Legal Opinion · Dissent

Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Barrock

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 22, 2007No. 2005AP2180-DPublished

1DissentPatience Drake Roggensack, J.

¶ 61. (idissenting in part). The court's per curiam decision approves the discipline of Attorney Mitchell J. Barrock for violations of various supreme court rules. Per cu-riam op., ¶ 3.1 agree that Attorney Barrock should be disciplined for rule violations. I write in partial dissent because I conclude that Attorney Barrock should not be disciplined for the alleged violation of SCR 20:1.15(d)(3) because this court has concluded that it is permissible to fail to hold settlement proceeds received from a personal injury claim in an attorney trust account when the attorney knows there is a claim…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Yorgan v. DurkinWisconsin Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Weigel v. GrimmettCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1992
  3. Matter of RawsonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Matter of Richland Bldg. Systems, Inc.United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1984
  5. In Re AllenIndiana Supreme Court · 2004

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API