Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 Wisconsin opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2023 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Wisconsin courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Industrial Roofing Services, Inc. v. Marquardtgreen2 sentences2013See Industrial Roofing Serv. v. Marquardt, 2007 WI 19, ¶43 , 299 Wis. 2d 81 , 726 N.W.2d 898 (citations omitted). ¶35 In this case the referee found that Attorney LeSieur's repeated violation of his "pretrial" orders constituted 18 No. 2007AP2763-D "egregious" conduct that warranted disregarding his response to the motion and proceeding on the basis of the allegations in the OLR's motion and supporting documents. 2013See Industrial Roofing Serv. v. Marquardt, 2007 WI 19, ¶43 , 299 Wis. 2d 81 , 726 N.W.2d 898 (citations omitted). ¶35 In this case the referee found that Attorney LeSieur's repeated violation of his "pretrial" orders constituted 18 No. 2007AP2763-D "egregious" conduct that warranted disregarding his response to the motion and proceeding on the basis of the allegations in the OLR's motion and supporting documents. | 1 | 2 |
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kellygreen2 sentences2021See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kelly, 2012 WI 55, ¶24 , 341 Wis. 2d 104 , 814 N.W.2d 844 (holding that respondent- lawyer's repeated refusals to engage in the disciplinary process constituted egregious conduct that merited the striking of his answer and proceeding on the allegations of the OLR's complaint). ¶27 We further agree with the referee that license revocation is the appropriate sanction. 2021See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kelly, 2012 WI 55, ¶24 , 341 Wis. 2d 104 , 814 N.W.2d 844 (holding that respondent- lawyer's repeated refusals to engage in the disciplinary process constituted egregious conduct that merited the striking of his answer and proceeding on the allegations of the OLR's complaint). ¶27 We further agree with the referee that license revocation is the appropriate sanction. | 1 | 1 |
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widulegreen2 sentences2021See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44 , 261 Wis. 2d 45 , 660 N.W.2d 686 . ¶26 In light of Attorney Petros' noncompliance with the scheduling order deadlines, failure to cooperate with discovery requests, failure to appear for the November 10, 2020 status conference, and failure to respond to the OLR's motion for sanctions and default judgment, we deem it appropriate to strike his answer to the OLR's complaint and declare him in default. 2021See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44 , 261 Wis. 2d 45 , 660 N.W.2d 686 . ¶26 In light of Attorney Petros' noncompliance with the scheduling order deadlines, failure to cooperate with discovery requests, failure to appear for the November 10, 2020 status conference, and failure to respond to the OLR's motion for sanctions and default judgment, we deem it appropriate to strike his answer to the OLR's complaint and declare him in default. | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Griffingreen2 sentences2013See Martin v. Griffin, 117 Wis. 2d 438 , 344 N.W.2d 206 (Ct. App. 1984) (limiting review of default judgment entered following failure to answer to whether trial court properly exercised its discretion in granting default and determining that defendant's substantive arguments had been waived by default). ¶34 In this instance, the referee declared Attorney LeSieur to be in default, disregarded his substantive response to the OLR's motion, and proceeded on the basis of the facts alleged in the OLR's motion and supporting materials due to Attorney LeSieur's conduct during the consideration of the 2013See Martin v. Griffin, 117 Wis. 2d 438 , 344 N.W.2d 206 (Ct. App. 1984) (limiting review of default judgment entered following failure to answer to whether trial court properly exercised its discretion in granting default and determining that defendant's substantive arguments had been waived by default). ¶34 In this instance, the referee declared Attorney LeSieur to be in default, disregarded his substantive response to the OLR's motion, and proceeded on the basis of the facts alleged in the OLR's motion and supporting materials due to Attorney LeSieur's conduct during the consideration of the | 1 | 1 |
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Younggreen2 sentences2008See In re Disciplinary Proceedings *541 Against Young, 2006 WI 109 , 296 Wis. 2d 36 , 718 Wis. 2d 717 , in which the attorney failed to file tax returns from 1996 to 2003, failed to respond to OLR investigations, and failed to file tax returns and pay taxes by the time of the OLR hearing, and Public Reprimand ofGwin (BAPR 2003-12). 2008See In re Disciplinary Proceedings *541 Against Young, 2006 WI 109 , 296 Wis. 2d 36 , 718 Wis. 2d 717 , in which the attorney failed to file tax returns from 1996 to 2003, failed to respond to OLR investigations, and failed to file tax returns and pay taxes by the time of the OLR hearing, and Public Reprimand ofGwin (BAPR 2003-12). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Grogan
green
2 sentences2023In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Grogan, 2011 WI 7 , ¶15 n.9, 331 Wis. 2d 341 , 795 N.W.2d 745 (recognizing the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, as amended in 1992, as a guidepost). ¶39 The referee noted that Attorney Luening's two public reprimands did not adequately demonstrate to Attorney Luening the need to scrupulously comply with Supreme Court Rules. 2023In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Grogan, 2011 WI 7 , ¶15 n.9, 331 Wis. 2d 341 , 795 N.W.2d 745 (recognizing the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, as amended in 1992, as a guidepost). ¶39 The referee noted that Attorney Luening's two public reprimands did not adequately demonstrate to Attorney Luening the need to scrupulously comply with Supreme Court Rules. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Sandra J. Zenor
green
