Opinion ID: 1232513
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: counts 21, 22, and 23trust fund violations

Text: ¶ 76. Count 21 alleged another violation of SCR 20:1.15(a). At the hearing Knickmeier admitted violating this rule and entered a no contest plea to this count. ¶ 77. Count 22 alleged a violation of SCR 20:1.15(e). Knickmeier also admitted his violation of this rule and pled no contest to this count before the referee. ¶ 78. Count 23 alleged a violation of SCR 20:1.15(a). Again, Knickmeier, at the hearing before the referee, acknowledged his violation of this rule and pled no contest to this count. ¶ 79. With respect to Counts 21 and 22, Knickmeier acknowledged that he had repeatedly drawn trust account checks to pay for matters that were Knickmeier's personal expenses. For example, he paid for secretarial services, application fees for his daughter's college entrance examination, and similar matters from the trust account funds. Knickmeier also acknowledged that he had not kept complete records of his trust account and trust fund property including a cash receipts journal and disbursement journal. Knickmeier maintained, however, that this was merely a technical and de minimus violation which caused no harm to his client. ¶ 80. With respect to Count 23, Knickmeier acknowledged that he had commingled funds that had belonged to another one of his clients, G.M. ¶ 81. After finding that Knickmeier had committed the misconduct as alleged in 21 of the 23 counts in the OLR's complaint, the referee addressed what discipline should be imposed for Knickmeier's numerous acts of misconduct. The referee rejected Knickmeier's asserted altruism defense and in 18 separate paragraphs in his report, the referee discussed and rejected Knickmeier's various arguments. According to the referee Knickmeier failed to understand that his actions amounted to opportunistic or predatory behavior toward his client's economic resources. Furthermore, the referee described Knickmeier being unrepentant as demonstrated by his claim that he was the victim and that he had suffered enough. [17] ¶ 82. The referee recommended that Knickmeier's license be revoked. He explained that his recommendation for revocation was based on the need to protect the public; further, according to the referee, in a case like this where the violations of the rules were multiple and serious, where prior discipline had been imposed, and where remorse apparently did not exist, the severe sanction of revocation was necessary and appropriate. The referee wrote: This is a case where, sadly, revocation is needed to provide protection from a lawyer who most assuredly would continue his misconduct in the future. He views his clients and their assets as a source of funds to be obtained for his own benefit through fraud and deceit.