Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jay M. Langkamp

Citation: 2009 WI 102

Docket Number: 2008AP002283-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2009-12-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
2009 WI 102 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2008AP2283-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jay M. Langkamp, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Jay M. Langkamp, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST LANGKAMP 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 1, 2009   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2009 WI 102
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2008AP2283-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jay M. Langkamp, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Jay M. Langkamp, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
DEC 1, 2009 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the amended stipulation filed 
by Attorney Jay M. Langkamp and the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) pursuant to SCR 22.12,1 wherein Attorney Langkamp admits to 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.12 provides.  Stipulation. 
(1) The director may file with the complaint a 
stipulation of the director and the respondent to the 
facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and 
discipline to be imposed.  The supreme court may 
consider the complaint and stipulation without the 
appointment of a referee.   
No. 
2008AP2283-D   
 
2 
 
the facts and misconduct alleged by the OLR as set forth in the 
parties' stipulation.  Attorney Langkamp admits to 15 counts of 
misconduct involving four clients. The misconduct includes 
failing to communicate with a client; unilaterally terminating 
his representation of clients and failing to protect the 
clients' interests by giving them reasonable notice to employ 
another attorney; failing to refund the portion of fees that 
were not earned; and failing to provide a written response to 
client grievances. 
¶2 
We adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law.  
We agree that Attorney Langkamp's misconduct warrants suspension 
of his license to practice law for a period of 60 days.  The 
parties do not seek to impose the costs of this proceeding upon 
Attorney Langkamp and we accede to that recommendation. 
¶3 
Attorney Langkamp was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1996 and practiced in Dane County.  He currently 
resides in New York State. 
¶4 
On October 31, 2007, Attorney Langkamp's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin was suspended for nonpayment of dues.  
                                                                                                                                                             
(2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation, 
it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of 
law and impose the stipulated discipline. 
(3) If the supreme court rejects the stipulation, 
a referee shall be appointed and the matter shall 
proceed as a complaint filed without a stipulation. 
(4) A stipulation rejected by the supreme court 
has no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to 
the respondent's defense of the proceeding or the 
prosecution of the complaint. 
No. 
2008AP2283-D   
 
3 
 
On February 22, 2008, this court suspended his license based on 
his failure to cooperate in grievance investigations.  The OLR 
subsequently informed this court that Attorney Langkamp had 
provided a response to the OLR's inquiry, and that a suspension 
of his license was no longer needed to induce him to cooperate 
in the ongoing grievance investigation.  On September 9, 2008, 
this 
court 
terminated 
the 
temporary 
suspension. 
 
The 
administrative suspension for failure to pay bar dues remains in 
effect. 
¶5 
On September 15, 2008, the OLR filed a complaint 
alleging 
that 
Attorney 
Langkamp 
engaged 
in 
professional 
misconduct with respect to his representation of three clients.  
The first matter addressed in the complaint involved Attorney 
Langkamp's representation of B.C., who hired Attorney Langkamp 
to represent him in eight traffic cases in October 2006.  B.C. 
paid Attorney Langkamp $750 in legal fees.   
¶6 
Attorney Langkamp entered an appearance in one of the 
cases in February 2007.  On July 19, 2007, an assistant district 
attorney asked the circuit court to continue B.C.'s court date 
because he had been unable to contact Attorney Langkamp by 
telephone and had heard that Attorney Langkamp was moving to New 
York.  B.C. said he had not spoken to Attorney Langkamp in a 
month. 
¶7 
On July 23, 2007, the circuit court wrote to Attorney 
Langkamp at his New York address stating that Attorney Langkamp 
had not appeared for hearings scheduled in June and July, and 
that B.C.'s eight court trials had been postponed due to 
No. 
2008AP2283-D   
 
4 
 
Attorney Langkamp's nonappearance.  On September 8, 2007, B.C. 
requested 
fee 
arbitration 
with 
Attorney 
Langkamp. 
 
