Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Patrick J. Hudec

Citation: 2014 WI 46

Docket Number: 2013AP000360-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2014-07-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
2014 WI 46 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2013AP360-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Patrick J. Hudec , Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Patrick J. Hudec, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HUDEC 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 1, 2014 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
         
 
COUNTY: 
       
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
ABRAHAMSON, C.J., dissents. (Opinion filed.)   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
2014 WI 46
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2013AP360-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Patrick J. Hudec, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Patrick J. Hudec, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 1, 2014 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report filed by Referee 
Christine Harris Taylor which adopted a stipulation entered into 
between the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney 
Patrick J. Hudec.  The referee agreed that Attorney Hudec 
committed four counts of misconduct, as alleged in the OLR's 
complaint.  The referee further agreed with the parties that a 
public reprimand was an appropriate level of discipline for 
Attorney Hudec's misconduct.  Finally, the referee recommended 
No. 
2013AP360-D   
 
2 
 
that Attorney Hudec should be assessed the full costs of the 
proceeding, which are $1,625.14 as of January 23, 2014. 
¶2 
After careful review of the matter, we conclude that 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
are 
supported 
by 
clear, 
satisfactory, and convincing evidence.  We further adopt the 
referee's conclusions of law.  We agree that the appropriate 
discipline 
for 
Attorney 
Hudec's 
misconduct 
is 
a 
public 
reprimand.  Finally, we agree that Attorney Hudec should bear 
the full costs of this proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney Hudec was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1979.  The most recent address on file for him with 
the State Bar of Wisconsin is East Troy, Wisconsin. 
¶4 
In November of 1989, Attorney Hudec consented to a 
private 
reprimand 
for 
misconduct 
that 
included 
accepting 
representation that was adverse to a former client and which 
constituted a conflict of interest.  Private Reprimand No. 1989-
27. 
¶5 
In March of 1993, Attorney Hudec consented to a 
private reprimand for misconduct that included entering into a 
business transaction that was adverse to the financial interests 
of a client; engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation; and withholding material evidence 
in failing to cooperate with the investigation of the Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility, the predecessor to the 
OLR.  Private Reprimand No. 1993-4. 
¶6 
In May of 2001, Attorney Hudec consented to a third 
private reprimand for misconduct that included failing to obtain 
No. 
2013AP360-D   
 
3 
 
written 
consent 
to 
a 
potential 
conflict 
of 
interest 
in 
representing two clients and drafting a letter which contained a 
false statement of fact.  Private Reprimand No. 2001-OLR-15. 
¶7 
In March of 2008, Attorney Hudec consented to a public 
reprimand for misconduct that included failing to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, 
failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of 
a matter and promptly comply with requests for information, and 
failing to timely respond to OLR letters and telephone calls and 
to timely produce information requested by the OLR.  Public 
Reprimand of Patrick J. Hudec, No. 2008-OLR-2. 
¶8 
On February 13, 2013, the OLR filed a complaint 
alleging four counts of misconduct which occurred between 
November 2007 and January 2009.  The allegations of misconduct 
arose out of Attorney Hudec's representation of Roma II –
Waterford, LLC, et al. (Roma II), a corporation that owned a 
restaurant.  Roma II was the defendant in a lawsuit filed in 
Racine County circuit court.  Attorney Hudec signed an answer to 
the plaintiff's complaint and filed it on November 13, 2007.  
The answer was incomplete and responded to only the first of the 
four causes of action alleged in the complaint.  The paragraphs 
in the answer were misnumbered and started with paragraphs one 
through 11, then skipped to paragraphs 23 and 24.  There was no 
claim for relief in the answer. 
¶9 
On December 17, 2007, the plaintiff in the suit filed 
a motion for default judgment on the second, third, and fourth 
causes of action.  Two days later Attorney Hudec filed an 
No. 
2013AP360-D   
 
