Title: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. Daniel J. Raymonds
Citation: 2000 WI 116
Docket Number: 1997AP001440-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: October 26, 2000

2000 WI 116 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
97-1440-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Daniel J. Raymonds, Attorney at Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional  
Responsibility,  
 
Complainant-Appellant, 
 
v. 
Daniel J. Raymonds,  
 
Respondent-Respondent.  
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST RAYMONDS 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
October 26, 2000 
Submitted on Briefs: 
September 7, 2000 
Oral Argument: 
      
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
      
 
Dissented: 
      
 
Not Participating:       
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
For the complainant-appellant there were briefs 
by Gene B. Radcliffe, Black River Falls. 
 
 
For the respondent-respondent there was a brief 
by Gerald P. Boyle, Bridget E. Boyle and Boyle, Boyle & Smith, 
S.C., Milwaukee. 
 
 
 
1 
2000 WI 116 
 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear 
in the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 97-1440-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Daniel J. Raymonds, Attorney at  
Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional  
Responsibility,  
 
          Complainant-Appellant, 
 
     v. 
 
Daniel J. Raymonds,  
 
          Respondent-Respondent.  
 
FILED 
 
OCT 26, 2000 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended. 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM   The 
Board 
of 
Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility (Board) appealed from the recommendation of the 
referee that Attorney Daniel J. Raymonds receive a private 
reprimand and that his continued practice of law be conditioned 
for one year on his quarterly reporting to the Board of his 
handling of his client trust account in response to his 
professional 
misconduct. 
 
That 
misconduct 
consisted 
of  
overdrawing his client trust account, which resulted in at least 
one check written on it being dishonored when presented for 
No. 97-1440-D 
 
2 
payment, commingling personal funds in his trust account, 
failing to reconcile the trust account on a monthly basis, which 
resulted in an unexplained shortfall in the funds he held in 
trust, and misrepresenting to the Board the source and amount of 
funds he borrowed and deposited in the trust account in order to 
cover bank service charges that had been paid with funds held in 
trust and to cover the shortfall.  The Board argued that the 
seriousness of Attorney Raymonds' misconduct warrants a 90-day 
suspension of his license to practice law and the imposition of 
conditions in addition to that recommended by the referee in 
order to ensure Attorney Raymonds' compliance with the trust 
account rules. 
¶2 
We determine that the 90-day license suspension and 
imposition of the conditions urged by the Board are the 
appropriate disciplinary response to the nature and extent of 
Attorney Raymonds' misconduct established in this proceeding.  
While not reaching the level of withdrawing funds of clients and 
others held in trust and converting them to personal use,  
Attorney Raymonds knowingly permitted his bank to deduct trust 
account funds belonging to clients and third persons in payment 
of bank service charges on that account over an extended period. 
 His failure to maintain records of his trust account activity 
required by our rules resulted in overdrafts on that account and 
contributed to an unexplained $100,000 shortfall in the account, 
which he attempted to cover by depositing borrowed funds.  His 
misrepresentation to the Board as to the source of those 
borrowed 
funds, 
while 
of 
little 
moment, 
was 
nonetheless 
No. 97-1440-D 
 
3 
misrepresentation to the body charged by this court with the 
responsibility of promoting and enforcing the high standards of 
professional conduct we require of those we license to represent 
others in our legal system.   
¶3 
Attorney Raymonds was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1981 and practices in Milwaukee.  He has not been 
the subject of prior discipline other than the temporary license 
suspension we imposed in the course of the instant proceeding 
for his failure to comply with an order of the referee for an 
audit of his trust account to determine if harm to clients or 
his own personal gain had resulted from his commingling of funds 
in his trust account, the return of a trust account check for 
insufficient funds, and his failure to comply with trust account 
record-keeping requirements.  We lifted that suspension after 
four months in response to the referee's recommendation, which 
was based on an agreement between Attorney Raymonds and the 
Board concerning action Attorney Raymonds had taken to ensure 
compliance with the trust account rules.   
¶4 
The facts found by the referee in this proceeding, the 
Honorable Robert T. McGraw, Reserve Judge, as well as other 
facts of record, are not disputed by the parties in this appeal. 
Attorney Raymonds is a sole practitioner and employed two, 
sometimes three, secretaries.  His practice consisted almost 
exclusively of the representation of parties in real estate 
transactions, particularly lenders. Tens of millions of dollars 
in closing proceeds went through his trust account, and 
thousands of checks were written on that account monthly.   
No. 97-1440-D 
 
