Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michael J. Briggs
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2014 WI 119 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: OF WISCONSIN 2014AP1443-D In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Michael J. Briggs, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Michael J. Briggs, Respondent. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BRIGGS OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: October 28, 2014 2014 WI 119 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2014AP1443-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Michael J. Briggs, Attorney at Law: FILED Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, OCT 28, 2014 v. Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Supreme Court Michael J. Briggs, Respondent. ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license suspended. ¶1 PER CURIAM. We review the stipulation filed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Michael J. Briggs pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12.1 1 On June 24, 2014, SCR 22.12 provides, in relevant part: (1) The director may file with the complaint a stipulation of the director and the respondent to the facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and discipline to be imposed. The supreme court may consider the complaint and stipulation without the appointment of a referee, in which case the supreme court may approve the stipulation, reject the (continued) No. 2014AP1443-D the OLR filed a complaint in this court alleging 12 counts of misconduct against Attorney Briggs. Attorney Briggs did not file an answer, but instead he and the OLR filed a stipulation in which Attorney Briggs admitted the facts and misconduct as alleged in the OLR's complaint discipline sought by the OLR: and agreed to the level of a 90-day suspension of Attorney Briggs's license to practice law in this state. ¶2 We approve the stipulation and adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions regarding Attorney Briggs's 12 counts of misconduct as alleged in the OLR's complaint. the seriousness of Attorney Briggs's We determine that misconduct warrants suspension of his license to practice law in this state for a period of 90 days. We do not impose restitution, as the OLR did not make any such request. entered into a Finally, because Attorney Briggs comprehensive stipulation under SCR 22.12, thereby obviating the need for the appointment of a referee and a full disciplinary proceeding, we do not impose costs in this matter. ¶3 Attorney Briggs was admitted to practice Wisconsin in 1975 and practices in Oregon, Wisconsin. law He has no prior disciplinary history. stipulation, or direct the parties to specific modifications to the stipulation. consider (2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation, it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law and impose the stipulated discipline. 2 in No. ¶4 2014AP1443-D As noted above, Attorney Briggs admits to the facts and misconduct as alleged in the OLR complaint. Summarized, the allegations are these: REPRESENTATION OF J.N. AND R.N. (COUNTS 1 THROUGH 5) ¶5 The OLR complaint alleged, and Attorney Briggs now stipulates, that in approximately January 2011, J.N. and R.N. hired Attorney Briggs to represent them as plaintiffs in a land contract dispute in which J.N. and R.N. were the land contract grantors. Attorney Briggs filed a motion for default judgment, which the circuit court granted. ¶6 J.N. and R.N. believed that Attorney Briggs would take all actions necessary to garnish the defendants' wages as well as to prepare and file the necessary documents to restore the clear title of the property to J.N. and R.N. ¶7 Attorney Briggs failed to do so. Specifically, he failed to file the default judgment or any other document in the appropriate reverted real to procedures estate J.N. would and be records R.N. needed to He to clarify failed enforce to that title determine Wisconsin had what garnishments against the defendants, both of whom had moved out of state and were employed outside of Wisconsin. He failed to effectuate the garnishments. ¶8 J.N. and R.N. repeatedly tried to contact Attorney Briggs by telephone and email to inquire about the status of the garnishments and related legal matters, as well as to inquire about billing issues. Attorney Briggs did not return their calls or emails. 3 No. ¶9 2014AP1443-D J.N. and R.N. filed a grievance with the OLR. By letter dated April 18, 2012, the OLR notified Attorney Briggs of its investigation of J.N.'s and R.N.'s grievance and requested certain documents from Attorney Briggs. Attorney Briggs did not respond. ¶10 letter The OLR sent Attorney Briggs a second investigative requesting R.N.'s grievance. Attorney Briggs's response to J.N.'s and Attorney Briggs's wife signed the certified mail receipt for this investigative letter. Attorney Briggs did not respond. ¶11 The OLR sent Attorney Briggs a third request for his response, which was personally served on Briggs. Attorney Briggs still did not respond. ¶12 On motion from the OLR, this court issued an order requiring Attorney Briggs to show cause why his Wisconsin law license should not be suspended for his failure to cooperate in the OLR's investigation of the J.N. and R.N. matter. Attorney Briggs in filed a response promising investigation, but he failed to do so. to cooperate the On February 12, 2013, this court temporarily suspended Attorney Briggs for his failure to cooperate with the OLR investigation. ¶13 On November 27, 2013, Attorney Briggs sent a letter to the OLR that responded to the OLR's April 18, 2012 investigative letter. In his