Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Willie J. Nunnery

Citation: 2011 WI 39

Docket Number: 2009AP000773-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2011-06-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
2011 WI 39 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2009AP773-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Willie J. Nunnery, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Willie J. Nunnery, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST NUNNERY 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 7, 2011   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: PROSSER, J. did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the respondent-appellant there was a brief by Attorney 
Willie J. Nunnery, Madison. 
 
For the complainant-respondent there was a brief by 
Attorney Julie M. Spoke and the Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
Madison. 
 
 
 
 
2011 WI 39
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2009AP773-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Willie J. Nunnery, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Willie J. Nunnery, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 7, 2011 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review Referee Stanley F. Hack's 
report recommending that Attorney Willie J. Nunnery's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin be revoked and that he be required to 
pay the costs of this disciplinary proceeding which total 
$18,461.98 as of October 6, 2010.  After fully reviewing the 
matter we agree that Attorney Nunnery committed numerous acts of 
professional misconduct as alleged in the 17 counts of the 
disciplinary complaint filed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
No. 
2009AP773-D   
 
2 
 
(OLR).  We agree that revocation of his license to practice law 
is appropriate.  We further order that he pay the full costs of 
this disciplinary proceeding. 
¶2 
Attorney Nunnery was admitted to the practice of law 
in 
Wisconsin 
in 
January 
1976. 
He 
practices 
in 
Madison, 
Wisconsin.  He has a lengthy disciplinary history.  On 
January 4, 2007, this court suspended Attorney Nunnery's license 
for two months, effective February 6, 2007, for misconduct 
consisting of one count of failing to reduce a contingency 
agreement to writing; one count of failing to hold a client's 
property in trust; two counts of failing to act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness; three counts of failing to keep a 
client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and 
promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; two 
counts of failing to explain a matter to the extent reasonably 
necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions 
regarding the representation; one count of knowingly advancing a 
claim that was unwarranted under existing law; and two counts of 
failing to provide competent representation to a client.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Nunnery, 2007 WI 1, 298 
Wis. 2d 289, 725 N.W.2d 613.   
¶3 
On July 21, 2009, this court suspended Attorney 
Nunnery's license for three years for misconduct he committed in 
two separate disciplinary matters, effective August 24, 2009, as 
follows:  six months in the first matter and two and one-half 
years in the second matter.  In those matters Attorney Nunnery 
failed to communicate the basis or rate of his fee; failed to 
No. 
2009AP773-D   
 
3 
 
keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter 
and promptly comply with requests for information; failed to 
explain a matter to the extent necessary to permit the client to 
make 
informed 
decisions; 
failed 
to 
cooperate 
with 
OLR's 
investigation; provided financial assistance to a client in 
connection with pending litigation; failed to abide by the 
client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation; 
failed to diligently pursue a client's matter; knowingly made a 
false statement to a tribunal; engaged in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; failed to 
provide competent representation to a client; failed, upon 
termination of representation, to take steps to the extent 
reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests; failed 
to maintain complete trust account records for at least six 
years after termination of representation; failed to maintain 
individual client ledgers; and knowingly disobeyed an obligation 
under the rules of a tribunal.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Nunnery, 2009 WI 89, 320 Wis. 2d 422, 769 N.W.2d 858.  
¶4 
The OLR filed a complaint on March 25, 2009, alleging 
17 counts of professional misconduct committed in three client 
matters. 
 
There 
were 
numerous 
pretrial 
and 
scheduling 
conferences.  Attorney Nunnery requested an adjournment because 
he wanted to consult with counsel on his defense.  The request 
was granted.  The proceedings before the referee were completed 
on July 14, 2010.  At the request of the referee the parties 
filed briefs.  Following the filing of the referee's report and 
recommendation Attorney Nunnery sought to appeal but his appeal 
No. 
2009AP773-D   
 
4 
 
was dismissed by this court as untimely.  The court, on its own 
motion, directed the parties to file briefs pursuant to 
SCR 22.17(2).1  The matter is now before this court for 
consideration.  The primary issues involve whether the referee 
erred in permitting certain witness testimony to be taken by 
telephone over Attorney Nunnery's objection and whether the 
sanction of revocation is appropriate.   
¶5 
When reviewing a report and recommendation in an 
attorney disciplinary proceeding, we affirm a referee's findings 
of fact unless they are found to be clearly erroneous.  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, however, on a de novo basis.  Id.  We determine the 
appropriate level of discipline given the particular facts of 
each case, independent of the referee's recommendation, but 
benefiting from it.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
I.  D.B. MATTER 
                                                 
