Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Amoun Vang Sayaovong

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2015AP000680-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2015-11-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
2015 WI 100 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2015AP680-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 HEARINGS AGAINST SAYAOVONG 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 18, 2015 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2015 WI 100
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2015AP680-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 
 
NOV 18, 2015 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   On August 3, 2015, Referee James R. 
Erickson issued a report recommending that Attorney Amoun Vang 
Sayaovong be declared in default and that his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for a period of six 
months. 
¶2 
We declare Attorney Sayaovong to be in default.  We 
further agree with the referee that Attorney Sayaovong's 
professional misconduct warrants a six-month suspension of his 
No. 
2015AP680-D   
 
2 
 
license to practice law in Wisconsin.  In addition, we follow 
our usual practice and order Attorney Sayaovong to pay the full 
costs of the proceeding, which are $852.43 as of August 20, 
2015. 
¶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 Saint Paul, Minnesota.  However, there is 
no such address in Saint Paul.  Attorney Sayaovong has also 
listed a Milwaukee address in previous correspondence.  
¶4 
In 2014, Attorney Sayaovong was publicly reprimanded 
for misconduct in two separate client matters consisting of 
failing to advance a client's interests, failing to have a 
written fee agreement setting forth the rate for his fee, 
failing to hold an advanced fee in trust, failing on termination 
of representation to timely provide an itemized statement as to 
legal services rendered, and failing to cooperate with the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation's (OLR) investigation.  In re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Sayaovong, 
2014 
WI 
94, 
357 Wis. 2d 312, 850 N.W.2d 940.  On February 19, 2014, Attorney 
Sayaovong's license to practice law in Wisconsin was temporarily 
suspended for his willful failure to cooperate in the OLR 
investigation concerning his conduct that underlies the present 
proceeding.  In addition, Attorney Sayaovong's Wisconsin law 
license is administratively suspended for failure to pay 
mandatory bar dues and failure to comply with continuing legal 
education requirements.   
No. 
2015AP680-D   
 
3 
 
¶5 
On April 6, 2015, the OLR filed a complaint against 
Attorney Sayaovong alleging six counts of misconduct.   
¶6 
The OLR's complaint alleged four counts of misconduct 
with respect to Attorney Sayaovong's representation of P.S. and 
C.S., who Attorney Sayaovong represented in an accident case 
against J.N. in 2009.  In November 2010, a judgment of $6,500 
was entered against J.N.  The judgment included $500 in 
statutory attorney's fees.  In April 2011, Attorney Sayaovong 
started garnishment proceedings in the case.  In June 2011, 
Attorney Sayaovong collected the $500 in statutory attorney's 
fees from J.N. through garnishing his wages. 
¶7 
Beginning in early July 2011, J.N.'s employer sent 
Attorney Sayaovong garnishment checks every two weeks.  Attorney 
Sayaovong did not notify his clients upon his receipt of the 
garnished funds, but he issued checks to them periodically.  
Attorney Sayaovong did not deposit a garnishment check issued 
January 27, 2012, and did not send a corresponding check to his 
clients.  Although the clients later questioned Attorney 
Sayaovong about the missing payment, he never forwarded funds 
from that garnishment to them.  In May 2012, the clients stopped 
receiving regular payments from Attorney Sayaovong. 
¶8 
By mid-July 2012, J.N. was no longer employed, but he 
agreed to make payments to Attorney Sayaovong.  Attorney 
Sayaovong did not communicate this information to his clients 
until over a month after he made the agreement with J.N.  In 
September 2012, Attorney Sayaovong sent the clients a check for 
No. 
2015AP680-D   
 
