Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Zachary T. Krogman

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2015AP001422-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2015-12-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
2015 WI 113 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2015AP1422-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against   
Zachary T. Krogman, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Zachary T. Krogman, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KROGMAN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 23, 2015 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
ABRAHAMSON, A.W. BRADLEY, J.J., dissent. 
(Opinion Filed) 
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2015 WI 113
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2015AP1422-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Zachary T. Krogman, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Zachary T. Krogman, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
DEC 23, 2015 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a stipulation pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12 between the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Zachary T. Krogman.  In the 
stipulation, Attorney Krogman agrees with the OLR's position 
that his misconduct warrants the imposition of a four-month 
suspension of his license to practice law in Wisconsin.  
Attorney Krogman also agrees with the OLR's position that 
No. 
2015AP1422-D   
 
 
 
2 
 
 
 
certain conditions should be imposed upon the reinstatement of 
his license to practice law in Wisconsin. 
¶2 
After fully reviewing the stipulation and the facts of 
this matter, we accept the stipulation and impose the four-month 
suspension jointly requested by the parties.  We also find it 
appropriate to impose the recommended conditions upon the 
reinstatement of Attorney Krogman's license to practice law.  
Finally, in light of the parties' stipulation and the fact that 
no referee needed to be appointed, we do not impose any costs 
upon Attorney Krogman. 
¶3 
Attorney Krogman was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2011 and practices in Stevens Point.  He has no 
prior disciplinary history.   
¶4 
On July 16, 2015, the OLR filed a complaint alleging 
22 counts of professional misconduct.  On September 18, 2015, 
Attorney Krogman entered into a stipulation whereby he agrees 
that the factual allegations in the OLR's complaint are accurate 
and that he committed the professional misconduct charged in the 
complaint.  The stipulation states that Attorney Krogman fully 
understands the nature of the misconduct allegations against 
him, 
his 
right 
to 
contest 
those 
allegations, 
and 
the 
ramifications that would follow from this court's imposition of 
the stipulated level of discipline.  The stipulation also 
indicates that Attorney Krogman understands his right to 
counsel.  Attorney Krogman verifies that he is entering into the 
No. 
2015AP1422-D   
 
 
 
3 
 
 
 
stipulation knowingly and voluntarily and that his entry into 
the stipulation represents his decision not to contest this 
matter.   
Matter of T.M. (Counts 1-5) 
¶5 
In July 2013, T.M. hired Attorney Krogman to represent 
him in a divorce action.  Attorney Krogman filed a summons and 
petition in the case.  The court scheduled a temporary hearing 
for November 4, 2013, and a stipulated divorce hearing for 
February 10, 2014.  T.M.'s wife did not appear for the temporary 
hearing, so the hearing could not proceed.  On November 6, 2013, 
Attorney James Kurth notified Attorney Krogman that Attorney 
Kurth represented T.M.'s wife.  Between December 2013 and 
February 2014, T.M. left multiple telephone messages for 
Attorney Krogman and sent him multiple emails asking that 
Attorney Krogman communicate with him about the status of the 
case.  Attorney Krogman failed to respond.  Attorney Krogman 
also failed to respond to Attorney Kurth's requests for a copy 
of T.M.'s financial disclosure statement.   
¶6 
On February 7, 2014, Attorney Krogman admitted himself 
to a medical treatment facility for in-patient treatment.  On 
February 10, 2014, the day of the scheduled divorce hearing, 
Attorney Krogman's mother-in-law and legal assistant told T.M. 
by phone that Attorney Krogman would be unable to appear at the 
hearing because he was having medical problems and would be out 
of the office for four to six weeks.  T.M. hired successor 
No. 
2015AP1422-D   
 
 
 
