Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Harvey J. Goldstein
Citation: 2010 WI 26
Docket Number: 2007AP002771-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: April 14, 2010

2010 WI 26 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2007AP2771-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Harvey J. Goldstein, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Appellant, 
     v. 
Harvey J. Goldstein, 
          Respondent-Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GOLDSTEIN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 14, 2010   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
December 8, 2009   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the complainant-appellant there were briefs by Julie M. 
Scott and the Office of Lawyer Regulation, Madison, and oral 
argument by Julie M. Scott. 
 
For the respondent-respondent there was a brief by Martin 
E. Kohler, Craig S. Powell, and Kohler & Hart, LLP, Milwaukee, 
and oral argument by Craig S. Powell. 
 
 
 
 
2010 WI 26
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2007AP2771-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Harvey J. Goldstein, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Appellant, 
 
     v. 
 
Harvey J. Goldstein, 
 
          Respondent-Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 14, 2010 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.  The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
appeals the referee's report recommending a one-year suspension 
of Attorney Harvey J. Goldstein's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin.  The OLR filed a 24-count disciplinary complaint 
against Attorney Goldstein.  John F. Fiorenza was appointed 
referee.   
¶2 
Referee Fiorenza found misconduct with respect to 
Counts 1 through 20, which charged violations stemming from 
No. 
2007AP2771-D   
 
2 
 
trust account violations and conversion of nearly $70,000 from 
three probate estates.  The parties stipulated the funds have 
been repaid and that Attorney Goldstein owes interest to two 
estates totaling $3,066, which he has agreed to pay as 
restitution.   
¶3 
Counts 21 through 24 charged violations arising from 
Attorney Goldstein's communications with and failure to pay a 
process server.  Referee Fiorenza concluded Attorney Goldstein 
committed 
misconduct 
alleged 
in 
Count 
24; 
however, 
he 
recommended dismissal of Counts 21, 22, and 23 for lack of 
proof.  As discipline, the referee recommended a one-year 
license suspension and that Attorney Goldstein pay restitution 
of $3,066 and the costs of this proceeding.    
¶4 
The OLR raises two arguments on appeal.  First, the 
OLR 
contends 
the 
referee 
erroneously 
concluded 
Attorney 
Goldstein did not commit misconduct as charged in Count 23.1  
Second, the OLR argues Attorney Goldstein's license to practice 
law in Wisconsin should be revoked.  
¶5 
We conclude the record supports the referee's findings 
and conclusions with respect to Attorney Goldstein's misconduct.  
We conclude the referee's finding, that the record fails to 
demonstrate misconduct charged in Count 23, is not clearly 
erroneous.  We uphold the referee's determination that Attorney 
Goldstein committed misconduct charged in Counts 1 through 20 
                                                 
1 The OLR does not challenge the referee's recommended 
dismissal of Counts 21 and 22. 
No. 
2007AP2771-D   
 
3 
 
and 24.  We conclude the appropriate sanction for Attorney 
Goldstein's misconduct is a two-year suspension of his license 
to practice law in Wisconsin.  We order Attorney Goldstein to 
pay 
$3,066 
restitution, 
together 
with 
the 
cost 
of 
this 
proceeding. 
¶6 
Attorney Goldstein was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1977.  He has practiced law in Milwaukee.  He has 
not been subject to previous discipline. 
¶7 
The facts admitted by Attorney Goldstein reveal a 
scheme by which he used funds belonging to one probate estate to 
cover the trust account deficits of another, caused by Attorney 
Goldstein withdrawing funds for his personal and business 
expenses, including a business venture in Arizona.  The matter 
was complicated by Attorney Goldstein's inability to produce 
trust account records.  Attorney Goldstein claimed, and the 
referee 
found, 
that 
Attorney 
Goldstein's 
records 
were 
unintentionally lost in moving and subsequently destroyed due to 
a computer failure. 
¶8 
The scheme was uncovered by an OLR investigator 
assigned to investigate a grievance filed by a process server.  
The process server, R.R., complained Attorney Goldstein had not 
paid approximately $19,000 billed over a number of years for 
work serving process in numerous collection matters.  While 
investigating 
this 
grievance, 
the 
OLR 
reviewed 
Attorney 
Goldstein's bank records, which disclosed numerous trust account 
violations and the misappropriation of probate estate funds. 
No. 
2007AP2771-D   
 
