Gary M. May v.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN Case No.: 97-2934-D Complete Title of Case: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gary M. May, Attorney at Law. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MAY Opinion Filed: Submitted on Briefs: Oral Argument: Source of APPEAL COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: Concurred: Dissented: Not Participating: ATTORNEYS: January 27, 1998 No.97-2934-D NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 97-2934-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT FILED In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings JAN 27, 1998 Against GARY M. MAY, Attorney at Law. Marilyn L. Graves Clerk of Supreme Court Madison, WI ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney s license suspended. ¶1 PER CURIAM We review the stipulation of the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board) and Attorney Gary M. May filed with the Board s complaint alleging that Attorney May engaged in professional misconduct by repeatedly failing to file timely his state and federal income tax returns. In that stipulation, Attorney May and the Board agreed that a 60-day suspension of Attorney May s license to practice law is appropriate discipline to impose for that misconduct. Based on the discipline we have imposed on attorneys in similar circumstances, we suspend Attorney May s license for 60 days. ¶2 in 1974 Attorney May was licensed to practice law in Wisconsin and practices in Madison. In a prior disciplinary matter, he consented to a private reprimand from the Board in September, 1995 for failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in an estate matter, keep an interested party in that 1 No.97-2934-D estate informed about its status, and comply with that person s reasonable requests for information in the matter. ¶3 In the instant proceeding, the parties stipulated to the following. In March, 1996, a criminal complaint was filed in Dane county circuit court charging Attorney May with three misdemeanor counts of willfully failing to timely file state individual complaint timely income returns also alleged state Attorney tax May misdemeanor income that tax was found counts and for 1992, Attorney returns guilty on sentenced May for a to 1993 had 13 no and 1994. failed to consecutive contest three file years. plea years The of two probation, ordered to pay $2000 in fines and costs, and ordered to make restitution and file timely all tax returns and pay taxes due during the probationary period. The parties stipulated that the federal and state tax authorities have assessed him approximately $50,000 in taxes, interest and penalties for the period 1992 to 1995. As of July, 1997, Attorney May had not made any payments toward that obligation. On the basis of those facts, we conclude, as the parties had stipulated, that Attorney May s intentional failure to file numerous personal income tax returns timely violated a standard of conduct for lawyers established by court decision and thus violated SCR 20:8.4(f).1 1 SCR 20:8.4 provides, in pertinent part: Misconduct It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: . . . 2 No.97-2934-D ¶4 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Gary M. May to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, commencing March 10, 1998. ¶5 of this IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date order, Professional provided that Gary M. May Responsibility if the costs pay the are to the Board costs of not paid this of Attorneys proceeding, within the time specified and absent a showing to this court of his inability to pay the costs within that time, the license of Gary M. May to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the court. ¶6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Gary M. May comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. (f) violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of lawyers; 3 1
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