B.C. 
subsequently filed a grievance against Attorney Langkamp with 
the OLR.   
¶8 
On September 25, 2007, the OLR provided Attorney 
Langkamp with notice of the grievance investigation.  In spite 
of repeated requests from the OLR, Attorney Langkamp failed to 
respond.   
¶9 
The OLR's complaint alleged that by failing to timely 
advance B.C.'s interests in eight traffic cases, Attorney 
Langkamp violated SCR 20:1.3;2 by failing to communicate with 
B.C. during the month prior to a hearing scheduled for July 23, 
2007, Attorney Langkamp violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3);3 by failing to 
advise B.C. that he left Wisconsin and relocated to New York, by 
unilaterally terminating his representation of B.C., by failing 
to protect B.C.'s interests by giving him reasonable notice to 
employ another attorney, and by failing to refund the portion of 
the fee he had not earned, Attorney Langkamp violated SCR 
20:1.16(d);4 and by failing to provide a written response to 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.3 states "[a] lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
3 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides a lawyer shall "keep the client 
reasonably informed about the status of the matter; . . ." 
4 SCR 20:1.16(d) (effective July 1, 2007) provides 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 
No. 
2008AP2283-D   
 
5 
 
B.C.'s grievance, Attorney Langkamp violated SCR 22.03(2) and 
SCR 22.03(6),5 actionable via SCR 20:8.4(h).6 
¶10 The second client matter detailed in the OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney Langkamp's representation of R.W., 
                                                                                                                                                             
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 SCR 22.03(6) provide as follows:  
Investigation. 
(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. 
6 SCR 20:8.4(h) (effective July 1, 2007) 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); . . ." 
No. 
2008AP2283-D   
 
6 
 
who hired Attorney Langkamp to represent him in a felony drug 
case and paid him $800 to $900 for the representation.  Attorney 
Langkamp entered an appearance for R.W. on January 22, 2007.  
During the course of the representation, Attorney Langkamp was 
late for two hearings and failed to show up for a third hearing, 
failed to timely return R.W.'s phone calls, and failed to update 
the court regarding R.W.'s new address. 
¶11 Attorney Langkamp told R.W. he would try to work out a 
plea agreement.  After Attorney Langkamp had missed a court 
hearing, R.W. tried to reach him ten times but was unable to do 
so.  R.W. did not know when his next court date was scheduled.  
On June 28, 2007, while in court waiting for Attorney Langkamp, 
R.W. learned from the district attorney that Attorney Langkamp 
had moved to New York. 
¶12 In 
August 
2007 
R.W.'s 
aunt 
filed 
a 
telephonic 
grievance against Attorney Langkamp.  The OLR provided Attorney 
Langkamp notice of the grievance investigation.  In spite of 
repeated requests, Attorney Langkamp failed to respond to the 
OLR.  The circuit court ordered Attorney Langkamp to refund the 
fees R.W. had paid. 
¶13 The OLR's complaint alleged that by failing to attempt 
to work out a plea bargain, failing to appear at a hearing, 
failing to provide the circuit court with his client's change of 
address, and failing to otherwise timely advance his client's 
interests in R.W.'s criminal case, Attorney Langkamp violated 
SCR 20:1.3.  The complaint also alleged that by failing to 
communicate to R.W. that he would not be at a hearing, by 
No. 
2008AP2283-D   
 
7 
 
failing, after the missed hearing, to respond to at least 10 
phone calls from R.W., and by failing to advise R.W. of the date 
of a court hearing, Attorney Langkamp violated former SCR 
20:1.4(a)7 and SCRs 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4).8  The complaint also 
alleged that by failing to advise R.W. he had relocated to New 
York, by unilaterally terminating his representation of R.W., 
and failing to protect R.W.'s interests by giving him reasonable 
notice to employ another attorney, and by failing to refund the 
portion of the fee he had not earned, Attorney Langkamp violated 
SCR 20:1.16(d).  The complaint also alleged that by failing to 
provide a written response to R.W.'s grievance, Attorney 
Langkamp violated SCRs 22.03(2) and 22.03(6), enforced via SCR 
20:8.4(h).   
¶14 The 
final 
client 
matter 
detailed 
in 
the 
OLR's 
September 15, 2008, complaint involved Attorney Langkamp's 
representation of A.B. who had hired Attorney Langkamp on 
March 1, 2007, to represent him in divorce and criminal cases.  
A.B. signed a fee agreement and paid Attorney Langkamp $750 for 
the criminal case and $400 for the divorce case.  On March 29, 
2007, A.B. received pretrial conference documents from an 
                                                 
7 Former SCR 20:1.4(a) (effective through June 30, 2007), 
provided, "A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed 
about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable 
requests for information." 
8 SCRs 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4) (effective July 1, 2007) state a 
lawyer shall "(3) keep the client reasonably informed about the 
status of the matter;" and "(4) promptly comply with reasonable 
requests by the client for information; . . ." 
No. 
2008AP2283-D   
 
