Case Title: Thomas E. Warmington v.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 1997-10-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
97-0457 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against 
Thomas E. Warmington, 
Attorney at Law. 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST WARMINGTON 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
October 1, 1997 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 97-0457-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against THOMAS E. WARMINGTON, Attorney at 
Law. 
FILED 
 
OCT 1, 1997 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
1 
 
 
 
Attorney 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney’s 
license 
revoked. 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that the license of Thomas E. Warmington to practice law 
in 
Wisconsin 
be 
revoked 
as 
discipline 
for 
professional 
misconduct. That misconduct consisted of transferring client 
funds to his own use, failing to promptly deliver funds to a 
client entitled to them, failing to respond to a client’s calls 
and messages regarding her settlement proceeds, failing to hold 
client funds in a trust account, making misrepresentations to a 
client concerning his receipt of funds belonging to that client, 
failing to keep complete records of trust account funds and 
other trust property, failing to return an advance payment of a 
fee that he had not earned and failing to return a client’s 
file, failing to provide competent, diligent, and prompt 
representation to a client, and failing to respond to numerous 
No. 97-0457  
 
2 
letters and telephone calls from the Board of Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility (Board) investigating those matters.  
¶2 
We determine that the seriousness and extent of 
Attorney Warmington’s numerous acts of professional misconduct 
warrant the revocation of his license to represent others in the 
legal system. Attorney Warmington’s prior discipline and the 
misconduct established in this proceeding demonstrate that he is 
unable or unwilling to conform his professional conduct to the 
standards we apply to those we license to practice law in this 
state.  
¶3 
Attorney Warmington was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1977 and practiced in Brookfield until he closed 
his practice in November, 1996. He has been disciplined for 
professional misconduct twice previously: in October, 1991, he 
consented to a public reprimand imposed by the Board for his 
failure to communicate for 20 months with the clients who had 
retained him to pursue a medical malpractice action, failing to 
inform them he had not filed their legal action timely, with the 
result that the statute of limitations barred their claim, 
misrepresenting to an attorney-relative of the clients that he 
had filed a malpractice action, and failing to cooperate in the 
Board’s investigation of the matter; in August of 1995, he 
consented to a public reprimand from the Board for failing to 
notify a client of his receipt of the client’s funds he had 
collected on the client’s behalf and failing to deliver the 
funds to the client for more than two years, failing to keep 
that client informed as to the status of the collection matters 
No. 97-0457  
 
3 
and respond to reasonable requests for information from the 
client, and failing to respond to inquiries from the Board and 
produce requested documentation in the matter.  
¶4 
The referee, Attorney Michael Ash, made the following 
findings of fact and conclusions of law, to which the parties 
had stipulated. On December 6, 1994, Attorney Warmington was 
retained to represent a woman on a claim for damages. The fee 
agreement provided that he was to receive one-half of the first 
$500 recovered and one-third of any additional funds. The client 
paid him $500 as a “minimum trust account balance.” Attorney 
Warmington reached a settlement in the amount of $15,000 on the 
client’s claim, which was to be paid by an initial payment of 
$10,100 and the remainder in $200 monthly installments. Attorney 
Warmington 
received 
two 
cashier’s 
checks totaling $10,100 
payable to himself and the client on May 1, 1996. He endorsed 
his name and the client’s name on those checks, indicating that 
he was her attorney in fact, assuming he had the authority to do 
so but in fact not having that authority. He also cashed two 
$200 installment checks he received between June and October, 
1996.  
¶5 
Attorney Warmington told the client on August 8, 1996 
he was working on a release form and that she should receive her 
money soon. In fact, he had received from opposing counsel a 
general release form May 7, 1996 and follow-up letters May 27 
and June 20. The client signed the release August 30, 1996, at 
which time Attorney Warmington said he would return the form to 
opposing counsel immediately and that she should have her money 
No. 97-0457  
 
