Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Everett E. Wood
Citation: 2013 WI 11
Docket Number: 2011AP001626-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: January 25, 2013

2013 WI 11 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2011AP1626-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. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST WOOD     
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
January 25, 2013   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
2013 WI 11
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2011AP1626-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 
 
JAN 25, 2013 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report filed by the 
referee, Kim M. Peterson, recommending the court suspend 
Attorney Everett E. Wood's license to practice law in Wisconsin 
for six months for 28 counts of professional misconduct.  No 
appeal has been filed so we review the referee's report and 
recommendation pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1  We approve and adopt 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) states:  
No. 
2011AP1626-D   
 
2 
 
the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law.  We agree 
that Attorney Wood's professional misconduct warrants a six-
month suspension of his license to practice law, and we deem it 
appropriate to require Attorney Wood pay the full costs of the 
proceeding, which were $19,959.24 as of October 1, 2012.    
¶2 
Attorney Wood was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin on June 17, 1992.  He has most recently practiced in 
Hubertus, Wisconsin.  Attorney Wood has no prior disciplinary 
history.   
¶3 
On July 18, 2011, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a complaint against Attorney Wood alleging 28 counts 
of misconduct.  Attorney Wood filed an answer and, on June 29, 
2012, the OLR filed a motion for partial summary judgment.  On 
July 31, 2012, the parties entered into a partial fact 
stipulation supporting 17 of the counts of alleged misconduct.  
¶4 
On August 2, 2012, the referee conducted a telephonic 
hearing on the OLR's motion for partial summary judgment, and 
granted the OLR's motion on all counts included in the motion 
except one on which judgment was reserved until hearing.  
¶5 
On 
August 
6, 
2012, 
the 
referee 
conducted 
an 
evidentiary hearing on the remaining counts of misconduct.  
                                                                                                                                                             
 
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
No. 
2011AP1626-D   
 
3 
 
Following submission of post-hearing briefs, the referee issued 
her report and recommendation concluding the OLR had met its 
burden and proved the remaining 11 allegations by clear and 
convincing evidence.  The referee recommended a six-month 
suspension and the imposition of costs.  There is no need to 
detail the extensive allegations and findings.  We will briefly 
summarize the incidents giving rise to the ethical misconduct. 
Matter of W.A. (Counts 1 and 2) 
¶6 
W.A. hired Attorney Wood in February 2006 to represent 
her in connection with problems with the construction of her 
home, including alleged contractor overbilling.  Attorney Wood 
failed to pursue his client's claims.  He was often unresponsive 
to W.A. and, after W.A.'s contractor filed suit against her, 
Attorney Wood failed to file any response in the suit he had 
been hired to defend.  Even after the court granted a default 
judgment against W.A., Attorney Wood failed to communicate with 
W.A. and later failed to inform W.A. that he was terminating his 
representation.  
Matter of R.M. (Counts 3 and 4) 
¶7 
R.M. hired Attorney Wood in 2007 to represent him in a 
dispute with a homeowner.  Attorney Wood sent the bank and title 
company a demand letter but, when the recipients did not 
respond, Attorney Wood failed to pursue the matter.  Attorney 
Wood failed to respond to R.M.'s requests for information until 
R.M. threatened to report Attorney Wood's unresponsiveness.  
Attorney Wood then performed some work but failed to respond to 
R.M.'s repeated requests for information, failed to file a 
No. 
2011AP1626-D   
 
4 
 
summons and complaint, and undertook no other action to resolve 
R.M.'s claims.  R.M. eventually filed a grievance against 
Attorney 
Wood 
whereupon 
Attorney 
Wood 
terminated 
his 
representation.   
Matter of T.M. (Counts 5 through 7) 
¶8 
T.M. hired Attorney Wood in early 2007 to represent 
him in a dispute with a contractor.  Attorney Wood failed to 
take action on T.M.'s case and, with rare exception, failed to 
respond to T.M.'s requests for information.  Attorney Wood 
finally filed the summons and complaint in T.M.'s case in 
February 2008, but then failed to effect personal service of the 
summons and complaint.  
¶9 
On July 24, 2008, Attorney Wood failed to attend a 
dismissal hearing on the lawsuit.  The court dismissed the case 
and Attorney Wood failed to send the dismissal notice to T.M.  
Eventually, T.M. filed a grievance against Attorney Wood with 
the OLR.  Attorney Wood then failed to timely respond to T.M.'s 
grievance.  
Matter of A.M. and J.M. (Counts 8 through 12) 
¶10 A.M. and J.M. hired Attorney Wood in March 2008 to 
help them resolve a dispute with a contractor.  They paid 
Attorney Wood $1,000 for future services.  Attorney Wood 
deposited this check into his business account without sending 
the required notice described in SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m).  On 
April 8, 2008, the contractor filed a lien claim against the 
property and sent a letter explaining the basis of the claim.  
A.M. and J.M. forwarded this letter to Attorney Wood, but 
No. 
2011AP1626-D   
 
