Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Everett E. Wood
Citation: 2014 WI 116
Docket Number: 2013AP001791-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: October 21, 2014

2014 WI 116 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2013AP1791-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Everett E. Wood, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Everett E. Wood, 
          Respondent.   
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINAARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST WOOD 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 21, 2014 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2014 WI 116
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2013AP1791-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Everett E. Wood, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Everett E. Wood, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 21, 2014 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   On June 10, 2014, Referee James J. 
Winiarski issued a report recommending that Attorney Everett E. 
Wood's license to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for 90 
days 
for 
professional 
misconduct, 
as 
recommended 
in 
a 
stipulation executed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
and Attorney Wood.  The referee also recommended that Attorney 
Wood be required to pay the full costs of this proceeding, which 
are $2,191.38 as of June 30, 2014. 
No. 
2013AP1791-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
We agree that Attorney Wood's professional misconduct 
warrants a 90-day suspension.  We also agree that Attorney Wood 
should be ordered to pay the full costs of the proceeding.   
¶3 
Attorney Wood was admitted to the State Bar of 
Wisconsin on June 17, 1992.  He resides in Richfield, Wisconsin.   
Effective March 1, 2013, Attorney Wood's license to practice law 
was suspended for a period of six months for 28 counts of 
misconduct committed in seven client matters.  That misconduct 
involved lack of diligence, lack of communication, failure to 
hold funds in trust, and failure to cooperate with the OLR's 
investigation.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Wood, 
2013 WI 11, 345 Wis. 2d 279, 825 N.W.2d 473.  Attorney Wood's 
license 
remains 
suspended; 
he 
has 
not 
petitioned 
for 
reinstatement.  
¶4 
All the allegations of misconduct in the matter now 
before the court stem from Attorney Wood's representation of 
S.H. 
¶5 
In January 2010, S.H. hired Attorney Wood to represent 
S.H. and his wife in a dispute with a construction company, 
GSI General, Inc. (GSI).  In October of 2010, S.H. gave Attorney 
Wood $400 for future litigation expenses or costs.  Attorney 
Wood agreed to represent S.H. for a one-third contingency fee.  
Attorney Wood did not provide S.H. with a written fee agreement.  
Attorney Wood did not hold the entire $400 in trust until 
expended.  Attorney Wood did not maintain individual client 
registers or a transaction register for his trust account.  
No. 
2013AP1791-D   
 
3 
 
¶6 
In March of 2011, Attorney Wood filed suit against GSI 
on behalf of S.H.  In October of 2011, S.H. and GSI settled the 
lawsuit after mediation.  GSI agreed to pay S.H. as follows:  
$6,000 on or before February 1, 2012; $2,300 on or before 
May 1, 2012; and $1,700 on or before October 1, 2012.  
¶7 
S.H. departed before the negotiation was complete, so 
Attorney Wood signed the agreement on S.H.'s behalf.  Attorney 
Wood did not send a copy of the settlement agreement to S.H. 
¶8 
On or around October 12, 2011, the mediator sent a 
bill for $385 to Attorney Wood.  Attorney Wood did not timely 
pay this bill, despite having received $400 from S.H. towards 
costs.  
¶9 
On February 1, 2012, GSI's attorney issued a check for 
$6,000 payable to Attorney Wood's trust account.  The next day, 
Attorney Wood deposited $6,000 into his trust account but did 
not promptly notify S.H., in writing, that Attorney Wood had 
received GSI's initial settlement payment.  
¶10 On February 3, 2012, Attorney Wood withdrew $1,866 
from his trust account in a cash transaction, presumably 
reflecting his fee portion of the first settlement payment, but 
did not provide S.H. with a settlement accounting at the time. 
¶11 In February 2012, S.H. called and emailed Attorney 
Wood to inquire about the settlement payment but could not reach 
him.  Later that month, Attorney Wood made additional cash 
withdrawals from his trust account.  By that time, Attorney Wood 
had spent $269 in filing fees and $64 serving the complaint out 
of the $400.  Therefore, $67 attributable to S.H. should have 
No. 
2013AP1791-D   
 
4 
 
remained in Attorney Wood's trust account, but his trust account 
balance was below $36 for multiple days in February 2012. 
¶12 On March 1, 2012, S.H. filed a grievance against 
Attorney Wood.  On or about March 13, 2012, Attorney Wood sent 
S.H. a cashier's check for $4,133, representing S.H.'s portion 
of the first settlement payment together with a refund of the 
$400 reflecting pre-paid expenses.  Attorney Wood also provided 
a settlement statement.  
¶13 On March 21, 2012, the OLR wrote to Attorney Wood, 
requiring his written response to the grievance by April 13, 
2012.  Attorney Wood did not respond to this inquiry or to 
several subsequent requests for information.  
¶14 On May 3, 2012, GSI's attorney issued a check for 
$2,300 payable to Attorney Wood's trust account.  The next day, 
Attorney Wood deposited these funds into his trust account.  On 
May 7, 2012, Attorney Wood advised S.H. by email that he had 
received the second payment.  
¶15 On May 8, 2012, Attorney Wood withdrew $766 from his 
trust account.  On May 10, 2012, Attorney Wood withdrew another 
$1,544 from his trust account.  That same day, he sent S.H. a 
cashier's check for $1,534, representing S.H.'s portion of the 
second payment. 
¶16 On May 11, 2012, the OLR received a response from 
Attorney 
Wood, 
partially 
responsive 
to 
its 
investigative 
request.  However, Attorney Wood then failed to respond to 
follow-up requests for more information until the OLR moved this 
No. 
2013AP1791-D   
 
