A Poor Investment Fails To Draw A Sentimental Response

A three-year suspension has been imposed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court for an attorney ‘s misconduct in converting entrusted funds and falsely telling the client that the funds were invested.

In fact, a generous share had used by himself and on behalf of a third party.

There are many aggravating factors.  Attorney Carter’s conduct involved much more than simple negligence.  His conduct was reckless and highly unprofessional.  In answer to N.N.’s repeated requests for her funds——over $70,000 of which he had converted——Attorney Carter wove elaborate stories of investment instruments in which he had supposedly placed her money.  These supposed investments were pure fiction.  Not long after N.N. objected to Attorney Carter’s supposed investment scheme, Attorney Carter took action to create leverage over N.N.:  he sent her a $43,400 legal bill.  He refused to release the remainder of N.N’s funds in trust until they reached an agreement on his fees.  He accused N.N. of trying to take advantage of him by not insisting that he prepare a written fee agreement listing his hourly rate.  These forms of deception and subterfuge are highly damaging to the public’s confidence in the integrity and trustworthiness of the bar.

The mitigation

There are mitigating factors as well.  Attorney Carter has had no previous disciplinary troubles over the course of his long legal career.  He has earned a solid reputation among his peers and in the community.  It appears he repaid most, and perhaps all, of the money he misappropriated from N.N. (The record is unclear as to whether he ever accounted for the $5,000 fee payment he withdrew from his trust account without N.N.’s knowledge.)  He has admitted his wrongdoing, pled no contest to all 11 counts of misconduct, and expressed shame and remorse. 

The mitigating factors were deemed sufficient to avoid license revocation.

Nor did the court accept this contention

We pause to remark briefly on Attorney Carter’s claim that at his age (he was born in 1943), a three-year suspension——which will require him to petition this court for reinstatement under SCR 22.28(3)——might effectively end his career.  Attorney Carter generally maintains that it is sad for an otherwise untarnished career to potentially end this way.  We agree with this sentiment:  this is an unfortunate case involving anomalous behavior from an otherwise ethical lawyer, and we do not relish deciding it.  But we decline to transform this sentiment into anything more than what it is——a sentiment, not a principle of law.  This court cannot countenance a rule that would soft-pedal the discipline owed to attorneys who lie to and misappropriate funds from their clients so long as they do so in the twilight of their careers.

(Mike Frisch)