Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Amoun Sayaovong

Citation: 2014 WI 94

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2014-07-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
2014 WI 94 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2013AP1485-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Amoun Vang Sayaovong, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Amoun Vang Sayaovong, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SAYAOVONG 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 30, 2014 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2014 WI 94
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2013AP1485-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Amoun Vang Sayaovong, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Amoun Vang Sayaovong, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 30, 2014 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   On March 14, 2014, referee Daniel L. 
Icenogle issued a report recommending that Attorney Amoun Vang 
Sayaovong be declared in default and that he be publicly 
reprimanded, as requested in the complaint filed by the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation (OLR).  The referee also recommended that 
Attorney Sayaovong make restitution to one client and that he 
either promptly submit a second client matter to binding fee 
arbitration or make restitution to that client.  The OLR filed a 
No. 
2013AP1485-D   
 
2 
 
restitution statement indicating that the second client has died 
and asks that restitution be made to that client's heirs.  The 
referee also recommended that Attorney Sayaovong be required to 
pay the full costs of this proceeding, which are $371.80 as of 
April 1, 2014. 
¶2 
We declare Attorney Sayaovong to be in default.  We 
agree with the referee that Attorney Sayaovong's professional 
misconduct warrants a public reprimand.  We also agree that 
Attorney Sayaovong should be ordered to make restitution and pay 
the full costs of the proceeding.   
¶3 
Attorney Sayaovong was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2007.  The address he has on file with the State 
Bar of Wisconsin is in St. Paul, Minnesota.  He may also have an 
office in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  On February 19, 2014, Attorney 
Sayaovong's license to practice law in Wisconsin was temporarily 
suspended due to his willful failure to cooperate in an OLR 
investigation concerning his conduct.  That suspension arose out 
of the OLR's investigation into allegations of misconduct other 
than those at issue in this case.  
¶4 
On July 2, 2013, the OLR filed a complaint against 
Attorney Sayaovong alleging seven counts of misconduct with 
respect to his handling of two client matters.   
¶5 
The 
first 
client 
matter 
detailed 
in 
the 
OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney Sayaovong's representation of Y.Y.  
In 
January 
of 
2009, 
Y.Y. 
asked 
the 
Social 
Security 
Administration (SSA) to appoint him as payee for benefits for 
his minor children.  On February 9, 2009, Y.Y. paid Attorney 
No. 
2013AP1485-D   
 
3 
 
Sayaovong a $2,000 retainer and signed a fee agreement for 
Attorney Sayaovong to represent him in his effort to change the 
SSA's payee.   
¶6 
On February 13, 2009, the SSA denied Y.Y.'s requests.  
The notices from the SSA gave Y.Y. 60 days to appeal.  The 
notices identified Jay Dess as a contact person.  Attorney 
Sayaovong contacted Dess in March of 2009 and he also had Y.Y. 
complete appeal forms. 
¶7 
On April 6, 2009, according to his invoice, Attorney 
Sayaovong submitted Y.Y.'s appeal to Jay Dess at the SSA.  He 
did not send a copy of the appeal to Y.Y.  Attorney Sayaovong's 
invoice indicates no further action on Y.Y.'s appeal.   
¶8 
In December of 2009, Y.Y. informed Attorney Sayaovong 
that he was terminating his services.  Y.Y. filed a grievance 
against Attorney Sayaovong with the OLR on July 7, 2010.   
¶9 
Between November 2010 and January 2011, the OLR made 
several attempts to contact Attorney Sayaovong to investigate 
Y.Y.'s grievance.  Other than providing a new address, Attorney 
Sayaovong failed to respond to the OLR's communications.   
¶10 On March 28, 2011, this court ordered Attorney 
Sayaovong to show cause why his license should not be suspended 
for failure to cooperate with the OLR.  Attorney Sayaovong 
failed to respond.  On April 13, 2011, this court suspended 
Attorney Sayaovong's license for failure to cooperate with the 
OLR's investigation of Y.Y.'s grievance.  Attorney Sayaovong 
subsequently satisfactorily responded to the OLR in the Y.Y. 
No. 
2013AP1485-D   
 
4 
 
matter, and on July 15, 2011, this court reinstated Attorney 
Sayaovong's Wisconsin law license.   
¶11 On November 28, 2011, the OLR wrote to Attorney 
Sayaovong asking for more information and a copy of his Y.Y. 
file by December 12, 2011.  Attorney Sayaovong failed to 
respond.  The OLR sent a follow-up letter on January 10, 2012, 
reiterating its request and giving Attorney Sayaovong until 
January 20, 
2012, 
to 
provide 
the 
information. 
 