4 
 
 
 
counsel to represent him in the divorce action.  While 
representing T.M., Attorney Krogman disbursed advanced fees from 
his trust account without providing T.M. with the required 
written notice at least five days prior to removing the funds.  
Attorney Krogman failed to file a timely response to the OLR's 
requests for information regarding the grievance T.M. filed 
against Attorney Krogman. 
¶7 
The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Krogman's representation of 
T.M.: 
[Count 1]  By failing to advance [T.M.'s] 
interests in obtaining a timely divorce, including by:  
(i) failing to timely effect service on the opposing 
party; (ii) failing to provide a financial disclosure 
statement to opposing counsel; and/or, (iii) failing 
to timely take the steps necessary to engage in 
settlement discussions with opposing counsel, Krogman 
violated SCR 20:1.3.1 
[Count 2]  By failing to adequately communicate 
with [T.M.] regarding the status of his case, Krogman 
violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3).2 
[Count 3]  By failing to timely respond to 
[T.M.'s] attempts to obtain information regarding his 
case, Krogman violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(4).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) provides that a lawyer shall "keep the 
client reasonably informed about the status of the matter." 
3 SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) provides that a lawyer shall "promptly 
comply with reasonable requests by the client for information." 
No. 
2015AP1422-D   
 
 
 
5 
 
 
 
[Count 4]  By disbursing advanced fees from trust 
without first providing [T.M.] with timely written 
notice of his intent to do so, Krogman violated 
SCR 20:1.15(g)(1).4 
[Count 5]  By failing to timely provide the 
information and records requested by OLR's March 13, 
2014 and April 24, 2014, letters, Krogman violated 
SCR 22.03(2)5 
and 
SCR 
22.03(6),6 
enforceable 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(h).7 
                                                 
4 SCR 20:1.15(g)(1) provides: 
At least 5 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, 
the 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; and  
c. a statement of the balance of the client's 
funds 
in 
the 
lawyer 
trust 
account 
after 
the 
withdrawal. 
5 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 
(continued) 
No. 
2015AP1422-D   
 
 
 
6 
 
 
 
Matter of B.Y. and B.Y. (Counts 6-9) 
¶8 
In January 2013, B.Y. and her husband, B.Y., hired 
Attorney Krogman to represent them in facilitating Mr. Y.'s 
adoption of Mrs. Y.'s minor daughter.  The Y.s and Attorney 
Krogman entered into a written advanced fee agreement.  The 
child's father signed the advanced fee agreement as guarantor 
and paid Attorney Krogman an initial advanced fee of $500.  The 
parties agreed that Attorney Krogman would directly bill the 
child's father related to Attorney Krogman's representation of 
the Y.s.  Attorney Krogman filed a petition for termination of 
parental rights and a petition for adoptive placement in Wood 
County Circuit Court.   
¶9 
The Y.s moved to Sauk County before a required home 
study could be arranged.  In April 2013, Attorney Krogman sent 
the Y.s a petition for adoption, petition for termination of 
                                                                                                                                                             
questions, 
furnish 
documents, 
and 
present 
any 
information deemed relevant to the investigation. 
6 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." 
7 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. 
2015AP1422-D   
 
 
 
7 
 
 
 
parental rights, and related documents, to be filed in Sauk 
County, for their review and signature.  On April 30, 2013, 
Attorney Krogman sent the child's father a letter, with a copy 
sent to the Y.s, saying that since Attorney Krogman had not 
received monthly payments on the outstanding balance, he would 
need to terminate representation in the matter.  Attorney 
Krogman received $125 from the child's father on August 25, 
2013. 
 
