Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Arik J. Guenther

Citation: 2009 WI 25

Docket Number: 2008AP000559-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2009-03-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
2009 WI 25 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2008AP559-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Arik J. Guenther, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Arik J. Guenther, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GUENTHER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 24, 2009   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2009 WI 25
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2008AP559-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Arik J. Guenther, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Arik J. Guenther, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 24, 2009 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of the referee, Reserve Judge John B. Murphy.  Based on a 
stipulation between the parties, the referee found that Attorney 
Arik Guenther had committed three violations of the Supreme 
Court 
Rules 
of 
Professional 
Conduct 
for 
Attorneys. 
 
As 
discipline for those violations, the referee recommended that 
Attorney Guenther's license to practice law in Wisconsin be 
suspended for a period of nine months, that he be required, as a 
No. 
2008AP559-D   
 
2 
 
condition 
of 
any 
reinstatement 
of 
his 
license, 
to 
pay 
restitution to a former client in the amount of $3,227.27, and 
that he pay the costs of this disciplinary proceeding. 
¶2 
After our independent consideration of the facts of 
this case and Attorney Guenther's prior disciplinary history,1 we 
conclude that a nine-month suspension is an appropriate level of 
discipline.  We agree with the referee's recommendation that 
Attorney Guenther be required to pay restitution to his former 
client.  We do not include a specific condition of reinstatement 
in our present decision, however, because SCRs 22.29(4m) and 
22.31(1)(c) already require an attorney seeking reinstatement 
after a disciplinary suspension to prove that the attorney has 
made restitution to all persons injured by his professional 
misconduct or to explain the attorney's failure or inability to 
do so.  Finally, we determine that Attorney Guenther should be 
required to pay the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding, 
which were $1,231.12, as of September 4, 2008. 
¶3 
Before turning to the facts underlying the present 
proceeding, we note that Attorney Guenther has been the subject 
                                                 
1 Neither party filed a notice of appeal from the referee's 
report and recommendation.  Therefore, our review proceeds 
according to SCR 22.17(2), which 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. 
2008AP559-D   
 
3 
 
of professional discipline on multiple occasions.  He received 
private reprimands in 1989, 2001, and 2002.  In general, 
although the conduct differed to some extent in those three 
reprimands, one can discern a general pattern that Attorney 
Guenther failed to act with reasonable diligence, failed to act 
competently, and failed to keep his clients reasonably informed 
about the status of their legal matters.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Guenther, 2005 WI 133, ¶5, 285 Wis. 2d 587, 
700 N.W.2d 260. 
¶4 
In July 2005 this court suspended Attorney Guenther's 
license to practice law in this state for a period of eight 
months.  Id., ¶53.  Attorney Guenther's misconduct warranting 
that suspension included, among other things, failing to keep a 
client reasonably 
informed, engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, deceit or misrepresentation, failing to provide an 
accurate accounting, failing to maintain trust account records, 
failing 
to 
produce 
trust 
account 
records 
during 
an 
OLR 
investigation, failing to hold a client's money in trust, and 
failing to supervise his secretary's conduct. 
¶5 
In 2007 Attorney Guenther received a consensual public 
reprimand for failing to refund an unearned fee after his 
representation had been terminated, failing to notify clients 
about his suspension in 2005, failing to communicate with his 
clients about their legal matters or to transfer their files 
upon request, and failing to cooperate with an investigation by 
the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR).  
No. 
2008AP559-D   
 
4 
 
¶6 
Attorney Guenther's license remains suspended as of 
the date of this decision.  He filed petitions for reinstatement 
in 2006 and 2008, but both of those petitions were dismissed 
before a reinstatement hearing was held.  See SCRs 22.30 and 
22.31. 
¶7 
The current disciplinary proceeding arises out of 
Attorney Guenther's representation of client J.J. in 2003 and 
2004, prior to his eight-month suspension.  J.J. had obtained a 
divorce from her husband in 2002, but after the entry of the 
judgment of divorce there still remained some unresolved issues 
that required J.J. to seek legal assistance.  She retained 
Attorney Guenther to pursue those issues.  Attorney Guenther 
subsequently filed two motions that sought orders that would (1) 
modify the amount of maintenance, (2) require J.J.'s former 
husband to contribute to the payment of some debts, and (3) 
require the former husband to provide an accounting of some 
undivided personal property.  The parties reached a stipulation 
on the maintenance issue, but were unable to resolve their 
differences on the other two issues.  
¶8 
The circuit court held a hearing on March 26, 2004.  
At the hearing Attorney Guenther appeared on behalf of J.J., and 
J.J.'s former husband appeared pro se.  During the hearing, the 
circuit court directed Attorney Guenther to provide a list of 
the disputed personal property and the unresolved debts by April 
15, 2004.  The court further required the former husband to 
submit a response to that list by May 15, 2004.  The circuit 
court stated that if neither party requested a further hearing 
No. 
2008AP559-D   
 
