Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Donald A. Hahnfeld
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2007 WI 123 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: OF WISCONSIN 2006AP1549-D In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Donald A. Hahnfeld, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Donald A. Hahnfeld, Respondent. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HAHNFELD OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: October 4, 2007 SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: ZIEGLER, J., did not participate. 2007 WI 123 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2006AP1549-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Donald A. Hahnfeld, Attorney at Law: FILED Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, OCT 4, 2007 v. David R. Schanker Clerk of Supreme Court Donald A. Hahnfeld, Respondent. ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license suspended. ¶1 PER CURIAM. recommendation engaged in We concluding professional review that a referee's Attorney misconduct and Donald report A. recommending and Hahnfeld that his license to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for a period of 60 days. undergo an The referee also recommended that Attorney Hahnfeld alcohol and other drug abuse (AODA)/psychological evaluation and that the reinstatement of his license to practice No. 2006AP1549-D law should be conditioned upon a satisfactory AODA/psychological evaluation. ¶2 We conclude that the referee's findings of fact are supported by satisfactory and convincing evidence. We further determine that the seriousness of Attorney Hahnfeld's misconduct warrants the suspension of his license to practice law for 60 days. We also agree with the referee's recommendation that Attorney Hahnfeld undergo an AODA/psychological evaluation and that reinstatement of his license should be conditioned upon a satisfactory evaluation. We further conclude that the costs of the proceeding, which are $3,957.08 as of May 24, 2007, should be assessed against him. ¶3 Attorney Donald Hahnfeld was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 1987 and practices in Brookfield. ¶4 In 1993 Attorney Hahnfeld was publicly reprimanded for neglecting four divorce matters and a bankruptcy case. In 2003 he was again publicly reprimanded, this time for a conflict of interest served and only filing to a retaliatory maliciously injure defamation the lawsuit attorney who which brought Attorney Hahnfeld's conflict to the court's attention. ¶5 On June 28, 2006, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a complaint alleging 11 counts of misconduct with respect to Attorney Hahnfeld's handling of three client matters. The first four counts in the complaint Hahnfeld's representation of K.C. concerned Attorney K.C. hired Attorney Margaret O'Connor, an associate in Attorney Hahnfeld's firm, to represent him in a dispute with his former 2 business partner, a post- No. 2006AP1549-D judgment divorce issue, and a small claims matter. O'Connor filed a contempt motion on behalf of K.C. in the divorce case. Pending resolution of the motion, the parties stipulated to placing $20,000 from the sale of their homestead into the trust account of Hahnfeld & Schneck. The funds were deposited on November 18, 2002. ¶6 On May 16, 2003, a contempt motion hearing was held in the family branch of Washington County circuit court. ordered a $556.20 payout to K.C. from the The court homestead sale proceeds being held in trust and ordered O'Connor to prepare an order following the hearing. disbursed $2,500 from the On May 20, 2003, the law firm trust fund as a incurred by K.C. in the small claims case. payment of fees K.C. had not been billed for such services and the withdrawal from funds held in trust was without K.C.'s knowledge or permission. ¶7 O'Connor left the law firm around June 9, 2003, and performed no other work in the K.C. matter and had no further contact with Attorney Hahnfeld. law firm Hahnfeld was terminated took over O'Connor's contract with the effective O'Connor's July 1, cases, 2003. Attorney including the responsibility for drafting the K.C. order resulting from the May 16 hearing in family court. In July 2003 Attorney Hahnfeld wrote to K.C. advising that preparation of the order was "in process" and also advising that $10,000 would be available to him in the next seven to ten days. ¶8 $7,500 On July 16, 2003, Attorney Hahnfeld's firm disbursed to K.C. and $9,000 to 3 the opposing counsel's trust No. account. Attorney Hahnfeld advised K.C. that 2006AP1549-D the firm had disbursed $9,000 to opposing counsel and that the balance of $1,000 would be disbursed within ten days of the entry of the order that Attorney Hahnfeld was drafting. ¶9 Throughout repeated attempts the to summer contact and Attorney occasions, but received no response. counsel in the divorce, fall Kristen of 2003, Hahnfeld K.C. on made numerous In September 2003 opposing Halliden, wrote to Attorney