Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Phillip J. Ramthun

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2014AP002476-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2015-09-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
2015 WI 94 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2014AP2476-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Philiip J. Ramthun, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Phillip J. Ramthun, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST RAMTHUN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
September 30, 2015 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2015 WI 94
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2014AP2476-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Phillip J. Ramthun, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Phillip J. Ramthun, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
SEP 30, 2015 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review Referee Dennis J. Flynn's 
recommendation that we suspend Attorney Phillip J. Ramthun's 
license to practice law for a period of two years and six months 
for professional misconduct.  Neither the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR) nor Attorney Ramthun has appealed the referee's 
recommendation.  Therefore, the matter is submitted to the court 
for review pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.17(2).1 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) provides:  
(continued) 
No. 
2014AP2476-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
In conducting our review, we will affirm the referee's 
findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 
305 Wis. 2d 71, 
740 N.W.2d 125. 
 
We 
review 
the 
referee's 
conclusions of law de novo.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Alia, 2006 WI 12, ¶39, 288 Wis. 2d 299, 709 N.W.2d 399.  
In accordance with our authority to supervise the practice of 
law in this state, we determine the level of discipline that is 
appropriate under the particular circumstances, independent of 
the referee's recommendation but benefitting from it.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 
261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶3 
Attorney Ramthun was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1978.  He practices law in Milwaukee.  His license 
is subject to an administrative suspension for failure to pay 
Wisconsin State Bar dues, failure to file a trust account 
certification, and noncompliance with continuing legal education 
(CLE) requirements.  He has no other prior disciplinary history, 
other than a brief temporary suspension for failure to cooperate 
with the OLR's investigation into two of the matters giving rise 
to this proceeding.   
                                                                                                                                                             
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
No. 
2014AP2476-D   
 
3 
 
¶4 
On October 22, 2014, the OLR filed a complaint against 
Attorney Ramthun.  Attorney Ramthun did not file an answer.  The 
matter was assigned to Referee Flynn.  Attorney Ramthun did not 
appear in the proceeding until a second scheduling conference on 
February 13, 2015.  On March 18, 2015, the OLR filed an 
extensively amended complaint comprising 71 pages and containing 
52 separate counts of alleged misconduct related to 13 separate 
client matters.  The OLR sought a three-year suspension of 
Attorney Ramthun's license.  Attorney Ramthun did not file an 
answer to the amended complaint and, on April 21, 2015, the OLR 
sought a default judgment.   
¶5 
The referee established a briefing schedule for the 
default motion.  Attorney Ramthun did not file a timely brief 
but later sent a letter and responsive brief by email, opposing 
default judgment and maintaining that he had a meritorious 
defense to some of the OLR's allegations.  He also disclosed 
certain contributing factors, including the fact that he had 
moved his law office three times in the past five years, had 
staffing issues, got divorced, and had significant medical 
issues including a hip replacement, cancer, and chronic fatigue 
syndrome. 
¶6 
The referee denied the motion for a default judgment 
and established a revised briefing schedule.  However, Attorney 
Ramthun 
then 
failed 
to 
appear 
at 
a 
scheduled 
telephone 
conference.  The OLR renewed its motion for a default judgment.  
The next day, Attorney Ramthun sent an email stating that he was 
experiencing chronic fatigue syndrome which prevented his 
No. 
2014AP2476-D   
 
