Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Joseph J. Kaupie

Citation: 2015 WI 81

Docket Number: 2014AP002578-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2015-07-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
2015 WI 81 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2014AP2578-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
Joseph J. Kaupie, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Joseph J. Kaupie, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KAUPIE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 15, 2015 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2015 WI 81
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2014AP2578-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Joseph J. Kaupie, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Joseph J. Kaupie, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 15, 2015 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule (SCR) 22.17(2), the report of the referee, Robert E. 
Kinney, recommending that the court suspend Attorney Joseph J. 
Kaupie's license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of 
five months for professional misconduct in connection with four 
client matters.  No appeal has been filed. 
¶2 
We approve and adopt the referee's findings of fact 
and conclusions of law.  We conclude that Attorney Kaupie's 
No. 
2014AP2578-D   
 
2 
 
misconduct warrants a five-month license suspension together 
with the imposition of full costs, which total $2,309.41 as of 
March 31, 2015.  
¶3 
Attorney Kaupie was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1999.  He resides in Wausau.  Attorney Kaupie's 
license has been administratively suspended since October 31, 
2011, for his failure to pay mandatory State Bar dues and his 
failure to file a trust account certification, and since 
June 12, 2012, for failure to comply with continuing legal 
education requirements.  In addition, on March 15, 2012, this 
court temporarily suspended Attorney Kaupie's license for his 
willful failure to cooperate in Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) investigations concerning his conduct.  He has not 
previously been the subject of disciplinary proceedings.  
¶4 
On November 6, 2014, the OLR filed a complaint 
alleging 
that 
Attorney 
Kaupie 
committed 
14 
counts 
of 
professional misconduct.  By order dated December 15, 2014, 
Robert E. Kinney was appointed referee.  On March 9, 2015, the 
parties filed a stipulation and no contest plea agreement 
whereby Attorney Kaupie pled no contest to the misconduct 
alleged in the complaint.  Attorney Kaupie acknowledged the 
accuracy of the complaint's factual allegations and the parties 
jointly requested that the referee recommend a five-month 
suspension. 
Matter of D.B. (Counts One-Three) 
¶5 
In November 2010, Attorney Kaupie was appointed by the 
Office of the State Public Defender (SPD) to represent D.B. on 
No. 
2014AP2578-D   
 
3 
 
D.B.'s appeal from his conviction for sexual assault.  Attorney 
Kaupie failed to respond to telephone messages and failed to 
respond to written communications from his client and from the 
SPD.  Attorney Kaupie had no contact at any time with D.B. 
regarding his appeal and, as a result, D.B.'s appellate 
deadlines lapsed.  The SPD eventually removed Attorney Kaupie 
from its list of attorneys eligible to receive post-conviction 
appointments and a grievance was filed.  Attorney Kaupie then 
failed to respond to repeated inquiries from the OLR concerning 
the grievance.  The referee concluded, based on the parties' 
stipulation, that Attorney Kaupie's conduct in this matter 
violated SCR 20:1.3,1 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4),2 and SCR 22.03(2) 
and (6),3 enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).4 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.3 provides that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
2 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4) provide that a lawyer shall "keep 
the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter" 
and "promptly comply with reasonable requests by the client for 
information." 
3 SCR 22.03(2) and (6) provide: 
(2) 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 
(continued) 
No. 
2014AP2578-D   
 
4 
 
Matter of P.E. (Counts Four-Seven) 
¶6 
In 2010, Attorney Kaupie was appointed by the SPD to 
represent P.E. in post-conviction proceedings stemming from his 
conviction, on entry of a guilty plea, to burglary, receiving 
stolen property, criminal damage to property, and two counts of 
armed robbery.  Attorney Kaupie did not file a statement on 
transcript or a brief in the case.  He disregarded the court of 
appeal's delinquency notice regarding his failure to file P.E.'s 
brief.  Attorney Kaupie was removed from the appeal and the SPD 
was ordered to appoint replacement counsel.  Attorney Kaupie 
then failed to send successor counsel P.E.'s file and failed to 
respond to repeated inquiries from the OLR regarding the ensuing 
grievance investigation.  The referee concluded, based on the 
parties' stipulation, that Attorney Kaupie's conduct in this 
                                                                                                                                                             
present 
any 
information 
deemed 
relevant 
to 
the 
investigation. 
. . . . 
(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. 
4 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides that 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. 
2014AP2578-D   
 
5 
 
matter violated SCR 20:1.3, SCR 20:1.16(d),5 SCR 20:3.4(c),6 and 
SCR 22.03(2) and (6), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).  
Matter of Y.M. (Counts Eight-Ten) 
¶7 
In 2010, Attorney Kaupie was appointed by the SPD to 
represent Y.M. in post-conviction proceedings stemming from his 
conviction, on entry of a guilty plea, to several drug-related 
crimes and one count of resisting/obstructing an officer.  
Attorney Kaupie did not file a brief or do meaningful work to 
advance Y.M.'s appeal.  Y.M. briefly met with Attorney Kaupie in 
the prison but had no further communication with him.  Y.M. was 
unable to contact Kaupie by telephone or by mail and eventually 
learned that his appeal had been dismissed because of Attorney 
Kaupie's failure to file a brief on his behalf.  Attorney Kaupie 
then failed to respond to repeated inquiries from the OLR 
regarding the ensuing grievance investigation.  The referee 
                                                 
5 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides:  
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. 
6 SCR 20:3.4(c) provides that a lawyer shall not "knowingly 
disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except for 
an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation 
exists." 
No. 
2014AP2578-D   
 