8 
 
assistant district attorney in the criminal case.  A.B. faxed 
the documents to Attorney Langkamp, but the fax number was not 
working so A.B. sent the documents to Attorney Langkamp by e-
mail.  
¶15 On April 11, 2007, Attorney Langkamp sent A.B. an e-
email saying he had tried to talk to the assistant district 
attorney but she was out of the office.  The district attorney's 
office 
informed 
A.B. 
they 
had 
no 
response 
from 
anyone 
representing him and no record that he had an attorney.  A.B. 
called Attorney Langkamp, who said he had filed the appropriate 
paperwork.  A.B. never received copies of the purported filing. 
¶16 A.B. received a letter informing him he had a court 
appearance on May 22, 2007.  He forwarded that information to 
Attorney Langkamp, who did not respond.  On May 18, 2007, A.B. 
called the clerk of courts office about his criminal case and 
was told he had no attorney of record.  A.B. told the clerk that 
Attorney Langkamp was his attorney.  That same day, Attorney 
Langkamp was entered as A.B.'s attorney in the criminal case.   
¶17 A.B. said Attorney Langkamp never asked him any 
questions about the criminal case and advised him to plead 
guilty even though there were no witnesses or physical evidence 
of guilt.  A.B. followed Attorney Langkamp's advice and pled 
guilty.  Attorney Langkamp appeared with A.B. at the plea 
hearing on May 22, 2007.  Pursuant to a plea agreement, two 
battery counts were made the subject of a deferred prosecution 
agreement, and the remaining charges were dismissed.  
No. 
2008AP2283-D   
 
9 
 
¶18 After the criminal case was resolved, A.B. continued 
to have communication problems with Attorney Langkamp in the 
divorce case.  Attorney Langkamp had entered his appearance in 
that case on April 24, 2007.  On May 3, 2007, A.B. sent a FedEx 
parcel to Attorney Langkamp containing one money order and all 
of his critical divorce information.  A.B. never heard back from 
Attorney Langkmap about the shipment, and the information never 
reached A.B.'s wife's attorney. 
¶19 On July 19, 2007, counsel for A.B.'s wife filed an 
affidavit in support of a contempt motion against A.B. for 
failing to provide joint tax returns and failing to provide 
proof of the minimum monthly amount paid on all debts pursuant 
to a court order.  A.B. was sent notice of a hearing scheduled 
for August 9, 2007, on the contempt matter and tried to contact 
Attorney Langkamp about it.  Although A.B. sent Attorney 
Langkamp over ten e-mails and left over 20 voice mail messages, 
Attorney Langkamp failed to respond. 
¶20 On August 6, 2007, A.B. sent Attorney Langkamp another 
FedEx parcel.  On August 8, 2007, A.B. received a phone call 
from Attorney Langkamp's property owner saying she had in her 
possession several FedEx packages that A.B. had sent to Attorney 
Langkamp.  The property owner informed A.B. that Attorney 
Langkamp had moved to New York months earlier.  Attorney 
Langkamp never advised A.B. that he had left Wisconsin. 
¶21 When A.B. went to court on August 9, 2007, Attorney 
Langkamp was in the waiting room and apologized for his lack of 
work ethic.  Despite A.B. providing the court satisfactory 
No. 
2008AP2283-D   
 
10 
 
documentation of his bill payments, counsel for A.B.'s wife 
asked that A.B. pay $285 to her firm for court fees.  The order 
to show cause for contempt was withdrawn on the condition that 
A.B. pay the fees by September 9, 2007.   
¶22 On August 9, 2007, A.B. asked Attorney Langkamp for 
new contact information.  Attorney Langkamp provided what proved 
to be an inactive telephone number.  This was the last time A.B. 
spoke to Attorney Langkamp.  On September 19, 2007, Attorney 
Langkamp e-mailed to A.B. a settlement proposed by A.B.'s wife's 
attorney that contained inaccuracies.  A.B. was subsequently 
unable to contact Attorney Langkamp. 
¶23 On October 17, 2007, A.B. filed a grievance against 
Attorney Langkamp.  On December 3, 2007, the circuit court 
permitted the removal of Attorney Langkamp as A.B.'s attorney of 
record in the divorce case.  On December 26, 2007, A.B. 
requested $1,150 from the Wisconsin Lawyers Fund for Client 
Protection.   
¶24 The OLR provided Attorney Langkamp with notice of 
A.B.'s grievance investigation on December 14, 2007.  In spite 
of repeated requests, Attorney Langkamp failed to respond. 
¶25 The OLR's complaint alleged that by failing in A.B.'s 
divorce case to forward information to the opposing party's 
counsel, resulting in an order to show cause against A.B. for 
contempt, and by otherwise failing to timely advance A.B.'s 
interests, Attorney Langkamp violated SCR 20:1.3.  The complaint 
also alleged that by failing to respond to A.B.'s ten e-mails 
and 20 voice mail messages in the course of the divorce 
No. 
2008AP2283-D   
 