In 
September 
2013, 
Attorney 
Krogman 
resumed 
representation of the Y.s.  Attorney Krogman failed to file the 
petition for adoption and petition for termination of parental 
rights with the Sauk County Circuit Court and took no further 
action in the case.  The Y.s hired successor counsel to 
represent them.   
¶10 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Krogman's representation of 
the Y.s: 
[Count 6]  By failing after December 10, 2013 to 
advance the [Y.s'] interests in securing [Mr. Y's] 
adoption 
of 
the 
minor 
child, 
Krogman 
violated 
SCR 20:1.3. 
[Count 7]  By failing to respond to the [Y.s'] 
requests for information after December 10, 2013, 
Krogman violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(4). 
[Count 8]  By disbursing advanced fees from trust 
without first timely providing the [Y.s] and/or [the 
child's father] with written notice of his intent to 
do so, Krogman violated SCR 20:1.15(g)(1). 
[Count 9]  By failing to timely provide the 
information and records requested by OLR's March 13, 
No. 
2015AP1422-D   
 
 
 
8 
 
 
 
2014, and April 24, 2014, letters, Krogman violated 
SCR 
22.03(2) 
and 
SCR 
22.03(6), 
enforceable 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(h). 
Matter of J.L. (Count 10) 
¶11 In 
April 
2014, 
J.L. 
hired 
Attorney 
Krogman 
to 
represent her in her pending divorce action.  J.L. and Attorney 
Krogman entered into a written advanced fee agreement.  J.L. 
paid Attorney Krogman an initial advanced fee of $1,000.  
Attorney Krogman drafted and circulated a stipulation and 
temporary order to be filed with the court, and he sent J.L.'s 
husband discovery requests and a blank financial disclosure 
statement.  On June 2, 2014, the Board of Bar Examiners (BBE) 
suspended 
Attorney 
Krogman's 
license 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin due to his failure to comply with continuing legal 
education (CLE) reporting requirements.  Attorney Krogman failed 
to notify J.L. of his suspension, and he failed to notify the 
court of the suspension until December 22, 2014. 
¶12 The OLR's complaint set forth the following count of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Krogman's representation of 
J.L.:  "[Count 10]  By disbursing advance fees from trust 
without first timely providing [J.L.] with written notice of his 
intent to do so, Krogman violated SCR 20:1.15(g)(1)." 
Matter of G.B. (Counts 11-13) 
¶13 In 
April 
2014, 
G.B. 
hired 
Attorney 
Krogman 
to 
represent him in appealing an order modifying child support.  
Attorney Krogman provided G.B. with a written advanced fee 
No. 
2015AP1422-D   
 
 
 
9 
 
 
 
agreement, which G.B. did not sign.  G.B. paid Attorney Krogman 
an advanced $500 fee by credit card.  Attorney Krogman filed a 
motion for and notice of new (de novo) hearing with the court on 
G.B.'s behalf and contacted the court to schedule a hearing on 
the motion.  On May 1, 2014, Attorney Krogman sent G.B. a letter 
requesting an additional $312.50 in advanced fees, which G.B. 
paid by credit card on May 8, 2014.  Attorney Krogman took no 
further action on G.B.'s case.  Attorney Krogman failed to 
notify G.B. that his license to practice law in Wisconsin was 
suspended on June 2, 2014, nor did he notify the court of his 
suspension until November 24, 2014.  Attorney Krogman failed to 
respond to numerous phone calls from G.B. inquiring about the 
status of the case.  Attorney Krogman failed to appear at a 
scheduling conference and did not advise G.B. that he could not 
appear or that G.B. should be prepared to represent himself or 
seek alternate legal representation.  Attorney Krogman likewise 
did not notify opposing counsel or the court that he did not 
intend to appear at the scheduling conference.   
¶14 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Krogman's representation of 
G.B.: 
[Count 11]  By failing to advise [G.B.] that he 
could not appear for the July 17, 2014, Scheduling 
Conference and that [G.B.] should be prepared to 
No. 
2015AP1422-D   
 
 
 