4 
 
¶9 
Based on Attorney Goldstein's admissions and the 
evidence admitted at the disciplinary hearing, the referee 
determined the OLR met its burden to prove the following 
violations.  The first six counts involved conversion of probate 
funds from three estates while Attorney Goldstein was acting as 
a 
special 
administrator 
and, 
in 
one 
case, 
a 
personal 
representative. 
• COUNT 1:  By converting at least $19,685.55 from the 
C.V. Estate while acting as special administrator, Attorney 
Goldstein violated SCR 20:8.4(b).2 
• COUNT 2:  By converting at least $17,204.20 from the 
H.G. 
Estate while acting as personal representative, 
Attorney Goldstein violated SCR 20:8.4(b). 
• COUNT 3:  By converting $32,561.71 from the S.C. 
Estate while acting as special administrator, Attorney 
Goldstein violated SCR 20:8.4(b).  
                                                 
2 Effective July 1, 2007, substantial changes were made to 
the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct for 
Attorneys, SCR Chapter 20.  See S. Ct. Order 04-07, 2007 WI 4, 
293 Wis. 2d xv, 726 N.W.2d Ct.R-45 (eff. July 1, 2007); and 
S. Ct. 
Order 
06-04, 
2007 
WI 
48, 
297 
Wis. 2d xv, 
730 
N.W.2d Ct.R.-29 (eff. July 1, 2007).  Because the conduct 
underlying this case arose prior to July 1, 2007, unless 
otherwise indicated, all references to Chapter 20 of the 
Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules will be to those in effect prior 
to July 1, 2007. 
SCR 20:8.4(b) states 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." 
No. 
2007AP2771-D   
 
5 
 
• COUNT 4:  By converting at least $19,685.55 from the 
C.V. Estate while acting as special administrator, Attorney 
Goldstein violated SCR 20:8.4(c).3 
• COUNT 5:  By converting at least $17,204.20 from the 
H.G. Estate while acting as special administrator, Attorney 
Goldstein violated SCR 20:8.4(c).  
• COUNT 6:  By converting $32,561.71 from the S.C. 
Estate while acting as special administrator, Attorney 
Goldstein violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
¶10 The next six counts involved trust account and other 
violations, including the comingling of trust account funds with 
funds received from Attorney Goldstein's wife and his personal 
business venture, as follows: 
• COUNT 7:  By failing to hold in trust at least 
$19,685.55 belonging to the C.V. Estate while acting as 
special administrator, Attorney Goldstein violated SCR 
20:1.15(a)4 and SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).5 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:8.4(c) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation." 
4 SCR 20:1.15(a) (effective through June 30, 2004) provided, 
in pertinent part:  
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. . . .  
No. 
2007AP2771-D   
 
6 
 
• COUNT 8:  By failing to hold in trust at least 
$17,204.20 belonging to the H.G. Estate while acting as 
personal 
representative, 
Attorney 
Goldstein 
violated 
SCR 20:1.15(a) 
(effective through June 30, 2004) and 
SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) (effective as of July 1, 2004).  
• COUNT 9:  By failing to hold in trust $32,561.71 
belonging to the S.C. Estate while acting as special 
administrator, Attorney Goldstein violated SCR 20:1.15(a) 
(effective through June 30, 2004) and SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) 
(effective as of July 1, 2004). 
• COUNT 10:  By depositing and holding in his trust 
account at least $66,407.19 in earned fees or cost 
reimbursements, 
$5,700 
in 
loans 
from 
his 
wife, 
and 
approximately $64,499.88 of the $288,452.57 deposited in 
connection with a personal business venture, Attorney 
Goldstein 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.15(a) 
(effective 
through 
June 30, 2004) and SCR 20:1.15(b)(3).6 
                                                                                                                                                             
5 SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) (effective as of July 1, 2004) provided: 
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. 
6 SCR 20:1.15(b)(3) (effective as of July 1, 2004) stated, 
"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." 
No. 
2007AP2771-D   
 
7 
 
• COUNT 11:  By failing to hold $39,399.46 in fiduciary 
property belonging to the S.C. Estate in a separate 
account, Attorney Goldstein violated SCR 20:1.15(j)(1).7 
• COUNT 12:  By making a $2,696 cash withdrawal from the 
checking account of the S.C. Estate on June 12, 2006, 
Attorney Goldstein violated SCR 20:1.15(j)(3)a.8 
¶11 The 
next 
eight 
counts 
involved 
violations 
of 
recordkeeping regulations and Attorney Goldstein's personal use 
of trust account funds:  
• COUNT 
13:  By 
failing 
to 
file 
an 
overdraft 
notification agreement with OLR regarding the checking 
account for the S.C. Estate or to have the account 
independently audited on an annual basis or to require the 
approving 
signature 
of 
a 
co-administrator 
on 
all 
                                                 
