Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. James T. Runyon

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2019AP001154-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2020-09-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
2020 WI 74 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2019AP1154-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
AgainstJames T. Runyon, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
v. 
 
James T. Runyon, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST RUNYON 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
September 9, 2020   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam. 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2020 WI 74
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2019AP1154-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against James T. Runyon, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
v. 
 
James T. Runyon, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
SEP 9, 2020 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review Referee L. Michael Tobin's 
report recommending that the court declare Attorney James T. 
Runyon in default and revoke his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin for professional misconduct.  The referee also 
recommends 
that 
Attorney 
Runyon 
make 
restitution 
to 
the 
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (Fund) and to 
certain clients.  
¶2 
No appeal has been filed so we review the referee's 
report pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.17(2).  After 
No. 
2019AP1154-D   
 
2 
 
review of the matter, we agree with the referee that, based on 
Attorney Runyon's failure to answer the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation's (OLR) complaint, the OLR is entitled to a default 
judgment.  We further agree with the referee that revocation of 
Attorney Runyon's license is an appropriate sanction for his 
professional misconduct.  We agree that Attorney Runyon should 
be required to make restitution to the Fund and certain clients 
and, finally, we conclude that he should be assessed the full 
costs of this proceeding which are $1,080.34 as of June 26, 
2020.  
¶3 
Attorney Runyon was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1978.  His professional disciplinary history in 
Wisconsin consists of: 
(a) A one-year suspension in 1984 for dishonest conduct, 
consisting of concealing fees from his law partners, and keeping 
them for himself.  Attorney Runyon also gave false testimony at 
a John Doe proceeding concerning the withholding of those funds. 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Runyon, 121 Wis. 2d 37, 
357 N.W.2d 545 (1984); 
(b) A 2006 private reprimand for dishonest conduct, based 
on Attorney Runyon entering into a separate agreement for fees 
without the knowledge or consent of his co-counsel in a products 
liability case.  Private Reprimand No. 2006-11 (electronic copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/ 
001883.html); 
(c) A 60-day suspension in 2015 for failing to hold client 
funds in trust, converting client funds to cover disbursements 
No. 
2019AP1154-D   
 
3 
 
to other clients, commingling personal funds in his trust 
account, and failing to keep necessary trust account records.  
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Runyon, 2015 WI 95, 365 
Wis. 2d 32, 870 N.W.2d 228; and 
(d) A 2017 public reprimand for misconduct for failing to 
give 
one 
client 
a 
written 
communication 
explaining 
the 
representation's scope or required fee information, failing to 
notify the client before removing fees from his trust account, 
and agreeing to pay another client's bills while she was 
incarcerated, but without explaining which bills he would pay, 
communicating his fee in writing, or promptly providing the 
client 
a 
complete 
accounting 
upon 
the 
close 
of 
the 
representation.  Attorney Runyon also failed to communicate his 
fee in writing to another client, withdrew the client's entire 
advanced fee before it was earned, and did not provide the 
necessary notice after the representation ended.  Public 
Reprimand of James T. Runyon, No. 2017-5 (electronic copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/ 
002958.html). 
¶4 
Attorney Runyon's law license is also administratively 
suspended for failure to pay state bar dues, failure to comply 
with Continuing Legal Education requirements, and failure to 
submit the required trust account certification. 
¶5 
On September 5, 2018, Attorney Runyon signed a power 
of attorney appointing an attorney-in-fact to assist him in 
closing his law practice.  On September 6, 2018, Attorney Runyon 
filed a petition seeking to voluntarily resign his Wisconsin law 
No. 
2019AP1154-D   
 
4 
 
license, then filed an amended petition asking the court to 
suspend his law license immediately and indefinitely due to an 
unexplained medical incapacity.  On October 9, 2018, this court 
temporarily suspended Attorney Runyon's Wisconsin law license 
for non-cooperation with the OLR, held Attorney Runyon's 
petition to voluntarily resign in abeyance, and denied his 
medical incapacity petition as premature.  His law license 
remains subject to the temporary suspension for noncooperation. 
¶6 
On June 26, 2019, the OLR filed a disciplinary 
complaint against Attorney Runyon alleging that he committed 23 
counts of professional misconduct in four client matters, and 
asking 
the 
court 
to 
revoke 
his 
law 
license 
and 
order 
restitution.  Attorney Runyon was personally served with the 
complaint and order to answer on June 28, 2019.  Referee James 
Erickson was appointed.  
¶7 
Attorney Runyon failed to respond to the OLR's 
complaint.  On October 4, 2019, the OLR filed a notice of motion 
and motion for default judgment, serving it upon Attorney Runyon 
at his last known addresses.  Attorney Runyon failed to file any 
written response to the motion and the OLR renewed its motion on 
January 21, 2020.1   
                                                 