10 
 
 
 
represent 
himself 
or 
seek 
alternative 
legal 
representation, Krogman violated SCR 20:1.16(d).8 
[Count 12]  By disbursing advanced fees from 
trust without first timely providing [G.B.] with 
written notice of his intent to do so, Krogman 
violated SCR 20:1.15(g)(1). 
[Count 13]  By failing to timely provide the 
information and records requested by OLR's August 15, 
2014 
and 
September 
17, 
2014 
[letters], 
Krogman 
violated SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6), enforceable 
via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
Matter of J.N. (Count 14) 
¶15 On November 14, 2013, Attorney Krogman represented 
J.N. at a final divorce hearing in Marathon County Circuit 
Court.  Following the hearing, Attorney Krogman was responsible 
for submitting the divorce paperwork.  He neglected to file most 
of the documents.   
¶16 The OLR's complaint alleged the following count of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Krogman's representation of 
J.N.:  "[Count 14]  By failing between November 14, 2013 and 
                                                 
8 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. 
2015AP1422-D   
 
 
 
11 
 
 
 
June 2, 2014, to file the Findings of Fact, and related 
documents 
[in 
J.N.'s 
divorce 
case], 
Krogman 
violated 
SCR 20:1.3." 
Misconduct Related to License Suspension (Counts 15-18) 
¶17 Prior to June 2, 2014, Attorney Krogman received 
written notice from the BBE that his license would be suspended 
on June 2, 2014, if he failed to comply with CLE reporting 
requirements for the 2012-13 reporting period.  Attorney Krogman 
failed to comply with the CLE reporting requirements and his 
license to practice law in Wisconsin was suspended on June 2, 
2014.  Attorney Krogman failed to send written notice of his 
suspension, by certified mail, to any of his clients in pending 
matters.  He also failed to timely send written notice of his 
suspension and inability to act as an attorney to any opposing 
counsel or courts in pending matters. 
¶18 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct related to Attorney Krogman's June 2, 2014 license 
suspension: 
[Count 15]  By failing to advise his clients with 
hearings scheduled for after June 2, 2014, that he 
could not appear with them or on their behalf, and 
that they should be prepared to represent themselves 
or seek alternative legal representation, Krogman 
violated SCR 20:1.16(d). 
[Count 16]  By failing to provide written notice 
to all of his clients with pending matters that his 
license to practice law had been suspended on June 2, 
No. 
2015AP1422-D   
 
 
 
12 
 
 
 
2014, 
and 
that 
they 
should 
seek 
legal 
advice 
elsewhere, Krogman violated SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b).9 
[Count 17]  By failing to promptly provide 
written notice to all opposing counsel and courts in 
which he was representing clients in pending matters 
that his license to practice law had been suspended on 
June 2, 2014, Krogman violated SCR 22.26(1)(c).10 
[Count 18]  By practicing law in Wisconsin at a 
time when his license to practice law was suspended, 
Krogman violated SCR 22.26(2).11 
                                                 
9 SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b) provide that, on or before the 
effective date of license suspension or revocation, an attorney 
whose license is suspended or revoked shall "[n]otify by 
certified mail all clients being represented in pending matters 
of the suspension or revocation and of the attorney's consequent 
inability to act as an attorney following the effective date of 
the suspension or revocation," and shall "[a]dvise the clients 
to seek legal advice of their choice elsewhere." 
10 SCR 22.26(1)(c) provides that, on or before the effective 
date of license suspension or revocation, an attorney whose 
license is suspended or revoked shall: 
Promptly provide written notification to the 
court or administrative agency and the attorney for 
each party in a matter pending before a court or 
administrative agency of the suspension or revocation 
and of the attorney's consequent inability to act as 
an attorney following the effective date of the 
suspension or revocation. The notice shall identify 
the successor attorney of the attorney's client or, if 
there is none at the time notice is given, shall state 
the client's place of residence. 
11 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 
(continued) 
No. 
2015AP1422-D   
 
 
 
13 
 
 
 