4 
 
amended answer and counterclaim.  At a hearing on the 
plaintiff's motion for default judgment, Attorney Hudec told the 
circuit court that the first answer he had filed had been a 
draft that was filed by mistake. 
¶10 Attorney Hudec further stated to the court that he had 
filed an affidavit in opposition to the defendant's default 
judgment motion.  Attorney Hudec retracted his representation 
about filing an affidavit in opposition to the motion when both 
the plaintiff's counsel and the court remarked they had not 
received the affidavit.  Electronic court records did not show a 
record of the affidavit referred to by Attorney Hudec. 
¶11 The circuit court granted the plaintiff's motion for a 
default judgment on the second, third, and fourth causes of 
action and did not discuss Attorney Hudec's amended answer in 
its decision.  Attorney Hudec filed a motion for reconsideration 
and a motion to vacate the default judgment.  Following a 
hearing, the circuit court signed a document entitled "Final 
Order" that stated the defendant's motions for reconsideration 
and to vacate the default judgment were denied and that a 
proposed order for judgment and judgment filed by the plaintiff 
was stayed pending appeal.  The circuit court's order did not 
say it was final for purposes of appeal.  No judgment was filed 
or entered. 
¶12 On June 5, 2008, Attorney Hudec filed an appeal on 
behalf of Roma II in the court of appeals.  He filed his brief 
on November 12, 2008.  Attorney Hudec alleged on appeal that the 
default judgment was unfair because the defendant's failure to 
No. 
2013AP360-D   
 
5 
 
answer three of the four causes of action was due to a mistake 
on Attorney Hudec's part.  The plaintiff filed his responsive 
appellate brief on December 1, 2008.  Attorney Hudec filed a 
reply brief on January 30, 2009, but failed to copy the 
plaintiff's counsel. 
¶13 Although the court of appeals ultimately reversed the 
circuit court since Attorney Hudec timely filed an amended 
answer that joined issue as to all causes of action, the court 
of appeals criticized statements made by Attorney Hudec at the 
motion hearing in circuit court.  The court of appeals referred 
to Attorney Hudec's "lack of attention to detail."  The court of 
appeals also said Attorney Hudec's conduct was "egregious."  The 
court of appeals further found that Attorney Hudec incorrectly 
stated the standard of review as being de novo, whereas the 
correct standard of review was whether the lower court's 
decision was an erroneous exercise of discretion. 
¶14 The court of appeals also said Attorney Hudec's 
"mistake" in signing and filing an incomplete answer appeared 
"not to be an isolated incident but a pattern of gross and 
inexcusable inattention to details."  The court of appeals 
sanctioned Attorney Hudec for intentionally including materials 
not appropriate to the appeal, including an administrative 
decision which postdated the decision being appealed and for 
intentionally including materials the court deemed "salacious."  
The court of appeals imposed a $500 penalty as a sanction. 
¶15 The court of appeals also found that Attorney Hudec 
failed to serve a copy of the reply brief on the respondent as 
No. 
2013AP360-D   
 
6 
 
required by Wis. Stat. § 809.19(8).  The court of appeals also 
chastised 
Attorney 
Hudec 
for 
failing 
to 
proofread 
his 
submissions and said, "Frankly, we are at a loss to understand 
what is clearly Hudec's intentional disregard of the rules and 
the details, including his failure to proofread." 
¶16 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct: 
 
[COUNT 1] By engaging in what the Court of 
Appeals later described as "a pattern of gross and 
inexcusable inattention to details," including the 
signing and filing of an incomplete answer in the 
[Racine County circuit court] litigation; incorrectly 
informing the circuit court that he had filed an 
affidavit in opposition to the plaintiff's motion for 
default judgment; and stating a presumption that his 
"testimony" was under oath, while making an argument 
to the court (as opposed to testifying as a witness), 
[Attorney] Hudec violated SCR 20:1.1.1 
 
[COUNT 2] When, as described by the Court of 
Appeals, [Attorney] Hudec continued at the appellate 
level to engage in "egregious conduct," including 
failing to ensure that a proper final order or 
judgment was in the record when he filed his notice of 
appeal; misstating the standard of review of a default 
judgment; 
filing 
a 
principal 
brief 
rife 
with 
grammatical and spelling errors; including in his 
principal brief a statement of facts that included 
facts not germane to the issues on appeal; and filing 
a reply brief that was struck as untimely and which 
was not served on opposing counsel, [Attorney] Hudec 
violated SCR 20:1.1. 
 
