Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Sherman Ward Hackbarth

Citation: 2013 WI 12

Docket Number: 2012AP000668-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2013-01-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
2013 WI 12 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2012AP668-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against  Sherman Ward Hackbarth, Attorney at 
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Petitioner, 
     v. 
Sherman Ward Hackbarth, 
          Respondent.   
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HACKBARTH     
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
January 25, 2013   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
2013 WI 12 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2012AP668-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Sherman Ward Hackbarth, Attorney at 
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Petitioner, 
 
     v. 
 
Sherman Ward Hackbarth, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
JAN 25, 2013 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee, James C. Boll, Jr., that Attorney Sherman Ward 
Hackbarth be publicly reprimanded for professional misconduct. 
That misconduct consists of failing to act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client, failing to 
adequately communicate with a client, failing to return an 
advance payment of a fee that he had not earned, and failing to 
respond to the OLR's investigative requests.  The referee also 
recommended that Attorney Hackbarth be required to pay the costs 
No. 
2012AP668-D   
 
2 
 
of the proceeding, which total $436.56 as of October 15, 2012.  
The referee further recommended that Attorney Hackbarth be 
required to make restitution to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for 
Client Protection (the Fund) in the amount of $1,000.   
¶2 
We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law.  We agree with the referee's conclusion that 
Attorney Hackbarth's professional misconduct warrants a public 
reprimand. We further order that Attorney Hackbarth make 
restitution to the Fund as described below, and that he pay the 
full costs of this disciplinary proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney Hackbarth was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2005.  The most recent address he has on file with 
the State Bar of Wisconsin is in Madison, Wisconsin.  On 
October 27, 2010, this court suspended Attorney Hackbarth's 
Wisconsin law license for his failure to cooperate with the OLR 
investigation 
of 
this 
matter. 
 
His 
license 
also 
was 
administratively suspended in June 2010 for his failure to 
comply with mandatory continuing legal education reporting 
requirements, and in October 2010 for his failure to pay bar 
dues and assessments and his failure to file the required trust 
account certification.  His license remains administratively 
suspended.   
¶4 
Attorney Hackbarth did not answer or otherwise appear 
in this disciplinary proceeding, and the referee made findings 
of fact and conclusions of law in response to the OLR's motion 
for default judgment. 
No. 
2012AP668-D   
 
3 
 
¶5 
The OLR's complaint alleged that in late August or 
early September 2009, HJ Liquors, LLC hired Attorney Hackbarth 
to represent it in the acquisition of another business.  HJ 
Liquors made it clear to Attorney Hackbarth that time was of the 
essence, as it expected to operate the new business in October 
2009.  HJ Liquors paid Attorney Hackbarth $1,000 as an advanced 
fee.  
¶6 
Attorney Hackbarth did not draft any documents or take 
other actions to represent HJ Liquors in the acquisition.  He 
also failed to respond to numerous e-mails and telephone calls 
from HJ Liquors' principals.  
¶7 
On October 6, 2009, HJ Liquors terminated Attorney 
Hackbarth's representation and demanded a refund of the $1,000 
advanced fee.  Attorney Hackbarth did not refund any portion of 
the $1,000 advanced fee.  
¶8 
On October 16, 2009, HJ Liquors filed a grievance 
against Attorney Hackbarth with the OLR.  
¶9 
On November 9, 2009, Attorney Hackbarth agreed to 
provide information regarding HJ Liquors' grievance to the OLR.  
He failed to do so.   
¶10 On January 14, 2010, the OLR notified Attorney 
Hackbarth that it was investigating HJ Liquors' grievance and 
required Attorney Hackbarth's response to the grievance no later 
than February 8, 2010.  Attorney Hackbarth did not respond.  
¶11 On March 23, 2010, the OLR sent Attorney Hackbarth a 
second request by regular and certified mail, requiring a 
response to the grievance by April 15, 2010.  The OLR's 
No. 
2012AP668-D   
 
4 
 
certified letter was delivered on or around March 24, 2010.  
Attorney Hackbarth did not respond.  
¶12 On July 13, 2010, the OLR wrote Attorney Hackbarth a 
third letter in the HJ Liquors matter, requiring Attorney 
Hackbarth's response no later than seven days from when it was 
served upon him.  On August 3, 2010, Attorney Hackbarth was 
personally served with the OLR's July 13, 2010 letter, along 
with the OLR's January 14 and March 23, 2010 letters.  Attorney 
Hackbarth did not respond.  
¶13 In 
September 
2010 
this 
court 
ordered 
Attorney 
Hackbarth to show cause why his Wisconsin law license should not 
be suspended for his failure to cooperate in the OLR's 
investigation of the HJ Liquors matter.  Attorney Hackbarth did 
not respond.  On October 27, 2010, this court temporarily 
suspended Attorney Hackbarth's Wisconsin law license.   
¶14 The Fund subsequently reimbursed HJ Liquors $1,000 for 
the advanced fee it paid to Attorney Hackbarth. 
¶15 The referee held a telephone scheduling conference on 
July 31, 2012.  The referee had previously attempted to notify 
Attorney Hackbarth of the time and date of the scheduling 
conference via a letter sent to Attorney Hackbarth's last known 
address on file with the State Bar of Wisconsin, and to two 
other addresses——one in Madison, Wisconsin, and another in 
Milton, Wisconsin.  Attorney Hackbarth did not appear at the 
scheduling conference. 
No. 
2012AP668-D   
 