4 
 
participation in the scheduled conference.  Both parties 
participated in a subsequent telephone conference on July 13, 
2015.  
¶7 
On July 16, 2015, the referee issued a thorough 
"DECISION on Motion for Default Judgment [and] Report and 
Recommendations."  The referee reiterated the legal standards 
applicable to default judgments in OLR matters and noted that 
Attorney Ramthun, over a seven-month period, had not filed any 
answer, had failed to comply with the referee's scheduling 
orders, and had failed to appear at telephonic scheduling 
conferences.  The referee deemed a default judgment against 
Attorney Ramthun appropriate.  We agree.  Attorney Ramthun 
failed to present any real defense despite being given multiple 
opportunities to do so, and we declare him to be in default.   
¶8 
The referee then summarized the allegations against 
Attorney Ramthun, determined that the OLR has met its burden, 
and found by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that 
Attorney Ramthun committed 46 of the 52 alleged acts of lawyer 
misconduct.  
¶9 
The misconduct in this case is extensive.  The amended 
complaint alleges, and the referee determined, that Attorney 
Ramthun committed at least 46 separate instances of professional 
misconduct in some 13 client matters between 2007 and 2014. 
Given the breadth and scope of the misconduct and the fact that 
the factual allegations were not seriously challenged by 
Attorney Ramthun, we will only summarize the client matters and 
the referee's extensive findings of misconduct. 
No. 
2014AP2476-D   
 
5 
 
Matter of A.G. (Counts 1-4) 
¶10 In 2005, A.G. retained Attorney Ramthun as successor 
counsel to assist with her appeal from the denial of disability 
benefits.  Attorney Ramthun subsequently filed a civil lawsuit 
on A.G.'s behalf but then failed to respond to a motion to 
dismiss.  A.G.'s case was dismissed as time-barred.  Attorney 
Ramthun failed to inform A.G. of the dismissal until after 
appeal deadlines had expired.  Attorney Ramthun then failed to 
communicate further with A.G. or with her successor counsel.  
Matter of K.W. (Counts 5-8) 
¶11 In 2008, K.W. retained Attorney Ramthun to represent 
her in two separate personal injury actions.  Attorney Ramthun 
filed two separate lawsuits on her behalf.  He then failed to 
inform K.W. of a motion to dismiss or of his agreement to 
dismiss her case by stipulation.  
Matter of M.M. (Counts 9-15) 
¶12 In 2010, Attorney Ramthun became successor counsel in 
a case involving a car accident victim who received chiropractic 
and physical therapy treatment from The Healing Arts Treatment 
Center (Healing Arts) for accident-related injuries.  The 
outstanding balance for these services was $4,616.   
¶13 As part of his representation, Attorney Ramthun agreed 
to honor Healing Arts' lien for the outstanding chiropractic 
bills and, in May 2012, Attorney Ramthun received and deposited 
a check from an insurer for $4,616 for these costs into his 
client trust account.  However, despite numerous calls from 
Healing Arts seeking reimbursement, their bill was not paid 
No. 
2014AP2476-D   
 
6 
 
until ten months later.  The OLR's investigation into this 
matter revealed trust account anomalies, including conversion of 
a portion of the client funds.  Attorney Ramthun then failed to 
respond to several of the OLR's requests for information 
relating to this matter. 
Matter of J.C. (Count 16) 
¶14 In 2012, J.C. retained Attorney Ramthun to represent 
him in a personal injury action.  Attorney Ramthun failed to 
respond to OLR inquiries regarding a grievance filed by J.C.  
Matter of EZ Self Storage (Counts 17-19) 
¶15 In 
2012, 
Attorney 
Ramthun 
became 
delinquent 
on 
payments for a storage facility, EZ Self Storage, at which he 
stored client files, resulting in those files being offered at 
public auction.  He then failed to respond to OLR inquiries into 
the matter.  
Matter of Southeast Wisconsin Process, LLC (Count 20) 
¶16 In 2012, Attorney Ramthun directed staff persons to 
make false statements regarding payment of fees due and owing to 
Southeast Wisconsin Process, LLC. 
Matter of J.J. (Count 21) 
¶17 In 2011, J.J. hired Attorney Ramthun to represent him 
in a Social Security Disability benefits claim.  Attorney 
Ramthun later failed to respond to OLR inquires regarding an 
ensuing grievance.  
Matter of K.F. (Counts 22-27) 
¶18 In 2011, Attorney Ramthun became successor counsel for 
K.F. in a personal injury matter.  He filed a lawsuit on her 
No. 
2014AP2476-D   
 
