858 N.W.2d 654
Wis.2015Background
- Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed a public reprimand for Khaja M. Din after he pled no contest to eight counts of misconduct involving four clients.
- OLR initially filed 28 counts; amended to 12 counts; four counts were dismissed; Din pled no contest to the remaining eight counts.
- Referee recommended a private reprimand with restitution; the court instead imposed a public reprimand and restitution totaling $14,250 plus half of costs.
- Discipline arises from fees charged without commensurate work: three counts for unreasonable fees and three counts for failure to refund unearned fees, plus one count for failure to consult with a client.
- Restitution ordered to A.N. ($3,750), E.A-S. ($2,500), K.F. ($5,000), and to the Wisconsin Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection ($3,000).
- Costs reduced to one-half of the OLR’s pre-appellate costs, total $10,003.65, with restitution due before paying costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether public or private reprimand is proper | OLR supported public reprimand given multiple violations | Din urged private reprimand with restitution due to early career, usefulness, and reforms | Public reprimand warranted |
| Whether restitution totaling $14,250 is appropriate | Restitution to four grievants and fund is appropriate | Arguments about amount of refunds and judgment of flat-fee matters | Restitution of $14,250 ordered |
| Whether the costs should be shared or fully borne by Din | OLR sought full costs; court can allocate | Private consideration of factors justifies reduction | Costs reduced to 50% of pre-appellate costs |
| Whether the referee properly used amended complaint facts for misconduct | Facts support eight admitted counts | Questioned inclusion of withdrawn allegations | Court affirmed use of allegations as basis for misconduct determination |
| Whether the discipline serves rehabilitative objectives given early-career status | Discipline should be significant due to seriousness | Early-career improvements and cooperation merit consideration | Discipline serves public, deterrence, and rehabilitative aims; public reprimand upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Grapsas, 174 Wis. 2d 816 (Wis. 1993) (one count of failing to return unearned fees can warrant discipline alongside other violations)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Halverson, 225 Wis. 2d 215 (Wis. 1999) (public reprimand for misconduct including failure to return unearned fees)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34 (Wis. 2003) (court sanctioned discipline irrespective of referee recommendations)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 269 Wis. 2d 43 (Wis. 2004) (review of referee findings and de novo sanction authority)