11 
 
representation, failing to provide A.B. with a current address, 
failing to communicate with A.B. prior to the contempt hearing 
in the divorce, and failing to communicate with A.B. after 
September 19, 2007, while the divorce was still pending, 
Attorney Langkamp violated SCR 20:1.4(a).   
¶26 The OLR's complaint also alleged by unilaterally 
terminating his representation of A.B. in the divorce case and 
then 
failing 
to 
protect 
A.B.'s 
interests 
by 
giving 
him 
reasonable notice to employ another attorney, by failing to give 
A.B. reliable contact information and failing to refund the 
portion of the fee he had not earned, Attorney Langkamp violated 
SCR 20:1.16(d).  The complaint further alleged that by failing 
to provide a required written response to A.B.'s grievance, 
notwithstanding written notice, Attorney Langkamp violated SCRs 
22.03(2) and 22.03(6), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).   
¶27 On December 3, 2008, the OLR and Attorney Langkamp 
entered into a stipulation whereby Attorney Langkamp stipulated 
to the misconduct alleged in the OLR's September 15, 2008, 
complaint.  After the stipulation was filed with this court, the 
OLR advised the court that the preliminary review committee had 
authorized the finding of additional misconduct charges against 
Attorney Langkamp and that it was appropriate to combine all 
charges within a single disciplinary proceeding.   
¶28 An 
amended 
SCR 
22.12 
stipulation 
was 
filed 
on 
April 14, 2009.  The new stipulation added three additional 
counts of misconduct involving a fourth client, W.J.  W.J. 
retained Attorney Langkamp in December 2001 to represent him in 
No. 
2008AP2283-D   
 
12 
 
a second-degree child sexual assault case in Dane County.  On 
July 17, 2002, W.J. was found guilty of five out of seven counts 
of second-degree sexual assault of a child and was sentenced to 
five 
years 
initial 
confinement 
and 
ten 
years 
extended 
supervision.  That same day a notice of right to seek post-
conviction relief was filed indicating W.J.'s intent to appeal 
¶29 Attorney Langkamp discussed a possible appeal with 
W.J. both before and after sentencing and met with W.J.'s wife 
on more than one occasion to discuss a possible appeal.  
Attorney Langkamp filed a notice of intent to pursue post-
conviction relief on August 5, 2002.  He met with W.J. on 
several occasions at the Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility.  
In October 2002 Attorney Langkamp sent the court reporter a 
check 
for 
payment 
of 
transcripts 
from 
the 
trial 
court 
proceedings.  Attorney Langkamp reviewed the transcripts but 
failed to file any further documents stating that a claim or 
appeal would be filed on W.J.'s behalf.  Attorney Langkamp never 
told W.J. he would not handle the appeal, did not consult with 
W.J. about his options, and did not inform W.J. of the appellate 
deadlines. 
¶30 Attorney Langkamp received many phone calls from 
W.J.'s wife asking about the appeal.  Attorney Langkamp failed 
to return those calls.  Attorney Langkamp met with W.J.'s wife 
in February 2003 to assist her in researching issues for W.J.'s 
appeal.  Attorney Langkamp failed to correspond with W.J., 
failed to inform him about his prospects on appeal, failed to 
act according to W.J.'s directions regarding an appeal, failed 
No. 
2008AP2283-D   
 
13 
 
to file an appeal, and failed to close out the case in any 
fashion. 
¶31 In December 2004 W.J. hired other counsel to represent 
him in the post-conviction matters.  In June 2007 W.J. filed a 
petition for writ of habeas corpus with the court of appeals 
alleging that Attorney Langkamp and successor counsel abandoned 
his direct right of appeal.  The court of appeals remanded the 
matter to the trial court.  In December 2007 the trial court 
issued findings of fact on the writ finding that the attorney-
client relationship between W.J. and Attorney Langkamp continued 
beyond the trial phase of the case, including post-conviction 
relief and direct appeal.  In February 2008 the court of appeals 
granted W.J.'s writ of habeas corpus and reinstated his time to 
pursue post-conviction relief.   
¶32 The 
parties' 
amended 
stipulation 
states 
Attorney 
Langkamp stipulates that by failing to pursue post-conviction 
relief in the circuit court, and failing to file an appeal or 
formally close out the representation as of the time W.J. 
obtained successor counsel, Attorney Langkamp violated SCR 
20:1.3.  Attorney Langkamp also stipulates that by failing to 
follow W.J.'s direction to appeal his conviction, failing to 
correspond with W.J. about the prospects of an appeal, or to 
explain to W.J. post-conviction options and the applicable 
deadlines, Attorney Langkamp violated former SCR 20:1.2(a)9 and 
                                                 