Attorney 
Sayaovong failed to respond.   
¶12 On February 29, 2012, based on a motion filed by the 
OLR, this court ordered Attorney Sayaovong to show cause why his 
license should not be suspended for failure to cooperate with 
the OLR.  Attorney Sayaovong filed a partial response on 
March 15, 2012, and on March 22, 2012, the OLR withdrew its 
motion.  
¶13 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Sayaovong's representation 
of Y.Y.:   
 
[Count 1]  Contacts with Jay Dess of the Social 
Security Administration notwithstanding, by failing 
during 
the 
period 
of 
representation 
to 
advance 
[Y.Y.'s] matter toward formal resolution, Sayaovong 
violated SCR 20:1.3.1   
 
[Count 2]  By failing to timely file his initial 
response to [Y.Y.'s] grievance, and doing so only 
after the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause 
pursuant to SCR 22.03(4) and suspended his law license 
for willful noncooperation with OLR's investigation, 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.3 provides, "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
No. 
2013AP1485-D   
 
5 
 
Sayaovong violated SCR 22.03(2)2 [and] SCR 22.03(6),3 
enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).4 
 
[Count 3]  By failing to provide a complete 
response to OLR's November 28, 2011 request for 
additional information, and providing an incomplete 
and late response received by OLR on March 15, 2012, 
and only after the Supreme Court issued an order to 
show cause why his license should not be suspended for 
willful 
noncooperation 
with 
the 
investigation, 
Sayaovong 
violated 
SCR 
22.03(6), 
enforced 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶14 The second client matter detailed in the OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney Sayaovong's representation of L.Y., 
who hired Attorney Sayaovong to represent him in his immigration 
                                                 
2 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 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. 
3 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." 
4 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. 
2013AP1485-D   
 
6 
 
removal proceedings in September of 2010.  L.Y.'s brother paid 
Attorney Sayaovong $4,000.  The parties did not sign a written 
fee agreement.  The record indicates that Attorney Sayaovong 
failed to place the $4,000 in a trust account.   
¶15 In 
November 
of 
2010, 
L.Y. 
terminated 
the 
representation and asked Attorney Sayaovong to give him an 
accounting of his fees and work and to refund $2,000.  Attorney 
Sayaovong responded on November 3, 2010, saying the $4,000 was a 
nonrefundable flat fee.  He failed to provide L.Y. with an 
accounting. 
¶16 On February 1, 2011, L.Y. filed a grievance against 
Attorney 
Sayaovong. 
 
In 
the 
following 
months, 
the 
OLR 
corresponded with Attorney Sayaovong about this grievance.  On 
February 29, 2012, based on an OLR motion, this court ordered 
Attorney Sayaovong to show cause why his license should not be 
suspended for failure to cooperate with the OLR.  On March 15, 
2012, Attorney Sayaovong sent the OLR some information it had 
requested along with a copy of the L.Y. file.  On March 22, 
2012, the OLR informed this court that although Attorney 
Sayaovong had not fully responded to the OLR's questions, the 
OLR could continue its investigation.   
¶17 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Sayaovong's representation 
of L.Y.: 
[Count 4]  By failing to have a written fee 
agreement in the [L.Y.] matter setting forth the basis 
No. 
2013AP1485-D   
 
7 
 
and 
rate 
for 
the 
fee, 
Sayaovong 
violated 
SCR 20:1.16(a)(3).5 
[Count 5]  By receiving $4,000 in contemplation 
of providing future legal services to [L.Y.], and by 
failing to place the $4,000 advanced fee into a trust 
account or otherwise hold the funds in trust until 
earned, and with no evidence of any intention to make 
use 
of 
the 
alternative 
advanced 
fee 
placement 
provisions stated in SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m), Sayaovong 
violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(4).6 
[Count 6]  By failing, upon termination of 
representation, to timely provide [L.Y.] with an 
itemized statement as to legal services rendered and 
costs incurred in connection with [L.Y.'s] immigration 
matter, Sayaovong violated SCR 20:1.16(d).7 
                                                 
