Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Allan D. Krezminski

Citation: 2007 WI 21

Docket Number: 2005AP002458-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2007-02-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
2007 WI 21 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2005AP2458-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Allan D. Krezminski, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Allan D. Krezminski, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KREZMINSKI 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 16, 2007   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2007 WI 21
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2005AP2458-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Allan D. Krezminski, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Allan D. Krezminski, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 16, 2007 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee, Curry First, that the license of Attorney Allan D. 
Krezminski to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for two 
years for professional misconduct, and that he be required to 
pay the costs of this disciplinary proceeding, which are 
$2579.81 as of December 13, 2006.  Attorney Krezminski did not 
appeal the recommendation. 
No. 
2005AP2458-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and agree that the seriousness of Attorney 
Krezminski's misconduct warrants the suspension of his license 
to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of two years.  We 
further agree that he should pay the costs of this proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney Krezminski was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1983.  In 2004 he received a private reprimand for 
filing a late no merit report, failing to adequately communicate 
with a client, and failing to keep a client reasonably appraised 
about the status of the representation. 
¶4 
On October 4, 2005, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a complaint against Attorney Krezminski alleging 
three counts of misconduct.  On April 12, 2006, the parties 
entered into a stipulation, wherein Attorney Krezminski pled "no 
contest" to all three counts alleged in the disciplinary 
complaint.  
¶5 
The first two counts of the complaint involve Attorney 
Krezminski's conduct as personal representative for the estate 
of Wanda S. ("Estate").  Wanda's sole heir was her brother, John 
S. ("John").  In August 2001 Attorney Krezminski had custody of 
$37,094.42 in funds from the Estate which he held in his 
capacity as personal representative for the Estate. 
¶6 
While the Estate was pending, John became subject to a 
guardianship.  During this time, Attorney Krezminski drafted, 
presented to John's guardian for signature, and filed with the 
court, a receipt dated October 4, 2001, falsely indicating that 
John had received $37,094.42 as full payment for John's share of 
No. 
2005AP2458-D   
 
3 
 
Wanda's Estate.  In fact, Attorney Krezminski had not made this 
disbursement.  According to Attorney Krezminski, this receipt 
was made with the knowledge of the person who eventually became 
the personal representative of John's estate.  The purpose was 
to avoid delaying the completion of the Estate and to "allow 
investigation into whether there were any alternatives to John's 
estate escheating to the school fund."  John died before Wanda's 
Estate was completed. 
¶7 
In July 2004 Attorney Schmidt, counsel for the 
personal representative of John's estate ("John's Estate"), 
asked Attorney Krezminski to distribute the funds from Wanda's 
Estate to John's Estate.  By letter dated July 26, 2004, 
Attorney Krezminski forwarded a trust account check in the 
amount of $15,808.36 and explained that the check did not cover 
the entire amount to which John's Estate was entitled.  He 
admitted that he had borrowed the funds for his personal use and 
had used the funds to pay personal and business financial 
obligations.  Attorney Krezminski later explained to the OLR 
that he used the monies "out of desperation" to cover a 
shortfall in mortgage and car payments and that he had other 
financial 
difficulties 
including 
unpaid 
taxes 
and 
unpaid 
hospital bills resulting from his son's hospitalization in 
October 2001.  Attorney Krezminski explained that he had 
accounts receivable in the form of completed cases, but that he 
had not yet submitted billings for these cases. 
¶8 
Between July 29, 2004, and October 24, 2004, Attorney 
Krezminski sent six additional checks to Attorney Schmidt, 
No. 
2005AP2458-D   
 
4 
 
thereby repaying in full the funds owed to John's Estate, plus 
interest.   
¶9 
Count one of the complaint alleged that by converting 
funds he was holding in his capacity as personal representative 
and expending them for his own personal use, Attorney Krezminski 
(1) failed to hold in trust property in his possession when 
acting in a fiduciary capacity in violation of former SCR 
20:1.15(a)1 and (2) engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
and 
misrepresentation 
in 
violation 
of 
SCR 
20:8.4(c).2  
¶10 Count two of the complaint alleged that by filing a 
receipt with the court indicating that John had been paid 
$37,094.42 from Wanda's Estate when he had not been paid, 
                                                 
1 Former SCR 20:1.15 applies to misconduct committed prior 
to July 1, 2004.  Former SCR 20:1.15(a) provided: Safekeeping 
property. 
 
