Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Adam Walsh
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2017AP000243-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: March 23, 2017

2017 WI 24 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2017AP243-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Adam Walsh, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Adam Walsh, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST WALSH 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 23, 2017 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2017 WI 24
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2017AP243-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Adam Walsh, Attorney at Law. 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Adam Walsh, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 23, 2017 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney Adam Walsh has filed a petition 
for the consensual revocation of his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.19.1  Attorney 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.19 provides:  Petition for consensual license 
revocation. 
(1) An attorney who is the subject of an 
investigation 
for 
possible 
misconduct 
or 
the 
respondent in a proceeding may file with the supreme 
(continued) 
No. 
2017AP243-D   
 
2 
 
Walsh's petition states that he cannot successfully defend 
against the allegations of professional misconduct arising out 
of 
two 
Office 
of 
Lawyer 
Regulation 
(OLR) 
investigations 
concerning his conduct.  An OLR summary of those investigations 
and of the potential allegations of professional misconduct is 
attached to Attorney Walsh's petition. 
                                                                                                                                                             
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. 
2017AP243-D   
 
3 
 
¶2 
Attorney Walsh was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in January 2008.  He most recently practiced in 
Madison under the name Affordable Legal Services of Wisconsin.  
Attorney Walsh sold the law firm to another attorney effective 
January 1, 2015.  He continued to work at the firm, however, 
until November 25, 2015.   
¶3 
Attorney Walsh has been the subject of professional 
discipline on one prior occasion.  In 2015 he consented to the 
imposition of a private reprimand pursuant to SCR 22.09 for 
improperly using his client trust account credit card on three 
separate occasions to disburse trust account funds prior to the 
deposit and availability of those funds for the respective 
clients and for failing to maintain and to produce required 
trust account records.  Private Reprimand 2015-1 (electronic 
copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/002757.html). 
¶4 
Attorney Walsh filed a petition for the voluntary 
resignation of his license to practice law in this state in June 
2016.  Because the OLR's response to that petition indicated 
that it was conducting an investigation regarding Attorney 
Walsh, his voluntary resignation petition has been held in 
abeyance.  In light of his current petition, his petition for 
voluntary resignation is being dismissed pursuant to a separate 
order being issued simultaneously with this opinion. 
¶5 
The OLR summary attached to Attorney Walsh's petition 
for 
consensual 
revocation 
sets 
forth 
two 
main 
areas 
of 
investigation into potential ethical violations.     
No. 
2017AP243-D   
 
4 
 
¶6 
The first area involves Attorney Walsh's multiple 
instances of insufficient balances in his client trust account.  
Attorney Walsh maintained a client trust account at JP Morgan 
Chase Bank in Madison from November 19, 2010, until October 14, 
2015.  At the time he closed the account, Attorney Walsh 
withdrew for himself the remaining balance of $868.26.  A check 
Attorney Walsh had issued against the trust account, however, 
was subsequently presented for payment on November 3, 2015, and 
was returned for insufficient funds.  Attorney Walsh claims that 
he reimbursed the recipient of the trust account check via other 
means. 
¶7 
Although the OLR's investigation was hampered by 
Attorney Walsh's refusal or inability to provide records for his 
trust account, the available information shows that on multiple 
occasions, the trust account contained substantially less money 
than it should have in 2014 and 2015.  For example, bank records 
show that the balance in the trust account was $469,349.55 on 
May 31, 2014.  At that time, the trust account should have 
contained at least $78,351.86 in funds belonging to two clients, 
J.M.G. and M.J.E.  Subtracting that amount from the balance 
would leave a remaining balance of $390,997.69.  This amount, 
however, was more than $50,000 less than Attorney Walsh had 
previously admitted in a letter he should have been holding for 
another client, a substantial trust.  Indeed, that amount would 
have been more than $78,000 less than the amount identified in 
the March 28, 2014 annual report of the trust.  Moreover, the 
limited records the OLR was able to obtain indicate that 
No. 
2017AP243-D   
 
