Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jeffrey D. Berlin
Citation: 2008 WI 4
Docket Number: 2007AP000180-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: January 17, 2008

2008 WI 4 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2007AP180-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jeffrey D. Berlin, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Jeffrey D. Berlin, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BERLIN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
January 17, 2008   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: BUTLER, JR. and ZIEGLER, JJ., did not 
participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2008 WI 4
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2007AP180-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jeffrey D. Berlin, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Jeffrey D. Berlin, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JAN 17, 2008 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review referee Henry A. Field, Jr.'s 
recommendation that the license of Attorney Jeffrey D. Berlin to 
practice law in this state be suspended for a period of six 
months for eight counts of professional misconduct committed in 
connection with two client matters.     
¶2 
We conclude that the referee's findings of fact are 
supported by satisfactory and convincing evidence.  We further 
determine that the seriousness of Attorney Berlin's misconduct 
No. 
2007AP180-D   
 
2 
 
warrants the suspension of his license to practice law for six 
months, and that the costs of the proceeding, which are $676 as 
of July 24, 2007, should be assessed against him. 
¶3 
Attorney Berlin was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1978.  His license to practice law is currently 
under suspension for failure to pay State Bar of Wisconsin 
membership dues.  He was publicly reprimanded in August 2005 for 
three counts of failing to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing a client, three counts of failing to 
keep a client reasonably informed of the status of a matter, two 
trust account violations, and three counts of failing to refund 
unearned advanced fees.  Public Reprimand of Jeffrey D. Berlin, 
2005-4. 
¶4 
The 
Office 
of 
Lawyer 
Regulation 
(OLR) 
filed 
a 
complaint in this matter on January 22, 2007.  Attorney Berlin 
responded stating that he did not intend to contest the charges 
because of his medical condition.1   Accordingly, the matter was 
handled as a default proceeding, and the OLR complaint formed 
the basis for the referee’s factual findings.   
¶5 
In May 2002 D.B. hired Attorney Berlin to represent 
him in a personal injury action for injuries D.B. sustained in 
                                                 
1 Attorney Berlin states that he has had six spinal 
surgeries since 2000, a major heart attack, a stroke, and has 
been 
deemed 
totally 
disabled 
by 
the 
Social 
Security 
Administration.  He has stated that he will not practice law in 
Wisconsin again. 
No. 
2007AP180-D   
 
3 
 
an automobile accident.  Attorney R.L. McNeely subsequently 
joined Attorney Berlin in this representation.2  
¶6 
On March 21, 2005, D.B. died from circumstances 
unrelated to the automobile accident.  Following his death, 
D.B.'s wife, C.B., contacted either Attorney Berlin or Attorney 
McNeely regarding the personal injury claim.   
¶7 
On April 5, 2005, Attorney McNeely prepared and filed 
a special administration petition in the D.B. estate, requesting 
that the probate court appoint C.B. as special administrator of 
D.B.'s estate to permit her to resolve D.B.'s personal injury 
claims arising out of the May 2002 accident.   
¶8 
On April 22, 2005, Attorney McNeely filed a civil 
summons and complaint in Milwaukee County circuit court seeking 
damages on behalf of D.B.'s estate and C.B. relating to the May 
2002 automobile accident.   
¶9 
On April 29, 2005, the Milwaukee County Child Support 
Agency filed four claims against D.B.'s estate for unpaid child 
support obligations totaling $126,200.28.   
¶10 On or about May 24, 2005, American Family Insurance 
Group issued a check for $100,000 payable to "R.L. McNeely Law 
Office Clients Trust Account" to settle C.B.’s claims in 
connection with the personal injury action.  This settlement 
encompassed claims that C.B. made in her individual capacity, as 
well as claims made on behalf of D.B.'s estate.  C.B. had not 
                                                 
2 Attorney McNeely is also the subject of a pending 
disciplinary complaint filed by the OLR.  OLR v. McNeely, 
2007AP208-D. 
No. 
2007AP180-D   
 
