Case Title: OLR v. Willem James Noorlander

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2019AP001771-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2020-04-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
2020 WI 31 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2019AP1771-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Willem James Noorlander, Attorney at 
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Willem James Noorlander, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST NOORLANDER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 9, 2020   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2020 WI 31
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2019AP1771-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Willem James Noorlander, 
Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Willem James Noorlander, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
APR 9, 2020 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a stipulation filed pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.121 by the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.12 provides: 
(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, in which case the supreme court may approve 
the stipulation, reject the stipulation, or direct the 
No. 
2019AP1771-D   
 
2 
 
(OLR) and Attorney Willem James Noorlander.  In the stipulation, 
Attorney Noorlander admits the misconduct alleged by the OLR and 
the parties agree to a 60-day suspension of his Wisconsin law 
license.  
¶2 
We adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law. We 
agree 
that 
Attorney 
Noorlander's 
misconduct 
warrants 
the 
suspension of his Wisconsin law license for a period of 60 days. 
The OLR did not request restitution and we impose no restitution.  
Initially, the OLR sought costs, but Attorney Noorlander entered 
into the stipulation prior to the appointment of a referee, so we 
                                                 
parties to consider specific modifications to the 
stipulation.  
(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 a stipulation, a 
referee shall be appointed and the matter shall proceed 
as a complaint filed without a stipulation.  
(3m) If the supreme court directs the parties to 
consider specific modifications to the stipulation, the 
parties may, within 20 days of the date of the order, 
file a revised stipulation, in which case the supreme 
court may approve the revised stipulation, adopt the 
stipulated facts and conclusions of law, and impose the 
stipulated discipline. If the parties do not file a 
revised stipulation within 20 days of the date of the 
order, 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. 
2019AP1771-D   
 
3 
 
will not impose the costs of this proceeding on Attorney 
Noorlander.  
¶3 
Attorney Noorlander was admitted to the practice of law 
in Wisconsin on January 5, 1999.  He resides in Milwaukee and has 
not previously been the subject of professional discipline.  
¶4 
The complaint and stipulation concern five counts of 
misconduct involving two clients.  According to the complaint and 
the stipulation, in 2015, Attorney Noorlander represented "CQAP", 
on behalf of his then-law firm Gierke Frank Noorlander (GFN), in 
a civil law suit that he filed on CQAP's behalf in Racine County.  
¶5 
On October 27, 2015, the circuit court issued an order 
stating that the CQAP case would be dismissed in 20 days unless 
good cause was shown as to why the order should not be entered.  
Attorney Noorlander failed to respond to the order and the circuit 
court dismissed the CQAP case without prejudice, due to Attorney 
Noorlander's failure to serve the defendant or to prosecute the 
matter.  Attorney Noorlander did not inform CQAP that the case had 
been dismissed and subsequently told his client that he had 
obtained a judgment against the defendant, which was not true. 
¶6 
In September 2017, Attorney Noorlander informed CQAP 
that the defendant had filed a motion to vacate the (fictitious) 
judgment.  He provided CQAP with a fabricated "Motion to Vacate" 
which he had drafted with a purported electronic signature of 
defense counsel.  The fabricated motion contained defense 
counsel's name and address, but an incorrect state bar number.   
¶7 
The remaining counts of the complaint relate to Attorney 
Noorlander's representation of R.H.  On or about July 15, 2016, 
No. 
2019AP1771-D   
 