5 
 
Attorney Wood failed to respond, except for sending the clients 
a bill in June 2008.  
¶11 Attorney Wood essentially took no action to resolve 
the lien claim.  The clients tried to contact Attorney Wood 
numerous times, with minimal success.  Attorney Wood failed to 
provide his clients with a copy of a letter he sent on their 
behalf and also failed to send a follow-up letter at the 
clients' direction.  Finally, on May 11, 2009, the clients 
terminated Attorney Wood's representation, requested he return 
any remaining funds, and filed a grievance with the OLR.  
Attorney Wood failed to return $100 of the remaining clients' 
funds and failed to timely respond to the OLR's inquiries.  
Matter of C.H. (Counts 13 through 17) 
¶12 C.H. and his corporation (collectively C.H.) retained 
Attorney Wood in 2008 in connection with a dispute with V.H. and 
L.H.  On June 6, 2008, Attorney Wood filed suit on behalf of 
C.H.  On August 25, 2008, Attorney Wood spoke with C.H. and 
filed an answer to a counterclaim.  C.H. called Attorney Wood 
several times over the following months trying to obtain 
information about the case.  Attorney Wood did not return those 
calls.  Attorney Wood failed to appear at a scheduling 
conference, and he failed to comply with a court directive to 
file a witness list.  
¶13 On January 9, 2009, V.H. and L.H filed a third—party 
summons and complaint and sent it to Attorney Wood, who refused 
service.  Attorney Wood then failed to inform C.H. of the 
filing.  In February 2009 V.H. and L.H moved to exclude C.H.'s 
No. 
2011AP1626-D   
 
6 
 
witnesses because Attorney Wood had failed to file a witness 
list.  Finally, in the spring of 2009, C.H. discussed his case 
with another attorney, who unsuccessfully attempted to contact 
Attorney Wood.  The attorney filed a notice of appearance as co-
counsel and faxed a copy to Attorney Wood.  Attorney Wood never 
assisted the attorney in transferring C.H.'s file or addressing 
the motion to exclude C.H.'s witnesses.  Attorney Wood did not 
withdraw as counsel for C.H.  
¶14 On June 5, 2009, the court heard the exclusion motion 
filed by V.H. and L.H.  Attorney Wood was not present at the 
hearing.  Successor counsel moved to have Attorney Wood removed 
from the case.  The court granted the motion and then ordered 
C.H. and Attorney Wood to pay $1,4002 in sanctions, jointly and 
severally.  Attorney Wood also repeatedly failed to respond to 
or adequately cooperate with the OLR's requests for information 
in this matter.   
Matter of S.H./Trust Account Violations (Counts 18 through 23) 
¶15 In 2008 Attorney Wood represented S.H. in a lawsuit 
against 
Sears 
Roebuck 
and 
Company 
(Sears). 
 
Sears 
was 
represented by Attorney Michael Ganzer.  In September 2008 S.H. 
and Sears settled the lawsuit.  Sears agreed to pay S.H. $28,000 
for the full and complete release of all of his claims in that 
particular case.  The parties did not discuss whether S.H. would 
retain any warranty claims.  
                                                 
