Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Ronald L. Brandt
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2017 WI 103 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: OF WISCONSIN 2017AP539-D In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ronald L. Brandt, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Ronald L. Brandt, Respondent. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BRANDT OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: December 15, 2017 SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: ABRAHAMSON, J. concurs (opinion filed). 2017 WI 103 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2017AP539-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ronald L. Brandt, Attorney at Law: FILED Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, DEC 15, 2017 v. Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Supreme Court Ronald L. Brandt, Respondent. ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license revoked. ¶1 PER CURIAM. In this disciplinary proceeding, we are asked to determine whether Attorney Ronald L. Brandt's license to practice law in Wisconsin should be revoked, as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. ¶2 After considering this matter and in view of Attorney Brandt's failure conclude that to respond Attorney to Brandt's our order license to to show cause, practice law we in No. Wisconsin should be revoked. 2017AP539-D Given that this matter has been resolved without a contest or the appointment of a referee, we do not impose any costs on Attorney Brandt. ¶3 Attorney Brandt was admitted to the practice of law in this state in June 1972 and in the state of Massachusetts in January 1982. According to information provided to the State Bar of Wisconsin, Attorney Brandt most recently practiced law in Massachusetts. ¶4 Attorney Brandt has been the subject of professional discipline in this state on one prior occasion. court publicly reprimanded Attorney Brandt In 2011 this as discipline reciprocal to that also imposed by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Brandt, 2011 WI 92, 337 Wis. 2d 43, 803 N.W.2d 845. ¶5 Attorney Brandt's license to practice law in Wisconsin has been administratively suspended since October 2013 due to his failure to pay bar dues and to file a required annual trust account certificate. ¶6 The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) initiated this disciplinary proceeding by filing a complaint, order to answer, and a motion requesting this court to issue an order directing Attorney Brandt to show cause, in writing, under Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.22(3),1 why the imposition of discipline identical 1 SCR 22.22(3) provides: (3) The supreme court shall impose the identical discipline or license suspension unless one or more of the following is present: (continued) 2 No. 2017AP539-D to that imposed in Massachusetts would be unwarranted. After Attorney court Brandt was served with these documents, this issued such an order to show cause on June 15, 2017. Our order directed Attorney Brandt to file his response by July 5, 2017. Attorney Brandt has not filed a response to the order to show cause, nor has he filed any answer or motion in response to the OLR's complaint. ¶7 the The OLR's complaint alleges that on January 30, 2017, Supreme suspended state. failed Judicial Attorney Court Brandt's of license Massachusetts to practice indefinitely law in The OLR's complaint also alleges that Attorney Brandt to notify the OLR of this indefinite suspension, required under SCR 22.22(1).2 (a) The procedure in the other jurisdiction was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process. (b) There was such establishing the misconduct the supreme court could conclusion in respect to incapacity. an infirmity of proof or medical incapacity that not accept as final the the misconduct or medical (c) The misconduct justifies different discipline in this state. 2 that substantially SCR 22.22(1) provides: An attorney on whom public discipline for misconduct or a license suspension for medical incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction shall promptly notify the director of the matter. Failure to furnish the notice within 20 days of the effective date of the order or judgment of the other jurisdiction constitutes misconduct. 3 as No. ¶8 2017AP539-D According to the underlying Massachusetts disciplinary records attached to the OLR's complaint, the indefinite suspension was the result of Attorney Brandt's misconduct in three client representations, as well as his failure to cooperate with the Massachusetts bar counsel and to comply with an administrative suspension that was imposed due to his lack of cooperation. Because Attorney Brandt did not file an answer or otherwise respond to the bar counsel's complaint, he was found to be in default with respect to the allegations of misconduct in the Massachusetts disciplinary complaint. ¶9 In the first client representation, a couple retained Attorney Brandt to represent them in clearing legal title to their residence. Pursuant to a written fee agreement, the couple gave Attorney Brandt an advance fee of $7,500, which he deposited into his client trust account. Attorney Brandt, however, failed to perform any substantial legal services and to respond to the couple's several requests for information about their matter over the course of approximately seven months. In May 2015, Attorney Brandt closed his client trust account and had the remaining balance in the account ($6,764.16) disbursed to himself, even though he had not earned any of the remaining funds. did not Prior to withdrawing the couple's funds, Attorney Brandt send them an itemized bill, written notice of the intended withdrawal, or a statement of the balance of their funds. personal Attorney Brandt converted the couple's funds for his own purposes or for purposes representations. 