4 
 
been appointed special administrator of D.B.’s estate at this 
time. 
¶11 On June 3, 2005, Attorney McNeely and Attorney Berlin 
directed C.B. to sign —— in her individual capacity and on 
behalf of D.B.'s estate —— a written release of all claims 
relating to the May 2, 2002, auto accident.  On June 6, 2005, 
Attorney McNeely filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in 
connection with the personal injury case. 
¶12 On June 4, 2005, Attorney McNeely sent correspondence 
to the probate court that read: 
The above-captioned matter was scheduled for hearing 
on appointment of a special administrator, on June 22, 
2005, at 2:30 p.m.  The special administration was 
commenced to pursue a claim arising out of an 
automobile accident involving the deceased, occurring 
in May 2002.  A civil suit was commenced  . . . .  We 
have been unable to serve the other driver involved in 
the accident, and there are no outside witnesses.  
Therefore, we have entered a voluntary dismissal in 
the civil case, and there is no longer a need to 
pursue special administration.  I request that you 
take the matter off the court's calendar  . . . , and 
close the file on this matter.   
¶13 Prior to disbursing the $100,000 settlement proceeds, 
Attorney Berlin told Attorney McNeely that the American Family 
insurance adjuster handling the claim had authorized them to 
distribute the settlement proceeds as they saw fit.  Attorney 
Berlin and Attorney McNeely decided that none of the settlement 
proceeds should go to D.B.'s estate.  Rather, they decided to 
allocate 
the 
entire 
settlement 
(less 
attorney 
fees 
and 
No. 
2007AP180-D   
 
5 
 
litigation-related costs) to C.B. in her individual capacity.  
This amount totaled $57,199.26.3  
¶14 Neither Attorney Berlin nor Attorney McNeely discussed 
with C.B. the potential or actual conflicts of interest that 
might have existed between her individual interests and the 
interests of D.B.'s estate, and neither attorney obtained a 
written waiver from C.B. regarding these potential or actual 
conflicts.  Neither Attorney McNeely nor Attorney Berlin advised 
the probate court that a settlement had been received relating 
to D.B.'s May 2002 auto accident or that these settlement 
proceeds had been disbursed.  In addition, neither Attorney 
McNeely nor Attorney Berlin advised the Milwaukee County Child 
Support Agency of the settlement. 
¶15 In the present disciplinary proceeding, the referee 
found that a portion of the $100,000 settlement payment properly 
belonged to the probate estate of D.B.  C.B.'s special 
administration petition filed on April 5, 2005, should have been 
converted to a probate petition that listed a portion of the 
$100,000 as probate property.  The referee found further that in 
May, June, and July of 2005, no one had the legal authority to 
take any action on behalf of D.B.'s estate regarding the 
personal injury claim relating to the automobile accident, 
                                                 
3 Between June 3 and July 16, 2005, Attorney McNeely 
disbursed 
the 
$100,000 
settlement 
proceeds 
received 
from 
American Family Insurance Group as follows: C.B.: $57,199.26; 
Attorney 
Berlin: 
$16,665; 
Attorney 
McNeely: 
$17,442.87; 
Litigation costs: $359.54; and LeSafre Intl. Co. (medical 
creditor): $ 8,333.33. 
No. 
2007AP180-D   
 
6 
 
including signing a release or authorizing the disbursement of 
settlement proceeds obtained from a legal action filed on behalf 
of the estate.  The referee noted that C.B. was never actually 
named special administrator of D.B.'s estate. 
¶16 While this matter was under investigation, Attorney 
Berlin told OLR staff that he knew the "State had liens that 
exceeded the proceeds" from the settlement, and that he was 
aware of these liens prior to the receipt of the settlement 
proceeds.  Attorney Berlin explained that he exercised his 
"judgment to get the funds to the family" and that his "duty was 
to his client and not to the State of Wisconsin." 
¶17 Attorney Berlin failed to respond to other attempts by 
the OLR to obtain information regarding this matter.  Attorney 
Berlin failed to respond to a letter dated November 17, 2005, 
and, in response to a follow-up letter sent by the OLR on 
April 7, 2006, Attorney Berlin left a voicemail message for OLR 
staff expressing confusion as to what information was being 
requested.  OLR staff made several subsequent attempts to 
contact 
Attorney 
Berlin 
by 
telephone 
to 
discuss 
this 
investigation, but were unable to reach him.  Attorney Berlin 
subsequently failed to respond to a third letter from the OLR, 
sent on June 12, 2006. 
¶18 The OLR alleged and the referee found that by 
participating in making an aggregate settlement of both C.B.'s 
individual claims and the claims of D.B.'s estate without 
consulting with and obtaining the informed consent of C.B. and 
someone authorized by the probate court to act on behalf of 
No. 
2007AP180-D   
 
