State Supreme Court suspends disbarred attorney’s license

Listen to this article

Bridget Boyle, a partner at Boyle, Boyle & Boyle SC, Milwaukee, has had her Wisconsin law license suspended for 60 days.

According to a Wisconsin Supreme Court filing Wednesday, Boyle was found guilty of committing 11 counts of misconduct, including failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, failure to communicate appropriately with a client, failure to cooperate with an Office of Lawyer Regulation investigation into her conduct, and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

The misconduct concerns Boyle’s work for three clients, as well as her participation in an OLR investigation into her work, the filing states.

In addition to suspending her license, the court assessed Boyle the entire costs of the disciplinary proceeding, which totaled $10,971.70 as of Jan. 27, and ordered her to pay $5,000 plus legal interest in restitution to the Wisconsin Lawyers Fund for Client Protection.

In February, Boyle was disbarred from practicing law in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals after she was found to have abandoned a client and did not respond to an order to show cause.

In 2008, according to Wednesday’s filing, Boyle was privately reprimanded in Wisconsin for failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.

Boyle could not be immediately reached for comment Wednesday. She has been licensed to practice law in Wisconsin since 1995, according to the court filing.

According to Wednesday’s filing, Boyle disputed the appropriateness of the 60-day suspension. While she did not specifically challenge the OLR referee’s findings of fact, the filing states, she argued the recommended discipline does not take into account various mitigating factors, such as her claims that she was not deliberately indifferent toward either her clients or the OLR, that she experienced medical issues during the OLR’s investigation, and that any apparent back-dating of her responses to the OLR were the result of typographical errors or postage delays beyond her control.

The court accepted the referee’s recommended suspension, however, stating, “The misconduct at issue here was serious and Attorney Boyle offers no legitimate excuse for her failure to diligently represent her clients and her failure to provide them with information about their cases, fees and expenses in spite of their numerous requests that she do so.

“Nor does she offer a legitimate excuse for her failure to fully and honestly cooperate with the OLR’s investigation into her conduct.”

In a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, joined by Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, argued that before being allowed to resume practice after her 60-day suspension, Boyle should have had to demonstrate to the court that she has made efforts to remedy the causes of her repeated failures to serve her clients.

“Attorney Boyle must demonstrate that she is competent to practice law,” Abrahamson stated in her dissent, adding, “a 60-day period of discipline, with automatic re-admission to the practice of law, is not adequate to protect the public in the present case.”