Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Joe E. Kremkoski

Citation: 2006 WI 59

Docket Number: 2005AP002565-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2006-06-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
2006 WI 59 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2005AP2565-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Joe E. Kremkoski, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Joe E. Kremkoski, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KREMKOSKI 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 2, 2006   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2006 WI 59
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2005AP2565-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Joe E. Kremkoski, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Joe E. Kremkoski, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 2, 2006 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.  We review the referee's report, findings 
of fact, and conclusions of law, based on the parties' 
stipulation 
that 
Attorney 
Kremkoski 
committed 
professional 
misconduct with respect to his handling of two client matters.  
The referee recommended that a public reprimand be issued as a 
sanction for this misconduct.  After reviewing the parties' 
responses to this court's order to show cause why the discipline 
imposed should not be a suspension rather than a public 
No. 
2005AP2565-D   
 
2 
 
reprimand, we accept the referee's recommendation that a public 
reprimand is appropriate. 
¶2 
Attorney Kremkoski was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1976 and practices in Racine.  In 1997 he received 
a consensual private reprimand for failing to file a complaint 
when he knew the statute of limitations would soon expire; 
failing to inform the client that the statute of limitations had 
expired; and making repeated misrepresentations about receiving 
a $100 payment from the client.  In 2004 Attorney Kremkoski was 
publicly reprimanded for misconduct consisting of representing 
another person in the same or substantially related matter in 
which that person's interests were materially adverse to the 
interests of the former client without obtaining the former 
client's consent in writing after consultation; failing to hold 
in trust, separate from his own property, an advance fee; 
failing to return any unearned portion of a client's advance 
fee; failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing a client; and failing to comply with a client's 
reasonable requests for information concerning the status of a 
case.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kremkoski, 
2004 WI 150, 277 Wis. 2d 83, 690 N.W.2d 430. 
¶3 
On October 14, 2005, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a complaint alleging four counts of misconduct with 
respect to two client matters.  The first client matter detailed 
in 
the 
OLR's 
complaint 
involved 
Attorney 
Kremkoski's 
representation of S.S.  S.S. sued his employer for restitution 
regarding monetary damages S.S. agreed to pay as a result of an 
No. 
2005AP2565-D   
 
3 
 
automobile accident, while driving a vehicle owned by the 
employer, which S.S. subsequently learned was not licensed, 
registered or insured.  S.S. paid Attorney Kremkoski a $500 
retainer.  Attorney Kremkoski did not file suit on S.S.'s behalf 
until seven months later.  Attorney Kremkoski failed to send the 
summons and complaint out for service, and he failed to inform 
S.S. that he did not obtain service on the defendants. 
¶4 
On several occasions S.S. and his parents tried to 
contact Attorney Kremkoski about the status of the lawsuit.  
Attorney Kremkoski failed to return their calls.   
¶5 
On August 11, 2003, the circuit court issued an order 
noting that service on the defendants had not been made within 
the statutory time period and that the case would be dismissed 
within 20 days unless good cause was shown why the order should 
not take effect.   
¶6 
S.S.'s parents informed Attorney Kremkoski of the 
court's order after searching the Wisconsin Circuit Court Access 
(WCCA) Web site for information about the status of the case.  
S.S.'s 
parents 
located 
a 
process 
server 
and 
served 
the 
defendants well after the 90-day period specified by statute. 
¶7 
On October 24, 2003, the circuit court granted the 
defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice, because service 
had not been accomplished within the statutory period and 
because the matter had not been diligently prosecuted.  Attorney 
Kremkoski appeared at the hearing but failed to notify S.S. of 
the dismissal of the case. 
No. 
2005AP2565-D   
 
4 
 
¶8 
Attorney Kremkoski indicated he would redraft the 
pleadings and refile the case, but the case was not refiled and 
Attorney Kremkoski never spoke with S.S. or his parents again.  
On February 2, 2004, S.S. terminated Attorney Kremkoski's 
representation.   
¶9 
The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Kremkoski's handling of the 
S.S. matter: 
COUNT ONE—By failing to file the lawsuit for seven 
months after he was retained, and by failing to serve 
the defendants, resulting in a dismissal of the suit, 
Kremkoski failed to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing a client, in violation of 
SCR 20:1.3.1 
COUNT TWO—By failing to inform S.S. that his lawsuit 
was dismissed due to Kremkoski's failure to timely 
serve the defendants and by failing to respond to the 
S.S.' telephone calls, Kremkoski failed to keep a 
client reasonably informed about the status of a 
matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests 
for information, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).2 
¶10 The 
other 
client 
matter 
detailed 
in 
the 
OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney Kremkoski's representation of S.A., 
who retained Attorney Kremkoski in November 2000 to represent 
him on a charge of disorderly conduct that resulted from an 
altercation with J.V.  S.A. pled guilty to the charge. 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.3 states that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
2 SCR 20:1.4(a) states that "[a] lawyer shall keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly 
comply with reasonable requests for information." 
No. 
2005AP2565-D   
 