7 
 
behalf, which settled for $20,000.  Attorney Ramthun deposited 
the settlement funds into his trust account and made internet 
transfers from his trust account into his operating account.  
Months after signing the settlement statement, K.F. had not 
received her portion of the settlement proceeds and Attorney 
Ramthun had not paid medical and other expenses in the personal 
injury matter as required by the terms of the settlement.  In 
addition, the ensuing investigation revealed trust account 
anomalies. 
Matter of R.O. and A.O. (Counts 28–33) 
¶19 Attorney Ramthun represented R.O. and A.O. in a 
personal injury matter.  In October 2013, Attorney Ramthun 
negotiated a $12,500 settlement, which required satisfaction of 
an outstanding lien in the amount of $4,152.23 to Milwaukee 
County Medical Plan (MCMP). 
¶20 In October 2013, Attorney Ramthun received a $12,500 
settlement check, together with releases to be signed.  Attorney 
Ramthun deposited the $12,500 settlement check into his trust 
account, then issued a series of checks and made transfers with 
the funds.  He later failed to appear at a hearing on a motion 
to reopen the case, to compel signature of releases and of a 
stipulation and order for dismissal, and for sanctions including 
actual attorneys' fees. 
¶21 After the May 2014 motion hearing, the Honorable 
Christopher Foley, with knowledge that 
Attorney 
Ramthun's 
license had been temporarily suspended, issued a June 17, 2014 
order 
directing 
Attorney 
Ramthun 
to 
take 
certain 
steps, 
No. 
2014AP2476-D   
 
8 
 
including paying the plaintiffs the net amount of the settlement 
to which they were entitled and to pay the sum of $4,152.23 to 
satisfy the outstanding lien to MCMP.  Attorney Ramthun failed 
to comply with the court order.  Attorney Ramthun then failed to 
cooperate in the ensuing OLR investigation, and failed to appear 
at a subsequent contempt hearing at which he was found to be in 
contempt.  
Matter of A.L.D. and D.D. (Counts 34-37) 
¶22 In 2011, A.L.D. and D.D. hired Attorney Ramthun to 
represent them in a sexual harassment matter.  He filed an 
action on their behalf.  
¶23 Attorney Ramthun then failed to appear at a 2013 court 
hearing, causing the court to dismiss the matter for failure to 
prosecute.  Attorney Ramthun failed to inform A.L.D. that the 
case was dismissed, allowing her to believe the case was 
ongoing.  He then ceased contact with the clients and failed to 
cooperate with the ensuing OLR disciplinary investigation.  
Matter of J.J. (Counts 38-42) 
¶24 J.J. hired Attorney Ramthun to represent him in a 
personal injury matter involving a fall on a City of Milwaukee 
sidewalk.  In late 2013, Attorney Ramthun's assistant telephoned 
J.J. to inform him that his claim had settled and he would 
receive 
$2,550. 
 
Attorney 
Ramthun's 
office 
received 
the 
settlement funds and instructed J.J. to come to Attorney 
Ramthun's office, at which time J.J. was given $600 cash but no 
receipt nor a copy of a settlement agreement.  Attorney Ramthun 
No. 
2014AP2476-D   
 
