Case Title: OLR v. Alan R. Stewart

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2016AP000380-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2017-04-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
2017 WI 41 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2016AP380-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Alan R. Stewart, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Alan R. Stewart, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST STEWART 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 26, 2017 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
 
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2017 WI 41
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2016AP380-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Alan R. Stewart, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Alan R. Stewart, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 26, 2017 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of Referee William Eich approving a stipulation filed by the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Alan R. Stewart.  
Attorney Stewart stipulated to the facts underlying the ll 
counts of misconduct alleged in the OLR's complaint and joined 
the OLR in jointly recommending a nine-month suspension of 
Attorney Stewart's license to practice law in Wisconsin.  The 
referee agreed that a nine-month suspension was appropriate.   
No. 
2016AP380-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Upon careful review of this matter, we uphold the 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law and agree that 
a nine-month suspension is an appropriate sanction for Attorney 
Stewart's misconduct.  We also find it appropriate to impose the 
full costs of this proceeding, which are $645.46 as of February 
13, 2017, on Attorney Stewart.  We further agree that Attorney 
Stewart should reimburse the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client 
Protection (the Fund) in the amount of $4,400 for funds it paid 
to one client, and he should be required to pay restitution to 
F.W. in the amount of $8,000. 
¶3 
Attorney Stewart was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1992.  His current address is in Appleton, 
Wisconsin.  His law license has been suspended since February 
2015 for failure to cooperate in two OLR investigations.  His 
Wisconsin license is also suspended for failure to comply with 
continuing legal education requirements, failure to pay State 
Bar 
dues, 
and 
failure 
to 
file 
required 
trust 
account 
certifications.  On March 19, 2001, Attorney Stewart was 
initially registered as a patent attorney with the United States 
Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).  Attorney Stewart is not 
currently registered as a patent attorney with the USPTO.  As of 
July 16, 2015, he is registered only as a patent agent with the 
USPTO. 
¶4 
On February 24, 2016, the OLR filed a complaint 
against Attorney Stewart alleging 11 counts of misconduct.  The 
first six counts arose out of his representation of A.H. and 
C.H. (the Hs).  The Hs contacted Attorney Stewart in November 
No. 
2016AP380-D   
 
3 
 
2013 to discuss the possibility of hiring him to represent them 
in connection with patenting an invention.  In early January of 
2014, the Hs hired Attorney Stewart to draft and file a non-
provisional patent application.  They paid Attorney Stewart a 
$4,400 advanced fee to represent them in the matter. 
¶5 
Attorney Stewart never drafted the non-provisional 
patent application, and he failed to perform any meaningful work 
in the matter.  Attorney Stewart failed to respond to several 
telephone calls and emails from the Hs requesting information, 
and he did not keep the Hs reasonably informed about the status 
of their matter.  Attorney Stewart did not refund to the Hs the 
$4,400 advanced fee in spite of their multiple requests for a 
refund.  Attorney Stewart has not returned the Hs' product 
sample and papers even after they requested that he do so.  The 
Hs filed an application for reimbursement in the amount of 
$4,400 with the Fund, and in December 2014, the Fund approved 
payment to the Hs in that amount. 
¶6 
The Hs filed a grievance against Attorney Stewart in 
May 2014.  The OLR provided Attorney Stewart with written notice 
of its formal investigation of the grievance and of his duty to 
cooperate with the investigation of the grievance in September 
2014.  Attorney Stewart was informed that his written response 
to the grievance was to be submitted on or before October 6, 
2014.  Attorney Stewart did not respond.  He also failed to 
respond to a follow-up letter sent on October 13, 2014 that was 
sent by both certified and first class mail, nor did he respond 
to a November 19, 2014 letter that was personally served upon 
No. 
2016AP380-D   
 
4 
 
him.  In December 2014, the OLR filed with this court a notice 
of motion and motion requesting an order to show cause as to why 
Attorney Stewart's license should not be suspended for failing 
to cooperate in two OLR investigations.  This court issued an 
order requiring Attorney Stewart to show cause in writing why 
the OLR's motion should not be granted and his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin should not be temporarily suspended.  
Attorney Stewart failed to respond to this court's order.  On 
February 10, 2015, this court granted the OLR's motion and 
temporarily suspended Attorney Stewart's Wisconsin law license.  
His license remains temporarily suspended.   
¶7 
The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to his representation of the Hs:  
Count One:  By failing to complete and file the non-
provisional 
patent 
application, 
and 
by 
otherwise 
failing to act in furtherance of the Hs' interests, 
Attorney Stewart violated SCR 20:1.3.1 
Count Two: By failing to keep the Hs reasonably 
informed regarding the status of the matter, and by 
failing to respond to the Hs' several telephone calls 
and emails requesting information, Attorney Stewart 
violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4).2 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.3 provides:  "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
2 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides a lawyer shall: "(3) keep the 
client reasonably informed about the status of the matter." And 
(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests by the client for 
information . . . ." 
 
