Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Adam J. Wiensch

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2018AP001185-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2018-10-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
2018 WI 98 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2018AP1185-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Adam J. Wiensch, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Adam J. Wiensch, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST WIENSCH 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 16, 2018 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
      
 
 
2018 WI 98
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2018AP1185-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Adam J. Wiensch, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Adam J. Wiensch, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 16, 2018 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a stipulation filed pursuant 
to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12 by the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Adam J. Wiensch.  In the 
stipulation, 
Attorney 
Wiensch 
admits 
that 
he 
committed 
professional misconduct, and he agrees with the OLR's request 
that his license to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for a 
period of two years. 
No. 
2018AP1185-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
After careful review of the matter, we accept the 
stipulation and impose the requested discipline.  Because 
Attorney Wiensch entered into a comprehensive stipulation prior 
to the appointment of a referee, we do not require him to pay 
the costs of this proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney Wiensch was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1991.  He has no prior disciplinary history.  He 
was formerly a partner of Foley & Lardner, LLP, (Foley firm) 
working out of the firm's Milwaukee, Wisconsin office.  At all 
times material to this matter, Attorney Wiensch worked in the 
firm's trust and estates practice group. 
¶4 
On June 25, 2018, the OLR filed a complaint alleging 
that Attorney Wiensch had engaged in 13 counts of misconduct.  
The OLR's complaint sought a two-year suspension of Attorney 
Wiensch's license to practice law in Wisconsin.   
¶5 
On August 15, 2018, the OLR and Attorney Wiensch filed 
a stipulation pursuant to SCR 22.12.  The following facts are 
taken from the stipulation. 
¶6 
While working at the Foley firm, Attorney Wiensch 
provided estate planning services to a husband and wife who were 
owners of a privately owned business corporation.  Attorney 
Wiensch prepared a trust under the terms of which the husband 
and wife were the trust donors and their children were the 
trustees and beneficiaries.  Attorney Wiensch drafted an 
Installment Sale Agreement, pursuant to which the husband sold 
most of his stock in the company to the trust in exchange for a 
promissory note in an amount in excess of $50 million based on 
No. 
2018AP1185-D   
 
3 
 
the appraised value of the stock sold.  The purpose of the stock 
sale was to transfer wealth to the clients' children, via the 
trust, free of gift and estate taxes and to ensure that any 
future appreciation of the stock held by the trust would not 
become part of the husband's estate. 
¶7 
Transactions structured like the stock sale are 
reviewed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to determine if 
the promissory note is a bona fide debt, or if the transaction 
should be treated as a taxable gift, or if transferred assets 
should be included in the seller's gross estate for purposes of 
determining the estate tax liability.  Strategies used by estate 
planning professionals to minimize the risk of an IRS challenge 
to transactions such as the stock sale have included the use of 
personal 
guarantees 
by 
trust 
beneficiaries 
of 
a 
certain 
percentage of the sale price, often ten percent, or of a defined 
value formula clause that automatically adjusts valuation of the 
transferred assets based on a final determination by the IRS or 
a court. 
¶8 
The husband died first, and pursuant to his estate 
plan, ownership of his remaining shares in the company passed to 
his wife as the surviving spouse.  Attorney Wiensch was retained 
to represent the husband's estate.  Attorney Wiensch prepared 
the estate tax return for the husband's estate and filed it with 
the IRS.  The IRS audited the husband's estate tax return, as 
well as other gift tax returns filed on behalf of the clients 
for years prior to the husband's death.   
No. 
2018AP1185-D   
 
