In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bridget E. Boyle, Attorney at Law, Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant-Respondent, v. Bridget E. Boyle, Respondent-Appellant.
Nos. 2012AP2423-D, 2013AP1592-D, 2014AP272-D
Supreme Court of Wisconsin
July 18, 2014
2014 WI 77 | 850 N.W.2d 201
For the complainant-respondent, there was a brief by Robert G. Krohn and Roethe Pope Roethe LLP, Edgerton.
¶ 1. PER CURIAM.
Attorney Bridget E. Boyle has filed a petition for the consensual revocation of her license to practice law in Wisconsin pursuant to
Regulation (OLR) grievance investigations in which the Preliminary Review Committee (PRC) has found cause to proceed as to multiple counts of misconduct, as well as seven additional pending OLR grievance matters that have not yet been fully investigated by the OLR or brought to the PRC for its consideration. Attorney Boyle‘s petition further states that she cannot successfully defend against 22 counts of professional misconduct in four grievance matters which are the subject of a pending appeal before this court, In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bridget E. Boyle, Case No. 2012AP2423-D. Attorney Boyle‘s petition further states that she cannot successfully defend against 15 counts of professional misconduct alleged in the OLR‘s complaint, filed July 18, 2013, in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bridget Boyle, Case No. 2013AP1592-D.
¶ 2. Attorney Boyle was admitted to the practice of law in Wisconsin in 1995 and,
¶ 3. In 2008 Attorney Boyle was privately reprimanded for failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter; failing to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and failing to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation. Private Reprimand, No. 2008-09.
¶ 4. In 2012 Attorney Boyle was suspended for 60 days for failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; failing to communicate appropriately with a client; failing to promptly respond to a client‘s request for information concerning fees and expenses; failing to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client‘s interest; failing to cooperate with an OLR investigation into her conduct; willfully failing to provide relevant information, fully answer questions, or furnish documents in the course of an OLR investigation; and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Boyle, 2012 WI 54, 341 Wis. 2d 92, 813 N.W.2d 215.
¶ 5. In 2012 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals disbarred Attorney Boyle from further practice in that court for her abandonment of her client in a criminal case. In re Bridget Boyle-Saxton, 668 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2012).
¶ 6. In 2013 Attorney Boyle was suspended for six months for failing to keep her client reasonably informed about the status of a matter; failing to promptly comply with her client‘s reasonable requests for information; failing to communicate the basis for her fee; failing to promptly respond to a client‘s request for information concerning fees and expenses; failing to
return a client‘s file upon termination of representation; failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; charging an unreasonable fee; failing to hold unearned fees and advanced payments of fees in trust until earned; and failing to refund unearned fees. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Boyle, 2013 WI 103, 351 Wis. 2d 713, 840 N.W.2d 694. This six-month suspension went into effect on January 30, 2014, and her license remains suspended.
¶ 7. Attached to Attorney Boyle‘s petition for revocation are the following three documents: (1) the OLR‘s summary of misconduct allegations in 14 pending investigative matters that have not been publicly charged; (2) the referee‘s report in Case No. 2012AP2423-D in which the referee determined that Attorney Boyle engaged in 22 counts of misconduct in four grievance matters and recommended an 18-month suspension of Attorney Boyle‘s law license; and (3) the complaint in Case No. 2013AP1592-D, filed July 18, 2013, in which the OLR alleged that Attorney Boyle engaged in 15 counts of misconduct in five grievance matters and asked for a one-year license suspension.
¶ 8. It is not necessary to describe the particular factual allegations of each representation. A synopsis of the information contained in the attachments to Attorney Boyle‘s petition for revocation will provide a sufficient description of the nature and scope of her professional misconduct.
¶ 9. The OLR‘s summary of misconduct allegations in the 14 pending investigative
cerning the objectives of representation);
¶ 10. The referee‘s report and recommendation in Case No. 2012AP2423-D sets forth the referee‘s determination that Attorney Boyle engaged in 22 counts of misconduct in four grievance matters. Attorney Boyle had appealed from this report and recommendation, but now concedes that she cannot successfully defend herself against the professional misconduct described in the report and recommendation. The misconduct, as determined by the referee, involved violations of the following rules:
materially impairs the lawyer‘s ability to represent the client);
¶ 11. The OLR‘s complaint in Case No. 2013AP1592-D against Attorney Boyle alleges that that she engaged in 15 counts of misconduct in five grievance matters. The alleged misconduct involved violations of the following rules:
information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish documents in the course of an OLR investigation).
