Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michael A. Gral
Citation: 2007 WI 22
Docket Number: 2006AP001021-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: February 16, 2007

2007 WI 22 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2006AP1021-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Michael A. Gral, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Michael A. Gral, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GRAL 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 16, 2007   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2007 WI 22
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2006AP1021-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Michael A. Gral, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Michael A. Gral, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 16, 2007 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee, consistent with a stipulation entered into between the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Michael Gral, 
pursuant to SCR 22.14(2),1 that Attorney Gral's license to 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.14(2) states: Answer, no contest. 
 
(2) The respondent may by answer plead no contest 
to allegations of misconduct in the complaint.  The 
referee shall make a determination of misconduct in 
respect to each allegation to which no contest is 
pleaded and for which the referee finds an adequate 
No. 
2006AP1021-D   
 
2 
 
practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for a period of three 
years, effective February 27, 2006, which is the date this court 
summarily suspended Attorney Gral's license based on a federal 
criminal conviction for mail fraud. 
¶2 
We conclude that the referee's findings of fact are 
supported by satisfactory and convincing evidence.  We further 
agree that the seriousness of Attorney Gral's professional 
misconduct warrants a three year suspension of his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin.  In addition, we deem it appropriate 
that Attorney Gral pay the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$2228.10, as of August 28, 2006.   
¶3 
Attorney 
Gral 
was 
admitted 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin in 1985.  He has no prior disciplinary history.  From 
August 1994 through July 2004 he practiced law at Michael Best & 
Friedrich, LLC (MBF).  In October 2005 Attorney Gral voluntarily 
advised the State Bar of Wisconsin that he was changing his 
membership status from active to inactive.   
¶4 
On December 14, 2005, the United States Attorney for 
the Eastern District of Wisconsin issued a one-count information 
against Attorney Gral, charging him with mail fraud, in 
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (2005).  On that same date, 
Attorney Gral and the government filed a plea agreement in which 
                                                                                                                                                             
factual basis in the record.  In a subsequent 
disciplinary or reinstatement proceeding, it shall be 
conclusively presumed that the respondent engaged in 
the misconduct determined on the basis of a no contest 
plea. 
No. 
2006AP1021-D   
 
3 
 
Attorney 
Gral 
agreed to plead guilty to the one count 
information.  Attorney Gral entered a plea the same day.   
¶5 
On January 16, 2006, Attorney Gral advised the OLR 
that he agreed to a summary suspension of his law license 
pending the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings arising out 
of the federal mail fraud conviction.  By order dated February 
27, 2006, this court summarily suspended Attorney Gral's 
license. 
¶6 
On April 26, 2006, the OLR issued a complaint against 
Attorney Gral charging a violation of SCR 20:8.4(b), which 
provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to 
"commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's 
honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other 
respects."  Attorney Gral filed an answer to the complaint.   
¶7 
On June 15, 2006, the federal court sentenced Attorney 
Gral to two years imprisonment, to be followed by three years of 
supervised release.  The court also imposed a $50,000 fine to be 
paid within one year from Attorney Gral's release from prison.  
Attorney Gral paid the $50,000 fine on June 22, 2006.   
¶8 
In July 2006 the OLR and Attorney Gral entered into a 
stipulation by which Attorney Gral amended his answer to the 
OLR's complaint and entered a plea of "no contest" to the 
allegations in the complaint pursuant to SCR 22.14(2).  The 
stipulation sets forth the background of the transactions that 
led to the federal mail fraud conviction.  The stipulation notes 
that when the transactions occurred, Attorney Gral was an 
attorney at MBF.  One of MBF's clients was Bielinski Bros. 
No. 
2006AP1021-D   
 
