Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Willihnganz, 2017 WI 4

Attorney Ty C. Willihnganz, admitted 1996, had prior discipline (public reprimand 2004; private reprimand 2008) and intermittent administrative suspensions for CLE and dues noncompliance.
In 2013 Willihnganz represented friend R.V. and his company Green Box in a Brown County investor fraud suit while his bar membership was administratively suspended starting June 4, 2013.
During suspension he sent discovery answers (June 5, 2013), appeared at a September 20, 2013 scheduling conference, failed to promptly notify the court/opposing counsel of his suspension, and moved to withdraw in August 2013.
Successor counsel later appeared; default judgment was entered against R.V./Green Box in October 2014 (later affirmed with remand by the court of appeals).
OLR charged four counts: (1) failure to protect client interests on termination (admitted), (2) failure to promptly provide written notice of suspension (SCR 22.26(1)(c)), (3) practicing law while suspended (SCR 31.10(1) and 22.26(2)), (4) giving false deposition testimony about disciplinary history (SCR 20:8.4(c)).
Referee found counts 1–3 proven, recommended a public reprimand and full costs; count 4 was dismissed. Supreme Court adopted referee’s findings and sanction, dismissed count 4, ordered public reprimand and payment of $5,028.97 in costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Willihnganz violated SCR 20:1.16(d) by failing to protect client interests on termination	OLR: he failed to give reasonable notice, allow time for successor counsel, and surrender client materials	Willihnganz admitted count and argued limited representation and efforts to have client retain new counsel	Admitted and accepted: misconduct proven (count 1)
Whether he failed to promptly notify court/opposing counsel of his June 4, 2013 suspension (SCR 22.26(1)(c))	OLR: no timely written notice was provided as required	Willihnganz: thought delay was reasonable; informed client orally	Court: delay was unreasonable and no compliant written notice given — violation proven (count 2)
Whether he practiced law while suspended (SCR 31.10(1) & 22.26(2))	OLR: sending discovery and appearing at scheduling conference constituted practice	Willihnganz: work was administrative or law‑related work for employer Green Box and/or pre‑suspension drafting	Court: not an employee of Green Box; activity fell within prohibited law work — violation proven (count 3)
Whether deposition omission about a 2008 private reprimand was misconduct (SCR 20:8.4(c))	OLR: failing to disclose prior reprimand was dishonest/misleading	Willihnganz: he was nervous and forgot; he disclosed the public reprimand	Court: record insufficient to show dishonesty or reckless disregard — count dismissed (count 4)

In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hyndman, 249 Wis. 2d 650, 638 N.W.2d 293 (2002) (interpreting scope of permitted law‑related work during suspension)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125 (2007) (standard of review: referee’s factual findings affirmed unless clearly erroneous; legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686 (2003) (court determines discipline independently but considers referee’s recommendation)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Knickmeier, 275 Wis. 2d 69, 683 N.W.2d 445 (2004) (omissions that render statements false can violate SCR 20:8.4(c))
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Polich, 279 Wis. 2d 266, 694 N.W.2d 367 (2005) (policy of assessing full costs against respondent even if some counts dismissed)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kremkoski, 291 Wis. 2d 1, 715 N.W.2d 594 (2006) (examples where court imposed public reprimand despite prior discipline)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hudec, 354 Wis. 2d 728, 848 N.W.2d 287 (2014) (public reprimand imposed despite multiple prior private reprimands)