7 SCR 
20:1.15(j)(1) 
(effective 
July 
1, 
2004, 
through 
June 30, 2007) stated:  
A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the 
lawyer's own funds or property, those funds or that 
property of clients or 3rd parties that are in the 
lawyer's 
possession 
when 
acting 
in 
a 
fiduciary 
capacity that directly arises in the course of or as a 
result of a lawyer-client relationship. When a lawyer 
is in possession of fiduciary property of a probate 
estate, the lawyer shall maintain the property in a 
separate account subject to the requirements of SCR 
20:1.15(j). 
8 SCR 20:1.15(j)(3)a. (effective July 1, 2004, through 
June 30, 2007) stated, "No disbursement of cash shall be made 
from a fiduciary account or from a deposit to a fiduciary 
account, and no check shall be made payable to 'Cash.'" 
No. 
2007AP2771-D   
 
8 
 
disbursements from that account, Attorney Goldstein failed 
to comply with the requirements of SCR 20:1.15(j)(9).9 
• COUNT 14:  By making 28 telephone transfers to and 
from his trust account between July 2004 and December 2005, 
totaling 
$51,640, 
Attorney 
Goldstein 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.15(e)(4)b.10 
• COUNT 15:  By authorizing his personal creditors to 
make 30 electronic withdrawals, totaling $21,871.19, from 
his trust account between October 2004 and December 2005, 
Attorney Goldstein violated SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)d.11 
                                                 
9 SCR 
20:1.15(j)(9) 
(effective 
July 
1, 
2004, 
through 
June 30, 2007) provided as follows: 
A lawyer who holds fiduciary property in a demand 
account shall take one of the following actions:  
a. comply with the requirements of SCR 20:1.15(h) 
Dishonored 
instrument 
notification 
(Overdraft 
notices); or  
b. have the account independently audited by a 
certified public accountant on at least an annual 
basis; or  
c. hold the funds in a demand account, which 
requires the approving signature of a co-trustee, co-
agent, 
co-guardian, 
or 
co-personal 
representative 
before funds may be disbursed from the account." 
10 SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)b. (effective July 1, 2004, through 
June 30, 2007) stated, "No deposits or disbursements shall be 
made to or from a trust account by a telephone transfer of 
funds.  This section does not prohibit wire transfers." 
11 SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)d. (effective July 1, 2004, through 
June 30, 2007) provided that, "[a] lawyer shall not authorize a 
3rd party to electronically withdraw funds from a trust 
account." 
No. 
2007AP2771-D   
 
9 
 
• COUNT 16:  By failing to maintain a check register or 
transaction register, client ledgers, and reconciliation 
reports for his trust account, Attorney Goldstein violated 
SCR 20:1.15(e)12 and SCR 20:1.15(e)(6).13  
• COUNT 17:  By maintaining his IOLTA trust account 
records on a computer and failing to print a copy of the 
transaction register, the subsidiary ledger, and the 
reconciliation report every 30 days and retain a printed 
copy of those records for at least 6 years, as required 
under 
sub. 
(e)(6), 
Attorney 
Goldstein 
violated 
SCR 20:1.15(f)(4)b.14 
• COUNT 18:  By failing to produce trust account records 
requested 
by 
OLR, 
Attorney 
Goldstein 
violated 
SCR 20:1.15(e)(7).15  
                                                 
12 SCR 
20:1.15(e) 
(effective 
through 
June 
30, 
2004) 
provided, in pertinent part, that "[c]omplete 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.  . . ." 
13 SCR 20:1.15(e)(6) (effective July 1, 2004, through 
June 30, 2007) provided, "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." 
14 SCR 20:1.15(f)(4)b. (effective July 1, 2004, through 
June 30, 2007) provided as follows: "In addition to the 
requirements of sub. (f)(4)a., the transaction register, the 
subsidiary ledger, and the reconciliation report shall be 
printed every 30 days for the IOLTA account.  The printed copy 
shall be retained for at least 6 years, as required under sub. 
(e)(6)." 
15 SCR 20:1.15(e)(7) (effective July 1, 2004, through 
June 30, 2007) provided: 
No. 
2007AP2771-D   
 
