State Supreme Court suspends attorney for 10 months

Listen to this article

By Jane Pribek

The state Supreme Court has suspended Jeffrey Reitz’s law license for 10 months, primarily for trust account rules violations.

It’s the third time the Milwaukee lawyer, admitted to practice in 1981, has been professionally disciplined.

The high court’s March 29, per curiam opinion consolidated two Office of Lawyer Regulation complaints.

In the first complaint, Reitz was hired in a case immediately prior to his law license suspension from a previous matter. He’d been required to notify all clients of his inability to act as their attorney. But in this instance, he instead asked the client to consent to have another attorney “assist” with the case, and didn’t mention the upcoming suspension.

A few months later, during the suspension, Reitz accepted another case, which had been filed in Illinois and was voluntarily dismissed. Under that state’s law, there was a one-year timeframe to re-open the case. He sought to hire another attorney, who declined the case. Reitz didn’t inform the client of the other attorney’s negative evaluation and took no action. The one-year window expired.

In the second complaint, Reitz was charged with misconduct involving the untimely delivery of client trust account funds, for periods ranging from one to more than seven years. In addition, the complaint alleged he didn’t negotiate and pay subrogates, and there were some 47 checks that weren’t cashed.

Reitz admitted falsely certifying on his state bar dues statement that he’d filed overdraft reporting agreements with the OLR, and had complied with the trust account recordkeeping requirements. He further admitted that depositing earned fees for clients into his client trust account and distributing those fees through the trust account instead of through his firm’s business account. Reitz also failed to file tax returns and pay tax on income earned by his firm.

He additionally admitted failing to file an action on behalf of a client prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, and failing to take any action on another case.

In her report, referee Kim Peterson wrote the misconduct was serious and the trust account records were in “a serious state of disarray.”

Peterson recommended a 12-month suspension. However, the OLR and Reitz later agreed that Peterson erroneously included factual findings in her report – some 47 paragraphs – from counts of misconduct that had been previously dismissed by the OLR. The parties stipulated that a 10-month suspension was appropriate.

The high court agreed, citing In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Weigel, 2012 WI 124, where an attorney’s license was revoked after his firm’s trust account ran a deficit of between $100,000 and $1 million for more than 13 years.
“Although Attorney Reitz’s misconduct, in the management of his trust accounts and otherwise, is serious, it does not reach the ‘epic proportions’ of the Weigel case and thus warrants a lesser sanction,” the justices wrote.

The justices imposed full costs of $6,943.

They also directed Reitz to distribute all money in his trust accounts to their rightful owners or, if those individuals cannot be located, the monies should be transmitted to the state treasurer’s office as unclaimed or unidentifiable property.

In 2005, Reitz’s license was suspended for five months for multiple counts, including having a client who was not represented by counsel sign a release of his partner prospectively limiting the partner’s liability for malpractice.

And in 2009, his license was suspended for 90 days for his failure to give a chiropractor notice that settlement proceeds had been received in several cases and failing to promptly deliver the money to the chiropractor.

The opinion’s import
Milwaukee attorney Ray Dall’Osto, who frequently represents attorneys in disciplinary actions, said the Reitz decision reinforces the importance of meeting deadlines, since two of the incidents cited in this proceeding involved missing them.

“While all malpractice does not necessarily equate to a violation of ethics rules, I think this shows that the OLR and the court are starting to take a more serious look at it,” Dall’Osto said. “In this case, there was a communication issue on top of the missed deadline. Communicate with the client, in a timely fashion.”

In addition, he said the opinion demonstrates, once again, that trust account rules violations are taken very seriously in Wisconsin, and attorneys are often well-served to hire accountants or bookkeepers to help them stay in compliance.

Dall’Osto said attorneys often are confused about what to do when there are uncashed checks in the trust fund or when clients cannot be found.

“These are issues that have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis,” he said. “But you have to be diligent in watching the account and making sure nothing gets swept under the rug.”

“Lawyers have an affirmative duty,” Dall’Osto added, “not only to make sure that the right funds get into the trust fund, but also the right funds are paid out, and also, later when you’re doing account maintenance and find checks that haven’t cleared, there appears to be an affirmative duty to follow up.”

Reitz represented himself. A call to his office seeking commentary went into voicemail and said the office was closed today.

Julie Spoke represented the Office of Lawyer Regulation. She was out of the office today and was not available for comment.