5 
 
on the matter by June 1, 2004, the court would consider the 
matter closed and would take no further action on Attorney 
Guenther's motions.   
¶9 
Attorney Guenther never provided the court-ordered 
list to the former husband.  Indeed, after the March 26, 2004, 
hearing, Attorney Guenther spoke to his client J.J. on only one 
occasion.  He did not inform her that he was not still actively 
pursuing her interests.  Thus, J.J.'s claims against her former 
husband were never litigated.   
¶10 In July 2005 J.J. learned from a newspaper that 
Attorney Guenther's license to practice law had been suspended.  
Attorney Guenther had not notified her of his suspension.  J.J. 
then contacted Attorney Guenther's office about obtaining her 
file, but received no response. 
¶11 Attorney Guenther did not produce J.J.'s file until 
she had hired a new lawyer in January 2006 and that lawyer had 
requested the file.  The new lawyer then filed a new motion to 
modify the divorce judgment to resolve the issues that Attorney 
Guenther had failed to pursue to completion, but the circuit 
court denied the motion.  In a subsequent letter that is part of 
the record in this matter, J.J. stated that Attorney Guenther's 
failure to follow through had led her to "financial and 
emotional ruin," had prevented her son from buying into the 
family farming operation, and had ultimately led to the 
foreclosure of J.J.'s farm. 
¶12 The referee did not include the facts in his report 
regarding 
Attorney 
Guenther's 
response 
to 
the 
OLR's 
No. 
2008AP559-D   
 
6 
 
investigation of J.J.'s grievance.  The facts relating to the 
investigation were stipulated by the parties, however, and we 
therefore include those undisputed facts in our decision.  J.J. 
filed a grievance against Attorney Guenther that was referred to 
an OLR investigative committee.  The committee's investigators 
scheduled three separate interview appointments with Attorney 
Guenther, but he failed to appear for each appointment.  He 
asserted to the committee that his failures to appear had been 
due to health issues.  The committee then requested that 
Attorney 
Guenther 
provide 
medical 
records 
and 
disclosure 
authorizations, but Attorney Guenther failed to comply.   
¶13 Based 
on 
these 
stipulated 
facts 
and 
Attorney 
Guenther's admissions of professional misconduct, the referee 
concluded that Attorney Guenther had committed three violations 
of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys.  First, by 
failing to act with diligence and promptness in providing the 
specified documents to his client's ex-husband, as ordered to do 
by the circuit court, Attorney Guenther violated SCR 20:1.3.2  
Second, the referee concluded that Attorney Guenther had 
                                                 
2 Effective July 1, 2007, substantial changes were made to 
the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct for 
Attorneys, SCR Chapter 20.  See S. Ct. Order 04-07, 2007 WI 4, 
293 Wis. 2d xv, 726 N.W.2d Ct.R-45 (eff. July 1, 2007); and 
S. Ct. 
Order 
06-04, 
2007 
WI 
48, 
297 
Wis. 2d xv, 
730 
N.W.2d Ct.R.-29 (eff. July 1, 2007).  Because the conduct 
underlying this case arose prior to July 1, 2007, unless 
otherwise indicated, all references to the Wisconsin Supreme 
Court Rules will be to those in effect prior to July 1, 2007. 
SCR 20:1.3 provides, "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
No. 
2008AP559-D   
 
