Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Brandon Buchanan

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2017AP001899-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2018-04-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
2018 WI 41 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2017AP1899-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Brandon Buchanan, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Brandon Buchanan, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BUCHANAN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 19, 2018 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
      
 
 
2018 WI 41
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2017AP1899-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Brandon Buchanan, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Brandon Buchanan, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 19, 2018 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review Referee Allan E. Beatty's 
recommendation that the court declare Attorney Brandon Buchanan 
in default and suspend his Wisconsin law license for a period of 
60 days for professional misconduct in connection with his work 
on one client matter and his non-cooperation with the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation's (OLR) investigation into that misconduct.  
The referee also recommended that Attorney Buchanan be required 
to make restitution to a former client in the amount of $335, 
No. 
2017AP1899-D   
 
2 
 
and to pay the full costs of this proceeding, which total 
$410.44 as of February 12, 2018. 
¶2 
Because no appeal has been filed, we review the 
referee's report pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.17(2).  
After conducting our independent review of the matter, we agree 
with the referee that, based on Attorney Buchanan's failure to 
answer the complaint filed by the OLR, the OLR is entitled to a 
default judgment.  We also agree with the referee that Attorney 
Buchanan's professional misconduct warrants a 60–day suspension 
of his Wisconsin law license.  Finally, we agree with the 
referee that Attorney Buchanan should be ordered to pay the full 
costs of the proceeding, as well as $335 in restitution. 
¶3 
Attorney Buchanan was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2014.  His law license is currently subject to 
administrative 
and 
temporary 
suspensions. 
 
It 
is 
administratively suspended due to his failure to pay mandatory 
bar dues, failure to file a trust account certification, and 
failure to comply with continuing legal education requirements.  
It is temporarily suspended due to his failure to cooperate in 
the OLR's investigation of this matter.   
¶4 
On September 28, 2017, the OLR filed the current 
complaint against Attorney Buchanan.  The complaint alleges five 
counts of professional wrongdoing.  The following facts are 
taken from the OLR's complaint. 
¶5 
In 2014, S.L.L. filed for divorce from her husband.  
In September 2015, Attorney Daniel R. Freund referred S.L.L. to 
Attorney Buchanan to represent her and her husband, K.C.L., in a 
No. 
2017AP1899-D   
 
3 
 
Chapter 7 bankruptcy action.  In November 2015, the L.s hired 
Attorney Buchanan and paid him a $1,835 advanced fee, which 
included 
funds 
to 
pay 
the 
$335 
bankruptcy 
filing 
fee.  
Consistent with a request by S.L.L., Attorney Freund asked 
Attorney Buchanan to keep him informed about the bankruptcy 
proceedings in light of the ongoing divorce action.   
¶6 
Attorney Buchanan did not deposit the L.s' payment 
into a trust account; indeed, he did not have a client trust 
account.  The retainer agreement between the L.s and Attorney 
Buchanan stated that he would deposit the fee into his general 
account. 
¶7 
Attorney Buchanan failed to keep in regular contact 
with the L.s.  He did not respond to the L.s' requests for 
information for a number of months after his retention.  In late 
February 2016, Attorney Buchanan communicated with the L.s, but 
his responsiveness was short-lived.  In May 2016, he again 
stopped responding to the L.s' requests for information, which 
included e-mails and telephone calls. 
¶8 
Attorney Buchanan performed some legal work in the 
matter, but never filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition for the 
L.s.   
¶9 
In June 2016, the L.s fired Attorney Buchanan and 
instructed him to deliver their file to Attorney Freund.  
Attorney Buchanan did not deliver the L.s' file to Attorney 
Freund, or refund any unearned portion of their advanced fee, or 
provide them with an accounting. 
No. 
2017AP1899-D   
 
4 
 
¶10 Both Attorney Freund and S.L.L. filed grievances with 
the OLR against Attorney Buchanan.  The OLR wrote to Attorney 
Buchanan informing him of the grievances and requesting a 
response.  Attorney Buchanan never responded.  In January 2017, 
the OLR personally served Attorney Buchanan at his home address 
with correspondence from the OLR asking him to respond to 
Attorney Freund's and S.L.L.'s grievances.  Attorney Buchanan 
did not respond.   
¶11 In February 2017, based on an OLR motion, this court 
ordered Attorney Buchanan to show cause why his license should 
not be suspended for failure to cooperate with the OLR's 
investigation.  Attorney Buchanan did not respond.  On April 10, 
2017, this court temporarily suspended Attorney Buchanan's 
license. 
¶12 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Buchanan's representation of 
the L.s. 
Count One:  By depositing the L.s' advanced fee into 
his general account and not holding it in trust, 
without 
providing 
any 
information 
regarding 
fee 
arbitration, the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client 
Protection, the L.s' ability to request a refund of 
any unearned fees, or an accounting, Attorney Buchanan 
violated former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4).1 
                                                 
1 Effective July 1, 2016, substantial changes were made to 
Supreme Court Rule 20:1.15, the "trust account rule."  See S. 
Ct. Order 14-07, (issued Apr. 4, 2016, eff. July 1, 2016).  
Because the conduct underlying this case arose prior to July 1, 
2016, unless otherwise indicated, all references to the supreme 
court rules will be to those in effect prior to July 1, 2016. 
(continued) 
No. 
2017AP1899-D   
 