1 The OLR filed an affidavit with its renewed motion for 
default judgment dated January 21, 2020, transcribing a voice 
mail message that Attorney Runyon left with the OLR stating his 
intent not to participate in this matter. 
No. 
2019AP1154-D   
 
5 
 
¶8 
Referee Erickson withdrew from the case and Referee L. 
Michael Tobin was appointed on March 16, 2020.2  On April 21, 
2020, Referee Tobin notified Attorney Runyon and counsel for the 
OLR by email of a scheduling conference and hearing on the 
default motion to be held on April 30, 2020.  Attorney Runyon 
failed to appear or participate. 
¶9 
On 
May 
21, 
2020, 
the 
referee 
issued 
a 
report 
recommending that this court grant the OLR's motion for default 
judgment, based upon Attorney Runyon's failure to file an answer 
or appear in the proceeding.  The referee found that the factual 
allegations of the OLR's complaint should be taken as true and 
proven by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence. The 
referee recommended revocation of Attorney Runyon's Wisconsin 
law license and the imposition of restitution as set forth 
herein. 
¶10 On May 29, 2020, the OLR filed a restitution statement 
confirming its request for the restitution, as recommended by 
the referee.  Attorney Runyon did not respond to the OLR's 
restitution statement. 
¶11 Attorney Runyon did not appeal from the referee's 
report and recommendation, so we proceed with our review of the 
matter pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).  We review a referee's findings 
of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 
                                                 
2 Referee Erickson waived any fees and expenses he might be 
entitled to in this matter. 
No. 
2019AP1154-D   
 
6 
 
Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125.  We review the referee's conclusions 
of law de novo.  Id.  We determine the appropriate level of 
discipline independent of the referee's recommendation. In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 
Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶12 We agree with the referee that Attorney Runyon should 
be declared in default.  In addition, the referee properly 
relied on the allegations of the complaint, which were deemed 
admitted by Attorney Runyon's failure to answer.  We therefore 
agree with the referee that the factual allegations of the OLR's 
complaint may be taken as true and they prove by clear, 
satisfactory, and convincing evidence that Attorney Runyon 
committed all of the counts of misconduct alleged in the 
complaint. 
¶13 With respect to the appropriate level of discipline, 
upon careful review of the matter, we agree with the referee's 
recommendation for revocation of Attorney Runyon's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin and the imposition of restitution.  We 
will merely summarize the allegations of misconduct for each 
separate client matter. 
Matter of A.D. and T.D. (Counts 1-5)   
¶14 In October 2017, Attorney Runyon was retained by two 
brothers, A.D. and T.D., to sell real estate held by the 
testamentary trust of their late mother.  The property was sold 
and proceeds of the sale were to be divided between the 
brothers.  On December 22, 2017, a title company sent Attorney 
Runyon a check for $135,785.42, payable to the P.A.T. Trust, 
No. 
2019AP1154-D   
 
7 
 
representing the proceeds from the sale of the property.  Over 
the next six months Attorney Runyon proceeded to empty this fund 
for his own benefit, while misrepresenting the status of the 
matter to his clients.  By July 9, 2018, Attorney Runyon's trust 
account held only $48.35 attributable to the P.A.T. Trust.  
Around the same time, Attorney Runyon mailed his clients a 
brochure from the Fund and a copy of the check from the real 
estate sale, indicating they could try to recover their funds 
from the Fund.  He then failed to respond to the OLR's requests 
for information about the grievance that ensued.   
Matter of S.S. (Counts 6-10)   
¶15 In October 2017, Attorney Runyon was retained by G.G. 
to 
represent 
S.S., 
a 
minor, 
regarding 
possible 
criminal 
allegations.  Attorney Runyon was paid $10,000 in advanced fees 
but did not provide his clients with a written fee agreement.  
Attorney Runyon deposited the $10,000 in advanced fees into his 
trust account then proceeded to disburse the funds for his own 
use.  Later that month, the Lincoln County District Attorney's 
Office closed its matter involving S.S. without filing charges. 
After some delay, Attorney Runyon told the clients he would 
return the advanced fee by August 11, 2018.  He failed to do so.  
Instead, he sent the clients a handwritten letter suggesting 
they seek reimbursement from the Fund.  The Fund eventually 
reimbursed G.G. for the fees paid on behalf of S.S. 
Matter of M.B. (Counts 11-18)  
¶16 In November of 2017, M.B. hired Attorney Runyon to 
recover $1,788.30 in erroneous fees incurred from Associated 
No. 
2019AP1154-D   
 