4 in other unrelated No. ¶10 2017AP539-D In June 2015 Attorney Brandt vacated his law office. He did not notify the couple. In July 2015, due to their inability to contact Attorney Brandt, the couple terminated his representation and requested a return of their file and the advance fee. Despite several additional attempts to obtain their file and the unearned advance fee, Attorney Brandt never responded to their requests. ¶11 Based on these facts, Attorney Brandt was found to have violated the following Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct (Mass. R. Prof. C.) in existence at the time of his misconduct: 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 1.15(b) and (d), 1.16(d) and (e), and 8.4(c) and (h). ¶12 In the second client representation, Attorney Brandt was retained in June 2013 to represent J.M. in an employment discrimination claim. For the first six months Attorney Brandt failed to respond to at least nine emails sent by J.M., as well as her numerous telephone calls. Attorney Brandt ultimately did file a civil action on J.M.'s behalf in February 2014, but he failed to respond to any of the defendants' discovery requests, to propound discovery requests to the defendants, or to depose the defendants. He also failed to advise J.M. of her scheduled deposition until two days before it was to occur. asked to postpone the deposition so she could When she prepare adequately, Attorney Brandt said that was not possible because the notice had been on his desk for over a week. Attorney Brandt's multiple continuing failure to respond to J.M.'s attempts at communication over the next year ultimately led her 5 No. to terminate Attorney Brandt's representation 2017AP539-D and to hire successor counsel, who then requested a copy of J.M.'s file. Attorney Brandt failed to provide the file. Brandt's lack of cooperation, successor Despite Attorney counsel was able to resolve the matter in J.M.'s favor. ¶13 In the J.M. matter, Attorney Brandt was found to have violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), and 1.16(e). ¶14 The third representation performed at of client a the matter homeowner homeowner's involved in a Attorney dispute residence. The Brandt's regarding fee work agreement provided for a contingency in Attorney Brandt's favor, plus the payment of a "non-refundable retainer" in the amount of $2,500. The homeowner initially wished Attorney Brandt to pursue a claim against a subcontractor due to allegedly defective work. ¶15 The general contractor sued the after Attorney Brandt had been retained. homeowner shortly Attorney Brandt filed an answer and asserted certain counterclaims against the general contractor. The trial court subsequently dismissed some of the homeowner's counterclaims and gave him thirty days to join the subcontractor as a necessary party to the litigation. The general contractor subsequently propounded discovery requests to the homeowner, resulting in to which motions to Attorney Brandt failed compel. Attorney to Brandt respond, failed to propound any discovery to the general contractor and failed to move to join the subcontractor within the time frame established by the court. The general contractor then filed a second motion 6 No. 2017AP539-D to dismiss the homeowner's counterclaims, which Attorney Brandt failed to oppose, resulting in the granting of the motion. ¶16 In September 2015 counsel for the general contractor informed the court that he had not received answers to letters sent to Attorney Brandt for several months and that Attorney Brandt's telephone had been disconnected. When Attorney Brandt failed to notify the client or to appear at a final pre-trial conference in December 2015, the court entered a default against the homeowner. ¶17 Given the circumstances, the court directly notified the homeowner of the default. times to contact Consequently, Attorney the The homeowner attempted multiple Brandt, homeowner but he terminated did not respond. Attorney Brandt's representation and retained successor counsel, who immediately requested a copy of the homeowner's client file. Brandt failed to provide the file as requested. Attorney The homeowner also requested a refund of the "non-refundable retainer," but Attorney Brandt did not provide any refund. ¶18 Based on these facts, Attorney Brandt was found to have violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 1.16(d) and (e). ¶19 Following identified grievances above, to receipt the Attorney of grievances Massachusetts Brandt and bar from the counsel requested clients sent responses the within specified time periods. Bar counsel also requested Attorney Brandt to appear counsel's failed to respond at to bar the office. grievances 7 or Attorney to appear Brandt at bar No. counsel's office as requested. 2017AP539-D As a result of his failure to cooperate, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts issued an order administratively suspending Attorney Brandt's license to practice law in that state. The order further directed Attorney Brandt to take certain steps within 30 days, but Attorney Brandt failed to comply. Attorney Brandt's lack of cooperation and his failure to comply with the Supreme Judicial Court's suspension order was found to have violated multiple rules of professional conduct. ¶20 Under identical SCR 22.22(3), discipline or this license court shall suspension impose imposed the on an attorney in another jurisdiction, unless one or more of three exceptions apply. order to show Attorney Brandt has not responded to the cause or alleged that any exception applies. After reviewing the matter, we conclude that none of the three exceptions applies. We therefore revoke Attorney Brandt's license to practice law in Wisconsin, as the most similar form of discipline to the indefinite suspension Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. imposed by the Given the resolution of this matter without any substantial litigation, we do not impose costs on Attorney Brandt. ¶21 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Ronald L. Brandt to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this order. ¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ronald L. Brandt shall comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 8 No. 2017AP539-D a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked. 9 No. ¶23 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J. reciprocal discipline (SCR) 22.22(3). case governed SCR 22.22(3) 2017AP539-D.ssa (concurring). by requires Supreme this court This is a Court to Rule impose "identical discipline" to that imposed by the other state. The per curiam opinion does not adhere to the text of the rule. Rather, the per curiam opinion revokes the attorney's license to practice law "as the most similar form of discipline to the indefinite suspension imposed by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts." ¶24 I write to point out that once again the instant case raises the question of what constitutes "identical discipline" under SCR 22.22(3). that the OLR Mansfield, I suggest, as I have suggested previously, Procedure University of Review Committee Wisconsin Law (Professor School, Marsha Reporter), appointed by the court in June 2016, should consider proposing a revision of the Supreme Court reciprocal discipline rule to govern the many instances in which this court cannot impose discipline identical to that imposed by the other state. 1 No. 1 2017AP539-D.ssa
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