9 
 
failed to give J.J. the $1,950 balance of his settlement and 
failed to respond to questions from the client. 
¶25 In 2013, Attorney Ramthun also falsely informed J.J. 
that he had sent a letter to the judge in a different closed 
federal court case requesting the case be reopened.  Attorney 
Ramthun never actually filed the letter in federal court.  
Attorney Ramthun then failed to cooperate with the ensuing OLR 
disciplinary investigation.  
Matter of R.E. (Counts 43-47) 
¶26 In 2008, R.E. was injured in a car accident and 
subsequently retained Attorney Ramthun to represent her.  In 
2011, Attorney Ramthun filed suit on R.E.'s behalf.  He then 
failed to respond to discovery requests despite repeated 
inquires and failed to appear at an ensuing hearing on a motion 
to compel and for sanctions, resulting in the court dismissing 
R.E.'s case with prejudice.  Attorney Ramthun failed to inform 
R.E. about this and incorrectly told R.E. that the statute of 
limitations had run on her case and there was nothing he could 
do.  Attorney Ramthun also failed to return R.E.'s case file and 
failed 
to 
cooperate 
with 
the 
ensuing 
OLR 
disciplinary 
investigation.   
Matter of H.B. (Counts 48-52)  
¶27 In 2010, H.B. hired Attorney Ramthun to represent her 
in a personal injury matter.  In 2013, Attorney Ramthun filed 
suit on H.B.'s behalf.  In 2014, opposing counsel served upon 
Attorney Ramthun a notice of motion and motion for summary 
judgment.  On March 31, 2014, the court granted the summary 
No. 
2014AP2476-D   
 
10 
 
judgment motion, entering judgment against H.B.  Attorney 
Ramthun failed to notify H.B. of the dismissal of her case.  
Indeed, throughout the representation, Attorney Ramthun failed 
to return H.B.'s phone calls or respond to her messages 
inquiring into the status of her case.  She only learned that 
the case had been dismissed and a judgment entered against her 
by checking the Wisconsin Court System Circuit Court Access 
website.  Attorney Ramthun then failed to cooperate with the 
ensuing disciplinary investigation.  
¶28 The 
amended 
complaint 
alleged 
and 
the 
referee 
determined that Attorney Ramthun failed to provide competent 
representation to a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.12 (Counts 1 
and 5). 
¶29 The 
amended 
complaint 
alleged 
and 
the 
referee 
determined that Attorney Ramthun failed to abide by a client's 
decisions concerning the objectives of representation, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.2(a)3 (Count 7). 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.1 provides that "[a] lawyer shall provide 
competent representation to a client.  Competent representation 
requires 
the 
legal 
knowledge, 
skill, 
thoroughness 
and 
preparation reasonably necessary for the representation." 
3 SCR 20:1.2(a) provides: 
Subject to pars. (c) and (d), a lawyer shall 
abide 
by 
a 
client's 
decisions 
concerning 
the 
objectives of representation and, as required by SCR 
20:1.4, shall consult with the client as to the means 
by which they are to be pursued. A lawyer may take 
such action on behalf of the client as is impliedly 
authorized to carry out the representation. A lawyer 
shall abide by a client's decision whether to settle a 
(continued) 
No. 
2014AP2476-D   
 
11 
 
¶30 The 
amended 
complaint 
alleged 
and 
the 
referee 
determined that Attorney Ramthun failed to act with reasonable 
diligence, in violation of SCR 20:1.3,4 when he failed to 
periodically review the status of a client's case, failed to 
ensure timely service after filing suit on behalf of a client, 
failed to take appropriate steps to advance his client's lawsuit 
resulting in the dismissal of the case, and failed to timely 
respond to a summary judgment motion filed in a client's case 
(Counts 2, 5, 34, and 48). 
¶31 The 
amended 
complaint 
alleged 
and 
the 
referee 
determined that, on several occasions, Attorney Ramthun failed 
to keep his clients reasonably informed about the status of 
their respective cases, failed to respond to reasonable requests 
for information, failed to return client phone calls and respond 
to messages, and, in one matter, failed to advise a client that 
the court had dismissed the client's complaint, all in violation 
of SCR 20:1.4(a)5 (Counts 3, 6, 7, 8, 35, 38, 44, and 49).6 
                                                                                                                                                             
matter. In a criminal case or any proceeding that 
could result in deprivation of liberty, the lawyer 
shall 
abide 
by 
the 
client's 
decision, 
after 
consultation with the lawyer, as to a plea to be 
entered, whether to waive jury trial and whether the 
client will testify. 
4 SCR 20:1.3 provides that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
5 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides, in relevant part: 
A lawyer shall: 
. . . 
(continued) 
No. 
2014AP2476-D   
 