4 
the following week, once opposing counsel approved the release. 
He told her that he had been receiving installment payments on 
schedule 
pursuant 
to the 
settlement. 
Thereafter, Attorney 
Warmington did not return four telephone calls from the client 
or five other calls she made after learning from the debtor that 
his installment checks had not been cashed. The client filed a 
grievance with the Board and also referred the matter to the 
local police.  
¶6 
Attorney 
Warmington 
called 
the 
client 
in 
early 
November, 1996, and told her his trust account had been frozen 
due to an unrelated matter. Attorney Warmington’s trust account 
records showed that after depositing the settlement funds of 
this client, he cashed numerous checks on his trust account 
payable to himself or to his law firm and within days had 
insufficient funds in that account to cover the amount owed to 
the client. He gradually disbursed those funds to himself such 
that by August 12, 1996, only $8.24 remained of the $5416.36 
that should have been on deposit for that client alone. On 
November 12, 1996, Attorney Warmington gave the client a check 
for $5416.36, together with a settlement statement, and turned 
over to her two uncashed installment checks from the debtor that 
had been made payable to him.  
¶7 
Attorney Warmington did not respond to the Board’s 
letter 
requesting 
information 
concerning 
this 
client’s 
grievance, and he did not return seven telephone calls from 
Board staff. He also did not appear for an investigative 
interview and produce his client’s file, as directed by the 
No. 97-0457  
 
5 
Board. 
After 
being 
personally 
served 
with 
a 
notice 
of 
investigative interview, he ultimately contacted the Board 
claiming that he had not received its prior correspondence or 
messages. He appeared at that interview but refused to give his 
statement under oath for the asserted reason that he was 
suffering from depression and thus any statements he might make 
would not be reliable.  
¶8 
The referee concluded, as the parties had stipulated, 
that 
Attorney 
Warmington 
engaged 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of 
SCR 20:8.4(c), by transferring the client’s funds to his own use 
and by endorsing her name on checks without authority. By 
writing checks to himself and having a trust account with 
insufficient funds to cover the client’s portion of the 
settlement constituted a failure to hold in trust funds 
belonging to a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.15(a).1 His 
                     
1 SCR 20:1.15 provides, in pertinent part: Safekeeping 
property 
(a) A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the 
lawyer’s own property, property of clients or third persons that 
is 
in 
the 
lawyer’s 
possession 
in 
connection 
with 
a 
representation. All funds of clients paid to a lawyer or law 
firm shall be deposited in one or more identifiable trust 
accounts as provided in paragraph (c) maintained in a bank, 
trust company, credit union or savings and loan association 
authorized to do business and located in Wisconsin, which 
account shall be clearly designated as “Client’s Account” or 
“Trust Account” or words of similar import, and no funds 
belonging to the lawyer or law firm except funds reasonably 
sufficient to pay account service charges may be deposited in 
such an account.  . . .   
No. 97-0457  
 
6 
failure to promptly deliver to the client funds to which she was 
entitled violated SCR 20:1.15(b),2 and his failure to respond to 
the client’s calls and messages regarding the settlement 
proceeds violated SCR 20:1.4(a).3 Finally, his failure to respond 
to the Board’s numerous letters and telephone calls constituted 
a failure to cooperate with the investigation, in violation of 
SCR 21.03(4)4 and 22.07(2).5  
                     
2 SCR 20:1.15 provides, in pertinent part: Safekeeping 
property 
 . . .  
(b) Upon receiving funds or other property in which a 
client or third person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly 
notify the client or third person in writing. Except as stated 
in this rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with 
the client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or 
third person any funds or other property that the client or 
third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the 
client or third person, shall render a full accounting regarding 
such property.  
3 SCR 20:1.4 provides, in pertinent part: Communication 
(a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about 
the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable 
requests for information.  
4 SCR 21.03 provides, in pertinent part: General principles. 
 . . .  
(4) Every attorney shall cooperate with the board and the 
administrator in the investigation, prosecution and disposition 
of grievances and complaints filed with or by the board or 
administrator.  
5 SCR 22.07 provides, in pertinent part: Investigation. 
 . . .  
No. 97-0457  
 