Misconduct Related to Failure to Hold Funds in Trust and 
Conversion (Counts 19-22) 
¶19 Between October 31, 2013, and July 10, 2014, Attorney 
Krogman improperly took over $2,500 from his clients' trust 
accounts, funds to which he was not entitled, including by 
paying bank fees with client funds.  He began accepting credit 
card payments for legal fees in November 2012 but never 
established a separate trust account for receiving legal fees 
and costs by credit card, debit card, or other electronic 
deposit.  Attorney Krogman failed to keep transaction registers 
required by the Rules of Professional Conduct, failed to keep 
individual client ledgers, failed to keep required deposit 
records, failed to complete the memo line on checks, and failed 
to prepare regular and periodic reconciliation reports.  The 
OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of misconduct: 
[Count 19]  By converting to his personal use 
$2,137.50 of client funds held in trust on February 6, 
2014, Krogman violated SCR 20:8.4(c).12 
[Count 20]  By failing to hold funds [of] clients 
in trust, separate from his own property, including 
converting to his personal use $2,137.50 of client 
                                                                                                                                                             
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. 
12 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
No. 
2015AP1422-D   
 
 
 
14 
 
 
 
funds held in trust on February 6, 2014, Krogman 
violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).13 
[Count 21]  By depositing $6,463.52 into his 
Trust Account via 12 credit card deposits between 
September 5, 2013, and December 4, 2014, Krogman 
violated SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)e.14 
[Count 22]  By failing to comply with trust 
account record-keeping requirements as follows: 
(a) By failing from January 1, 2014, through 
July 22, 2014, to keep a transaction register that 
contained a chronological record of all account 
transactions and included the date, source and amount 
of 
all 
deposits, 
the 
check 
number 
of 
all 
disbursements, the identity of the client for whom 
funds were deposited or disbursed, the date and amount 
of every deduction of whatever nature, and the balance 
in the account after each transaction; 
(b) by failing to record each receipt and 
disbursement of client funds for his IOLTA checking 
account in individual client ledgers; 
(c) by failing to identify the client or client 
matter associated with each deposit item on 26 of 28 
deposit 
slips 
between 
September 
5, 
2013, 
and 
                                                 
13 SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) 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. 
14 SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)e. provides that "[a] lawyer shall not 
authorize transactions by way of credit card to or from a trust 
account. However, earned fees may be deposited by way of credit 
card to a lawyer's business account." 
No. 
2015AP1422-D   
 
 
 
15 
 
 
 
December 4, 2014, and by failing to identify the name 
of the account on 22 of those 28 deposit slips; 
(d) by leaving the memo line blank on 28 of 34 
checks written on his Trust Account during the same 
period; 
(e) by failing to prepare any Trust Account 
reconciliation report for at least eight months from 
October 2013 through June 2014, 
Krogman violated SCR 20:1.15(f)(1).15 
                                                 
15 SCR 20:1.15(f)(1) provides: 
Complete records of a trust account that is a 
draft account shall include a transaction register; 
individual client ledgers for IOLTA accounts and other 
pooled trust accounts; a ledger for account fees and 
charges, if law firm funds are held in the account 
pursuant to sub. (b)(3); deposit records; disbursement 
records; 
monthly 
statements; 
and 
reconciliation 
reports, subject to all of the following:  
a. Transaction register. The transaction register 
shall contain a chronological record of all account 
transactions, and shall include all of the following:  
1. the date, source, and amount of all deposits;  
2. the date, check or transaction number, payee 
and amount of all disbursements, whether by check, 
wire transfer, or other means;  
3. the date and amount of every other deposit or 
deduction of whatever nature;  
4. the identity of the client for whom funds were 
deposited or disbursed; and  
5. 
the 
balance 
in 
the 
account 
after 
each 
transaction.  
b. Individual client ledgers. A subsidiary ledger 
shall be maintained for each client or 3rd party for 
(continued) 
No. 
2015AP1422-D   
 
 
 