1 The court denies Attorney Nunnery's request for permission 
to make an oral statement to the court but permitted him to 
submit 
briefs 
despite 
the 
untimeliness 
of 
his 
appeal.  
SCR 22.17(2) states:   
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. 
2009AP773-D   
 
5 
 
¶6 
On February 1, 2005, D.F. and M.F. hired Attorney 
Nunnery to represent their son, D.B., an insulin dependent 
diabetic, in connection with a possible claim for inadequate 
medical care against a correctional institution in Georgia where 
D.B. was incarcerated.  Attorney Nunnery agreed to accept the 
representation for a $3,500 fee, out-of-pocket costs, plus a 40 
percent contingent fee.  The fee agreement provided that, "The 
scope of [Attorney Nunnery's] representation will cover this 
matter through the United States Federal District Court OR a 
state circuit court . . . ."  Attorney Nunnery did not inform 
his clients they would have to pay any additional money upon the 
filing of a federal lawsuit.  The clients would not have hired 
Attorney Nunnery if they had known it would cost them more 
money.  After performing a case evaluation, Attorney Nunnery 
informed the clients he believed D.B. had a good case.  Attorney 
Nunnery obtained D.B.'s medical records at a cost of $117.21. 
Attorney Nunnery then informed the clients that continued 
representation would require an additional $15,000.  Attorney 
Nunnery informed D.B.'s mother that if she did not give him the 
$15,000 he could no longer represent D.B.  Attorney Nunnery also 
informed her that the statute of limitations would expire on 
November 30, 2005.  
¶7 
The clients did not have the money to pay Attorney 
Nunnery the $15,000.  By correspondence dated August 18, 2005, 
Attorney 
Nunnery 
advised 
D.B. 
his 
parents 
had 
made 
"no 
arrangements" for Attorney Nunnery to continue representing D.B. 
and he would no longer represent D.B.  Attorney Nunnery 
No. 
2009AP773-D   
 
6 
 
incorrectly informed D.B. that his claims were subject to a one-
year statute of limitations and must be filed by November 30, 
2005.  In fact, D.B.'s federal claims were subject to a two-year 
statute of limitations that expired in early January 2007.  
¶8 
Other than meeting with D.B., obtaining a police 
report, obtaining medical records, and communicating with D.B.'s 
criminal attorney, the clients were not aware of any other work 
Attorney Nunnery had performed on D.B.'s case.  The clients 
asked for their money back, but Attorney Nunnery did not return 
any of the retainer and did not provide the clients with an 
itemization of the work he performed on D.B.'s case.  
¶9 
On August 22, 2007, OLR requested information and 
documentation relating to this matter.  Attorney Nunnery did not 
respond.  On September 21, 2007, OLR again wrote to Attorney 
Nunnery.  Attorney Nunnery provided a belated and inadequate 
handwritten response.  On October 9, 2007, OLR wrote to Attorney 
Nunnery requesting additional information but Attorney Nunnery 
did not respond.  Attorney Nunnery eventually denied these 
charges in his answer to the OLR's complaint.  
¶10 Ultimately, the referee concluded and we agree that by 
failing to clearly and accurately explain to these clients the 
limited scope of his representation offered in exchange for the 
$3,500 payment, and that additional fees would be required if he 
agreed to represent D.B. in a federal lawsuit, Attorney Nunnery 
No. 
2009AP773-D   
 
7 
 
violated former SCR 20:1.5(b)2 (Count 1).  In addition, by 
failing to correctly identify the statute of limitations 
applicable 
to 
D.B.'s 
claims, 
Attorney 
Nunnery 
violated 
SCR 20:1.13 (Count 2).  By failing to timely provide OLR with a 
written response containing all of the information requested in 
                                                 
