Opinion ID: 1748199
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: attorney phillips' appeal from the referee's report and recommendation

Text: ¶36 Turning back to Attorney Phillips' appeal from the referee's recommendation in the present proceeding, we note that the standard of review requires us to 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, however, on a de novo basis. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 718.
¶37 Attorney Phillips challenges the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the two loans. As admitted in his answer to the OLR complaint, Attorney Phillips acknowledges that he did not obtain R.M.'s signed consent to the loans, one of the requirements of SCR 20:1.8(a) for any transaction between a lawyer and a client. Nonetheless, he argues that the referee erroneously concluded that Attorney Phillips had violated the other two requirements of SCR 20:1.8(a). ¶38 First, Attorney Phillips asserts that the terms of the loan transactions were fair and reasonable to R.M. Indeed, he argues that there was really only one loan; that the initial $20,000 was always contemplated merely as an advance on a much larger loan that was ultimately completed with the $125,000 check. Although he did not state so explicitly, the referee's report treats the two transfers from R.M. to Attorney Phillips as two separate loans. Attorney Phillips asserts that this court is not bound by this finding because it is simply an inference drawn by the fact finder from documentary evidence. See State ex rel. Sieloff v. Golz, 80 Wis. 2d 225, 241, 258 N.W.2d 700 (1977). Attorney Phillips' argument ignores the fact that the referee reached his factual findings, including the implied finding that there were two separate loans, not only on the basis of the note, but also on the basis of Attorney Phillips' and R.M.'s testimony. R.M.'s testimony spoke of two distinct loans and provided a sufficient ground to support the referee's finding. ¶39 Moreover, the documentary evidence supports a conclusion that the two transfers of money from R.M. to Attorney Phillips should be treated as separate transactions. The February 1998 loan of $20,000 was evidenced only by R.M.'s check. There were no terms at all to that loan. Attorney Phillips did not pay any interest on the loan (or principal either) for more than a year. Attorney Phillips did not provide R.M. with any note, gave no collateral, and specified no date of repayment. ¶40 The second transfer was of a substantially greater amount of money, creating a different level of risk for R.M. As the referee found, R.M. did not immediately write out a check to Attorney Phillips when he requested this second, larger amount. It took a substantial amount of time (indisputably months) before R.M. agreed to turn over the second check. Even if, as Attorney Phillips claims, the parties had an understanding that R.M. would loan a second amount to Attorney Phillips, there was nothing definite in February 1998 that required him to do so. Writing out a second check (this one for $125,000) was a second volitional act by R.M. and should be considered as a separate transaction. ¶41 Moreover, whether the loan was ultimately treated as a single debt because the entire loaned amount ultimately was covered by the March 23, 1999, promissory note, does not make much legal difference as to the conclusion that Attorney Phillips violated SCR 20:1.8(a). SCR 20:1.8(a) states that a lawyer must take specified actions before entering into a business transaction with a client. Attorney Phillips tries to argue that the loan was actually one transaction that occurred in March 1999 when the second loan check was issued. It is undisputed, however, that R.M. initially lent money ($20,000) to Attorney Phillips in 1998. Even if treated as a single loan, that was the date that Attorney Phillips entered into a loan transaction with R.M. At least that date, regardless of the fact that the course of lending concluded more than a year later, would have to be the date for determining Attorney Phillips' compliance with SCR 20:1.8(a). ¶42 The referee correctly found, however, that there were two transactions and that neither transaction was fair and reasonable to R.M. Attorney Phillips challenges this characterization. With respect to the $20,000 loan, Attorney Phillips does not claim that this was fair and reasonable standing alone because he considers it an advance on the later loan. However, this was unquestionably a loan that stood on its own for more than a year. It was undocumented and provided no interest or security for R.M. As the OLR notes, common sense dictates that a loan without terms greatly prejudices the lender as enforceability is greatly hampered, if not diminished or even extinguished. Moreover, although Attorney Phillips argues that such terms are appropriate between friends, Attorney Phillips never offered any evidence that R.M. had expressly agreed that Attorney Phillips could have the $20,000 for over a year, interest-free, without collateral, and without any repayment. The most Attorney Phillips can allege is that R.M. never subsequently objected to his failure to pay any interest or principal for more than a year. ¶43 On its face, borrowing such a substantial amount of money without any provision for payment of interest or for a specified term of the loan is certainly not