16 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
whom 
the 
lawyer 
receives 
trust 
funds 
that 
are 
deposited in an IOLTA account or any other pooled 
trust account. The lawyer shall record each receipt 
and disbursement of a client's or 3rd party's funds 
and the balance following each transaction. A lawyer 
shall not disburse funds from an IOLTA account or any 
pooled trust account that would create a negative 
balance with respect to any individual client or 
matter.  
c. Ledger for account fees and charges. A 
subsidiary ledger shall be maintained for funds of the 
lawyer deposited in the trust account to accommodate 
monthly service charges. Each deposit and expenditure 
of the lawyer's funds in the account and the balance 
following each transaction shall be identified in the 
ledger.  
d. Deposit records. Deposit slips shall identify 
the name of the lawyer or law firm, and the name of 
the account. The deposit slip shall identify the 
amount of each deposit item, the client or matter 
associated with each deposit item, and the date of the 
deposit. The lawyer shall maintain a copy or duplicate 
of each deposit slip. All deposits shall be made 
intact. No cash, or other form of disbursement, shall 
be deducted from a deposit. Deposits of wired funds 
shall 
be 
documented 
in 
the 
account's 
monthly 
statement.  
e. Disbursement records.  
1. Checks. Checks shall be pre-printed and 
prenumbered. The name and address of the lawyer or law 
firm, and the name of the account shall be printed in 
the upper left corner of the check. Trust account 
checks shall include the words "Client Account," or 
"Trust Account," or words of similar import in the 
account name. Each check disbursed from the trust 
account shall identify the client matter and the 
reason for the disbursement on the memo line.  
(continued) 
No. 
2015AP1422-D   
 
 
 
17 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
2. Canceled checks. Canceled checks shall be 
obtained from the financial institution. Imaged checks 
may be substituted for canceled checks.  
3. 
Imaged 
checks. 
Imaged 
checks 
shall 
be 
acceptable if they provide both the front and reverse 
of the check and comply with the requirements of this 
paragraph. The information contained on the reverse 
side 
of 
the 
imaged 
checks 
shall 
include 
any 
endorsement signatures or stamps, account numbers, and 
transaction dates that appear on the original. Imaged 
checks shall be of sufficient size to be readable 
without magnification and as close as possible to the 
size of the original check.  
4. Wire transfers. Wire transfers shall be 
documented by a written withdrawal authorization or 
other documentation, such as a monthly statement of 
the account that indicates the date of the transfer, 
the payee, and the amount.  
f. 
Monthly 
statement. 
The 
monthly 
statement 
provided to the lawyer or law firm by the financial 
institution shall identify the name and address of the 
lawyer or law firm and the name of the account.  
g. 
Reconciliation 
reports. 
For 
each 
trust 
account, the lawyer shall prepare and retain a printed 
reconciliation report on a regular and periodic basis 
not 
less 
frequently 
than 
every 
30 
days. 
Each 
reconciliation report shall show all of the following 
balances and verify that they are identical:  
1. the balance that appears in the transaction 
register as of the reporting date;  
2. the total of all subsidiary ledger balances 
for IOLTA accounts and other pooled trust accounts, 
determined by listing and totaling the balances in the 
individual client ledgers and the ledger for account 
fees and charges, as of the reporting date; and  
(continued) 
No. 
2015AP1422-D   
 
 
 
18 
 
 
 
¶20 In the stipulation, Attorney Krogman agrees that it 
would be appropriate for this court to impose a four-month 
suspension of his license to practice law in Wisconsin.  He 
further agrees that it would be appropriate for this court to 
impose the following conditions upon the reinstatement of his 
license to practice law in Wisconsin: 
 Within 60 days of the Court's final order, 
Attorney Krogman must provide to OLR signed 
medical releases of confidentiality for each 
treatment 
provider 
who 
has 
provided 
or 
is 
providing alcohol-related or substance abuse-
related treatment, assessment or services to 
Attorney Krogman during the past five years, so 
that OLR and each provider can share pertinent 
information related to Attorney Krogman, such 
releases to remain in effect for two years from 
the date Attorney Krogman signs the releases. 
 Within 60 days of the Court's final order, 
Attorney Krogman must, at his own expense, 
participate in an alcohol and other drug abuse 
(AODA) and mental health assessment by a person 
of OLR's choosing, which shall make specific 
written 
recommendations, 
if 
appropriate, 
for 
Attorney Krogman's treatment or maintenance.  The 
assessment must be provided to OLR. 
 Attorney Krogman must submit to monitoring within 
30 days of the date of the assessment, as 
directed by OLR; and for a period of two years 
beginning on the date of his entry into a 
                                                                                                                                                             