5 SCR 20:1.16(a)(3) provides, "Except as stated in par. (c), 
a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation 
has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a 
client if . . . the lawyer is discharged." 
6 SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) provides:  
Unearned fees and cost advances.  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. 
7 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 
relating to the client to the extent permitted by 
other law. 
No. 
2013AP1485-D   
 
8 
 
[Count 7]  By failing to provide a complete 
supplemental response to OLR's December 28, 2011 
letter requesting addition information relating to his 
representation of [L.Y.] in his immigration matter and 
providing his incomplete response in an untimely 
manner and only after the Court issued an order to 
show cause why his license should not be suspended for 
willful 
noncooperation 
with 
the 
investigation, 
Sayaovong 
violated 
SCR 22.03(6), 
enforced 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶18 Daniel L. Icenogle was appointed referee in the matter 
on September 23, 2013.  On November 27, 2013, the OLR filed a 
motion for default judgment.  The motion asked the referee to 
determine that the OLR had properly served Attorney Sayaovong by 
certified mail under SCR 22.13(1).8  The motion further sought a 
determination that Attorney Sayaovong was in default by failing 
to timely file an answer to the complaint.  The motion sought an 
order for default judgment and issuance of a report making 
findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with the 
allegations in the complaint.  
¶19 The referee issued a decision on March 14, 2014, 
recommending that this court grant the OLR's motion for default 
judgment.  The motion asked the referee to enter an order for 
default judgment, including a determination that all of the 
                                                 
8 SCR 22.13(1) provides: 
The complaint and the order to answer shall be 
served upon the respondent in the same manner as a 
summons under section 801.11(1) of the statutes. If, 
with reasonable diligence, the respondent cannot be 
served under section 801.11(1)(a) or (b) of the 
statutes, service may be made by sending by certified 
mail an authenticated copy of the complaint and order 
to answer to the most recent address furnished by the 
respondent to the state bar. 
No. 
2013AP1485-D   
 
9 
 
allegations of the complaint are deemed established.  By 
recommending that this court grant the motion for default 
judgment, the referee implicitly incorporated by reference the 
allegations in the OLR's complaint and deemed them established.  
The referee also recommended that Attorney Sayaovong be publicly 
reprimanded; that he be ordered to pay restitution of $2,000 to 
L.Y.; that he either promptly submit the Y.Y. matter to binding 
fee arbitration or pay restitution of $2,000 to Y.Y.; and that 
he be ordered to pay the full costs of this proceeding.   
¶20 The OLR filed a restitution statement on April 1, 
2014, saying the OLR has learned through communications with a 
relative of Y.Y. that Y.Y. died in 2013.  As a result, the OLR 
requests that this court order Attorney Sayaovong to make 
restitution to Y.Y.'s heirs.   
¶21 Attorney Sayaovong has not filed an appeal from the 
referee's report. 
¶22 We agree with the referee that Attorney Sayaovong 
should be declared in default.  Although the OLR effected 
service of its complaint pursuant to SCR 22.13(1) and although 
Attorney Sayaovong was given notice of the hearing on the motion 
for default judgment, he failed to appear or present a defense.  
Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to declare him in default.   
¶23 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless they 
are 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 
No. 
2013AP1485-D   
 
10 
 
referee's recommendation.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶24 We agree with the referee that the allegations in the 
OLR's 
complaint 
have 
been 
established 
and 
that 
Attorney 
Sayaovong engaged in the seven counts of misconduct alleged in 
the complaint.  We further agree that a public reprimand is an 
appropriate sanction for Attorney Sayaovong's misconduct, and we 
agree that he should pay the full costs of the proceeding.  
Finally, we agree that Attorney Sayaovong should be ordered to 
make restitution of $2,000 to Y.Y.'s heirs and should be ordered 
to make restitution of $2,000 to L.Y. 
¶25 IT IS ORDERED that Amoun Vang Sayaovong is publicly 
reprimanded.   
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Amoun Vang Sayaovong shall make restitution of 
$2,000 to Y.Y.'s heirs and shall make restitution of $2,000 to 
L.Y.  
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Amoun Vang Sayaovong shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$371.80. 
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified 
above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation. 
¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of Amoun Vang 
Sayaovong to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain temporarily 
suspended pursuant to this court's February 19, 2014 order.  
No. 
2013AP1485-D   
 
11 
 
 
No. 
2013AP1485-D   
 
 
 
1