8 
 
Bank.  She paid Attorney Runyon a flat fee of $500 to commence a 
small claims action against Associated Bank.  Attorney Runyon 
did not give her any written communication regarding the fee.  
Attorney 
Runyon 
did 
file 
a 
small 
claims 
action 
against 
Associated Bank and the parties settled the matter for $1,788.30 
in exchange for dismissing the case.  However, Attorney Runyon 
did not notify the court of the settlement, and it eventually 
issued a default judgment against Associated Bank.  He then 
deposited the settlement check into his client trust account 
without 
informing 
his 
client 
that 
he 
had 
received 
the 
settlement.  He then proceeded to disburse most of the 
settlement funds for his own purposes, while falsely telling his 
client that he had not yet received the settlement funds. 
¶17 On February 6, 2018, Attorney Runyon told the client 
that the client could pick up a settlement check at Attorney 
Runyon's law office.  When the client went to Attorney Runyon's 
office the next day, Attorney Runyon offered a check for $1,000, 
which the client declined, asking for the full settlement, 
consistent with the initial agreement.  
¶18 The client commenced a small claims action against 
Attorney Runyon, who filed an answer claiming that M.B. owed him 
fees of $1,150 plus costs in her case.  He attached a false 
itemized statement in support of this misrepresentation.  He 
also failed to fully cooperate with the OLR's investigation into 
this matter.   
¶19 In August 2018, a court trial was conducted in M.B.'s 
small claims case against Attorney Runyon.  At the trial, 
No. 
2019AP1154-D   
 
9 
 
Attorney 
Runyon 
testified 
that 
he 
had 
not 
received 
the 
settlement funds by early January of 2018, and that he was owed 
an hourly fee.  The court rejected Attorney Runyon's arguments 
and granted judgment against him for $1,612.89, reflecting the 
Associated Bank settlement amount, less filing, service, and 
other costs.  Attorney Runyon never satisfied the judgment.  The 
Fund eventually reimbursed M.B. 
Matter of R.G. (Counts 19-23) 
¶20 In late July 2018, Attorney Runyon retained counsel to 
assist him with closing his practice.  Nonetheless, on August 7, 
2018, Attorney Runyon accepted representation of R.G. to 
negotiate a debt she owed.  She paid Attorney Runyon $1,835 in 
advance.  Attorney Runyon did not provide her with a written fee 
agreement and did not deposit the fees into his trust account.  
On or around September 24, 2018, Attorney Runyon falsely told 
R.G. that he was working on her matter.  R.G. tried contacting 
Attorney Runyon after that date, but his phone number had been 
disconnected.  Attorney Runyon has not refunded any of R.G.'s 
advanced payment.  The Fund eventually reimbursed R.G. 
¶21 The 
referee 
concluded 
that 
the 
OLR's 
complaint 
demonstrates that Attorney Runyon committed the 23 counts of 
misconduct, as alleged, involving four separate clients.  In so 
doing, Attorney Runyon committed eight counts of misconduct in 
violation of SCR 20:8.4(c)3 (Counts 2, 4, 7, 9, 14, 15, 19, and 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
No. 
2019AP1154-D   
 
10 
 
22).  He made a false statement to a tribunal in violation of 
SCR 20:3.3(a)(l)4 (Count 17). He engaged in multiple trust 
account violations, violating SCR 20:1.15(b)(1)5 (Counts 3, 13), 
SCR 20:1.15(e)(1)6 (Counts 1 and 12), and SCR 20:1.16(d)7 (Counts 
                                                 
4 SCR 20:3.3(a)(l) provides:  "A lawyer shall not knowingly 
make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to 
correct a false statement of material fact or law previously 
made to the tribunal by the lawyer."  
5 SCR 20:1.15(b)(l) provides: 
A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the 
lawyer's own property, that property of clients and 
3rd parties that is in the lawyer's possession in 
connection with a representation.  All funds of 
clients and 3rd parties paid to a lawyer or law firm 
in connection with a representation shall be deposited 
in one or more identifiable trust accounts. 
6 SCR 20:1.15(e)(l) provides:   
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 funds or other property 
that the client or 3rd party is entitled to receive. 
7 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. 
2019AP1154-D   
 
11 
 
10, 23). He violated rules pertaining to fee agreements, 
including SCR 20:1.5(a)8 (Count 16), SCR 20:1.5 (b)(1) and (2)9 
                                                 
