Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kristin J. Gernetzke
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2007 WI 6 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: OF WISCONSIN 2006AP2629-D COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kristin J. Gernetzke, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Kristin J. Gernetzke, Respondent. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GERNETZKE OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: January 19, 2007 2007 WI 6 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2006AP2629-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kristin J. Gernetzke, Attorney at Law: FILED Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, JAN 19, 2007 v. Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Supreme Court Kristin J. Gernetzke, Respondent. ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. CURIAM. review Attorney's license suspended. ¶1 PER We the stipulation filed by Kristin J. Gernetzke and the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) pursuant to SCR 22.12,1 wherein Attorney Gernetzke admits to the facts and misconduct alleged by the OLR as set forth in the 1 SCR 22.12 provides in relevant part that "(1) The director may file with the complaint a stipulation of the director and the respondent to the facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and discipline to be imposed. The supreme court may consider the complaint and stipulation without the appointment of a referee." No. parties' stipulation. The misconduct giving 2006AP2629-D rise to this disciplinary matter involved improper and undocumented billings that Attorney Gernetzke submitted to the Office of the State Public Defender (SPD). ¶2 We We adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law. agree that Attorney Gernetzke's misconduct warrants suspension of her license to practice law for a period of six months, and we further agree that restitution is appropriate as discussed herein. The parties do not seek to impose the costs of this proceeding upon Attorney Gernetzke and we accede to that recommendation. ¶3 Attorney Gernetzke Wisconsin in 2002. ¶4 From was admitted to practice law in She has no previous disciplinary history. September 2002 until May 7, 2005, Attorney Gernetzke was an associate attorney with the offices of Skemp & Associates in La Crosse. From May 7, 2005, until her termination on October 20, 2005, she was an associate attorney with the firm of O'Flaherty, Heim & Egan, Ltd., ("O'Flaherty firm") also in La Crosse. Throughout this period, Attorney Gernetzke was certified to work as a public defender by the SPD and undertook a number of cases in that capacity. ¶5 While practicing with Skemp & Associates, Attorney Gernetzke began to utilize a billing entry described as "develop legal theory" on bills she submitted to the SPD. This type of entry file requires acceptable. billings certain Attorney under the documentation Gernetzke, category however, "develop 2 in the submitted legal theory" to be numerous without No. creating proper documentation. done on the file or the In some cases, no work had been entries were made as Attorney Gernetzke "thinking" about the case. O'Flaherty firm terminated 2006AP2629-D Attorney a result of Eventually, the Gernetzke's employment because of her use of the "develop legal theory" entries on bills submitted to the SPD, and filed a grievance with the OLR. ¶6 The OLR investigators reviewed 26 of the files Attorney Gernetzke worked on for the SPD and determined that Attorney Gernetzke was paid $5120 for time described as "develop legal theory." under this Additional category investigation. files and were billings pending totaling at the $2698 time submitted of the OLR The SPD conducted an additional review of its independently demanded Attorney Gernetzke return additional monies paid to her for billing entries designated as "develop legal theory." ¶7 The parties stipulated that the entries Attorney Gernetzke designated and billed as "develop legal theory" were without support, involving improper, dishonesty, inflated, fraud, deceit and or constituted conduct misrepresentation in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).2 ¶8 The appropriate. parties further stipulated that restitution was At the time the stipulation was executed, Attorney Gernetzke had made restitution to the SPD in the amount of $5000 and had waived claims from additional billings submitted to the 2 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." 3 No. SPD in the amount of $8716.87. 2006AP2629-D This court is advised that Attorney Gernetzke is in the process of negotiating a plan to repay her remaining obligations to the SPD. The stipulation indicates that restitution to her former law firm may also be appropriate.3 ¶9 regarding We accept the parties' stipulation and recommendations discipline. Cf. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Glasbrenner, 2005 WI 50, 280 Wis. 2d 37, 695 N.W.2d 291. Consistent with the parties' stipulation, we will not impose the costs of this proceeding upon Attorney Gernetzke. ¶10 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Kristin J. Gernetzke to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 6 months, effective March 2, 2007. ¶11 Gernetzke IT IS shall FURTHER comply ORDERED with the that Attorney requirements of Kristin SCR J. 22.26 pertaining to activities following suspension. 3 The parties' stipulation did not expressly set forth the amount of restitution, if any, that Attorney Gernetzke still owes the SPD or her former law firms. Therefore, we do not impose a specific order regarding restitution at this time. Attorney Gernetzke is reminded that a petition for reinstatement requires the petitioner to demonstrate that she 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. See SCR 22.29(4m). 4 No. 1 2006AP2629-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.