5 
 
¶11 On May 10, 2002, J.V. filed a civil lawsuit against 
S.A. due to alleged injuries from the altercation.  S.A. 
retained Attorney Kremkoski to represent him in the lawsuit.  
One of the issues in the case was whether J.V. had a pre-
existing medical condition.   
¶12 On June 14, 2002, S.A. paid Attorney Kremkoski a $500 
retainer.  On March 17, 2003, S.A. paid Attorney Kremkoski an 
additional $500.   
¶13 On June 20, 2002, Attorney Kremkoski filed an answer 
and affirmative defenses on S.A.'s behalf.  He also served 
J.V.'s attorney with interrogatories.  Due to J.V.'s failure to 
answer the interrogatories, Attorney Kremkoski filed a motion to 
compel production on September 30, 2002.  Attorney Kremkoski 
withdrew the motion when J.V. agreed to produce the responses by 
the end of that day.   
¶14 On October 3, 2002, J.V., through his attorney, served 
Attorney Kremkoski with interrogatories.  Attorney Kremkoski 
failed to answer them.   
¶15 On November 27, 2002, J.V.'s attorney designated 
expert witnesses, provided proof of permanency and itemized 
J.V.'s special damages.  Attorney Kremkoski failed to depose any 
of J.V.'s experts, did not obtain an independent medical 
examination of J.V., and did not obtain certified medical 
records from the medical providers to substantiate whether J.V. 
had a pre-existing medical condition. 
¶16 On January 21, 2003, J.V.'s attorney filed a motion to 
compel production of S.A.'s responses to interrogatories.  On 
No. 
2005AP2565-D   
 
6 
 
January 23, 2003, J.V.'s attorney noticed the deposition of 
J.V.'s treating physician for February 19, 2003.  Attorney 
Kremkoski did not attend the deposition despite a summary 
prepared by the treating physician on October 18, 2002, 
indicating that J.V. initially sought treatment from the doctor 
on June 13, 2002, and told him the pain began without any 
antecedent events.  The physician noted it was not until a later 
visit that J.V. related his recurrence of back pain to the 
altercation with S.A.   
¶17 On February 3, 2003, the circuit court issued an order 
requiring S.A. to produce answers to the interrogatories and 
requests for production of documents.  The court also ordered 
S.A. to appear for a deposition at J.V.'s attorney's office.   
¶18 On February 6, 2003, Attorney Kremkoski faxed answers 
to the interrogatories to J.V.'s attorney.  Attorney Kremkoski 
informed J.V.'s counsel that, due to a prior commitment, he 
would not be appearing at the deposition with his client. 
¶19 S.A. appeared at the deposition without counsel and 
refused to answer any questions.  The deposition was rescheduled 
and Attorney Kremkoski appeared at the deposition with S.A. 
¶20 Although 
the 
scheduling 
order 
required 
S.A. 
to 
designate expert witnesses by January 30, 2003, on February 26, 
2003, Attorney Kremkoski wrote to J.V.'s counsel indicating he 
might call two expert witnesses at the hearing.  Attorney 
Kremkoski also reported that he had obtained a new trial date of 
April 15, 2003.  The trial had previously been scheduled for 
March 4, 2003.  On March 7, 2003, Attorney Kremkoski forwarded 
No. 
2005AP2565-D   
 
7 
 
notice of the new trial date to S.A. with a note saying, "Please 
note new date.  Come see me.  We need to work on this."   
¶21 On April 9, 2003, the circuit court adjourned the 
trial to June 10.  Attorney Kremkoski sent the notice of the 
adjournment to S.A. with a note saying, "Just got this in the 
mail.  We will be the #1 trial that day."   
¶22 Beginning April 1, 2003, S.A. and/or his wife called 
Attorney Kremkoski 10 to 15 times requesting information about 
the status of the lawsuit.  S.A. also stopped at Attorney 
Kremkoski's office and told him he wanted to meet to go over the 
status of the case.  Attorney Kremkoski admits that he failed to 
speak to or meet with S.A. in the weeks prior to the trial.   
¶23 On June 5, 2003, Attorney Kremkoski wrote to S.A. 
reminding him that the trial was the following week.  S.A. 
received the letter on June 7 and said that before receiving the 
letter he was unaware of the trial date.   
¶24 Attorney Kremkoski did not speak with S.A. about the 
trial until June 9, 2003.  On that date, at S.A.'s request, 
Attorney Kremkoski faxed a request for an adjournment of the 
trial.  At a hearing on the request S.A. expressed his desire to 
terminate Attorney Kremkoski's representation.  The circuit 
court allowed Attorney Kremkoski to withdraw and gave S.A. the 
choice to proceed with the trial or pay $2500 to opposing 
counsel for expenses in preparing for trial.  S.A. reluctantly 
elected to pay the $2500 and hired new counsel to represent him 
in the lawsuit. 
No. 
2005AP2565-D   
 