4 
¶5 
In February 1995, despite having deposited sufficient 
funds 
from 
real 
estate 
closings 
to 
pay 
six 
separate 
disbursements by check from the trust account, there were 
insufficient funds in the account to pay those checks when they 
were presented for payment.  The bank covered and honored five 
of those checks but returned a $28,000 check with a notation 
that it be returned to the maker as a result of insufficient 
funds in the account.  
¶6 
During the Board's investigation, Attorney Raymonds 
asserted to Board staff that the reason for the shortfall was 
bank services charges and that the shortfall was in the amount 
of approximately $30,000. However, the service charges imposed 
between 1993 and 1995 accounted for only $30,000 of the 
shortfall; the $100,000 balance has never been explained.  He 
also stated that no check written on his trust account ever had 
been returned because of insufficient funds. 
¶7 
Attorney Raymonds was aware since 1993 that the bank 
was imposing service charges and deducting them from his trust 
account, up to the time he moved it to another bank in May 1995. 
Thus, Attorney Raymonds allowed funds being held in trust to be 
used by the bank for payment of service charges for more than 
two years.  The reason he gave for not moving the account sooner 
was his fear that the bank would demand payment of a $200,000 
personal loan he had obtained from it.  
¶8 
After the shortfall was discovered, Attorney Raymonds 
borrowed $150,000 from his sister and deposited it into his 
trust account to cover the shortfall, thereby commingling his 
No. 97-1440-D 
 
5 
own funds with funds belonging to clients and third parties. It 
was from that deposit that the $28,000 check that had been 
dishonored ultimately was paid.  That commingling continued when 
he closed the trust account in May 1995 and opened one in 
another bank, transferring to it the balance of approximately 
$21,000 of his personal funds that had not been disbursed to 
clients and third parties.  
¶9 
Although the referee did not cite in his report the 
specific Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys that 
Attorney Raymonds' misconduct violated, the Board correctly 
asserted that his allowing the trust account to become overdrawn 
on several occasions in February 1995 constituted a failure to 
hold property of clients or third persons in trust, thereby 
violating SCR 20:1.15(a).1  His deposit of the $150,000 loan from 
                     
1 SCR 20:1.15(a) provides: 
(a) A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the 
lawyer's own property, that property of clients and third 
persons that is in the lawyer's possession in connection with a 
representation or when acting in a fiduciary capacity.  Funds 
held in connection with a representation or in a fiduciary 
capacity include funds held as trustee, agent, guardian, 
personal representative of an estate, or otherwise.  All funds 
of clients and third persons paid to a lawyer or law firm shall 
be deposited in one or more identifiable trust accounts as 
provided in paragraph (c).  The trust account shall be 
maintained in a bank, savings bank, trust company, credit union, 
savings and loan association or other investment institution 
authorized to do business and located in Wisconsin.  The trust 
account shall be clearly designated as "Client's Account" or 
"Trust Account" or words of similar import.  No funds belonging 
to the lawyer or law firm, except funds reasonably sufficient to 
pay or avoid imposition of account service charges, may be 
deposited in such an account.  Unless the client otherwise  
 