No. 
2016AP380-D   
 
5 
 
Count Three:  Having received a $4,400 advanced fee 
from the Hs to complete and file the non-provisional 
patent application, and thereafter by failing to do 
so, Attorney Stewart violated SCR 20:1.5(a).3 
Count Four:  Having received an advanced fee payment 
in contemplation of completing and filing the non-
provisional patent application, and thereafter failing 
to do so, rendering the advanced fee unearned, by 
failing to refund the advanced fee and return the 
product sample and papers to the Hs, Attorney Stewart 
violated SCR 20:1.16(d).4 
Count Five:  By misrepresenting to the Hs that he had 
completed the non-provisional patent application and 
sent it to them via email for their review, Attorney 
Stewart violated SCR 20:8.4(c).5 
Count Six: By failing to provide the OLR with a 
written response to the 
Hs' grievance, Attorney 
Stewart violated SCR 22.03(2)6 and (6),7 enforced by 
SCR 20:8.4(h).8 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:1.5(a) provides:  "A lawyer shall not make an 
agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an 
unreasonable amount for expenses." 
4 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.  
5 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to: . . . engage in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." 
6 SCR 22.03(2) provides: 
(continued) 
No. 
2016AP380-D   
 
6 
 
¶8 
The remaining counts of misconduct alleged in the 
OLR's complaint arose out of Attorney Stewart's representation 
of F.W., who hired Attorney Stewart in May of 2014 to draft and 
file a non-provisional patent application for her mechanical 
invention and to represent her in the intellectual property 
matter.  Attorney Stewart and F.W. had a written fee agreement 
which required F.W. to pay Attorney Stewart an $8,000 advanced 
fee, to be paid in two installments.  F.W. made the first 
advanced fee payment in the amount of $4,000 on or about May 1, 
                                                                                                                                                             
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 
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.   
7 SCR 
22.03(6) 
provides: 
 
"In 
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."  
8 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(6), or SCR 
22.04(1)." 
No. 
2016AP380-D   
 
7 
 
2014, and she made the second fee advanced fee payment in the 
amount of $4,000 on or about June 24, 2014.   
¶9 
Attorney Stewart never drafted the non-provisional 
patent application and failed to perform any meaningful work in 
F.W.'s intellectual property matter.  Attorney Stewart failed to 
respond 
to 
F.W.'s 
telephone 
calls 
and 
emails 
requesting 
information, and he did not otherwise keep F.W. informed about 
the status of her matter.  Attorney Stewart did not refund to 
F.W. the $8,000 advanced fee, and he failed to respond to her 
request for a refund.   
¶10 F.W. filed a grievance with the OLR in August 2014.  
The OLR provided Attorney Stewart with written notice of its 
formal investigation of the F.W. matter and his duty to 
cooperate 
with 
the 
investigation 
on 
September 
11, 
2014.  
Attorney Stewart failed to respond to the OLR's request for a 
written response.  He also failed to respond to an October 13, 
2014 follow-up letter sent by both certified and first class 
mail, nor did he respond to a letter that was personally served 
on him on November 19, 2014.  The OLR subsequently filed a 
notice of motion and motion requesting an order to show cause as 
to why Attorney Stewart's license should not be suspended for 
failing to cooperate in the F.W. and the Hs investigations.  As 
noted above, on February 10, 2015, this court issued an order 
granting the OLR's motion and temporarily suspending Attorney 
Stewart's law license. 
No. 
2016AP380-D   
 