2 Attorney Wood has conceded he is solely responsible for 
the $1,400 in sanctions imposed. 
No. 
2011AP1626-D   
 
7 
 
¶16 On October 15, 2008, Attorney Ganzer sent Attorney 
Wood the settlement documents with a settlement check payable to 
Attorney Wood's trust account.  The check was to be held in 
trust pending S.H.'s execution of the settlement documents.  On 
October 17, 2008, Attorney Wood deposited the settlement check 
in his trust account.  
¶17 On October 31, 2008, S.H. signed the settlement 
documents but added that Sears was "release[d] as to work 
performed, [but] product warranties survive."  Attorney Wood had 
not discussed this modification with Attorney Ganzer.  Attorney 
Wood then issued a check to S.H. for S.H.'s portion of the 
settlement and withdrew $7,000 in cash as fees.  Between October 
2008 and January 2009, Attorney Wood made six additional cash 
withdrawals from his trust account.  Attorney Wood did not keep 
individual client ledgers, deposit records, or disbursement 
records in 2008. 
¶18 Attorney Ganzer repeatedly requested copies of the 
executed settlement documents.  Attorney Ganzer finally received 
the settlement documents on December 5, 2008.  Attorney Ganzer 
filed the stipulation and order for dismissal with the court, 
but objected to changes Attorney Wood had made to the settlement 
agreement.  
¶19 On December 12, 2008, Attorney Wood withdrew $6,000 in 
cash from his trust account as his remaining fee.  On 
December 24, 2008, Attorney Ganzer wrote to Attorney Wood 
objecting to the changes made in the settlement agreement, and 
demanding that he get a "clean" release from S.H.  Attorney Wood 
No. 
2011AP1626-D   
 
8 
 
did not respond, and did not return any money to his trust 
account for the settlement.  
¶20 After March 2009 Attorney Ganzer's associate contacted 
Attorney Wood several times to obtain an unedited release or the 
settlement funds.  Attorney Wood did not respond.  On June 30, 
2009, Attorney Ganzer filed a grievance with the OLR over 
Attorney Wood's handling of the settlement.  Attorney Wood then 
failed to adequately respond to the OLR's inquiries. 
Matter of K.R. and T.R. (Counts 24 through 27) 
¶21 K.R. and T.R. hired Attorney Wood in 2006 to represent 
them in a potential suit against A. Bishop Farms, Inc. (Bishop).  
In 2007 Attorney Wood filed suit against Bishop.  In May 2008 
Bishop and K.R. and T.R. settled the suit, and the court 
dismissed the case.  Bishop agreed to pay an increased amount if 
it failed to make the payments promised under the settlement 
agreement.  
¶22 In July 2008 Bishop breached the settlement agreement, 
entitling K.R. and T.R. to a judgment of $30,000.  In November 
2008 Attorney Wood moved to reopen the case and enforce the 
settlement agreement, seeking a $30,000 judgment against Bishop.  
At a February 9, 2009 hearing, the court granted the motion to 
reopen.  However, the court granted a judgment for $10,843.22, 
instead of the $30,000 allowed under the settlement agreement 
and requested in Attorney Wood's motion.  Afterward, Attorney 
Wood submitted a judgment to the court with the incorrect lower 
amount.  On April 28, 2009, the court entered the judgment.  
No. 
2011AP1626-D   
 
9 
 
Attorney Wood did not send a copy of the judgment to K.R. and 
T.R. at that time.  
¶23 In September 2009 Attorney Wood sent a copy of the 
judgment to K.R. and T.R. and told them he would have the error 
fixed.  In late 2009 and early 2010, K.R. and T.R. called and e-
mailed Attorney Wood several times asking him to correct the 
judgment.  Attorney Wood frequently failed to respond.  
¶24 Attorney Wood eventually moved to reopen the judgment 
but failed to send his clients a copy of the motion.  The court 
set a hearing for July 27, 2010.  On June 11, 2010, K.R. and 
T.R. e-mailed Attorney Wood to terminate his representation due 
to his lack of communication and requested their file.  K.R. and 
T.R. were not aware of the pending motion to reopen that 
Attorney Wood had finally filed.  Attorney Wood did not respond 
to his clients' e-mail or send them their file.  Attorney Wood 
failed to appear at the July 27, 2010 motion hearing, and the 
court dismissed the motion.  
¶25 Between September and December 2010, the OLR made 
several attempts to contact Attorney Wood to investigate a 
grievance 
filed 
against 
Attorney 
Wood 
related 
to 
his 
representation of K.R. and T.R.  Attorney Wood did not respond 
to the OLR's communications.  On January 5, 2011, this court 
ordered Attorney Wood to show cause why his license should not 
be suspended for failure to cooperate with the OLR.  On 
January 25, 2011, Attorney Wood finally responded satisfactorily 
to the OLR in the K.R. and T.R. matter.  
Unauthorized Practice (Count 28) 
No. 
2011AP1626-D   
 
