Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Andrew J. Bryant

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2015 WI 7 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2013AP312-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
Andrew J. Bryant, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Andrew J. Bryant, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BRYANT 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
January 28, 2015 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2015 WI 7
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2013AP312-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Andrew J. Bryant, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Andrew J. Bryant, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JAN 28, 2015 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This case is before us pursuant to 
SCR 22.14(2)1 and SCR 22.17(2)2 on a stipulation between the 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.14(2) states: 
 
The respondent may by answer plead no contest to 
allegations of misconduct in the complaint.  The 
referee shall make a determination of misconduct in 
respect to each allegation to which no contest is 
pleaded and for which the referee finds an adequate 
factual basis in the record.  In a subsequent 
disciplinary or reinstatement proceeding, it shall be 
(continued) 
No. 
2013AP312-D   
 
2 
 
parties, Attorney Andrew J. Bryant and the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR).  In the stipulation, Attorney Bryant pled no 
contest to 37 of 38 counts of misconduct alleged in the OLR's 
third 
amended 
complaint. 
 
The 
referee 
issued 
a 
report 
recommending that the court suspend Attorney Bryant's license to 
practice law for three years, order Attorney Bryant to pay 
restitution to two clients as set forth herein, and order 
Attorney Bryant to pay the full costs of this proceeding, which 
total $9,175.05 as of September 2, 2014. 
¶2 
We 
approve 
the 
recommendations 
stated 
in 
the 
stipulation and adopt the stipulated findings of fact and 
conclusions 
of 
law. 
 
We 
agree 
that 
Attorney 
Bryant's 
professional misconduct warrants a three-year suspension of his 
Wisconsin law license.  We further order that Attorney Bryant 
make restitution to M.W. and M.C. as outlined below, and that he 
pay the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding. 
                                                                                                                                                             
conclusively presumed that the respondent engaged in 
the misconduct determined on the basis of a no contest 
plea. 
2 SCR 22.17(2) states:   
 
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
No. 
2013AP312-D   
 
3 
 
¶3 
Attorney Bryant was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1992.  He most recently practiced as a solo 
attorney in Verona.  
¶4 
In January of 2012, Attorney Bryant received a 
consensual private reprimand for misconduct that included lack 
of competence, lack of diligence, failure to consult with his 
client regarding the means by which the objectives of the 
representation were to be pursued, and failure to keep his 
client adequately informed.  Private Reprimand No. 2012-01.   
¶5 
On June 24, 2014, this court suspended Attorney 
Bryant's license for a period of four months for 15 counts of 
misconduct including:  practice of law while his license was 
administratively suspended; failure to obtain a written conflict 
waiver; failure to utilize a written fee agreement; trust 
account violations; lack of diligence; failure to provide a 
client's file to successor counsel; lack of competence; failure 
to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation; failure to 
keep his client reasonably informed; failure to explain matters 
sufficiently; knowingly disobeying circuit court scheduling and 
sanction orders; conduct intended merely to harass or delay; and 
misrepresentation.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Bryant, 2014 WI 43, 354 Wis. 2d 684, 847 N.W.2d 833.  We imposed 
certain conditions on Attorney Bryant's future reinstatement in 
that matter.  Id, ¶52.  His license remains suspended. 
¶6 
On February 8, 2013, the OLR filed the disciplinary 
complaint giving rise to this decision.  The complaint was 
amended several times; the third, and final, amended complaint 
No. 
2013AP312-D   
 
4 
 
was filed January 24, 2014, and contained some 255 separately 
numbered paragraphs describing 38 counts of misconduct in 
connection with Attorney 
Bryant's 
representation of seven 
clients.  
¶7 
Before an evidentiary hearing was conducted on the 
complaint, Attorney Bryant withdrew his answers and entered into 
the stipulation now before the court, in which the parties 
agreed to dismiss Count 13 and Attorney Bryant pled no contest 
to the remaining 37 counts.   
¶8 
The referee, James C. Boll, accepted all of the 
factual allegations of the complaint as his findings of fact.  
Based on those facts, the referee concluded that Attorney Bryant 
had engaged in 37 separate acts of professional misconduct. 
¶9 
Given the volume of the factual findings and legal 
conclusions made by the referee, we do not repeat them all here.  
It is sufficient to provide the following brief summary of each 
client matter followed by summary information concerning the 
serious misconduct committed by Attorney Bryant.   
Matter of J.N. (Counts 1-2) 
¶10 On August 8, 2008, J.N. and her husband filed a joint 
petition for divorce in Dane County circuit court.  J.N. 
retained Attorney Bryant, signed a fee agreement, and paid an 
advanced fee.  During the representation, Attorney Bryant 
engaged in trust account violations by failing to provide J.N. 
with an accounting, notice, or statement before disbursing trust 
account funds, and failed to respond to the OLR's requests for 
information concerning the ensuing grievance. 
No. 
2013AP312-D   
 