7 
¶9 
In a second matter, Attorney Warmington was retained 
in March, 1996 as successor counsel to represent a woman in a 
divorce. Pursuant to the order in that case, his client was to 
receive $18,000 from the refinancing of the couple’s house and 
$15,000 from her spouse’s pension plan. Attorney Warmington was 
responsible for drafting the necessary documents for the 
transfer of those pension funds. The client also was to receive 
half of a tax refund her husband had received.  
¶10 When the house was refinanced, Attorney Warmington 
deposited into his trust account a check payable to the client 
and to his law firm in the amount of $17,990. The original check 
had been made payable to the client only, but Attorney 
Warmington asked the payor to make it payable jointly to the 
client and his firm. He then deposited the check into his trust 
account, having endorsed on it his own name and that of the 
client, indicating that he had her power of attorney. The 
parties stipulated that while he did not have a separate power 
of attorney for the client, the fee agreement constituted a 
                                                                  
(2) 
During 
the 
course 
of 
an 
investigation, 
the 
administrator or a committee may notify the respondent of the 
subject being investigated. The respondent shall fully and 
fairly disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct or medical incapacity within 20 days of being 
served by ordinary mail a request for response to a grievance. 
The administrator in his or her discretion may allow additional 
time 
to 
respond. 
Failure 
to 
provide 
information 
or 
misrepresentation 
in 
a 
disclosure 
is 
misconduct. 
The 
administrator or committee may make a further investigation 
before making a recommendation to the board.  
No. 97-0457  
 
8 
power of attorney insofar as negotiating and depositing checks 
on the client’s behalf.  
¶11 Between the end of August, 1996 and the end of the 
following October, Attorney Warmington wrote numerous checks 
payable to his law firm from his client trust account. Six days 
after he deposited the client’s check, the balance of that 
account was insufficient to cover the amount owed to her, as it 
was only $17,033.24. Attorney Warmington continued to write 
checks to himself, gradually reducing that balance to $11,750 by 
October 2. An audit of that trust account revealed that between 
February 28 and March 6, 1996, Attorney Warmington’s trust 
account was constantly overdrawn by as much as $318. When the 
bank froze that account October 11, 1996, it had a balance of 
only $11,750.44, notwithstanding the earlier $17,990 deposit of 
this client’s funds.  
¶12 When the client met with Attorney Warmington September 
6, 1996, he told her he should be receiving the client’s check 
from the refinancing of the house any day. In fact, he had 
received the check a week earlier. On September 10, 1996, he 
told the client that the check had arrived September 6 but he 
was waiting for it to clear the bank. He said he would telephone 
the client that evening to tell her when she could receive the 
money but he did not make that call, and he did not return eight 
subsequent calls from the client. The client terminated Attorney 
Warmington’s services October 2, 1996 and obtained other 
counsel. At that time, Attorney Warmington had not disbursed her 
money, nor had he taken the necessary steps to complete the 
No. 97-0457  
 
9 
required documentation for the pension funds and obtain her 
portion of the tax refund.  
¶13 On November 12, 1996, Attorney Warmington told the 
client’s new attorney that he was charging her additional 
attorney fees of $1312.50 and would give the client a check for 
$16,677.50. He told that attorney they should accept the money 
that day, as the funds might not be available in the future. 
Attorney Warmington then gave the client a cashier’s check in 
that amount, but the client claimed she was entitled to the 
$1312.50 that he had deducted as his fee.  
¶14 During the Board’s investigation of this client’s 
grievance, Attorney Warmington failed to respond to its numerous 
letters and telephone messages. He was unable to produce most of 
the trust account records he is required by SCR 20:1.15(e)6 to 
                     
6 SCR 20:1.15 provides, in pertinent part: Safekeeping 
property 
 . . .  
(e) Complete records of trust account funds and other trust 
property shall be kept by the lawyer and shall be preserved for 
a period of at least six years after termination of the 
representation. Complete records shall include: (i) a cash 
receipts journal, listing the sources and date of each receipt, 
(ii) a disbursements journal, listing the date and payee of each 
disbursement, with all disbursements being paid by check, (iii) 
a subsidiary ledger containing a separate page for each person 
or company for whom funds have been received in trust, showing 
the date and amount of each receipt, the date and amount of each 
disbursement, and any unexpended balance, (iv) a monthly 
schedule of the subsidiary ledger, indicating the balance of 
each client’s account at the end of each month, (v) a 
determination of the cash balance (checkbook balance) at the end 
of 
each 
month, 
taken 
from 
the 
cash 
receipts 
and 
cash 
disbursement journals and a reconciliation of the cash balance 
(checkbook balance) with the balance indicated in the bank 
No. 97-0457  
 