10 
 
¶26 On April 17, 2009, the Board of Bar Examiners (BBE) 
formally notified Attorney Wood that it would suspend his 
license to practice law on June 16, 2009, at 4:30 p.m., if he 
failed to submit satisfactory documentation showing Continuing 
Legal Education (CLE) hours.  On June 16, 2009, Attorney Wood 
hand-delivered CLE documentation to the BBE, but reported one 
credit short of the requirements.  
¶27 On June 17, 2009, the BBE mailed Attorney Wood a 
notice of suspension.  That same day, Attorney Wood appeared on 
a client's behalf at a worker's compensation hearing.  Over the 
next few days, while suspended, Attorney Wood filed documents 
with courts in at least three cases.  On June 23, 2009, Attorney 
Wood obtained one ethics CLE credit and achieved reinstatement, 
effective June 25, 2009.  
¶28 The referee concluded, both pursuant to the terms of 
the partial stipulation and following an evidentiary hearing, 
that Attorney Wood committed the misconduct alleged in the 
complaint. 
¶29 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that 
Attorney Wood committed the following misconduct: six violations 
of 20:1.33 (Counts 1, 3, 5, 8, 13, 24); one violation of former 
SCR 20:1.4(a)4 (effective prior to July 1, 2007) (Count 2) and 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:1.3 states, "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
4 Former SCR 20:1.4(a) stated, "A lawyer shall keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly 
comply with reasonable requests for information." 
No. 
2011AP1626-D   
 
11 
 
six violations of current SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4)5 (Counts 2, 4, 
6, 9, 14, 25); five violations of SCR 22.03(2)6 (Counts 7, 12, 
17, 23, 27) and four violations of SCR 22.03(6)7 (Counts 12, 17, 
23, 27), all enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h);8 five violations of 
                                                 
5 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4) state as follows:  "A lawyer 
shall: . . . (3) keep the client reasonably informed about the 
status of a matter; [and] (4) promptly comply with reasonable 
requests by the client for information; . . . ." 
6 SCR 22.03(2) states: 
 
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 
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. 
7 SCR 22.03(6) provides: 
 
In 
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. 
8 SCR 20:8.4(h) states 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); . . . ." 
No. 
2011AP1626-D   
 
12 
 
SCR 20:1.15,9 the "trust account rule" (Counts 10, 18, 19, 20, 
21); two violations of SCR 20:1.16(d)10 (Counts 11 and 26); one 
                                                 
9 The pertinent portions of SCR 20:1.15, the trust account 
rule, that were found to have been violated are SCR 20:1.15(b), 
(b)(4), (d)(3), (e)(4), and (f), and provide as follows: 
 
(b) Segregation of trust property.  
 
(1) Separate account.  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. 
 
. . .  
 
(4) Unearned fees and cost advances.  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.  
 
. . .  
 
(d) Prompt notice and delivery of property. 
 
. . .  
 
(3) When the lawyer and another person or the 
client and another person claim ownership interest in 
trust property identified by a lien, court order, 
judgment, or contract, the lawyer shall hold that 
property in trust until there is an accounting and 
severance of the interests.  If a dispute arises 
regarding the division of the property, the lawyer 
shall hold the disputed portion in trust until the 
dispute is resolved.  Disputes between the lawyer and 
a client are subject to the provisions of sub. (g)(2). 
 
. . .  
No. 
2011AP1626-D   
 
13 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
(e) Operational requirements for trust accounts. 
 
. . .  
 
(4) Prohibited transactions. 
 
a. Cash.  No 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." 
 
. . .  
 
(f) Record-keeping requirements for all trust 
accounts. 
 
(1) Draft accounts.  Complete records of a trust 
account that is a draft account shall include a 
transaction register; individual client ledgers for 
IOLTA accounts and other pooled trust accounts; a 
ledger for account fees and charges, if law firm funds 
are held in the account pursuant to sub. (b)(3); 
deposit 
records; 
disbursement 
records; 
monthly 
statements; and reconciliation reports, subject to all 
of the following: 
 
. . .  
 
b. Individual 
client 
ledgers. 
 
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. 
 
. . .  
 
d. Deposit records.  Deposit slips shall identify 
the name of the lawyer or law firm, and the name of 
the account.  The deposit slip shall identify the 
amount of each deposit item, the client or matter 
associated with each deposit item, and the date of the 
deposit.  The lawyer shall maintain a copy or 
No. 
2011AP1626-D   
 
14 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
duplicate of each deposit slip.  All deposits shall be 
made intact.  No cash, or other form of disbursement, 
shall be deducted from a deposit.  Deposits of wired 
funds shall be documented in the account's monthly 
statement. 
 
e. Disbursement records. 
 