No. 97-1440-D 
 
6 
his sister into the trust account constituted a failure to hold 
property of clients or third persons separate from his own 
property, also in violation of SCR 20:1.15(a).  
¶10 Attorney Raymonds' conduct also violated the following 
professional conduct rules.  His failure to maintain complete 
records of trust account funds, including a monthly schedule of 
subsidiary client ledgers indicating the actual balance of each 
client's account, and his failure to reconcile his trust account 
checkbook 
with 
his 
monthly 
bank 
statements 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.15(e).2  His trust account typically handled very large sums 
                                                                  
directs in writing, securities in bearer form shall be kept by 
the attorney in a safe deposit box in a bank, savings bank, 
trust company, credit union, savings and loan association or 
other investment institution authorized to do business and 
located in Wisconsin.  The safe deposit box shall be clearly 
designated as "Client's Account" or "Trust Account" or words of 
similar import.  Other property of a client or third person 
shall be identified as such and appropriately safeguarded.  If a 
lawyer also licensed in another state is entrusted with funds or 
property in connection with an out-of-state representation, this 
provision shall not supersede the trust account rules of the 
other state. 
 
2 SCR 20:1.15(e) provides: 
(e) Complete records of trust account funds and other trust 
property shall be kept by the lawyer and shall be preserved for 
a period of at least six years after termination of the 
representation.  Complete records shall include: (i) a cash 
receipts journal, listing the sources and date of each receipt, 
(ii) a disbursements journal, listing the date and payee of each 
disbursement, with all disbursements being paid by check, (iii) 
a subsidiary ledger containing a separate page for each person 
or company for whom funds have been received in trust, showing 
the date and amount of each receipt, the date and amount of each 
disbursement, and any unexpended balance, (iv) a monthly 
schedule of the subsidiary ledger, indicating the balance of 
No. 97-1440-D 
 
7 
of money – as much as $51,600,000 in November 1993.  Until 1991 
or 1992, he maintained information as to amounts received from 
lenders and borrowers and amounts disbursed from those deposits 
on separate index cards for each real estate transaction.  
Thereafter, he used a computer program to enter receipts and 
disbursements such that each transaction was balanced to zero 
before the next transaction was entered.  He did not, however, 
use the checkbook-balancing feature of that computer program on 
a monthly basis.  Thus, resulting cards and records did not show 
each client's actual unexpended balance at the end of each 
month.  
As a consequence, 
when 
time 
passed 
before the 
disbursements cleared his trust account, the balance in that 
account was directly attributable to many different clients but 
not reflected on their individual records.   
¶11 During the course of this proceeding but only after we 
temporarily suspended his license to practice law, Attorney 
Raymonds took appropriate remedial steps to prevent further 
trust account errors, including hiring a person to oversee the 
trust account and creating a system of checks and balances 
                                                                  
each client's account at the end of each month, (v) a 
determination of the cash balance (checkbook balance) at the end 
of 
each 
month, 
taken 
from 
the 
cash 
receipts 
and 
cash 
disbursement journals and a reconciliation of the cash balance 
(checkbook balance) with the balance indicated in the bank 
statement, and (vi) monthly statements, including canceled 
checks, vouchers or share drafts, and duplicate deposit slips.  
A record of all property other than cash which is held in trust 
for clients or third persons, as required by paragraph (a) 
hereof, shall also be maintained. All trust account records 
shall be deemed to have public aspects as related to the 
lawyer's fitness to practice.  
 
No. 97-1440-D 
 
8 
recommended by the auditor.  He took that action in December 
1999, shortly before the Board agreed to the lifting of the 
temporary suspension. 
¶12 The referee concluded that Attorney Raymonds' lack of 
candor in the Board's investigation constituted professional 
misconduct, which the Board asserted was in violation of SCR 
20:8.1(b)3 as a failure to disclose a fact necessary to correct a 
misapprehension known to have arisen and SCR 22.07(2)4 as a 
failure to disclose fully and fairly all facts and circumstances 
pertaining to an investigation.  In that respect, Attorney 
Raymonds misled the Board concerning the amount of his own funds 
                     
3 SCR 20:8.1(b) provides: 
An applicant for admission to the bar, or a lawyer in 
connection with a bar admission application or in connection 
with a disciplinary matter, shall not:  
 
(b) fail to disclose 
a fact necessary to correct a 
misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter, 
or knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information 
from an admissions or disciplinary authority, except that this 
rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise 
protected by Rule 1.6.  
 