4 
 
Builders, Inc. and related entities, which was owned by Frank 
and Harry Bielinski.  Attorney Gral's principal contact at 
Bielinski Bros. was Robert Brownell, who served in various 
executive positions including serving as Bielinski's chief 
executive officer (CEO) for more than three years. 
¶9 
The stipulation states that Attorney Gral's guilty 
plea focused on two transactions, Harrison Lakes and Belize.  
Both transactions related to Georgetown Holdings, LLC, an entity 
in which Attorney Gral and Brownell were equal members, and 
entities in which Georgetown Holdings, LLC was the sole member. 
¶10 The stipulation notes that on or about November 2001 
Brownell and Attorney Gral formed Georgetown Holdings, LLC.  At 
or about the same time they also formed Georgetown Ridgeview, 
LLC.  Georgetown Holdings was the sole member of Georgetown 
Ridgeview, LLC.  Georgetown Holdings and Georgetown Ridgeview 
were formed for the purpose of assisting the Bielinskis, who 
desired a like-kind exchange partner for the purchase and 
development of vacant land in Pewaukee for a new office building 
to be used as their corporate headquarters.  Ultimately 
Georgetown did not purchase and develop the Pewaukee land.   
¶11 On or about January 9, 2004, FHB Investments, LLC 
acquired a subdivision in Lincoln County, Wisconsin, known as 
Harrison Lakes.  FHB was a joint venture of Frank and Harry 
Bielinski and Brownell.  FHB paid $1,561,000 for Harrison Lakes.  
Some months after the acquisition, Brownell asked Attorney Gral 
whether Georgetown would have an interest in acquiring Harrison 
Lakes from FHB.  Brownell advised Attorney Gral that the 
No. 
2006AP1021-D   
 
5 
 
Bielinskis were no longer interested in proceeding with the 
project.  Attorney Gral states that Brownell told him that 
Georgetown could assist the Bielinskis and "do a favor for Frank 
and Harry" by purchasing Harrison Lakes.  Brownell later led 
Attorney Gral to believe that the Bielinskis did not know of 
FHB's acquisition of Harrison Lakes and that the Bielinskis 
possibly considered the project still under contract. 
¶12 On or about July 16, 2004, Georgetown Investments, LLC 
purchased Harrison Lakes from FHB.  Georgetown paid FHB the 
purchase price of $1,561,000.  Attorney Gral states that prior 
to the transfer of Harrison Lakes from FHB to Georgetown 
Investments, LLC, Attorney Gral was aware that the Bielinskis 
had not authorized the purchase of the property by Brownell.  
Despite this knowledge, Attorney Gral did not notify the 
Bielinskis of Brownell's conduct.  Attorney Gral believed that 
Brownell, as one of the three members of FHB, had the legal and 
actual authority to act on behalf of FHB and to speak for the 
Bielinskis.  Attorney Gral states that while his actions were 
inappropriate, they had the effect of preventing a loss to FHB 
since Georgetown's purchase of Harrison Lakes from FHB in July 
2004 was for the same price that FHB had paid for the property 
in January 2004.   
¶13 In 
the 
Belize 
transaction, 
Brownell 
executed 
a 
contract in July 2002 to purchase a condominium unit located in 
Florida for $2,760,000.  Between September 2002 and June 2003, 
Brownell provided three down payments toward the purchase price 
that totaled $828,000.  The first two down payments, totaling 
No. 
2006AP1021-D   
 
6 
 
$552,000 were derived by Brownell from Bielinski business 
accounts.  The remaining balance of $276,000 was paid from a 
Brownell account.   
¶14 Brownell had originally advised Attorney Gral that the 
Bielinskis were possible participants in the Belize transaction.  
In the spring of 2003 Brownell advised Attorney Gral that the 
Bielinskis would not be participating in this transaction.  At 
that time Brownell and Attorney Gral decided to bring Georgetown 
into the deal.  Brownell and Attorney Gral closed on the 
purchase of the Florida condominium on June 28, 2004.  At some 
time prior to the closing Attorney Gral learned that the money 
provided by Brownell for the first two down payments came from 
Bielinski business entities.  Attorney Gral asked Brownell 
whether the Bielinski entities had been repaid, and Brownell 
said they had been.   
¶15 Attorney Gral did not contact either Frank or Harry 
Bielinski and did not confirm that they were aware their funds 
had been used for this purpose or whether they had been repaid.  
In fact, the Bielinskis were not aware of and had not approved 
the use of their funds, nor had they been repaid by Brownell.  
Attorney Gral admits that his acts were inappropriate since he 
did not contact the Bielinskis.  However, Attorney Gral said he 
did not know that Brownell had improperly taken the $552,000 
from the Bielinskis, and he said he had been assured by Brownell 
that the Bielinskis had been repaid.   
¶16 Shortly after the closing of the Belize transaction, 
Brownell 
took 
$620,000, ostensibly to partially reimburse 
No. 
2006AP1021-D   
 
