Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Tim Osicka
353 Wis. 2d 656
Wis.2014Background
- In Sept 2008 A.L. retained Attorney Tim Osicka to represent her minor daughter on a juvenile marijuana possession matter and paid a $750 advance flat fee. Osicka’s fee agreement stated the fee would be deposited in his business account rather than a trust account.
- Osicka did not place the $750 in trust nor provide the written notices required for alternative handling of advanced fees under SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m).
- A consent decree was negotiated; a hearing was set for Nov 21, 2008. Osicka learned before the hearing his law license had been administratively suspended for nonpayment of bar dues and did not appear; the court appointed successor counsel and the matter was later resolved without Osicka.
- A.L. filed a grievance. Osicka provided a partial response to OLR’s investigation, failed to produce the client file, and did not fully respond to supplemental requests; OLR filed disciplinary charges on Jan 11, 2012.
- OLR alleged four counts: (1) improper handling of advanced fees (SCR 20:1.15(b)(4)); (2) charging an unreasonable fee (SCR 20:1.5(a)); (3) failing to refund unearned fees on termination (SCR 20:1.16(d)); and (4) failing to cooperate with OLR (SCR 22.03(2), (6) enforceable through SCR 20:8.4(h)).
- Osicka defaulted (unserved or did not respond after reasonable attempts); the referee entered default findings and recommended a 60‑day suspension, $750 restitution to A.L., and assessment of costs ($1,579.97). The Wisconsin Supreme Court adopted the referee’s findings and imposed the recommended discipline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (OLR) | Defendant's Argument (Osicka) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Handling of advanced fees (trust requirement) | Osicka deposited $750 in his business account without complying with SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m), violating SCR 20:1.15(b)(4). | Osicka did not contest on the merits (defaulted); earlier matters showed disputes over trust-account rules and alternative treatment. | Court accepted referee: violation of SCR 20:1.15(b)(4); misconduct proven by default. |
| Unreasonable fee (charged for uncompleted representation) | By accepting $750 for representation he did not complete, Osicka charged an unreasonable fee in violation of SCR 20:1.5(a). | Osicka (as described in dissent) argued he negotiated the decree and work performed was substantial; license suspension—not fee—prevented completion. | Court accepted referee: violation of SCR 20:1.5(a); misconduct established. |
| Failure to refund unearned fees on termination | Osicka failed to refund unearned advanced fees after representation ended, violating SCR 20:1.16(d). | Osicka (via dissent) claimed he earned the fee through work and thus refund was not warranted. | Court accepted referee: violation of SCR 20:1.16(d); ordered $750 restitution to client. |
| Failure to cooperate with OLR investigation | Osicka failed to produce file and fully answer OLR inquiries, violating SCR 22.03(2),(6) and SCR 20:8.4(h). | Osicka did not meaningfully contest; procedural objections later raised about OLR priorities and multiple prosecutions. | Court accepted referee: violation of investigatory cooperation rules; part of basis for discipline. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 269 Wis. 2d 43 (2004) (standard of review for referee findings and conclusions in disciplinary appeals)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 261 Wis. 2d 45 (2003) (court determines discipline independently of referee recommendation)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Osicka, 317 Wis. 2d 135 (2009) (prior disciplinary decision involving Osicka’s failure to disclose to OLR and client-communication failures)
- OLR v. Johns, 353 Wis. 2d 179 (2014) (discussion of OLR system review and procedural concerns raised by multiple related prosecutions)
- OLR v. Osicka, 353 Wis. 2d 675 (2014) (subsequent disciplinary proceedings involving Osicka raising related procedural and substantive issues)