9 Former SCR 20:1.2(a) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
provides: 
No. 
2008AP2283-D   
 
14 
 
SCR 20:1.4(b).10  Attorney Langkamp also stipulates that by 
failing to respond to the telephone calls of W.J. or W.J.'s wife 
and to otherwise keep his client informed about the status of 
the post-conviction appeal, Attorney Langkamp violated SCR 
20:1.4(a). 
¶33 The amended stipulation states that Attorney Langkamp 
fully 
understands 
the 
misconduct 
allegations 
and 
the 
ramifications should the court impose the stipulated level of 
discipline; fully understands his right to contest the matter; 
fully understands his right to consult with counsel; and that 
his entry into the amended stipulation represents his admission 
of all misconduct and his assent to the level and type of 
discipline sought by the OLR director, a 60-day suspension.  The 
stipulation requests that this court consider the disciplinary 
complaint and amended stipulation without the appointment of a 
                                                                                                                                                             
A lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions 
concerning the objectives of representation, subject 
to paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), and shall consult with 
the client as to the means by which they are to be 
pursued.  A lawyer shall inform a client of all offers 
of settlement and abide by a client's decision whether 
to accept an offer of settlement of a matter.  In a 
criminal case or any proceeding that could result in 
deprivation of liberty, the lawyer shall abide by the 
client's decision, after consultation with the lawyer, 
as to a plea to be entered, whether to waive jury 
trial and whether the client will testify. 
10 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. 
2008AP2283-D   
 
15 
 
referee, approve the amended stipulation, and issue an order 
consistent therewith.   
¶34 On June 16, 2009, this court issued an order directing 
the parties to show cause why a suspension longer than 60 days 
should not be imposed on Attorney Langkamp.  In response to the 
order to show cause, the OLR stated that its decision to seek a 
60-day suspension was based on the ABA Standards for Imposing 
Lawyer Sanctions, as well as Wisconsin precedent substantially 
similar to the misconduct at issue here, including In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Artery, 2006 WI 11, 288 
Wis. 2d 339, 709 N.W.2d 54, In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Schrinsky, 162 Wis. 2d 173, 469 N.W.2d 406 (1991), and 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Norlin, 104 Wis. 2d 117, 
310 N.W.2d 789 (1981).  The OLR also informed the court that it 
took into consideration the fact that Attorney Langkamp has no 
prior disciplinary history.   
¶35 In response to the order to show cause, Attorney 
Langkamp submitted an affidavit explaining that he has not 
practiced law in Wisconsin since 2007.  At the time he made the 
decision to stop practicing law and moved to New York to join a 
program where professionals teach inner-city students, Attorney 
Langkamp still had a few cases pending and expected to finish 
those when he returned to Wisconsin from his summer training in 
New York.  The affidavit states that training for the New York 
program was much more intense than he had anticipated, and as a 
result, he did not complete the work on a few of the cases as he 
had expected.  The affidavit also states Attorney Langkamp did 
No. 
2008AP2283-D   
 
16 
 
not comply with the OLR's request for information in a timely 
manner because he did not have the time to do so, and also 
because he knew he would no longer be practicing law.  Attorney 
Langkamp 
states 
he 
remains 
committed 
to 
serving 
special 
education students in New York's inner city and does not intend 
at this time to practice law in Wisconsin or in any other 
jurisdiction. 
¶36 After our independent review of the matter, we 
conclude that the parties' amended stipulation should be 
accepted.  After considering the seriousness of the misconduct 
and the various mitigating factors presented in this case, we 
conclude that a 60-day suspension of Attorney Langkamp's license 
is appropriate. 
¶37 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Jay M. Langkamp to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective the date of this order. 
¶38 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Jay M. Langkamp shall comply with the 
requirements of SCR 22.26 pertaining to activities following 
suspension. 
 
No. 
2008AP2283-D   
 
 
 
1