fair and reasonable to a lender. Attorney Phillips admitted as much during the disciplinary hearing when, in response to a question asking what advice he would give to a potential lender client facing such a loan request, he stated that it would be prudent to document the terms of the loan in writing. If a client, having been fully informed and with the opportunity to consult independent counsel, nonetheless expressly chose in writing to forego interest, one could argue that the client's express statement showed that the client considered the interest-free term to be fair and reasonable to the client. In the absence of any such written expression of R.M.'s intent here, the lack of any terms for the initial loan was not fair and reasonable to R.M. ¶44 Attorney Phillips also argues that the terms of the promissory note show that the loans were fair and reasonable to R.M. Attorney Phillips again claims that this court can substitute its own judgment because the referee's finding was based on documentary evidence. See State ex rel. Sieloff, 80 Wis. 2d at 241. Attorney Phillips argues that, on its face, a five-year note providing for 7 percent interest and requiring only the payment of interest is fair and reasonable. Although one can imagine situations in which a lender might agree to make such an interest-only loan, the lender would compensate for having its money tied up for such a lengthy period of time by charging a higher interest rate and obtaining collateral to protect the principal. Neither was done here. In addition, Attorney Phillips' reliance on just the face of the note is misplaced because the referee also considered and credited R.M.'s testimony that he did not understand at the time of the loan that the note provided for payment of interest only. This factual finding, based on the referee's firsthand view of the testimony, will not be overturned. ¶45 Attorney Phillips also argues that basic contract law requires a party to read a contract and to take reasonable steps to protect one's own interests. See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Home Ins. Co., 88 Wis. 2d 124, 129, 276 N.W.2d 349 (Ct. App. 1979). Attorney Phillips claims that the transaction cannot be deemed unfair because R.M. chose not to read the note, investigate Attorney Phillips' financial situation and ask for collateral. This is a primary theme of Attorney Phillips' argument that the transaction was fair because it was between long-standing friends. ¶46 Attorney Phillips' reliance on general contract law misses the intent of SCR 20:1.8(a). That rule is designed to make transactions between lawyer and client subject to higher standards than general contract law. It imposes these additional safeguards to protect clients precisely because they often rely on their attorney to look after their interests. Attorney Phillips' argument fails to grasp this difference. ¶47 Attorney Phillips' reliance on his friendship also underlies his argument that he sufficiently disclosed his financial situation to R.M. He asserts that R.M. knew he was in financial straits because it is undisputed that Attorney Phillips said he needed the money to pay back taxes. He claims that R.M. simply chose not to ask for any more financial information. Thus, he argues that whether R.M. was placed behind a long line of prior creditors in terms of priority of repayment is irrelevant. [10] ¶48 The referee found, however, that Attorney Phillips' financial situation was significantly more desperate than Attorney Phillips disclosed. The referee credited R.M.'s testimony that Attorney Phillips told him the second loan would make Attorney Phillips debt-free. This was an issue of fact and the referee's findings are supported by record evidence. ¶49 Attorney Phillips also challenges the referee's finding that he did not advise R.M. to seek independent counsel. Attorney Phillips relies on the April 11, 1998, and March 23, 1999, letters as proof that he did tell R.M. to have another attorney review the loans. He argues that the referee stated his factual finding in terms of the letters not being sent. Attorney Phillips therefore claims that the referee did not find that the letters were after-the-fact fabrications by Attorney Phillips. Because the letters purport to confirm Attorney Phillips' statements to R.M. that he should consult another attorney, Attorney Phillips claims that the referee should have concluded that Attorney Phillips gave R.M. a reasonable opportunity for independent counsel pursuant to SCR 20:1.8(a). He argues that even if the letters were not sent, they prove that Attorney Phillips did make the necessary oral statements to R.M. ¶50 We agree with the OLR's response that this was an area of disputed fact resolved by the referee against Attorney Phillips. The referee's findings are not clearly erroneous. R.M. testified that he knew nothing about the letters until he received them from the OLR during its investigation years later. In addition, Attorney Phillips never produced these letters during R.M.'s malpractice action against Attorney Phillips. Also, Attorney Phillips testified during the malpractice trial that he could not specifically remember telling R.M. to seek independent advice. Finally, even if the referee had found the letters had been sent, the first letter would have been sent 46 days after the original $20,000 loan had been made.