7 
 
violated former SCR 20:1.16(d),3 by not informing his client that 
he would no longer be working on her matter and by failing to 
provide her file to her in a timely manner upon the termination 
of his representation.  Finally, the referee determined that 
Attorney Guenther had failed to cooperate with the OLR's 
investigative committee, in violation of SCR 22.04(1).4  
¶14 The stipulation between Attorney Guenther and the OLR 
did not extend to a joint request as to the level of sanction.  
The referee, therefore, gave the parties an opportunity to file 
memoranda setting forth their positions with regard to the level 
of discipline.  Attorney Guenther failed to file any sanction 
memorandum.   
¶15 The referee ultimately recommended that a nine-month 
suspension of Attorney Guenther's license to practice law in 
                                                 
3 Former SCR 20:1.16(d) provided as follows: 
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 that has not been earned.  
The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to 
the extent permitted by other law. 
4 SCR 22.04(1) provides:  
 
The director may refer a matter to a district 
committee for assistance in the investigation.  A 
respondent has the duty to cooperate specified in SCR 
21.15(4) and 22.03(2) in respect to the district 
committee.  The committee may subpoena and compel the 
production of documents specified in SCR 22.03(8) and 
22.42. 
No. 
2008AP559-D   
 
8 
 
Wisconsin, as requested by the OLR, would be an appropriate 
level of discipline for Attorney Guenther's misconduct.  The 
referee noted that Attorney Guenther's failure to follow through 
with 
J.J.'s 
representation 
fell 
far 
below 
the 
required 
professional standard and resulted in extreme hardship to the 
client, undermining both her confidence and the public's 
confidence in the legal profession.  The referee was also 
persuaded by the fact that this was not an isolated instance of 
misconduct.  Although Attorney Guenther admitted his misconduct 
in this case and although he may have had some significant 
medical problems, the referee concluded that these facts did not 
mitigate the harm he had caused.  Moreover, his admission of 
wrongdoing was of slight value since he had admitted misconduct 
in prior disciplinary proceedings, but then had proceeded to 
commit further violations of the rules.  The referee stated that 
Attorney Guenther had "learned nothing from the past."  He 
concluded 
that 
a 
nine-month 
suspension 
was 
"more 
than 
reasonable" under the circumstances.   
¶16 In the parties' stipulation, Attorney Guenther agreed 
to pay restitution to J.J. in the amount of his fees 
attributable to her unresolved marital debt and farm equipment 
issues.  The OLR estimated that amount to be $3,227.27.  The 
referee agreed with this stipulated request and recommended that 
Attorney Guenther be ordered to pay restitution to J.J. in the 
amount of $3,227.27.  The referee further recommended that full 
payment of this restitution amount should be a precondition to 
No. 
2008AP559-D   
 
9 
 
the reinstatement of Attorney Guenther's license to practice law 
in this state.  
¶17 Finally, 
the 
referee 
recommended 
that 
Attorney 
Guenther be ordered to pay the costs of the disciplinary 
proceeding.  The OLR subsequently filed a statement of costs, 
indicating that the costs of the proceeding, as of September 4, 
2008, were $1,231.12. 
¶18 When reviewing a referee's report and recommendation, 
we will affirm the referee's findings of fact unless they are 
clearly erroneous.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125.  The 
referee's conclusions of law, however, are subject to de novo 
review.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll, 
2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 718.  Finally, we 
determine 
the 
appropriate 
level 
of 
discipline 
given 
the 
particular facts of each case, independent of the referee's 
recommendation, but benefiting from it.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 
N.W.2d 686. 
¶19 In the present case, after independently reviewing the 
matter, we determine that the referee's findings of fact are not 
clearly erroneous, and we therefore adopt them.  We also 
conclude that the referee's conclusions of law regarding 
Attorney 
Guenther's 
three 
violations 
of 
the 
Rules 
of 
Professional Conduct for Attorneys are correct.  
¶20 With respect to the appropriate level of discipline, 
we note that the OLR's sanction memorandum to the referee cited 
No. 
2008AP559-D   
 
