Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Anne E. Brown ( 2013 )

2013 WI 45SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2013AP732-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against
Anne E. Brown, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Anne E. Brown,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BROWN
OPINION FILED: May 17, 2013
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2013 WI 45NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2013AP732-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Anne E. Brown, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant,
MAY 17, 2013
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Anne E. Brown,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
revoked.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Attorney Anne E. Brown has filed a
petition for consensual license revocation under SCR 22.19.1
1
SCR 22.19 states as follows: 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
No. 2013AP732-D
Attorney Brown was admitted to the practice of law in Wisconsin
in 1984. She was privately reprimanded in 2006 and again in
2007. In 2012 her license to practice law was suspended for two
years as a result of various trust account violations and
failing to cooperate with the investigation of a grievance filed
with the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR). In re Disciplinary
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.
2
No. 2013AP732-D
Proceedings Against Brown, 2012 WI 51, 340 Wis. 2d 527, 814
N.W.2d 172. Her license remains suspended.
¶2 Attorney Brown is currently the subject of six
additional OLR investigations into her conduct. The Preliminary
Review Committee found cause to proceed on 26 counts of
misconduct arising out of the six investigations. The alleged
misconduct includes instances where Attorney Brown sought and
received advanced fees, did not follow the advanced fee
alternatives in SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m), did little or nothing for
her clients and discontinued contact with them, failed to
provide written fee agreements as required, failed to respond to
requests for accountings of advanced fees, failed to refund
unearned advanced fees, failed to timely file documents in a
divorce case, and failed to timely respond to the OLR's
investigative inquiries.
¶3 Attorney Brown admits that she cannot successfully
defend against the allegations of the grievance investigations.
The OLR supports Attorney Brown's petition for consensual
license revocation. The OLR asks that Attorney Brown be ordered
to make restitution in favor of five clients, and to the extent
that the State Bar of Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client
Protection (the Fund) has reimbursed any of those clients, then
the Fund should be so reimbursed. The OLR does not seek an
assessment of costs.
¶4 We determine that the petition for consensual license
revocation should be granted and that Attorney Brown's license
3
No. 2013AP732-D
to practice law should be revoked effective the date of this
order.
¶5 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Anne E. Brown to
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked effective the date of this
order.
¶6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Anne E. Brown shall comply
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an
attorney whose license to practice law has been revoked, to the
extent she has not already done so.
¶7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order Anne E. Brown shall make restitution to the
following clients. To the extent that the State Bar of
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection has reimbursed any
client at the time restitution is paid, then the Fund shall be
so reimbursed:
In favor of Client J.G.: $2,500
In favor of Client D.W.: $6,042.96
In favor of Client J.B.: $2,500
In favor of Client K.W.: $2,500
In favor of the Fund (Client K.T.): $1,850
¶8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Director of the Office
of Lawyer Regulation shall advise the court if there has not
been full compliance with all conditions of this order.
4