4 
 
¶9 
An IRS estate tax attorney served as the examiner for 
the IRS in conducting the audit.  The IRS attorney corresponded 
with Attorney Wiensch in an effort to obtain information 
material to the audit.  In September 2012, in response to 
requests from the IRS attorney, Attorney Wiensch sent the IRS 
copies of an Installment Sale Agreement, a Collateral Pledge 
Agreement, and a Guaranty of Specific Transaction.  Attorney 
Wiensch represented to the IRS that the Installment Sale 
Agreement memorialized the terms of the stock sale and that the 
Collateral Pledge and Guaranty related to the stock sale.  The 
copy of the Installment Sale Agreement Attorney Wiensch sent to 
the IRS in September 2012 contained a defined value formula 
clause.  Attorney Wiensch altered and misdated the Installment 
Sale Agreement he sent to the IRS in September 2012.  He did not 
prepare this document contemporaneously with the stock sale.  
The Installment Sale Agreement the husband actually executed on 
an earlier date did not contain the defined value formula 
clause.   
¶10 Attorney 
Wiensch 
also 
altered 
and 
misdated 
the 
Guaranty he sent to the IRS in September of 2012.  He did not 
prepare this document contemporaneously with the stock sale.  He 
copied the signatures of the clients' children from a different 
document bearing a different date and pasted the signatures on 
the copy of the Guaranty he sent to the IRS attorney. 
¶11 Subsequent to its receipt of Attorney Wiensch's 
September 2012 letter and enclosures, the IRS issued a Notice of 
Deficiency with respect to the estate and gift tax returns 
No. 
2018AP1185-D   
 
5 
 
Attorney Wiensch filed on behalf of the husband's estate.  In 
the Notice of Deficiency, the IRS asserted that the stock sale 
was a gift.  The IRS also asserted, in the alternative, that if 
the sale was not a gift, the stock value at the time of the 
transfer was double the appraised value of the stock.  The 
notice stated that the IRS sought gift and estate taxes and 
negligence penalties against the husband's estate in the sum of 
multiple millions of dollars.   
¶12 The IRS simultaneously issued a Notice of Deficiency 
regarding the wife, asserting she owed gift taxes and penalties 
in the sum of multiple millions of dollars.  In the Notice of 
Deficiency issued to the wife, the IRS raised the same issues it 
had raised in the Notice of Deficiency issued to the husband's 
estate. 
¶13 After the IRS issued the Notice of Deficiency to her, 
the 
wife 
died. 
 
The 
clients' 
children, 
as 
personal 
representatives of the husband's estate, retained the Foley firm 
to respond to the Notice of Deficiency issued to his estate.  
The clients' children, as personal representatives of the wife's 
estate, also retained the Foley firm to respond to the Notice of 
Deficiency issued to the wife.   
¶14 Attorneys with the Foley firm other than Attorney 
Wiensch filed a petition on behalf of both the husband and 
wife's estate seeking a redetermination of the deficiencies 
found by the IRS.  The petitions filed by the Foley attorneys 
alleged the stock sale was made pursuant to the Installment Sale 
Agreement Attorney Wiensch had altered to contain a defined 
No. 
2018AP1185-D   
 
6 
 
value formula clause.  The petitions also relied on the altered 
Guaranty purportedly signed by the clients' children that 
Attorney Wiensch had sent to the IRS.  At the time they filed 
the petitions on behalf of the clients' estates, the Foley 
attorneys did not know that the Installment Sale Agreement 
relied on and the Guaranty purportedly signed by the clients' 
children had been altered by Attorney Wiensch.  Attorney Wiensch 
did not inform the IRS attorney or the Foley attorneys that he 
had altered and misdated the Installment Sale Agreement and the 
Guaranty.   
¶15 While the petitions were pending, the IRS continued 
its audit of the wife's estate and gift tax returns.  One item 
focused upon by the IRS was a lifetime gift transfer by the wife 
of some shares of the company she had inherited directly from 
the husband.  These transfers were reported on gift tax returns 
filed with the IRS after the wife's death indicating that just 
months prior to her death, the wife had transferred the shares 
to the clients' children.   
¶16 The same IRS attorney examining the husband's estate 
was assigned the examination of the wife's estate and gift tax 
returns.  In conducting the examination, the IRS attorney 
requested information from Attorney Wiensch showing that the 
wife was mentally competent and authorized to make or consent to 
stock gifts to the clients' children.  By letter sent in 
September 2015, the IRS attorney asked Attorney Wiensch if the 
stock gifts were made pursuant to a Power of Attorney.  Attorney 
Wiensch responded to the IRS in October 2015, saying that the 
No. 
2018AP1185-D   
 