4 
 
payments he had received from May through August 2012.  The 
clients received no further payments from Attorney Sayaovong. 
¶9 
In September 2012, Attorney Sayaovong told the clients 
that he was negotiating with J.N. to have him pay the clients 
directly.  The clients never received any payments from J.N. 
¶10 Attorney Sayaovong was frequently unresponsive to the 
clients' emails and telephone calls.  When Attorney Sayaovong 
did respond to the clients, he wrote that he was still waiting 
for J.N. to provide him with financial information.  Although 
the clients asked Attorney Sayaovong for an accounting of the 
funds he had received for them concerning J.N., Attorney 
Sayaovong never provided an accounting.  
¶11 The clients filed a grievance with the OLR in May 
2013.  The OLR wrote to Attorney Sayaovong at several addresses 
via regular and certified mail, requesting certain information 
and a response to the grievance.  The certified and regular mail 
letters were returned.  Attorney Sayaovong never responded.  In 
October 2013, the OLR made multiple attempts to have Attorney 
Sayaovong personally served.  All attempts were unsuccessful.  
On November 5, 2013, the OLR emailed Attorney Sayaovong at his 
last known email address, notifying him of the clients' 
grievance and requesting a response.  Attorney Sayaovong did not 
respond.   
¶12 In December 2013, 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's 
investigation of the clients' grievance.  Attorney Sayaovong did 
No. 
2015AP680-D   
 
5 
 
not respond, and on February 19, 2014, this court temporarily 
suspended Attorney Sayaovong's license. 
¶13 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Sayaovong's representation 
of P.S. and C.S.: 
[Count One]  
By failing to timely pursue 
collection actions against [J.N.], Sayaovong violated 
[Supreme Court Rule (SCR)] 20:1.3.1 
[Count Two]  In failing to consistently keep the 
[clients] informed of collection efforts, and failing 
to return numerous phone calls or respond to various 
emails received from the [clients], Sayaovong violated 
SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4).2 
[Count Three]  By failing to consistently and 
promptly notify the [clients] of his receipt of funds 
received for their benefit, or provide them with an 
itemized accounting as to amounts that were collected, 
despite having received numerous requests from his 
clients 
that 
he 
do 
so, 
Sayaovong 
violated 
SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) and (d)(2).3 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.3 provides that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
2 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4) provide, respectively, that a 
lawyer shall "keep the client reasonably informed about the 
status of the matter" and shall "promptly comply with reasonable 
requests by the client for information." 
3 SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) and (2) provide: 
(1) Notice and disbursement. Upon receiving funds 
or other property in which a client has an interest, 
or in which the lawyer has received notice that a 3rd 
party has an interest identified by a lien, court 
order, 
judgment, 
or 
contract, 
the 
lawyer 
shall 
promptly notify the client or 3rd party in writing. 
Except as stated in this rule or otherwise permitted 
by law or by agreement with the client, the lawyer 
shall promptly deliver to the client or 3rd party any 
(continued) 
No. 
2015AP680-D   
 
6 
 
[Count Four]  In failing to provide to OLR a 
required written response to the [clients'] grievance, 
Sayaovong violated SCR 22.03(2)4 and SCR 22.03(6),5 
enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).6 
¶14 The OLR's complaint also alleged two additional counts 
of misconduct arising out of Attorney Sayaovong's representation 
                                                                                                                                                             
funds or other property that the client or 3rd party 
is entitled to receive.  
(2) Accounting. Upon final distribution of any 
trust property or upon request by the client or a 3rd 
party having an ownership interest in the property, 
the lawyer shall promptly render a full written 
accounting regarding the property. 
4 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. 
5 SCR 22.03(6) provides that "[i]n 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." 
6 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides that 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. 
2015AP680-D   
 
7 
 
of D&D Auto Services LLC (D&D).  On September 20, 2013, Attorney 
Yeng Kong Lee filed a small claims complaint for his client, 
C.L., against D&D.  On October 31, 2013, Attorney Sayaovong's 
Wisconsin law license was administratively suspended for failure 
to pay mandatory bar dues.  In December 2013, Attorney Sayaovong 
contacted Attorney Lee on behalf of D&D.  In January 2014, 
Attorney Sayaovong sent Attorney Lee a draft stipulation to 
settle the small claims lawsuit.  After Attorney Lee received 
the 
stipulation, 
he 
discovered 
that 
Attorney 
Sayaovong's 
Wisconsin law license was suspended and he filed a grievance 
with the OLR against Attorney Sayaovong.  
¶15 The OLR wrote to Attorney Sayaovong at various 
addresses via regular and certified mail, requesting a response 
to Attorney Lee's grievance.  The certified letters were 
returned, except for one sent to a group office, for which an 
unrelated person signed.  Two of the regular mail letters were 
also returned.  Attorney Sayaovong did not respond.  
¶16 The OLR's complaint set forth the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Sayaovong's dealings with 
Attorney Lee: 
[Count Five]  By preparing and sending a proposed 
stipulation to opposing counsel while his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin was suspended due to failure 
to 
pay 
mandatory 
bar 
dues, 
Sayaovong 
violated 
SCR 10.03(6)7 
and 
SCR 
22.26(2),8 
enforced 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(f).9 
                                                 
