Summary
The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted Michael A. Gral's petition for reinstatement to practice law after a three-year suspension arising from his federal mail fraud conviction. Reinstatement was made subject to conditions restricting and monitoring business transactions with clients, and Gral was ordered to pay the costs of the proceeding.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Gral satisfied the Wisconsin Supreme Court's requirements for reinstatement of a law license after disciplinary suspension.
- What conditions should govern Gral's reinstatement in light of his prior misconduct involving real estate transactions and clients.
- Whether the referee's factual findings were clearly erroneous and whether the referee's legal conclusions should be adopted.
Holdings
- Gral satisfied the requirements for reinstatement of his Wisconsin law license, and the referee's factual findings were not clearly erroneous.
- Reinstatement should be granted subject to conditions restricting Gral's representation of clients with whom he has personal real-estate investment dealings and requiring notice and annual reporting for certain client business transactions.
Key quotations
“While SCR 20:1.8 does permit attorneys to engage in business transactions with clients, the rule sets forth stringent requirements for such transactions, including giving full disclosure to the client and obtaining informed consent from the client.” (779 N.W.2d at 173)
“Accordingly, we impose conditions that represent a sort of middle ground between those proposed by the referee and those proposed by Attorney Gral.” (779 N.W.2d at 174)
Factual background
Gral, a Wisconsin attorney admitted in 1985, was convicted in federal court of one count of mail fraud arising from real estate transactions involving a law-firm client and the client's executive. He failed to confirm that client funds were being used with the clients' knowledge and approval, and his conduct contributed to a substantial restitution obligation and a three-year suspension of his law license. After serving his sentence and making substantial restitution, he sought reinstatement while intending to continue investing in real estate and practicing law.
Procedural history
Gral's license was summarily suspended in 2006 after his federal mail-fraud conviction, and the court imposed a three-year suspension retroactive to February 27, 2006. Gral filed a reinstatement petition in March 2009. After an evidentiary hearing, the referee recommended reinstatement subject to conditions; the Office of Lawyer Regulation and other interested parties opposed reinstatement or raised concerns, while the Board of Bar Examiners recommended reinstatement. The Supreme Court adopted the referee's factual findings and conclusions of law, modified the proposed conditions, granted reinstatement, and assessed proceeding costs against Gral.