3)1 applies.  
                                                 
1 SCR 22.22(3) states as follows: 
 
The supreme court shall impose the identical 
discipline or license suspension unless one or more of 
the following is present: 
No. 
2012AP1044-D   
 
2 
 
Accordingly, we impose a six-month suspension of Attorney 
Payne's license to practice law in Wisconsin as reciprocal 
discipline.  Because it has not been necessary to appoint a 
referee in this matter, we do not impose the costs of this 
proceeding on Attorney Payne. 
¶2 
Attorney Payne was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in June 1990 and in Illinois in November 1993.  He has 
practiced law in Chicago.  Attorney Payne's license to practice 
law in Wisconsin was suspended in October 1993 for failure to 
pay bar dues and assessments and in June 1995 for failure to 
comply with mandatory continuing legal education (CLE) reporting 
requirements. 
 
His 
Wisconsin 
license 
has 
remained 
administratively suspended from the date of those suspensions to 
the present time. 
¶3 
On May 16, 2012, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
filed a complaint against Attorney Payne and a motion requesting 
this court to issue an order directing Attorney Payne to show 
cause under SCR 22.22(3) why reciprocal discipline should not be 
imposed. 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
(a)  The procedure in the other jurisdiction was 
so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to 
constitute a deprivation of due process. 
 
(b)  There 
was 
such 
an 
infirmity 
of 
proof 
establishing the misconduct or medical incapacity that 
the supreme court could not accept as final the 
conclusion in respect to the misconduct or medical 
incapacity. 
 
(c)  The 
misconduct 
justifies 
substantially 
different discipline in this state. 
No. 
2012AP1044-D   
 
3 
 
¶4 
On July 3, 2012, following the OLR's filing of an 
affidavit of service of the complaint on Attorney Payne, an 
order was issued directing Attorney Payne to inform the court of 
any 
claim 
against 
imposing 
reciprocal 
discipline 
under 
SCR 22.22(3) by July 23, 2012.  Copies of the order were sent 
via both first-class mail and certified mail to the last address 
Attorney Payne had provided to the State Bar of Wisconsin, to 
the most recent address Attorney Payne had furnished to the 
Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme 
Court of Illinois (ARDC), and to the address listed in the 
affidavit of service at which personal service of the OLR's 
complaint had occurred.  While some of the envelopes were 
returned as unclaimed or undeliverable, the court has received a 
signed receipt for at least one of the envelopes sent by 
certified mail, and two of the envelopes sent by first-class 
mail have not been returned as undeliverable.  Thus, we conclude 
that Attorney Payne has received actual notice of the court's 
order to show cause.   
¶5 
Attorney Payne, however, has not filed any response to 
the order to show cause or to the OLR's complaint.  Thus, we 
conclude that the allegations of the OLR's complaint and the 
attached certified copies of the Illinois disciplinary records 
are deemed admitted. 
¶6 
Those Illinois disciplinary documents indicate that 
the Supreme Court of Illinois imposed a six-month suspension on 
the license of Attorney Payne to practice law in that state.  
The suspension arose from Attorney Payne's representation of 
No. 
2012AP1044-D   
 
4 
 
S.D. with respect to the estate of S.D.'s mother.  The 
representation was to include handling the closing of the sale 
of the mother's real property and investigating the refusal of 
an insurance company to pay certain death benefits.  With 
respect to the insurance company matter, Attorney Payne agreed 
that, if necessary, he would file suit against the insurer on 
behalf of the mother's estate. 
¶7 
Attorney Payne attended the real estate closing, where 
he received a $3,000 check from the title company.  Those funds 
were to cover his $1,000 fee for handling the real estate 
closing and a $2,000 advance fee for his future work on the 
insurance matter.  Shortly after the closing, Attorney Payne 
reviewed documents regarding the insurance matter, but he took 
no further action to pursue the estate's claim against the 
insurer.  For nearly a year S.D. made weekly unsuccessful 
attempts to communicate with Attorney Payne via both telephone 
and e-mail messages.  Although Attorney Payne received these 
communications from S.D., he never responded.   
¶8 
S.D. filed a grievance with the Illinois ARDC.  The 
ARDC then sent letters to Attorney Payne and served a subpoena 
on him in an attempt to investigate his conduct and to obtain a 
refund of the fee on behalf of S.D.  Attorney Payne promised to 
return the full retainer amount to S.D., but he never did so.  
In addition, he failed to communicate with the ARDC regarding 
its requests for information and attempts to resolve the matter 
on behalf of S.D. 
No. 
2012AP1044-D   
 
