Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Crandall
2011 WI 21
Wis.2011Background
- Attorney Eric L. Crandall seeks review of a referee's five-month suspension and full costs arising from Wisconsin disciplinary proceedings.
- OLR alleged five standard misconduct counts (Counts 1-7) and two reciprocal counts (Counts 8-9); standard counts were sent to a referee, James G. Curtis.
- The referee found proven misconduct on Counts 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7, but not on Counts 3 and 5; he recommended a five-month suspension and full costs ($9,118.21).
- Counts 1-4 concern Crandall's handling of a $3,000 advance from client T.H.; funds were placed in a business account rather than a trust account, and he later refunded $2,000 after delays.
- Counts 6-7 concern Crandall's representation of client D.E., including lack of itemized billing and failure to respond to the OLR, plus alleged interference with the grievance process.
- Crandall had prior discipline in Minnesota and Wisconsin; Wisconsin previously imposed a 30-day reciprocal suspension in 2008 and a public reprimand in 2008, with other prior disciplinary history.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of proof for Counts 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 | OLR contends clear and convincing proof of misconduct. | Crandall contends insufficient proof or arguments not warranted. | Counts 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 proven. |
| Effect of Crandall's failure to file a brief on appeal | Appellate dismissal warranted; solicitor ignored deadlines. | No substantive challenge to findings; dismissal not necessary. | Court proceeds with review despite no brief; but the dismissal would be considered if warranted; not dispositive to the discipline. |
| Discipline for overdraft certification (Counts 5) | Certification false or misleading; violation of SCR 20:1.15(i)(4). | Rule did not require filing overdraft notification with OLR in the relevant years. | No discipline for overdraft certification; no obligation to certify filing of overdraft agreement in those years. |
| Discipline for Counts 3 and 5 and related conduct | Counts 3 and 5 support discipline. | Counts 3 and 5 were not proven or overly technical. | Counts 3 and 5 not sustained; Count 3 dismissed; Count 5 not proven. |
| Adequacy of the sanction (five-month suspension) | Six-month suspension warranted given repeated misconduct. | Five-month suspension appropriate under circumstances; six months excessive. | Five-month suspension appropriate; full costs imposed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Arrieh, 174 Wis. 2d 331 (1993) (six-month suspension for pressuring client to withdraw grievance)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Lister, 300 Wis. 2d 326 (2007) (progressive discipline; reinstatement considerations)
- State v. Smythe, 225 Wis. 2d 456 (1999) (abandonment or egregious conduct standard for dismissal)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 305 Wis. 2d 71 (2007) (standard of review for referee findings of fact and law)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 261 Wis. 2d 45 (2003) (de novo review of conclusions of law; independent sanction setting)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Crandall, 287 Wis. 2d 102 (2006) (reciprocal discipline; prior Minnesota-based misconduct)