Narrative Opinion Summary
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin reviewed disciplinary proceedings against Attorney Gregory M. Lunde, resulting in the affirmation of a 60-day suspension of his law license. This decision was based on Lunde's acknowledgment of five counts of misconduct, which involved failing to maintain and promptly distribute client funds as required by Supreme Court Rules, and his lack of cooperation during the investigation by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR). The case emerged from Lunde's mismanagement of trust account funds belonging to a deceased estate, specifically failing to disburse life insurance proceeds to a beneficiary, Z.S., upon reaching adulthood. Lunde's disciplinary history included a prior public reprimand, and although he ceased active practice due to health issues, his license was temporarily suspended for non-cooperation before being reinstated. The court ordered Lunde to pay the costs of the proceedings, emphasizing that the sanction was less severe than in comparable cases due to mitigating factors, including his health and eventual restitution to Z.S. The decision highlights the importance of diligent trust account management and cooperation with regulatory bodies in maintaining professional licensure.
Legal Issues Addressed
Attorney Discipline and Misconductsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld a 60-day suspension of Attorney Lunde's license due to violations of multiple Supreme Court Rules, acknowledging his failure to properly handle trust account funds and lack of cooperation with the Office of Lawyer Regulation.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court of Wisconsin upheld the recommendation of Referee James G. Curtis to impose a 60-day suspension of Lunde's law license.
Cooperation with Disciplinary Investigationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Lunde's lack of response to the OLR's inquiries led to a temporary suspension and was a contributing factor to his disciplinary action, violating SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6).
Reasoning: Violation of SCR 22.03(2) and 22.03(6) for failing to respond to OLR investigative inquiries, enforced by SCR 20:8.4(h).
Mitigating and Aggravating Factors in Attorney Disciplinesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The referee considered Lunde's health issues and restitution as mitigating factors, but also noted the significant delay in payment and lack of cooperation as aggravating factors in determining the disciplinary action.
Reasoning: Aggravating factors included a significant delay in payment to Z.S. after he turned 18 and Lunde's lack of cooperation with the OLR. Mitigating factors cited included the absence of disciplinary actions in over 20 years and Lunde's full restitution to Z.S.
Prompt Payment of Client Fundssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Lunde did not promptly distribute the life insurance proceeds to the beneficiary, violating SCR 20:1.15(d)(1).
Reasoning: Violation of SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) for not promptly paying Z.S. his life insurance portion.
Trust Account Managementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Attorney Lunde failed to maintain client funds in his trust account, leading to a conversion of funds, which violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) and SCR 20:8.4(c).
Reasoning: Violation of SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) for failing to keep Z.S.'s funds in his trust account.