5 
 
court for an order temporarily suspending Attorney Wood's 
Wisconsin law license for non-cooperation.  
¶17 On August 12, 2013, the OLR filed a complaint alleging 
that Attorney Wood had engaged in seven counts of misconduct 
based on his representation of S.H.  On or about February 13, 
2014, following the filing of an answer and the appointment of 
the referee, the parties executed a stipulation and no contest 
plea, pursuant to which Attorney Wood pled "no contest" to the 
counts alleged and agreed that the allegations of the complaint, 
as amended in the stipulation, could be used as a factual basis 
for a determination of his misconduct.  Both the OLR and 
Attorney Wood agreed that a 90-day suspension was appropriate.  
¶18 As part of the stipulation between the parties, 
Attorney Wood noted the following:  
 that the arrangement between S.H. and Attorney Wood 
permitted S.H. to elect the billing method (either 
hourly or contingent) once it was known if they would 
obtain attorney fees from the defendant;  
 that the mediator's bill was eventually paid;  
 that S.H. was informed of the settlement accounting in 
detail, knew that the check was received and of the 
amount he was to receive, and failed to return the 
disbursement register that was sent to him confirming 
receipt of funds and approving disbursement to him per 
his selected billing manner;  
No. 
2013AP1791-D   
 
6 
 
 that after February 2012, Attorney Wood did not 
receive further communication from S.H. until early 
March 2012; 
 that Attorney Wood sent S.H. a check for $4,133 after 
receiving 
confirmation 
that 
S.H. 
had 
elected 
a 
contingency billing method; and 
 that Attorney Wood responded to the OLR's April 18, 
2012 letter, although not timely. 
¶19 The referee afforded both parties the opportunity for 
further briefing and directed the parties to address the 
appropriate effective date for discipline and whether Attorney 
Wood 
had 
sought 
reinstatement 
in 
relation 
to 
his 
prior 
suspension.  
¶20 The referee reviewed the complaint and stipulation and 
other filings of the parties and concluded that Attorney Wood 
committed the seven counts of misconduct alleged in the 
complaint.  Specifically, the complaint alleged, the parties 
stipulated, and the referee concluded: 
[Count One]  By failing to provide his client, 
[S.H.], a written fee agreement setting forth the 
terms of their contingent fee arrangement and to 
obtain his signature thereon, [Attorney] Wood violated 
SCR 20:1.5(c).1 
                                                 
1 Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 20:1.5(c) provides: 
A fee may be contingent on the outcome of the 
matter for which the service is rendered, except in a 
matter in which a contingent fee is prohibited by 
par. (d) or other law. A contingent fee agreement 
shall be in a writing signed by the client, and shall 
state the method by which the fee is to be determined, 
(continued) 
No. 
2013AP1791-D   
 
7 
 
[Count Two]  By failing to keep [S.H.] informed 
about the status of the settlement payment and by 
failing 
to 
respond 
to 
[S.H.'s] 
requests 
for 
information about the status of the settlement funds 
that 
[S.H.] 
was 
due, 
[Attorney] 
Wood 
violated 
SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4).2  
[Count Three]  By failing to hold his client's 
settlement funds in trust from the time that he 
received the funds until he disbursed the funds to his 
client, [Attorney] Wood violated SCR 20:1.15(b).3  
                                                                                                                                                             
including the percentage or percentages that shall 
accrue to the lawyer in the event of settlement, trial 
or appeal; litigation and other expenses to be 
deducted from the recovery; and whether such expenses 
are to be deducted before or after the contingent fee 
is calculated. The agreement must clearly notify the 
client of any expenses for which the client will be 
liable whether or not the client is the prevailing 
party. Upon conclusion of a contingent fee matter, the 
lawyer shall provide the client with a written 
statement stating the outcome of the matter and if 
there is a recovery, showing the remittance to the 
client and the method of its determination. 
2 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4) provide, respectively, that a 
lawyer shall "keep the client reasonably informed about the 
status of the matter" and "promptly comply with reasonable 
requests by the client for information." 
3 The OLR's complaint and the referee's report both quote 
only subsection (b)(1) of this rule in regards to this count of 
misconduct.  For our purposes here, we follow suit and therefore 
consider this count (Count Three) to be in violation of 
SCR 20:1.15(b)(1), which 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. 
No. 
2013AP1791-D   
 