¶51 Next, Attorney Phillips argues that the referee erroneously charged him with the responsibility for filing an estate tax return. He argues that this was to be the responsibility of the accountant. ¶52 Attorney Phillips also argues that the evidence shows that the delay in closing the estate was due to R.M.'s failure to provide Attorney Phillips with complete and accurate information regarding R.M.'s father's assets, rather than due to Attorney Phillips' delay in acting after he had received the information. As support for his claim, Attorney Phillips points out that R.M. had been handling his father's financial affairs for more than 3 1/2 years prior to his father's death. The initial inventory, prepared by Attorney Phillips based on information R.M. provided, showed assets of $595,080.21, just under the $600,000 limit at the time for imposing estate taxes. Attorney Phillips argues that R.M. initially hid assets from Attorney Phillips in the hope of avoiding estate taxes. Attorney Phillips claims that R.M. consciously delayed providing information to Attorney Phillips, trickling the information in little by little over the next 2 1/2 years. Ultimately, when Attorney Phillips was in possession of all of the information, he prepared a final inventory that listed over $1.1 million in assets. Attorney Phillips cites statutes and cases that describe a personal representative's duties as including the marshalling of assets and overseeing the actions of the professionals (lawyers and accountants) the representative hires. Attorney Phillips argues that it is undisputed that R.M. never complained during the probate process because he recognized that he was the sole heir and the delay was due to his own foot-dragging. Attorney Phillips points to 11 notices that R.M. received from the probate court concerning the probate process. ¶53 Attorney Phillips also points out that R.M. failed to file any complaint with the OLR until three years after the estate was filed. Although he does not claim that the OLR is barred by a form of laches, he does argue that this delay prejudiced his defense and should be a mitigating factor for the referee, resulting in more deference being given to the lawyer's recollection of events. ¶54 Even if R.M. may have been partially responsible for some of the delay, Attorney Phillips' claims do not undercut the referee's conclusion that Attorney Phillips did not act with reasonable diligence. First, Attorney Phillips states that the referee found that R.M. gave Attorney Phillips all of the necessary financial information in the summer and fall of 1997, but that Attorney Phillips simply sat on the information without taking action for nearly three years. This is not an accurate characterization of the referee's findings. ¶55 The referee did not specifically find that it was Attorney Phillips' responsibility to file the estate tax returns personally. [11] Rather, the referee found that, given the November 1997 initial inventory showing assets approaching the $600,000 limit and the knowledge that there was at least one other annuity not included on the inventory that was producing a monthly payment in the thousands of dollars, Attorney Phillips had enough information that he should have advised the client and his accountant of the likely need to file a Federal Estate Tax Return. Because it appears that Attorney Phillips did not say anything to R.M. or the accountant about the need to file an estate tax return and because he did not take reasonable steps to move the estate toward closing, the referee concluded that Attorney Phillips violated SCR 20:1.3. ¶56 The referee's factual findings and legal conclusion are supported by the hearing transcript. As the referee pointed out at the hearing, Attorney Phillips knew, based on the initial inventory, that the estate was at least $595,000, only $5000 under the triggering amount at the time for an estate tax return. A memorandum by Attorney Phillips' paralegal also informed Attorney Phillips that there was at least one other annuity not listed on the inventory. Even if it had been the accountant's responsibility to prepare and file the return, as R.M. admitted, Attorney Phillips should at least have warned R.M. and the accountant of the need to file a return and that they should be working on the return. Instead, the filing of the return slipped through the cracks until August 2000 when the client learned of more than $155,000 in penalties and interest caused by the late filing of the return. Moreover, in the malpractice case, a jury found Attorney Phillips 35 percent negligent in the failure to file the return. Thus, the referee's finding that Attorney Phillips did not act with reasonable diligence is amply supported by the record.
¶57 Attorney Phillips does not dispute the facts as found by the referee regarding the timing of his return of R.M.'s files. Indeed, in the conclusion to his appeal brief, he now admits that he violated SCR 20:1.16(d) by failing to return R.M.'s files for the two months after R.M.'s second written request in October 2003. ¶58 Attorney Phillips' argument on this point seems addressed solely to the severity of discipline. Attorney Phillips argues that already during the malpractice lawsuit in 2000, Attorney Phillips told R.M.'s counsel that they could pick up all of R.M.'s files. R.M. waited three years until 2003 to request his files. Attorney Phillips points to his letter of August 19, 2003, in which he promised to return all of R.M.'s files within the next few weeks and told R.M. to contact him if that was not acceptable. Attorney Phillips emphasizes that these were all closed files and that R.M. did not respond for two months. By the time R.M. responded, Attorney Phillips claimed that he needed the files to review in response to the OLR's investigation. Attorney Phillips points out that when the OLR told him that his retention of the files violated SCR 20:1.16(d), he returned the files to R.M. the very next day. Thus, Attorney Phillips argues that his violation was not substantial and that R.M. was not harmed by the delay in any way. ¶59 The record again supports the referee's factual findings. R.M. requested the files in August 2003. Although Attorney Phillips promised to return the files within a few weeks, it does not appear that he took any action to do so until R.M. made another demand. There does not appear to be any reason to upset the referee's findings or conclusion on this count.