7 
 
stock gifts were made directly by the wife.  In his October 2015 
letter to the IRS attorney, Attorney Wiensch enclosed a copy of 
a Durable Power of Attorney to Make Gifts bearing an August 1999 
date containing the wife's signature.  The instrument states 
that the wife appointed the husband as her agent and that if he 
lacked capacity to act, she appointed the clients' children to 
be her agents.  Attorney Wiensch created an altered Durable 
Power of Attorney to Make Gifts dated August 1999 by copying the 
wife's signature from another document.  Attorney Wiensch never 
informed the IRS attorney or the Foley attorneys that he had 
altered and misdated the Durable Power of Attorney to Make Gifts 
that he sent to the IRS attorney in October 2015. 
¶17 The IRS noted that the altered Durable Power of 
Attorney gave the wife limited authority to make transfers of 
stock and in November 2015, the IRS attorney advised Attorney 
Wiensch that all shares of the company purportedly gifted by the 
wife would be considered part of the wife's estate.   
¶18 While the audit of the wife's estate and gift tax 
returns was still underway, the IRS and the husband's estate 
settled the issues presented in the petition filed on behalf of 
the husband's estate.  The settlement of the petition filed on 
behalf of the husband's estate was induced by fraud, based on 
the altered and misdated documents that Attorney Wiensch had 
provided to the IRS attorney in September of 2012. 
¶19 By letter dated April 14, 2016, the IRS attorney 
requested a response from Attorney Wiensch to the letter sent in 
November 2015 addressing the wife's authority to make the stock 
No. 
2018AP1185-D   
 
8 
 
transfers under the August 1999 Durable Power of Attorney to 
Make Gifts that Attorney Wiensch had provided in October 2015.  
By letter dated June 16, 2016 and transmitted by facsimile, 
Attorney Wiensch sent the IRS attorney a copy of a Durable Power 
of Attorney for Financial Matters bearing a February 2011 date 
purportedly signed by the wife.  Attorney Wiensch created this 
document by copying and pasting the wife's signature from 
another document. 
¶20 Suspecting that the February 2011 Durable Power of 
Attorney was not what Attorney Wiensch purported it to be, the 
IRS attorney asked that Attorney Wiensch produce the original 
copies of the 1999 and 2011 powers of attorney and the February 
2011 amendment to the wife's trust.  Attorney Wiensch told the 
IRS that he did not have the originals of the requested 
documents.  
¶21 The IRS attorney then wrote directly to the clients' 
children asking that the original documents that had been 
requested from Attorney Wiensch be produced.  On July 13, 2016, 
Attorney Wiensch told the IRS attorney that the clients' 
children were looking for the original documents but that "there 
is no reason to retain an original power of attorney after a 
principal's death because the power of attorney lapses on a 
principal's death."   
¶22 In July 2016, the IRS attorney told Attorney Wiensch 
the IRS would need to interview the clients' children in person.   
¶23 By letter dated August 22, 2016, the Foley firm 
informed the IRS that Attorney Wiensch was no longer with the 
No. 
2018AP1185-D   
 
9 
 
firm and that they believed the August 1999 Durable Power of 
Attorney to Make Gifts and the February 2011 Durable Power of 
Attorney for Financial Matters that Attorney Wiensch had 
provided to the IRS were not authentic and were being withdrawn.  
The 
Foley 
firm 
subsequently 
alerted 
the 
IRS 
to 
the 
irregularities later discovered with regard to the Guaranty and 
the defined value formula clause in the Installment Sale 
Agreement and the firm reported Attorney Wiensch's conduct to 
the OLR. 
¶24 In a December 23, 2016, letter from his counsel to the 
OLR, Attorney Wiensch admitted that he had created the August 
1999 Durable Power of Attorney to Make Gifts and the February 
2011 Durable Power of Attorney for Financial Matters in late 
2015 or early 2016.  By email transmitted to the OLR on March 
31, 2017, counsel for Attorney Wiensch informed the OLR that 
Attorney Wiensch conceded that he had altered and misdated the 
Installment Sale Agreement and Guaranty of Specific Transaction 
he provided to the IRS in September 2012 in connection with the 
audit of the husband's estate. 
¶25 In the stipulation, Attorney Wiensch states that he 
has no defense to any of the disciplinary violations alleged in 
the OLR's complaint.  Attorney Wiensch asserts that during the 
time of his misconduct, he faced several highly disruptive and 
challenging personal issues.  Attorney Wiensch says he was 
suffering from substantial clinical depression for which his 
treatment had not been meaningfully effective.  Attorney Wiensch 
says he also suffered from an active, uncontrolled dependency on 
No. 
2018AP1185-D   
 
