Opinion ID: 2096988
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The S.B. Matter (Counts 14 through 15).

Text: ¶ 73 The final matter involves Attorney Nunnery's representation of S.B., who was D.H.'s co-worker. S.B. retained Attorney Nunnery in an employment discrimination/retaliation claim against his employer and his union. The referee concluded Attorney Nunnery's handling of S.B.'s suit supported two counts: Count 14: Former SCR 20:1.4(a); Communication. Count 15: Former SCR 20:1.4(b); Communication. ¶ 74 On July 30, 2001, Attorney Nunnery filed a complaint on behalf of S.B. alleging race discrimination and retaliation. Attorney Nunnery did not discuss with S.B. the claims brought on his behalf. When nonunion defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, Attorney Nunnery did not advise S.B. of the motion. On October 30, 2001, the district court granted the dismissal of S.B.'s 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim. ¶ 75 On December 13, 2002, Attorney Nunnery filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Ultimately, the dismissal was affirmed. During a court-mandated settlement conference on appeal, Attorney Nunnery did not discuss with S.B. the reasons he had informed the mediator the union could be dismissed from participation. Attorney Nunnery did not obtain S.B.'s permission to dismiss the union from the suit. The referee found that Attorney Nunnery's failure to communicate significant case developments with S.B. and to explain why he had abandoned S.B.'s claim against the union and had released it from the settlement conference supported counts 14 and 15. ¶ 76 In Case No. 2007AP1908-D the OLR appeals the referee's recommendation of a two-year license suspension. The OLR argues precedent supports revocation. It relies on In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Leadholm, 160 Wis.2d 190, 200, 465 N.W.2d 650 (1991), in which Attorney Leadholm's license was revoked for misconduct including neglect, failure to keep clients informed, failure to return unearned retainers and client documents upon termination of representation; failure to promptly deliver funds; failure to deposit client funds in the trust account and account for those funds; conversion of client funds; and failure to respond to the OLR's requests for information. The OLR cites additional cases with similar misconduct resulting in revocation. See, for example, In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Krombach, 2005 WI 170, 286 Wis.2d 589, 707 N.W.2d 146; In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Sheehan, 224 Wis.2d 44, 588 N.W.2d 624 (1999); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hinnawi, 202 Wis.2d 113, 549 N.W.2d 245 (1996) (conversion of estate funds; failure to promptly perform duties; unreasonable fee; trust account violation; misrepresentation to OLR; failure to act diligently; and failure to respond to client's attempts to contact him, and failure to respond to OLR inquiries). ¶ 77 The OLR argues Attorney Nunnery's misconduct is aggravated by his refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct and the vulnerability of the victims. The OLR says Attorney Nunnery has not yet made the remaining $1,300.56 payment he acknowledges is necessary to make whole the beneficiaries of the J.D. estate and still retains the estate's antique sofa and the silver flatware. The OLR contends the seriousness of the misconduct warrants revocation. ¶ 78 Attorney Nunnery acknowledges his misconduct in the estate matter warrants discipline. He says he accepted responsibility, made attempts to reimburse the estate, and never intentionally sought to deceive any of the estate's beneficiaries. ¶ 79 Attorney Nunnery nonetheless cross-appeals and challenges the referee's findings in the remaining client matters. He claims the referee failed to analyze D.H.'s testimony for credibility. Attorney Nunnery asserts S.B.'s claim against the union was meritless because there was no proof of any racially motivated union conduct, which is why the claim was dismissed. He further argues there is no showing his handling of the discrimination suits caused any financial loss. ¶ 80 Attorney Nunnery claims the recommended two-year suspension is unnecessary to protect the public or to impress upon him the severity of his misconduct. At oral argument, Attorney Nunnery indicated a shorter suspension would be appropriate. In his appellate brief, he points to the stressors in his life at the pertinent times, including his own medical problems, a family member's death, being caught in Hurricane Katrina, as well as being subjected to a $2.5 million malpractice verdict which was ultimately reversed on appeal. Also, he was involved in handling complex litigation, including prosecuting the death of a young black man by a police officer in 2002 and a prisoner death case in Louisiana. ¶ 81 Because they have not been shown to be clearly erroneous, we approve and adopt the referee's findings. It is evident the referee believed the clients' versions of the events in question. Contrary to Attorney Nunnery's contentions, the merits of D.H.'s and S.B.'s civil rights claims are not relevant to a determination of the professional misconduct charged here. Also, Attorney Nunnery does not challenge the referee's findings with respect to the J.D. estate matter. As a result, it is undisputed Attorney Nunnery converted estate funds and made a number of misrepresentations, constituting flagrant misconduct. See Krombach, 286 Wis.2d 589, ¶ 62, 707 N.W.2d 146. ¶ 82 While we recognize the gravity of Attorney Nunnery's misconduct, we are not persuaded it calls for the revocation of his license to practice law. Each case must turn on its individual facts. Id. In Hinnawi and Krombach, for instance, significant restitution had not yet been made. Here, Attorney Nunnery has indicated his remorse, accepted responsibility for the serious violations in his handling of the J.D. estate, and made significant restitution. It is undisputed Attorney Nunnery was faced with significant stressors involving his health, his family, as well as his law practice. While not excusing his misconduct, these factors indicate that Attorney Nunnery was not completely indifferent to restitution, as in Hinnawi, or engaged in a fraudulent scheme as indicated in Sheehan. ¶ 83 Attorney Nunnery is now facing a six-month suspension in Case No. 2006AP1191-D. An additional two and one-half year suspension, resulting in a total suspension of three years, together with full costs and restitution, is sufficient under the circumstances to protect the public, achieve deterrence, and impress upon Attorney Nunnery the seriousness of his misconduct. ¶ 84 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Willie J. Nunnery to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of three years, effective August 24, 2009. ¶ 85 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Willie J. Nunnery shall comply with SCR 22.26 regarding the duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. ¶ 86 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Willie J. Nunnery pay restitution as determined in the referee's report in Case No. 2007AP1908-D. [22] If the restitution is not paid within 60 days of this order, Willie J. Nunnery's license to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the court. ¶ 87 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution as determined in the referee's report in Case No. 2007AP1908-D is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer Regulation. ¶ 88 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 90 days of the date of this order Willie J. Nunnery pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of these proceedings. [23] If 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, Willie J. Nunnery's license to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the court.