Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Carl H. Creedy

2014 WI 114, 358 Wis. 2d 345 (2014) · Supreme Court of Wisconsin · October 14, 2014 · No. 2013AP1439-D

Summary

The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed a disciplinary proceeding against Attorney Carl H. Creedy after he pleaded no contest to several professional misconduct allegations. The court publicly reprimanded Creedy and ordered him to pay one-half of the proceeding's costs, totaling $17,801.64 as of May 21, 2014.

Holdings

  1. Creedy violated SCR 20:1.7(a) because his representation of a Social Security claimant was directly adverse to Murphy, who was both his business partner and client, and Creedy did not obtain the required written informed consent.
  2. Creedy violated SCR 20:1.8(a) by entering a business arrangement with Murphy without written disclosure of the terms, written advice concerning independent counsel, and written informed consent to the transaction and Creedy's role.
  3. The evidence did not establish that Creedy violated SCR 20:5.4(a) or (b), and the court accepted the referee's recommendation on those allegations.
  4. The evidence did not establish that Creedy failed to make reasonable efforts to supervise Murphy or ensure that Murphy's conduct was compatible with Creedy's professional obligations.
  5. Creedy violated SCR 20:1.8(b) by providing information obtained during his representation of Murphy to law enforcement to Murphy's disadvantage without Murphy's informed consent.
  6. A public reprimand was sufficient discipline, and Creedy was ordered to pay one-half of the costs of the disciplinary proceeding.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the referee's findings and conclusions regarding Creedy's violations of SCR 20:1.7(a), SCR 20:1.8(a), and SCR 20:1.8(b) should be adopted.
  2. Whether the evidence established violations of SCR 20:5.4(a) and (b) concerning fee sharing and partnership with a nonlawyer.
  3. Whether the evidence established violations of SCR 20:5.3(a) and (b) concerning supervision of a nonlawyer.
  4. What discipline was appropriate for the proven misconduct.
  5. Whether Creedy should pay all or one-half of the costs of the disciplinary proceeding.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (0)

No outbound citations extracted.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…