7 SCR 10.03(6) provides:  
(continued) 
No. 
2015AP680-D   
 
8 
 
[Count Six]  By failing to provide a written 
response to OLR in the matter of Attorney Lee's 
grievance, Sayaovong failed to cooperate with OLR's 
investigation, Sayaovong violated SCR 22.03(2) and 
SCR 22.03(6), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶17 On June 8, 2015, the OLR filed a motion for default 
judgment asking the referee to determine that the OLR had 
properly served Attorney Sayaovong by certified mail under 
SCR 22.13(1).  The motion further sought a determination that 
Attorney Sayaovong was in default by failing to timely file an 
answer to the complaint, and 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. 
                                                                                                                                                             
If the annual dues or assessments of any member 
remain unpaid 120 days after the payment is due, the 
membership of the member may be suspended in the 
manner provided in the bylaws; and no person whose 
membership is so suspended for nonpayment of dues or 
assessments may practice law during the period of the 
suspension. 
8 SCR 22.26(2) provides: 
An attorney whose license to practice law is 
suspended or revoked or who is suspended from the 
practice of law may not engage in this state in the 
practice 
of 
law 
or 
in 
any 
law 
work 
activity 
customarily done by law students, law clerks, or other 
paralegal personnel, except that the attorney may 
engage in law related work in this state for a 
commercial employer itself not engaged in the practice 
of law. 
9 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme 
court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers." 
No. 
2015AP680-D   
 
9 
 
¶18 The referee issued his decision on August 3, 2015, 
recommending that this court grant the OLR's motion for default 
judgment.  The referee deemed the allegations of the OLR's 
complaint established.  The referee recommended that Attorney 
Sayaovong's Wisconsin law license be suspended for six months.  
Attorney Sayaovong has not filed an appeal from the referee's 
report. 
¶19 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. 
¶20 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless 
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 
referee's recommendation.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.   
¶21 We agree with the referee that the allegations in the 
OLR's 
complaint 
have 
been 
established 
and 
that 
Attorney 
Sayaovong engaged in the six counts of misconduct alleged in the 
complaint.  We further agree that a six-month suspension of his 
license to practice law in Wisconsin is an appropriate sanction 
for his misconduct.  Although no two disciplinary matters are 
precisely 
the 
same, 
a 
six-month 
suspension 
is 
generally 
No. 
2015AP680-D   
 
10 
 
consistent with the sanction imposed in somewhat similar cases.  
See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Woods, 
2011 WI 46, 334 Wis. 2d 324, 800 N.W.2d 875; In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Mauch, 2010 WI 2, 322 Wis. 2d 79, 
777 N.W.2d 637.  As is our usual practice, we deem it 
appropriate to order Attorney Sayaovong to pay the full costs of 
the proceeding. 
¶22 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Amoun Vang Sayaovong 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six 
months, effective the date of this order. 
¶23 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 
$852.43. 
¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Amoun Vang Sayaovong shall comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an attorney 
whose license to practice law has been suspended. 
¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.29(4)(c).  
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the temporary suspension of 
Amoun Vang Sayaovong's license to practice law issued on 
February 19, 2014, is hereby lifted. 
¶27 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
administrative 
suspension of Amoun Vang Sayaovong's license to practice law due 
No. 
2015AP680-D   
 
11 
 
to his failure to pay mandatory bar dues and failure to comply 
with continuing legal education requirements remains in effect. 
 
No. 
2015AP680-D   
 
 
 
1