Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Craig V. Kitchen

Citation: 2004 WI 83

Docket Number: 2003AP000432-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2004-06-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
2004 WI 83 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
03-0432-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Craig V. Kitchen, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Craig V. Kitchen,  
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KITCHEN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 29, 2004   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2004 WI 83 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  03-0432-D  
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Craig V. Kitchen, Attorney at  
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Craig V. Kitchen,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 29, 2004 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.    
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We have reviewed the findings of fact, 
conclusions of law, and recommendations of referee Gene B. 
Radcliffe for sanctions, pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1  Attorney 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) provides: 
(2) 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. 
03-0432-D   
 
2 
 
Craig V. Kitchen was found to have engaged in unprofessional 
conduct in the course of his practice of law in violation of the 
rules of professional conduct.  The referee recommended a 60-day 
suspension of Attorney Kitchen's license to practice law and 
payment of $8060.34 in costs.  Neither side has appealed.  
¶2 
We 
approve 
the 
findings, 
conclusions, 
and 
recommendations, and determine that the seriousness of Attorney 
Kitchen's misconduct warrants the imposition of these sanctions.   
¶3 
Attorney Kitchen was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1990.  He has no prior disciplinary history. 
¶4 
The misconduct in this case results from Attorney 
Kitchen's representation of a married couple in a bankruptcy 
action that involved a claim of fraud.  Attorney Kitchen 
obtained a $4250 retainer, from which he would draw at the rate 
of $175 per hour, and placed it in his trust account.  
Negotiations with the government resulted in a tentative 
settlement for $3000.  Attorney Kitchen's clients gave him that 
amount which he also placed in his trust account.  However, that 
settlement did not take place.  The matter later settled for 
$10,700 which the clients paid directly.  
¶5 
As the action was being concluded, Attorney Kitchen's 
clients repeatedly tried to contact him over a period of one 
year or more, without success, to determine the status of the 
proceeding and to obtain an itemized bill for services rendered 
to date.  It wasn't until they filed a grievance with the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) that Attorney Kitchen provided a 
bill.  The bill was in the amount of $8867.50 and included $175 
No. 
03-0432-D   
 
3 
 
for an hour of time to retrieve the file from storage and $1050 
for six hours of time to prepare the bill itself.   
¶6 
The referee found that the five violations alleged in 
the 
OLR's 
complaint 
against 
Attorney 
Kitchen 
had 
indeed 
occurred.   
¶7 
The OLR had alleged that Attorney Kitchen violated SCR 
20:1.4(a)2 which requires that a lawyer keep a client reasonably 
informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with 
reasonable requests for information.  The referee found that 
Attorney Kitchen failed to timely respond to his clients' 
request for information concerning the status of the bankruptcy 
and for a bill.  
¶8 
The OLR further alleged that Attorney Kitchen violated 
SCR 
20:1.5(a)3 
requiring 
that 
a 
lawyer's 
fees 
shall 
be 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides: "(a) A lawyer shall keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly 
comply with reasonable requests for information." 
3 SCR 20:1.5(a) provides:  
(a) A lawyer's fee shall be reasonable. The 
factors 
to 
be 
considered 
in 
determining 
the 
reasonableness of a fee include the following:  
(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and 
difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill 
requisite to perform the legal service properly;  
(2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, 
that the acceptance of the particular employment will 
preclude other employment by the lawyer;  
(3) the fee customarily charged in the locality 
for similar legal services;  
(4) the amount involved and the results obtained;  
No. 
03-0432-D   
 
4 
 
reasonable.  The referee found that charging the clients $175 to 
retrieve their file in order to answer their inquiries was 
unreasonable.  The referee also stated that billing the clients 
for six hours of time in preparing the bill might also have been 
unreasonable, but did not specifically so find.   
¶9 
The OLR further alleged that Attorney Kitchen violated 
SCR 20:1.15(e)4 requiring a lawyer to maintain complete records 
                                                                                                                                                             
(5) the time limitations imposed by the client or 
by the circumstances;  
(6) the nature and length of the professional 
relationship with the client; 
(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of 
the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and  
(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent. 
4 SCR 20:1.15(e) provides: 
(e) Complete records of trust account funds and 
other trust property shall be kept by the lawyer and 
shall be preserved for a period of at least six years 
after termination of the representation. Complete 
records shall include: (i) a cash receipts journal, 
listing the sources and date of each receipt, (ii) a 
disbursements journal, listing the date and payee of 
each disbursement, with all disbursements being paid 
by check, (iii) a subsidiary ledger containing a 
separate page for each person or company for whom 
funds have been received in trust, showing the date 
and amount of each receipt, the date and amount of 
each disbursement, and any unexpended balance, (iv) a 
monthly schedule of the subsidiary ledger, indicating 
the balance of each client's account at the end of 
each month, (v) a determination of the cash balance 
(checkbook balance) at the end of each month, taken 
from the cash receipts and cash disbursement journals 
and a reconciliation of the cash balance (checkbook 
balance) with the balance indicated in the bank 
statement, and (vi) monthly statements, including 
No. 
03-0432-D   
 