8 
 
¶11 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Stewart's representation of 
F.W.: 
Count Seven:   By failing to draft and file the non-
provisional 
patent 
application, 
and 
by 
otherwise 
failing to act in furtherance of F.W.'s interests, 
Attorney Stewart violated SCR 20:1.3. 
Count Eight:   By failing to keep F.W. reasonably 
informed regarding the status of the matter, and by 
failing to respond to F.W.'s several telephone calls 
and emails requesting information, Attorney Stewart 
violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4). 
Count Nine:   Having received an $8,000 advanced fee 
from F.W. to draft and file the non-provisional patent 
application, and thereafter by failing to do so, 
Attorney Stewart violated SCR 20:1.5(a). 
Count Ten:  Having received an advanced fee payment in 
contemplation 
of 
drafting 
and 
filing 
the 
non-
provisional patent application, and thereafter failing 
to do so, rendering the advanced fee unearned, by 
failing to refund the advanced fee, Attorney Stewart 
violated SCR 20:1.16(d). 
Count Eleven:  By failing to provide the OLR with a 
written response to F.W.'s grievance, Attorney Stewart 
violated SCR 22.03(2) and (6), enforced by SCR 
20:8.4(h). 
¶12 On January 27, 2017, the OLR and Attorney Stewart 
entered into a stipulation whereby Attorney Stewart admitted the 
facts and all counts of misconduct alleged in the OLR complaint 
and agreed to the level of discipline sought by the OLR 
director, namely a nine-month suspension of his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin.  Attorney Stewart represented that he 
fully understands the misconduct allegations, fully understands 
the ramifications should this court impose the stipulated level 
No. 
2016AP380-D   
 
9 
 
of discipline, fully understands his right to contest the 
matter, fully understands his right to consult with and obtain 
counsel, and states that his entry into the stipulation is made 
knowingly and voluntarily.   
¶13 The referee issued his report and recommendation on 
January 25, 2017.  Based upon the parties' stipulation, the 
referee found that the OLR met its burden of proof with respect 
to all 11 counts of misconduct alleged in the complaint.  The 
referee concluded that the stipulated period of suspension of 
Attorney Stewart's law license was reasonable and appropriate.  
The referee also recommended, consistent with the stipulation, 
that Attorney Stewart be ordered to reimburse the Fund in the 
amount of $4,400 for the funds it paid to the Hs and that he be 
required to pay restitution to F.W. in the amount of $8,000.  
The referee further recommends that Attorney Stewart pay the 
full costs of the proceeding. 
¶14 This court will adopt the referee's findings of fact 
unless they are 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.   
¶15 We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law that Attorney Stewart violated the supreme 
court rules as alleged in the 11 counts set forth above.  We 
No. 
2016AP380-D   
 
10 
 
further agree with the referee that a nine-month suspension of 
Attorney Stewart's license to practice law in Wisconsin is an 
appropriate level of discipline.  Since no two cases are 
precisely the same, there is no standard sanction for any 
particular misconduct.  We note that in In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Smelzer, 2015 WI 97, 365 Wis. 2d 109, 870 
N.W.2d 830, an attorney's license was suspended for nine months 
for seven counts of misconduct, including failing to respond to 
a client's request for information; failing to keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter; and failing to 
cooperate with an OLR investigation.  We find the misconduct at 
issue here to be somewhat analogous to the misconduct in 
Smelzer, and we find a similar suspension to be appropriate.  We 
agree with the referee that Attorney Stewart should be required 
to reimburse the Fund and pay restitution to F.W., and we deem 
it appropriate, as is our usual custom, to impose the full costs 
of this disciplinary proceeding on Attorney Stewart. 
¶16 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Alan R. Stewart to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of nine 
months, effective the date of this order. 
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Alan R. Stewart shall reimburse the Wisconsin 
Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection in the amount of $4,400 and 
shall pay restitution to F.W. in the amount of $8,000. 
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Alan R. Stewart shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
No. 
2016AP380-D   
 
11 
 
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that reimbursement to the 
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection and restitution to 
F.W. shall be paid before the payment of costs to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation. 
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent that he has 
not already done so, Alan R. Stewart 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. 
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See SCR 
22.28(3).9 
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the temporary suspension of 
Attorney Stewart's license to practice law in Wisconsin, which 
was imposed on February 10, 2015 due to his willful failure to 
cooperate with the Office of Lawyer Regulation's investigation 
in this matter, is lifted. 
 
 
                                                 
9 In 
addition 
to 
obtaining 
reinstatement 
from 
the 
disciplinary suspension imposed by this order, before he is able 
to practice law in Wisconsin, Attorney Stewart will also be 
required to complete the procedures for reinstatement from the 
administrative suspensions currently in effect for failure to 
comply with the mandatory CLE reporting requirements, for 
failure to pay applicable bar dues and assessments, and for 
failure to file a trust account certificate. 
 
No. 
2016AP380-D   
 
 
 
1