1. Checks.  Checks shall be pre-printed and pre-
numbered.  The name and address of the lawyer or law 
firm, and the name of the account shall be printed in 
the upper left corner of the check.  Trust account 
checks shall include the words "Client Account," or 
"Trust Account," or words of similar import in the 
account name.  Each check disbursed from the trust 
account shall identify the client matter and the 
reason for the disbursement on the memo line. 
 
2. Canceled checks.  Canceled checks shall be 
obtained from the financial institution.  Imaged 
checks may be substituted for canceled checks. 
 
3. Imaged 
checks. 
 
Imaged 
checks 
shall 
be 
acceptable if they provide both the front and reverse 
of the check and comply with the requirements of this 
paragraph.  The information contained on the reverse 
side 
of 
the 
imaged 
checks 
shall 
include 
any 
endorsement signatures or stamps, account numbers, and 
transaction dates that appear on the original.  Imaged 
checks shall be of sufficient size to be readable 
without magnification and as close as possible to the 
size of the original check. 
10 SCR 20:1.16(d) states: 
 
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 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. 
No. 
2011AP1626-D   
 
15 
 
violation 
of 
SCR 
20:3.211 
(Count 
15); 
one 
violation 
of 
SCR 20:3.4(c)12 (Count 16); one violation of SCR 20:8.4(c)13 
                                                 
11 SCR 20:3.2 provides "A lawyer shall make reasonable 
efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of 
the client." 
12 SCR 20:3.4(c) says a lawyer shall not "knowingly disobey 
an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except for an open 
refusal 
based 
on 
an 
assertion 
that 
no 
valid 
obligation 
exists; . . . ." 
13 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides it is professional misconduct for 
a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation; . . . ." 
No. 
2011AP1626-D   
 
16 
 
(Count 22); and one violation of SCR 31.10(1),14 enforceable via 
SCR 20:8.4(f)15 (Count 28). 
¶30 In this case, the referee concluded, and we agree, 
that a six-month suspension is warranted.  The misconduct proven 
by the OLR is serious, and there is a clear need to protect the 
public from possible repetition of this kind of misconduct.  As 
the referee observed, Attorney Wood's misconduct goes to the 
heart of a lawyer's obligations to his client.  The referee 
observed: 
                                                 
14 SCR 31.10(1) states: 
 
If a lawyer fails to comply with the attendance 
requirement of SCR 31.02, fails to comply with the 
reporting requirement of SCR 31.03(1), or fails to pay 
the late fee under SCR 31.03(2), the board shall serve 
a notice of noncompliance on the lawyer.  This notice 
shall advise the lawyer that the lawyer's state bar 
membership 
shall 
be 
automatically 
suspended 
for 
failing to file evidence of compliance or to pay the 
late fee within 60 days after service of the notice.  
The board shall certify the names of all lawyers so 
suspended under this rule to the clerk of the supreme 
court, all supreme court justices, all court of 
appeals and circuit court judges, all circuit court 
commissioners appointed under SCR 75.02(1) in this 
state, all circuit court clerks, all juvenile court 
clerks, all registers in probate, the executive 
director of the state bar of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin 
State Public Defender's Office, and the clerks of the 
federal district courts in Wisconsin.  A lawyer shall 
not engage in the practice of law in Wisconsin while 
his or her state bar membership is suspended under 
this rule. 
15 SCR 20:8.4(f) states it is professional misconduct for 
lawyer to "violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme court 
order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers; . . . ." 
No. 
2011AP1626-D   
 
17 
 
Two 
of 
the 
most 
important 
and 
foundational 
requirements for a lawyer are to act with diligence 
and communicate with the client.  This case doesn't 
involve a situation where Mr. Wood attempted to handle 
a matter that was beyond his legal capacity, or where 
he simply didn't understand a complicated legal issue.  
These are matters where Mr. Wood simply failed to act 
diligently on client matters and then when confronted 
by his clients, failed to communicate.  To compound 
the issue, when several of Mr. Wood's clients finally 
lost patience and brought the issue to the OLR for 
investigation, Mr. Wood often failed to cooperate with 
the OLR.  Further, the misconduct doesn't involve just 
one 
case 
that 
slipped 
through 
the 
cracks——this 
misconduct spans a period of time and a series of 
cases.  This is a pattern of misconduct that has 
caused Mr. Wood's clients unnecessary anxiety, stress 
and money.   
 
