Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Eric L. Crandall

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2019AP001845-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2021-12-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
2021 WI 90 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2019AP1845-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Eric L. Crandall, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Eric L. Crandall, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CRANDALL 
 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 21, 2021   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam.  
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2021 WI 90
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2019AP1845-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Eric L. Crandall, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Eric L. Crandall, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
DEC 21, 2021 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report of Referee James 
Evenson recommending that the court suspend Attorney Eric L. 
Crandall's license to practice law in Wisconsin for 60 days.  
Neither party has appealed from the referee's report and 
recommendation. 
¶2 
After careful review of the matter, we adopt the 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect 
to Attorney Crandall's misconduct and agree that the misconduct 
warrants a 60-day suspension of Attorney Crandall's license to 
No. 
2019AP1845-D   
 
2 
 
practice law in Wisconsin.  The Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) 
does 
not 
seek 
restitution, 
and 
we 
do 
not 
order 
restitution.  As is our usual custom, we order Attorney Crandall 
to pay the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding, which are 
$5,824.25 as of October 6, 2021. 
¶3 
Attorney Crandall was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1991.  He was admitted to practice law in Minnesota 
in 1998.  He has been the subject of five prior disciplinary 
proceedings.  In 2006, his Wisconsin law license was suspended 
for three months as reciprocal discipline as to that imposed by 
the Minnesota Supreme Court for neglecting client matters, 
failing to communicate with clients, failing to appear at court 
hearings, failing to comply with discovery rules, and failing to 
cooperate 
with 
the 
disciplinary 
investigation. 
 
In 
re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Crandall, 2006 WI 6, 287 
Wis. 2d 102, 708 N.W.2d 690. 
¶4 
In 2008, Attorney Crandall was publicly reprimanded 
for advancing a frivolous claim, failing to file a client's 
affidavit or a brief in opposition to a motion for summary 
judgment, failing to keep clients reasonably informed, failing 
to return clients' files in a timely manner, and failing to 
cooperate with the OLR's investigation.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Crandall, 2008 WI 14, 307 Wis. 2d 536, 745 
N.W.2d 679. 
¶5 
In addition to the public reprimand in 2008, Attorney 
Crandall's Wisconsin law license was suspended for 30 days as 
reciprocal discipline to that imposed by the Minnesota Supreme 
No. 
2019AP1845-D   
 
3 
 
Court for failing to act with diligence and promptness, failing 
to communicate with clients, engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty and misrepresentation, and failing to cooperate with 
the Minnesota disciplinary investigation.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Crandall, 2008 WI 112, 314 Wis. 2d 33, 754 
N.W.2d 501. 
¶6 
In 2011, Attorney Crandall's Wisconsin law license was 
suspended for five months for failing to hold advanced fees in 
trust, failing to refund unearned fees, and failing to cooperate 
with the OLR's investigation.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Crandall, 2011 WI 21, 332 Wis. 2d 698, 798 N.W.2d 183. 
¶7 
In 2015, Attorney Crandall was publicly reprimanded 
for failing to comply with the requirements of the supreme court 
rule relating to the duties of an attorney whose license has 
been 
suspended 
and 
failing 
to 
cooperate 
with 
the 
OLR's 
investigation.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Crandall, 
2015 WI 111, 365 Wis. 2d 682, 872 N.W.2d 649. 
¶8 
On September 30, 2019, the OLR filed a seven count 
complaint against Attorney Crandall alleging misconduct arising 
out of Attorney Crandall's representation of J.C. and L.S.  J.C. 
hired Attorney Crandall in February of 2018 to represent him in 
a civil action and also to represent his girlfriend, L.S., in a 
separate matter.  J.C. had retained Attorney Crandall to do 
legal work for him in the past and had been satisfied with that 
representation.  J.C. agreed to pay Attorney Crandall $2,500 for 
his matter and $500 for L.S.'s matter.  Attorney Crandall also 
told J.C. he would charge a contingency fee of 25 percent. 
No. 
2019AP1845-D   
 