4 
 
R.H. hired GFN to represent him in a breach of contract and 
replevin case filing concerning the sale of motors and an air 
compressor.  R.H. paid GFN a $1,500 advanced fee for Attorney 
Noorlander's representation. 
¶8 
For the first several months of the representation, 
Attorney Noorlander performed steady work on behalf of R.H. and 
was responsive to R.H.'s requests for information.  Beginning in 
June 2017 that changed.  R.H. sent emails to Attorney Noorlander 
requesting a status update and advising Attorney Noorlander he 
could meet with the defendant to collect the equipment in dispute.  
On July 20, 2017, Attorney Noorlander responded that he would reach 
out and schedule a date to pick up the equipment. Thereafter, 
however, Attorney Noorlander failed to respond to R.H.  He ignored 
emails and telephone messages in August, September, and October of 
2017.  In November 15, 2017, R.H. emailed Attorney Noorlander to 
inform him that he could meet with the defendant on December 14, 
2017, to identify disputed property in the defendant's possession.  
R.H. asked for a "copy of correspondence that Noorlander said he 
was sending to the other party" and, if he hadn't sent it, R.H. 
directed Attorney Noorlander to send the letter "without delay."  
R.H. also asked Attorney Noorlander to keep him informed.  On 
December 20, 2017, Attorney Noorlander emailed R.H. a draft 
complaint for replevin for R.H.'s review.  Attorney Noorlander 
stated that a judgment in replevin from the circuit court would 
result in an order for the return of R.H.'s property.  On December 
21, 2017, R.H. emailed Attorney Noorlander approving the 
complaint.   
No. 
2019AP1771-D   
 
5 
 
¶9 
In a January 2, 2018 email to R.H., Attorney Noorlander 
stated, "With your permission I am going to start the year by 
filing and serving this complaint.  They will have 20 days to 
answer or otherwise plead, but hopefully they will reach out before 
that to discuss resolution."  In a January 3, 2018 email to 
Attorney Noorlander, R.H. stated, "Assuming that you have 
incorporated my corrections, please proceed."  Attorney Noorlander 
did not proceed.   
¶10 In a January 11, 2018 email to Attorney Noorlander, R.H. 
asked if the replevin complaint had been filed.  On January 12, 
2018 Attorney Noorlander replied by email that it had been filed 
and he was awaiting confirmation of service.  This was not true.  
Attorney Noorlander had not filed the complaint.  On March 27, 
2018, R.H. filed a grievance with the OLR.   
¶11 On May 30, 2018, the OLR sent written notice of its 
formal investigation to Attorney Noorlander, requesting that he 
submit a written response on or before June 22, 2018.  Attorney 
Noorlander did not respond.  He then failed to respond to the OLR's 
follow-up requests.  Eventually, on August 8, 2018, the OLR filed 
a motion with this court, asking this court to direct Attorney 
Noorlander to show cause as to why Attorney Noorlander's law 
license should not be temporarily suspended for failing to 
cooperate with the OLR's investigation.  See SCR 22.03(4).  This 
court issued the order.  OLR v. Noorlander, No. 2018XX1257-D, 
unpublished order (Sup. Ct. Aug. 15, 2018).   
¶12 On August 31, 2018, the OLR received a letter from 
Attorney Noorlander's lawyer, requesting an extension.  Finally, 
No. 
2019AP1771-D   
 
6 
 
on October 11, 2018, the OLR received a sufficient response from 
Attorney Noorlander.  Accordingly, on October 15, 2018, this court 
granted the OLR's request to dismiss the motion for temporary 
license suspension.  
¶13 On September 18, 2019, the OLR filed a complaint against 
Attorney Noorlander alleging the following five counts of 
misconduct: 
Count One:  By representing to CQAP that he had obtained 
a judgment against the defendant in the Racine County 
case, when in fact he had not done so; by drafting a 
fabricated "Motion to Vacate" in the name of defense 
counsel; and by concealing from CQAP that the case had 
been 
dismissed, 
Attorney 
Noorlander 
violated 
SCR 
20:8.4(c).2 
Count Two:  By failing to file the replevin action 
requested 
by 
R.H., 
Attorney 
Noorlander 
violated 
SCR 20:1.3.3  
Count Three:  By failing to keep R.H. reasonably 
informed regarding the status of the case, and by failing 
to respond to R.H.'s emails and telephone calls 
requesting information, Attorney Noorlander violated SCR 
20:1.4(a)(3)4 and (4).5  
Count Four:  By informing R.H. that he had filed the 
replevin action, when in fact he had not done so, 
Attorney Noorlander violated SCR 20:8.4(c) 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct for 
a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation." 
3 SCR 20:1.3 provides:  "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
4 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides:  "A lawyer shall keep the client 
reasonably informed about the status of the matter." 
5 SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) provides:  "A lawyer shall promptly comply 
with reasonable requests by the client for information." 
No. 
2019AP1771-D   
 