10
maintain with respect to client property held in trust. At the 
investigative interview, he told the Board that he keeps his 
trust account records in his head, did not know where the trust 
account records were, and had not opened bank statements for 
some time.  
¶15 After 
learning 
that 
successor 
counsel 
had 
been 
retained by this client and without permission to communicate 
directly with her, Attorney Warmington nonetheless faxed the 
client a letter regarding the return of her funds, sending a 
copy to successor counsel. Throughout the progress of this 
matter, Attorney Warmington’s wife was not an attorney in his 
service corporation but was designated as such in the firm name 
and on letterhead stationery.  
¶16 The referee concluded, as the parties stipulated, that 
Attorney Warmington engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation, 
in 
violation 
of 
SCR 
20:8.4(c), by transferring to his own use funds belonging to his 
client, even though she ultimately received funds to which she 
was entitled, with the exception of the $1312.50 she claims was 
hers. Attorney Warmington violated SCR 20:1.15(b) by failing to 
promptly deliver to that client funds she was entitled to and 
                                                                  
statement, and (vi) monthly statements, including canceled 
checks, vouchers or share drafts, and duplicate deposit slips. A 
record of all property other than cash which is held in trust 
for clients or third persons as required by paragraph (a) 
hereof, shall also be maintained. All trust account records 
shall be deemed to have public aspects as related to the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice.  
No. 97-0457  
 
11
failed to hold those funds in trust, thereby violating SCR 
20:1.15(a). He also violated SCR 20:1.15(d)7 by failing to keep 
the disputed $1312.50 on deposit in his trust account when his 
client claimed an interest in it. Attorney Warmington violated 
SCR 20:1.4(a) by failing to respond to the client’s numerous 
telephone calls concerning her funds and misrepresented to her, 
in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c), that the check was in the mail 
when he already had received and deposited it.  
¶17 In 
addition, 
Attorney 
Warmington 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.15(e) by failing to keep complete records of trust account 
funds and other trust property. He violated SCR 20:4.28 by 
communicating directly with his former client, knowing she was 
represented by counsel. He violated SCR 20:7.5(a)9 by including 
                     
7 SCR 20:1.15 provides, in pertinent part: Safekeeping 
property 
 . . .  
(d) When, in the representation, a lawyer is in possession 
of property in which both the lawyer and another person claim 
interests, the property shall be treated by the lawyer as trust 
property until there is an accounting and severance of their 
interests. If a dispute arises concerning their respective 
interests, the portion in dispute shall continue to be treated 
as trust property until the dispute is resolved.  
8 SCR 
20:4. 
2 
provides: 
Communication 
with 
person 
represented by counsel 
In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate 
about the subject of the representation with a party the lawyer 
knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless 
the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized 
by law to do so.  
9 SCR 20:7.5 provides, in pertinent part: Firm names and 
letterheads 
No. 97-0457  
 
12
in his firm name and in letterhead stationery that his wife was 
an attorney in his service corporation. Finally, his failure to 
respond to the Board’s numerous letters and telephone calls in 
its investigation of this client’s grievance violated SCR 
21.03(4) and 22.07(2).  
¶18 In another matter, Attorney Warmington was retained in 
August, 1996 to pursue a breach of contract case on behalf of 
the client’s mother against a nursing home where the mother 
resided. The client paid him a $7500 retainer, and the fee 
agreement set forth a minimum fee of that amount and an hourly 
rate of $125. Attorney Warmington deposited the money into his 
client trust account and withdrew those funds the same day.  
¶19 After not receiving a response to her numerous 
telephone calls and faxes and learning in late September, 1996 
that the receptionist at his office had not seen him for weeks, 
the client sent Attorney Warmington a letter stating that if he 
was not able to handle the case, she wanted the $7500 returned. 
Attorney Warmington did not respond to that letter. The client 
then filed a grievance with the Board and contacted the local 
police. An officer was unable to locate Attorney Warmington but 
left a business card at his home. Attorney Warmington then 
telephoned the officer and said he would be calling the client 
                                                                  