10 
 
• COUNT 19:  By failing to identify on trust account 
deposit slips the client or matter associated with each 
deposit 
item, 
Attorney 
Goldstein 
violated 
SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)d.16 
• COUNT 20:  By failing to identify the account for the 
S.C. Estate on his fiscal 2006 trust account certification, 
and by further certifying that he had a trust account 
overdraft agreement on file with OLR for each demand-type 
trust account into which he deposits client or third party 
funds, including funds held in a fiduciary capacity, when 
he had not filed an overdraft agreement with OLR relating 
to the S.C. Estate, Attorney Goldstein violated SCR 
20:1.15(i)(4).17 
                                                                                                                                                             
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. 
16 SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)d. (effective as of July 1, 2004) 
provides that, "[d]eposit 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. . . ." 
17 SCR 20:1.15(i)(4) (effective as of July 1, 2004) states: 
No. 
2007AP2771-D   
 
11 
 
¶12 Because the facts underlying Counts 1 through 20 were 
largely undisputed, the disciplinary hearing focused on Attorney 
Goldstein's dealings with R.R., charged in Counts 21 through 24.  
The referee recommended dismissal of Counts 21, 22, and 23 for 
failure of proof.  These counts alleged: 
• COUNT 21:  By failing to pay process service fees that 
were owed to R.R., when Attorney Goldstein had received 
funds from clients to pay at least some of those expenses 
and had deposited those funds into his trust account, 
Attorney Goldstein violated SCR 20:8.4(c).  
• COUNT 22:  By failing to promptly disburse to R.R. 
funds that Attorney Goldstein had received from clients, in 
which R.R.'s company had an interest identified by a 
contract, Attorney Goldstein violated SCR 20:l.15(d)(1).18  
                                                                                                                                                             
The failure of a state bar member to file the 
certificate is grounds for automatic suspension of the 
member's membership in the state bar in the same 
manner provided in SCR 10.03(6) for nonpayment of 
dues. 
 
The 
filing 
of 
a 
false 
certificate 
is 
unprofessional conduct and is grounds for disciplinary 
action. 
18 SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) (effective July 1, 2004, through 
June 30, 2007) provided as follows: 
Upon receiving funds or other property in which a 
client has an interest, or in which the lawyer has 
received notice that a 3rd party has an interest 
identified by a lien, court order, judgment, or 
contract, the lawyer shall promptly notify the client 
or 3rd party in writing.  Except as stated in this 
rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement 
with the client, the lawyer shall promptly deliver to 
the client or 3rd party any funds or other property 
that the client or 3rd party is entitled to receive. 
No. 
2007AP2771-D   
 
12 
 
• COUNT 
23:  By 
communicating 
with 
R.R., 
a 
party 
represented by counsel, through an employee of R.R. and 
through one of Attorney Goldstein's own employees, after 
R.R.'s counsel had informed Attorney Goldstein in writing 
that all communications were to go through counsel, 
Attorney Goldstein violated SCR 20:4.219 through the acts of 
another, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(a).20 
¶13 Although the referee determined the record failed to 
support Counts 21 through 23, the referee concluded the record 
supported Count 24:   
• COUNT 
24:  By representing to OLR that Attorney 
Goldstein was unable to pay R.R.'s invoices because he had 
not received payment from a client, when he had received and 
deposited to his trust account over $29,000 in payments from 
the client, and when the trust account records subpoenaed by 
OLR revealed that he was using trust account funds for 
personal purposes, including real estate ventures, Attorney 
Goldstein violated SCR 22.03(6),21 enforceable via SCR 
20:8.4(f).22 
                                                 
19 SCR 20:4.2 (effective through June 30, 2007) provided, in 
pertinent part, that "[i]n representing a client, a lawyer shall 
not communicate about the subject of the representation with a 
party the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in 
the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other 
lawyer or is authorized by law to do so." 
20 SCR 20:8.4(a) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to 
"violate 
or attempt to violate the Rules of 
Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do 
so, or do so through the acts of another." 
21 SCR 22.03(6) provides: 
No. 
2007AP2771-D   
 