5 
 
Attorney Walsh deposited over $589,000 into his trust account on 
behalf of the trust, but those records also show total 
disbursements 
of 
only 
approximately 
$530,000 
to 
proper 
recipients of the trust's funds.  Because the OLR has not been 
able to obtain complete records, it cannot tell whether there 
were other disbursements to proper recipients for which records 
are not available or whether Attorney Walsh converted some or 
all of the remaining trust's funds to his own use.   
¶8 
Similar possible shortcomings in disbursements of 
other client funds appear in connection with at least three 
other clients.  The amounts that do not appear to have been 
disbursed to the clients or to other proper recipients, however, 
are substantially smaller than was the case with the trust's 
money.  What is clear is that in at least one case, the balance 
of Attorney Walsh's client trust account dipped more than 
$30,000 below the amount that should have been held in trust for 
just one client.  Thus, that amount of client funds had to have 
been converted to the use of other clients or to Attorney 
Walsh's personal use. 
¶9 
Indeed, Attorney Walsh admitted to the OLR that 
starting at least as far back as 2011 he had placed substantial 
sums of his own money into the trust account and had not kept 
track of those funds.  Given the fact that on multiple occasions 
the balance in his trust account was substantially less than the 
amounts that were owed to clients, one can only conclude that 
Attorney Walsh needed to deposit his own funds into the account 
No. 
2017AP243-D   
 
6 
 
at times to avoid overdrafts and to repay amounts he had 
previously converted to his own use.   
¶10 In the course of its investigation, the OLR asked 
Attorney Walsh to produce a transaction register, client 
ledgers, and a monthly reconciliation for his trust account.  
Attorney Walsh failed to produce any of these requested records.  
He produced only a single bank statement for October 2015, the 
month prior to closing the account.  His response to the OLR's 
request stated merely that he was no longer practicing law and 
that he did not possess any further records. 
¶11 The OLR's summary indicates that its investigation of 
Attorney Walsh's handling of his client trust account involves 
Attorney Walsh's potential violations of the following Supreme 
Court Rules:  SCR 20:8.4(c);2 SCR 20:1.15(b)(1);3 former SCR 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
3 Effective July 1, 2016, substantial changes were made to 
Supreme Court Rule 20:1.15, the "trust account rule."  See S. 
Ct. Order 14-07, (issued Apr. 4, 2016, eff. July 1, 2016). 
Because the conduct underlying this case arose prior to July 1, 
2016, unless otherwise indicated, all references to the supreme 
court rules will be to those in effect prior to July 1, 2016.  
SCR 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.   
No. 
2017AP243-D   
 
7 
 
20:1.15(b)(3);4 
former 
SCR 
20:1.15(e)(4)c.;5 
former 
SCR 
20:1.15(e)(6) and (7);6 and former SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)a., b., and 
g.7 
                                                 
4 Former SCR 20:1.15(b)(3) provided:  "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." 
5 Former SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)c. provided:  "A lawyer shall not 
make deposits to or disbursements from a trust account by way of 
an Internet transaction." 
6 Former SCR 20:1.15(e)(6) and (7) provided: 
(6) 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) All trust account records have public aspects 
related to a lawyer's fitness to practice.  Upon 
request of the office of lawyer regulation, or upon 
direction of the supreme court, the records shall be 
submitted to the office of lawyer regulation for its 
inspection, 
audit, 
use, 
and 
evidence 
under 
any 
conditions to protect the privilege of clients that 
the court may provide.  The records, or an audit of 
the records, shall be produced at any disciplinary 
proceeding involving the lawyer, whenever material.  
Failure 
to 
produce 
the 
records 
constitutes 
unprofessional conduct and grounds for disciplinary 
action. 
7 Former SCR 20:1.15(f)(l)a. provided:  The transaction 
register shall contain a chronological record of all 
account transactions, and shall include all of the 
following: 
1. the date, source, and amount of all deposits; 
2. the date, check or transaction number, payee 
and amount of all disbursements, whether by check, 
wire transfer, or other means; 
(continued) 
No. 
2017AP243-D   
 
8 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
3. the date and amount of every other deposit or 
deduction of whatever nature; 
4. the identity of the client for whom funds were 
deposited or disbursed; and 
5. 
the 
balance 
in 
the 
account 
after 
each 
transaction. 
Former SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)b. provided:   
A subsidiary ledger shall be maintained for each 
client or 3rd party for whom the lawyer receives trust 
funds that are deposited in an IOLTA account or any 
other pooled trust account. The lawyer shall record 
each receipt and disbursement of a client's or 3rd 
party's 
funds 
and 
the 
balance 
following 
each 
transaction. 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. 
Former SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)g. provided:   
For each trust account, the lawyer shall prepare 
and retain a printed reconciliation report on a 
regular and periodic basis not less frequently than 
every 30 days.  Each reconciliation report shall show 
all of the following balances and verify that they are 
identical: 
1. the balance that appears in the transaction 
register as of the reporting date; 
2. the total of all subsidiary ledger balances 
for IOLTA accounts and other pooled trust accounts, 
determined by listing and totaling the balances in the 
individual client ledgers and the ledger for account 
fees and charges, as of the reporting date; and 
3. the adjusted balance, determined by adding 
outstanding deposits and other credits to the balance 
in the financial institution's monthly statement and 
subtracting outstanding checks and other deductions 
from the balance in the monthly statement. 
No. 
2017AP243-D   
 