[COUNT 3] By including in his principal appellate 
brief facts that were described by the Court of 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.1 states, "A lawyer shall provide competent 
representation to a client.  Competent representation requires 
the 
legal 
knowledge, 
skill, 
thoroughness 
and 
preparation 
reasonably necessary for the representation."  
No. 
2013AP360-D   
 
7 
 
Appeals as "salacious," not germane to the issues on 
appeal, and which "could only have been included to 
prejudice [the plaintiff,"] [Attorney] Hudec violated 
SCR 20:3.1(a)(3).2 
 
[COUNT 4] By failing to serve opposing counsel 
with a copy of the reply brief that he filed in the 
Court of Appeals thereby engaging in an ex parte 
communication 
with 
the 
court, 
[Attorney] 
Hudec 
violated SCR [20:3.5(b)].3 
¶17 Attorney Hudec filed an answer to the complaint on 
April 5, 2013.  Christine Harris Taylor was appointed as referee 
on April 15, 2013. 
¶18 On October 11, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation 
whereby Attorney Hudec agreed that each factual allegation in 
the OLR's complaint was accurate and admitted.  He further 
admitted and stipulated to his commission of each of the four 
counts of misconduct alleged in the complaint.  The parties 
stipulated an appropriate level of discipline to impose in 
response to Attorney Hudec's misconduct was a public reprimand. 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:3.1(a)(3) states that in representing a client, a 
lawyer shall not "file a suit, assert a position, conduct a 
defense, delay a trial or take other action on behalf of the 
client when the lawyer knows or when it is obvious that such an 
action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure 
another." 
3 SCR 20:3.5(b) states a lawyer shall not: 
[C]ommunicate ex parte with such a person during 
the proceeding unless authorized to do so by law or 
court order or for scheduling purposes if permitted by 
the court.  If communication between a lawyer and 
judge has occurred in order to schedule the matter, 
the lawyer involved shall promptly notify the lawyer 
for 
the 
other 
party 
or 
the 
other 
party, 
if 
unrepresented, of such communication; . . . . 
No. 
2013AP360-D   
 
8 
 
¶19 The referee issued her findings of fact, conclusions 
of law, and recommendation for discipline on December 4, 2013.  
The referee adopted the stipulation filed by the parties and 
found that the OLR had met its burden of proof with respect to 
the four counts of misconduct alleged in the complaint.  The 
referee also agreed with the parties that a public reprimand was 
an appropriate sanction.  While the referee noted that Attorney 
Hudec has previously received three private reprimands and one 
public reprimand, the referee pointed out that the current 
disciplinary complaint was based upon a referral to the OLR from 
the court of appeals, District II, and there was no direct 
reference in the record as to whether Attorney Hudec's conduct 
or deficiencies harmed his client.  The referee also recommended 
that Attorney Hudec should be assessed the full costs of the 
proceeding. 
¶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 There is no showing that any of the referee's findings 
of fact are erroneous.  Accordingly, we adopt them.  We also 
agree with the referee's conclusions of law that Attorney Hudec 
violated the supreme court rules set forth above.  We further 
agree with the referee that a public reprimand is an appropriate 
No. 
2013AP360-D   
 
9 
 
sanction for the misconduct at issue here.  Finally, we agree 
with the referee that Attorney Hudec should be required to pay 
the full costs of the proceeding, which are $1,625.14. 
¶22 IT IS ORDERED that Patrick J. Hudec is publicly 
reprimanded for professional misconduct. 
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Patrick J. Hudec shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the director of the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation shall advise the court if there has not 
been full compliance with all conditions of this order. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
No.  2013AP360-D.ssa 
 
1 
 
 
¶25 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.   (dissenting).  I would 
not adopt the stipulation that imposes a public reprimand.  The 
court of appeals characterized Attorney Hudec's conduct as 
demonstrating "a pattern of gross and inexcusable inattention to 
details."  Attorney Hudec has in the past been the subject of 
three private reprimands and one public reprimand.  A public 
reprimand in the present case does not comport with the 
violation of the Code or the concept of progressive discipline. 
 
 
No.  2013AP360-D.ssa 
 
 
 
1