Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Stewart
2017 WI 41
| Wis. | 2017Background
- Alan R. Stewart, admitted 1992, had his Wisconsin law license temporarily suspended in February 2015 for willful failure to cooperate with OLR investigations and remained administratively suspended for other administrative defaults.
- In 2014 Stewart agreed to draft and file non‑provisional patent applications for two clients: A.H./C.H. (Hs) (paid $4,400) and F.W. (paid $8,000 in two $4,000 installments).
- Stewart performed no meaningful work on either matter, failed to draft or file the applications, failed to communicate with the clients, and refused to refund unearned advanced fees or return client property.
- Both clients filed grievances with the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR); Stewart repeatedly failed to respond to OLR requests and to cooperate with the investigations.
- OLR charged Stewart with 11 counts alleging violations of rules governing diligence, communication, fee reasonableness, refund/return of property on termination, dishonesty/misrepresentation, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigations.
- Stewart stipulated to the factual allegations and all counts and jointly recommended a nine‑month suspension; the referee adopted the stipulation and recommended the same. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings, imposed a nine‑month suspension, ordered restitution ($8,000 to F.W.), reimbursement to the Client Protection Fund ($4,400 to Hs), and payment of costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Stewart fail to act with reasonable diligence (SCR 20:1.3)? | Stewart abandoned both matters and did not draft/file the applications. | Stewart stipulated to facts; no contested defense in court. | Held: Violated SCR 20:1.3. |
| Did Stewart fail to communicate and keep clients informed (SCR 20:1.4)? | Stewart ignored calls/emails and did not update clients. | No contest to allegations. | Held: Violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3),(4). |
| Did Stewart improperly retain advanced fees and fail to return client property (SCR 20:1.5, 1.16(d))? | Advanced fees were unearned; he refused refunds and withheld property. | Stipulated; no opposing claim of earned fees. | Held: Violated SCR 20:1.5(a) and 1.16(d); restitution and reimbursement ordered. |
| Did Stewart fail to cooperate with OLR investigations and commit misconduct by misrepresentation (SCR 22.03, 20:8.4)? | He ignored multiple OLR notices and misrepresented completion of work to a client. | No contest; stipulated. | Held: Violated SCR 22.03(2),(6) (enforced by 20:8.4(h)) and 20:8.4(c) for misrepresentation. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Smelzer, 365 Wis. 2d 109 (2015) (sustained nine‑month suspension for similar combination of client neglect, poor communication, and failure to cooperate with OLR)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 269 Wis. 2d 43 (2004) (standard of review: adopt referee findings unless clearly erroneous; conclusions of law reviewed de novo)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 261 Wis. 2d 45 (2003) (Supreme Court may impose any sanction irrespective of referee recommendation)