5 
 
Matter of M.W. (Counts 3-11) 
¶11 In April of 2010, M.W. retained Attorney Bryant to 
represent her in a divorce proceeding.  Attorney Bryant failed 
to provide M.W. with any timely periodic invoices, and disbursed 
attorney's fees and trust account funds to himself without 
providing M.W. an itemized bill or accounting.  He also failed 
to communicate with his client, failed to act with diligence in 
the representation, failed to provide M.W. with an accounting 
after final distribution of the trust property, failed to comply 
with a court commissioner's order, which resulted in his client 
being held in contempt, and converted client funds to pay 
himself attorney's fees.  Attorney Bryant further failed to 
respond to the OLR's requests for information about the ensuing 
grievance, resulting in the temporary suspension of his law 
license.  Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Andrew J. Bryant, 
Sup. Ct. Case No. 2012XX946-D. 
Matter of M.C. (Counts 12-15)  
¶12 In April of 2009, M.C. hired Attorney Bryant to pursue 
claims against her former employer for termination based upon 
gender and for denial of employer insurance benefits for long-
term disability benefits.  Attorney Bryant failed to take 
substantive action in M.C.'s case, and repeatedly failed to 
respond to her requests for information about her case.  He 
further failed to respond to the OLR's requests for information 
regarding the ensuing grievance, resulting in the temporary 
suspension of his law license.  Office of Lawyer Regulation v. 
Andrew J. Bryant, Sup. Ct. Case No. 2012XX946-D.  
No. 
2013AP312-D   
 
6 
 
Matter of G.G. (Counts 16-24) 
¶13 In December of 2008, G.G., a City of Madison employee, 
slipped and fell on an icy restaurant stoop, sustaining injury. 
In 2009, G.G. hired Attorney Bryant to pursue a worker's 
compensation claim and a third-party personal injury lawsuit on 
his behalf.  Attorney Bryant failed to prepare a written 
contingent fee agreement and, other that purportedly hiring an 
investigator to pursue evidence, failed to take any other 
meaningful action on the matter.  He failed to return his 
client's calls or otherwise respond to requests for information.  
Ultimately, the statute of limitations on both the worker's 
compensation and the third-party claims expired.  
¶14 In May of 2010, G.G. also hired Attorney Bryant to 
represent him in divorce proceedings.  Attorney Bryant failed to 
prepare a written fee agreement, improperly paid himself $2,000 
in 
attorney's 
fees 
from 
trust 
account 
funds, 
failed 
to 
communicate with G.G. regarding the status of the divorce 
proceedings, failed to respond to requests for information, and 
engaged in trust account violations.  He then failed to respond 
to the OLR's requests for investigation relating to the ensuing 
grievance, resulting in the temporary suspension of his license 
to practice law.  Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Andrew Bryant, 
Sup. Ct. Case No. 2012XX493-D.  
Matter of K.R. (Counts 25-30) 
¶15 In March of 2010, K.R. hired Attorney Bryant to pursue 
an employment discrimination claim against his former employer.  
Attorney Bryant failed to prepare a written contingent fee 
No. 
2013AP312-D   
 
7 
 
agreement, failed to pursue his client's claim, and repeatedly 
failed to respond to his client's requests for information.  He 
further failed to respond to the OLR's requests for information 
regarding the ensuing grievance, resulting in the temporary 
suspension of his license to practice law.  Office of Lawyer 
Regulation v. Andrew J. Bryant, Sup. Ct. Case No. 2012XX946-D.  
Matter of A.C. (Counts 31-34)  
¶16 On August 15, 2001, A.C. suffered a work-related 
injury 
at 
his 
place 
of 
employment 
and 
was 
subsequently 
terminated.  Attorney Bryant agreed to represent A.C. in his 
effort to pursue a discrimination claim with the Equal Rights 
Division of the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. 
¶17 On March 25, 2011, A.C. signed a contingent fee 
agreement. 
 