What is most disturbing is the fact in at [least] 
three of the matters Mr. Wood has tried to justify his 
misconduct rather than simply acknowledge he made an 
error in judgment.  Mr. Wood's weak efforts to justify 
his misconduct leads me to believe that Mr. Wood does 
not clearly understand his ethical failings and is 
therefore 
more 
likely 
to 
repeat 
this 
kind 
of 
misconduct.  
 
The case law also supports a more serious 
sanction.  In Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hansen, 
2009 WI 56, 318 Wis. 2d 1, 768 N.W.2d 1, a nine month 
sanction was imposed for 28 counts of misconduct in 
four client matters.  The misconduct was similar in 
nature to that alleged in this case, and while the 
attorney in Hansen had a prior private reprimand, his 
depression also played a role in the misconduct, and 
could be considered a mitigating factor.  In this 
case, there were 28 counts of misconduct on seven 
client matters.  While there has been no prior 
discipline, there has been no explanation for the 
misconduct either.  
¶31 This court will affirm a referee's findings of fact 
unless they are clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law are 
reviewed de novo.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Tully, 
No. 
2011AP1626-D   
 
18 
 
2005 WI 100, ¶25, 283 Wis. 2d 124, 699 N.W.2d 882.  This court 
is free to impose whatever discipline it deems appropriate, 
regardless of the referee's recommendation.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 
N.W.2d 686.   
¶32 We adopt the referee's findings of fact because they 
have not been shown to be clearly erroneous.  We also agree with 
the 
referee's 
conclusions 
of 
law 
and 
her 
recommendation 
regarding 
discipline. 
 
Because 
this 
case 
presents 
no 
extraordinary circumstances, we further determine that Attorney 
Wood should be required to pay the full costs of this matter.  
See SCR 22.24(1m) (supreme court's general policy upon a finding 
of misconduct is to impose all costs upon the respondent 
attorney). 
¶33 Finally, we turn to the issue of restitution.  The 
referee recommended the court require Attorney Wood to reimburse 
J.M. and R.M.  She notes that the complaint alleged Attorney 
Wood failed to return an unearned retainer, despite a written 
request for the refund from the clients.  She notes that 
"[a]mazingly, Mr. Wood argues that he is entitled to retain 
those 
remaining 
funds 
because 
he 
spoke 
to 
the 
client 
approximately 
eight 
times 
during 
the 
course 
of 
the 
representation.  However, all of those contacts were initiated 
by the [clients] in an effort to reach Mr. Wood and inquire 
about the progress of their case."  The referee opined that the 
clients "shouldn't have to pay a fee to get Mr. Wood to do his 
job, or to get information about the status of their case." 
No. 
2011AP1626-D   
 
19 
 
¶34 The referee stated: 
I would recommend a refund [of] almost the entire 
$1000 fee.  The new attorney hired by [the clients] 
likely had to duplicate much of the work billed by 
Mr. Wood, 
including 
reviewing 
client 
documents, 
reading and discussing the expert report . . . .  This 
wasted work accounted for 2.9 hours of the work billed 
by Mr. Wood, for a total of $652.50.  Including the 
$100 that Mr. Wood agrees was not billed, the total 
owed the [clients] would be $752.50.  
¶35 The OLR filed a restitution statement stating its 
policy on restitution and stating that with respect to this 
matter it would only seek restitution of $100, explaining that 
"[s]uccessor 
counsel's 
time 
is 
not 
in 
the 
record, 
and 
regardless, represents incidental or consequential damages."  
The OLR also sets forth the reasons it does not seek restitution 
in any other client matter.  Attorney Wood had multiple 
opportunities to object to the recommended restitution before 
both the referee and this court.  He has not done so.   
¶36 We generally adhere to the OLR's policy with respect 
to restitution.  Here, under the facts presented and in view of 
the 
referee's 
specific 
recommendation, 
we 
determine 
that 
Attorney Wood should be ordered to pay restitution in the amount 
of $752.50.   
¶37 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Everett E. Wood to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six 
months, effective March 1, 2013. 
¶38 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Everett E. Wood shall pay 
restitution in the amount of $752.50 plus interest dating from 
No. 
2011AP1626-D   
 
20 
 
May 11, 2009, to his former clients, A.M. and J.M., within 30 
days of the date of this order. 
¶39 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Everett E. Wood shall 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
¶40 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.   
¶41 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified 
above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation. 
¶42 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.29(4)(c). 
No. 
2011AP1626-D   
 
 
 
1