7 
 
himself for his earlier down payments for Belize.  Thus, besides 
not repaying $552,000 to Bielinski, Brownell took the $620,000 
for his own use.  Attorney Gral paid the $552,000 to the 
Bielinskis on January 18, 2006, through the clerk of court, from 
his personal account.   
¶17 The stipulation states that in the Harrison Lakes and 
Belize transactions, in reliance on Brownell's representations 
and his legal and apparent authority to act, properties were 
transferred to Georgetown, an entity in which Attorney Gral had 
an interest.  Attorney Gral admits that when he became aware of 
certain facts in the transactions relating to Bielinski, he 
failed to confirm the information with Frank or Harry Bielinski.  
Attorney Gral's actions had the effect of placing his own 
financial interests ahead of his clients' interests. 
¶18 The stipulation states that Attorney Gral did not 
improperly take funds from the Bielinskis, did not intend to 
take funds from them, and did not know that funds had been 
improperly 
taken. 
 
The 
stipulation 
states 
that 
in 
both 
transactions Brownell was the one who improperly took the funds 
from the Bielinskis, and Brownell failed to advise Attorney Gral 
that the funds had been improperly taken.   
¶19 In a sentencing memorandum filed by the government in 
the federal court action, the government said that, "Gral's 
wrongdoing 
generally 
involves 
'sins 
of 
omission.'" 
 
The 
government also said that "Gral did not directly obtain money 
from the Bielinskis," and that "Brownell was the instigator of 
No. 
2006AP1021-D   
 
8 
 
the overall fraud against the Bielinskis," and that "many 
aspects of Brownell's fraud did not involve Gral."   
¶20 The stipulation provides that during the pertinent 
timeframe, Attorney Gral was not aware that Brownell had a 
criminal record, and Attorney Gral says he learned of Brownell's 
criminal record during the government's criminal investigation.  
Attorney Gral says that through the years he observed that the 
Bielinskis, members of their management team, and people in the 
business community generally viewed Brownell as a respected 
business person.  Attorney Gral says he had been advised and 
observed that Brownell had a history of strong performance with 
the Bielinski business.  Attorney Gral says when he was 
introduced to the Bielinskis and Brownell in July of 2000 
Brownell had been with the Bielinskis for almost five years in 
various management positions, and it appeared to Attorney Gral 
that the Bielinskis relied heavily on Brownell in the management 
of their businesses and that Brownell had the Bielinskis' trust 
and confidence.  Attorney Gral says it appeared that the 
Bielinskis treated Brownell as an equal with respect to 
executive decision making and management of their businesses. 
¶21 The stipulation states that it appeared to Attorney 
Gral 
that 
Brownell 
had 
a 
special 
relationship 
with 
the 
Bielinskis since they were partners with Brownell in other 
projects, and it appeared to Attorney Gral that it was not 
unusual for Brownell to have roles in addition to his management 
position with Bielinski.   
No. 
2006AP1021-D   
 
