Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kimberly A. Theobald

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2010 WI 102 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2009AP2523-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Kimberly A.Theobald, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Kimberly A. Theobald, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEOBALD 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
August 10, 2010   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2010 WI 102
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2009AP2523-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Kimberly A. Theobald, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Kimberly A. Theobald, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
AUG 10, 2010 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of 
Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.    Attorney's license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review, pursuant to SCR 22.17(2),1 the 
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations of 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) provides: 
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. 
2009AP2523-D   
 
2 
 
Referee Kim M. Peterson concluding that Attorney Kimberly A. 
Theobald engaged in unprofessional conduct in the course of her 
practice of law in violation of the rules of professional 
conduct.  The referee recommended a 60-day suspension of 
Attorney Theobald's license and imposition of costs, which total 
$789.92 as of May 20, 2010.  
¶2 
We approve the referee's findings and conclusions and 
determine 
that 
Attorney 
Theobald's 
misconduct 
warrants 
suspension of her license for a period of 60 days, as well as 
payment of costs. 
¶3 
Attorney Theobald was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1992.  In 2004 Attorney Theobald received a public 
reprimand for having committed 13 counts of misconduct involving 
four clients.  Her misconduct consisted of failing to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness, failing to keep clients 
reasonably informed about the status of their matters, failing 
to comply with reasonable requests for information, and failing 
to cooperate with the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR).  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Theobald, 2004 WI 59, 271 
Wis. 2d 690, 679 N.W.2d 804. 
¶4 
In 2006 Attorney Theobald voluntarily entered into a 
public reprimand agreement for misconduct consisting of failing 
to diligently represent several clients in family law matters, 
failing to respond to a client's requests for information 
regarding his case, failing to keep a client reasonably informed 
about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable 
requests for information, failing to disburse earned fees and 
No. 
2009AP2523-D   
 
3 
 
other funds belonging to Attorney Theobald from her trust 
account, failing to maintain and keep a transaction register and 
client ledgers that showed a consistent and accurate running 
balance and the source and purpose of each disbursement and 
failing to maintain duplicate deposit slips, and failing to 
cooperate with the OLR's investigation. Public Reprimand of 
Kimberly Theobald, No. 2006-13. 
¶5 
On October 2, 2009, the OLR filed its complaint in 
this proceeding alleging two counts of misconduct in connection 
with her representation of a client in a bankruptcy matter.  In 
September 2006 J.H. hired Attorney Theobald to file a bankruptcy 
petition on her behalf.  J.H. paid Attorney Theobald $600 for 
attorney fees and $299 for costs.  On January 8, 2007, Attorney 
Theobald filed J.H.'s bankruptcy petition.  The petition did not 
include a B22A Means Test Calculation form. 
¶6 
On February 20, 2007, the attorney for the bankruptcy 
trustee filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the B22A 
form had not been filed.  Attorney Theobald did not file an 
objection, which was required to be filed within 15 days.  On 
March 9, 2007, at a creditor's meeting, Attorney Theobald was 
instructed to file the B22A form by close of the business day.  
Attorney Theobald failed to do so.  
¶7 
Several days later J.H. contacted Attorney Theobald 
about the dismissal motion.  Attorney Theobald told J.H. not to 
worry and that she would take care of it.  Attorney Theobald 
took no further action regarding J.H.'s bankruptcy.  
No. 
2009AP2523-D   
 
4 
 
¶8 
Due 
to 
Attorney 
Theobald's 
failure 
to 
file 
an 
objection to the trustee's motion, J.H.'s bankruptcy was 
dismissed.  
¶9 
Thereafter, J.H. began receiving calls from creditors 
attempting to collect debts that J.H. believed had been 
discharged in bankruptcy.  J.H. attempted to contact Attorney 
Theobald on numerous occasions, leaving messages at Attorney 
Theobald's office.  
¶10 J.H. did contact Attorney Theobald in August 2007.  At 
that time Attorney Theobald agreed to look into the status of 
the bankruptcy.  However, Attorney Theobald never got back to 
J.H.  
¶11 On November 14, 2007, J.H. contacted Attorney Theobald 
via fax showing her that the bankruptcy had not been completed.  
In February 2008 J.H. filed a grievance with the OLR.  In her 
response dated May 27, 2008, Attorney Theobald acknowledged she 
had "royally dropped the ball on this matter" and indicated she 
would "take all actions necessary to correct [her] failures."  
¶12 In January 2009 J.H. contacted the OLR reporting that 
Attorney Theobald had taken no action to resolve the bankruptcy.  
Attorney Theobald admitted she had not been diligent in pursuing 
the bankruptcy matter.  On February 10, 2009, Attorney Theobald 
issued a full $899 refund to J.H.  
¶13 The OLR complaint alleged, and the referee found, that 
by failing to file the necessary form to maintain J.H.'s 
bankruptcy or to file an objection to the trustee's motion to 
dismiss J.H.'s bankruptcy, and by failing after the dismissal of 
No. 
2009AP2523-D   
 