4 Former SCR 22.07(2), applicable in the instant proceeding, 
provided: 
(2) During the course of an investigation, the administrator 
or a committee may notify the respondent of the subject being 
investigated.  The respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all 
facts and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct or 
medical incapacity within 20 days of being served by ordinary 
mail a request for response to a grievance. The administrator in 
his or her discretion may allow additional time to respond.  
Failure 
to 
provide 
information 
or 
misrepresentation 
in 
a 
disclosure is misconduct.  The administrator or committee may 
make a further investigation before making a recommendation to 
the board.  
No. 97-1440-D 
 
9 
he deposited in his trust account, implying that it was only an 
amount sufficient to cover the approximately $30,000 of bank 
service charges, when in fact it was $150,000.  He also led the 
Board to believe that no check written on his trust account ever 
had been returned for insufficient funds, when there had been at 
least one, in the amount of $28,463.74.  He also was less than 
forthright with the Board when he stated that he had borrowed 
the $150,000 from "a family friend," when in fact it was his 
sister. 
¶13 The Board asserted that the referee in effect also 
concluded that Attorney Raymonds engaged in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of 
SCR 20:8.4(c),5 by allowing bank service fees for which he was 
personally liable to be paid from funds of clients and others 
held in trust, by making misrepresentations to Board staff about 
the amount of his own money he deposited into the trust account, 
and by his repeated statement that there never had been an 
overdraft on his trust account. 
¶14 As 
discipline 
for 
that 
misconduct, 
the 
referee 
recommended that Attorney Raymonds receive a private reprimand 
and be required to report to the Board quarterly for one year 
his continuation of the remedial trust account practices he had 
instituted during the course of the instant proceeding.  That 
                     
5 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:  
 
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or 
misrepresentation.  
No. 97-1440-D 
 
10
recommendation appeared to have been based on the referee's 
assessment that no client or third person suffered any loss 
because of Attorney Raymonds' misconduct and that Attorney 
Raymonds did not gain personally from it.  The referee also took 
into account as a mitigating factor that Attorney Raymonds 
instituted remedial procedures to protect against further trust 
account errors.  The referee acknowledged, however, that 
Attorney Raymonds' failure to reconcile his trust account 
monthly "create[d] dangerous possibilities as evidenced by the 
unexplained $100,000 shortage in the account . . . " and that 
those funds remained missing and unaccounted for.  
¶15 In this appeal, the Board argued that the serious 
nature of Attorney Raymonds' professional misconduct warrants 
discipline more severe than that recommended by the referee.  He 
allowed trust account funds to be used by his bank to pay 
service charges on that account that were his own business 
expense, and he did so knowingly.  Moreover, he intentionally 
refrained from moving his trust account to another bank promptly 
upon learning of the deduction of service charges because he 
believed his current bank would demand payment of a personal 
loan.  Even when he no longer was liable on that loan in 1994, 
he did not move the account until May of the following year.  
¶16 In addition, even though aware that there would be a 
shortfall in his trust account, if only by virtue of the bank's 
deduction of service charges, Attorney Raymonds never attempted 
to ascertain the extent of that shortfall by balancing his 
checkbook or reconciling subsidiary client ledgers.  Indeed, he 
No. 97-1440-D 
 
11
did nothing to remedy the inevitable shortfall until one of his 
trust account checks was dishonored.  The Board pointed to the 
large amount of money he borrowed to cover the unascertained 
shortfall as an indicia of the seriousness of his misconduct.  
The Board also viewed as serious misconduct his continuing the 
commingling of his personal funds with funds held in trust when 
he transferred his trust account to another institution while it 
held some $21,000 of his personal funds.   
¶17 Contrary 
to the 
referee's 
assertions, 
the 
Board 
contended that some of Attorney Raymonds' clients and third 
persons were harmed by the misconduct and that Attorney Raymonds 
did gain personally from it.  His trust account had a negative 
balance on two days in 1995, and a $28,000 check written on the 
account did not clear until a week after it had been dishonored. 
At the least, the Board asserted, that overdraft cost the payee 
lost interest, even if a minimal amount, as well as the 
additional 
inconvenience 
of 
redepositing 
the 
check 
for 
collection.  Further, if the bank had not paid four other checks 
despite the overdrawn status of the trust account, additional 
persons would have been harmed.  Moreover, Attorney Raymonds 
gained from his misconduct by having the funds of clients and 
others used to pay his own liability for bank service charges on 
his trust account.   
¶18 While acknowledging the mitigating factors of Attorney 
Raymonds' 
replacement 
of 
funds 
prior 
to 
the 
Board's 
investigation into his conduct, his remedial steps to maintain 
appropriate trust account records and comply with the trust 
No. 97-1440-D 
 