letter, Attorney Briggs provided an explanation as to why he did not complete the garnishments requested by J.N. and R.N. Attorney Briggs claimed that J.N. and R.N. had not responded to his email communication to them, and that he did 4 No. 2014AP1443-D not proceed further with the garnishments because J.N. and R.N. had failed to either pay his fee or to commit to reimburse him for filing fees. ¶14 court These representations were later proven false. On November 27, 2013, the OLR filed a report with the stating response that Attorney sufficient investigation. to Briggs allow had the provided OLR to a written continue its Accordingly, on December 16, 2013, this court reinstated Attorney Briggs's license to practice law. ¶15 Based complaint on this charged admitted Attorney course Briggs of conduct, with five the OLR counts of misconduct, to which he now stipulates. The misconduct involved violations SCR 20:1.1 of the following rules: (failing to provide competent representation); SCR 20:1.3 (failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client); SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) (failing to keep a client reasonably informed about (failing to the promptly status of comply with a matter); reasonable SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) requests by the client for information); SCR 22.03(2) (failing to timely respond to an OLR investigation); and SCR 22.03(6) (failing to provide relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish documents in the course of an OLR investigation). POST-DISCIPLINE NON-COMPLIANCE ISSUES (COUNTS 6 THROUGH 8) ¶16 The OLR complaint alleged, and Attorney Briggs now stipulates, that a copy of this court's February 12, 2013 order temporarily suspending his license for failing to cooperate with the OLR investigation regarding J.N.'s and R.N.'s grievance was mailed to the address Attorney Briggs had on file with the State 5 No. Bar of Wisconsin (State Bar). continued to practice law 2014AP1443-D Nevertheless, Attorney Briggs in Wisconsin, including drafting documents, providing legal advice, and appearing in court on behalf of clients. ¶17 sent an On July 23, 2012, a Dane County circuit court judge email to the OLR stating that Attorney Briggs had appeared that morning to represent a litigant in a family law matter; that opposing counsel stated that Attorney Briggs's law license was suspended; and that the State Bar's website showed that Attorney Briggs's license was suspended. judge asked the OLR what Attorney status was, and the OLR confirmed Briggs's license was suspended. The circuit court Briggs's via current email that license Attorney The circuit court judge replied to the OLR that Attorney Briggs would not be allowed to appear as counsel in the matter, and that Attorney Briggs would be in contact with the OLR. ¶18 During an August 2, 2013 telephone call with OLR staff, Attorney Briggs asserted that he had "just found out" that he was suspended. OLR staff reminded Attorney Briggs that his license had been suspended since February 12, 2013, and that he had been sent a copy of the order of suspension, the preceding motion filed by the OLR, an order to show cause issued by this court, and reports filed by the OLR in this matter, all prior to the suspension order. ¶19 By email dated August 2, 2013, the OLR provided Attorney Briggs with another copy of the April 18, 2012 letter notifying Attorney Briggs of the OLR's investigation of J.N.'s 6 No. and R.N.'s grievance Attorney Briggs. and requesting certain 2014AP1443-D documents from The OLR advised Attorney Briggs to file a written response to the letter. He did not do so, nor did he advise his clients, opposing counsel, or the courts in which he was representing clients that his license to practice law had been suspended. ¶20 Until at least October 3, 2013, Attorney Briggs continued to practice law in Wisconsin. ¶21 During the OLR's investigation as to his practice of law, Attorney Briggs made misrepresentations to the OLR as to the extent, nature, and scope of his practice while suspended. ¶22 Based complaint counts on charged of this Attorney misconduct, misconduct admitted involved to (failing notification license counsel); SCR 20:3.4(c) of conduct, with an additional three now stipulates. The the following Briggs which violations SCR 22.26(1)(c) of course he of to promptly suspension (knowingly to provide courts disobeying OLR rules: written and an the opposing obligation under the rules of a tribunal); SCR 22.26(2) (engaging in the practice of law during license suspension); and SCR 22.03(6) (failing to provide relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish documents in the course of an OLR Briggs now investigation). REPRESENTATION OF D.R. (COUNTS 9 THROUGH 12) ¶23 The OLR complaint alleged, and Attorney stipulates, that in approximately February 2013, Attorney Briggs 7 No. began representing D.R. in an eviction action 2014AP1443-D against two defendants. ¶24 As noted above, this court, on February 12, 2013, issued an order suspending Attorney Briggs's license to practice law in Wisconsin due to his failure to cooperate investigation of J.N.'s and R.N.'s grievance. above, Attorney Briggs's license remained in its As also noted suspended until December 16, 2013. ¶25 Attorney Briggs did not notify D.R., the defendants, or the circuit court of his suspension. ¶26 Between February 12 and July 23, 2013, Attorney Briggs consulted with D.R. about the eviction action, provided D.R. with legal advice, interrogatories, drafted became pleadings counsel of and record a for set of D.R., and communicated by mail and email with the defendants and with the court as counsel for D.R. ¶27 