Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Napierala (In Re Napierala), 2018 WI 101

Thomas R. Napierala, admitted 1990, practiced in Milwaukee and had no prior discipline; OLR filed a three-count complaint on June 30, 2017.
Client T.A. retained Napierala (and a co-counsel) in 2012 to challenge a settlement and pursue an inheritance claim; an Appellate Fee Agreement set flat fees and contemplated a $25,000 holdback.
Napierala’s written fee agreement disclosed his hourly rate but did not state that nonlawyer staff time would be billed or the rate for such services.
From late 2012 to 2014, Napierala failed to track payments and referral-fee allocations properly and billed T.A. for amounts not owed (and for nonlawyer services), resulting in overpayments (peaking at least $16,763.44).
The parties stipulated that Napierala violated SCR 20:1.5(a) (unreasonable fees) and SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) (fee basis communication), admitted the facts, and agreed restitution of $15,021.66 and a public reprimand were appropriate.
The referee adopted the stipulation; the Supreme Court affirmed the findings and conclusions, imposed a public reprimand, ordered restitution of $15,021.66 to T.A., and assessed costs of $1,677.53.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Napierala charged or collected unreasonable fees by failing to credit payments and referral fees	OLR: Napierala overbilled and accepted overpayments by not crediting client for receipts and referral fees	Napierala: (stipulated facts; no contention of intentional fraud; errors due to poor recordkeeping)	Court: Violated SCR 20:1.5(a); admitted by stipulation; discipline imposed
Whether Napierala billed for nonlawyer services at his hourly rate without prior written disclosure	OLR: Napierala billed client for staff/nonlawyer services at lawyer rate without written notice	Napierala: (stipulated) lacked clear written communication but misconduct was not intentional	Court: Violated SCR 20:1.5(b)(1); violation admitted
Appropriate discipline for the misconduct	OLR: Public reprimand with restitution and costs is appropriate given single client matter and lack of prior discipline	Napierala: Agreed to stipulation proposing public reprimand and restitution	Court: Public reprimand accepted; restitution and full costs ordered
Whether restitution and costs should be ordered and priority of payment	OLR: Restitution to T.A. and full costs should be imposed; restitution paid before costs	Napierala: Agreed to stipulated restitution and costs	Court: Ordered restitution $15,021.66 within 60 days, then costs $1,677.53; restitution precedes payment of costs

In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Schuster, 305 Wis. 2d 120, 741 N.W.2d 471 (Wis. 2007) (repeated overbilling and failure to credit client supported a 90-day suspension where prior discipline and dishonesty were present)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Arthur, 279 Wis. 2d 583, 694 N.W.2d 910 (Wis. 2005) (discusses ABA standards and factors for imposing lawyer sanctions)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Steinberg, 304 Wis. 2d 577, 735 N.W.2d 527 (Wis. 2007) (framework for weighing misconduct seriousness and appropriate sanction)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747 (Wis. 2004) (standard of review for referee findings and conclusions)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686 (Wis. 2003) (court may impose any sanction regardless of referee recommendation)