Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Erika Anita Cannaday

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2015 WI 11 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2014AP2152-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against 
Erika Anita Cannaday, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Erika Anita Cannaday, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CANNADAY 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 10, 2015 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2015 WI 11
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2014AP2152-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Erika Anita Cannaday, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Erika Anita Cannaday, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 10, 2015 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a stipulation filed pursuant 
to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12 by the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Erika Anita Cannaday.  In the 
stipulation, Attorney Cannaday does not contest that she 
committed 76 acts of professional misconduct in some 16 client 
matters or that the revocation of her license to practice law in 
Wisconsin is appropriate discipline for her misconduct.  The 
parties further stipulate that Attorney Cannaday should pay 
No. 
2014AP2152-D   
 
2 
 
$1,306 in restitution to H.M., $1,000 in restitution to the 
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (Fund) regarding 
K.O., $500 in restitution to the Fund regarding L.C., and $1,606 
in restitution to the Fund regarding E.H. and M.H.  
¶2 
After fully reviewing the matter, we approve the 
stipulation and revoke Attorney Cannaday's license to practice 
law in this state.  The professional misconduct committed by 
Attorney Cannaday is extensive and warrants her removal from the 
practice of law.  Because this matter is being resolved without 
the appointment of a referee, and because the OLR has not sought 
costs, we do not impose the costs of this proceeding on Attorney 
Cannaday. 
¶3 
Attorney Cannaday was admitted to the State Bar of 
Wisconsin in 2005.  She has practiced in Oconomowoc and the 
surrounding areas.  On November 20, 2013, Attorney Cannaday's 
Wisconsin law license was suspended for her noncooperation with 
the OLR in three of the client matters discussed below.  Since 
June 3, 2014, Attorney Cannaday's Wisconsin law license has been 
administratively suspended for failing to comply with mandatory 
continuing legal education requirements.  
¶4 
The complaint to which Attorney Cannaday stipulated 
addresses 16 client matters.  It is not necessary to describe 
the particular factual allegations of each representation.  A 
synopsis of the information contained in the complaint will 
provide a sufficient description of the nature and scope of her 
professional misconduct.  Beginning in 2011 and continuing into 
2013, Attorney Cannaday essentially abandoned a significant 
No. 
2014AP2152-D   
 
3 
 
portion of her practice.  She undertook to represent clients and 
accepted advanced fees in a myriad of cases including divorces, 
personal bankruptcies, child placement matters, landlord tenant 
disputes, paternity actions, termination of parental rights, and 
grandparent visitation.  Then, for months, Attorney Cannaday 
failed to take meaningful action on her clients' behalf and 
failed to respond to her clients' calls, emails, and letters 
seeking information about their cases.  She missed court 
hearings, failed to file critical documents with the court, 
failed to provide her clients with final accountings, and failed 
to refund unearned portions of her fees.  Once the aggrieved 
clients contacted the OLR, she then failed to timely and 
substantively respond to multiple requests from the OLR seeking 
information about the various grievances.  On November 20, 2013, 
this court temporarily suspended Attorney Cannaday's license for 
noncooperation in several matters. 
¶5 
The stipulation before the court provides that, 
contrary to SCR 20:1.3, Attorney Cannaday failed to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client in 
the following client matters:  D.M. (Count 1), J.N. (Count 6), 
J.B. (Count 9), L.C. (Count 16), K.O. (Count 27), E.L. (Count 
34), L.B. (Count 40), N.L. (Count 43), K.S. (Count 46), H.K. 
(Count 51), J.S. (Count 56), E.H. and M.H. (Count 61), H.M. 
(Count 66), and S.D. and G.D. (Count 71). 
¶6 
The 
stipulation 
provides 
that, 
contrary 
to 
SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4), Attorney Cannaday failed to keep the 
following clients reasonably informed about the status of their 
No. 
2014AP2152-D   
 
4 
 
matter and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests by 
the client for information:  D.M. (Count 2), J.N. (Count 7), 
J.B. (Count 10), L.C. (Count 17), T.W. (Count 23), K.O. (Count 
28), E.L. (Count 35), L.B. (Count 41), N.L. (Count 44), K.S. 
(Count 47), H.K. (Count 52), J.S. (Count 57), E.H. and M.H. 
(Count 62), H.M. (Count 67), and S.D. and G.D. (Count 72). 
¶7 
The 
stipulation 
provides 
that, 
contrary 
to 
SCR 20:1.15(b)(4), Attorney Cannaday failed to deposit advanced 
payments of fees and costs into her trust account in the matters 
of D.M. (Count 3), J.B. (Count 12), L.C. (Count 19), T.W. (Count 
24), K.O. (Count 32), E.L. (Count 37), K.S. (Count 48), and H.K. 
(Count 53).  
¶8 
The 
stipulation 
provides 
that, 
contrary 
to 
SCR 20:1.15(d)(1), Attorney Cannaday failed to deliver funds 
held in trust which a client or third party was entitled to 
receive in the K.O matter (Count 29). 
¶9 
The 
stipulation 
provides 
that, 
contrary 
to 
SCR 20:1.5(a), Attorney Cannaday charged an unreasonable fee, by 
accepting advanced fee payments but not performing further work 
on the clients' behalf, in the matters of J.B. (Count 11), L.C. 
(Count 18), E.L. (Count 36), J.S. (Count 58), E.H. and M.H. 
(Count 63), and H.M. (Count 68). 
¶10 The 
stipulation 
provides 
that, 
contrary 
to 
SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) 
and 
(2), 
Attorney 
Cannaday 
failed 
to 
communicate to the client in writing the basis or rate of her 
fees and expenses and the purpose and effect of any retainer or 
No. 
2014AP2152-D   
 