10 
 
several cases that it believed supported its request for a nine-
month suspension.  Two of those cases appear similar to Attorney 
Guenther's situation and provide support for a nine-month 
suspension.   
¶21 In the first case, In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Danielson, 2006 WI 33, 290 Wis. 2d 12, 712 N.W.2d 671, 
Attorney Danielson had been retained to handle an insurance 
dispute and had received a modest retainer from the client.  
Attorney Danielson, however, failed to take any action on the 
matter, failed to respond to the client's inquiries, failed to 
refund the retainer, failed to notify the client of the 
administrative and temporary suspensions of her license to 
practice law, failed to submit a post-suspension affidavit as 
required under SCR 22.26, and failed to cooperate with the OLR's 
grievance investigation.  For this misconduct, this court 
suspended Attorney Danielson's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin for a period of six months. 
¶22 The second case also involved an attorney's failure to 
follow through on a representation.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Christnot, 2004 WI 120, 275 Wis. 2d 289, 685 
N.W.2d 788.  Attorney Christnot represented a man in a divorce 
proceeding and was directed by the circuit court to prepare a 
Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) as a result of the 
divorce award.  Attorney Christnot never prepared the QDRO, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.3, and never refunded the unused portion 
of the retainer she had received, in violation of former SCR 
20:1.16(d).  She also failed to respond to the client's repeated 
No. 
2008AP559-D   
 
11 
 
requests for information, in violation of former SCR 20:1.4(a), 
and failed to respond to the OLR's requests for information, in 
violation of SCRs 22.04, 21.15(4), and 22.03(2).  In a separate 
investigation, Attorney Christnot again failed to respond to the 
OLR's requests for information.  Like Attorney Danielson, 
Attorney Christnot received a six-month suspension and was 
ordered to refund to her client the unused portion of the 
retainer. 
¶23 There are aggravating factors in this case that call 
for a slightly longer suspension for Attorney Guenther.  Of 
greatest importance is the fact that this is the sixth time that 
Attorney 
Guenther 
will 
be 
the 
subject 
of 
professional 
discipline.  See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Ray, 2004 WI 45, ¶22, 270 Wis. 2d 651, 678 N.W.2d 246 (noting 
that this court has generally adhered to a system of progressive 
discipline).  Although Attorney Guenther admitted his misconduct 
and entered into a stipulation to that effect, as the referee 
noted, he has made similar admissions in prior disciplinary 
proceedings, but then proceeded to commit further acts of 
misconduct.  Moreover, there appears to be a pattern by Attorney 
Guenther of failing to act with diligence and competence and of 
failing to keep his clients reasonably informed about the status 
of their legal matters.  Attorney Guenther's misconduct, 
therefore, calls for a significant period of suspension.  We 
conclude that a nine-month suspension will sufficiently impress 
upon Attorney Guenther the need to comply with the Rules of 
Professional Conduct for Attorneys and will adequately protect 
No. 
2008AP559-D   
 
12 
 
the public and the legal system.  We note that in order to 
obtain reinstatement, Attorney Guenther will bear the burden of 
demonstrating by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence 
that, among other things, he has the moral character to practice 
law in this state, he has a proper understanding of the 
standards that are imposed upon members of the bar, and he will 
act in conformity with those standards.  See SCRs 22.29(4) and 
22.31(1).  
¶24 We also agree with the referee's recommendation that 
Attorney Guenther should be required to pay restitution to J.J. 
in the amount of $3,227.27.  Our order at the end of this 
decision, however, need not include language making payment of 
this restitution amount a precondition to the reinstatement of 
Attorney Guenther's license to practice law, as the referee 
recommended.  This court's rules make clear that in order to 
obtain reinstatement, a suspended attorney petitioning for 
reinstatement must allege and prove that he or she has made 
restitution to or settled the claims of all persons injured or 
harmed by the attorney's misconduct.  SCR 22.29(4m). 
¶25 Finally, we determine that Attorney Guenther should be 
required to pay the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding.  
We note that Attorney Guenther did not file an objection to the 
OLR's statement of costs. 
¶26 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Arik J. Guenther to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of nine 
months, effective as of the date of this order. 
No. 
2008AP559-D   
 
13 
 
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Arik J. Guenther shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If the costs 
are not paid within the time specified and absent a showing to 
this court of his inability to pay those costs within that time, 
the license of Arik J. Guenther to practice law in Wisconsin 
shall remain suspended until further order of this court. 
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Arik J. Guenther shall pay restitution to client 
J.J. in the amount of $3,227.27.  If restitution to J.J. is not 
paid within the time specified and absent a showing to this 
court of his inability to pay the restitution amount within that 
time, the license of Arik J. Guenther to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of this 
court. 
¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that restitution to client J.J. 
is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation. 
¶30 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent he has not 
already done so, Arik J. Guenther shall comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
 
No. 
2008AP559-D   
 
 
 
1