5 
 
of trust account funds.  The referee found that he failed to 
maintain the requisite degree of documentation to permit 
identification of trust account transactions and the periodic 
balances on hand for each client.   
¶10 The OLR also alleged a violation of SCR 20:1.15(f)5 
requiring a lawyer to submit trust account records to the OLR.  
The referee found that Attorney Kitchen had failed to maintain 
proper trust account records, specifically the cash receipts 
journal, disbursements journal, subsidiary ledgers, monthly 
schedule, monthly balance, and monthly statements, all as 
required by SCR 20:1.15(e).  Having failed to keep these 
records, the referee found that there was a commensurate failure 
by Attorney Kitchen to submit the requisite records to the OLR 
to assist it in its investigation.  The referee expressed a 
                                                                                                                                                             
canceled 
checks, 
vouchers 
or 
share 
drafts, 
and 
duplicate deposit slips. A record of all property 
other than cash which is held in trust for clients or 
third persons, as required by paragraph (a) hereof, 
shall also be maintained. All trust account records 
shall be deemed to have public aspects as related to 
the lawyer's fitness to practice. 
5 SCR 20:1.15(f) provides: 
(f) Upon 
request 
of 
the 
office 
of 
lawyer 
regulation, or upon direction of the Supreme Court, 
the records shall be submitted to the office for its 
inspection, audit, use, 
and 
evidence 
under 
such 
conditions to protect the privilege of clients as the 
court may provide. The records, or an audit thereof, 
shall be produced at any disciplinary proceeding 
involving the attorney wherever material. Failure to 
produce the records shall constitute unprofessional 
conduct and grounds for disciplinary action. 
No. 
03-0432-D   
 
6 
 
belief that Attorney Kitchen probably never kept any records and 
was unable to recreate what had occurred because he had also 
lost the basic bank records, including deposit slips, underlying 
the trust account transactions.  
¶11 Finally, the OLR alleged a violation of SCR 22.03(6)6 
which states that it is misconduct for a lawyer in the course of 
a disciplinary investigation to fail to provide information as 
requested.  The referee found that, in addition to not having 
the proper trust account records and being unable to submit them 
to the OLR, Attorney Kitchen misled the OLR by suggesting on 
several 
occasions 
that 
he 
was 
sending 
the 
necessary 
documentation but later conceding that he did not have it.  
¶12 The referee adopted the OLR's request to recommend a 
60-day sanction, citing several similar cases in which a 
suspension of this length was imposed.  See e.g. In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Schmitz, 193 Wis. 2d 279, 532 
N.W.2d 716 (1995) (60-day suspension imposed for failure to 
maintain proper trust account records and failure to provide 
competent representation).  As a mitigating factor, the referee 
noted there was no monetary loss here, although he did 
acknowledge there was an "implication" of commingling of funds.  
The referee further noted that Attorney Kitchen is trying to 
                                                 
6 SCR 
22.03(6) 
provides: 
"(6) 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. 
03-0432-D   
 
7 
 
improve his office procedures to better communicate with clients 
and avoid trust account problems.  On the other hand, the 
referee noted that Attorney Kitchen expressed little remorse for 
his actions and tried to minimize his misconduct by claiming 
that no one other than these clients had ever complained or been 
harmed.  In conclusion, the referee submits that a reprimand is 
inappropriate and the suspension with costs is warranted.  
¶13 The referee also recommends, in accordance with the 
OLR's request, that as a condition of reinstatement Attorney 
Kitchen be required to produce various trust account records 
from the period involved in this case or at least a sworn 
statement as to what happened if actual records cannot be 
produced.   
¶14 We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law 
of the referee.  Attorney Kitchen's misconduct represents a 
serious failure to comply with the rules of professional 
conduct.  Furthermore, the referee's recommendation of a 
sanction is appropriate discipline for this misconduct.  
¶15 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Craig V. 
Kitchen to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period 
of 60 days, and until reinstated by this court, effective August 
3, 2004. 
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Kitchen comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an 
attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended. 
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Kitchen shall pay $8060.34 to the Office 
No. 
03-0432-D   
 
8 
 
of Lawyer Regulation representing the costs of this proceeding.  
If these costs are not paid within the time specified, and 
absent a showing to this court of an inability to pay the costs 
within that time, the license of Attorney Kitchen to practice 
law shall remain suspended indefinitely until further order of 
the court.  
¶18 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
as 
a 
condition 
of 
reinstatement Attorney Kitchen shall furnish to the OLR: (1) 
trust account records including monthly bank statements for 
December 1998 and May 2001; cancelled checks for June 1999, 
January 2000, February 2001, and May 2001; all deposit slips 
from April 1998 to the present; and in every case where the 
deposit slip fails to identify all deposits by client name, 
copies of all checks or items deposited to the account; and (2) 
any journals or ledgers, including individual client ledgers, 
that he has used from April 1998 to the present to record 
transactions in his client trust account, to further include any 
check stubs and registers relating thereto.  In the absence of 
any of these records, he must furnish the OLR with a sworn 
statement, or sworn testimony, detailing what records were 
maintained, what efforts were taken to locate them, and why he 
cannot produce them.  
No. 
03-0432-D   
 
 
 
1