Office of Lawyer Regulation v. David A. Lemanski
2017 WI 5
| Wis. | 2017Background
- David A. Lemanski, admitted in Wisconsin in 2002, was the subject of an OLR complaint alleging three counts of professional misconduct; he admitted the allegations and the referee granted judgment on the pleadings.
- Count 1–2: In a legal separation for client S.K., Lemanski failed to notify opposing counsel after the client terminated him, failed to forward a deposition notice (client did not appear), disobeyed a circuit court order to pay $1,471.50 in sanctions/costs, and failed to respond to OLR investigators, leading to a November 4, 2015 temporary suspension for willful noncooperation.
- Count 3: In a divorce for client L.A., Lemanski accepted a $2,000 advance and later billed over $1,000 more but did not provide a written fee agreement though the foreseeable total fees exceeded $1,000.
- Referee concluded Lemanski violated: SCR 20:3.4(c) (disobeying tribunal order), SCR 22.03(2) & (6) enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h) (failure to cooperate with grievance investigation), and SCR 20:1.5(b)(1)–(2) (failures re: written fee agreement).
- Referee recommended a public reprimand, conditioning practice on payment of the $1,471.50 sanction, and payment of OLR costs ($1,192.03). Lemanski requested a private reprimand; no appeal was filed and Supreme Court reviewed under SCR 22.17(2).
Issues
| Issue | Office of Lawyer Regulation's Argument | Lemanski's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lemanski violated court order and professional rule by not paying $1,471.50 | Failure to pay court-ordered costs disobeyed tribunal rule (SCR 20:3.4(c)); discipline warranted | Admitted facts but disputed level of discipline (sought private reprimand) | Court held violation of SCR 20:3.4(c); public reprimand appropriate and payment ordered within 60 days |
| Whether Lemanski failed to cooperate with OLR investigation | Willful failure to respond to OLR letters violated SCR 22.03(2),(6) and is professional misconduct under SCR 20:8.4(h) | Admitted failure to respond; argued lesser discipline | Court held failure to cooperate constituted misconduct; cited pattern (prior discipline) supporting public reprimand |
| Whether Lemanski violated fee-agreement requirements by not providing written fee agreement | Accepting $2,000 advance and billing in excess of $1,000 required written communication under SCR 20:1.5(b); failure is misconduct | Admitted omission; disputed sanction severity | Court held violation of SCR 20:1.5(b)(1)–(2) |
| Appropriate discipline and ancillary sanctions (reprimand type, conditions, costs) | Sought public reprimand, conditioned practice on paying $1,471.50, and full OLR costs | Sought private reprimand; opposed conditions and timing | Court imposed public reprimand, required payment of $1,471.50 within 60 days as condition of practice, required payment of OLR costs, lifted temporary suspension but left prior suspensions in place until reinstatement requirements met |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Lemanski, 2015 WI 10, 360 Wis. 2d 643, 858 N.W.2d 696 (reciprocal 60-day suspension previously imposed) (background disciplinary history supporting current discipline)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Stobbe, 2015 WI 43, 362 Wis. 2d 69, 862 N.W.2d 152 (public reprimand appropriate where attorney failed to comply with court orders and pay sanctions)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125 (standard of review for referee findings and conclusions in attorney discipline)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686 (court independently determines appropriate discipline while giving weight to referee)