13 
 
¶14 On appeal, the OLR first challenges the dismissal of 
Count 23.  According to the disciplinary complaint, R.R.'s 
attorney directed Attorney Goldstein to deal with the attorney 
rather than R.R.  The complaint alleges that on September 6, 
2005, Attorney Goldstein spoke with one of R.R.'s employees, 
telling him to inform R.R. Attorney Goldstein soon expected to 
have the money to pay the bill in full.   
¶15 The OLR relies on the pleadings, claiming that 
Attorney Goldstein's answer did not dispute certain paragraphs 
in the complaint containing allegations in support of Count 23.23  
The OLR also relies on the testimony of Mary Hoeft Smith, the 
administrator of the OLR's trust account program, who stated 
that Attorney Goldstein violated SCR 20:4.2 (Count 23) because 
another lawyer may not communicate directly with someone 
                                                                                                                                                             
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. 
22 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides it is professional misconduct for 
a lawyer to "violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme 
court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers; . . . ." 
23 Attorney Goldstein's answer stated, "In answer to Count 
23 of the Complaint in the matter (¶ 105), Goldstein denies the 
allegations therein; . . . ."  Attorney Goldstein also denied 
Counts 18, 21, 22, and 24.  He pled no contest to the remaining 
counts.  He sought to dispute the level of discipline, reserving 
the right to show inaccuracies, and referenced the fact 
allegations pertaining to Counts 1 through 20 to mitigate the 
sanction.  
No. 
2007AP2771-D   
 
14 
 
represented by counsel, absent that counsel's permission.  Over 
Attorney Goldstein's objection, the referee permitted this 
testimony as foundation.  A lengthy discussion ensued between 
the referee and counsel regarding the admissibility of Ms. Hoeft 
Smith's testimony.   
¶16 In his report recommending dismissal of Count 23, the 
referee found, "The only testimony elicited at the hearing was 
from Attorney Goldstein who indicated that he told an employee 
to thank [R.R.] for continuing to work with Goldstein."  The 
referee explained:  
[Counsel for OLR] stated that OLR maintains that 
Goldstein talked to an employee of [R.R.]'s and 
therefore 
this 
was 
a 
communication 
to 
[R.R.]. 
Goldstein was allowed to explain this situation and he 
testified that he was still doing business with [R.R.] 
while he was being sued by [R.R.]. One of [R.R.]'s 
process servers came to pick up some pleadings to be 
served and he said to this employee, "tell [R.R.] I 
said thanks for still doing business with me." 
¶17 The referee noted that R.R. had continued to do 
business with Attorney Goldstein, despite not being paid.  The 
referee concluded the "communication to [R.R.]'s employee under 
[their] working arrangement does not rise to a communication 
with a party who was represented by an attorney.  There was no 
discussion about the pending case in which the attorney was 
representing [R.R.]."  Based on these findings, the referee 
concluded that Count 23 was not proved.   
¶18 A referee's findings of fact will not be overturned 
unless clearly erroneous.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 
No. 
2007AP2771-D   
 
15 
 
718.  We independently review the referee's legal conclusions.  
Id.  
¶19 We are satisfied the hearing transcript supports the 
referee's finding that Count 23 was not proved.  Ms. Hoeft Smith 
testified regarding her conclusions as to Count 23, but no 
direct testimony of Attorney Goldstein's conversation with 
R.R.'s employee was presented.  The OLR's arguments imply the 
referee was bound by the pleadings.  We are not persuaded, 
absent a motion from the OLR, the referee was required to accept 
the pleadings as proof of Count 23.  The record does not clearly 
demonstrate the OLR requested the referee to accept the 
pleadings, briefs, or exhibits to prove Count 23.  Because an 
evidentiary hearing was held with respect to disputed counts, 
which included Count 23, it was reasonable for the referee to 
rely on the testimony presented at the hearing and find 
Ms. Hoeft Smith's testimony to be insufficient proof. 
¶20 We approve and adopt the referee's findings and 
conclusions with respect to Attorney Goldstein's misconduct.  
The record supports the violations charged in Counts 1 through 
20 and Count 24.  We accept the referee's recommendation that 
Counts 21, 22, and 23 be dismissed.   
¶21 Next, we address the OLR's challenge to the referee's 
recommended one-year license suspension.  Both the OLR and 
Attorney Goldstein agree that Count 23 has little bearing on the 
level of discipline.  The OLR argues that Attorney Goldstein's 
misconduct, which reveals a dishonest scheme to convert the 
funds belonging to three probate estates, put his clients at a 
No. 
2007AP2771-D   
 