Between July 23 and September 6, 2013, Attorney Briggs continued to consult with and provide legal advice to D.R. and to communicate with the defendants as counsel for D.R. ¶28 In a letter dated October 15, 2013, Attorney Briggs told the OLR that he was notified in a letter dated July 23, 2013, that Attorney his Briggs license claimed to practice that his law had been communications suspended. with defendants as counsel for D.R. occurred before that date. the These statements were misrepresentations. ¶29 On October 23, 2013, during an in-person meeting with OLR staff, Attorney Briggs asserted that, once he learned he was 8 No. 2014AP1443-D suspended on July 23, 2013, he changed his law office website to notify clients he was suspended. ¶30 That information was false. Attorney Briggs failed to properly advise D.R. that his license was suspended. D.R. became aware of the suspension when, defendant after a hearing, a in the eviction action threatened to sue Attorney Briggs because he had represented D.R. when his license was suspended. It was only upon D.R.'s subsequent Briggs inquiry that Attorney disclosed his suspension. ¶31 Based on this admitted course of conduct, the OLR complaint charged Attorney Briggs with an additional four counts of professional misconduct, to which he now stipulates. misconduct involved SCR 22.26(1)(a) and violations (b) of (failing the to following notify the The rules: client by certified mail of suspension and failing to advise client to seek legal disobeying advice an elsewhere); obligation SCR 22.26(1)(c) (failing notification license of under to SCR 20:3.4(c) the rules promptly suspension to of (knowingly a tribunal); provide courts and written opposing counsel); SCR 22.26(2) (engaging in the practice of law during license suspension); SCR 20:8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); and SCR 22.03(6) (failing to provide relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish documents in the course of an OLR investigation). ¶32 the 12 As noted above, Attorney Briggs has now stipulated to counts of misconduct as 9 alleged by the OLR in its No. complaint. 2014AP1443-D He further stipulates that a 90-day suspension of his license to practice law in this state is an appropriate sanction for his misconduct. ¶33 fully The stipulation properly states that Attorney Briggs understands the misconduct allegations, his right to contest this matter, the ramifications of his entry into this stipulation, and his right to consult with counsel. The stipulation further provides that Attorney Briggs entered into the stipulation knowingly and voluntarily. ¶34 The OLR stipulation. filed its Disciplinary request Proceedings 304 Wis. 2d 592, including failing notify In for a in 90-day Against 735 N.W.2d 913 misconduct suspension); memorandum support of the The OLR cited several cases that it claims and we agree support to a practicing employer, re FitzGerald, (90-day law court, Disciplinary suspension: for suspension opposing Proceedings re 2007 WI 111, suspension during and In and counsel Against of Kelsay, 2003 WI 141, 267 Wis. 2d 17, 671 N.W.2d 8 (six-month suspension for lawyer with disciplinary history who practiced law during suspension); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Scanlan, 2006 WI 38, 290 Wis. 2d 30, 712 N.W.2d 877 (six-month suspension for 21 counts suspended, of failing misconduct to including practicing notice clients provide to law and while courts concerning the suspension, failing to timely respond to an OLR investigation, failing to provide competent representation, and trust account violations); and In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Farris, 2004 WI 125, 276 Wis. 2d 13, 10 688 N.W.2d 231 No. 2014AP1443-D (60-day suspension for lawyer who practiced law while suspended, made misrepresentations in his petition for reinstatement, and willfully failed to provide information to the OLR during an investigation). ¶35 The OLR noted in its memorandum aggravating factors were present in this case. that several Attorney Briggs engaged in multiple misconduct offenses, intentionally failed to comply with disciplinary misrepresentations to the rules OLR and during orders, the and course of made its investigations. ¶36 On the mitigating side, Attorney Briggs was admitted to practice law in this state in 1975 and has no disciplinary history. ¶37 After our independent review of the matter, we approve the stipulation and determine that the seriousness of Attorney Briggs's misconduct warrants a 90-day suspension of his license to practice law. violations of Attorney Briggs's admitted acts are serious the Rules lawyers in this state. to protect the public of Professional Conduct governing We deem a 90-day suspension sufficient from Attorney Briggs's unacceptable professional behavior, to ensure that he will not repeat it, and to deter others from engaging in similar misconduct. ¶38 In light of the fact that Attorney Briggs entered into a comprehensive stipulation, thereby obviating the need for the appointment of a referee and for additional litigation costs, we agree with the OLR's request that the costs of this disciplinary proceeding not be assessed against Attorney Briggs. 11 No. ¶39 2014AP1443-D We do not impose restitution, as the OLR did not make any such request. ¶40 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Michael J. Briggs to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of ninety days, effective November 28, 2014. ¶41 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Michael J. Briggs shall comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 12 No. 1 2014AP1443-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.