(a) A lawyer shall not use a firm name, letterhead or other 
professional designation that violates Rule 7.1. A trade name 
may be used by a lawyer in private practice if it does not imply 
a connection with a government agency or with a public or 
charitable legal services organization and is not otherwise in 
violation of Rule 7.1.  
No. 97-0457  
 
13
the following day, but he did not. The client sent Attorney 
Warmington another letter demanding return of her money and her 
file. Attorney Warmington did not respond. He telephoned the 
client November 3, 1996 and said he was working on her case, but 
the client told him she was no longer interested in dealing with 
him. The following day the client sent another letter demanding 
the return of her money and asserting that she had terminated 
his services October 9, 1996. It was not until November 22, 1996 
that Attorney Warmington returned the $7500 to the client, 
together with her file. Attorney Warmington did not respond to 
the Board’s numerous written and telephone inquiries in its 
investigation of this client’s grievance.  
¶20 The referee concluded that Attorney Warmington failed 
to keep this client reasonably informed about the status of her 
legal matter and comply promptly with her reasonable requests 
for information concerning it, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a). 
His failure to return timely the advance payment of his fee that 
had not been earned and return the client’s file, despite 
numerous requests to do so, violated SCR 20:1.16(d).10 His 
                     
10 SCR 20:1.16 provides, in pertinent part: Declining or 
terminating representation 
 . . .  
(d) 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.  
No. 97-0457  
 
14
failure to cooperate in the Board’s investigation violated SCR 
21.03(4) and 22.07(2).  
¶21 Between July, 1995 
and 
November, 
1996, Attorney 
Warmington failed to keep another client reasonably informed of 
the status of his legal matter and promptly comply with 
reasonable requests for information concerning it, in violation 
of SCR 20:1.4(a), and did not respond to the Board’s numerous 
letters 
and 
telephone 
calls 
investigating 
that 
client’s 
grievance, in violation of SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2).  
¶22 Another 
matter 
concerned 
Attorney 
Warmington’s 
representation of a defendant in a paternity action, for which 
he was retained in July, 1990. His arguing a meritless statute 
of limitations defense at a hearing on a motion to dismiss the 
action and failing to supervise the preparation of an expert 
witness to testify constituted his failure to provide competent 
representation, in violation of SCR 20:1.1.11 His failure to 
diligently pursue a motion to amend the conceptive period and 
supervise co-counsel in the collection of evidence required to 
support that motion violated SCR 20:1.3.12 His failure to respond 
                     
11 SCR 20:1.1 provides: Competence 
A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a 
client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, 
skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the 
representation.   
12 SCR 20:1.3 provides: Diligence 
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client.  
No. 97-0457  
 
15
to the Board’s numerous letters and telephone calls in its 
investigation of the client’s grievance violated SCR 21.03(4) 
and 22.07(2).  
¶23 As discipline for that professional misconduct, the 
referee recommended 
that 
Attorney 
Warmington’s 
license be 
revoked. 
The 
referee considered that 
misconduct 
extremely 
serious, as it consisted of repeated dishonesty, conversion of 
client trust account funds, and, in the referee’s words, 
“callous disregard for the concerns of clients.” We agree. By 
that misconduct and his prior disciplinary history, Attorney 
Warmington has established a pattern of misconduct that renders 
him unfit to be licensed to practice law in this state. We note 
that in the event he seeks reinstatement of his license, 
Attorney Warmington will be required to establish that he has 
made restitution or settled all claims of persons harmed by his 
misconduct or provide a satisfactory explanation of his failure 
or inability to do so. SCR 22.28(4)(k). 
¶24 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Thomas E. Warmington 
to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of 
this order.  
¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Thomas E. Warmington pay to the Board of Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility the costs of this proceeding.  
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Thomas E. Warmington comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
revoked.  
No. 97-0457  
 
16