Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Joan M. Boyd
Citation: 2013 WI 20
Docket Number: 2012AP001977-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: February 21, 2013

2013 WI 20 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2012AP1977-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: 
February 21, 2013   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
2013 WI 20
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2012AP1977-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 
 
FEB. 21, 2013 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney Joan M. Boyd has filed a 
petition for the consensual revocation of her license to 
practice law in Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 22.19.1  Attorney 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.19 provides as follows: 
 
(1)  An attorney who is the subject of an 
investigation 
for 
possible 
misconduct 
or 
the 
respondent in a proceeding may file with the supreme 
No. 
2012AP1977-D   
 
2 
 
Boyd's petition states that she cannot successfully defend 
against 28 counts of professional misconduct in eight grievance 
investigations for which the Preliminary Review Committee (PRC) 
of the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) has found cause to 
proceed, 
as 
well 
as 
multiple 
additional 
allegations 
of 
misconduct in connection with seven more grievances that have 
                                                                                                                                                             
court a petition for the revocation by consent or his 
or her license to practice law.   
 
(2)  The petition shall state that the petitioner 
cannot successfully defend against the allegations of 
misconduct. 
 
(3)  If a complaint has not been filed, the 
petition shall be filed in the supreme court and shall 
include the director's summary of the misconduct 
allegations being investigated.  Within 20 days after 
the date of filing of the petition, the director shall 
file in the supreme court a recommendation on the 
petition.  Upon a showing of good cause, the supreme 
court may extend the time for filing a recommendation. 
 
(4)  If a complaint has been filed, the petition 
shall be filed in the supreme court and served on the 
director and on the referee to whom the proceeding has 
been assigned.  Within 20 days after the filing of the 
petition, the director shall file in the supreme court 
a response in support of or in opposition to the 
petition and serve a copy on the referee.  Upon a 
showing of good cause, the supreme court may extend 
the time for filing a response.  The referee shall 
file a report and recommendation on the petition in 
the supreme court within 30 days after receipt of the 
director's response. 
 
(5)  The supreme court shall grant the petition 
and revoke the petitioner's license to practice law or 
deny the petition and remand the matter to the 
director or to the referee for further proceedings. 
No. 
2012AP1977-D   
 
3 
 
not yet been fully investigated by the OLR or brought to the PRC 
for its consideration. 
¶2 
Attorney Boyd was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in May 1989.  She previously practiced in Shawano and 
currently resides in Gillett. 
¶3 
Attorney Boyd has a lengthy disciplinary history, and 
her license to practice law in this state is currently 
suspended.  Her prior disciplinary matters can be summarized as 
follows: 
• In 2000 Attorney Boyd received a consensual 
public 
reprimand 
for 
forging 
her 
clients' 
endorsements on the back of a check that was 
issued by a bankruptcy trustee to the clients and 
for 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.  Public 
Reprimand of Joan M. Boyd, No. 2000-04.   
• In 2006 this court publicly reprimanded Attorney 
Boyd for failing to deposit a fee into her client 
trust account, commingling personal and client 
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.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Boyd, 2006 WI 
28, 289 Wis. 2d 351, 711 N.W.2d 268. 
• In 2008 this court suspended Attorney Boyd's 
license for five months for five counts of 
professional misconduct in three client matters.  
In each representation, she failed to provide 
competent representation.  She also failed to act 
with 
reasonable 
diligence 
and 
made 
a 
misrepresentation to one of the clients.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Boyd, 2008 WI 
103, 314 Wis. 2d 14, 752 N.W.2d 882. 
No. 
2012AP1977-D   
 
4 
 
• In June 2009 this court suspended Attorney Boyd's 
license 
for 
six 
months 
for 
13 
counts 
of 
misconduct arising out of five client matters.  
Her misconduct included, inter alia, failing to 
provide 
competent 
representation, 
failing 
to 
terminate her representation and protect her 
client's interests, failing to keep her clients 
reasonably informed about the status of their 
matters, failing to return unearned fees, failing 
to deposit a check into her client trust account, 
and 
failing 
to 
cooperate 
with 
an 
OLR 
investigation.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Boyd, 2009 WI 59, 318 Wis. 2d 281, 767 
N.W.2d 226. 
• In May 2010 this court suspended Attorney Boyd's 
license for an additional 12 months, to run 
consecutive to her prior suspensions.  The court 
found that she had committed 11 counts of 
professional 
misconduct 
arising 
out 
of 
four 
client matters.  The findings of misconduct 
included, 
inter 
alia, 
failure 
to 
act 
with 
competence, 
failure 
to 
act 
with 
diligence, 
failure to keep her clients reasonably informed, 
and 
charging 
an 
unreasonable 
fee. 
 