8 
 
[Count Four]  By failing to hold in trust the 
$400 advanced to him by his client for payment of 
anticipated 
costs, 
[Attorney] 
Wood 
violated 
SCR 20:1.15(b)(4).4  
[Count Five]  By 
withdrawing 
funds 
from 
his 
client trust account via teller cash transactions, 
[Attorney] Wood violated SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)a.5  
[Count Six]  By failing to maintain and preserve 
complete records of funds he held in trust, including 
a transaction register and individual client ledgers, 
[Attorney] Wood violated SCR 20:1.15(e)(6).6 
[Count Seven]  By 
failing 
to 
respond 
to 
the 
[S.H.] grievance within 20 days of receiving notice 
that 
his 
formal 
written 
response 
was 
required, 
[Attorney] Wood violated SCR 22.03(2),7 enforceable via 
                                                 
4 SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) provides: 
Except as provided in par. (4m), unearned fees 
and advanced payments of fees shall be held in trust 
until earned by the lawyer, and withdrawn pursuant to 
sub. (g).  Funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for 
payment of costs shall be held in trust until the 
costs are incurred. 
5 SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)a. provides that "[n]o 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.'" 
6 SCR 20:1.15(e)(6) provides that "[a] lawyer shall maintain 
complete records of trust account funds and other trust property 
and shall preserve those records for at least 6 years after the 
date of termination of the representation." 
7 SCR 22.03(2) provides: 
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 
(continued) 
No. 
2013AP1791-D   
 
9 
 
SCR 20:8.4(h).8 In addition, by delaying his response 
to OLR's request for additional information until 
compelled by an order to show cause issued by the 
Supreme Court, [Attorney] Wood violated SCR 22.03(6),9 
enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h).  
¶21 The referee then considered appropriate discipline, 
identifying the factors considered in determining discipline for 
professional misconduct, citing In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against 
Carroll, 
2001 WI 130, 
¶40, 
248 Wis. 2d 662, 
636 N.W.2d 718, as well as the ABA standards for discipline.  
The referee noted that Attorney Wood had recently received a 
six-month suspension for 28 counts of misconduct involving lack 
of diligence, lack of communication with clients, failure to 
hold client funds in trust, and failure to cooperate with the 
OLR's investigation.  The referee observed that Attorney Wood's 
misconduct in the instant matter again involves failure to keep 
a client informed of the status of his case, trust account 
                                                                                                                                                             
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. 
8 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides that 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)." 
9 SCR 22.03(6) provides that "[i]n 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." 
No. 
2013AP1791-D   
 
10 
 
violations, and failure to cooperate in an OLR investigation, in 
addition to a failure to have a written fee agreement with a 
client.  The referee stated: 
I am troubled by the fact that Attorney Wood is 
again involved in an attorney disciplinary proceeding 
wherein there is lack of communication with a client, 
failure to hold funds in trust and failure to 
cooperate with an OLR investigation.  This is an 
unacceptable pattern of misconduct by Attorney Wood. 
¶22 The referee noted that the misconduct in this case 
occurred 
after 
the 
misconduct 
in 
Attorney 
Wood's 
prior 
disciplinary proceeding, but acknowledged that much of it 
occurred while that prior disciplinary proceeding was pending. 
The referee was also troubled by Attorney Wood's failure to 
cooperate in the OLR investigations in both the previous 
disciplinary matter and this case.  
¶23 On balance, the referee accepted the parties' joint 
recommendation and recommended that Attorney Wood's law license 
be suspended for a period of 90 days commencing the date of this 
order.  He further recommended that Attorney Wood be responsible 
for all the costs of this disciplinary proceeding, which total 
$2,191.38 as of June 30, 2014.  No restitution is requested by 
the OLR and none is recommended. 
¶24 No appeal was filed, so we review this matter pursuant 
to SCR 22.17(2).  We will affirm the referee's findings of fact 
unless they are clearly erroneous.  We review conclusions of law 
de novo.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 
2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  We may impose 
whatever sanction we see fit, regardless of the referee's 
No. 
2013AP1791-D   
 
11 
 
recommendation.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶25 Here, we agree with the referee that the allegations 
in the OLR's complaint have been established and that Attorney 
Wood engaged in the seven counts of misconduct alleged in the 
complaint, as stipulated by the parties.  We further agree that 
a 90-day suspension is an appropriate sanction for Attorney 
Wood's misconduct and we agree that he should pay the full costs 
of the proceeding.   
¶26 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Everett E. Wood to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 90 days, 
effective the date of this order. 
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Everett E. Wood shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Everett E. Wood shall comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of any attorney 
whose license to practice law has been suspended.  
No. 
2013AP1791-D   
 
 
 
1