7 
 
D.B.'s 
estate, 
Attorney 
Berlin 
engaged 
in 
a 
prohibited 
transaction, in violation of former SCR 20:1.8(g).4 
¶19 The OLR alleged and the referee found that Attorney 
Berlin intended to allocate the entirety of the aggregate 
settlement of both C.B.'s individual claims and the claims of 
D.B.'s estate to C.B. by: 
• Concurring with or advising McNeely to dismiss 
the probate case without first advising the 
probate 
court 
that 
a 
settlement 
of 
claims 
belonging to D.B.'s estate had been obtained and 
effectuated by a release C.B. signed while 
purporting to act as a special administrator of 
the estate. 
• Concurring with or advising McNeely to inform the 
probate court, "We have been unable to serve the 
other driver involved in the accident, and there 
                                                 
4 Effective July 1, 2007, substantial changes were made to 
the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct for 
Attorneys, SCR Chapter 20.  See Supreme Court Order No. 04-07, 
2007 WI 4, 293 Wis. 2d xv; and Supreme Court Order No. 06-04, 
2007 WI 48, 297 Wis. 2d xlvii.  Since the conduct underlying 
this case arose prior to July 1, 2007, unless otherwise 
indicated, all references to the supreme court rules will be to 
those in effect prior to July 1, 2007. 
Former SCR 20:1.8(g) states:  Conflict of interest: 
prohibited transactions 
 
(g) A lawyer who represents two or more clients 
shall 
not 
participate 
in 
making 
an 
aggregate 
settlement of the claims of or against the clients, or 
in a criminal case an aggregated agreement as to 
guilty or nolo contendere pleas, unless each client 
consents after consultation, including disclosure of 
the existence and nature of all the claims or pleas 
involved and of the participation of each person in 
the settlement. 
 
No. 
2007AP180-D   
 
8 
 
are no outside witnesses.  Therefore, we have 
entered a voluntary dismissal in the civil case, 
and there is no longer a need to pursue special 
administration . . ." without also informing the 
probate court that a settlement had been reached, 
which released the estate's claims. 
• Concurring with or advising McNeely to distribute 
the entire $100,000 settlement to C.B. (after 
attorneys 
fees 
and 
litigation 
costs 
were 
deducted) 
when 
he 
knew 
that 
there 
were 
outstanding claims against D.B.'s estate, for 
unpaid child support and the aggregate settlement 
was paid as consideration for the release of any 
claims the estate might have had against the 
released parties. 
Therefore, 
Attorney 
Berlin 
engaged 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of 
SCR 20:8.4(c).5   
¶20 The OLR alleged and the referee found that by failing 
to provide OLR staff with information requested in letters dated 
November 17, 2005, April 7, 2006, and June 12, 2006, Attorney 
Berlin willfully failed to provide relevant information, fully 
answer questions, or furnish documents in the course of an OLR 
investigation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(f)6 as it relates to 
the requirements of SCR 22.03(6).7   
                                                 
5 Former SCR 20:8.4(c) states that it is misconduct for a 
lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation." 
6 Former SCR 20:8.4(f) provides that 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." 
7 SCR 22.03 provides:  Investigation. 
 
