Opinion ID: 1936508
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: divorce retainer and file

Text: ¶ 6. Count One alleges a violation of SCR 20:1.16(d) (upon termination of representation the lawyer must take steps to protect the client's interests). [3] Count Two alleges a violation of former SCR 22.07(2) (an attorney has to disclose all relevant information to the OLR), [4] and SCR 20:8.4(c) (prohibits conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). [5] ¶ 7. These two counts involve B.S., a divorce client, who elected to have one of Attorney Eisenberg's associates continue to represent her after that attorney left his firm. However, there was a dispute between the two attorneys on how much of the $5000 retainer should be forwarded on along with the file. The associate claimed $2775.69 of the retainer was unearned whereas Attorney Eisenberg claimed that all of the retainer had already been earned by his office. Attorney Eisenberg signed an affidavit seeking the entire retainer plus additional funds which he presented to the Milwaukee County Circuit Court presiding over the divorce. That court did not take action to resolve the fee dispute. ¶ 8. The referee took testimony on these counts from Attorney Eisenberg, his legal secretary, another of his employees, and the former attorney. Based on this testimony the referee found that Attorney Eisenberg had his staff fabricate . . . bogus billings which he incorporated into his court affidavit and which misrepresented the amount of the retainer that was earned. The referee also found that he failed to timely surrender the divorce file and the unearned retainer to the former associate. ¶ 9. Accordingly, the referee concluded as a matter of law that Attorney Eisenberg had violated the rules specified in the two counts. ¶ 10. In defense, which the referee rejected, Attorney Eisenberg claimed that: (1) the associate's testimony should not have been deemed credible; (2) the referee should have given greater weight to the testimony of his secretary who testified that she made a good faith effort at reconstructing the billings; and (3) while it was accurate to characterize the recreation of billings as a guesstimate this did not rise to the level of a fabrication. ¶ 11. We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the referee with respect to these two counts. Although mindful of Attorney Eisenberg's defense, we cannot conclude that the referee's findings, particularly since they rely heavily on the credibility of the witnesses, are clearly erroneous. Furthermore, assuming the findings to be accurate, they clearly support the conclusion that there was a violation of the rules specified in these two counts.