2 Effective July 1, 2007, substantial changes were made to 
the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct for 
Attorneys, SCR Chapter 20.  See S. Ct. Order 04-07, 2007 WI 4, 
293 Wis. 2d xv, 726 N.W.2d Ct.R-45 (eff. July 1, 2007); and 
S. Ct. 
Order 
06-04, 
2007 
WI 
48, 
297 
Wis. 2d xv, 
730 
N.W.2d Ct.R.-29 (eff. July 1, 2007).   
Former SCR 20:1.5(b) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
provided as follows:  "When 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." 
3 SCR 20:1.1 states 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." 
No. 
2009AP773-D   
 
8 
 
OLR's letters, Attorney Nunnery violated SCR 22.03(2)4 made 
actionable by SCR 20:8.4(h)5 (Count 3). 
¶11 On appeal, Attorney Nunnery asserts the referee erred 
by allowing the telephonic testimony of B.M. and D.F. and that 
this error compromised his constitutional rights.  We disagree.  
A referee's decision to permit telephonic testimony is a 
discretionary determination that will be overturned only if the 
referee erroneously exercised his discretion.  See State v. 
Pharr, 115 Wis. 2d 334, 342, 340 N.W.2d 498 (1983).  Wisconsin 
Stat. § 807.13(2)(c) (2009-10) provides that the referee may 
permit telephonic testimony when the proponent shows good cause 
to the court.  The referee may consider the following factors: 
1. Whether any undue surprise or prejudice would 
result; 
                                                 
4 SCR 22.03(2) states:  
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. 
5 SCR 20:8.4(h) (effective as of July 1, 2007) provides it 
is professional misconduct for a lawyer to "fail to cooperate in 
the investigation of a grievance filed with the office of lawyer 
regulation as required by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), 
SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), or SCR 22.04(1); . . . ." 
No. 
2009AP773-D   
 
9 
 
2. Whether the proponent has been unable, after 
due diligence, to procure the physical presence of the 
witness; 
3. The 
convenience 
of 
the 
parties 
and 
the 
proposed witness, and the cost of producing the 
witness in relation to the importance of the offered 
testimony; 
4. Whether 
the 
procedure 
would 
allow 
full 
effective 
cross-examination, 
especially 
where 
availability to counsel of documents and exhibits 
available to the witness would affect such cross-
examination; 
5. The importance of presenting the testimony of 
witnesses in open court, where the finder of fact may 
observe the demeanor of the witness, and where the 
solemnity of the surroundings will impress upon the 
witness the duty to testify truthfully; 
6. Whether the quality of the communication is 
sufficient to understand the offered testimony; 
7. Whether a physical liberty interest is at 
stake in the proceeding; and  
8. Such other factors as the court may, in each 
individual case, determine to be relevant. 
Wis. Stat. §807.13(2)(c).  Here, the record reflects that the 
OLR moved to permit the telephonic testimony because the 
individuals lived in Killeen, Texas, and Metairie, Louisiana.  
The OLR averred it was unable to obtain the witness's testimony 
in person because of inconvenience to the witnesses and the 
significant costs of producing the witnesses in person at the 
hearing.  Following a hearing on the matter the referee 
requested additional submissions from both parties.  The OLR 
presented a letter addressing the referee's concerns, along with 
an affidavit from staff counsel regarding OLR's financial 
No. 
2009AP773-D   
 
10 
 
constraints related to the costs of travel, including airline, 
hotel rooms, and food, to bring both witnesses to Madison for 
their testimony.  Attorney Nunnery did not respond.  The motion 
was brought well in advance of the June 7, 2010, trial so that 
it would not cause undue surprise or prejudice to Attorney 
Nunnery.  Attorney Nunnery was allowed full cross-examination of 
the witnesses and the referee reserved the right to reconsider 
the issue if the telephonic testimony of the witness required a 
personal appearance.  We conclude that the referee did not abuse 
his discretion in permitting telephonic testimony of these 
witnesses. 
II.  G.G. MATTER 
¶12 On August 15, 2002, G.G. hired Attorney Nunnery to 
represent him concerning his employment termination.  G.G. paid 
Attorney Nunnery a $2,000 advance for fees and costs pursuant to 
a written fee agreement.  Attorney Nunnery agreed to take G.G.'s 
case on a 40 percent contingent fee basis.  Attorney Nunnery 
advised G.G. he would be able to get his job back along with 
seniority and back pay.  Attorney Nunnery then failed to take 
any further action on G.G.'s case.  
¶13 During 2003, 2004, and 2005, G.G. made repeated 
efforts to contact Attorney Nunnery regarding the status of his 
case.  When G.G. did succeed in reaching Attorney Nunnery by 
telephone, Attorney Nunnery stated, "I'm still working on it." 
Between the spring of 2004 and summer of 2005, Attorney Nunnery 
gave G.G. money, totaling approximately $2,000 as "loans" that 
G.G. would have to repay when his case was settled.  However, 
No. 
2009AP773-D   
 
11 
 
Attorney Nunnery did not give G.G. any written documentation 
regarding these loans.  Attorney Nunnery never informed G.G. 
that he did not have a viable case or that Attorney Nunnery 
would not be filing a complaint on his behalf.  In December 2005 
G.G. himself negotiated the return of his job, without seniority 
or back pay.  
¶14 Attorney Nunnery then failed to adequately respond to 
multiple requests for information from the OLR.  Attorney 
Nunnery eventually conceded he did not diligently represent G.G.  
¶15 Ultimately, the referee concluded and we agree that by 
failing to diligently investigate or pursue G.G.'s claims 
against 
his 
former 
employer, 
Attorney 
Nunnery 
violated 
SCR 20:1.36 (Count 4); by failing to provide G.G. with accurate 
information regarding the status of his claims and whether 
Attorney Nunnery was taking any actions on G.G.'s behalf and 
causing or allowing G.G. to believe that Attorney Nunnery 
continued to pursue legal action on G.G. behalf, or that 
Attorney Nunnery intended to take any action on his behalf, 
Attorney 
Nunnery 
violated 
former 
SCR 20:1.4(a)7 
and 
SCR 20:8.4(c)8 (Count 5).  In addition, by loaning funds to G.G. 
                                                 
6 SCR 20:1.3 states "[a] lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
7 Former SCR 20:1.4(a) (effective through June 30, 2007), 
provided "[a] lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed 
about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable 
requests for information." 
8 SCR 20:8.4(c) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation; . . . ."  
No. 
2009AP773-D   
 
12 
 
during 
the 
course 
of 
the 
representation, 
without 
fully 
disclosing and transmitting in writing the terms of the loan, 
and without obtaining G.G.'s written consent to those terms, 
Attorney Nunnery violated former SCR 20:1.8(a)9 (Count 6); and by 
failing to timely provide OLR with a written response containing 
all of the information requested by the OLR, Attorney Nunnery 
violated SCR 22.03(2) and (6)10 made actionable by SCR 20:8.4(h) 
(effective as of July 1, 2007) (Count 7). 
III.  B.M. MATTER 
                                                 
9 Former SCR 20:1.8(a) (effective through June 30, 2007), 
provided:   
 
A 
lawyer 
shall 
not 
enter 
into 
a 
business 
transaction with a client or knowingly acquire an 
ownership, possessory, security or other pecuniary 
interest adverse to a client unless: 
 
(1) the transaction and terms on which the lawyer 
acquires the interest are fair and reasonable to the 
client and are fully disclosed and transmitted in 
writing to the client in a manner which can be 
reasonably understood by the client; 
 
(2) the client is given a reasonable opportunity 
to seek the advice of independent counsel in the 
transaction; and 
 
(3) the client consents in writing thereto. 
10 SCR 22.03(6) states:   
In 
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. 
No. 
2009AP773-D   
 
13 
 
¶16 B.M. was a library branch manager and supervisor for a 
public library in the City of Milwaukee from April 1980 through 
August 1998.  She was injured at work in December 1996.  B.M. 
hired Attorney Nunnery to represent her concerning claims 
arising out of a denial of duty disability retirement benefits 
and damages for disability discrimination by the City of 
Milwaukee and the Milwaukee Public Library System relating to 
her work injury.  She paid him a $2,000 retainer and signed a 
fee agreement that provided for a 40 percent contingent fee.  
More specifically, B.M. sought duty disability compensation that 
provided 100 percent compensation under a retirement plan, 
whereas ordinary disability benefits only provided 50 percent of 
compensation during 
retirement. B.M. filed an application 
seeking both benefits.  The greater benefits were denied and 
Attorney Nunnery stepped in and filed an appropriate request for 
an appeal.  Attorney Nunnery then wholly failed to pursue the 
appeal and the file was eventually closed.  
¶17 B.M. however believed Attorney Nunnery was pursuing 
the greater benefit and also believed Attorney Nunnery had filed 
a federal action seeking damages for discrimination and denial 
of her duty disability benefits.  Attorney Nunnery did inform 
B.M. that she had a difficult case, but he did not advise her 
that her claims lacked merit.  Attorney Nunnery eventually did 
file a federal lawsuit, but he did not name all of the proper 
parties and failed to serve the complaint.  The court dismissed 
the complaint.  B.M. did not learn that her federal lawsuit had 
been dismissed until after she filed the grievance against 
No. 
2009AP773-D   
 
14 
 
Attorney Nunnery.  In addition, various applicable statutes of 
limitation expired while Attorney Nunnery was supposed to be 
representing B.M.   
¶18 Attorney Nunnery also loaned B.M. $1,500 which he told 
B.M. would be subtracted off the top of her recovery in the 
lawsuit against the City of Milwaukee.  Attorney Nunnery never 
provided B.M. with any written documentation regarding this 
loan.   
¶19 Throughout the representation Attorney Nunnery failed 
to communicate with B.M. or failed to respond to B.M.'s efforts 
to communicate with him.  Attorney Nunnery then failed to 
cooperate with OLR on its investigation and failed to provide 
information requested.  Attorney Nunnery initially denied the 
charges relating to B.M., but later stipulated to Counts 13 
through 15 of the complaint.   
¶20 Based on the record evidence the referee concluded and 
we agree that Attorney Nunnery committed the ten counts of 
misconduct alleged pertaining to his representation of B.M., as 
follows: 
• By failing to diligently and promptly pursue B.M.'s 
claims against her former employer for failure to 
accommodate her disability prior to her August 1998 
retirement and her appeal of the City of Milwaukee's 
Employes' 
Retirement 
System's 
(ERS) 
denial 
of 
her 
application 
for 
duty 
disability 
benefits, 
Attorney 
Nunnery violated SCR 20:1.3 (Count 8).   
No. 
2009AP773-D   
 
15 
 
• By failing to advise B.M. of the content of the city 
attorney's August 23, 2000, letter or to provide her with 
a copy of the same; failing, prior to November 2004, to 
advise B.M. that he had not yet filed a lawsuit against 
her former employer; failing to advise her of the court's 
March 24, 2005, order in her federal claim, or to provide 
her with a copy of the order; failing to inform B.M. that 
on April 29, 2005, the court dismissed her federal 
complaint, or to provide her with a copy of the dismissal 
order; failing to inform her that the statute of 
limitations had expired with regard to all claims she may 
have had against her former employer for disability 
discrimination and the employer's alleged failure to 
accommodate her disability; and failing to respond to 
B.M.'s reasonable requests for information, Attorney 
Nunnery violated former SCR 20:1.4(a) (effective through 
June 30, 2007) (Count 9).  
• By failing to name the City of Milwaukee's ERS or its 
Pension and Annuity Board as a defendant in B.M.'s 
federal case, Attorney Nunnery violated SCR 20:1.1 (Count 
10). 
• By allowing B.M.'s federal complaint to be dismissed 
without first discussing the dismissal with B.M. and 
allowing B.M. to decide whether to pursue the case; 
failing to seek relief in B.M.'s federal complaint in the 
form of duty disability benefits or its equivalent; and 
asking the court, in B.M.'s federal complaint, to 
No. 
2009AP773-D   
 
16 
 
reinstate her employment when she had no desire to return 
to employment, and reinstatement might have affected her 
eligibility for social security disability benefits and 
ordinary disability benefits, Attorney Nunnery violated 
former SCR 20:1.2(a)11 (Count 11).  
• By failing, prior to the expiration of the statute of 
limitations on each of B.M.'s possible claims, to advise 
her of the date on which the statute of limitations would 
expire and that Attorney Nunnery did not intend to take 
any action on her behalf; and failing to advise B.M. that 
he intended to abandon her appeal of the denial of her 
duty disability benefits application, Attorney Nunnery 
violated former SCR 20:1.4(b)12 (Count 12). 
• By failing to timely advise B.M. that Attorney Nunnery 
considered his representation of B.M. in each of the 
matters he undertook on her behalf to have ended and, 
regarding each such matter, to advise B.M. that he did 
not intend to take any further action on her behalf, 
                                                 
