789 N.W.2d 577
2010 WI 116
In the Matter of DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST Gary R. GEORGE, Attorney at Law.
Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant-Respondent,
v.
Gary R. George, Respondent-Appellant.
No. 2005AP1978-D.
Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
Submitted on Briefs Dec. 8, 2009.
Decided Sept. 30, 2010.
For the respondent-appellant there were briefs by Mark Hazelbaker and Hazelbaker & Associates, S.C., Madison.
For the complainant-respondent there was a brief by Thomas J. Basting, Sr., Madison.
PER CURIAM.
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding. Reinstatement granted.
¶ 1 We review the recommendation of the referee, James J. Winiarski, that Attorney Gary R. George's petition seeking the reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin be denied. Attorney George filed an appeal from the referee's report and recommendation pursuant to SCR 22.33, 1 requesting this court grant the petition for reinstatement. After consideration of the parties' briefs, the referee's
report and the entire record, we conclude that Attorney George's petition for reinstatement should be granted. We also direct that the costs of the reinstatement proceeding, which total $9,702.01 as of December 18, 2009, be paid by Attorney George.
¶ 2 Attorney George was admitted to the State Bar of Wisconsin in 1979. He served in the Wisconsin Senate for 23 years. On April 1, 2004, this court summarily suspended Attorney George's license to practice law upon learning he had entered a guilty plea
to one count of conspiracy to commit offenses involving federal program funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. See United States v. George, 403 F.3d 470 (7th Cir.2005). Attorney George had not previously been disciplined for professional misconduct.
¶ 3 The order and memorandum in the federal court case stated Attorney George received approximately $270,000 in illegal kickbacks from another attorney for legal fees to that attorney as a result of Attorney George exercising his political influence over federal grants as well as programs financed by state revenues. In addition, Attorney George secured state construction contracts for a businessman as a reward for the businessman making cash payments to a business owned by Attorney George's family. Attorney George also used State of Wisconsin employees to conduct his personal business involving his private law practice. Attorney George was sentenced to 48 months in prison and three years of extended supervision. He was ordered to pay $568,596.48 in restitution. See United States v. George, No. 03-CR-259, Memorandum Decision (E.D.Wis. May 3, 2006), aff'd after remand, United States v. George, 198 Fed.Appx. 552 (7th Cir.2006). 2
¶ 4 On March 26, 2008, following a full disciplinary proceeding, this court suspended Attorney George's license to practice law for four years and three months, retroactive to April 1, 2004, the date of the summary suspension. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against George, 2008 WI 21, 308 Wis.2d 50, 746 N.W.2d 236.
¶ 5 On June 23, 2008, Attorney George filed a petition seeking reinstatement of his license to practice law. A public hearing on the reinstatement petition was held on December 8, 2008. Seven character witnesses testified in support of Attorney George's petition and Attorney George testified as well. The parties filed post-hearing memoranda. On February 2, 2009, the referee filed a report recommending denial of the petition. Attorney George filed a timely appeal from the referee's report and recommendation. The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) opposes reinstatement. The matter is now before the court pursuant to SCR 22.33(2).
¶ 6 Supreme court rule 22.31(1) provides the standards to be met for reinstatement. Specifically, the petitioner must show by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he or she has the moral character to practice law, that his or her resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of the public interest, and that he or she has complied with SCR 22.26 and the terms of the order of suspension. In addition to these requirements, SCRs 22.29(4)(a) to (4m) provide additional requirements that a petition for reinstatement must show. 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 a referee's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶ 5, 269 Wis.2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.
¶ 8 The referee made the following factual findings relevant to Attorney George's petition for reinstatement:
[Attorney George] does desire the return of his law license.
During the course of his suspension, [Attorney] George acted as a paid “consultant” for two business entities. His consulting activities included law related work and the giving of legal advice.
[Attorney George] remains on federal supervised release following his prison term. His supervised release is currently scheduled to end in August, 2010. The terms of his supervised release include that he is not allowed to hold employment having fiduciary responsibilities without the consent of his probation officer. He is allowed to only maintain one checking account into which all income must be deposited and expenses paid. All other accounts must be disclosed to his probation officer. He is not allowed to dispose of any assets exceeding a fair market value of $500.00 without the approval of his probation officer. Subject to the discretion of his probation officer, [Attorney] George may be required to notify third parties of risks that may be occasioned by [Attorney] George's criminal record or personal history.
[Attorney George] recently filed a motion in Federal Court asking that his supervised release be terminated or modified. The motion was denied. [Attorney George] intends to continue efforts to modify or end his supervised release.
[Attorney George] believes his prosecution in Federal Court was politically motivated. He does not believe he did anything wrong. He pled guilty only to avoid the risk of greater penalties. He believes that the “truth” will ultimately come out and show he did nothing wrong.
During the last year, while [Attorney George's] income has fluctuated, it appears that he has averaged approximately $8,000 per month in gross income.
[Attorney George] has paid very little of the $568,596.48 in restitution ordered by the Federal Court. [Attorney George] continues to dispute the restitution and the precise remaining balance of restitution due.
[Attorney George] has paid very little of the court ordered costs of his Wisconsin suspension proceeding, which amounted to $14,064.71. However, communications have occurred between OLR and [Attorney George], and [Attorney George] believes he has an agreement with OLR to pay $150 per month for now, but more in the future. OLR believes he can and should pay more.
As a result of being imprisoned and having his law license suspended, [Attorney George] has been unable to pay all past debts, family obligations, current living expenses, Federal restitution, and the cost of his suspension proceeding. However, he should be paying more on a monthly basis towards costs and restitution.
[Attorney George] has attended necessary courses and appears compliant
with CLE requirements. However he must obtain and submit proof.
We adopt these findings of fact.
¶ 9 The referee concluded Attorney George had failed to meet his burden of proof under SCR 22.31. In reaching this conclusion the referee made specific conclusions of law and discussed the reasoning underlying those conclusions. The referee concluded Attorney George has not shown by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that during his period of suspension, he has not engaged in law-related work in violation of SCR 22.26(2). He concluded Attorney George has not complied fully with the terms of the order of suspension and that his conduct since the suspension or revocation has not been exemplary and above reproach. The referee
concluded further that Attorney George does not have a proper understanding of and attitude toward the standards that are imposed upon members of the bar, and that he has not shown he will act in conformity with such standards. The referee concluded Attorney George cannot safely be recommended to the legal profession, the courts, and the public as a person fit to be consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise act in matters of trust and confidence, 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 concluded Attorney George has not complied fully with the requirements set forth in SCR 22.26. The referee concluded Attorney George has not shown by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he has the moral character to practice law in Wisconsin; that his resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of the public interest; that his representations in the petition, including the representations required by SCRs 22.29(4)(a) to [ (m) ] and 22.29(5), are substantiated; and that he has complied fully with the terms of the order of suspension and with the...
