OLR v. Thomas O. Mulligan

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

2017 WI 50 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: OF WISCONSIN 2013AP2742-D In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Thomas O. Mulligan, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant-Respondent, v. Thomas O. Mulligan, Respondent-Appellant. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MULLIGAN OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: May 18, 2017 SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: BRADLEY, A. W., J. and ZIEGLER, J. did not participate. 2017 WI 50 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2013AP2742-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Thomas O. Mulligan, Attorney at Law: FILED Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant-Respondent, MAY 18, 2017 v. Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Supreme Court Thomas O. Mulligan, Respondent-Appellant. ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding. Reinstatement granted with conditions. ¶1 Rule PER (SCR) CURIAM. 22.33(3),1 We a review, report pursuant filed by to Supreme Referee Court James R. Erickson, Jr., recommending the court reinstate the license of Thomas O. conditions. 1 Mulligan to practice law in Wisconsin, with After careful review of the matter, we agree that SCR 22.33(3) provides: "[i]f no appeal is timely filed, the supreme court shall review the referee's report, order reinstatement, with or without conditions, deny reinstatement, or order the parties to file briefs in the matter." No. Attorney Mulligan's conditions. Mulligan We should license also be agree required should with to be the pay reinstated, referee the 2013AP2742-D that full with Attorney costs of this reinstatement proceeding, which are $2,267.95 as of March 8, 2017. ¶2 Attorney Mulligan Wisconsin in 1985 and Wisconsin. was licensed to practice law in is a general practitioner in Spooner, He has previously been disciplined by this court. He received private reprimands in 1997 and 2005, and received a court-imposed public reprimand in 2009. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mulligan, 2009 WI 12, 315 Wis. 2d 605, 759 N.W.2d 766. ¶3 On October disciplinary Mulligan's 8, 2015, proceeding, license professional to misconduct following this a practice law committed contested suspended court lengthy Attorney for in nine two months client for matters including failing to enter into a fee agreement with his client, failing to deposit fees in trust, making cash disbursements out of his trust account, commingling personal funds with trust funds, and failing to maintain proper trust account records. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mulligan, 2015 WI 96, 365 Wis. 2d 43, 870 N.W.2d 233. Our order directed Attorney Mulligan to pay the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) the costs of that proceeding. reinstatement, We also ordered that, as a condition of Attorney Mulligan attend and successfully complete an OLR trust account seminar and, further, that upon reinstatement, Attorney Mulligan's 2 trust account should be No. subject to monitoring by the OLR for three 2013AP2742-D years, or until further order of the court. ¶4 On July 21, 2016, Attorney Mulligan filed a petition seeking the reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin. The OLR filed a response on December 9, 2016 stating that it did not oppose Attorney Mulligan's reinstatement but recommended, consistent with this court's underlying disciplinary order, that his reinstatement be subject to the conditions outlined by this court. ¶5 A public hearing was proceeding on February 8, 2017. held on the reinstatement The referee filed his report and recommendation on February 17, 2017. ¶6 Supreme Court Rule 22.31(1) provides the standards to be met for reinstatement. Specifically, Attorney Mulligan must show by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he has the moral character to practice law, that his resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive to the public interest, and that he has complied with disciplinary SCR order. SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(4m) 22.26 In and the addition provides terms of to these additional petition for reinstatement must show. the underlying requirements, requirements that a All of these additional requirements are effectively incorporated into SCR 22.31(1). ¶7 When we review a referee's report and recommendation, we will adopt the referee's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 3 No. 2013AP2742-D See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747. ¶8 The referee found that Attorney Mulligan has not practiced law during the period of his suspension; that he has fully complied with the terms of the underlying disciplinary order; that he has maintained competence and learning in the law; that his conduct since the suspension has been exemplary and above reproach; and that he has a proper understanding of and attitude toward the standards that are imposed upon members of the bar and will act in conformity with those standards. The referee found that Attorney Mulligan can safely be recommended to the legal profession, the courts, and the public as a person fit to be otherwise consulted act in by others matters of and trust to represent and them confidence and, and in general, to aid in the administration of justice as a member of the bar and as an officer of the courts. The referee also found that Attorney Mulligan has fully complied with the requirements set forth in SCR 22.26. ¶9 court's We note that Attorney Mulligan also complied with this directive that he attend a trust account management seminar sponsored by the OLR. ¶10 The OLR received 12 letters recommending Attorney Mulligan's reinstatement, including letters from four attorneys, a U.S. Border Patrol agent, a medical doctor, and various clients, professional acquaintances, and friends. ¶11 The record reflects that Attorney Mulligan has not yet paid in full the $17,720.02 for the costs of the underlying 4 No. disciplinary information proceeding, about his but has financial provided 2013AP2742-D the circumstances OLR and with has made payment arrangements with the OLR to satisfy his obligation to pay those disciplinary costs. Restitution was not ordered in the underlying disciplinary proceeding. ¶12 The referee found that Attorney Mulligan's reinstatement will be beneficial to the public interest due to his commitment to assisting community underserved area of Wisconsin. members in a rural, Mindful of the conditions this court imposed in its underlying disciplinary order, the referee recommends Attorney continued Mulligan's monitoring of his reinstatement trust account be by subject the OLR to for period of three years or until further order of the court. also recommended we impose the costs of this a He reinstatement proceeding on Attorney Mulligan. ¶13 We conclude determination that that Attorney the referee's Mulligan has findings support met burden his a to establish by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he has met all of the standards required for reinstatement and we agree that reinstatement is appropriate, with conditions. ¶14 With respect to the cost of this reinstatement proceeding, it is this court's general practice to assess the full costs of SCR 22.24(1m). a proceeding We find no against a extraordinary respondent. circumstances See that would warrant a reduction in the costs imposed and we find it appropriate to assess the full costs proceeding against Attorney Mulligan. 5 of the reinstatement No. ¶15 contact As is the OLR standard to procedure, request a Attorney payment plan 2013AP2742-D Mulligan that will may enable Attorney Mulligan to pay the full costs of this proceeding in a matter consistent with his financial ability. ¶16 IT IS ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, Thomas O. Mulligan shall pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $2,267.95 as of March 8, 2017. ¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of Thomas O. Mulligan to practice law in Wisconsin is reinstated, effective the date of this order, subject to monitoring of his trust account by the Office of Lawyer Regulation for a period of three years or until further order of this court, and upon the condition that he continue to make payments to the Office of Lawyer Regulation toward the accumulated costs assessed against him in this and the prior disciplinary proceeding. ¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all of the terms of this order remain a condition of Thomas O. Mulligan's license to practice law in Wisconsin. ¶19 ANN WALSH BRADLEY AND ANNETTE KINGLAND ZIEGLER, JJ., did not participate. 6 No. 1 2013AP2742-D

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.