2 sentences2022As no medical incapacity claim was ever made in this proceeding, we do not discuss the matter further. 22 No. 2021AP33-D require him to pay restitution to his former clients and the Fund, and impose the full costs of this proceeding. ¶45 In determining the appropriate sanction, we consider the following factors: "the seriousness, nature and extent of the misconduct; the level of discipline needed to protect the public; the need to impress upon the attorney the seriousness of the misconduct; and the need to deter other attorneys from similar misconduct." In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Z 2022As no medical incapacity claim was ever made in this proceeding, we do not discuss the matter further. 22 No. 2021AP33-D require him to pay restitution to his former clients and the Fund, and impose the full costs of this proceeding. ¶45 In determining the appropriate sanction, we consider the following factors: "the seriousness, nature and extent of the misconduct; the level of discipline needed to protect the public; the need to impress upon the attorney the seriousness of the misconduct; and the need to deter other attorneys from similar misconduct." In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Z | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Scanlan
green
2 sentences2017In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Scanlan, 2006 WI 38, ¶72 , 290 Wis. 2d 30 , 712 N.W.2d 877 . ¶20 The referee observed that the OLR's brief provided several instructive cases, including two cases that were factually similar, although the lawyers in those cases each had more serious prior discipline than Attorney Sarbacker. 2017In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Scanlan, 2006 WI 38, ¶72 , 290 Wis. 2d 30 , 712 N.W.2d 877 . ¶20 The referee observed that the OLR's brief provided several instructive cases, including two cases that were factually similar, although the lawyers in those cases each had more serious prior discipline than Attorney Sarbacker. | 2 | 2017–2018 |
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Godfrey Y. Muwonge
green
2 sentences2018Incapacity Proceedings Against Muwonge , 2017 WI 12 , ¶ 23, 373 Wis. 2d 173 , 890 N.W.2d 575 (explaining that restitution "may be reduced by any amount that [the] [a]ttorney [ ] can establish, to the satisfaction of the OLR, represents the value of legal services he actually performed for [the client]."). ¶ 30 Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. ¶ 31 I am authorized to state that Justice SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, joins this dissent. 2018Incapacity Proceedings Against Muwonge , 2017 WI 12 , ¶ 23, 373 Wis. 2d 173 , 890 N.W.2d 575 (explaining that restitution "may be reduced by any amount that [the] [a]ttorney [ ] can establish, to the satisfaction of the OLR, represents the value of legal services he actually performed for [the client]."). ¶ 30 Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. ¶ 31 I am authorized to state that Justice SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, joins this dissent. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michael W. Steinhafel
neutral
2 sentences2017In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Wood, 2014 WI 116 , 358 Wis. 2d 472 , 854 N.W.2d 844 , (ninety-day suspension for seven counts of misconduct stemming from representation of clients in a dispute with a construction company); and In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Steinhafel, 2013 WI 93 , 351 Wis. 2d 313 , 839 N.W.2d 404 , (four-month suspension for seven counts of misconduct stemming from two client matters and lawyer's criminal conviction). 2017In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Wood, 2014 WI 116 , 358 Wis. 2d 472 , 854 N.W.2d 844 , (ninety-day suspension for seven counts of misconduct stemming from representation of clients in a dispute with a construction company); and In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Steinhafel, 2013 WI 93 , 351 Wis. 2d 313 , 839 N.W.2d 404 , (four-month suspension for seven counts of misconduct stemming from two client matters and lawyer's criminal conviction). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Everett E. Wood
green
2 sentences2017In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Wood, 2014 WI 116 , 358 Wis. 2d 472 , 854 N.W.2d 844 , (ninety-day suspension for seven counts of misconduct stemming from representation of clients in a dispute with a construction company); and In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Steinhafel, 2013 WI 93 , 351 Wis. 2d 313 , 839 N.W.2d 404 , (four-month suspension for seven counts of misconduct stemming from two client matters and lawyer's criminal conviction). 2017In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Wood, 2014 WI 116 , 358 Wis. 2d 472 , 854 N.W.2d 844 , (ninety-day suspension for seven counts of misconduct stemming from representation of clients in a dispute with a construction company); and In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Steinhafel, 2013 WI 93 , 351 Wis. 2d 313 , 839 N.W.2d 404 , (four-month suspension for seven counts of misconduct stemming from two client matters and lawyer's criminal conviction). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Lister
neutral
2 sentences2013He noted this court's comments in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Lister, 2012 WI 102, ¶¶ 19-22 , 343 Wis. 2d 532 , 817 N.W.2d 867 (Lister ID, where we recognized that there are no specific rules that address the post-discipline type of motion filed by the OLR in that case and this one and explained the basis for referring the OLR's motion to a referee. 2013He noted this court's comments in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Lister, 2012 WI 102, ¶¶ 19-22 , 343 Wis. 2d 532 , 817 N.W.2d 867 (Lister ID, where we recognized that there are no specific rules that address the post-discipline type of motion filed by the OLR in that case and this one and explained the basis for referring the OLR's motion to a referee. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hetzel
green
2 sentences2013As an *205 initial matter, while we again acknowledge that our rules do not contain an explicit procedure for resolving a motion alleging a violation of a prior disciplinary order in the same disciplinary proceeding, we reiterate that the procedure we followed in both Lister II and this case follows a procedure similar to the one that we utilized in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Het zel, 124 Wis. 2d 462 , 369 N.W.2d 394 (1985). 2013As an *205 initial matter, while we again acknowledge that our rules do not contain an explicit procedure for resolving a motion alleging a violation of a prior disciplinary order in the same disciplinary proceeding, we reiterate that the procedure we followed in both Lister II and this case follows a procedure similar to the one that we utilized in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Het zel, 124 Wis. 2d 462 , 369 N.W.2d 394 (1985). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Johnson v. Allis Chalmers Corp.