¶ 12. Attorney Boyle‘s petition for consensual revocation states that she cannot successfully defend herself against the allegations of professional misconduct set forth in the OLR‘s summary of the matters still in the investigative process, the referee‘s report and recommendation in Case No. 2012AP2423-D, and the OLR‘s complaint in Case No. 2013AP1592-D. Attorney Boyle‘s petition asserts that she is seeking consensual revocation freely, voluntarily, and knowingly. Attorney Boyle states that she understands she is giving up her right to further contest the OLR‘s allegations. She further acknowledges that she has been given the opportunity to consult with counsel.
¶ 13. The OLR‘s report and recommendation in support of the petition contains a restitution request. The OLR requests that Attorney Boyle be ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $2,000 to former client J.T.; $10,000 to former client P.K.; and $5,000 to former client D.H.2 The OLR further requests that Attorney Boyle be ordered to pay the amount of any award resulting from a November 2013 State Bar of Wisconsin fee arbitration hearing concerning her former client,
¶ 14. Having reviewed Attorney Boyle‘s petition, the OLR‘s summary of misconduct allegations in pending investigative matters, the referee‘s report in Case No. 2012AP2423-D, and the OLR‘s complaint in Case No. 2013AP1592-D, we conclude that the petition for consensual revocation should be granted. It is clear from the descriptions of the various representations that Attorney Boyle has engaged in a widespread pattern of serious professional misconduct that has harmed her clients. It is also clear that Attorney Boyle is currently unwilling or unable to conform her conduct to the standards that are required to practice law in this state.
¶ 15. Attorney Boyle asks the court to make her revocation effective as of January 30, 2014, the effective date of her six-month license suspension imposed in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Boyle, 2013 WI 103, 351 Wis. 2d 713, 840 N.W.2d 694. The OLR endorses this request in its report and recommendation in support of the petition. We reject Attorney Boyle‘s request. Customarily, the effective date of a license revocation to be imposed for a lawyer‘s misconduct is the date of the court‘s order imposing the revocation. We see no reason to depart from that practice here.
¶ 16. We further determine, in light of the OLR‘s report and Attorney Boyle‘s agreement, that Attorney Boyle should be required to pay $2,000 to former client J.T.; $10,000 to former client P.K.; $5,000 to former client D.H.; and the amount of any award resulting from the November 2013
¶ 17. Finally, we impose full costs. The OLR seeks costs totaling $13,272.42 as of February 21, 2014.4 This figure represents the costs incurred by the OLR in the pending appeal before this court, Case No. 2012AP2423-D, and in the disciplinary matter that led to the filing of the complaint in Case No. 2013AP1592-D. Under
¶ 18. IT IS ORDERED that the petition for consensual license revocation is granted.
¶ 19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of Bridget E. Boyle to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this order.
¶ 20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order Bridget E. Boyle shall pay restitution in the amount of $2,000 to former client J.T.; $10,000 to former client P.K.; $5,000 to former client D.H.; and the amount of any award resulting from the November 2013 State Bar of Wisconsin fee arbitration hearing concerning her former client, L.W.
¶ 21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, Bridget E. Boyle shall pay the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.
¶ 22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer Regulation.
¶ 23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent she has not already done so, Bridget E. Boyle shall comply with the provisions of
¶ 24. ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J. (concurring). I write separately to address the issue of restitution. On May 6, 2014, the referee assigned to Case No. 2013AP1592-D, Attorney James W. Mohr, Jr., filed a report and recommendation pursuant to
Notes
Petition for consensual license revocation.
(1) An attorney who is the subject of an investigation for possible misconduct or the respondent in a proceeding may file with the supreme court a petition for the revocation by consent or his or her license to practice law.
(2) The petition shall state that the petitioner cannot successfully defend against the allegations of misconduct.
(3) If a complaint has not been filed, the petition shall be filed in the supreme court and shall include the director‘s summary of the misconduct allegations being investigated. Within 20 days after the date of filing of the petition, the director shall file in the supreme court a recommendation on the petition. Upon a showing of good cause, the supreme court may extend the time for filing a recommendation.
(4) If a complaint has been filed, the petition shall be filed in the supreme court and served on the director and on the referee to whom the proceeding has been assigned. Within 20 days after the filing of the petition, the director shall file in the supreme court a response in support of or in opposition to the petition and serve a copy on the referee. Upon a showing of good cause, the supreme court may extend the time for filing a response. The referee shall file a report and recommendation on the petition in the supreme court within 30 days after receipt of the director‘s response.
(5) The supreme court shall grant the petition and revoke the petitioner‘s license to practice law or deny the petition and remand the matter to the director or to the referee for further proceedings.