2009
WI 12
|
Supreme Court of |
|
|
|
|
Case No.: |
2008AP971-D |
|
Complete Title: |
|
|
|
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Thomas O. Mulligan, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Thomas O. Mulligan, Respondent. |
|
|
|
|
|
DISCIPILINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MULLIGAN |
|
|
|
|
Opinion Filed: |
January 29, 2009 |
|
Submitted on Briefs: |
|
|
Oral Argument: |
|
|
|
|
|
Source of Appeal: |
|
|
|
Court: |
|
|
County: |
|
|
Judge: |
|
|
|
|
Justices: |
|
|
|
Concurred: |
|
|
Dissented: |
|
|
Not Participating: |
GABLEMAN, J., did not participate. |
|
|
|
Attorneys: |
|
2009
WI 12
notice
This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney publicly reprimanded.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a report and recommendation filed by the referee, Reserve Judge James R. Erickson, recommending this court accept the stipulation filed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Thomas O. Mulligan. Consistent with the terms of that stipulation, the referee recommends this court publicly reprimand Attorney Mulligan for his professional misconduct. No appeal has been filed.
¶2 Attorney Mulligan has been licensed to practice law in
¶3 The present disciplinary matter involves allegations that Attorney Mulligan committed professional misconduct in connection with his handling of an appeal from an unfavorable judgment in a property dispute.
¶4 Attorney Mulligan was retained to represent D.C. in connection
with a dispute about the terms of a Timber Sale Agency Agreement between D.C.
and G.P. and J.P. More specifically, the parties disputed the amount of revenue
that G.P. and J.P. should receive from timber harvested on their property by
TnT Logging, Inc. On September 30, 2002,
G.P. and J.P. filed suit in
¶5 D.C. retained Attorney Mulligan to represent both him and the logging company in the lawsuit. The matter was tried to a jury in August of 2003, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and against D.C. and the logging company. In November 2003 the trial court entered judgment in favor of G.P. and J.P. in the total amount of $6,943.50. The trial court declined the plaintiffs' request for attorney fees.
¶6 G.P. and J.P. appealed the trial court's decision not to award attorney fees. D.C. retained Attorney Mulligan to represent him and the logging company on appeal.
¶7 On
¶8 In its decision, the court of appeals observed:
On cross-appeal, [D.C]
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's verdict. His argument, however, is wholly
undeveloped and unsupported by any reference to the record or trial testimony. See
Emphasis added.
¶9 On April 18, 2008, the OLR filed a complaint alleging two counts of professional misconduct related to Attorney Mulligan's handling of the appeal. Subsequently, the OLR moved to dismiss the first count of the complaint and modified the second count to allege that Attorney Mulligan violated former SCRs 20:1.2(a)[1] and 20:1.4(b)[2] by failing to consult with D.C. regarding his intent to proceed with the appeal without obtaining the trial transcripts and regarding his decision to seek only de novo review of the Timber Sale Contract.[3]
¶10 On October 24, 2008, the parties executed a written stipulation in which they stipulated to the facts set forth therein, stated their agreement as to appropriate sanctions, and jointly requested Referee Erickson file a report making findings, conclusions, and a recommendation for discipline.
¶11 On
¶12 We adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusion that
Attorney Mulligan violated former SCRs 20:1.2(a) and 20:1.4(b) by failing to
consult with D.C. regarding his intent to proceed with the appeal without
obtaining the trial transcripts and regarding his decision to seek only de novo
review of the Timber Sale Contract. In
determining the appropriate discipline for professional misconduct, we consider
the seriousness of the misconduct, the need to protect the public, the courts,
and the legal system from repetition of misconduct, the need to impress upon
the attorney the seriousness of the misconduct, and the need to deter other
attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct. See In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Arthur, 2005 WI 40, 279
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that Thomas O. Mulligan is publicly reprimanded for professional misconduct.
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order Thomas O. Mulligan pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, provided that 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 Thomas O. Mulligan to practice law in Wisconsin shall be suspended until further order of the court.
¶16 MICHAEL J. GABLEMAN, J., did not participate.
[1] Effective
Former SCR 20:1.2(a) provided:
A lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation, subject to paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), and shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. A lawyer shall inform a client of all offers of settlement and abide by a client’s decision whether to accept an offer of settlement of a matter. In a criminal case or any proceeding that could result in deprivation of liberty, the lawyer shall abide by the client's decision, after consultation with the lawyer, as to a plea to be entered, whether to waive jury trial and whether the client will testify.
[2] Former SCR 20:1.4(b) provided that, "a lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation."
[3] Referee Erickson granted the motion to dismiss count one of the complaint and issued an order modifying count two of the complaint on October 8, 2008.