Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kristin J. Gernetzke

Citation: 2007 WI 6

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2007-01-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
2007 WI 6 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2006AP2629-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Kristin J. Gernetzke, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Kristin J. Gernetzke, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GERNETZKE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
January 19, 2007   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2007 WI 6
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2006AP2629-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Kristin J. Gernetzke, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Kristin J. Gernetzke, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JAN 19, 2007 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.  We review the stipulation filed by 
Kristin J. Gernetzke and the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
pursuant to SCR 22.12,1 wherein Attorney Gernetzke admits to the 
facts and misconduct alleged by the OLR as set forth in the 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.12 provides in relevant part that "(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. 
2006AP2629-D   
 
2 
 
parties' stipulation.  The misconduct giving rise to this 
disciplinary matter involved improper and undocumented billings 
that Attorney Gernetzke submitted to the Office of the State 
Public Defender (SPD).  
¶2 
We adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law.  
We 
agree 
that 
Attorney 
Gernetzke's 
misconduct 
warrants 
suspension of her license to practice law for a period of six 
months, and we further agree that restitution is appropriate as 
discussed herein.  The parties do not seek to impose the costs 
of this proceeding upon Attorney Gernetzke and we accede to that 
recommendation. 
¶3 
Attorney Gernetzke was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2002.  She has no previous disciplinary history.   
¶4 
From September 2002 until May 7, 2005, Attorney 
Gernetzke was an associate attorney with the offices of Skemp & 
Associates 
in 
La Crosse.  From May 7, 2005, until her 
termination on October 20, 2005, she was an associate attorney 
with the firm of O'Flaherty, Heim & Egan, Ltd., ("O'Flaherty 
firm") also in La Crosse.  Throughout this period, Attorney 
Gernetzke was certified to work as a public defender by the SPD 
and undertook a number of cases in that capacity.   
¶5 
While practicing with Skemp & Associates, Attorney 
Gernetzke began to utilize a billing entry described as "develop 
legal theory" on bills she submitted to the SPD.  This type of 
entry 
requires 
certain 
documentation 
in 
the 
file 
to 
be 
acceptable.  Attorney Gernetzke, however, submitted numerous 
billings under the category "develop legal theory" without 
No. 
2006AP2629-D   
 
3 
 
creating proper documentation.  In some cases, no work had been 
done on the file or the entries were made as a result of 
Attorney Gernetzke "thinking" about the case.  Eventually, the 
O'Flaherty 
firm 
terminated 
Attorney 
Gernetzke's 
employment 
because of her use of the "develop legal theory" entries on 
bills submitted to the SPD, and filed a grievance with the OLR. 
¶6 
The OLR investigators reviewed 26 of the files 
Attorney Gernetzke worked on for the SPD and determined that 
Attorney Gernetzke was paid $5120 for time described as "develop 
legal theory."  Additional billings totaling $2698 submitted 
under this category were pending at the time of the OLR 
investigation.  The SPD conducted an additional review of its 
files and independently demanded Attorney Gernetzke return 
additional monies paid to her for billing entries designated as 
"develop legal theory." 
¶7 
The parties stipulated that the entries Attorney 
Gernetzke designated and billed as "develop legal theory" were 
without support, improper, inflated, and constituted conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in 
violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).2 
¶8 
The parties further stipulated that restitution was 
appropriate.  At the time the stipulation was executed, Attorney 
Gernetzke had made restitution to the SPD in the amount of $5000 
and had waived claims from additional billings submitted to the 
                                                 
2SCR 20:8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation."  
No. 
2006AP2629-D   
 
4 
 
SPD in the amount of $8716.87.  This court is advised that 
Attorney Gernetzke is in the process of negotiating a plan to 
repay her remaining obligations to the SPD.  The stipulation 
indicates that restitution to her former law firm may also be 
appropriate.3 
¶9 
We accept the parties' stipulation and recommendations 
regarding discipline.  Cf. In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Glasbrenner, 2005 WI 50, 280 Wis. 2d 37, 695 N.W.2d 291. 
Consistent with the parties' stipulation, we will not impose the 
costs of this proceeding upon Attorney Gernetzke.   
¶10 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Kristin J. 
Gernetzke to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period 
of 6 months, effective March 2, 2007. 
¶11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Kristin J. 
Gernetzke shall comply with the requirements of SCR 22.26 
pertaining to activities following suspension. 
 
                                                 
3 The parties' stipulation did not expressly set forth the 
amount of restitution, if any, that Attorney Gernetzke still 
owes the SPD or her former law firms.  Therefore, we do not 
impose a specific order regarding restitution at this time.  
Attorney Gernetzke is reminded that a petition for reinstatement 
requires the petitioner to demonstrate that she has made 
restitution to or settled all claims of persons injured or 
harmed by petitioner's misconduct, including reimbursement to 
the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection for all 
payments made from that fund, or, if not, the petitioner's 
explanation of the failure or inability to do so. See SCR 
22.29(4m). 
No. 
2006AP2629-D   
 
 
 
1