¶60 Again, Attorney Phillips does not expressly challenge the referee's factual finding or his legal conclusion that Attorney Phillips violated SCR 20:8.4(f) when he failed to file timely tax returns. He merely points out that he told the referee that he has paid all of the original back taxes, leaving only the penalties and interest outstanding. He also notes that his and his wife's accounts and earnings have been garnished for the last four years. ¶61 First, Attorney Phillips provides no record citation for his claim that he has repaid the original back taxes. Moreover, even if true, that fact does not change the referee's findings, which were admitted by Attorney Phillips.
¶62 Attorney Phillips argues that the referee's recommended level of discipline is excessive. He emphasizes that he has practiced law in the Milwaukee area for over 24 years and competently represented hundreds of clients during that time. He also points out that even R.M. did not say anything derogatory about Attorney Phillips' handling of the many other matters he undertook for R.M.'s business and personal interests. ¶63 Attorney Phillips correctly notes that a primary concern in disciplinary proceedings is protecting the public from attorneys that are unfit to practice law. He argues that his lengthy career and lack of prior discipline indicate this conduct will not recur. Attorney Phillips requests that the court impose only a 60-day suspension. ¶64 In support of his argument for a shorter suspension, Attorney Phillips points to a number of prior disciplinary cases in which less severe discipline was imposed than is currently recommended by the referee. The primary case he relies on is In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gilbert, 2004 WI 144, 276 Wis. 2d 395, 689 N.W.2d 50. [12] In that case, Attorney Gilbert represented a husband and wife in some real estate matters. He requested and obtained from the couple a loan in the amount of $10,500. The loan was documented only by a promissory note. Attorney Gilbert did not obtain any written consent from the clients, did not offer any collateral, and did not give the clients an opportunity to seek the advice of independent counsel. When Attorney Gilbert defaulted on the note, the clients obtained a money judgment, which Attorney Gilbert did not satisfy. The referee also found that Attorney Gilbert failed to forward the clients' files to their new attorney and failed to respond to the OLR's grievance inquiries. For this conduct, the court imposed a six-month suspension. ¶65 Attorney Phillips asserts that he should receive even less discipline than Attorney Gilbert. He claims again that he did advise R.M. to obtain independent counsel and did offer collateral. ¶66 Attorney Phillips' arguments are contradicted by the referee's factual findings, which we have found to be supported by the record. Moreover, in the present case, Attorney Phillips obtained not just one, but two loans from a client. The first loan was completely undocumented. Even the subsequent note was unfairly one-sided in Attorney Phillips' favor, not requiring any repayment of principal, although not informing the client of that fact. In addition, the amount of money that Attorney Phillips borrowed from R.M. is $145,000, compared to the $10,500 Attorney Gilbert borrowed from his clients. Finally, unlike the facts in Gilbert, in the present case Attorney Phillips consistently ignored his obligation to file tax returns and pay income taxes. As the OLR points out, we have imposed a 60-day suspension merely for the failure to file tax returns. See Owens, 172 Wis. 2d 54. ¶67 In summary, in view of the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law, which we approve and adopt, we conclude that the seriousness of Attorney Phillips' professional misconduct in the present case requires that his license to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for one year. In addition, we agree that Attorney Phillips should be required to pay to R.M. the January 2001 judgment in the original amount of $148,511.37, plus interest to the date of payment. We also conclude that Attorney Phillips should be required to satisfy the January 2003 punitive damage judgment in the original amount of $28,571.35, plus interest to the date of payment. Finally, we determine that Attorney Phillips must pay the costs of this disciplinary proceeding, which were $9911.79 as of December 12, 2005. ¶68 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Mark A. Phillips to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of one year, effective the date of this order. ¶69 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 30 days of the date of this order, Attorney Phillips shall pay restitution to R.M. by satisfying the January 2001 judgment in the original amount of $148,511.37 plus interest to the date of payment, and by satisfying the January 2003 judgment in the original amount of $28,571.35 plus interest to the date of payment. If restitution to R.M. is not paid within the time specified and absent a showing to this court of his inability to pay the restitution amounts within that time, the license of Attorney Phillips to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of this court. ¶70 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, Attorney Phillips shall 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 those costs within that time, the license of Attorney Phillips to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of this court. ¶71 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if he has not already done so, Attorney Phillips shall comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.