Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Thomas A. Fadner
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2006 WI 18 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: OF WISCONSIN 2004AP1944-D COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Thomas A. Fadner, II, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Thomas A. Fadner, II, Respondent. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST FADNER OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: February 23, 2006 2006 WI 18 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2004AP1944-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Thomas A. Fadner, II, Attorney at Law: FILED Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, FEB 23, 2006 v. Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Supreme Court Thomas A. Fadner, II, Respondent. ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license suspended. ¶1 PER CURIAM. We review the recommendation of the referee that the license of Attorney Thomas A. Fadner, II to practice law in Wisconsin professional misconduct, be and costs of this proceeding. suspended that he be for nine required months to for pay the Attorney Fadner's misconduct involved his billing practices to the Office of the State Public Defender (SPD) and mishandling of payments to an investigator. We No. 2004AP1944-D determine that the seriousness of Attorney Fadner's misconduct warrants the recommended penalty. ¶2 Attorney Fadner was licensed to practice Wisconsin in 1996 and practiced in Oshkosh. law in He was privately reprimanded in 1998 for a violation of supreme court rules. ¶3 (OLR) On filed July a 22, 2004, complaint against Attorney Fadner. the Office alleging four of Lawyer counts of Regulation misconduct The complaint stated that Attorney Fadner was appointed on a number of SPD matters and in April, May and June questionable of 2001, claims reimbursements. for the SPD time received charges and invoices with photocopying The complaint also alleged that Attorney Fadner had engaged an investigator, and on at least three occasions, when the SPD paid Attorney Fadner for the investigator fees, he did not timely deliver the money to the investigator or deposit the investigator fees into his trust account. ¶4 Cheryl Rosen Weston was appointed referee. Although Attorney Fadner filed an answer to the complaint, he did not appear at scheduling conferences held after the initial conference, and ultimately, the referee struck his answer and entered a default judgment. ¶5 report Attorney Fadner has not appealed. The referee issued a report on June 15, 2005. adopted each allegation of the complaint, factual basis existed for its allegations. noting The a The referee found that after the SPD received questionable billings, it notified Attorney Fadner it was placing a hold on termination of parental rights billings that exceeded $10,000 in a case that did not go 2 No. to trial. 2004AP1944-D In a telephone call with the SPD, Attorney Fadner stated his billing system had problems, but his photocopying charges were duly incurred at a business called KopyKats. The referee found Attorney Fadner was aware that under SPD rules, in-house copying charges were not reimbursable. ¶6 The referee further found that KopyKats consisted of one photocopy machine owned by Attorney Fadner. It was located in the building where Attorney Fadner had his law office and for which Attorney Fadner paid rent out of his law office budget. KopyKats had no sign business, it had no indicating staff, and it it was did open not as a separate advertise. referee determined KopyKats was not a separate business. The On his invoices, however, Attorney Fadner had asked for reimbursement for third-party copy services that were actually performed by himself on his own machine. Additionally, he had charged sales tax to the SPD, but did not pay sales tax to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue during the time in question. ¶7 The referee stated that with respect to the billing irregularities for time charges, the SPD and Attorney Fadner reached Attorney a settlement Fadner's agreement. conduct of The charging referee the concluded SPD for that in-house photocopying on a machine he owned and for charging the SPD sales tax and not timely remitting sales tax to the Department of Revenue constituted fraud and 3 deceit contrary to SCR No. 20:8.4(c).1 2004AP1944-D The referee also concluded Attorney Fadner violated former SCR 20:1.15(a)2 and (b)3 concerning the safekeeping of property by taking funds belonging to the investigator, failing to deliver them to the investigator and failing to deposit them in Attorney Fadner's trust account. ¶8 The referee noted the complaint did not identify the amounts of money allegedly improperly charged for copying, or for investigator services not timely deposited or delivered. While this information was relevant to the seriousness of the allegations, the referee concluded Attorney Fadner had foregone the opportunity to provide facts to mitigate the complaint's allegations. ¶9 The referee also observed that in support of its request for the sanction of a license suspension of nine months, 1 SCR 20:8.4(c) states that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." 2 Former SCR 20:1.15 applies to misconduct committed prior to July 1, 2004. Former SCR 20:1.15(a) provided in pertinent part that "[a] lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the lawyer's own property, that property of clients and third persons that is in the lawyer's possession in connection with a representation or when acting in a fiduciary capacity. . . . All funds of clients and third persons paid to a lawyer or law firm shall be deposited in one or more identifiable trust accounts . . . ." 3 Former SCR 20:1.5(b) provided in pertinent part that "upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or third person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person in writing . . . [and] promptly deliver to the client or third person any funds or other property that the client or third person is entitled to receive . . . ." 4 No. the OLR issued submitted in previous June evidence of of 1998 had discipline for been a a previous rule 2004AP1944-D private violation. imposed, and reprimand Given that the that sanction recommended by the OLR was consistent with discipline imposed against other attorneys for similar conduct, the referee concluded that a nine-month license suspension was appropriate. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Davison, 2002 WI 24, 251 Wis. 2d 1, 640 N.W.2d 508 (agreed upon six-month suspension for numerous parking expense billings not actually incurred). The referee associated also with required the Attorney proceeding. Fadner The OLR to pay the reported costs costs of $1411.88 as of July 6, 2005. ¶10 We conclusions adopt of the law. In referee's findings reviewing a of referee's fact and report and recommendation, we affirm the referee's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 718. We review the referee's conclusions of law de novo. ¶11 Id. We observe that the disciplinary process is designed "for the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession." In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Harman, 137 Wis. 2d 148, 150-51, 403 N.W.2d 459 (1987). purpose of lawyer discipline to make whole "It is not the those harmed by attorney misconduct, although restitution is one of the stated requirements for reinstatement 5 of a suspended or revoked No. Id. at 151.4 license." 2004AP1944-D Thus, while the referee's recommendation of nine months suspension of Attorney Fadner's law license and payment of restitution, costs we does are not include satisfied the the requirement recommendation is of an appropriate discipline for his violation of supreme court rules. ¶12 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Thomas A. Fadner, II to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for nine months, effective March 30, 2006, and until further order of this court. ¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order Attorney Thomas A. Fadner, II pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, provided that if the costs are not paid within the time specified and absent a showing to this court of his inability to pay the costs within that time, the license of Attorney Thomas A. Fadner, II to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of this court. ¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Thomas A. Fadner, II comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 4 A petition for reinstatement must show, among other things, that "[t]he petitioner has made restitution to or settled all claims of persons injured or harmed by petitioner's misconduct, including reimbursement to the Wisconsin lawyers' fund for client protection for all payments made from that fund, or, if not, the petitioner's explanation of the failure or inability to do so." SCR 22.29(4m). 6 No. 1 2004AP1944-D
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.