Hahnfeld indicating she had not received information she had requested about bills or debts paid by K.C. and demanding that Attorney Hahnfeld release the remaining funds held in his trust account. Attorney Halliden contacted Attorney Hahnfeld on October 29, 2003, and the two discussed the contents of the family court commissioner's order. Attorney Hahnfeld indicated that he would submit the order for Attorney Halliden's review by November 5, 2003. ¶10 In April 2004 Attorney motion on behalf of K.C.'s ex-wife. to represent him. court issues commissioner brought Halliden filed a contempt K.C. hired another attorney On May 21, 2004, the Washington County family ruled before that he had already on May 16, 2003, him counsel he would not render another order. addressed and he the advised On June 23, 2005, Attorney Hahnfeld forwarded a letter to the new attorneys for the parties in the divorce matter advising that he would deposit trust funds with the clerk of court. Both counsel advised Attorney Hahnfeld to cut checks to them in specific amounts, which Attorney Hahnfeld did on or about June 29, 2005. 4 No. ¶11 drafted As the of August family 12, court 2005, Attorney commissioner's 2006AP1549-D Hahnfeld order had took and not the position he would draft the order only if K.C. paid for the transcript of the May 16, 2003, hearing. ¶12 forwarded response. response K.C. filed the a grievance grievance to with Attorney the OLR. The OLR to obtain his Hahnfeld Attorney Hahnfeld failed to respond by the required deadline, and did not additional time to respond. contact the OLR to request Attorney Hahnfeld also failed to respond in any way to the OLR's second notice that a written response grievance was required, and until after he he was did not respond personally to the served with K.C. a third notice. ¶13 The second client matter set forth in the OLR's complaint involved Attorney Hahnfeld's representation of S.E., who hired Attorney Hahnfeld on March 20, 2003, to file a divorce action on her behalf. $2,500. S.E. paid Attorney Hahnfeld a retainer of Attorney Hahnfeld did not advise S.E. on what basis she would be charged for legal services, and he did not establish with S.E. an agreement as to his hourly rate or how much the divorce would cost. ¶14 child Attorney Hahnfeld filed a summons and petition with support award March 20, 2003. 2004, Attorney more Waukesha County circuit A trial was held on May 11, 2004. Hahnfeld wrote divorce issues. $6,500 in than to S.E. regarding court on On May 12, some of the Attorney Hahnfeld estimated S.E.'s fees to be the original 5 retainer S.E. had paid. He No. 2006AP1549-D described additional work that would need to be done and advised S.E. to expect a bill between $11,000 and $12,000. ¶15 That same day Attorney Hahnfeld wrote to S.E.'s bank about refinancing her home. Attorney Hahnfeld indicated he had ordered a transcript of the proceeding and would be preparing the judgment of divorce based on that transcript. On May 13, 2004, Attorney Hahnfeld wrote to opposing counsel in the divorce matter and said he had begun drafting the findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment. He also said he was awaiting a transcript. ¶16 During the pendency of the divorce case, Attorney Hahnfeld did not bill S.E. on a periodic basis because he felt S.E. was sensitive about the costs that were being incurred. During a meeting between Attorney Hahnfeld and S.E., Attorney Hahnfeld estimated that the likely fees for the divorce would be $3,000 to $3,500 above the $2,500 S.E. had already paid, and that the cost of the trial would be $5,000 on top of that amount, resulting in expected total compensation between $8,000 and $8,500 over the original $2,500 retainer. Attorney Hahnfeld never advised S.E. as to his hourly rate. ¶17 On or about June 18, 2004, S.E. terminated Attorney Hahnfeld's representation. By letter dated June 24, 2004, S.E. requested that Attorney Hahnfeld forward her complete file to her. Attorney Hahnfeld failed to comply with S.E.'s request for her file until November of 2004 when he responded to the OLR's grievance investigation. Attorney Hahnfeld did not provide S.E. with a written, itemized bill until November 2004. 6 The total No. amount charged was $25,822.50, far in excess 2006AP1549-D of Attorney against Attorney Hahnfeld's previous estimates. ¶18 After S.E. filed a grievance Hahnfeld, the OLR forwarded it to Attorney Hahnfeld requesting his formal written response by October 18, 2004. Attorney Hahnfeld failed to respond by that deadline, and he did not contact the OLR to request additional time to respond. Hahnfeld notice also that failed his to timely written respond response to to the S.E.'s Attorney OLR's second grievance was required, and he did not respond to the grievance until after he was personally served with a third notice that his response was required. ¶19 complaint The third client involved Attorney matter detailed Hahnfeld's in the representation of OLR's R.T. R.T. hired Attorney Hahnfeld in July of 2004 to represent him in a paternity matter wherein R.T. sought a change in a visitation order. R.T. Hahnfeld deposited receipt. paid Attorney in his Hahnfeld general $750, which operating Attorney account upon The hearing on R.T.'s motion for a change in the visitation order was scheduled for August 2, 2004. Because of a scheduling conflict, Attorney Hahnfeld rescheduled the hearing to September 30, 2004. R.T. appeared at the September hearing date, but Attorney Hahnfeld did not appear. Attorney Hahnfeld's office prior to the hearing. 