6 
 
concluded, based on the parties' stipulation, that Attorney 
Kaupie's conduct in this matter violated SCR 20:1.3, SCR 
20:1.4(a)(3) and (4), and SCR 22.03(2) and (6), enforced via SCR 
20:8.4(h). 
Matter of J.W. (Counts 11-14) 
¶8 
In December 2009, Attorney Kaupie was appointed by the 
SPD to represent J.W. in post-conviction proceedings stemming 
from J.W.'s conviction for second degree sexual assault of a 
child.  Attorney Kaupie handled a post-conviction motion but 
failed to respond to multiple directives from the court of 
appeals relating to J.W.'s appeal.  In August 2011, the court of 
appeals issued an order rejecting a no-merit report filed by 
Attorney Kaupie and ordering Attorney Kaupie to pursue an 
appeal.  Attorney Kaupie did not respond to the court's order or 
to communications from the SPD.  In September 2011, the SPD 
suspended Attorney Kaupie "[b]ased on your pattern of failing to 
communicate with the court, our appellate office and your 
client." 
¶9 
Attorney Kaupie then failed to send successor counsel 
J.W.'s file and failed to respond to repeated inquiries from the 
OLR regarding the ensuing grievance investigation.  The referee 
concluded, based on the parties' stipulation, that Attorney 
Kaupie's 
conduct 
in 
this 
matter 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.3, 
SCR 20:1.16(d), SCR 20:3.4(c), and SCR 22.03(2) and (6), 
enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶10 Attorney 
Kaupie 
has 
stipulated 
that 
he 
fully 
understands the misconduct allegations; that he understands his 
No. 
2014AP2578-D   
 
7 
 
right 
to 
contest 
this 
matter; 
that 
he 
understands 
the 
ramifications should the court impose a five-month suspension; 
and that his entry into the stipulation is made knowingly and 
voluntarily 
and 
represents 
his 
admission 
of 
the 
alleged 
misconduct and his agreement with the level of discipline sought 
by the OLR.  The parties asked the referee to approve the 
stipulation and file a report finding facts and misconduct 
consistent with the stipulation and recommending that Attorney 
Kaupie's license to practice law be suspended for five months. 
¶11 On March 11, 2015, the referee filed his findings of 
fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation in which he adopted 
the parties' stipulated findings of fact, determined that the 
OLR had proven by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence 
that Attorney Kaupie had engaged in the alleged misconduct, 
recommended that Attorney Kaupie's license to practice law be 
suspended for five months, and recommended imposition of full 
costs.  No appeal was filed from the referee's report and 
recommendation.  Restitution is neither sought nor recommended 
in this matter. 
¶12 This court will affirm a referee's findings of fact 
unless they are clearly erroneous, but conclusions of law are 
reviewed de novo.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  This 
court 
is 
free 
to 
impose 
whatever 
discipline 
it 
deems 
appropriate, regardless of the referee's recommendation.  See 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 
261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.   
No. 
2014AP2578-D   
 
8 
 
¶13 As the referee observed, abandonment of clients, 
especially those who are vulnerable due to incarceration and 
indigency, is a serious matter and Attorney Kaupie's cooperation 
with the ensuing investigation was "abysmal."  The referee was 
mindful, however, that Attorney Kaupie had no prior disciplinary 
history 
and 
that 
Attorney 
Kaupie 
acknowledged 
complete 
culpability for his misconduct.  
¶14 The stipulation discloses that in 2009, when this 
misconduct commenced, Attorney Kaupie was a sole practitioner 
with no office staff, practicing primarily in the area of 
criminal defense.  That year, Attorney Kaupie's mother, who 
suffered from Alzheimer's disease, experienced declining health.  
Attorney Kaupie spent considerable time caring for his mother, 
whose condition increasingly needed constant supervision.  The 
stipulation discloses that Attorney Kaupie essentially stopped 
practicing law to care for his mother, who passed away in 
November 2014.  
¶15 We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions 
of 
law 
and 
determine 
that, 
in 
view 
of 
the 
circumstances 
presented, 
a 
five-month 
suspension 
is 
the 
appropriate 
discipline 
for 
Attorney 
Kaupie's 
professional 
misconduct.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Diamon, 
2001 WI 28, 242 Wis. 2d 110, 624 N.W.2d 147 (five-month 
suspension for failure to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing clients, failure to communicate with 
clients, 
terminating 
representation 
of 
clients 
without 
performing any legal services or refunding any unearned fees, 
No. 
2014AP2578-D   
 
9 
 
and failure to cooperate in the misconduct investigation).  We 
find no reason to diverge from our general policy of imposing 
full costs in this matter. 
¶16 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Joseph J. Kaupie to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of five 
months, effective the date of this order. 
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Joseph J. Kaupie shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$2,309.41. 
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the March 15, 2012 
temporary suspension of Joseph J. Kaupie's license to practice 
law in Wisconsin, due to his willful failure to cooperate with 
the OLR's grievance investigation in this matter, is lifted.  
The administrative suspensions imposed upon Attorney Kaupie's 
license for failure to pay mandatory bar dues, failure to file a 
trust 
account 
certification, 
and 
failure 
to 
comply 
with 
continuing legal education requirements, however, will remain in 
effect until each reason for the administrative suspension has 
been rectified, pursuant to SCR 22.28(1). 
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Joseph J. Kaupie shall comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an attorney 
whose license to practice law has been suspended. 
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2). 
No. 
2014AP2578-D   
 
 
 
1