9 
 
¶12 The second investigation that the OLR has been 
conducting relates to Attorney Walsh's representation of O.B.  
Attorney Walsh agreed to represent O.B. in attempting to have 
his felony convictions expunged or to seek a pardon for those 
convictions.  According to his fee agreement with O.B., Attorney 
Walsh accepted an advanced flat fee of $1,500 at or near the 
time of entering into the representation and deposited the 
advanced fee into his law firm's business account.  Attorney 
Walsh claimed to the OLR that he had done work on O.B.'s behalf 
and was able to describe some of that work.  According to the 
OLR's summary Attorney Walsh promised O.B. in July 2015 that he 
would be following up on a lead that required research, but 
warned that O.B. would likely be out of luck if the research did 
not yield favorable results.  Attorney Walsh, however, failed to 
communicate the results of his research to O.B.  He then failed 
to advise O.B. in November 2015 that he was leaving the law firm 
and was ceasing his practice of law.  Attorney Walsh failed to 
provide O.B. with any of the notices that were required when an 
attorney placed an advanced fee into the attorney's business 
account and utilized the alternative advanced fee procedure 
outlined in former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m).8  Indeed, Attorney Walsh 
                                                 
8 Former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m) provided:  
Alternative protection for advanced fees.  A 
lawyer who accepts advanced payments of fees may 
deposit the funds in the lawyer's business account, 
provided that review of the lawyer's fee by a court of 
competent jurisdiction is available in the proceeding 
(continued) 
No. 
2017AP243-D   
 
10 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
to which the fee relates, or provided that the lawyer 
complies with each of the following requirements: 
a. Upon accepting any advanced payment of fees 
pursuant to this subsection, the lawyer shall deliver 
to the client a notice in writing containing all of 
the following information: 
1. the amount of the advanced payment; 
2. the basis or rate of the lawyer's fee; 
3. any expenses for which the client will be 
responsible; 
4. that the lawyer has an obligation to refund 
any unearned advanced fee, along with an accounting, 
at the termination of the representation; 
5. that the lawyer is required to submit any 
unresolved 
dispute 
about 
the 
fee 
to 
binding 
arbitration within 30 days of receiving written notice 
of such a dispute; and 
6. the ability of the client to file a claim with 
the Wisconsin lawyers' fund for client protection if 
the lawyer fails to provide a refund of unearned 
advanced fees. 
b. Upon termination of the representation, the 
lawyer shall deliver to the client in writing all of 
the following: 
1. a final accounting, or an accounting from the 
date of the lawyer's most recent statement to the end 
of the representation, regarding the client's advanced 
fee payment with a refund of any unearned advanced 
fees;  
2. notice that, if the client disputes the amount 
of the fee and wants that dispute to be submitted to 
binding arbitration, the client must provide written 
notice of the dispute to the lawyer within 30 days of 
the mailing of the accounting; and  
(continued) 
No. 
2017AP243-D   
 
11 
 
failed to provide O.B. with a final accounting that showed how 
he had earned the $1,500 flat fee.     
¶13 The OLR was unable to determine the full extent of 
Attorney Walsh's work on O.B.'s behalf because Attorney Walsh 
says that he is no longer in possession of his billing software, 
and the lawyer who purchased the law firm from Attorney Walsh 
states that she is unable to access Attorney Walsh's billing 
records.   
¶14 The 
OLR's 
summary 
indicates 
in 
connection 
with 
Attorney Walsh's representation of O.B. that it is investigating 
possible violations of the following Supreme Court Rules:  SCR 
20:1.3;9 SCR 20:1.4(a);10 SCR 20:1.16(d);11 and former SCR 
20:1.15(b)(4m). 
                                                                                                                                                             