10 
 
alcohol.  Attorney Wiensch says he has since stopped drinking 
and has been sober since the time he was confronted with his 
misconduct, having incorporated Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) into 
his life, and he has supplied the OLR with verification that he 
has attended AA meetings regularly since March 2017.  Attorney 
Wiensch says he has also focused on dealing with his clinical 
depression and has successfully taken steps to substantially 
achieve a stable and healthy mental health status. 
¶26 The 
OLR's 
complaint 
alleges 
four 
violations 
of 
SCR 20:3.4(a),1 five violations of SCR 20:8.4(c),2 and three 
violations of SCR 20:4.1(a).3  In addition, the complaint alleges 
that by failing to disclose to Foley and Lardner, LLP, his 
conduct in drafting false documents and in submitting them to 
the IRS, Attorney Wiensch breached the fiduciary duties owed to 
his firm and his duty of honesty in his professional dealings 
with the firm, thereby violating a standard of conduct set forth 
by this court in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Shea, 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:3.4(a) provides:  "A lawyer shall not unlawfully 
obstruct another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, 
destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential 
evidentiary value.  A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another 
person to do any such act." 
2 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
3 SCR 20:4.1(a) provides:  "In the course of representing a 
client a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of a 
material fact or law to a 3rd person." 
  
No. 
2018AP1185-D   
 
11 
 
190 
Wis. 2d 560, 
527 
N.W.2d 314 
(1995), 
actionable 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(f).4 
¶27 The 
parties' 
stipulation 
provides 
that 
Attorney 
Wiensch fully understands the stipulation and the ramifications 
that would follow from this court's imposition of the stipulated 
level of discipline, a two-year suspension of Attorney Wiensch's 
license to practice law.  The stipulation further provides that 
it did not result from plea bargaining; that Attorney Wiensch 
fully understands his right to continue to contest the matter, 
that he has consulted with counsel and that his entry into the 
stipulation was made knowingly and voluntarily. 
¶28 In its memorandum in support of the stipulation, the 
OLR 
states 
that 
in 
determining 
an 
appropriate 
level 
of 
discipline to seek in this matter, the OLR director considered 
Attorney Wiensch's lack of disciplinary history, precedent in 
other disciplinary cases, aggravating and mitigating factors 
under the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, as well 
as the particular circumstances of this case.   
¶29 The OLR says in reviewing sanctions imposed in other 
cases involving an attorney's submission of false documents to 
courts or other agencies, on the low end of the spectrum is In 
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Donovan, 211 Wis. 2d 451, 
564 N.W.2d 772 (1997), in which this court issued a six-month 
                                                 
4 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme 
court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers." 
No. 
2018AP1185-D   
 
12 
 
license suspension for an attorney's misconduct in filing false 
documents with the court in order to obtain favorable treatment 
for an acquaintance and for a former boyfriend in a case she was 
prosecuting as a municipal attorney.  The OLR notes that 
Attorney Donovan was an inexperienced attorney who immediately 
admitted her wrongdoing and did not benefit financially from her 
conduct.  In addition, the OLR points out Attorney Donovan 
suffered other collateral consequences of her misconduct, as she 
was convicted of misdemeanor forgery. 
¶30 The OLR notes that in In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Spangler, 2016 WI 61, 370 Wis. 2d 369, 881 N.W.2d 35, 
this court also imposed a six-month suspension on an attorney 
who 
created 
fabricated 
documents 
to 
support 
false 
representations made to his clients that their lawsuits were 
pending when in fact they were not.  The OLR notes that like 
Attorney Donovan, Attorney Spangler had no prior disciplinary 
history and he stepped up and made the clients whole for their 
losses.   
¶31 The OLR says that at the opposite end of the spectrum 
is In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Elverman, 2014 WI 15, 
353 Wis. 2d 98, 845 N.W.2d 653, in which this court revoked 
Attorney Elverman's license to practice law for dishonest 
conduct in preparing false billing invoices, stealing more than 
$600,000 from an elderly client in connection with estate 
planning services, and failing to cooperate with the OLR.  
Attorney Elverman had a prior nine-month suspension for failing 
to declare income received from the client in his tax returns.  
No. 
2018AP1185-D   
 