9 
 
¶22 Attorney Gral says he made no effort to conceal 
Georgetown from the Bielinskis, and besides the transaction 
relating to the development of a new office building for 
Bielinski, Attorney Gral believed the Bielinskis wanted to 
engage in other transactions with Georgetown, based on Attorney 
Gral's discussions with the Bielinskis and also based on 
Brownell's statements to Attorney Gral.  The Bielinskis had 
signed operating agreements with Georgetown for two other 
projects. 
¶23 Prior to the federal court's imposition of sentence in 
the criminal matter, Attorney Gral entered into a resolution 
with Bielinski and MBF.  As part of the resolution Attorney Gral 
agreed to pay $4,489,533.  The resolution covered amounts 
claimed as criminal restitution as well as other claims that 
could possibly be made in a non-criminal context.  Attorney Gral 
paid $1,200,000 to Bielinski on June 23, 2006.  In order to make 
this payment Attorney Gral liquidated a large portion of his 
retirement account and received a loan from his father.  For 
future payments and interest, Attorney Gral will liquidate his 
share of real estate holdings.  This real estate is held in 
entities in which Attorney Gral does not hold the controlling 
interest and/or entities which are not liquid, necessitating 
Attorney Gral's voluntary efforts to attempt to obtain the 
cooperation of his co-owners.  Many of the funds that Attorney 
Gral used for resolution could be utilized only because of his 
efforts, including his retirement account, certain marital 
assets, the funds from his father, and the liquidation of entity 
No. 
2006AP1021-D   
 
10 
 
protected assets where his co-owners are not required to sell 
assets or purchase Attorney Gral's interest. 
¶24 The 
stipulation 
provides 
that 
when 
the 
federal 
investigation began in the summer of 2004 the government was 
concerned that the assets held by the Georgetown entities, 
predominantly 
real 
estate 
ventures 
in 
various 
stages 
of 
completion, would be dissipated.  On his own initiative, 
Attorney Gral, through his attorneys, retained Benjamin S. 
Stern, a real estate attorney, to serve as counsel for 
Georgetown.  Attorney Stern retained Ogden & Company as 
Georgetown's third-party manager.  Although Attorney Gral is an 
owner of Georgetown, he relinquished legal control of Georgetown 
to Ogden.  Ogden's role as manager of the Georgetown entities is 
to oversee the business affairs and properties of the Georgetown 
entities. 
¶25 Attorney Gral's efforts in retaining Stern and Ogden 
as third-party counsel and advisor avoided the government's 
seizure of the Georgetown properties, preserved the value of 
those properties, and provided a vehicle to obtain independent 
management and analysis of Georgetown's finances.  Because of 
the nature of Georgetown's ownership structure, an independent 
manager was necessary to run the business and to avoid deadlock 
situations between the two owners, Attorney Gral and Brownell. 
Throughout the process, Attorney Gral played and continues to 
play a key role for the third-party attorney and manager.  
Attorney Gral took the leading role in forming the third-party 
arrangement and paid most of the attorneys' fees and other costs 
No. 
2006AP1021-D   
 
11 
 
associated with establishing Stern and Ogden as third-party 
attorney and manager.  Attorney Gral continued to fund the 
capital needs of the Georgetown entities, and from September 
2004 through June 15, 2006, he contributed over $850,000 to meet 
Georgetown's funding needs.   
¶26 Attorney Gral paid Brownell's share of Georgetown's 
obligations when Brownell stopped meeting his obligations to 
Georgetown.  Attorney Gral's financial support of Georgetown 
enabled Georgetown to fulfill its loan obligations and avoid 
losses by the lending institution.  The stipulation states that 
Attorney Gral was always available to the third-party attorney 
and manager as a resource for information about the properties, 
and Attorney Gral responded to their inquiries expeditiously and 
cooperated fully with them.  Attorney Stern described Attorney 
Gral's actions as being "exemplary."  As a result of Attorney 
Gral's work, the assets of the Georgetown entities have been and 
are being preserved in an independent and efficient manner. 
¶27 The stipulation points out that various mitigating 
factors, as set forth by the American Bar Association Center for 
Professional Responsibility, are present in this case.  Those 
mitigating factors include the fact that Attorney Gral did not 
convert any client funds to his own use, did not intend to 
convert any client funds to his own use, and did not know of any 
such conversion.  In the Harrison Lakes transaction, Attorney 
Gral believed that Georgetown's purchase of Harrison Lakes from 
FHB would prevent a loss to FHB.  In the Belize transaction, 
Attorney Gral did not know that Brownell had improperly taken 
No. 
2006AP1021-D   
 
