Restitution and Reinstatement

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has reinstated an attorney who had been suspended “[f]ollowing extensive litigation, amended complaints, and an appeal”

We suspended Attorney Parks’ law license for 14 months for his violation of multiple supreme court rules: for earning fees from non-firm legal work while employed by a law firm; arranging for two clients to perform work for him in exchange for a reduction of legal fees and otherwise reducing attorney fees without his law firm’s permission; accepting an unauthorized $5,000 “gift” from two clients; working on client files on an unsecured offsite computer belonging to another person; and obtaining two signatures on a “release” designed to limit Attorney Parks’ liability, without properly clarifying his role in the matter.

The court had rejected an earlier favorable recommendation

This court disagreed and denied Attorney Parks’ first reinstatement petition. The court accepted the referee’s findings with respect to the questions involving the OCI and the IRS, but concluded that Attorney Parks’ failure to make restitution precluded his reinstatement.

Then

In the wake of this court’s adverse reinstatement decision, Attorney Parks promptly took steps to address the restitution issue. Through counsel, Attorney Parks contacted each grievant by mail, broaching the issue of restitution. Former client L.E. informed Attorney Parks that she thought $4,500 was a satisfactory and appropriate amount of restitution. Attorney Parks’ former law firm, Zacherl, O’Malley & Endejan, S.C., indicated that $10,000 would be a satisfactory amount of restitution. Attorney Parks then entered into payment agreements with each grievant to pay the requested restitution.

The Office of Lawyer Regulation favored reinstatement with continuing restitution requirements

The parties’ joint stipulation for Attorney Parks’ reinstatement is now before us for our review. This is one of the first reinstatement petitions submitted to the court by stipulation under SCR 22.30(5)(a), effective January 1, 2021. The new reinstatement provisions permit the court to consider a reinstatement petition by stipulation when, as here, the OLR concludes, upon investigation, that the petitioner has demonstrated, to the director’s satisfaction, all of the reinstatement criteria. SCR 22.3057 and SCR 22.29(4). This court then considers the petition and stipulation without the appointment of a referee and we may approve the stipulation and reinstate the petitioner’s law license; we may reject the stipulation and refer the petition to a referee for a hearing; or we may direct the parties to consider modifications to the stipulation.

The court accepted the stipulation. (Mike Frisch)