Professional Responsibility — public reprimand

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Civil

Professional Responsibility — public reprimand

Where attorney Carl H. Creedy entered into business with a non-attorney client, and did not supervise the partner, and created conflicts of interest, a public reprimand is appropriate.

“Our rules provide that where, as here, a respondent pleads no contest to allegations of misconduct pursuant to SCR 22.14, the referee shall make a determination of misconduct in respect to each allegation to which no contest is pled and for which the referee finds an adequate factual basis in the record. The referee rendered a thorough and thoughtful report in which he summarized the evidence from the hearing and made detailed factual findings and conclusions.”

“As relevant to this matter, the referee explicitly stated that he found Attorney Creedy to be both credible and professional. He believed that Attorney Creedy was unaware that Murphy was improperly accepting advance fees until confronted by a claimant’s lawyer in March 2010. He deemed Murphy to be a less than credible witness, noting that Murphy is currently serving time for felony convictions related to a variety of fraud-related transactions. Moreover, the referee observed that ‘it was clear that [Murphy] had personal animosity toward [Attorney] Creedy and went out of his way to express that animosity.’”

2013AP1439-D OLR v. Creedy

Per Curiam.

Attorneys: For Complainant: Krohn, Robert G., Edgerton; Weigel, William J., Madison; For Respondent: Creedy, Carl H., Orfordville