(a) A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from 
the lawyer's own property, that property of clients 
and third persons that is in the lawyer's possession 
in connection with a representation or when acting in 
a fiduciary capacity.  Funds held in connection with a 
representation or in a fiduciary capacity include 
funds held as trustee, agent, guardian, personal 
representative of an estate, or otherwise.  All funds 
of clients and third persons paid to a lawyer or law 
firm shall be deposited in one or more identifiable 
trust accounts . . . .  
2 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
No. 
2005AP2458-D   
 
5 
 
Attorney Krezminski violated SCR 20:3.3(a)(4)3 by offering 
evidence he knew to be false. 
¶11 Count three of the complaint pertained to a separate 
client matter.  Attorney Krezminski was appointed by the Office 
of the State Public Defender to represent M.W. on appeal.  M.W. 
had been convicted of two felonies and three misdemeanors.  
Attorney Krezminski reviewed M.W.'s file and, in January 2003, 
advised M.W. that he had found no basis for an appeal.  He 
advised M.W. that he did not think a no-merit appeal would 
assist M.W. and explained that in order to move for sentence 
modification, they would need to identify a "new factor."  
Attorney Krezminski then failed to follow up with M.W. for 
nearly a year. 
¶12 M.W. contacted Attorney Krezminski in July 2003, 
August 2003 and September 2003, each time expressing increasing 
concern about the lack of progress in his case.  Attorney 
Krezminski did not respond to any of these inquiries.  Attorney 
Krezminski also failed to respond to inquiries initiated by the 
Office of the State Public Defender on July 17, 2003, and August 
27, 2003, respectively.  
¶13 Attorney Krezminski did not respond to M.W. until 
December 12, 2003.  Shortly thereafter, M.W. opted to proceed 
pro se.  Attorney Krezminski provided information from the file 
                                                 
3 SCR 
20:3.3(a)(4) provides that a lawyer shall not 
knowingly "offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.  If 
a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its 
falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures." 
No. 
2005AP2458-D   
 
6 
 
to M.W. and closed his file on the matter.  Later, when M.W. 
continued to ask the Office of the State Public Defender why 
Attorney Krezminski had failed to pursue his matter, Attorney 
Krezminski did file a motion on M.W.'s behalf and succeeded in 
persuading the court of appeals to reinstate the appellate 
deadlines.  Thereafter, M.W. proceeded pro se. 
¶14 Attorney Krezminski also pled no contest to count 
three of the complaint, which alleged that by failing to 
communicate with his client from January 2003 to December 2003, 
notwithstanding written inquiries from the client and the Office 
of the State Public Defender, Attorney Krezminski failed to keep 
a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and 
failed to promptly comply with requests for information in 
violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).4 
¶15 On November 24, 2006, the referee filed a report and 
recommendation, accepting the stipulated facts as well as the 
parties' stipulation to sanction, which was executed in June 
2006.  The referee thereby recommended that this court suspend 
Attorney Krezminski's license to practice law in Wisconsin for a 
period of two years. 
¶16 This court will adopt a referee's findings of fact 
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.  
                                                 
4 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides that "[a] lawyer shall keep a 
client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and 
promptly comply with reasonable requests for information." 
No. 
2005AP2458-D   
 
7 
 
Although 
this 
court 
takes 
into 
account 
the 
referee's 
recommendation as to appropriate discipline, we do not accord 
the referee's recommendation any conclusive or great weight.  
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, 
¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.  After careful review of 
the record, we conclude that the referee's findings of fact are 
not clearly erroneous, and we adopt them.  We also agree with 
the conclusions of law that flow from the referee's findings of 
fact.  We agree that the seriousness of Attorney Krezminski's 
misconduct warrants the suspension of his license to practice 
law in Wisconsin for a period of two years.   
¶17 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Allan D. 
Krezminski to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a 
period of two years, effective March 30, 2007. 
¶18 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
Attorney 
Allan 
D. 
Krezminski shall comply with the requirements of SCR 22.26 
pertaining to activities following suspension. 
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Attorney Allan D. Krezminski 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 the costs within 
that time, the license of Attorney Allan D. Krezminski to 
practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further 
order of the court. 
 
No. 
2005AP2458-D   
 
 
 
1