4 
 
¶9 
On February 28, 2018, Attorney Crandall sent J.C. a 
"Hybrid 
Contingent 
Fee 
Retainer 
Agreement" 
for 
each 
representation.  Under the proposed contract, if Attorney 
Crandall settled the case prior to a trial judgment, J.C. or 
L.S. would pay Attorney Crandall's fees at the rate of $295 per 
hour, and also pay a contingent fee of 25 percent.  The 
agreement did not contain language concerning the placement of 
any advanced fees in Attorney Crandall's operating account.  
Neither Attorney Crandall, J.C., or L.S. signed either retainer 
agreement. 
¶10 In March 2018, Attorney Crandall asked J.C. for the 
$2,500 fees for his case, and J.C. authorized Attorney Crandall 
to charge him $2,500 on an American Express credit card.  On 
March 16, 2018, Attorney Crandall charged $3,500 to J.C.'s 
American Express card and deposited those funds, less a 
processing fee, into his operating account at U.S. Bank.  After 
receiving the advanced fees, Attorney Crandall took no further 
action in either representation. 
¶11 Attorney Crandall never provided J.C. or L.S. with 
notices stating Attorney Crandall's obligation to refund any 
unearned advanced fees and provide an accounting at the 
termination 
of 
the 
representation; 
Attorney 
Crandall's 
obligation to submit any unresolved fee disputes to binding 
arbitration within 30 days of receiving written notice of a 
dispute; and the ability of J.C. or L.S. to file a claim with 
the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection in the event 
Attorney Crandall failed to refund unearned advanced fees. 
No. 
2019AP1845-D   
 
5 
 
¶12 J.C. emailed and called Attorney Crandall numerous 
times to inquire about the status of his matter, but Attorney 
Crandall did not substantively respond beyond a single promise 
that he would file a complaint within a few weeks.   
¶13 J.C. terminated Attorney Crandall's representation in 
August 2018 in both matters.  J.C. requested Attorney Crandall 
return the client files and refund the $3,500.  On August 14, 
2018, Attorney Crandall mailed J.C. the files, and indicated he 
would refund the advanced fees soon but failed to do so. 
¶14 J.C. filed a grievance with the OLR on September 4, 
2018.  The OLR wrote to Attorney Crandall on November 15, 2018 
asking him to respond to the grievance and requesting a copy of 
J.C.'s and L.S.'s files as well as Attorney Crandall's records 
regarding the $3,500 fee.   
¶15 Attorney Crandall refunded J.C. the $3,500 advanced 
fee on November 16, 2018.   
¶16 On December 10, 2018, the date by which the OLR had 
asked Attorney Crandall to respond to the grievance, Attorney 
Crandall faxed a letter to the OLR asking for more time to 
respond.  After Attorney Crandall failed to respond to two more 
OLR requests for a response to the grievance, on February 13, 
2019, the OLR moved this court for an order to show cause as to 
why Attorney Crandall's license should not be suspended for 
failure to cooperate in the investigation.  Attorney Crandall 
eventually sent the OLR a response sufficient for it to continue 
its investigation.  On May 1, 2019, this court granted the OLR's 
request to withdraw its motion for a temporary suspension.   
No. 
2019AP1845-D   
 
