Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kyle H. Torvinen

Citation: 2010 WI 123

Docket Number: 2009AP002007-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2010-10-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
2010 WI 123 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2009AP2007-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Kyle H. Torvinen, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Appellant, 
     v. 
Kyle H. Torvinen, 
          Respondent-Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST TORVINEN 
 
 
ORDER FILED: 
October 21, 2010   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
April 16, 2010   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the complainant-appellant there were briefs by Wayne A. 
Arnold, Rice Lake, and oral argument by Wayne A. Arnold. 
 
For the respondent-respondent there was a brief by John H. 
Hendricks, Knudson, Torvinen, Jones & Kirk, S.C., Superior, and 
oral argument by John H. Hendricks. 
 
 
 
 
 
2010 WI 123 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This order is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The 
final version will appear in the 
bound volume of the official 
reports.   
 
 
 
No.  2009AP2007-D 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Kyle H. Torvinen, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Appellant, 
 
     v. 
 
Kyle H. Torvinen, 
 
          Respondent-Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 21, 2010 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of 
Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Court entered the following order on this date: 
 
The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) has appealed a 
referee's report and recommendation finding that the OLR failed 
to meet its burden of proof that Attorney Kyle H. Torvinen 
violated SCR 20:1.9(a), via SCR 20:1.10(a), and SCRs 20:5.1(b) 
and (c).   
 
A referee's findings of fact will not be set aside unless 
they are clearly erroneous.  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.  We conclude 
that the referee's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous 
and we also uphold the referee's conclusions of law that 
Attorney Torvinen's conduct did not violate any ethical rule.  
Consequently, we dismiss the OLR's complaint, without costs. 
 
No.  2009AP2007-D 
2 
Attorney Torvinen was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in 1993 and practices in Superior with the firm of 
Knudson, Torvinen, Jones & Kirk, S.C.  He has no prior 
disciplinary history. 
 
In December 2006 Mary and Tony Chavez telephoned Attorney 
Torvinen's law firm.  The Chavezes had not previously been 
clients of the firm but were looking for a form to use to 
purchase a building in Superior to house a hairdressing salon.  
Attorney Parrish Jones returned the Chavezes' phone call.  
Attorney Jones initially referred the Chavezes to a stationery 
store where legal forms were available.  Attorney Jones 
subsequently prepared a first draft of a form that would be the 
starting point for the Chavezes to continue their purchase 
discussions with Robert Reuhl, the owner of the building.  
Thinking the work for which he had been retained had been 
completed, on December 31, 2006, Attorney Jones billed the 
Chavezes for 1.7 hours of time, $229.50, and closed his file.   
 
Attorney Jones had nothing to do with contacting Reuhl, 
negotiating with him, or presenting him with the offer to 
purchase.  Sometime after January 15, 2007, the Chavezes 
contacted Attorney Jones asking about a remedy for the closing 
not taking place as scheduled.  Attorney Jones suggested trying 
to schedule a new closing date.  A closing date was set for 
February 19, 2007.  On February 15, 2007, the Chavezes contacted 
Attorney Jones saying that because Reuhl was going to have an 
attorney representing him at the closing, the Chavezes thought 
they should also have an attorney present to represent them.  
 
Attorney Jones attended the closing with the Chavezes on 
February 19, 2007.  On March 15, 2007, Attorney Jones billed the 
Chavezes for 3.7 hours to prepare for the closing, attend the 
closing, and see to the proper filing of the warranty deed and 
real estate transfer return.  Attorney Jones considered the file 
closed and his representation of the Chavezes completed. 
 
At the time of the closing, neither Attorney Jones nor the 
Chavezes had legal or actual notice of a nearly ten-year-old 
lease that affected some of the parking spaces on the premises 
the Chavezes were purchasing.  The parking lot lease was not 
brought up at the closing and the lease had never been recorded.  
The Chavezes apparently learned about the parking lot lease 
after the closing, shortly after they took possession of the 
property.  Attorney Kenneth Knudson, a partner of Attorney 
Torvinen, had drafted the lease agreement in 1997 between Reuhl, 
as lessor, and John Lange, as lessee.  The lease granted Lange 
No.  2009AP2007-D 
3 
the non-exclusive use of some parking spaces adjacent to his 
chiropractic business for ten years, running from January 1, 
1998, through December 31, 2007.  Lange subsequently sold his 
chiropractic building, including the rights under the parking 
lease, to his son-in-law, Dane Laughlin.  After the Chavezes 
purchased the building, they began parking in spaces that had 
been leased to Dr. Laughlin's business.  It was at that point 
that Dr. Laughlin informed the Chavezes about the lease. 
 
After the Chavezes learned about the parking lot lease, 
they contacted Attorney Jones again.  When Attorney Jones 
learned that his senior partner, Attorney Knudson, had been 
involved in drafting the 1997 lease, Attorney Jones advised the 
Chavezes that he could not assist them and told them to contact 
another lawyer for help with the lease. 
 
The Chavezes and Laughlin had discussions about the lease 
and the use of the parking spaces, but were unable to resolve 
their differences.  In late March of 2007 the Chavezes built a 
ten-foot wooden fence along the boundary line of their property.  
In frustration about the situation, Laughlin contacted Attorney 
Torvinen, his friend and counselor at the law firm, about advice 
on how to make progress with the Chavezes over the lease problem 
and the fence.  Attorney Torvinen told Laughlin that the matter 
should be resolved in a neighborly fashion.  At Laughlin's 
request, Attorney Torvinen prepared a draft of a letter for 
Laughlin to use in communicating with the Chavezes.  The 
Chavezes concluded the lease was no longer valid and they 
refused to remove the fence as requested by Laughlin. 
 
Laughlin asked Attorney Torvinen to proceed with enforcing 
the lease.  On August 10, 2007, Attorney Torvinen sent the 
Chavezes a letter indicating that his law firm was representing 
the Lange/Laughlin chiropractic clinic.  The letter requested an 
amicable resolution of the dispute.  Attorney Torvinen belatedly 
learned that Attorney Jones had represented the Chavezes at the 
real estate closing earlier in the year.  The firm's members 
decided they must consider whether there was a conflict of 
interest in representing their long-term clients, Lange and 
Laughlin, against the Chavezes on the fence issue. 
 
Attorney Johanna Kirk, an associate at Attorney Torvinen's 
firm, was directed to review the Chavez real estate closing file 
to search for any conflict of interest issues.  Members of the 
firm had numerous discussions and meetings about the conflict of 
interest issue.  After extensive discussions, firm members 
agreed that representing the Chavezes at the real estate closing 
No.  2009AP2007-D 
4 
was not "the same matter" as the fence dispute and was also not 
"substantially related" to the fence dispute.  Firm members also 
concluded that Attorney Jones' representation of the Chavezes at 
the closing was minimal and was a reasonable limited scope 
representation as requested by the Chavezes. 
 
Attorney Torvinen directed Attorney Kirk to proceed with 
enforcing the lease provisions. Attorney Kirk prepared a summons 
and complaint and filed the lawsuit against the Chavezes on 
October 4, 2007.  Attorney Jamy Johansen appeared as the 
attorney of record for the Chavezes in this suit.  Attorney 
Johansen wrote to Attorney Kirk raising the conflict of interest 
issue.   
 
The grievance against Attorney Torvinen was filed in late 
2007.  Attorney Torvinen took over handling the lawsuit against 
the Chavezes in mid-December 2007 from Attorney Kirk.  On more 
than one occasion between mid-October 2007 and late-January 
2008, Attorney Johansen demanded the Torvinen law firm withdraw 
from representation of Lange/Laughlin due to the firm's prior 
representation of the Chavezes.  In mid-December 2007 Attorney 
Torvinen made the decision to withdraw from the suit but after 
speaking with Dr. Laughlin, Attorney Torvinen changed his mind.  
Dr. Laughlin said starting over with new counsel would not be 
cost-effective and that Attorney Johansen, by his threats and 
manipulation of the system, would have substantially won on 
behalf of his clients.  Attorney Torvinen advised the OLR that 
at the request of his client, he was not withdrawing from the 
lawsuit.  After a telephone conversation with OLR Director Keith 
Sellen in January 2008, Attorney Torvinen and his firm did 
withdraw from representation.  They assisted Dr. Laughlin in 
finding new counsel.  The lawsuit was eventually settled by the 
Chavezes paying Dr. Laughlin $750. 
 
On August 4, 2009, the OLR filed a complaint against 
Attorney Torvinen alleging that he violated SCR 20:1.9(a), via 
SCR 20:1.10(a), by representing Lange/Laughlin in negotiating on 
their behalf adversely to the Chavezes without obtaining the 
Chavezes' informed consent in writing, when the representation 
was adverse to the Chavezes, who Attorney Jones had previously 
represented in a substantially related matter.  The complaint 
also alleged that Attorney Torvinen violated SCRs 20:5.1(b) and 
(c) by directing, ratifying, and supervising Attorney Kirk's 
representation of Lange/Laughlin in violation of SCR 20:1.9(a), 
via SCR 20:1.10(a). 
 