   (6) In the course of the investigation, the 
respondent's 
wilful 
failure 
to 
provide 
relevant 
No. 
2007AP180-D   
 
9 
 
¶21 The 
OLR 
complaint 
also 
alleged 
misconduct 
in 
connection with Attorney Berlin’s representation of police 
officer K.K.  In July 2004, when the events giving rise to this 
allegation of misconduct occurred, Attorney Berlin worked as a 
part-time staff attorney for the Wisconsin Professional Police 
Association (WPPA).  Attorney Gordon E. McQuillen (McQuillen) 
was Attorney Berlin's supervisor at WPPA.  McQuillen assigned 
Attorney Berlin to represent Officer K.K. in legal matters 
stemming from K.K.’s termination from the Village of Jackson 
police department. 
¶22 On August 10, 2004, Attorney Berlin filed a complaint 
in Washington County circuit court naming the Village of Jackson 
as a defendant.  The defendant answered the complaint, and the 
circuit court conducted a telephonic scheduling conference on 
February 25, 2005.   
¶23 During 
the 
scheduling 
conference, 
the 
court 
established a briefing schedule that required Attorney Berlin to 
file a brief by April 1, 2005.  Attorney Berlin never filed the 
brief.   
¶24 Between February 25 and April 20, 2005, Attorney 
Berlin repeatedly assured McQuillen that he had timely filed the 
brief.  McQuillen eventually discovered that Attorney Berlin had 
not filed the brief.  Attorney Berlin also falsely assured 
                                                                                                                                                             
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. 
No. 
2007AP180-D   
 
10 
 
McQuillen that he had contacted defense counsel and the circuit 
court, and that he had secured an extension of time to file this 
brief. 
¶25 On April 20, 2005, defense counsel filed a motion to 
dismiss and scheduled a hearing on this motion for May 9, 2005. 
¶26 On April 25, 2005, the court issued a notice of 
dismissal advising Attorney Berlin that K.K.’s case would be 
dismissed in 20 days unless good cause was shown.  Attorney 
Berlin never responded.   
¶27 On April 27, 2005, Attorney Berlin met with McQuillen, 
resigned from his position with WPPA, and told McQuillen that he 
had never filed the brief, had failed to secure the leave of 
defense counsel, and failed to ask the court for an extension.  
Although Attorney Berlin knew of the April 25, 2005, order to 
show cause, he did not inform McQuillen of it. 
¶28 On May 5, 2005, K.K. called McQuillen asking why an 
order for dismissal of his case was posted on the circuit court 
website.  McQuillen contacted Attorney Berlin and learned for 
the first time of the existence of the order to show cause. 
¶29 At no time during his representation of K.K. did 
Attorney Berlin advise K.K. that he had failed to file the brief 
and obtain an extension of time to file the brief, or that the 
circuit court had issued an order to show cause why the case 
should not be dismissed.   
¶30 On October 6, 2005, Attorney Berlin told the OLR that 
he "did the briefing" for K.K.’s case but claimed his files were 
with the WPPA.  On November 4, 2005, Attorney Berlin told OLR 
No. 
2007AP180-D   
 
11 
 
that he would send OLR a copy of the briefs that he filed on 
K.K.’s behalf.  On November 7, 2005, OLR received a copy of a 
brief from Attorney Berlin that purportedly related to K.K.’s 
case.  Attorney Berlin's cover letter to OLR staff indicated 
that this brief "was submitted to the Circuit Court of 
Washington County." 
¶31 According to the circuit court's website, no brief was 
filed on behalf of K.K. until June 1, 2005, more than one month 
after Attorney Berlin resigned his position with WPPA, and more 
than two weeks after Attorney Berlin had been replaced by 
successor counsel. 
¶32 On December 9, 2005, OLR sent a letter to Attorney 
Berlin 
requesting 
that 
he 
respond 
to 
specific 
questions 
regarding K.K.’s grievance.  Attorney Berlin did not respond.  
He also failed to respond to subsequent letters sent by the OLR 
on April 7, 2006, and June 12, 2006. 
¶33 The OLR complaint alleged and the referee found that 
by failing to file a brief in accordance with the briefing 
schedule established by the Washington County circuit court or 
seek the consent of opposing counsel and the court to an 
extension of time to file the brief, and by failing to take any 
action with regard to the court's April 25, 2005, order to show 
cause why the case should not be dismissed, Attorney Berlin 
failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.8 
                                                 