16 
 
risk of harm.  The OLR argues, "As admitted by [Attorney] 
Goldstein, if he had not sold the Arizona property, he may still 
owe the converted funds to the estates."  The OLR contends 
actual harm is not necessary for revocation, and the fact 
Attorney Goldstein repaid the funds does not excuse his 
misconduct.  The OLR claims that given the aggravated nature of 
his misconduct, Attorney Goldstein's license should be revoked. 
¶22 The OLR contends Attorney Goldstein's misconduct is 
aggravated because it reveals: (1) dishonest and selfish motives 
of paying personal and business expenses and financing real 
estate investments; (2) patterns of theft from 2003 through 
2005; (3) multiple offenses; (4) deceptive practices when 
Attorney Goldstein represented to the OLR he was unable to pay 
process serving fees because one of his clients was not paying 
him when, in fact, the client in question had paid him over 
$29,000; and (5) refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of 
his misconduct by failing to pay over $3,000 in interest to the 
C.V. and H.G. Estates, failing to recognize the seriousness of 
his misconduct, not believing his conduct caused harm, and 
expressing little remorse. 
¶23 The OLR relies on a number of disciplinary cases that 
ordered revocation.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
O'Byrne, 2002 WI 123, ¶20, 257 Wis. 2d 8, 653 N.W.2d 111 
(conversion of 
approximately $34,000); In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Lieuallen, 
2001 
WI 
50, 
¶¶7-10, 
243 
Wis. 2d 478, 626 N.W.2d 802 (conversion of $60,843.29 and other 
misconduct); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Martinez, 
No. 
2007AP2771-D   
 
17 
 
225 Wis. 2d 433, 434-36, 591 N.W.2d 866 (1999) (conversion of 
approximately $158,000 held in trust and other misconduct); In 
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Rudolph, 187 Wis. 2d 324, 
326-27, 522 N.W.2d 219 (1994) (misappropriation of more than 
$11,000); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Wright, 180 
Wis. 2d 492, 493, 509 N.W.2d 290 (1994) (conversion of nearly 
$11,000 from an estate). 
¶24 Attorney 
Goldstein 
responds 
that 
the 
referee's 
recommendation of a one-year suspension should be given weight.  
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Krezminski, 2007 WI 
21, ¶16, 299 Wis. 2d 152, 727 N.W.2d 492 ("Although this court 
takes 
into 
account 
the 
referee's 
recommendation 
as 
to 
appropriate 
discipline, 
we 
do 
not 
accord 
the 
referee's 
recommendation any conclusive or great weight.").  The referee 
noted Attorney Goldstein had practiced law for 31 years without 
previous discipline.  The referee discussed at length the 
testimony of Attorney Goldstein's witnesses attesting to his 
good reputation.  The referee emphasized that Attorney Goldstein 
recognized his use of the money entrusted to him was improper 
and, on his own initiative, repaid the funds before the OLR 
investigation was initiated.  Also, the referee said, Attorney 
Goldstein acknowledged his obligation to pay his clients 
interest. 
¶25 Attorney Goldstein contends his repayment of the funds 
and the mitigating factors noted by the referee justify license 
suspension, rather than a revocation.  He points out the referee 
found that no client lost any principal.  He notes that several 
No. 
2007AP2771-D   
 
18 
 
cases support a license suspension.  For example, he relies on 
Krezminski, 
299 
Wis. 2d 152 
(a 
two-year 
suspension 
for 
misconduct including conversion); In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Schuster, 2006 WI 21, 289 Wis. 2d 23, 710 N.W.2d 458 
(nine-month suspension, via stipulation, for trust account 
violations, falsified records, and personal use of trust account 
funds); and In Re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Nelson, 225 
Wis. 2d 240, 592 N.W.2d 194 (1999) (a two-year suspension for 
converting client funds, repaid before any client incurred any 
loss). 
¶26 Attorney Goldstein also relies on In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against 
Bult, 142 Wis. 2d 885, 419 N.W.2d 245 
(1988).  Attorney Bult was suspended after misappropriating and 
commingling client funds and having withdrawn over $74,000 from 
his trust account for personal use.  Attorney Bult repaid the 
money when the circuit court ordered him to account for an 
insurance settlement and pay the proceeds to the court.  In 
suspending Attorney Bult's license for two years, the court 
stated, 
"[L]icense 
revocation 
ought 
not 
be 
imposed 
indiscriminately in every case of misappropriation or conversion 
of client funds" because no two cases present precisely the same 
circumstances and other factors may be considered.  Id. at 890-
91.   
¶27 The 
gravity 
of 
Attorney 
Goldstein's 
misconduct 
presents the question whether the revocation of his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin is necessary to achieve the objectives 
of attorney discipline.  It is our independent responsibility to 
No. 
2007AP2771-D   
 