5 
 
¶9 
The Hearing Board of the ARDC ultimately concluded 
that Attorney Payne's actions in the representation of S.D. and 
her mother's estate had violated a number of the Illinois Rules 
of Professional Conduct.  Specifically, the Hearing Board 
concluded that Attorney Payne's actions prior to January 1, 
2010, had violated the 1990 Illinois Rules of Professional 
Conduct (a) by failing to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness (Rule 1.3); (b) by failing to keep the client 
reasonably informed and to comply promptly with reasonable 
requests for information (Rule 1.4(a)(3) and (4)); and (c) by 
engaging in conduct which tends to defeat the administration of 
justice or which brings the courts or the legal profession into 
disrepute (Illinois Supreme Court Rule 770).  The Hearing Board 
further concluded that Attorney Payne's actions after January 1, 
2010, had also violated the current version of the Illinois 
Rules of Professional Conduct (d) by failing to refund the 
unearned portion of the advance fee (Rule 1.16(d)); (e) by 
knowingly failing to respond to a lawful demand for information 
from a disciplinary authority (Rule 8.1(b)); and (f) by engaging 
in conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice 
or which brings the courts or the legal profession into 
disrepute (Illinois Supreme Court Rule 770). 
¶10 By order and judgment entered September 26, 2011, the 
Supreme Court of Illinois approved the report and recommendation 
of the Hearing Board and suspended Attorney Payne's license to 
practice law in Illinois for a period of six months and until 
No. 
2012AP1044-D   
 
6 
 
further order of the court following Attorney Payne's successful 
completion of a formal reinstatement proceeding. 
¶11 In reciprocal discipline situations, our rules provide 
that we "shall impose the identical discipline or license 
suspension" imposed in the other jurisdiction, unless one of 
three listed exceptions applies.  SCR 22.22(3).  In this case, 
Attorney Payne has not alleged that any exception applies, and 
our own review of the record leads us to conclude that no 
exception is applicable.  Accordingly, we suspend the license of 
Attorney Payne to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of six 
months, effective the date of this order.2   Attorney Payne has 
not requested that the suspension in this state be made 
retroactive to the date of the Illinois suspension, and we 
perceive no reason to do so.  We note that Attorney Payne did 
not notify the OLR of the Illinois suspension when it was 
imposed.  See SCR 22.22(1) (requiring attorney subject to public 
discipline in another jurisdiction to notify the OLR within 20 
days of the effective date of the discipline).  Finally, because 
this matter was completed without the need for the appointment 
of a referee, we do not require Attorney Payne to pay the costs 
of this proceeding. 
                                                 
2 We note that, as in Illinois, a six-month suspension in 
this state will require Attorney Payne to complete successfully 
the formal reinstatement procedure set forth in SCRs 22.29 
through 22.33.  In addition, Attorney Payne will also separately 
have to seek reinstatement from the administrative suspensions 
for failure to comply with mandatory CLE reporting requirements 
and for failure to pay bar dues and assessments. 
No. 
2012AP1044-D   
 
7 
 
¶12 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Tommy D. Payne to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six 
months, effective the date of this order. 
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Tommy D. Payne 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. 
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no costs shall be assessed 
against Tommy D. Payne. 
 
 
No. 
2012AP1044-D   
 
 
 
1