In 
re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Boyd, 2010 WI 
41, 324 Wis. 2d 688, 782 N.W.2d 718. 
¶4 
Attached to Attorney Boyd's petition for revocation is 
a completed but unfiled disciplinary complaint and a summary of 
the misconduct allegations in the seven other matters that have 
not yet been fully investigated. 
¶5 
It is not necessary to describe the particular factual 
allegations of each representation.  Generally speaking, most 
representations involved Attorney Boyd being retained either to 
pursue postconviction relief in a criminal case or to pursue 
debtor 
relief 
in 
a 
bankruptcy 
action. 
 
Attorney 
Boyd's 
misconduct arose out of her actions as an attorney in those 
representations. 
No. 
2012AP1977-D   
 
5 
 
¶6 
Some summary information regarding the allegations in 
the unfiled OLR complaint will provide a sufficient description 
of the nature and scope of her professional misconduct.  Three 
counts in that complaint allege a failure to provide competent 
representation, in violation of SCR 20:1.1.2  Four counts involve 
a failure to communicate adequately with the client or to keep 
the client informed of the status of the matter, in violation of 
SCR 20:1.4(a) and/or (b).3  In five of the eight representations 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.1 provides that "[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 SCRs 20:1.4(a) and (b) state:  Communication. 
 
(a)  A lawyer shall: 
 
(1)  Promptly inform the client of any decision 
or circumstance with respect to which the client's 
informed consent, as defined in SCR 20:1.0(f), is 
required by these rules;  
 
(2)  reasonably consult with the client about the 
means by which the client's objectives are to be 
accomplished; 
 
(3)  keep the client reasonably informed about 
the status of the matter;  
 
(4)  promptly comply with reasonable requests by 
the client for information; and 
 
(5)  consult with the client about any relevant 
limitation on the lawyer's conduct when the lawyer 
knows that the client expects assistance not permitted 
by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law. 
 
(b)  A lawyer shall explain a matter to the 
extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to 
make informed decisions regarding the representation. 
No. 
2012AP1977-D   
 
6 
 
addressed in the unfiled complaint, the OLR alleges that 
Attorney Boyd charged an unreasonable or excessive fee, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.5(a).4  The unfiled complaint also contains 
five counts alleging that Attorney Boyd failed to refund advance 
fees that she had not earned by her work on behalf of the client 
in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d).5 
                                                 
4 SCR 20:1.5(a) provides as follows: 
 
A lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, 
or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable 
amount for expenses.  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.  
5 SCR 20:1.16(d) states: 
 
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer 
shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable 
No. 
2012AP1977-D   
 
7 
 
¶7 
In a number of the representations described in the 
unfiled complaint, Attorney Boyd had affiliated herself with an 
entity 
by 
the 
name 
of 
the 
National 
Legal 
Professional 
Association6 (NLPA).  Either the NLPA initially was retained by 
the client and then convinced the client to hire Attorney Boyd 
as local counsel, or Attorney Boyd was retained by the client 
and convinced the client to retain the NLPA to do research and 
prepare documents.  According to the unfiled complaint, the NLPA 
is an organization located in Cincinnati, Ohio, that is operated 
by a permanently disbarred Ohio attorney, Hugh Wesley Robinson.  
Despite Mr. Robinson's disbarred status, the NLPA apparently 
promotes itself as providing legal consulting and research 
assistance to lawyers throughout the United States.  In several 
of the matters described in the complaint, the OLR alleges that 
the NLPA prepared postconviction motions or appellate documents 
and then Attorney Boyd filed them under her signature.  The 
complaint alleges that at least some of these filings were 
generic (i.e., not tailored to the particular case) and that 
they were denied by the particular courts as being legally 
                                                                                                                                                             
to protect a client's interests, such as giving 
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for 
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and 
property to which the client is entitled and refunding 
any advance payment of fee or expense that has not 
been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers 
relating to the client to the extent permitted by 
other law. 
6 According to the firm's web site, the correct firm name is 
National Legal Professional Associates. 
No. 
2012AP1977-D   
 
