WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT

MONDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2014

9:45 a.m.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court is responsible for supervising the practice of law in the state and
protecting the public from misconduct by lawyers. Lawyers must follow a code of ethics
developed by the Court. When there is an allegation that a lawyer has acted unethically, the
Supreme Courts Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) investigates, and, if warranted, prosecutes
the attorney. A referee - a court-appointed attorney or reserve judge - hears the discipline cases
and makes recommendations to the Supreme Court. Gerald P. Boyle, the lawyer in this case, has
a practice in Milwaukee.
2014AP482-D

OLR v. Gerald P. Boyle

In this lawyer discipline case, Atty. Gerald P. Boyle appeals a referees recommendation
for a 60-day suspension of his law license and the imposition of full costs, which totaled
$22,051.47 before appeal. The referee found Boyle committed six counts of misconduct; Boyle
denies many of the allegations and contends that he should receive, at most, a public reprimand.
Some background: Boyle has held a Wisconsin law license since 1962. He has been
privately reprimanded three times in 2002, 2009 and 2012. This case involves two grievants:
Boyle represented D.P. in a consumer fraud case, giving rise to five of the counts; the sixth count
involves representation of R.G. in a criminal case.
D.P., a Waukesha County resident, paid a total of $191,580 to galleries in three states for
John Lennon memorabilia, including a letter and sketches supposedly created by Lennon and a
microphone said to have been used in recording parts of the album Imagine. The items were
certified as authentic by the out-of-state galleries, but the items were later found to be counterfeit
or worthless. D.P. hired an attorney who helped recover $60,295 from the original $191,580
purchase relating to the microphone, leaving $131,285 worth of John Lennon sketches and
notes.
An ink specialist referred D.P. to Boyle, with whom the specialist had worked on another
unrelated matter. In November 2009, D.P. sought legal representation from Boyle, who initially
told D.P. that he would handle the purchases with three galleries for a flat fee of $25,000. Boyle
ultimately collected $65,000 from D.P., which Boyle deposited in his firms operating account
instead of a trust account. Boyle also did not prepare a written fee agreement, the referee found.
D.P. contends, and the referee found, that Boyle did not timely respond to D.P.s calls
and inquiries, failed to subpoena certain records as promised, allowed the statute of limitations
to expire on many of the claims, and failed to take meaningful action on others.
Boyle generally argues that his efforts, which included filing a federal lawsuit against one
of the out-of-state galleries and arranging for another lawyer to help D.P. with a creditors claim
during another gallerys bankruptcy, satisfied his professional obligations to his client.
In R.G.s case, R.G. paid a total of $19,000 to Boyles law firm in anticipation of Boyles
representation. The referee found that Boyle deposited the funds in his firms operating account
instead of a trust account. Boyle admits to some, but not all, of the misconduct determined by
the referee to have occurred. Boyle objects to any sanction beyond a public reprimand. The
Supreme Court is expected to determine if Boyle violated the code of ethics for lawyers, and if
so, what the penalty shall be.