Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Patrick J. Hudec, 2014 WI 46

Patrick J. Hudec, admitted 1979, had previously received three private reprimands and one public reprimand for various ethical violations.
Between Nov. 2007 and Jan. 2009 Hudec represented Roma II in Racine County litigation; he signed and filed an incomplete answer that omitted three causes of action and contained misnumbering and no claim for relief.
At a default-motion hearing Hudec told the court he had filed an affidavit in opposition to the motion; no such affidavit existed in the record and he later retracted that assertion.
On appeal Hudec filed briefs with numerous substantive and formal defects (misstated standard of review, included irrelevant/salacious materials, failed to serve a reply brief), and the court of appeals criticized his attention to detail and imposed a $500 sanction.
OLR charged Hudec with four counts (violations of SCR 20:1.1, SCR 20:3.1(a)(3), and SCR 20:3.5(b)); Hudec stipulated to the factual allegations and to commission of the four counts.
The referee adopted the stipulation, recommended a public reprimand and assessment of costs ($1,625.14); the supreme court affirmed the findings and conclusions and ordered a public reprimand and full costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Competence/diligence (SCR 20:1.1) — circuit-level conduct (incomplete answer; false affidavit claim)	Hudec’s filing of an incomplete answer and misrepresentations show gross inattention and lack of competence.	Hudec admitted the facts and stipulated; mitigation noted absence of clear client harm.	Court adopted referee: violation of SCR 20:1.1; public reprimand.
Competence/diligence (SCR 20:1.1) — appellate-level conduct (procedural errors; poor briefing)	Appellate errors, misstated standard, and procedural failures demonstrate incompetent representation on appeal.	Hudec stipulated to the allegations; argued conduct remediated on appeal (amended answer joined issue).	Court adopted referee: violation of SCR 20:1.1; sanction upheld as public reprimand.
Filing frivolous/prejudicial material (SCR 20:3.1(a)(3))	Inclusion of salacious, irrelevant facts in appellate brief intended to prejudice the opponent.	Hudec admitted inclusion but stipulated; no separate contested defense.	Court adopted referee: violation of SCR 20:3.1(a)(3).
Ex parte communication (SCR 20:3.5(b))	Failure to serve opposing counsel with reply brief constituted impermissible ex parte communication with the court.	Hudec admitted failure to serve; no contested factual defense.	Court adopted referee: violation of SCR 20:3.5(b).

In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 269 Wis. 2d 43 (2004) (standard of review: referee findings affirmed unless clearly erroneous; conclusions of law reviewed de novo)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 261 Wis. 2d 45 (2003) (court may impose any sanction it deems appropriate regardless of referee recommendation)