5 
 
Count Two:  By failing to keep the L.s reasonably 
informed regarding the status of the Chapter 7 
bankruptcy matter, and by failing to respond to the 
L.s' 
requests 
for 
information, 
Attorney 
Buchanan 
violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4).2 
Count Three:  By failing to file a Chapter 7 
bankruptcy petition on behalf of the L.s, Attorney 
Buchanan violated SCR 20:1.3.3 
Count Four:  By failing to refund any portion of the 
advanced fee and by failing to deliver the L.s' file 
to 
Attorney 
Freund, 
Attorney 
Buchanan 
violated 
SCR 20:1.16(d).4 
                                                                                                                                                             
Former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) provided: 
Except as provided in par. (4m) unearned fees and 
advanced payments of fees shall be held in trust until 
earned by the lawyer, and withdrawn pursuant to sub. 
(g).  Funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for 
payment of costs shall be held in trust until the 
costs are incurred.   
2 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides:  "a lawyer shall: 
 . . .  
(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 20:1.3 provides:  "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
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 
(continued) 
No. 
2017AP1899-D   
 
6 
 
Count Five:  By willfully failing to provide the OLR 
with a written response to the OLR's investigation, 
Attorney 
Buchanan 
violated 
SCR 
22.03(2)5 
and 
SCR 22.03(6),6 enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).7 
¶13 On November 9, 2017, the OLR filed a motion for 
default judgment asking the referee to determine that the OLR 
had properly served Attorney Buchanan with its complaint by 
personal service, and that Attorney Buchanan had defaulted by 
failing to timely file an answer to the complaint.  The motion 
                                                                                                                                                             
relating to the client to the extent permitted by 
other law. 
5 SCR 22.03(2) provides: 
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 
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 SCR 
22.03(6) 
provides: 
 
"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." 
7 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides:  "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. 
2017AP1899-D   
 
7 
 
sought an order for default judgment and the issuance of a 
report making findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent 
with the allegations in the complaint.   
¶14 The referee issued an order advising the parties that 
the OLR's default judgment motion would be considered at an 
upcoming scheduling conference.  Attorney Buchanan did not 
participate in the scheduling conference.   
¶15 The referee filed his report on January 24, 2018, 
recommending that this court grant the OLR's motion for default 
judgment.  The referee deemed the allegations of the OLR's 
complaint established.  The referee recommended that this court 
suspend Attorney Buchanan's Wisconsin law license for 60 days; 
order him to pay the full costs of this proceeding; and order 
him to pay $335 in restitution to the L.s.  
¶16 Attorney Buchanan has not filed an appeal from the 
referee's report and recommendation.  Accordingly, our review 
proceeds pursuant to SCR 22.17(2). 
¶17 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. 
¶18 We agree with the referee that Attorney Buchanan 
should be declared in default.  Although the OLR effected 
personal service of its complaint, and although Attorney 
No. 
2017AP1899-D   
 
8 
 
Buchanan was given notice of the hearing on the OLR's motion for 
default judgment, he failed to appear or present a defense.  He 
has, therefore, defaulted.  We also accept the referee's 
findings of fact based on the allegations of the complaint, and 
agree 
with 
the 
referee 
that 
those 
findings 
support 
a 
determination of misconduct on the five counts alleged in the 
OLR's complaint. 
¶19 We further agree that a 60-day suspension of Attorney 
Buchanan's 
license 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin 
is 
an 
appropriate sanction for his misconduct.  Although no two 
disciplinary matters are precisely the same, a 60-day suspension 
is generally consistent with the sanction imposed in somewhat 
similar cases.  See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Kingsley, 2006 WI 5, 287 Wis. 2d 91, 708 N.W.2d 321 (60-
day suspension for six counts of misconduct, including failing 
to hold client's retainer in client trust account, failing to 
file two lawsuits on client's behalf, and failing to respond to 
multiple investigative letters from OLR); see also In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Collins, 2004 WI 9, 268 
Wis. 2d 441, 674 N.W.2d 566 (60-day suspension for eight counts 
of misconduct, consisting of two counts of neglect, two trust 
account violations, two instances of failing to cooperate with 
OLR investigations, one count of disobeying a court order, and 
one count of failing to keep a client reasonably informed). 
¶20 As is our usual practice, we deem it appropriate to 
order Attorney Buchanan to pay the full costs of the proceeding.  
See SCR 22.24(1m). 
No. 
2017AP1899-D   
 
9 
 
¶21 As 
to 
the 
issue 
of 
restitution, 
the 
referee 
recommended, consistent with the OLR's request in its complaint, 
that this court order Attorney Buchanan to pay $335 in 
restitution to the L.s.  This amount represents the portion of 
the funds that Attorney Buchanan received from the L.s——the $335 
designated for filing fees——that he clearly neither earned nor 
expended for its designated purpose.  We agree with this 
recommendation. 
¶22 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Brandon Buchanan to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective the date of this order. 
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Brandon Buchanan shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$410.44.   
¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Brandon Buchanan shall make restitution in the 
amount of $335 to S.L.L. and K.C.L. 
¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified 
above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation. 
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Brandon Buchanan 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. 
2017AP1899-D   
 
10 
 
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See SCR 
22.28(2). 
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the April 10, 2017 
temporary suspension of Brandon Buchanan's license to practice 
law in Wisconsin, due to his willful failure to cooperate with 
the OLR's grievance investigation in this matter, is lifted. 
¶29 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
administrative 
suspension of Brandon Buchanan's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin, due to his failure to pay mandatory bar dues, failure 
to file a trust account certification, and failure to comply 
with continuing legal education requirements, will remain in 
effect until each reason for the administrative suspension has 
been rectified, pursuant to SCR 22.28(1). 
 
No. 
2017AP1899-D   
 
 
 
1