6 
 
¶17 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct:   
Count 1:  By 
agreeing 
to 
perform 
legal 
services 
pursuant to a fee agreement with a contingent fee 
component, where J.C. had not signed the agreement, 
Attorney Crandall violated SCR 20:1.5(c).1 
Count 2:  By 
charging 
$3,500 
to 
J.C.'s 
American 
Express credit card, an amount that exceeded what J.C. 
had 
authorized, 
Attorney 
Crandall 
violated 
SCR 20:8.4(c).2 
Count 3:  By accepting advanced fees from J.C. and 
depositing the fees in his business account, with no 
evidence of an intention to utilize the alternative 
protection 
for 
advanced 
fees 
permitted 
under 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.5(c) provides: 
A fee may be contingent on the outcome of the 
matter for which the service is rendered, except in a 
matter in which a contingent fee is prohibited by par. 
(d) or other law.  A contingent fee agreement shall be 
in a writing signed by the client, and shall state the 
method by which the fee is to be determined, including 
the percentage or percentages that shall accrue to the 
lawyer in the event of settlement, trial or appeal; 
litigation and other expenses to be deducted from the 
recovery; and whether such expenses are to be deducted 
before or after the contingent fee is calculated. The 
agreement must clearly notify the client of any 
expenses for which the client will be liable whether 
or not the client is the prevailing party.  Upon 
conclusion of a contingent fee matter, the lawyer 
shall provide the client with a written statement 
stating the outcome of the matter and if there is a 
recovery, showing the remittance to the client and the 
method of its determination. 
2 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
No. 
2019AP1845-D   
 
7 
 
SCR 20:1.5(g), 
Attorney 
Crandall 
violated 
SCR 20:1.5(f).3 
Count 4:  By failing to take any action on J.C.'s or 
L.S.'s 
legal 
matters, 
Attorney 
Crandall 
violated 
SCR 20:1.3.4 
Count 5:  By failing to respond to J.C.'s multiple 
requests for information regarding his legal matter, 
Attorney Crandall violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(4).5 
Count 6:  By failing to promptly refund the unearned 
advanced fees of $3,500, Attorney Crandall violated 
SCR 20:1.16(d).6 
Count 7:  By 
willfully 
failing 
to 
timely 
provide 
information in response to the OLR's investigation, 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:1.5(f) provides: 
Except as provided in SCR 20:1.5(g), unearned 
fees and funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for 
payment of fees shall be held in trust until earned by 
the lawyer, and withdrawn pursuant to SCR 20:1.5(h).  
Funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for payment of 
costs shall be held in trust until the costs are 
incurred. 
4 SCR 20:1.3 provides:  "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
5 SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) provides:  "A lawyer shall promptly 
comply with reasonable requests by the client for information." 
6 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. 
2019AP1845-D   
 
8 
 
Attorney 
Crandall 
violated 
SCR 22.03(2)7 
and 
SCR 22.03(6),8 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h).9 
¶18 Attorney Crandall filed an answer to the OLR's 
complaint on October 31, 2019.   
¶19 A hearing was held before the referee on May 11, 2021.  
Two witnesses testified at the hearing:  Attorney Crandall and 
J.C.  J.C. was an angry witness, refused Attorney Crandall's 
request to refer to him as either Attorney Crandall or 
Mr. Crandall, 
claimed 
that 
after 
he 
terminated 
Attorney 
Crandall's representation no other lawyer would touch his case 
because Attorney Crandall had tainted it, although he refused to 
                                                 
7 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. 
8 SCR 
22.03(6) 
provides: 
 
"In 
the 
course 
of 
the 
investigation, the respondent's willful 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." 
9 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. 
2019AP1845-D   
 
9 
 
disclose the names of attorneys that he had tried to retain.  At 
the end of his testimony, J.C., said, "[y]ou're a bad person, 
dude.  You're a bad, bad individual. . . . I don't respect you.  
You screwed me over, . . . I'm telling you, you're a bad person, 
and I hope you're happy. . . . you're a treat.  You're a real 
tool, dude." 
¶20 The referee found that the OLR had established by 
clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that Attorney 
Crandall violated all of the professional rules of conduct 
detailed in the OLR's complaint.  As to the appropriate 
sanction, the referee agreed with the OLR that Attorney 
Crandall's license should be suspended for 60 days. 
¶21 The referee acknowledged that Attorney Crandall has a 
lengthy history of disciplinary matters, and the referee noted 
that this court generally follows the concept of progressive 
discipline.  However, the referee noted that J.C. was a very 
difficult witness who displayed extreme anger toward Attorney 
Crandall even though J.C. indicated he had been satisfied with 
Attorney Crandall's handling of prior legal matters.   
¶22 The 
referee 
also 
noted 
that 
Attorney 
Crandall 
indicated that during his representation of J.C. and L.S., he 
was experiencing family health issues that included taking care 
of his father who was suffering from dementia, and he was trying 
to balance his law practice with his family responsibilities.  
The referee said these factors caused Attorney Crandall to be 
distracted and impacted his ability to manage his client 
responsibilities although they did not relieve him of meeting 
No. 
2019AP1845-D   
 