5 
 
the bankruptcy petition to re-file or take other corrective 
action to achieve the objectives of the representation, Attorney 
Theobald failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in violation of SCR 20:1.3.2  
¶14 The OLR further alleged, and the referee found, that 
by failing to respond to J.H.'s requests for information 
regarding the status of her bankruptcy, Attorney Theobald failed 
to communicate with her client in violation of former SCRs 
20:1.4(a)
3 and 20:1.4(a)(4)4.  
¶15 Attorney Theobald did not contest any of these counts.  
The issue before the referee was the appropriate sanction for 
the misconduct.  Ultimately, the referee agreed with the OLR's 
recommendation for a 60-day suspension and imposition of costs. 
¶16 The referee cited the ABA Standards for Imposing 
Lawyer Sanctions 3.0, which states:  
In imposing a sanction after a finding of lawyer 
misconduct, a court should consider the following 
factors:  
(a) the duty violated; 
(b) the lawyer's mental state;  
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.3 provides, "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
3 Former SCR 20:1.4(a) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
provided:  "A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed 
about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable 
requests for information." 
4 SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) (effective July 1, 2007) states that a 
lawyer shall "promptly comply with reasonable requests for 
information; . . . ." 
No. 
2009AP2523-D   
 
6 
 
(c) the potential or actual injury caused by the 
lawyer's misconduct; and 
(d) the existence of aggravating or mitigating 
factors.  
¶17 The referee noted that Attorney Theobald's misconduct 
violated 
several 
supreme 
court 
rules 
pertaining 
to 
the 
requirement to keep a client reasonably informed, and that she 
failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in a 
legal matter.  The referee noted that while Attorney Theobald's 
initial failure to file the proper form was certainly not 
purposeful, the conduct that followed was.  The referee 
explains: 
Not only did Ms. Theobald fail to include the B22A 
Means Test, as is required, but she ignored the 
trustee's motion to dismiss, she failed to file an 
objection to the motion to dismiss, and when the judge 
at the creditor's meeting gave her yet another chance 
to file the B22A Means Test by the end of the business 
day, she ignored that opportunity as well.  As a 
result 
of 
Ms. 
Theobald's 
conduct, 
her 
client's 
bankruptcy petition was dismissed.  
As 
if 
this 
conduct 
was 
not 
bad 
enough, 
Ms. Theobald then chose to ignore her client's inquiry 
as to the status of the bankruptcy, and failed to 
inform her client that the bankruptcy had been 
dismissed.  When the client actually was able to reach 
Ms. Theobald, she said she would "look into" the 
matter.  This statement, while technically may not be 
a misrepresentation, implied that she didn't know the 
status of the matter, but in fact, she did, or at 
least she should have.  She had previously received 
notice that the trustee had filed a motion to dismiss 
based upon her failure to file the B22A Means Test.  
She never did file the appropriate paperwork, so she 
should have known that the bankruptcy had been 
dismissed, or at a minimum, that dismissal was 
imminent.  By failing to immediately inform the client 
No. 
2009AP2523-D   
 
7 
 
of this fact, but instead stating that she would "look 
into" the matter was deceptive.   
Even when the OLR contacted Ms. Theobald, and she 
admitted her misconduct, she failed to remedy the 
situation as promised, but let it sit for another 
year.  It wasn't until she was contacted [again] by 
the OLR that she finally refunded the fees and costs 
to her client.  
The referee correctly observed that "[t]his kind of conduct——
ignoring client's reasonable requests for information, ignoring 
court orders and failing to acknowledge a mistake until the OLR 
is notified twice——is not only damaging to the client's 
individual case, but also to the reputation of the legal 
community as a whole." 
¶18 The 
referee 
noted 
further 
that 
this 
matter 
is 
aggravated 
by 
the 
fact 
that 
Attorney 
Theobald 
has 
been 
practicing for a number of years.  She should know that this 
conduct is not appropriate and, indeed, she has been disciplined 
for similar conduct in the past.  Ultimately, citing In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kasprowicz, 2007 WI 67, 301 
Wis. 2d 82, 732 N.W.2d 427, the referee concluded that a 60-day 
license suspension was appropriate.  
¶19 The standard of review before this court is that the 
referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless clearly erroneous 
but conclusions of law are reviewed on a de novo basis.  See In 
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kalal, 2002 WI 45, ¶23, 252 
Wis. 2d 261, 643 N.W.2d 466. 
¶20 There is no allegation by the parties, or other 
indication, that any of these findings are clearly erroneous.  
No. 
2009AP2523-D   
 
8 
 
Therefore, after a de novo review of the referee's report and 
the record in this matter, we adopt the referee's findings of 
fact and conclusions of law.  We agree that a 60-day suspension 
of Attorney Theobald's license is appropriate discipline for 
this misconduct.  
¶21 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Kimberly A. Theobald 
is suspended for 60 days, effective August 20, 2010.5 
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Kimberly A. Theobald comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an 
attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended. 
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Kimberly A. Theobald shall pay $789.92 to the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation representing the costs of this 
proceeding.  If these costs are not paid within the time 
specified, and absent a showing to this court of an inability to 
pay the costs within this time, the license of Kimberly A. 
Theobald to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended 
until further order of the court.  
 
                                                 
5 On June 4, 2010, Attorney Theobald filed a letter advising 
the court that she did not intend to appeal the referee's 
recommendation and asked the court to permit her disciplinary 
suspension to commence on July 1, 2010.  The court issued an 
order acknowledging the request and advising Attorney Theobald 
that an order would issue in due course.  Attorney Theobald's 
request is denied.  
No. 
2009AP2523-D   
 
 
 
1