5 
 
advanced fee that is paid to Attorney Cannaday in the T.W. 
matter (Count 22). 
¶11 The 
stipulation 
provides 
that, 
contrary 
to 
SCR 20:1.16(d), Attorney Cannaday failed to refund unearned fees 
and failed, in some cases, to respond to multiple written 
requests to relinquish a client file during her representation 
of D.M. (Count 4), J.B. (Count 13), L.C. (Count 20), T.W. (Count 
25), K.O. (Count 31), E.L. (Count 38), K.S. (Count 49), H.K. 
(Count 54), J.S. (Count 59), E.H. and M.H. (Count 64), and H.M. 
(Count 69). 
¶12 The 
stipulation 
provides 
that, 
contrary 
to 
SCR 20:3.4(c), 
Attorney 
Cannaday 
knowingly 
and 
without 
justification disobeyed a court's order during her work on the 
J.B. matter (Count 14). 
¶13 The 
stipulation 
provides 
that, 
contrary 
to 
SCR 22.26(2) and SCR 20:8.4(a), Attorney Cannaday violated the 
supreme court rules by practicing law while suspended during her 
work on a TPR matter (Counts 74 and 75).  
¶14 The 
stipulation 
provides 
that, 
contrary 
to 
SCR 20:8.4(c), Attorney Cannaday engaged in dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation during her work on the K.O. matter 
(Count 30).  
¶15 The 
stipulation 
provides 
that, 
contrary 
to 
SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), and SCR 20:8.4(h), Attorney Cannaday 
failed to provide relevant information to the OLR in a timely 
fashion and failed to answer questions fully or otherwise 
provide information requested by the OLR in the following 
No. 
2014AP2152-D   
 
6 
 
matters:  D.M. (Count 5), J.N. (Count 8), J.B. (Count 15), L.C. 
(Count 21), T.W. (Count 26), K.O. (Count 33), E.L. (Count 39), 
L.B. (Count 42), N.L. (Count 45), K.S. (Count 50), H.K. (Count 
55), J.S. (Count 60), E.H. and M.H. (Count 65), H.M. (Count 70), 
S.D. and G.D. (Count 73), and the TPR matter (Count 76). 
¶16 Attorney Cannaday does not contest the above counts of 
misconduct.  The parties' stipulation recites that Attorney 
Cannaday understands the allegations of the complaint, that she 
enters the stipulation freely, knowingly, and voluntarily, that 
she understands that she had a right to contest the matters and 
to consult with and be represented by counsel, and that the 
stipulation is not a result of plea-bargaining.   
¶17 The parties stipulated that revocation is appropriate 
discipline.   
¶18 Having 
considered 
this 
matter, 
we 
approve 
the 
stipulation and adopt the stipulated facts and legal conclusions 
of professional misconduct.  We agree that revocation of 
Attorney Cannaday's license to practice law in this state is 
appropriate discipline.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against 
Fisher, 
2010 WI 45, 
324 Wis. 2d 745, 
785 N.W.2d 321 
(revocation for 55 counts of misconduct after attorney abandoned 
law practice); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kelly, 
2012 WI 55, 341 Wis. 2d 104, 814 N.W.2d 844 (revocation for 51 
counts of misconduct for attorney with no prior disciplinary 
history); 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Abbott, 
2005 WI 172, 
286 Wis. 2d 616, 
707 N.W.2d 851 
(consensual 
revocation for 20 allegations of misconduct). 
No. 
2014AP2152-D   
 
7 
 
¶19 We agree that Attorney Cannaday should be ordered to 
pay restitution as stipulated by the parties:  $1,306 to H.M., 
$1,000 to the Fund regarding K.O., $500 to the Fund regarding 
L.C., and $1,606 to the Fund regarding E.H. and M.H.  Attorney 
Cannaday does not dispute that she owes restitution to these 
clients.   
¶20 Finally, because Attorney Cannaday 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 costs in this matter. 
¶21 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Erika Anita Cannaday 
to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of 
this order. 
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Erika Anita Cannaday shall pay $1,306 in 
restitution to H.M., $1,000 in restitution to the Wisconsin 
Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection regarding K.O., $500 in 
restitution to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection 
regarding L.C., and $1,606 in restitution to the Wisconsin 
Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection regarding E.H. and M.H.  
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Erika Anita Cannaday shall 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
revoked. 
¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2). 
No. 
2014AP2152-D   
 
 
 
1