10 
 
those responsibilities.  The referee said although Attorney 
Crandall's family situation was not necessarily a mitigating 
factor for the misconduct, it did at least explain, to some 
extent, some of the conduct. 
¶23 The referee noted that Attorney Crandall's prior 
disciplinary matters involved conduct somewhat similar to what 
occurred in this case, i.e. neglect of client matters, failing 
to communicate with clients, failing to return client files in a 
timely 
manner, 
and 
failing 
to 
cooperate 
with 
the 
OLR's 
investigation.  Although Attorney Crandall had suggested that a 
public reprimand would be an appropriate level of discipline, 
the referee said a reprimand would minimize the significance of 
Attorney 
Crandall's 
prior 
disciplinary 
history 
and 
the 
similarity of his past violations to the ones at issue here.  
The referee said even though the record would support a longer 
suspension, given the circumstances surrounding the entire 
matter, the referee deemed a 60-day suspension appropriate. 
¶24 We will affirm a referee's findings of fact unless 
they are clearly erroneous.  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. 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶25 There is no showing that any of the referee's findings 
of fact are clearly erroneous and we adopt them.  We also agree 
No. 
2019AP1845-D   
 
11 
 
with the referee's legal conclusions that Attorney Crandall 
violated the Supreme Court Rules noted above. 
¶26 With respect to the appropriate sanction, upon careful 
consideration, we agree that a 60-day suspension of Attorney 
Crandall's law license is appropriate.  We reach this conclusion 
in spite of the fact that this is Attorney Crandall's sixth 
disciplinary proceeding, and, as the referee pointed out, there 
does 
appear 
to 
be 
a 
common 
theme 
running 
through 
the 
proceedings, which is Attorney Crandall's failure to perform the 
work for which he was hired. 
¶27 We note, however, that it has been ten years since 
Attorney Crandall's last suspension, and the misconduct at issue 
in this case does not appear to rise to the level of the 
misconduct that gave rise to that five-month suspension. 
¶28 Although no two disciplinary matters are identical, 
the imposition of a 60-day suspension is somewhat similar to the 
sanction imposed in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Harris, 2021 WI 31, 396 Wis. 2d 374, 956 N.W.2d 891, in which an 
attorney who had six prior disciplinary cases received a 60-day 
suspension for four counts of misconduct that involved failing 
to keep his clients informed about the status of their cases and 
failing to meet basic requirements with respect to court filings 
and court dates.  In addition, this case is somewhat analogous 
to in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hudec, 2019 WI 39, 
386 Wis. 2d 371, 925 N.W.2d 540.  In that case, an attorney who 
had been a subject of five prior disciplinary proceedings 
received a 60-day suspension for six counts of misconduct 
No. 
2019AP1845-D   
 
12 
 
involving 
failing 
to 
act 
with 
reasonable 
diligence 
and 
promptness in representing a client and failing to keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of the matter.  Based on 
the particular circumstances of this case, and guided by past 
precedent, we conclude that a 60-day suspension of Attorney 
Crandall's license is an appropriate sanction. 
¶29 As is our normal practice, we deem it appropriate to 
impose the full costs of this proceeding on Attorney Crandall. 
¶30 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Eric L. Crandall to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective February 1, 2022. 
¶31 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Eric L. Crandall shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the full costs of this proceeding, which are 
$5,824.25 as of October 6, 2021. 
¶32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Eric L. Crandall 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. 
¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2).  
 
No. 
2019AP1845-D   
 
 
 
1