8 SCR 20:1.5(a) provides: 
(a) A lawyer shall not make an agreement for, 
charge, 
or 
collect 
an 
unreasonable 
fee 
or 
an 
unreasonable amount for expenses. The factors to be 
considered in determining the reasonableness of a fee 
include the following:  
(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and 
difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill 
requisite to perform the legal service properly; 
(2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, 
that the acceptance of the particular employment will 
preclude other employment by the lawyer; 
(3) the fee customarily charged in the locality 
for similar legal services;  
(4) the amount involved and the results obtained;  
(5) the time limitations imposed by the client or 
by the circumstances;  
(6) the nature and length of the professional 
relationship with the client;  
(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of 
the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and  
(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent. 
9 SCR 20:1.5(b)(l) and (2) provides:  
(1) The scope of the representation and the basis 
or rate of the fee and expenses for which the client 
will be responsible shall be communicated to the 
client in writing, before or within a reasonable time 
after commencing the representation, except when the 
lawyer will charge a regularly represented client on 
the same basis or rate as in the past. If it is 
reasonably 
foreseeable 
that 
the 
total 
cost 
of 
representation to the client, including attorney's 
fees, will be $1000 or less, the communication may be 
No. 
2019AP1154-D   
 
12 
 
(Counts 6, 20), SCR 20:1.5(f)10 (Count 21), and SCR 20:1.5(h)(1)11 
(Counts 8 and 11).  In addition, for failing to cooperate with 
aspects of the disciplinary proceeding, Attorney Runyon violated 
                                                                                                                                                             
oral or in writing. Any changes in the basis or rate 
of the fee or expenses shall also be communicated in 
writing to the client. 
(2) If the total cost of representation to the 
client, including attorney's fees, is more than $1000, 
the purpose and effect of any retainer or advance fee 
that is paid to the lawyer shall be communicated in 
writing.  
10 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. 
11 SCR 20:1.5(h)(l) provides:   
At least five business days before the date on 
which a disbursement is made from a trust account for 
the purpose of paying fees, with the exception of 
contingent fees or fees paid pursuant to court order, 
a lawyer shall transmit to the client in writing all 
of the following: 
a. An itemized bill or other accounting showing 
the services rendered.  
b. Notice of the amount owed and the anticipated 
date of the withdrawal.  
c. A statement of the balance of the client's 
funds 
in 
the 
lawyer's 
trust 
account 
after 
the 
withdrawal. 
No. 
2019AP1154-D   
 
13 
 
SCR 22.03(2),12 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h)13 (Count 5) and 
SCR 22.03(6),14 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h) (Count 18). 
¶22 With respect to his recommendation that we revoke 
Attorney Runyon's law license, the referee found instructive In 
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Grogan, 2014 WI 39, 354 
Wis. 2d 659, 847 N.W.2d 817.  Attorney Grogan, like Attorney 
Runyon, had a prior disciplinary history.  This court revoked 
his law license for misappropriating the funds of several 
clients; lack of diligence; for engaging in dishonest and 
                                                 
12 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. 
13 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)." 
14 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." 
No. 
2019AP1154-D   
 
14 
 
fraudulent practices in multiple matters; and for failing to 
cooperate with the OLR's investigations into his misconduct.  
¶23 We adopt the referee's findings and conclusions and we 
declare Attorney Runyon in default and we revoke his law license 
and impose the restitution, as recommended.  The facts detailed 
in the complaint demonstrate a clear pattern of misconduct by 
Attorney Runyon and disregard for his obligations as an attorney 
in this state.  He converted thousands of dollars he had 
obtained from the clients or their relatives for his own use and 
failed to respond to the numerous grievances filed by his 
clients.  The severe sanction of the revocation of his license 
to practice law in Wisconsin must be imposed to protect the 
public from a repetition of this misconduct and to deter other 
attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct.  We further agree 
with the referee that Attorney Runyon must be held responsible 
for the $135,785.42 he owes to the P.A.T. Trust and for the 
amounts that the Fund had to pay to the clients harmed by his 
misconduct.  We further conclude that he shall bear the full 
costs of this disciplinary proceeding. 
¶24 IT IS ORDERED that the license of James T. Runyon to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this 
order. 
¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, James T. Runyon shall pay restitution of 
$135,785.42 to the P.A.T. Trust.  
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, James T. Runyon shall pay restitution to the 
No. 
2019AP1154-D   
 
15 
 
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection in the amount of 
$10,000 for the claims of S.S. and G.G.; $1,612.89 for M.B.'s 
claim; and $1,835 for R.G.'s claim. 
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, James T. Runyon shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $1,080.34 as 
of June 26, 2020. 
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that payment of restitution is 
to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation. 
¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that James T. Runyon shall 
comply, if he has not already done so, with the requirements of 
SCR 22.26 pertaining to the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked. 
¶30 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that James T. Runyon's petition 
for voluntary resignation of his law license, which was held in 
abeyance pending consideration of this disciplinary proceeding, 
is dismissed as moot. 
¶31 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J., did not participate. 
 
No. 
2019AP1154-D   
 
 
 
1