Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Thomas R. Napierala
2024 WI 42
| Wis. | 2024Background
- Attorney Thomas R. Napierala was admitted in Wisconsin in 1990 and had previously been publicly reprimanded for fee-related misconduct.
- The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) charged Napierala with four counts of misconduct, relating to inadequate diligence, misrepresentations to the court, and improper handling of client and third-party funds.
- Two counts arose from Napierala’s mishandling of a federal employment discrimination case for client D.M., including missed deadlines, failing to respond to motions, and making misstatements to the court.
- The other two counts related to mishandling insurance proceeds in a foreclosure matter for clients J.M. and M.M., including failing to notify all parties with an interest in the funds and disbursing proceeds improperly.
- Napierala stipulated to all allegations and agreed to accept a public reprimand without contesting the charges.
- The court accepted the stipulation, ordered a public reprimand, and assessed costs of $2,567.80 against Napierala.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to act with diligence and promptness (SCR 20:1.3) | Napierala missed key deadlines and did not respond to motions or petitions. | Napierala stipulated to facts; did not contest. | Violated SCR 20:1.3; public reprimand warranted. |
| Misrepresentation to the court (SCR 20:3.3(a)(1)) | Napierala made false statements about case timing and notifications. | Stipulated to allegations; no defense raised. | Violated SCR 20:3.3(a)(1); public reprimand. |
| Mishandling of third-party funds (SCR 20:1.15(e)(1),(3)) | Napierala failed to notify or obtain consent from interested parties before disbursing funds. | Admitted to conduct as part of stipulation. | Violated SCR 20:1.15; public reprimand. |
| Previous discipline supports progressive action | Repeated misconduct requires escalation. | Accepted reprimand, acknowledged issues. | Second public reprimand is appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Napierala, 384 Wis. 2d 273 (Wis. 2018) (public reprimand for unreasonable fees and lack of communication)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Clemment, 382 Wis. 2d 324 (Wis. 2018) (second public reprimand appropriate for repeat violations)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kremokoski, 291 Wis. 2d 1 (Wis. 2006) (progressive discipline and precedent for repeat reprimands)