13 
 
Attorney Elverman was also convicted of felony theft in 
connection with the conduct that resulted in his revocation. 
¶32 The OLR says based on this precedent, it believes a 
two-year 
suspension 
of 
Attorney 
Wiensch's 
license 
is 
appropriate.  The OLR says Attorney Wiensch's misconduct was 
very serious, and it was calculated and deliberate.  It notes 
Attorney Wiensch created and submitted false documents to the 
IRS on three occasions in the course of the audits of two 
estates; he knowingly allowed the court, the IRS, and other 
partners in his law firm to rely on those false documents in 
reaching an agreement to settle litigation involving the 
estates; and he made misleading statements to the IRS when it 
questioned the veracity of one of the false documents he 
provided.   
¶33 The OLR says despite the circumstances under which it 
settled the litigation involving the estates, the IRS did not 
move to reopen the cases after it was informed of Attorney 
Wiensch's misconduct.  In addition, the OLR notes that Attorney 
Wiensch's clients have not asserted to the OLR that they 
sustained any harm for which they have not been made whole.  
However, the OLR says that Attorney Wiensch placed his law firm 
and his partners at substantial risk by submitting the false 
documents and allowing the partners in his firm to rely on the 
false documents in litigation with the IRS.  The OLR says 
Attorney Wiensch's misconduct undermines public confidence in 
the credibility of the legal system. 
No. 
2018AP1185-D   
 
14 
 
¶34 As to mitigating factors, the OLR notes that Attorney 
Wiensch has no prior discipline; he cooperated with the OLR's 
investigation; and he did not convert client funds.  As to 
aggravating factors, the OLR notes that Attorney Wiensch was a 
very experienced attorney; the misconduct occurred over a period 
of years and involved multiple documents and multiple instances; 
the misconduct was deliberate and calculated, and it occurred in 
the context of federal tax audits involving very substantial 
sums of money.  
¶35 After closely reviewing the matter, we accept the 
stipulation and determine that Attorney Wiensch engaged in the 
13 counts of misconduct alleged in the OLR's complaint.  We 
further 
conclude 
that 
a 
two-year 
suspension 
of 
Attorney 
Wiensch's license to practice law is an appropriate level of 
discipline to impose in view of the serious nature of the 
misconduct and the various aggravating and mitigating factors 
present in this case.  Although the misconduct here does not 
rise to the level that warranted revocation in Elverman, 
Attorney Wiensch deliberately misled the IRS and falsified 
multiple documents.  The deceptions and misrepresentations, both 
to the IRS and the other attorneys at Attorney Wiensch's firm, 
continued 
for 
several 
years. 
 
Attorney 
Wiensch 
was 
an 
experienced attorney who should have known better.  His 
misconduct harmed his clients and his law firm and, as the OLR 
noted, it undermined public confidence in the credibility of the 
legal system.  A two-year suspension of Attorney Wiensch's law 
license is an appropriate sanction for his misconduct.  Because 
No. 
2018AP1185-D   
 
15 
 
this matter was brought to the court in the context of an 
SCR 22.12 stipulation without the need for the appointment of a 
referee, we do not impose any costs on Attorney Wiensch. 
¶36 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Adam J. Wiensch to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of two 
years, effective November 27, 2018. 
¶37 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Adam J. Wiensch shall 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 regarding the duties of 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended.   
¶38 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions with this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.29(4)(c). 
 
No. 
2018AP1185-D   
 
 
 
1