Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Thomas R. Napierala

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2017AP001274-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2018-10-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
2018 WI 101 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2017AP1274-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Thomas R. Napierala, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Thomas R. Napierala, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST NAPIERALA 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 25, 2018 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
      
 
 
2018 WI 101
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2017AP1274-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Thomas R. Napierala, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,   
 
 
Complainant,   
 
 
v. 
 
Thomas R. Napierala, 
 
 
Respondent.   
FILED 
 
OCT 25, 2018 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report filed by Referee 
Kim M. Peterson, adopting a stipulation between the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Thomas R. Napierala.  The 
referee agreed that Attorney Napierala committed three counts of 
misconduct, as alleged in the OLR's complaint.  The referee 
further agreed with the parties that a public reprimand is an 
appropriate 
level 
of 
discipline 
for 
Attorney 
Napierala's 
misconduct, that Attorney Napierala should be ordered to pay 
restitution in the amount of $15,021.66 to a former client, T.A, 
No. 
2017AP1274-D   
 
2 
 
and should be assessed the full costs of the proceeding, which 
are $1,677.53 as of August 14, 2018.  
¶2 
After careful review of the matter, we conclude that 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
are 
supported 
by 
clear, 
satisfactory, and convincing evidence.  We adopt the referee's 
conclusions of law.  We agree that the appropriate discipline 
for Attorney Napierala's misconduct is a public reprimand, and 
we agree that Attorney Napierala should pay restitution to T.A., 
and bear the full costs of this proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney Napierala was admitted to the practice of law 
in Wisconsin in 1990.  He practices in Milwaukee.  He has not 
previously been the subject of professional discipline.   
¶4 
On June 30, 2017, the OLR filed a three-count 
complaint against Attorney Napierala.  Attorney Napierala filed 
an answer and this court appointed Referee Peterson.  
¶5 
On March 29, 2018, the parties submitted a stipulation 
in 
which 
Attorney 
Napierala 
withdrew 
his 
answer 
to 
the 
complaint, admitted the facts and misconduct alleged in the 
complaint, and authorized the referee to make findings of fact 
and conclusions of law based on these allegations.  The parties 
stipulated that Attorney Napierala should be ordered to make 
restitution in the amount of $15,021.66 to T.A., and that a 
public reprimand was appropriate.  
¶6 
The referee filed her findings of fact, conclusions of 
law, and recommendation for discipline on July 26, 2018.  The 
referee determined that the OLR had met its burden of proof with 
respect to the three counts of misconduct alleged in the 
No. 
2017AP1274-D   
 
3 
 
complaint, and recommends that we accept the stipulation.  No 
appeal was filed so we consider this matter pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule (SCR) 22.17(2).1 
¶7 
All 
three 
of 
the 
charges 
stem 
from 
Attorney 
Napierala's representation of a single client, T.A.  In February 
2012, T.A. retained Attorney Napierala and another attorney who 
worked in a different office to collaborate to challenge a 
mediation agreement and settlement in a Milwaukee case to which 
T.A. was a party.  If the mediation agreement could be set 
aside, the lawyers were to proceed with litigation seeking to 
prove that T.A. was the biological son of T.J., and therefore 
entitled to inherit T.J.'s estate.   
¶8 
In March 2012, Attorney Napierala and T.A. entered 
into a fee agreement that disclosed Attorney Napierala's billing 
rate but did not state that Attorney Napierala would bill T.A. 
for services performed by non-lawyer staff or the rate at which 
those services would be billed.  The complaint alleges that T.A. 
suffers from some cognitive impairment of which Attorney 
Napierala was aware, and that T.A. frequently sought legal 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) provides:  
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. 
2017AP1274-D   
 
4 
 
advice from Attorney Napierala on a number of diverse issues, 
many of which were unrelated to the mediation/settlement matter.   
¶9 
In November 2012, T.A., Attorney Napierala, and the 
other attorney executed an "Appellate Fee Agreement" wherein 
T.A. agreed that his counsel could withhold and "set aside" from 
an expected settlement, $25,000 for appellate litigation; each 
attorney would be paid a flat fee of $6,000 for this 
representation.  The Appellate Fee Agreement provided that 
Attorney Napierala was to pay the other attorney a referral fee 
of one-third of the hourly fees Attorney Napierala earned for 
representing T.A. in this matter.   
¶10 In practice, sometimes the other attorney would pay 
Attorney Napierala the total amount that Attorney Napierala was 
due at any given time, and Attorney Napierala would in turn 
write a check to the other attorney for the one-third referral 
fee.  Sometimes, the other attorney would subtract the one-third 
referral fee before remitting payment to Attorney Napierala.   
¶11 In a nutshell, Attorney Napierala failed to keep track 
of his billing and payments relating to his representation of 
T.A.  He failed to diligently maintain records of payments he 
received from T.A., or from the other attorney on behalf of 
T.A., thereby causing Attorney Napierala at various times to 
bill T.A. for amounts beyond what Attorney Napierala was due.   
¶12 Between approximately November 2012 and December 2014, 
Attorney Napierala overbilled and was overpaid by T.A. various 
amounts.  It appears the greatest discrepancy existed in May 
2014, when Attorney Napierala had been overpaid at least 
No. 
2017AP1274-D   
 