12 
 
funds from the Bielinskis and Attorney Gral had been assured by 
Brownell that the Bielinskis had been repaid. 
¶28 Additional 
mitigating 
factors 
mentioned 
in 
the 
stipulation are that Attorney Gral's acts were primarily acts of 
omission in that he failed to confirm and/or disclose certain 
acts or representations of Brownell, who was Bielinski's CEO and 
Attorney Gral's principal client contact.  Attorney Gral relied 
on Brownell's actual and apparent authority to act based in 
large part on Attorney Gral's observations of the relationship 
between Brownell and the Bielinskis.  The stipulation notes that 
unlike Brownell, Attorney Gral converted no Bielinski funds to 
his own personal use, was not aware of any such conversion, and 
took steps to remedy the conversion of funds by Brownell.   
¶29 The 
stipulation 
notes 
that 
Attorney 
Gral 
took 
significant steps to preserve Georgetown's assets during the 
government's investigation and he is continuing to preserve 
those assets.  On his own initiative and largely at his own 
individual expense, Attorney Gral retained a third-party counsel 
and 
real 
estate advisors to provide a vehicle for the 
independent management and analysis of Georgetown's business 
activities.  Attorney Gral entered into resolutions with third 
parties in which he agreed to pay a total of $4,489,533.  A 
substantial portion of those funds would not have been able to 
be obtained by third parties since they involved Attorney Gral's 
retirement account, certain marital assets, funds from his 
father, and the liquidation of entity-protected assets. 
No. 
2006AP1021-D   
 
13 
 
¶30 The 
stipulation 
also 
notes 
that 
Attorney 
Gral 
cooperated with the government's prosecution of the criminal 
case, promptly admitted wrongdoing, and entered a guilty plea.  
Attorney Gral also cooperated with the OLR's prosecution of the 
disciplinary complaint.  Attorney Gral has no prior criminal or 
disciplinary record.  He received a severe sanction through the 
criminal 
justice 
system, 
suffered 
significant 
collateral 
consequences, 
and 
has 
expressed 
sincere 
remorse 
and 
responsibility for his wrongdoing.  
¶31 The OLR and Attorney Gral stipulated that based on 
their stipulated findings of fact, the referee could enter 
conclusions of law stating that Attorney Gral's conduct violated 
SCR 20:8.4(b) in that he committed a criminal act that reflects 
adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer 
in other respects.  The parties requested that the referee 
approve the stipulation and file a report finding facts and 
misconduct consistent with the stipulation and recommending that 
Attorney Gral's license to practice law be suspended for three 
years, effective February 27, 2006, which was the date of the 
summary suspension. 
¶32 On August 6, 2006, the referee issued his findings of 
fact, conclusions of law and recommendation in which he adopted 
the parties' stipulated findings of fact; found that the OLR had 
proven by clear and convincing evidence that Attorney Gral 
violated SCR 20:8.4(b); and recommended that Attorney Gral's 
license to practice law be suspended for three years commencing 
No. 
2006AP1021-D   
 
14 
 
February 27, 2006.  No appeal was filed from the referee's 
report and recommendation. 
¶33 This court will adopt a referee's findings of fact 
unless they are 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 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. 
¶34 We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and determine that a three-year suspension is 
the appropriate discipline for Attorney Gral's professional 
misconduct.  The actions that led to his federal mail fraud 
conviction are serious failings that warrant a significant level 
of discipline.  We further agree with the referee that the 
suspension should be retroactive to February 27, 2006, the date 
in which the court summarily suspended Attorney Gral's license.  
We also agree that Attorney Gral should pay the full costs of 
the proceeding. 
¶35 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Michael A. Gral to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of three 
years, effective February 27, 2006. 
¶36 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Michael A. Gral comply with 
the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person 
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended, 
if he has not already done so. 
No. 
2006AP1021-D   
 
15 
 
¶37 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Michael A. Gral pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  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 Michael A. Gral to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
remain suspended until further order of this court. 
 
 
No. 
2006AP1021-D   
 
 
 
1