12
account rules, and the absence of prior discipline, the Board 
asserted as an aggravating factor that Attorney Raymonds' 
handling of his trust account and dealing with the property of 
clients and others was not negligent but intentional.  His was a 
knowing failure to protect funds he held in trust.  In the 
Board's view, the fact that Attorney Raymonds was able to borrow 
a substantial amount of money to cover the trust account 
shortfall, the amount of which he never knew, does not mitigate 
the serious potential for loss to which the owners of those 
funds were exposed.  In respect to his remedial steps in trust 
account procedure, the Board noted that he took those measures 
only 
after 
his 
license 
to 
practice 
law 
was 
suspended 
temporarily.   
¶19 The Board argued that the appropriate response to 
Attorney Raymonds' professional misconduct is a 90-day license 
suspension and the imposition of the following conditions on his 
continued practice following the suspension.  Attorney Raymonds 
should be required to comply fully with the trust account rules, 
report that compliance quarterly to the Board for a period of at 
least two years, provide the Board access to underlying records 
to corroborate those reports, and attend, with his staff, 
appropriate continuing legal education programs dealing with 
trust account procedure.  
¶20 We 
agree 
with 
the 
Board's 
assessment 
of 
the 
seriousness of Attorney Raymonds' professional misconduct and 
determine that a 90-day license suspension and the imposition of 
the conditions proffered by the Board are the appropriate 
No. 97-1440-D 
 
13
response to it.  We do not, however, accept the Board's 
suggestion that we consider "crediting" the 90-day license 
suspension 
with that portion -- 69 
days -- of 
the 131-day 
temporary license suspension previously imposed in the course of 
this proceeding during which Attorney Raymonds came into and 
remained in compliance with the trust account record-keeping 
requirements.  That temporary license suspension was unrelated 
to the professional misconduct addressed in the disciplinary 
proceeding; it was imposed specifically for Attorney Raymonds' 
failure to comply with the referee's order for an audit of his 
trust account to address specified issues.  
¶21 We are unpersuaded by Attorney Raymonds' attempt to 
justify the imposition of a private reprimand recommended by the 
referee.  He minimized the seriousness of his misrepresentations 
to the Board by asserting that he had estimated accurately the 
amount of bank service charges for which he deposited borrowed 
funds, apparently contending that he was under no obligation to 
tell the Board the full amount of his own funds he deposited to 
cover the unascertained shortfall.  His insistence on a 
distinction between a check returned with the notation "refer to 
maker" and one marked "insufficient funds" is disingenuous.  So, 
too, is his assertion that there is "an unequivocal distinction" 
between his allowing bank service charges to be deducted from 
funds belonging to clients and others and removing funds from a 
trust account and converting them to his own personal or 
business use.  To his credit, however slight, he did acknowledge 
that the latter is "serious misconduct." 
No. 97-1440-D 
 
14
¶22 IT IS ORDERED that license of Daniel J. Raymonds to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for 90 days, commencing 
November 30, 2000, as discipline for his professional misconduct 
established in this proceeding.   
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon reinstatement of his 
license to practice law, Daniel J. Raymonds comply with the 
conditions recommended by the Board of Attorneys Professional 
Responsibility in this proceeding.  
¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Daniel J. Raymonds pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, provided that in the 
event the costs are not paid within the time specified and 
absent a showing to this court in writing of his inability to 
pay the costs within that time, the license of Daniel J. 
Raymonds to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended 
until further order of the court. 
¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Daniel J. Raymonds comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended.