Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Torger G. Omdahl

Citation: 2010 WI 3

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2010-01-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
2010 WI 3 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2009AP957-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Torger G. Omdahl, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Torger G. Omdahl, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST OMDAHL 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
January 21, 2010   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2010 WI 3
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2009AP957-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Torger G. Omdahl, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Torger G. Omdahl, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JAN 21, 2010 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a stipulation filed by the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Torger G. Omdahl 
No. 
2009AP957-D   
 
2 
 
purportedly under SCR 22.121 for the imposition of a public 
reprimand as reciprocal discipline for two public reprimands 
that Attorney Omdahl received in the state of Michigan.  The 
first public reprimand was issued in November 2000, and the 
second occurred in December 2008.   
                                                 
1 The procedure in this case did not exactly track the 
language of SCR 22.12.  SCR 22.12 authorizes the OLR Director to 
file a stipulation "with the complaint."  The stipulation is 
then considered by this court without the appointment of a 
referee.  In the present case the OLR filed a complaint and an 
amended complaint, both of which contained a motion asking this 
court to issue an order to show cause under SCR 22.22(2)(b) 
because of discipline imposed on Attorney Omdahl in Michigan.  
The present stipulation was prepared and filed well after the 
filing of the complaint.  Although the specific procedure in SCR 
22.12 was not precisely followed, we will nonetheless review the 
stipulation under that rule since the stipulation was filed 
before any referee was ever appointed. 
SCR 22.12 provides as follows:  Stipulation. 
(1) The director may file with the complaint a 
stipulation of the director and the respondent to the 
facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and 
discipline to be imposed.  The supreme court may 
consider the complaint and stipulation without the 
appointment of a referee.   
(2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation, 
it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of 
law and impose the stipulated discipline. 
(3) If the supreme court rejects the stipulation, 
a referee shall be appointed and the matter shall 
proceed as a complaint filed without a stipulation. 
(4) A stipulation rejected by the supreme court 
has no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to 
the respondent's defense of the proceeding or the 
prosecution of the complaint. 
No. 
2009AP957-D   
 
3 
 
¶2 
According to the stipulation, Attorney Omdahl was 
admitted to the practice of law in Michigan in 1973.  He was 
subsequently admitted to the practice of law in Wisconsin in 
December 1981.  His most recent mailing address provided to the 
State Bar of Wisconsin is a law firm in Iron River, Michigan. 
¶3 
On November 2, 2000, the State of Michigan Attorney 
Discipline Board, Upper Peninsula Hearing Panel #3, issued an 
order publicly reprimanding Attorney Omdahl.  The reprimand 
order was issued with Attorney Omdahl's consent following the 
entry of a stipulation.2  The reprimand grew out of Attorney 
Omdahl's representation of a husband and wife regarding a 
construction accident in which the husband sustained personal 
injuries.  In the Michigan stipulation, Attorney Omdahl and the 
Michigan disciplinary authorities agreed that Attorney Omdahl 
had included two improper provisions in the contingency fee 
agreement that he had entered with the husband and wife.  
Specifically, Attorney Omdahl acknowledged that he had included 
a provision that reserved to himself the right to cancel the 
representation agreement at any time, upon notice to the client, 
and a provision that stated that he was entitled to his "full 
fee" even if the clients discharged him or obtained other 
counsel prior to settlement or final resolution of their claims.3  
                                                 
2 Attorney Omdahl failed to notify the OLR of this public 
reprimand, as required by SCR 22.22(1). 
No. 
2009AP957-D   
 
4 
 
The stipulation further provided that a number of other claims 
of misconduct against Attorney Omdahl would be dismissed with 
prejudice.   
¶4 
The second public reprimand was issued in December 
2008 by the State of Michigan Attorney Discipline Board, Upper 
Peninsula Hearing Panel #2, again pursuant to Attorney Omdahl's 
stipulation.  This public reprimand grew out of Attorney 
Omdahl's handling of certain settlement funds belonging to 
client F.T.4  Attorney Omdahl withheld $5,000 from a settlement 
that Attorney Omdahl received on F.T.'s behalf on the alleged 
ground that the funds needed to be maintained in trust in case a 
Medicaid lien was filed.  Attorney Omdahl placed the $5,000 of 
F.T.'s money into an account that his firm considered a client 
trust account, but which was not specifically designated as a 
trust account in the bank's records establishing the account.   
¶5 
Subsequently, 
Attorney 
Omdahl's 
legal 
assistant 
mistakenly wrote three checks out of this "trust account" 
instead of the firm's business account, causing the balance in 
the trust account to fall below $5,000, which necessarily meant 
                                                                                                                                                             
3 In a statement filed in connection with the stipulation, 
Attorney Omdahl stated that the improper provisions had not been 
invoked against any client and that his firm had not used the 
form of the contingency fee agreement containing these improper 
provisions in the preceding five years. 
4 The facts regarding this public reprimand are taken from 
the factual allegations of the Michigan complaint, to which 
Attorney Omdahl pled no contest. 
No. 
2009AP957-D   
 
5 
 
that some of F.T.'s money was used for the benefit of Attorney 
Omdahl's law firm.   
¶6 
In addition, F.T.'s son was arrested on a criminal 
charge in January 2006.  On January 25, 2006, F.T. went to 
Attorney Omdahl's office to request the return of the $5,000 so 
that he could use those funds to retain a lawyer to represent 
his son in the criminal case.  Attorney Omdahl told F.T. that he 
would not release the funds to F.T., but that he would accept 
payment of the $5,000 as a retainer for the defense of F.T.'s 
son.  F.T. subsequently signed a letter stating that he was 
releasing the $5,000 in escrow to Attorney Omdahl as his fee for 
defending F.T.'s son. 
¶7 
The 
Michigan 
disciplinary 
complaint 
alleged 
four 
violations of Michigan disciplinary rules concerning these 
facts.  Attorney Omdahl entered into a stipulation pursuant to 
which he pled no contest to two violations: (1) having failed to 
use reasonable efforts to ensure that the law firm had in effect 
measures giving reasonable assurance that the conduct of non-
lawyer assistants would be compatible with the professional 
obligations of a lawyer, and (2) having violated, having 
attempted to violate, having assisted or induced another to 
violate, or having violated through the acts of another the 
Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct.  The remaining counts 
against Attorney Omdahl were dismissed pursuant to the parties' 
agreement. 
¶8 
As with the November 2000 public reprimand, Attorney 
Omdahl did not notify the OLR that he had been publicly 
No. 
2009AP957-D   
 
6 
 
reprimanded in December 2008.  The OLR subsequently learned of 
the December 2008 reprimand from a source other than Attorney 
Omdahl.  While investigating that reprimand, it also learned of 
the November 2000 public reprimand. 
¶9 
The stipulation in the present proceeding contains two 
counts.  Count 1 provides that Attorney Omdahl is subject to 
reciprocal discipline under SCR 22.225 "[b]y virtue of having 
                                                 
5 SCR 22.22 provides: Reciprocal discipline. 
(1) An attorney on whom public discipline for 
misconduct 
or 
a 
license 
suspension 
for 
medical 
incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction 
shall promptly notify the director of the matter.  
Failure to furnish the notice within 20 days of the 
effective date of the order or judgment of the other 
jurisdiction constitutes misconduct.  
(2) Upon the receipt of a certified copy of a 
judgment or order of another jurisdiction imposing 
discipline for misconduct or a license suspension for 
medical incapacity of an attorney admitted to the 
practice of law or engaged in the practice of law in 
this state, the director may file a complaint in the 
supreme court containing all of the following:  
(a) A certified copy of the judgment or order 
from the other jurisdiction. 
(b) A motion requesting an order directing the 
attorney to inform the supreme court in writing within 
20 days of any claim of the attorney predicated on the 
grounds set forth in sub. (3) that the imposition of 
the identical discipline or license suspension by the 
supreme court would be unwarranted and the factual 
basis for the claim. 
(3) The supreme court shall impose the identical 
discipline or license suspension unless one or more of 
the following is present: 
No. 
2009AP957-D   
 
7 
 
been twice reprimanded by the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board 
for his violations of the Michigan Rules of Professional 
Conduct."  Count 2 provides that Attorney Omdahl violated 
SCR 22.22(1) by failing to notify the OLR of either of his 
Michigan reprimands within 20 days of their effective dates. 
                                                                                                                                                             
(a) The procedure in the other jurisdiction was 
so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to 
constitute a deprivation of due process. 
(b) There 
was 
such 
an 
infirmity 
of 
proof 
establishing the misconduct or medical incapacity that 
the supreme court could not accept as final the 
conclusion in respect to the misconduct or medical 
incapacity. 
(c) The 
misconduct 
justifies 
substantially 
different discipline in this state. 
(4) Except as provided in sub. (3), a final 
adjudication in another jurisdiction that an attorney 
has engaged in misconduct or has a medical incapacity 
shall 
be 
conclusive 
evidence 
of 
the 
attorney's 
misconduct or medical incapacity for purposes of a 
proceeding under this rule. 
(5) The supreme court may refer a complaint filed 
under sub. (2) to a referee for a hearing and a report 
and recommendation pursuant to SCR 22.16.  At the 
hearing, the burden is on the party seeking the 
imposition 
of 
discipline 
or 
license 
suspension 
different from that imposed in the other jurisdiction 
to demonstrate 
that the imposition of identical 
discipline or license suspension by the supreme court 
is unwarranted. 
(6) If 
the 
discipline 
or 
license 
suspension 
imposed in the other jurisdiction has been stayed, any 
reciprocal discipline or license suspension imposed by 
the supreme court shall be held in abeyance until the 
stay expires. 
No. 
2009AP957-D   
 
8 
 
¶10 The stipulation states that Attorney Omdahl is not 
claiming any of the "defenses" set forth in SCR 22.22(3)(a)-(c).  
The stipulation further provides it was not the result of plea 
bargaining and that Attorney Omdahl is entering the stipulation 
knowingly and voluntarily.  Attorney Omdahl verifies in the 
stipulation that he understands the misconduct allegations 
against him and his right to contest those allegations; he 
understands the ramifications of the requested discipline in the 
event the court accepts the stipulation; he understands his 
right to consult counsel; and he is admitting his misconduct and 
agreeing to the level of discipline sought by the OLR. 
¶11 Under SCR 22.22(3), if none of the exceptions set 
forth in SCR 22.22(3)(a)-(c) apply, this court "shall impose the 
identical discipline."  There is no claim that any of those 
exceptions apply in this case, and we do not find any of them to 
be present in this matter. 
¶12 The only question that remains is whether the two 
Michigan public reprimands should be addressed in a single 
proceeding and opinion in this court or whether there should be 
two public reprimands.  The OLR urges that imposing a single 
reprimand will, as a practical matter, effectuate identical 
discipline under SCR 22.22 and will promote judicial economy.  
We conclude that since both of the disciplinary actions in the 
foreign jurisdiction were public reprimands and since we are 
explaining 
that 
Attorney 
Omdahl 
is 
receiving 
reciprocal 
discipline for both public reprimands, a single public reprimand 
encompassing both Michigan disciplinary actions is adequate.  
No. 
2009AP957-D   
 
9 
 
¶13 In addition, because Attorney Omdahl entered into a 
stipulation before a referee was appointed, and based on the 
OLR's statement that it is not seeking a cost assessment in this 
matter, we will not impose costs on Attorney Omdahl. 
¶14 IT IS ORDERED that Torger G. Omdahl is publicly 
reprimanded for his professional misconduct, as reciprocal 
discipline for the two public reprimands imposed by the Michigan 
attorney disciplinary authorities. 
 
No. 
2009AP957-D   
 
 
 
1