5 
 
$16,763.44.  Attorney Napierala had also billed T.A. for non-
lawyer services and various other legal or administrative advice 
for which T.A. did not authorize Attorney Napierala to incur 
fees. 
¶13 The OLR complaint alleged, the parties stipulated, and 
the referee determined that by failing to credit T.A. for all 
payments Attorney Napierala received from T.A.'s funds, and by 
failing to credit T.A. for all of the referral fees retained by 
the other attorney, Attorney Napierala billed T.A. for amounts 
that Attorney Napierala was not due, Attorney Napierala violated 
SCR 20:1.5(a)2 (Count One). 
¶14 The OLR complaint alleged, the parties stipulated, and 
the referee determined that by billing T.A. at Attorney 
Napierala's hourly rate for services that were not reasonably 
billable 
to 
T.A., 
Attorney 
Napierala 
again 
violated 
SCR 20:1.5(a) (Count Two). 
¶15 The OLR complaint alleged, the parties stipulated, and 
the referee determined that by failing to communicate to T.A. at 
the beginning of the representation that Attorney Napierala 
intended to bill T.A. for services provided by Attorney 
Napierala's non-lawyer staff and the rate at which those 
services 
would 
be 
billed, 
Attorney 
Napierala 
violated 
SCR 20:1.5(b)(1)3 (Count Three). 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.5(a) provides: "A lawyer shall not make an 
agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an 
unreasonable amount for expenses."   
3 SCR 20:1.5(b)(l) provides:  
(continued) 
No. 
2017AP1274-D   
 
6 
 
¶16 The referee considered the stipulation for a public 
reprimand, mindful of the need to consider the seriousness, 
nature, and extent of misconduct, the level of discipline needed 
to protect the public and the legal system from repetition of 
the misconduct, the need to impress on the attorney the 
seriousness of the misconduct, and the need to deter others from 
committing similar acts.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Steinberg, 2007 WI 113, ¶20, 304 Wis. 2d 577, 735 
N.W.2d 527. 
¶17 The referee considered prior case law, aggravating and 
mitigating factors, and the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer 
Sanctions.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Arthur, 2005 
WI 40, 279 Wis. 2d 583, 694 N.W.2d 910, see ABA Standards for 
Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, sec. 3.0 (1992) (stating that the 
                                                                                                                                                             
The scope of the representation and the basis 
or rate of the fee and expenses for which the client 
will be responsible shall be communicated to the 
client in writing, before or within a reasonable 
time after commencing the representation, except 
when the lawyer will charge a regularly represented 
client on the same basis or rate as in the past. If 
it is reasonably foreseeable that the total cost of 
representation to the client, including attorney's 
fees, will be $1000 or less, the communication may 
be oral or in writing. Any changes in the basis or 
rate 
of 
the 
fee 
or 
expenses 
shall 
also 
be 
communicated in writing to the client. 
[(2)] If the total cost of representation to 
the client, including attorney's fees, is more than 
$1000, the purpose and effect of any retainer or 
advance fee that is paid to the lawyer shall be 
communicated in writing. 
No. 
2017AP1274-D   
 
7 
 
court should consider the duty violated; the lawyer's mental 
state; potential or actual injury caused; and the existence of 
aggravating and mitigating factors, including prior discipline 
and a dishonest or selfish motive). 
¶18 In this case, the referee agreed that a public 
reprimand was sufficient.  As the referee observed, the 
misconduct is serious, but involved only one client matter, and 
this is the first time that Attorney Napierala has been 
disciplined in over 25 years of practice.  The referee noted 
that it appears that the misconduct was not intentional, but 
resulted from a lack of attention to detail and failure to 
clearly delineate the various interests of the actors involved. 
¶19 The referee opined that the case law supports the 
sanction of a public reprimand.  In In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Schuster, 2007 WI 131, 305 Wis. 2d 120, 741 
N.W.2d 471, an attorney repeatedly submitted bills overcharging 
her client, failed to credit the client with payments made, and 
made false representations to a tribunal.  Further, the attorney 
had been the subject of prior discipline on similar matters.  
The court ordered a 90-day suspension of the attorney's license. 
The referee reasoned that Attorney Napierala's misconduct is 
substantially less serious, he has no prior discipline, and 
there is no evidence of dishonesty or fraud.  
¶20 The referee further recommends that the court order 
Attorney Napierala to pay the stipulated restitution to T.A., 
and that the court follow its general policy and impose the full 
costs of the proceeding on Attorney Napierala.  
No. 
2017AP1274-D   
 
8 
 
¶21 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless 
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.  The court may 
impose whatever sanction it sees fit, 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.   
¶22 There is no showing that any of the referee's findings 
of fact are erroneous.  Accordingly, we adopt them.  We also 
agree with the referee's conclusions of law that Attorney 
Napierala violated the supreme court rules set forth above.  We 
accept the referee's recommendation that a public reprimand is 
an appropriate sanction for Attorney Napierala's misconduct.  
Although no two fact situations are identical, a public 
reprimand is generally consistent with the sanction imposed in 
somewhat analogous cases.   
¶23 Finally, we agree that Attorney Napierala should be 
required to pay restitution to T.A. and shall pay the full costs 
of this proceeding, which are $1,677.53.  
¶24 IT IS ORDERED that Thomas R. Napierala is publicly 
reprimanded for professional misconduct.  
¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Thomas R. Napierala shall pay restitution to T.A. 
in the stipulated amount of $15,021.66. 
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Thomas R. Napierala shall pay to the Office of 
No. 
2017AP1274-D   
 
9 
 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$1,677.53 as of August 14, 2018. 
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified 
above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation. 
¶28 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. 
2017AP1274-D   
 
 
 
1