After 
Attorney 
Bryant 
filed 
his 
notice 
of 
appearance, A.C. never heard from him again.  Attorney Bryant 
failed to respond to requests of successor counsel to relinquish 
A.C.'s file, and then failed to respond to the OLR's requests 
for information relating to the ensuing grievance, resulting in 
the temporary suspension of Attorney Bryant's law license.  
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Andrew J. Bryant, Sup. Ct. Case 
No. 2012XX946-D. 
Matter of J.F. (Counts 35-38) 
¶18 In December of 2009, J.F. hired Attorney Bryant to 
pursue a personal injury claim on J.F.'s behalf.  J.F. signed a 
contingent fee agreement.  Attorney Bryant then repeatedly 
failed to communicate with J.F. and took no action on the case.  
He also failed to respond to the OLR's requests for information 
No. 
2013AP312-D   
 
8 
 
relating to the ensuing grievance, resulting in the temporary 
suspension of his license to practice law.  Office of Lawyer 
Regulation v. Andrew J. Bryant, Sup. Ct. Case No. 2012XX946-D. 
¶19 The stipulation executed by the OLR and Attorney 
Bryant provided and the referee concluded that, contrary to 
SCR 20:1.1, 
Attorney 
Bryant 
failed 
to 
provide 
competent 
representation during his work on the matters of G.G. (Count 16) 
and K.R. (Count 25). 
¶20 The stipulation provided and the referee concluded 
that, contrary to SCR 20:1.3, Attorney Bryant failed to take 
meaningful action or advance his client's interests in the 
following client matters:  M.W. (Count 3), M.C. (Count 12), G.G. 
(Count 17), K.R. (Count 26), A.C. (Count 31), and J.F. 
(Count 35). 
¶21 The stipulation provided and the referee concluded 
that, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a)(3), Attorney Bryant failed to 
keep the following clients reasonably informed about the status 
of their matter:  M.W. (Count 4), G.G. (Count 18), K.R. 
(Count 27), A.C. (Count 32), and J.F. (Count 36). 
¶22 The stipulation provided and the referee concluded 
that, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a)(4), Attorney Bryant failed to 
promptly comply with reasonable requests by the client for 
information in the following client matters:  M.W. (Count 5), 
G.G. (Count 19), K.R. (Count 28), A.C. (Count 32), and J.F. 
(Count 37). 
¶23 The stipulation provided and the referee concluded 
that, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(b), Attorney Bryant failed to 
No. 
2013AP312-D   
 
9 
 
explain matters to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the 
client to make informed decisions regarding the representation 
during his work on the matters of M.C. (Count 14) and G.G. 
(Count 20). 
¶24 The stipulation provided and the referee concluded 
that, contrary to SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2), Attorney Bryant 
improperly accepted advanced fees without communicating in 
writing the basis or rate of the fee and expenses and failed to 
communicate in writing the purpose and effect of the advanced 
fees received in the matter of G.G. (Count 21).  
¶25 The stipulation provided and the referee concluded 
that, contrary to SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) and SCR 20:1.15(g)(1), 
Attorney Bryant failed to properly hold unearned fees and 
advanced payment of fees in trust in the matters of J.N. 
(Count 1), M.W. (Count 6), and G.G. (Count 23). 
¶26 The stipulation provided and the referee concluded 
that, contrary to SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) and (2), Attorney Bryant 
converted client funds to pay himself attorney's fees during his 
work on the M.W. matter (Counts 7 and 8). 
¶27 The stipulation provided and the referee concluded 
that, contrary to SCR 20:1.16(d), Attorney Bryant failed to 
respond to multiple written requests to relinquish a client file 
during his representation of A.C. (Count 33). 
¶28 The stipulation provided and the referee concluded 
that, contrary to SCR 20:1.5(c), Attorney Bryant failed to enter 
into a written contingent fee agreement during his work on the 
matters of G.G. (Count 22) and K.R. (Count 29). 
No. 
2013AP312-D   
 