3. notice that, if the lawyer is unable to 
resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of the client 
within 30 days after receiving notice of the dispute 
from the client, the lawyer shall submit the dispute 
to binding arbitration. 
c. Upon timely receipt of written notice of a 
dispute from the client, the lawyer shall attempt to 
resolve that dispute with the client, and if the 
dispute is not resolved, the lawyer shall submit the 
dispute to binding arbitration with the State Bar Fee 
Arbitration Program or a similar local bar association 
program within 30 days of the lawyer's receipt of the 
written notice of dispute from the client. 
d. Upon receipt of an arbitration award requiring 
the lawyer to make a payment to the client, the lawyer 
shall pay the arbitration award within 30 days, unless 
the client fails to agree to be bound by the award of 
the arbitrator. 
9 SCR 20:1.3 provides:  "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
No. 
2017AP243-D   
 
12 
 
¶15 Attorney Walsh's petition for consensual revocation 
asserts that he is seeking the consensual revocation of his 
license freely, voluntarily, and knowingly.  He states that he 
cannot successfully defend himself against the allegations of 
misconduct summarized above and more fully described in the 
OLR's summary.  Attorney Walsh also acknowledges that he 
                                                                                                                                                             
10 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides that 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. 
11 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides:   
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer 
shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable 
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 advanced 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.  
No. 
2017AP243-D   
 
13 
 
understands he is giving up his right to contest any of the 
OLR's allegations, as well as his right to have the assistance 
of counsel in this matter.  Finally, the petition acknowledges 
that if the court grants the petition and revokes his license, 
Attorney Walsh will be subject to the requirements of SCR 22.26 
and, should he ever wish to seek the reinstatement of his 
license, the reinstatement procedure set forth in SCRs 22.29-
22.33. 
¶16 The OLR's summary and its recommendation in support of 
the petition make clear that it is not seeking a restitution 
award in this case.  While it is clear that there were multiple 
instances of conversion of trust account funds (either for the 
benefit of other clients or for Attorney Walsh's personal use), 
the OLR states that it has not been able, given the limited 
records and information it was able to obtain, either to 
identify to whom restitution might be owed or to arrive at any 
reasonably ascertainable restitution amounts.  The OLR further 
notes that despite the apparent looseness with which Attorney 
Walsh handled his client trust account, no individual has 
notified it that Attorney Walsh still owes him or her any money.  
Similarly, given the lack of billing records, the OLR cannot 
determine with any reasonable certainty that O.B. should receive 
a refund of any particular amount of his advanced fee from 
Attorney Walsh.   
¶17 Having reviewed Attorney Walsh's petition, the OLR's 
summary of possible misconduct, and its written recommendation 
in favor of the petition, we conclude that the petition for 
No. 
2017AP243-D   
 
14 
 
consensual revocation should be granted.  It is clear from the 
OLR's summary of misconduct allegations that Attorney Walsh 
treated his client trust account as if it were a community fund 
at his constant disposal.  His disregard for the core ethical 
value of protecting the integrity of each client's funds and his 
complete rejection of any obligation to maintain the required 
records that are necessary to keep client funds in order 
represent serious breaches of his ethical obligations as a 
lawyer in this state.  His ethical lapses are compounded by his 
apparent 
lack 
of 
diligence 
and 
communication 
in 
the 
representation 
of 
O.B. 
 
Moreover, 
the 
private 
reprimand 
previously imposed on Attorney Walsh demonstrates that there is 
a pattern of misconduct. 
¶18 Given the OLR's admitted inability to determine 
whether any particular client or third party is owed any money 
by Attorney Walsh, and to arrive at a reasonably ascertainable 
amount, we have no choice but to accede to the OLR's request not 
to award restitution in this matter.  We are disturbed that this 
outcome appears to result from Attorney Walsh's failure to 
create, preserve, and/or produce the necessary records.  We 
note, however, that if Attorney Walsh were ever to seek the 
reinstatement of his license, he would be required to prove 
affirmatively that he had made full restitution to all persons 
injured or harmed by his misconduct.  See SCR 22.29(4m). 
¶19 Finally, because this matter is being resolved via a 
petition for consensual revocation without the need to appoint a 
No. 
2017AP243-D   
 
15 
 
referee or hold an extensive hearing, we do not impose any costs 
on Attorney Walsh. 
¶20 IT IS ORDERED that the petition of Adam Walsh for the 
consensual revocation of his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin is granted. 
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of Adam Walsh 
to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of 
this order. 
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Adam Walsh 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.   
 
 
No. 
2017AP243-D   
 
 
 
1