8 Former SCR 20:1.3 states that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client."  
No. 
2007AP180-D   
 
12 
 
¶34 In addition, the referee found that by failing to 
inform K.K. that he had not filed a brief as ordered by the 
court or obtain the consent of opposing counsel and the court to 
extend the time in which to file the brief, and by failing to 
inform K.K. that the court issued an order to show cause why the 
case should not be dismissed, Attorney Berlin failed to keep a 
client reasonably informed about the status of a matter, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).9 
¶35 The OLR alleged and the referee found that Attorney 
Berlin engaged in a course of conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation, 
in 
violation 
of 
SCR 
20:8.4(c), by falsely assuring McQuillen that he was "timely 
with respect to filing" the brief in K.K.’s case, and that he 
had contacted the court and defense counsel and secured an 
extension of time for filing his brief.  In addition, Attorney 
Berlin failed to affirmatively advise McQuillen that the court 
had issued an order dated April 25, 2005, requiring K.K. to show 
cause why this case should not be dismissed. 
¶36 The OLR alleged and the referee found that Attorney 
Berlin made a misrepresentation to the OLR in the course of an 
OLR investigation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(f) as it relates 
to the requirements of SCR 22.03(6).  Attorney Berlin sent OLR a 
copy of a brief in November 2005 that purportedly related to 
K.K.’s case, and advised the OLR in an enclosed cover letter 
                                                 
9 Former SCR 20.1.4(a) provides that "[a] lawyer shall keep 
a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and 
promptly comply with reasonable requests for information." 
No. 
2007AP180-D   
 
13 
 
that this brief "was submitted to the Circuit Court of 
Washington County" in response to OLR's inquiry concerning 
Attorney Berlin's representation of K.K.  However, circuit court 
records indicated that no brief was filed on behalf of K.K. in 
this matter until June 1, 2005, more than one month after 
Attorney Berlin resigned his position with WPPA and more than 
two weeks after Attorney Berlin had been replaced by successor 
counsel.   
¶37 Finally, by failing to provide OLR with information in 
the K.K. matter that OLR had requested in letters dated 
December 9, 2005, April 7, 2006, and June 12, 2006, Attorney 
Berlin willfully failed to provide relevant information, fully 
answer questions, or furnish documents in the course of an OLR 
investigation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(f) as it relates to 
the requirements of SCR 22.03(6).   
¶38 The OLR requested a six-month suspension of Attorney 
Berlin’s license to practice law, as well as imposition of the 
costs of the disciplinary proceeding.  The referee recommended 
the same, without discussion.  Neither party appealed the 
referee’s report, such that this matter is submitted to the 
court for review of the referee’s report and recommendation 
pursuant to SCR 22.17(2). 
¶39 In conducting our review, we will affirm the referee's 
findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Sosnay, 209 Wis. 2d 241, 243, 
562 N.W.2d 137 (1997).  We review the referee's conclusions of 
law de novo.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
No. 
2007AP180-D   
 
14 
 
Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 718.  In 
accordance with our authority to supervise the practice of law 
in this state, we determine the level of discipline that is 
appropriate under the particular circumstances, independent of 
the referee's recommendation, but benefiting from it.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 
Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶40 The referee's findings of fact in this case have not 
been shown to be clearly erroneous, and we adopt them.  We also 
agree with the referee's conclusions of law.  We further agree 
with the referee's recommendation for a six-month suspension of 
Attorney 
Berlin’s 
license 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin.  
Finally, we find it appropriate to require Attorney Berlin to 
pay the full costs of this proceeding which, as of July 24, 
2007, total $676. 
¶41 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Jeffrey D. Berlin to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six 
months, effective the date of this order. 
¶42 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Jeffrey D. Berlin pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If the costs are not 
paid within the time specified, and absent a showing to this 
court of his inability to pay the costs within that time, the 
license of Jeffrey D. Berlin to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
remain suspended until further order of the court. 
¶43 LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., J., and ANNETTE KINGSLAND 
ZIEGLER, J., did not participate. 
No. 
2007AP180-D   
 
15 
 
 
No. 
2007AP180-D   
 
 
 
1