10 
 
¶29 The stipulation provided and the referee concluded 
that by knowingly and without justification disobeying a court's 
order, resulting in the issuance of a court order finding his 
client in contempt, Attorney Bryant violated SCR 20:3.4(c) 
during his work on the M.W. matter (Count 9). 
¶30 The stipulation provided and the referee concluded 
that, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c), Attorney Bryant engaged in 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation during his work 
on the M.W. matter (Count 10).  
¶31 The stipulation provided and the referee concluded 
that, contrary to SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), and SCR 20:8.4(h), 
Attorney Bryant 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 matters:  J.N. (Count 2), M.W. (Count 11), M.C. 
(Count 15), G.G. (Count 24), K.R. (Count 30), A.C. (Count 34), 
and J.F. (Count 38). 
¶32 Attorney Bryant pled no contest to the above counts of 
misconduct.  The parties' stipulation recited that Attorney 
Bryant understands the allegations of the complaint, that he 
enters the stipulation freely, knowingly, and voluntarily, and 
that he understands that he had a right to contest the matters 
and consult with and be represented by counsel.  Attorney Bryant 
also explicitly stated in the stipulation that his mental 
health/medical 
issues 
are 
not 
a 
defense 
to 
the 
alleged 
misconduct.  
No. 
2013AP312-D   
 
11 
 
¶33 The parties stipulated that a three-year suspension 
was appropriate discipline.  The referee agreed, and also 
recommended restitution as stipulated by the parties, noting 
that Attorney Bryant did not dispute that he owed restitution to 
these clients.3  The referee further recommended the imposition 
of full costs, which total $9,175.05 as of September 2, 2014. 
¶34 Because no appeal was filed from the referee's report 
and 
recommendation, 
our 
review 
proceeds 
pursuant 
to 
SCR 22.17(2).  When reviewing a report and recommendation in an 
attorney disciplinary proceeding, we affirm a referee's findings 
of fact unless they are found to be clearly erroneous.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 
305 Wis. 2d 71, 
740 N.W.2d 125. 
 
We 
review 
the 
referee's 
conclusions of law, however, on a de novo basis.  Id.  Finally, 
we determine the appropriate level of discipline given the 
particular facts of each case, independent of the referee's 
recommendation, but benefitting from it.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 
660 N.W.2d 686. 
                                                 
3 In the OLR's restitution statement filed September 3, 
2014, the OLR advises the court that it does not seek 
restitution in the matters of J.N., K.R., A.C., and J.F. because 
there was no fee dispute and/or reasonably ascertainable 
restitution amount, explains the reasons for the reduced request 
for restitution in the matter of M.W., and explains that it 
withdraws its request for restitution to G.G. and to the 
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection.   
No. 
2013AP312-D   
 
12 
 
¶35 We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law 
to which the parties have stipulated and as adopted by the 
referee.  
¶36 Turning to the sanction, we accept the parties' 
stipulation that a three-year suspension is an appropriate level 
of discipline in light of the facts of this case.  Given the 
presence 
of 
prior 
discipline, 
the 
number 
of 
counts 
of 
misconduct, the number of clients affected by the misconduct, 
and the seriousness of the misconduct, a lengthy suspension is 
clearly required.  
¶37 Because 
this 
case 
presents 
no 
extraordinary 
circumstances and no objection to costs has been filed, we 
further determine that Attorney Bryant should be required to pay 
the full costs of this matter.  See SCR 22.24(1m) (supreme 
court's general policy upon a finding of misconduct is to impose 
all costs upon the respondent attorney).   
¶38 Finally, we agree that Attorney Bryant should be 
ordered to pay restitution as stipulated by the parties:  
$10,312.20 to M.W. and $5,000 to M.C.  
¶39 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Andrew J. Bryant to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of three 
years, effective the date of this order. 
¶40 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Andrew J. Bryant shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the imposed costs of this proceeding.  
No. 
2013AP312-D   
 
13 
 
¶41 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Andrew J. Bryant shall pay $10,312.20 to M.W. and 
$5,000 to M.C. as restitution. 
¶42 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified 
above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation. 
¶43 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Andrew J. Bryant 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. 
¶44 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2). 
 
 
No. 
2013AP312-D   
 
 
 
1