30 R.T. called The phone was answered by an automated system, and R.T. left a message. R.T. continued to call Attorney Hahnfeld's office until the start of 7 No. the hearing. 2006AP1549-D He never reached Attorney Hahnfeld and proceeded to the hearing without him. ¶20 The day after the hearing, R.T. called Attorney Hahnfeld for an explanation of Attorney Hahnfeld's failure to appear at the hearing. Hahnfeld. R.T. again was unable to reach Attorney R.T. called Attorney Hahnfeld's office numerous times thereafter and left messages, either on the office answering machine or with Attorney Hahnfeld's secretary, requesting a full refund of the fees he had paid. Attorney Hahnfeld did not return R.T.'s calls. ¶21 OLR. On November 23, 2004, R.T. filed a grievance with the The OLR contacted Attorney Hahnfeld and advised him about R.T.'s concerns. Attorney Hahnfeld told the OLR staff that he had authorized his staff to send the refund but did not know whether it had been done. Attorney Hahnfeld also said he would issue a refund that day and would furnish the OLR with proof via facsimile. Attorney By letter dated December 9, 2004, the OLR informed Hahnfeld that his written response grievance was required by January 3, 2005. to the R.T. By January 11, 2005, Attorney Hahnfeld had not submitted his written response nor had he contacted the OLR to ask for additional time to respond. ¶22 The OLR called Attorney Hahnfeld's office and left a message on his voicemail reminding him that his response to the R.T. grievance was overdue and requesting that Attorney Hahnfeld contact the OLR to indicate when his response could be expected. Attorney Hahnfeld did not return the OLR's call. 8 No. ¶23 via On January 13, 2005, the OLR sent Attorney Hahnfeld, facsimile Attorney 2006AP1549-D and certified Hahnfeld's January 26, 2005, mail, response Attorney its to second R.T.'s Hahnfeld sent request for grievance. his On response via facsimile to the OLR, and he issued a check to R.T. for $750 from his firm's general operating account. ¶24 By letter dated December 6, 2005, the OLR requested additional information from Attorney Hahnfeld in R.T.'s matter. Attorney Hahnfeld failed to respond by the date requested, and he did not request additional time to respond. On January 3, 2006, the OLR sent Attorney Hahnfeld a second request for the additional information. He again failed to respond. The OLR contacted Attorney Hahnfeld's office by telephone on January 17, 2006, and was told that Attorney Hahnfeld was in his office but was on another call. Attorney Hahnfeld did not return the call but his finally did fax response to the OLR's request for additional information later that day. ¶25 Attorney Hahnfeld complaint on August 3, 2006. on October 19, 2006. filed an answer to the OLR's The OLR filed an amended complaint On September 25, 2006, James J. Winiarski was appointed referee. A scheduling conference was held on December 5, 2006. ¶26 On January 4, 2007, Attorney Hahnfeld filed a notice indicating that he was withdrawing all responsive pleadings and was entering a plea of no contest to all allegations in the OLR's complaint. Attorney Hahnfeld also advised that he was accepting the OLR's offer to recommend a 60-day suspension of 9 No. his license to practice law in Wisconsin. 2006AP1549-D The referee gave the parties the opportunity to file a brief on the issue of the appropriate discipline. The OLR filed a memorandum. Attorney Hahnfeld did not file any additional documents discussing the appropriate discipline. ¶27 The referee issued his report and recommendation on May 8, 2007. burden of complaint. The referee concluded that the OLR had met its proving all counts of misconduct alleged in the Those counts are as follows: COUNT 1 1. By failing to prepare an order following the May 16, 2003, divorce hearing, Hahnfeld failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing [K.C.] in his post-judgment divorce matter, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.1 COUNT 2 2. By failing to keep his client advised as to the requests of opposing counsel for additional documentation or to otherwise keep his client advised as to the progress in the matter, other than to tell him he was preparing the order relating to the May 16, 2003, hearing, and by further failing to respond to [K.C.]'s telephone calls regarding the status of his case, Hahnfeld failed to keep [K.C.] informed about 1 Effective July 1, 2007, substantial changes were made to the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys, SCR Chapter 20. See Supreme Court Order No. 04-07, 2007 WI 4, 293 Wis. 2d xv; and Supreme Court Order No. 06-04, 2007 WI 48, 297 Wis. 2d xlvii. Since the conduct underlying this case arose prior to July 1, 2007, unless otherwise indicated, all references to the supreme court rules will be to those in effect prior to July 1, 2007. Former SCR 20:1.3 provides that a lawyer "shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 10 No. 2006AP1549-D the status of his matter and respond to his reasonable requests for information, in violation of SCR:1.4(a).2 COUNT 3 3. By failing to take the action necessary to give effect to the Court's decision regarding the distribution of funds held in trust from the sale of the homestead, thereby preventing the prompt release of those funds held in trust, Hahnfeld failed to promptly deliver, to his client or a third party, funds held in trust, in violation of SCR 20:1.15(b).3 COUNT 4 4. By failing to respond to the grievance of [K.C.] within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail with a request for response, Hahnfeld failed to cooperate with an OLR investigation, in violation of SCR 22.03(2),4 which is enforceable under SCR 2 Former SCR 20:1.4(a) provides that a lawyer "shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information." 3 Former SCR 20:1.15(b) (effective through June 30, 2004), states: 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. Except as stated in this rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or third person any funds or other property that the client or third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or third person, shall render a full accounting regarding such property. 4 SCR 22.03(2) states: Investigation. (2) Upon commencing an investigation, the director shall notify the respondent of the matter being investigated unless in the opinion of the director the investigation of the matter requires otherwise. The respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct within 20 days after being served 11 No. 20:8.4(f),5 which states in part professional misconduct to violate a Rule regulating the conduct of lawyers. 2006AP1549-D that it is Supreme Court COUNT 5 5. Upon conclusion of the [S.E.] divorce, by failing to draft and submit to the court the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment of divorce within the 30-day time limit, Hahnfeld failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. COUNT 6 6. By failing to explain to his client basis or rate of his fee at the outset of representation, Hahnfeld violated SCR 20:1.5(b).6 the the COUNT 7 7. By failing to promptly turn over [S.E.]'s file materials to either her or her successor counsel, Hahnfeld failed to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect the client's interest upon by ordinary mail a request for a written response. The director may allow additional time to respond. Following receipt of the response, the director may conduct further investigation and may compel the respondent to answer questions, furnish documents, and present any information deemed relevant to the investigation. 5 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to "violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of lawyers." 6 Former SCR 20:1.5(b) states that "[w]hen the lawyer has not regularly represented the client, the basis or rate of the fee shall be communicated to the client, preferably in writing, before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation." 12 No. termination of 20:1.16(d).7 representation, in violation 2006AP1549-D of SCR COUNT 8 8. By failing to respond to OLR regarding the grievance of [S.E.] within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail with a request for response, Hahnfeld failed to cooperate with an OLR investigation, in violation of SCR 22.03(2), which is enforceable under SCR 20:8.4(f), which states in part that it is professional misconduct to violate a Supreme Court Rule regarding the conduct of lawyers. COUNT 9 9. By failing to return any of [R.T.]'s calls on the day of the motion hearing he did not attend and on subsequent occasions, Hahnfeld failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a). COUNT 10 10. By failing to refund the $750.00 fee within a reasonable time after his failure to appear at the September 20, 2004, motion hearing on behalf of his client, Hahnfeld failed to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interest upon termination of representation, including a refund of any advance payment of a fee that had not been earned, in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d). 7 Former SCR 20:1.16(d) states: representation. Declining or terminating (d) Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been earned. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted by other law. 13 No. 2006AP1549-D COUNT 11 11. By failing to respond within 20 days to [R.T.]'s grievance and, in addition, by failing to timely provide additional information requested during the investigation, Hahnfeld violated SCR 21.15(4)8 and SCR 22.03(6),9 which require cooperation with an OLR investigation, enforceable under SCR 20:8.4(f). ¶28 With respect to the appropriate discipline to impose, the referee noted that Attorney Hahnfeld received two previous public reprimands, found in this case. the first for misconduct similar to that The referee said Attorney Hahnfeld showed a pattern of failing to respond to client communications and often ignored his duty to keep his clients properly informed of the status of their cases. The referee said, "[t]hese disturbing patterns collectively show either a disregard of professional responsibilities or the inability to perform professional responsibilities due to some outside cause." 8 SCR 21.15(4) provides: Duties of attorneys. (4) Every attorney shall cooperate with the office of lawyer regulation in the investigation, prosecution and disposition of grievances, complaints filed with or by the director, and petitions for reinstatement. An attorney's wilful failure to cooperate with the office of lawyer regulation constitutes violation of the rules of professional conduct for attorneys. 9 SCR 22.03(6) provides that "[i]n the course of the investigation, the respondent's wilful failure to provide relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted in the grievance." 14 No. ¶29 2006AP1549-D The referee also said he was concerned with Attorney Hahnfeld's lack of cooperation with the OLR, and he said this conduct showed a disregard of professional inability to perform those duties. concerned neglect with of clients. the files repetitious and his duties or the The referee said he was most nature failure of to Attorney Hahnfeld's communicate with his The referee noted the imposition of two prior public reprimands had not impressed upon Attorney Hahnfeld the need to change his practices. The referee said given that Attorney Hahnfeld received two prior public reprimands and yet continued his pattern of neglecting client matters, the OLR's request for a 60-day license suspension was "generous and probably at the low end of the range of appropriate discipline in this matter." ¶30 to have The referee commented that it would have been helpful some evidence from Attorney Hahnfeld as to why he continued his pattern of neglect in client matters and whether there was some other cause for the neglect. The referee recommended that Attorney Hahnfeld's license be suspended for a period of 60 days. In addition, he also recommended that Attorney Hahnfeld be required to obtain an AODA/psychological evaluation within 30 days of the date of suspension in order to determine whether he has any ailment which would interfere with his continued practice of law at the conclusion of the period of suspension. be The referee recommended that reinstatement should conditioned upon a satisfactory evaluation. 15 AODA/psychological No. ¶31 2006AP1549-D No appeal has been filed from the referee's report and recommendation. ¶32 unless This court will adopt a referee's findings of fact they are clearly reviewed de novo. erroneous. Conclusions of law are See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747. The court may impose whatever sanction it sees fit regardless of the referee's recommendation. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. Attorney Hahnfeld has entered a no contest plea to all eleven counts of misconduct alleged in the OLR's complaint. ¶33 The referee's findings of fact in this case have not been shown to be clearly erroneous, and we adopt them. agree with the referee's conclusions of law. We also We further agree with the referee's recommendation for a 60-day suspension of Attorney Hahnfeld's license to practice law in Wisconsin, and we agree with the referee's recommendation that Attorney Hahnfeld undergo an AODA/psychological evaluation as a prerequisite to having his license reinstated. to require Attorney Hahnfeld Finally, we find it appropriate to pay the full costs of this proceeding. ¶34 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Donald A. Hahnfeld to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, effective November 8, 2007. ¶35 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, Donald A. Hahnfeld pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 16 If the costs are not No. 2006AP1549-D 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 Donald A. Hahnfeld to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the court. ¶36 of this IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 30 days of the date order Donald A. AODA/psychological evaluation. Hahnfeld shall obtain an The reinstatement of his license to practice law shall be conditioned upon Donald A. Hahnfeld obtaining a satisfactory AODA/psychological evaluation. ¶37 ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, J., did not participate. 17 No. 1 2006AP1549-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.