12 
 
¶32 The 
amended 
complaint 
alleged 
and 
the 
referee 
determined that Attorney Ramthun failed to pay his monthly 
storage bill and thereby subjected his former clients' files to 
be revealed at a public sale, in violation of SCR 20:1.6(a)7 
(Count 17). 
¶33 The 
amended 
complaint 
alleged 
and 
the 
referee 
determined that Attorney Ramthun engaged in multiple violations 
of the trust account rules, namely:  SCR 20:1.15(b)(1)8 (Counts 
                                                                                                                                                             
(2) reasonably consult with the client about the 
means by which the client's objectives are to be 
accomplished; 
(3) keep the client reasonably informed about the 
status of the matter; 
(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests by 
the client for information[.] 
6 The referee recommends that the court dismiss Counts 45 
and 50 alleging violations of SCR 20:1.4, deeming these charges 
duplicative of other counts alleged and proven. 
7 SCR 20:1.6(a) provides that "[a] lawyer shall not reveal 
information relating to the representation of a client unless 
the client gives informed consent, except for disclosures that 
are 
impliedly 
authorized 
in 
order 
to 
carry 
out 
the 
representation, and except as stated in pars. (b) and (c)." 
8 SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) provides:  
A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the 
lawyer's own property, that property of clients and 
3rd parties that is in the lawyer's possession in 
connection with a representation.  All funds of 
clients and 3rd parties paid to a lawyer or law firm 
in connection with a representation shall be deposited 
in one or more identifiable trust accounts. 
No. 
2014AP2476-D   
 
13 
 
9, 22, and 28); SCR 20:1.15(d)(1)9 (Counts 10, 23, 29, and 39); 
SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)a.10 (Count 24); SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)c.11 (Counts 14 
and 25); and SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)12 (Counts 11 and 26).13  Attorney 
                                                 
9 SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) provides: 
Upon receiving funds or other property in which a 
client has an interest, or in which the lawyer has 
received notice that a 3rd party has an interest 
identified by a lien, court order, judgment, or 
contract, the lawyer shall promptly notify the client 
or 3rd party in writing.  Except as stated in this 
rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement 
with the client, the lawyer shall promptly deliver to 
the client or 3rd party any funds or other property 
that the client or 3rd party is entitled to receive. 
10 SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)a. provides that "[n]o disbursement of 
cash shall be made from a trust account or from a deposit to a 
trust account, and no check shall be made payable to 'Cash.'" 
11 SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)c. provides that "[a] lawyer shall not 
make deposits to or disbursements from a trust account by way of 
an Internet transaction." 
12 SCR 20:1.15(f)(1) provides, in relevant part: 
Draft accounts.  Complete records of a trust 
account that is a draft account shall include a 
transaction register; individual client ledgers for 
IOLTA accounts and other pooled trust accounts; a 
ledger for account fees and charges, if law firm funds 
are held in the account pursuant to sub. (b)(3); 
deposit 
records; 
disbursement 
records; 
monthly 
statements; and reconciliation reports, subject to all 
of the following: 
a. 
Transaction 
register. 
 