8 
 
insufficient.  Because neither the NLPA nor Mr. Robinson are 
licensed to practice law in Wisconsin, the unfiled complaint 
contains six separate counts alleging that Attorney Boyd 
assisted Mr. Robinson and the NLPA to engage in the unauthorized 
practice of law in this state.  SCR 20:5.5(b)7 and SCRs 20:8.4(a) 
and (b).8 
¶8 
In addition to the misconduct allegations in the OLR's 
unfiled complaint, for which the PRC has found cause to proceed, 
the OLR's summary of pending investigations briefly describes 
seven more representations in which the OLR is investigating 
additional alleged violations of the Rules of Professional 
Conduct for Attorneys.  Those summaries describe allegations of 
professional misconduct that are similar to the allegations of 
misconduct described in the unfiled complaint, including failure 
                                                 
7 SCR 20:5.5(b) states: 
 
A lawyer who is not admitted to practice in this 
jurisdiction shall not: 
 
(1) except as authorized by this rule or other 
law, establish an office or maintain a systematic and 
continuous presence in this jurisdiction for the 
practice of law; or 
 
(2) hold out to the public or otherwise represent 
that the lawyer is admitted to the practice of law in 
this jurisdiction.  
8 SCRs 20:8.4(a) and (b) state it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of 
Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do 
so, or do so through the acts of another"; and "(b) commit a 
criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, 
trustworthiness 
or 
fitness 
as 
a 
lawyer 
in 
other 
respects . . . ." 
No. 
2012AP1977-D   
 
9 
 
to provide competent representation, failure to communicate with 
clients, charging an excessive and unreasonable fee, and failing 
to refund unearned fees. 
¶9 
Attorney Boyd's petition for consensual revocation 
states that she cannot successfully defend herself against the 
allegations of professional misconduct set forth in both the 
OLR's unfiled complaint and its summary of the matters still in 
the investigative process.  Her petition asserts that she is 
seeking 
consensual 
revocation 
freely, 
voluntarily, 
and 
knowingly.  Attorney Boyd states that she understands she is 
giving up her right to contest the OLR's allegations and to have 
a public hearing at which she could present evidence in her 
defense.  She further acknowledges that she has been given the 
opportunity to consult with counsel and that she has declined to 
do so. 
¶10 The 
OLR's 
unfiled 
complaint 
also 
contains 
a 
restitution request.  It states that the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund 
for Client Protection (the Fund) has paid $16,299 to four of 
Attorney Boyd's former clients (W.Z., W.N., J.M., and A.L.), and 
it requests that Attorney Boyd be ordered to pay restitution to 
the Fund in that amount.  It also requests that Attorney Boyd be 
ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $7,500 to former 
client E.P.  Attorney Boyd's petition states that she agrees 
that she should be ordered to pay these restitution amounts. 
¶11 Having reviewed Attorney Boyd's petition, the OLR's 
unfiled complaint, the OLR's summary of the matters still being 
investigated or placed on hold, and the OLR's report and 
No. 
2012AP1977-D   
 
10 
 
recommendation in support of the petition, we conclude that the 
petition for consensual revocation should be granted.  It is 
clear from the descriptions of the various representations that 
Attorney Boyd has engaged in a pattern of serious professional 
misconduct that has harmed her clients and that she is currently 
unwilling or unable to conform her conduct to the standards that 
are required to practice law in this state.   
¶12 In light of the OLR's report and Attorney Boyd's 
agreement, we further determine that Attorney Boyd should be 
required to pay $23,799 in restitution to the Fund and to former 
client E.P. 
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for consensual license 
revocation is granted. 
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of Joan M. Boyd 
to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of 
this order. 
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Joan M. Boyd shall pay restitution in the amount 
of $16,299 to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection 
($5,000 for former client W.Z.; $2,299 for former client W.N.; 
$8,100 for former client J.M.; and $900 for former client A.L.) 
and in the amount of $7,500 to former client E.P. 
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent she has not 
already done so, Joan M. Boyd shall comply with the provisions 
of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked.