Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Leonard V. Brady
Citation: 2010 WI 98
Docket Number: 2010AP000726-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: July 27, 2010

2010 WI 98 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2010AP726-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Leonard V. Brady, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Leonard V. Brady, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BRADY 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 27, 2010   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2010 WI 98
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2010AP726-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Leonard V. Brady, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Leonard V. Brady, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 27, 2010 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of 
Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
revoked. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney Leonard V. Brady has filed a 
petition for consensual license revocation pursuant to SCR 22.191 
                                                 
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 
court a petition for the revocation by consent or his 
or her license to practice law.   
No. 
2010AP726-D   
 
2 
 
stating that he cannot successfully defend against multiple 
allegations of misconduct currently under investigation by the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), as well as additional counts 
of misconduct alleged in two pending OLR intake matters which 
have 
not 
yet 
been 
referred 
within 
the 
OLR 
for 
formal 
investigation.  The OLR asks that Attorney Brady be ordered to 
make restitution in three client matters.  The OLR is not 
requesting that costs be assessed against Attorney Brady. 
                                                                                                                                                             
(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. 
2010AP726-D   
 
3 
 
¶2 
Attorney Brady was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1953 and practices in Milwaukee. 
¶3 
Both of the pending formal grievance investigations 
involve probate matters.  In January 2003 Attorney Brady was 
named guardian of the Estate for Catherine P.  Catherine P.'s 
estate consisted of considerable assets.  During the time he 
served as guardian for the estate, Attorney Brady failed to file 
income tax returns for the estate, failed to timely file annual 
accountings with the court, failed to maintain detailed records 
of investments, failed to adequately track the assets of the 
estate, and paid himself and others from the estate without 
court approval.  Available records suggest that Attorney Brady 
paid himself excessive fees and converted a substantial amount 
of estate funds for his personal use, including sending a 
significant amount of the estate's funds overseas.   
¶4 
Catherine P. died on December 27, 2007.  After her 
death, despite repeated court orders that he do so, Attorney 
Brady failed to turn over funds belonging to Catherine P.'s 
estate, including but not limited to funds that had been sent 
overseas.  He also failed to turn over certain records relating 
to his management and control of the estate.   
¶5 
An accountant hired by Catherine P.'s heirs to conduct 
a forensic examination of the estate concluded that it was "only 
reasonable to conclude" that there had been "a likelihood of 
commingling, embezzlement and fraud in the reporting of assets; 
an intent to deprive the estate of funds by Attorney Brady; 
[and] numerous overcharges for services rendered" by Attorney 
No. 
2010AP726-D   
 
4 
 
Brady.  The Milwaukee County circuit court ordered judgment 
against Attorney Brady and in favor of Ohio Casualty Insurance 
Company in the amount of $1,015,813.21. 
¶6 
Misconduct allegations against Attorney Brady being 
investigated by the OLR arising out of Catherine P.'s estate 
include 
violations 
of 
SCRs 
20:1.5(a), 
20:1.15(b)(1), 
20:1.15(d)(1), 20:1.15(d)(2), 20:3.4(c), 20:8.4(b), 20:8.4(c), 
and 20:8.4(f).   
¶7 
The other formal grievance investigation currently 
pending with the OLR involves Attorney Brady's service as 
personal representative for the Estate of Ronald M.  In his 
capacity as personal representative, Attorney Brady received 
approximately $195,000 in life insurance proceeds.  He failed to 
turn over to the successor personal representative approximately 
$188,000 of those proceeds, despite being ordered to do so by 
the court.  Attorney Brady also failed to provide an accounting 
of the approximately $188,000 he should have been holding on 
behalf of the estate.  In May 2010 the Milwaukee County circuit 
court 
approved 
a 
stipulation 
for 
judgment 
that 
provided 
Universal Surety Company have judgment against Attorney Brady in 
the amount of $87,681.19. 
¶8 
Misconduct allegations against Attorney Brady being 
investigated by the OLR arising out of Ronald M.'s estate 
include 
violations 
of 
SCRs 
20:1.15(b)(1), 
20:1.15(d)(1), 
20:3.4(c), 20:8.4(b), and 20:8.4(c).   
¶9 
The 
OLR's 
recommendation in support of Attorney 
Brady's petition for revocation by consent asked that Attorney 
No. 
2010AP726-D   
 
5 
 
Brady be required to make restitution to E.P. in the amount of 
$1,500.  The E.P. matter is one of the two client matters that 
is at the intake stage and is not under formal investigation. 
¶10 Attorney Brady submits under SCR 22.19(2) that he 
cannot successfully defend against the allegations of the 
grievances currently under investigation.  He states that he is 
freely, voluntarily, and knowingly filing the petition for 
consensual license revocation; he states he knows he may retain 
counsel and, in fact, he has been represented by counsel in this 
matter.  He also states he is aware that if this court grants 
his petition and revokes his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin, SCRs 22.26 through 22.33 apply.   
¶11 After the petition for consensual license revocation 
was filed, the court issued an order to show cause asking the 
parties to more fully address the issue of restitution.  Upon 
reviewing the parties' responses, the court deems it appropriate 
to order Attorney Brady to make restitution in three client 
matters. 
¶12 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Leonard V. Brady to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this 
order.   
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Leonard V. Brady make 
restitution to Ohio Casualty Insurance Company in the amount of 
$1,015,813.21; to Universal Surety Company in the amount of 
$87,681.19; and to E.P. in the amount of $1,500. 
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Leonard V. Brady shall 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
No. 
2010AP726-D   
 
6 
 
an attorney whose license to practice law has been revoked, to 
the extent he has not already done so.   
 
No. 
2010AP726-D   
 
 
 
1