The 
transaction 
register shall contain a chronological record of all 
account transactions, and shall include all of the 
following: 
1. the date, source, and amount of all deposits; 
(continued) 
No. 
2014AP2476-D   
 
14 
 
Ramthun did not maintain transaction registers, subsidiary 
ledgers, or individual client ledgers; failed to maintain trust 
account balances; converted sums of $15,760.47 through web or 
Internet transactions; failed to promptly deliver settlement 
proceeds to clients; made improper cash disbursements; and 
failed to pay storage fees, thereby failing to safeguard client 
records. 
¶34 The 
amended 
complaint 
alleged 
and 
the 
referee 
determined that Attorney Ramthun violated SCR 20:1.16(d)14 when 
                                                                                                                                                             
2. the date, check or transaction number, payee 
and amount of all disbursements, whether by check, 
wire transfer, or other means; 
3. the date and amount of every other deposit or 
deduction of whatever nature; 
4. the identity of the client for whom funds were 
deposited or disbursed; and 
5. 
the 
balance 
in 
the 
account 
after 
each 
transaction. 
b. Individual client ledgers.  A subsidiary 
ledger shall be maintained for each client or 3rd 
party for whom the lawyer receives trust funds that 
are deposited in an IOLTA account or any other pooled 
trust account.  The lawyer shall record each receipt 
and disbursement of a client's or 3rd party's funds 
and the balance following each transaction.  A lawyer 
shall not disburse funds from an IOLTA account or any 
pooled trust account that would create a negative 
balance with respect to any individual client or 
matter. 
13 The referee recommends that the court dismiss Count 18 
alleging violations of SCR 20:1.15(b)(6), deeming this charge 
duplicative of other counts alleged and proven. 
14 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides: 
(continued) 
No. 
2014AP2476-D   
 
15 
 
he failed to deliver a client's file to successor counsel (Count 
4). 
¶35 The 
amended 
complaint 
alleged 
and 
the 
referee 
determined that Attorney Ramthun failed to provide to opposing 
counsel signed releases and a signed stipulation and order for 
dismissal, in violation of SCR 20:3.215 (Count 30). 
¶36 The 
amended 
complaint 
alleged 
and 
the 
referee 
determined that Attorney Ramthun failed to comply with a 
June 17, 2014 order entered by Circuit Court Judge Christopher 
Foley that resulted in the dismissal of his client's case, and 
also failed to respond to routine discovery requests, both in 
violation of SCR 20:3.416 (Counts 32 and 43). 
                                                                                                                                                             
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 or expense that has not 
been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers 
relating to the client to the extent permitted by 
other law. 
15 SCR 
20:3.2 
provides 
that 
"[a] 
lawyer 
shall 
make 
reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the 
interests of the client." 
16 SCR 20:3.4 provides, in relevant part:  
A lawyer shall not:  
. . . 
(c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the 
rules of a tribunal, except for an open refusal based 
on an assertion that no valid obligation exists; 
(continued) 
No. 
2014AP2476-D   
 
16 
 
¶37 The 
amended 
complaint 
alleged 
and 
the 
referee 
determined that Attorney Ramthun instructed his staff to make 
false statements regarding the payment of an outstanding balance 
to a creditor, in violation of SCR 20:5.317 (Count 20). 
¶38 The 
amended 
complaint 
alleged 
and 
the 
referee 
determined 
that 
Attorney 
Ramthun 
repeatedly 
violated 
SCR 20:8.4(c),18 which prohibits conduct involving fraud, deceit, 
or misrepresentation (Counts 13, 31, 36, and 40).19  Attorney 
                                                                                                                                                             
(d) in pretrial procedure, make a frivolous 
discovery request or fail to make reasonably diligent 
effort to comply with a legally proper discovery 
request by an opposing party[.]  
17 SCR 20:5.3 provides, in relevant part: 
With respect to a nonlawyer employed or retained 
by or associated with a lawyer: 
. . . 
(b) a lawyer having direct supervisory authority 
over the nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to 
ensure that the person's conduct is compatible with 
the professional obligations of the lawyer; and 
(c) a lawyer shall be responsible for conduct of 
such a person that would be a violation of the Rules 
of Professional Conduct if engaged in by a lawyer if: 
(1) the lawyer orders or, with the knowledge of 
the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved[.] 
18 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
19 The referee recommends dismissal of Count 27 alleging a 
violation of SCR 20:8.4(c), deeming the allegation duplicative 
of other charges. 
No. 
2014AP2476-D   
 