11 Former SCR 20:1.2(a) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
stated, in pertinent part, that "[a] lawyer shall abide by a 
client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation, 
subject to paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), and shall consult with 
the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued." 
12 Former SCR 20:1.4(b) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
stated, "A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent 
reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed 
decisions regarding the representation."  
No. 
2009AP773-D   
 
17 
 
Attorney 
Nunnery 
violated 
former 
and 
current 
SCR 
20:1.16(d)13 (Count 13). 
• By causing or allowing B.M. to believe that Attorney 
Nunnery continued to pursue legal action on her behalf 
after 
April 
29, 
2005, 
Attorney 
Nunnery 
violated 
SCR 20:8.4(c) (Count 14). 
• By loaning funds to B.M. during the course of the 
representation, without fully disclosing and transmitting 
in writing the terms of the loan, and without obtaining 
B.M.'s consent to those terms in writing, Attorney 
                                                 
13 Former SCR 20:1.16(d) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
provided: 
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. 
Current SCR 20:1.16(d) (effective July 1, 2007) states:   
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. 
No. 
2009AP773-D   
 
18 
 
Nunnery violated former SCR 20:1.8(a) (effective through 
June 30, 2007) (Count 15).  
• By advising OLR in his July 10, 2007, letter and in his 
testimony on August 7, 2007, that he did not file a 
lawsuit against B.M.'s former employer prior to November 
2004 because the claims had not yet ripened, when any 
claims had ripened no later than June 24, 2000; and by 
advising OLR in his July 10, 2007, letter that after he 
had 
filed 
the 
federal 
case 
he 
advised 
B.M. 
of 
"complications of maintaining the lawsuit," Attorney 
Nunnery violated SCR 22.03(6) via SCR 20:8.4(f)14 (Count 
16). 
• By failing to timely provide OLR with a written response 
containing all of the records and information requested 
in OLR's letters to Attorney Nunnery dated May 14 and 
June 13, 2007, Attorney Nunnery violated SCR 22.03(2) and 
(6) via SCR 20:8.4(f) (Count 17). 
¶21 Upon consideration of the entire record we accept the 
referee's findings of fact and agree that the facts set forth in 
the complaint support the legal conclusion that Attorney Nunnery 
engaged in 17 counts of professional misconduct.  We adopt the 
                                                 
14 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; . . . ." 
No. 
2009AP773-D   
 
19 
 
referee's report and his recommendation for revocation and 
imposition of costs.15   
¶22 Attorney Nunnery's professional misconduct requires 
the severest level of discipline that we impose, namely, the 
revocation of his license to practice law in Wisconsin.  
Attorney Nunnery has repeatedly failed to diligently pursue his 
clients' cases, failed to keep clients informed, and ignored 
their 
repeated 
requests 
for 
information 
on 
their 
cases.  
Attorney Nunnery's misconduct is aggravated by a number of 
factors.  He has previously been disciplined.  He has an 
established pattern of allowing his clients to believe he was 
pursuing claims on their behalf, when, in fact, he failed to 
work on their claims.  He has committed multiple violations of 
supreme court rules and has repeatedly failed to cooperate with 
OLR in its investigations. 
¶23 In considering the appropriate sanction we are mindful 
that we follow a practice of applying progressive penalties in 
successive misconduct cases.  In Attorney Nunnery's most recent 
disciplinary matters the OLR sought revocation but Attorney 
Nunnery obtained a lengthy suspension instead.  No additional 
leniency is warranted now.  Revocation is appropriate and we 
deny Attorney Nunnery's request that we impose that revocation 
retroactive to an earlier date.  We further determine that 
                                                 
15 In response to this court's order dated April 13, 2011, 
the OLR confirmed that it does not seek restitution in this 
matter. 
No. 
2009AP773-D   
 
20 
 
Attorney Nunnery should be required to pay the full costs of 
this matter.  SCR 22.24(1m).   
¶24 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Willie B. Nunnery to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective as of the date 
of this order. 
¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 180 days of the date 
of this order, Willie B. Nunnery shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent he has not 
already done so, Willie B. Nunnery shall comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked. 
¶27 DAVID T. PROSSER, J., did not participate. 
 
 
No. 
2009AP773-D   
 
 
 
1