green
2 sentences2013Generally, we will sustain such a finding and sanction "if there is a reasonable basis for the circuit court's [or referee's] determination that the noncomplying party's conduct was egregious and there was no 'clear and justifiable excuse' for the party's noncompliance." Johnson v. Allis Chalmers Corp., 162 Wis. 2d 261, 276-77 , 470 N.W.2d 859 (1991), overruled on other grounds by Industrial Roofing, 299 Wis. 2d 81 , *209 ¶ 61; see also id., ¶ 41 (decision to impose sanction in standard civil action and the choice of which sanction to impose are reviewed for erroneous exercise of discretion). 2013Generally, we will sustain such a finding and sanction "if there is a reasonable basis for the circuit court's [or referee's] determination that the noncomplying party's conduct was egregious and there was no 'clear and justifiable excuse' for the party's noncompliance." Johnson v. Allis Chalmers Corp., 162 Wis. 2d 261, 276-77 , 470 N.W.2d 859 (1991), overruled on other grounds by Industrial Roofing, 299 Wis. 2d 81 , *209 ¶ 61; see also id., ¶ 41 (decision to impose sanction in standard civil action and the choice of which sanction to impose are reviewed for erroneous exercise of discretion). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Robert W. Horsch
green
2 sentences2020In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Horsch, 2017 WI 105 , 378 Wis. 2d 554 , 905 N.W.2d 129 . ¶5 The actions giving rise to this misconduct proceeding occurred on May 1, 2018. 2020In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Horsch, 2017 WI 105 , 378 Wis. 2d 554 , 905 N.W.2d 129 . ¶5 The actions giving rise to this misconduct proceeding occurred on May 1, 2018. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Robert J. Baratki
neutral
2 sentences2018In a brief in support of its default judgment motion, the OLR argued that a six-month suspension was consistent with In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Scanlan , 2006 WI 38 , 290 Wis.2d 30 , 712 N.W.2d 877 (six-month suspension for 21 counts of misconduct including practicing law while suspended, failing to provide notice to clients and courts concerning the suspension, failing to provide competent representation, trust account violations, and failing to timely respond to an OLR investigation; lawyer had no previous discipline), and In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Baratki , 2017 WI 2018In a brief in support of its default judgment motion, the OLR argued that a six-month suspension was consistent with In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Scanlan , 2006 WI 38 , 290 Wis.2d 30 , 712 N.W.2d 877 (six-month suspension for 21 counts of misconduct including practicing law while suspended, failing to provide notice to clients and courts concerning the suspension, failing to provide competent representation, trust account violations, and failing to timely respond to an OLR investigation; lawyer had no previous discipline), and In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Baratki , 2017 WI | 1 | 2018–2018 |
In Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Marine
green
2 sentences2001The referee found that by failing to keep clients reasonably informed of the status of a matter, *481 Attorney Lieuallen violated SCR 20:l.4(a). 1 The referee also concluded Attorney Lieuallen engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation and that he converted clients' funds, in violation of SCR 20:1.15(a) 2 and SCR 20:8.4(c). 3 The *482 referee further found that by misappropriating clients' funds being held in his trust account Attorney Lieual-len violated the standard of conduct set forth by this court in Disciplinary Proceedings Against Marine, 82 Wis. 2d 602, 2001The referee found that by failing to keep clients reasonably informed of the status of a matter, *481 Attorney Lieuallen violated SCR 20:l.4(a). 1 The referee also concluded Attorney Lieuallen engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation and that he converted clients' funds, in violation of SCR 20:1.15(a) 2 and SCR 20:8.4(c). 3 The *482 referee further found that by misappropriating clients' funds being held in his trust account Attorney Lieual-len violated the standard of conduct set forth by this court in Disciplinary Proceedings Against Marine, 82 Wis. 2d 602, | 1 | 2001–2001 |