Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Lamb
2011 WI 101
Wis.2011Background
- OLR and Lamb stipulate that Lamb committed professional misconduct in handling four client matters and that a 60‑day suspension is appropriate.
- Lamb, admitted in 1989 and a sole practitioner in Menomonie, Wisconsin, had prior private reprimands in 1997 and 2003 for misconduct and mismanagement of fees/investigations.
- D.N. guardianship matter: Lamb failed to respond to emails, failed to refund or account for $3,500 paid, and had a suspended license that affected participation in a conference.
- K.D. matter: Lamb failed to provide fee itemization, respond to inquiries, or deliver the file; ongoing contact failed leading to new counsel.
- C.H. matter: Lamb did not deposit advance fees into trust, failed to provide promised paperwork, and failed to respond to OLR inquiries.
- G.B. matter: Lamb failed to file or complete a small claims action, failed to refund unearned fees, and obstructed OLR investigations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is a 60‑day suspension warranted? | Lamb's pattern warrants progressive discipline and reflects serious misconduct. | Referee's 60‑day recommendation is adequate and proportionate considering prior history. | Yes; 60‑day suspension upheld. |
| Should restitution be ordered and to whom? | Restitution to G.B. appropriate for unearned/undisputed fees. | No restitution beyond what is stipulated; other clients' fees were reasonable. | Restitution to G.B. in the amount of $700 ordered. |
| Did Lamb fail to cooperate with OLR investigations? | Repeated failure to cooperate violated SCR 21.15(4) and related rules. | Lamb disputes characterization; stipulation accepts cooperation level. | Yes; failure to cooperate established and sanction supported. |
| Were the trust account and fee‑related violations properly sanctionable? | Multiple counts show improper handling of fees and unearned advances. | Discipline tailored to misconduct; restoration and CLE required. | Yes; sanctions include CLE, restitution, and costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Artery, 288 Wis. 2d 339 (Wis. 2006) (60‑day suspension for multiple counts of misconduct)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Smead, 322 Wis. 2d 100 (Wis. 2010) (60‑day suspension for 15 counts of misconduct)