No.  2009AP2007-D 
5 
The Honorable James R. Erickson was appointed referee.  A 
hearing was held before the referee on November 12, 2009.  
Referee Erickson issued his report and recommendation on 
November 24, 2009.  The referee concluded the OLR failed to meet 
its burden of proof that Attorney Torvinen violated any supreme 
court rules.  The referee concluded that Attorney Jones' 
representation of the Chavezes in drafting an offer to purchase 
"was a clear case of a limited scope representation which 
concluded when Attorney Jones sent his billing on December 31, 
2006, and at which time the file was closed."  The referee also 
concluded that Attorney Jones' representation of the Chavezes at 
the real estate closing was likewise a very limited scope 
representation that had been requested by the Chavezes on 
February 15, 2007.  The referee said limited scope legal 
representations 
are 
permitted 
by 
Wisconsin's 
rules 
of 
professional conduct and should be encouraged. 
 
The referee concluded that the real estate closing and the 
lawsuit over the fence were not the same matter nor were they 
substantially related.  The referee said: 
 
Despite 
the 
modesty 
of 
the 
legal 
problem, 
Respondent and the law firm spent untold hours in time 
and effort in defending the principles they strongly 
believed in.  It would have been very expeditious for 
them to "throw in the towel" by conceding and 
accepting what Respondent and the law firm strongly 
believed was improper and unjustified discipline.  
They were justified in not doing that. 
 
 
Respondent and his law firm, in my opinion, 
proceeded with careful and conscientious deliberations 
showing care and concern for all of their clients.  
They did their best to even consider the local 
friendly 
business 
environment 
and 
attempted 
to 
amicably resolve the minor legal problem that somehow 
raged out of proportion.  I consider it all to be the 
equivalent of the old proverbial "tempest in a 
teapot."  I think Respondent Torvinen and the law firm 
should 
be 
commended 
rather 
than 
criticized 
and 
disciplined in this OLR prosecution.  The legal system 
is in great need of more problem solving attorneys 
rather than more litigators.  Respondent and his law 
firm attempted to be ethical and reasonable problem 
solvers to the best of their abilities. 
 
No.  2009AP2007-D 
6 
The OLR appealed, arguing the referee erred in concluding 
that Attorney Torvinen's representation of Lange/Laughlin did 
not amount to a conflict of interest under SCR 20:1.9(a).  
Attorney Torvinen asserts that the referee correctly found that 
he committed no ethical violation and that his representation of 
Lange/Laughlin was not the "same" nor a "substantially related" 
matter as the real estate closing handled by Attorney Jones. 
 
From our independent review of the record, we agree with 
the referee that the OLR failed to establish by clear and 
substantial evidence that Attorney Torvinen violated any ethical 
rule. We uphold the referee's legal conclusion that the real 
estate closing and the lawsuit over the fence were not the same 
matter nor were they substantially related.  In addition, we 
note that the preamble to the rules of professional conduct for 
attorneys states: 
 
[9] In the nature of law practice, however, 
conflicting 
responsibilities 
are 
encountered.  
Virtually all difficult ethical problems arise from 
conflict 
between 
a 
lawyer's 
responsibilities 
to 
clients, to the legal system and to the lawyer's own 
interest in remaining an ethical person, while earning 
a satisfactory living.  The Rules of Professional 
Conduct often prescribe terms for resolving such 
conflicts.  Within the framework of these rules, 
however, 
many 
difficult 
issues 
of 
professional 
discretion can arise.  Such issues must be resolved 
through the exercise of sensitive professional and 
moral 
judgment 
guided 
by 
the 
basic 
principles 
underlying the rules.  These principles include the 
lawyer's obligation zealously to protect and pursue a 
client's legitimate interests, within the bounds of 
the law, while maintaining a professional, courteous 
and civil attitude toward all persons involved in the 
legal system. 
 
We agree with the referee that Attorney Torvinen exercised 
sensitive professional and moral judgment, and maintained a 
professional, courteous and civil attitude toward all parties 
involved in the parking lot dispute.  Attorney Torvinen and his 
law firm spent a great deal of time discussing whether a 
conflict of interest existed.  They concluded there was no 
conflict.  Ultimately, Attorney Torvinen and his firm did 
withdraw from representing Lange/Laughlin and assisted them in 
finding substitute counsel.  Based upon the foregoing, 
 
No.  2009AP2007-D 
7 
IT IS ORDERED that the OLR's complaint is dismissed, 
without costs. 
 
 
No.  2009AP2007-D 
8