8 
 
¶25 S.A. filed a small claims action against Attorney 
Kremkoski to recover the $2500 payment as well as the $1000 in 
legal fees he had paid to Attorney Kremkoski.  Attorney 
Kremkoski counterclaimed seeking $1343.75 in additional fees.  
After a court trial in February 2004 S.A. was awarded a judgment 
against Attorney Kremkoski in the amount of $2607.  Attorney 
Kremkoski satisfied the judgment in March 2004.   
¶26 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Kremkoski's handling of 
S.A.'s case: 
COUNT THREE—By performing inadequate preparation for 
the lawsuit, by failing to conduct any depositions, by 
failing to attend the deposition of the plaintiff's 
expert witness, by failing to obtain certified medical 
records 
related 
to 
the 
plaintiff's 
pre-existing 
condition, 
by 
failing 
to 
arrange 
an 
independent 
medical examination of the plaintiff, by failing to 
subpoena any witnesses for trial, and by failing to 
meet with his client to prepare for trial, Kremkoski 
failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. 
COUNT FOUR—By failing to respond to S.A.'s telephone 
calls seeking information about the lawsuit, and by 
failing to meet with S.A. as he requested, Kremkoski 
failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the 
status of a matter and comply with reasonable requests 
for information, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a). 
¶27 On November 23, 2005, Attorney Kremkoski filed an 
answer admitting all of the allegations of the OLR's complaint.  
Attorney Kathleen Callan Brady was appointed referee in the 
matter.  Attorney Kremkoski and the OLR subsequently entered 
into a stipulation for the imposition of a public reprimand.  
The stipulation stated that Attorney Kremkoski was aware of his 
No. 
2005AP2565-D   
 
9 
 
right to be represented by counsel; that no promises were made 
concerning future discipline or lenience in the matter; that he 
understood the nature and consequences of the case and entered 
into the stipulation voluntarily and of his own free will.  
¶28 The referee issued her report on January 20, 2006, and 
agreed that a public reprimand was the appropriate sanction for 
Attorney Kremkoski's admitted misconduct. 
¶29 This court will adopt a 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.  
The referee's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous and we 
adopt them.  We also agree with the referee's conclusions of 
law. 
¶30 On March 16, 2006, this court ordered the parties to 
show cause why the discipline in the proceedings should not be a 
suspension rather than a public reprimand.  Attorney Kremkoski 
did not file a response.  The OLR responded by saying that 
Attorney Kremkoski's misconduct in this case occurred soon after 
or in the midst of the prior disciplinary proceeding that 
resulted in the 2004 public reprimand and in both cases he was 
retained by the clients in 2002.   
¶31 The OLR said it did not consider Attorney Kremkoski's 
prior public reprimand to be significantly aggravating when 
No. 
2005AP2565-D   
 
10 
 
weighing its sanction recommendation and that it believed that 
due to the timing of the underlying misconduct a progressively 
more severe sanction need not be sought.  The OLR further noted 
that its investigation had revealed that Attorney Kremkoski ran 
his office "'on a shoestring,' lacking office support or a 
reliable system for tracking deadlines."  It also pointed out 
there was no monetary harm given that in the S.S. case the 
lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice and in the S.A. case, 
although the client did have to pay a sanction, Attorney 
Kremkoski reimbursed the client.  The OLR also noted that 
Attorney Kremkoski was fully cooperative during the course of 
the disciplinary proceeding. 
¶32 While this court generally adheres to the practice of 
progressive discipline, after careful review of the record and 
the OLR's response to the order to show cause, we conclude that 
a public reprimand is an appropriate sanction for Attorney 
Kremkoski's admitted misconduct.   
¶33 IT IS ORDERED that Joe E. Kremkoski is publicly 
reprimanded for professional misconduct.   
 
No. 
2005AP2565-D   
 
 
 
1