19 
 
determine appropriate discipline.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Reitz, 2005 WI 39, ¶74, 279 Wis. 2d 550, 694 
N.W.2d 894.  We are not bound by the referee's recommendation as 
to discipline.  Id.  We must consider the seriousness of the 
misconduct, as well as the need to protect the public, courts, 
and legal system from repetition of misconduct and to deter 
attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Arthur, 2005 WI 40, ¶78, 279 
Wis. 2d 583, 694 N.W.2d 910. 
¶28 We agree with the OLR that Attorney Goldstein's 
professional misconduct warrants significant discipline, not 
only 
as 
an appropriate response to the gravity of the 
violations, but also as a deterrent to other attorneys.  See In 
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Horth, 148 Wis. 2d 562, 563-
64, 435 N.W.2d 732 (1989).  The misappropriation of client funds 
is a grave breach of trust.  "The foundation of an attorney's 
relationship with clients and the legal system is trust."  Id.  
An attorney who violates that trust by misappropriating funds 
demonstrates a lack of fitness to be entrusted with the 
responsibilities of the profession.  See id.  This court does 
not hesitate to impose revocation when needed and many cases 
involving conversion of funds have warranted revocation. 
¶29 Each 
case 
must 
turn 
on 
its 
individual 
facts.  
Balancing 
the 
circumstances 
presented, 
we 
conclude 
the 
recommended 
one-year 
license 
suspension 
minimizes 
the 
seriousness of Attorney Goldstein's misconduct.  The gravity of 
Attorney Goldstein's violations, the repetitive nature of his 
No. 
2007AP2771-D   
 
20 
 
misconduct, and his pattern of deception are aggravating 
factors.  His misconduct is no less serious in the light of 
accolades of his colleagues.  Despite the gravity of his 
misconduct, however, we conclude revocation is not warranted 
here.  Weighing heavily in Attorney Goldstein's favor is his 
lack 
of 
prior 
discipline. 
 
Also, 
Attorney 
Goldstein's 
acknowledgement of his wrongdoing by entering no contest pleas 
to the majority of the counts is a significant mitigating 
factor.  While repayment of the funds does not eliminate his 
culpability, it shows concern for his clients' well-being, also 
mitigating his misconduct.  In consideration of these competing 
factors, we conclude a two-year license suspension will protect 
the public and achieve the goal of deterrence.   
¶30 We adopt the referee's recommendation as to costs.  
Under SCR 22.24(1m), the court's general policy is to impose 
costs on the respondent, Attorney Goldstein.  To award less than 
full costs, the court must find "extraordinary circumstances."  
Id.  Attorney Goldstein has not objected to costs and has not 
claimed extraordinary circumstances to justify the imposition of 
less than full costs.  Accordingly, Attorney Goldstein shall 
bear the entire costs of the proceedings.24  We approve and adopt 
the referee's recommendation based upon the parties' stipulation 
that Attorney Goldstein pay interest of $1,900 to the C.V. 
Estate and $1,166 to the H.G. Estate.  
                                                 
24 The OLR filed a statement of costs totaling $6,583.38 on 
December 22, 2009. 
No. 
2007AP2771-D   
 
21 
 
¶31 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Harvey J. Goldstein 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of two 
years, effective May 24, 2010. 
¶32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Harvey J. Goldstein pay 
restitution in the total sum of $3,066.  If the restitution is 
not paid within 60 days of this order, Harvey J. Goldstein's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended 
until further order of the court. 
¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 90 days of the date 
of this order Harvey J. Goldstein pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If costs are not paid 
within the time specified and absent a showing of his inability 
to pay, Harvey J. Goldstein's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the 
court. 
¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution is to be 
paid in full prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation. 
¶35 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Harvey J. Goldstein shall 
comply with SCR 22.26 regarding the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
No. 
2007AP2771-D   
 
 
 
1