7 
 
Count Five:  By willfully failing to provide the OLR 
with a timely written response to R.H.'s grievance, 
Attorney 
Noorlander 
violated 
SCR 
22.03(2),6 
and 
SCR 22.03(6),7 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h).8 
¶14 On or about December 13, 2019, the OLR and Attorney 
Noorlander executed the stipulation now before the court.  In 
addition to stipulating to the facts as set forth above, the 
parties stipulated to discipline in the form of a 60-day suspension 
of Attorney Noorlander's Wisconsin law license.  
¶15 The parties' stipulation provides that it did not result 
from plea bargaining.  Attorney Noorlander represents and verifies 
that he fully understands the allegations, the ramifications 
                                                 
6 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.   
7 SCR 22.03(6) provides:  "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." 
8 SCR 20:8.4(h) 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. 
2019AP1771-D   
 
8 
 
should the court impose the stipulated level of discipline, his 
right to contest this matter, and his right to consult with 
counsel; he has consulted with counsel; his entry into this 
stipulation is made knowingly and voluntarily; he has read the 
complaint and this SCR 22.12 stipulation; and his entry into this 
stipulation represents his decision not to contest the allegations 
in the complaint or the level and type of discipline sought by the 
OLR's Director.  
¶16 The parties further stipulated that a 60-day suspension 
of Attorney Noorlander's license to practice law in Wisconsin is 
an appropriate sanction for Attorney Noorlander's misconduct.  The 
OLR filed a memorandum in support of the stipulation which 
discusses attorney disciplinary cases that resulted in 60-day 
suspensions for generally similar misconduct.  
¶17 The OLR's memorandum states that the case most similar 
to the facts at issue here is In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Callahan, 2016 WI 8, 366 Wis. 2d 503, 874 N.W.2d 98. There, 
we imposed a 60-day suspension on a lawyer with no prior discipline 
for filing a complaint after the statute of limitations expired; 
soliciting a settlement without the client's authority; failing to 
communicate with his client about the status of the claim; failing 
to 
perform 
the 
necessary 
work 
to 
advance 
the 
client's 
discrimination claim; and failing to provide timely written 
responses to the OLR's investigative letters regarding the 
client's grievance.  The OLR also points to In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Lewis, 2002 WI 115, 256 Wis. 2d 41, 651 
N.W.2d 734.  There, we imposed a 60-day suspension on a lawyer 
No. 
2019AP1771-D   
 
9 
 
with no prior discipline for committing five counts of misconduct 
arising out of complex business dealings where the attorney failed 
to obtain written consent from clients regarding a potential 
conflict of interest; failed to file a lawsuit; failed to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing the client; 
failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of 
the representation; and failed to cooperate in the OLR's 
investigation.  See also In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
McNeely, 2008 WI 91, 313 Wis. 2d 283, 752 N.W.2d 857 (60-day 
suspension imposed on lawyer with no prior discipline for three 
counts of misconduct including failure to discuss or obtain written 
waivers regarding potential conflicts of interest; making false 
statements of fact to a tribunal; and engaging in misconduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation); In re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Paul, 
2007 
WI 
11, 
298 
Wis. 2d 629, 726 N.W.2d 253 (60-day suspension imposed for eight 
counts of misconduct including, inter alia, failure to obtain 
client's permission prior to signing a stipulation; failure to 
inform client that he had filed a stipulation dismissing her case; 
failure to take action on a client's case resulting in dismissal; 
and failure to notify the client of the dismissal).  
¶18 We adopt the stipulation and the stipulated facts and 
conclusions of law, and accept and impose the stipulated 
discipline.  We agree that the seriousness of Attorney Noorlander's 
misconduct warrants the suspension of his Wisconsin law license 
for 60 days and that our precedent supports this level of 
discipline.  The OLR does not seek restitution, so we impose none.  
No. 
2019AP1771-D   
 
10 
 
In its complaint, the OLR requested costs but in light of the 
stipulation, we do not impose costs.  
¶19 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Willem James Noorlander 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective  the date of this order. 
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Willem James Noorlander 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.  
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2).  
¶22 DANIEL KELLY, J., did not participate. 
 
No. 
2019AP1771-D   
 
 
 
1