3. the adjusted balance, determined by adding 
outstanding deposits and other credits to the balance 
in the financial institution's monthly statement and 
subtracting outstanding checks and other deductions 
from the balance in the monthly statement. 
No. 
2015AP1422-D   
 
 
 
19 
 
 
 
monitoring 
program 
must 
comply 
with 
all 
monitoring 
requirements, 
including 
all 
requirements determined to be appropriate by the 
Wisconsin Lawyers' Assistance Program (WisLAP) or 
OLR's designated monitor. 
 Attorney 
Krogman 
must 
refrain 
from 
the 
consumption of alcohol and any mood-altering 
drugs without a valid prescription while subject 
to monitoring[.] 
¶21 Having 
considered 
this 
matter, 
we 
approve 
the 
stipulation and adopt the stipulated facts and legal conclusions 
of professional misconduct.  From our independent review of the 
matter, we agree that a four-month suspension of Attorney 
Krogman's license to practice law in Wisconsin is an appropriate 
sanction.  We note that the OLR's memorandum in support of the 
stipulation identifies a number of aggravating and mitigating 
factors.  With respect to aggravating factors, the OLR points 
out that Attorney Krogman engaged in dishonest conduct with 
selfish motives, that he committed similar misconduct in several 
different matters, and that he failed to cooperate in several 
matters.  As mitigating factors, the OLR director found that 
Attorney Krogman had no prior disciplinary record.  In addition, 
Attorney Krogman's misconduct occurred during a period of time 
immediately prior to checking himself into an in-patient 
facility for treatment of alcohol abuse and depression, or in 
the year after his in-patient treatment.  The OLR says there 
seems to be a potentially causal relationship between Attorney 
Krogman's alcohol abuse and/or depression and some of the 
No. 
2015AP1422-D   
 
 
 
20 
 
 
 
misconduct outlined above; however, not all of the misconduct 
can be causally linked to his mental health issues.  The OLR 
also points out that once he was served with the disciplinary 
complaint, Attorney Krogman was fully cooperative, and he has 
advised the OLR that he is no longer practicing law and is in 
the process of closing down his law practice. 
¶22 Although no two factual situations are precisely the 
same, a four-month suspension is generally consistent with the 
sanction imposed in somewhat similar cases, including In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Smead, 2010 WI 4, 322 Wis. 2d 
100, 777 N.W.2d 644 (attorney's license suspended for 120 days 
for 25 counts of misconduct); In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Tobin, 2007 WI 50, 300 Wis. 2d 250, 730 N.W.2d 896 
(attorney's license suspended for four months for misconduct 
including trust account violations, conversions, and false 
statements to the OLR).  We further find it appropriate to 
impose the recommended conditions upon the reinstatement of 
Attorney Krogman's license to practice law.  Because Attorney 
Krogman 
entered 
into 
a 
comprehensive 
stipulation 
under 
SCR 22.12, thereby obviating the need for the appointment of a 
referee and a full disciplinary proceeding, we do not impose any 
costs in this matter. 
¶23 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Zachary T. Krogman 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for four months, 
effective January 22, 2016. 
No. 
2015AP1422-D   
 
 
 
21 
 
 
 
¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the reinstatement of 
Zachary T. Krogman's license to practice law in Wisconsin is 
conditioned upon the following:  
 Within 60 days of the date of this order, Attorney 
Krogman 
shall 
provide 
the 
Office 
of 
Lawyer 
Regulation 
with 
signed 
medical 
releases 
of 
confidentiality for each treatment provider who is 
providing or has provided to Attorney Krogman within 
the last five years treatment, assessment, or 
services related to alcohol or substance abuse, such 
releases to remain in effect for two years from the 
date of signature. 
 Within 60 days of the date of this order, Attorney 
Krogman shall, at his own expense, participate in an 
alcohol and other drug abuse and mental health 
assessment by a person of the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation's choosing; the assessment shall make 
specific written recommendations, if appropriate, 
for Attorney Krogman's treatment or maintenance and 
shall 
be 
provided 
to 
the 
Office 
of 
Lawyer 
Regulation. 
 Within 30 days of the date of the assessment 
specified above, Attorney Krogman shall submit to 
monitoring as directed by the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation, and he shall comply with all monitoring 
No. 
2015AP1422-D   
 
 
 
22 
 
 
 
requirements, 
including 
all 
requirements 
deemed 
appropriate by the Wisconsin Lawyers' Assistance 
Program or other monitor designated by the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation, for a period of two years from 
his entry into a monitoring program.  
 Attorney Krogman shall refrain from the consumption 
of alcohol and any mood-altering drugs without a 
valid prescription while subject to monitoring. 
¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Zachary T. Krogman shall 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
an attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended.  
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2). 
 
 
No.  2015AP1422-D.ssa 
 
1 
 
¶27 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.   (dissenting).  I write in 
dissent in several attorney discipline cases because I have 
concerns about the discipline imposed. 
¶28 In the instant case, upon stipulation admitting the 
factual allegations, the court orders a four-month suspension of 
Attorney Krogman's license and conditions upon reinstatement.  
The complaint alleged 22 counts of professional misconduct 
involving 
four 
clients, 
misconduct 
relating 
to 
license 
suspension, and misconduct relating to trust accounts.  The 
four-month suspension seems too light.         
¶29 I write in dissent because I also have difficulty 
reconciling the significantly different levels of discipline 
imposed in the following four cases. 
• 
OLR v. Crandall, 2015 WI 111, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ 
N.W.2d ___:  Attorney Crandall has been disciplined 
four times previously:  a three-month suspension, a 
public reprimand, a 30-day suspension, and a five-
month suspension.  This court now imposes another 
public reprimand in his fifth brush with the OLR.  The 
sanction is too light.  The principle of progressive 
discipline should have been applied.  It was not.  
• 
OLR v. Boyle, 2015 WI 110, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ 
N.W.2d ___:  Boyle committed six offenses, including 
two trust account violations.  The court imposes a 60-
day suspension plus conditions.  Boyle had received 
three private reprimands between 2002 and 2012.  How 
No.  2015AP1422-D.ssa 
 
2 
 
can this level of discipline be justified in light of 
OLR v. Crandall and OLR v. Sayaovong (see below)? 
• 
OLR v. Aleman, 2015 WI 112, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ 
N.W.2d ___:  Illinois imposed a two-year suspension 
for two counts of misconduct stemming from co-founding 
and working with a national debt settlement firm.  
Upon stipulation of the parties, this court orders 
reciprocal discipline in Wisconsin.  The two-year 
suspension seems too harsh compared to the discipline 
imposed in other cases. 
• 
OLR v. Sayaovong, 2015 WI 100, 365 Wis. 2d 200, 871 
N.W.2d 217:  This per curiam was released November 18, 
2015, imposing suspension for a period of six months.  
Attorney Sayaovong defaulted in the discipline case.  
The complaint alleged six counts of misconduct, four 
counts involving two clients and two counts involving 
another client.  In 2014 Attorney Sayaovong was 
publicly reprimanded for misconduct in two separate 
client matters.  See OLR v. Sayaovong, 2014 WI 94, 357 
Wis. 2d 312, 850 N.W.2d 940.  The discipline does not 
seem consistent with the discipline imposed in other 
cases. 
¶30 For the reasons set forth, I write about each of these 
cases. 
¶31 I am authorized to state that Justice ANN WALSH 
BRADLEY joins this opinion. 
 
No.  2015AP1422-D.ssa 
 
 
 
1