17 
 
Ramthun engaged in more than one instance of conversion of trust 
account funds.  Attorney Ramthun was also dishonest to clients, 
assuring one client that her case was moving along when, in 
fact, it has been dismissed for failure to prosecute, and 
falsely assuring another client that he had sent a letter to a 
judge requesting that the client's case be reopened when the 
letter was not sent. 
¶39 The 
amended 
complaint 
alleged 
and 
the 
referee 
determined 
that 
Attorney 
Ramthun 
violated 
SCR 
22.03(2),20 
enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h),21 by repeatedly failing to cooperate 
with the OLR's investigations (Counts 19, 21, 33, 37, 41, 46, 
and 51). 
¶40 The 
amended 
complaint 
alleged 
and 
the 
referee 
determined that Attorney Ramthun failed to communicate with the 
OLR, failed to provide information to the OLR relating to 
                                                 
20 SCR 22.03(2) provides: 
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 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. 
21 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to " 
No. 
2014AP2476-D   
 
18 
 
pending grievances, and misrepresented to the OLR why he failed 
to immediately make payment in client matters, all in violation 
of SCR 22.03(6),22 actionable pursuant to SCR 20:8.4(h) (Counts 
12, 15, 16, 19, 21, 33, 37, and 41).23 
¶41 The 
amended 
complaint 
alleged 
and 
the 
referee 
determined that Attorney Ramthun violated SCR 22.26(1)24 when he 
                                                 
22 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." 
23 The referee recommends that the court dismiss Counts 47 
and 52 alleging violations of SCR 22.03(6), actionable pursuant 
to SCR 20:8.4(h), deeming these charges duplicative of other 
counts alleged and proven. 
24 SCR 22.26(1) provides: 
On or before the effective date of license 
suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 
suspended or revoked shall do all of the following: 
(a) Notify by certified mail all clients being 
represented in pending matters of the suspension or 
revocation and of the attorney's consequent inability 
to act as an attorney following the effective date of 
the suspension or revocation. 
(b) Advise the clients to seek legal advice of 
their choice elsewhere. 
(c) Promptly provide written notification to the 
court or administrative agency and the attorney for 
each party in a matter pending before a court or 
administrative agency of the suspension or revocation 
and of the attorney's consequent inability to act as 
an attorney following the effective date of the 
suspension or revocation.  The notice shall identify 
the successor attorney of the attorney's client or, if 
(continued) 
No. 
2014AP2476-D   
 
19 
 
failed to notify a client that he had been suspended from the 
practice of law (Count 42). 
¶42 We conclude that the referee's findings of fact are 
supported by satisfactory and convincing evidence.  We thus turn 
to the question of the appropriate discipline for Attorney 
Ramthun's misconduct.  
                                                                                                                                                             
there is none at the time notice is given, shall state 
the client's place of residence.  
(d) Within the first 15 days after the effective 
date 
of 
suspension 
or 
revocation, 
make 
all 
arrangements for the temporary or permanent closing or 
winding up of the attorney's practice.  The attorney 
may assist in having others take over clients' work in 
progress. 
(e) Within 25 days after the effective date of 
suspension or revocation, file with the director an 
affidavit showing all of the following: 
(i) Full compliance with the provisions of the 
suspension or revocation order and with the rules and 
procedures regarding the closing of the attorney's 
practice. 
(ii) A list of all jurisdictions, including 
state, federal and administrative bodies, before which 
the attorney is admitted to practice. 
(iii) A list of clients in all pending matters 
and a list of all matters pending before any court or 
administrative agency, together with the case number 
of each matter.  
(f) Maintain records of the various steps taken 
under this rule in order that, in any subsequent 
proceeding instituted by or against the attorney, 
proof of compliance with the rule and with the 
suspension or revocation order is available. 
No. 
2014AP2476-D   
 