5 
 
¶16 At the July 31, 2012 scheduling conference, the OLR 
moved for default judgment.  The referee orally granted the 
motion.   
¶17 On September 5, 2012, the referee filed a report 
making 
findings 
of 
fact, 
conclusions 
of 
law, 
and 
a 
recommendation 
for 
disciplinary 
sanctions 
against 
Attorney 
Hackbarth.  The referee recommended that Attorney Hackbarth be 
declared in default.  The referee determined that Attorney 
Hackbarth violated SCR 20:1.31 by failing to advance the 
interests of HJ Liquors in its business acquisition attempt.  
The referee further determined that Attorney Hackbarth violated 
SCR 20:1.4(a)(2), (3), and (4)2 and SCR 20:1.4(b)3 by failing to 
communicate in any way with the principals of HJ Liquors after 
receipt of the $1,000 advanced fee.  The referee further 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.3 states, "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
2 SCR 20:1.4(a)(2), (3), and (4) states as follows: 
 
A lawyer shall:  . . .  
 
(2)  reasonably consult with the client about the 
means by which the client's objectives are to be 
accomplished; 
 
(3) keep the client reasonably informed about the 
status of the matter;  
 
(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests by 
the client for information; . . .  
3 SCR 20:1.4(b) states, "A lawyer shall explain a matter to 
the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make 
informed decisions regarding the representation." 
No. 
2012AP668-D   
 
6 
 
determined that Attorney Hackbarth violated SCR 20:1.16(d)4 by 
failing to refund the $1,000 advanced fee paid by or on behalf 
of HJ Liquors when he failed to perform any of the work for 
which he was hired.  The referee further determined that 
Attorney 
Hackbarth 
violated 
SCR 
22.03(2) 
and 
(6)5 
via 
                                                 
4 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. 
5 SCR 22.03(2) and (6) states: 
 
(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 
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. 
No. 
2012AP668-D   
 
7 
 
SCR 20:8.4(h)6 by failing to respond to the OLR's January 14, 
2010, March 23, 2010, or July 13, 2010 letters.   
¶18 Based on the determinations of misconduct, the referee 
recommended that Attorney Hackbarth be publicly reprimanded.  
The referee also recommended that Attorney Hackbarth be ordered 
to reimburse the Fund in the amount of $1,000 for the payment 
the Fund made to HJ Liquors due to Attorney Hackbarth's 
misconduct. 
¶19 The matter is now before this court to review the 
referee's report and recommendation.  No appeal has been filed, 
so 
this 
matter 
is 
submitted 
to 
the 
court 
pursuant 
to 
SCR 22.17(2).7 
¶20 We will not set aside the referee's fact findings 
unless 
they 
are 
clearly 
erroneous. 
 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 
740 N.W.2d 125.  We review conclusions of law de novo.  Id.  
Finally, we determine the appropriate level of discipline given 
                                                 
6 SCR 20:8.4(h) states 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); . . . ." 
7 SCR 22.17(2) provides as follows: 
 
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. 
2012AP668-D   
 
8 
 
the particular facts of each case, independent of the referee's 
recommendation, but benefiting from it.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 
N.W.2d 686. 
¶21 We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law 
set forth in the referee's report.  In addition, we accept the 
referee's recommended sanctions.  Because Attorney Hackbarth 
failed to present a defense despite being given multiple 
opportunities to do so, we declare him to be in default.  We 
agree with the referee that Attorney Hackbarth has engaged in 
the 
serious 
misconduct 
alleged 
in 
the 
OLR's 
complaint, 
warranting a public reprimand.  We also deem it appropriate to 
require Attorney Hackbarth to make restitution to the Fund in 
the amount of $1,000.  Finally, because this case presents no 
extraordinary circumstances, we require Attorney Hackbarth to 
pay the full costs of this matter.  See SCR 22.24(1m) (supreme 
court's general policy upon a finding of misconduct is to impose 
all costs upon the respondent attorney). 
¶22 IT IS ORDERED that Sherman Ward Hackbarth is publicly 
reprimanded for his professional misconduct.  Attorney Hackbarth 
is 
reminded 
that 
his 
license 
to 
practice 
law 
remains 
administratively suspended.  Before Attorney Hackbarth may 
practice law in Wisconsin, he must provide evidence to this 
court that he has satisfied his obligations relating to 
continuing legal education reporting, bar dues and assessments, 
and 
trust 
account 
certification, 
see 
SCR 
22.28(1), 
or, 
alternatively, that he has obtained waivers from the Board of 
No. 
2012AP668-D   
 
9 
 
Bar Examiners of his continuing legal education reporting 
obligation and from the State Bar of Wisconsin of his bar dues 
and assessments and trust account certification obligations. 
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Sherman Ward Hackbarth shall pay restitution to 
the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection in the amount 
of $1,000. 
¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Sherman Ward Hackbarth shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution is to be 
completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation. 
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the director of the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation shall advise the court if there has not 
been full compliance with all conditions of this order. 
No. 
2012AP668-D   
 
 
 
1