20 
 
¶43 The 
OLR 
recommended 
a 
three-year 
suspension 
of 
Attorney Ramthun's license to practice law.  The referee 
recommended a suspension of two years and six months.  The 
referee observed that Attorney Ramthun engaged in multiple acts 
of misconduct between the years 2007 through 2014, but noted 
that Attorney Ramthun had not previously been disciplined in the 
preceding three decades of practicing law.  The referee also 
acknowledged the difficult circumstances that Attorney Ramthun 
disclosed, but noted that these uncorroborated statements cannot 
constitute good cause for or otherwise excuse Attorney Ramthun's 
misconduct.  Indeed, the referee deemed it "particularly 
disturbing that Attorney Ramthun repeatedly has ignored his duty 
to act on behalf of clients or to timely respond to a court or 
an OLR investigation."   
¶44 We accept the referee's recommendation and agree that 
a suspension of two years and six months is appropriate.  We 
agree that there are aggravating circumstances here, including 
the multiple offenses and pervasive pattern of misconduct.  
However, we acknowledge that Attorney Ramthun's lack of previous 
disciplinary history warrants some consideration.  A suspension 
of two years and six months in this case is sufficient and 
consistent with prior disciplinary decisions as well.  See, 
e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Dahle, 2015 WI 29, 
361 Wis. 2d 430, 862 N.W.2d 582 (lawyer with no previous 
disciplinary history suspended for two years and six months for 
55 counts of misconduct including trust account violations, 
misconduct pursuant to SCR 20:8.4(c), and failure to cooperate 
No. 
2014AP2476-D   
 
21 
 
with OLR investigations); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Cooper, 2013 WI 55, 348 Wis. 2d 266, 833 N.W.2d 88 (lawyer 
suspended for two years for 42 counts of misconduct committed in 
nine client matters); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Tully, 2005 WI 100, 283 Wis. 2d 124, 699 N.W.2d 882 (lawyer with 
no prior disciplinary history suspended for two years for 29 
counts of misconduct in multiple client matters). 
¶45 We next consider restitution.  The OLR filed a 
restitution statement on August 3, 2015, indicating that 
restitution was warranted in two client matters.  The referee 
made findings and recommendations consistent with the OLR's 
position.  We agree with the referee's recommendation and direct 
Attorney Ramthun to pay restitution to MCMP (R.O. and A.O. 
matter) in the amount of $4,152.23, and to J.J. (Counts 38-42) 
in the amount of $1,955.00.    
¶46 We also adopt the referee's recommendation that, as a 
condition of any future reinstatement, Attorney Ramthun must 
demonstrate that he has successfully completed a total of 20 
hours of CLE ethics and trust account courses.  
¶47 Attorney Ramthun is further ordered to pay the full 
costs of this proceeding, which total $8,040.99 as of August 4, 
2015.  Attorney Ramthun has not alleged any factors that would 
justify a reduction in costs.  
¶48 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Phillip J. Ramthun 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of two 
years and six months, effective the date of this order. 
No. 
2014AP2476-D   
 
22 
 
¶49 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Phillip J. Ramthun shall 
pay restitution to the Milwaukee County Medical Plan (in regards 
to the R.O. and A.O. matter) in the amount of $4,152.23, and to 
J.J. (Counts 38-42) in the amount of $1,955.00.    
¶50 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Phillip J. Ramthun shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  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 Phillip J. Ramthun to practice law in Wisconsin 
shall remain suspended until further order of the court. 
¶51 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified 
above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation. 
¶52 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of any 
future reinstatement, Phillip J. Ramthun must demonstrate that 
he has successfully completed a total of 20 hours of continuing 
legal education ethics and trust account courses. 
¶53 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Phillip J. Ramthun shall comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
 
 
 
No. 
2014AP2476-D   
 
 
 
1