Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Charles J. Labanowsky, III

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2014 WI 18 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2013AP2836-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
Charles J. Labanowsky, III, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Charles J. Labanowsky, III, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST LABANOWSKY 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 26, 2014 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
         
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2014 WI 18
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2013AP2836-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Charles J. Labanowsky, III, Attorney at 
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Charles J. Labanowsky, III, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 26, 2014 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney Charles J. Labanowsky III has 
filed a petition for consensual revocation of his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 22.19.1  Attorney 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.19 states as follows:  Petition for consensual 
license revocation. 
 
(1)  An attorney who is the subject of an 
investigation 
for 
possible 
misconduct 
or 
the 
respondent in a proceeding may file with the supreme 
court a petition for the revocation by consent or his 
or her license to practice law. 
No. 
2013AP2836-D   
 
2 
 
Labanowsky states in his petition that he cannot successfully 
defend against allegations of professional misconduct related to 
several incidents the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) is 
currently investigating. 
¶2 
Attorney Labanowsky was admitted to practice law in 
1975.  He received a public reprimand in 2009, for engaging in 
acts leading to separate convictions of misdemeanor second 
offense operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration of .08 
or more, misdemeanor bail jumping, misdemeanor operating while 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
(2)  The petition shall state that the petitioner 
cannot successfully defend against the allegations of 
misconduct. 
 
(3)  If a complaint has not been filed, the 
petition shall be filed in the supreme court and shall 
include the director's summary of the misconduct 
allegations being investigated.  Within 20 days after 
the date of filing of the petition, the director shall 
file in the supreme court a recommendation on the 
petition.  Upon a showing of good cause, the supreme 
court may extend the time for filing a recommendation. 
 
(4)  If a complaint has been filed, the petition 
shall be filed in the supreme court and served on the 
director and on the referee to whom the proceeding has 
been assigned.  Within 20 days after the filing of the 
petition, the director shall file in the supreme court 
a response in support of or in opposition to the 
petition and serve a copy on the referee.  Upon a 
showing of good cause, the supreme court may extend 
the time for filing a response.  The referee shall 
file a report and recommendation on the petition in 
the supreme court within 30 days after receipt of the 
director's response. 
(5)  The supreme court shall grant the petition 
and revoke the petitioner's license to practice law or 
deny the petition and remand the matter to the 
director or to the referee for further proceedings. 
No. 
2013AP2836-D   
 
3 
 
intoxicated (OWI) 3rd and misdemeanor OWI 4th, all in violation 
of SCR 20:8.4(b).  Public Reprimand of Charles J. Labanowsky 
III, No. 2009-2.  He received a public reprimand in 2011, for 
engaging in acts leading to a criminal conviction of misdemeanor 
theft in violation of SCR 20:8.4(b).  Public Reprimand of 
Charles J. Labanowsky III, No. 2011-16.  He voluntarily retired 
from the practice of law in April 2013. 
¶3 
Attached 
to 
Attorney 
Labanowsky's 
petition 
for 
consensual revocation is a summary of misconduct allegations 
that the OLR is investigating.  These include five alcohol-
related 
incidents 
between 
April 
2012 
and 
May 
2013 
and 
allegations of trust account anomalies. 
¶4 
On April 27, 2012, Attorney Labanowsky was arrested 
and subsequently charged with driving a motor vehicle while 
under the influence of an intoxicant, 5th offense.  State v. 
Charles J. Labanowsky III, Kenosha County Case No. 20l2-CF-470.  
Attorney Labanowsky posted a cash bond and was released on the 
conditions that he was not to possess or consume illegal 
controlled substances without a prescription, he was not to 
possess or consume alcohol, he was to submit to random blood 
alcohol testing, and he was not to drive a vehicle without a 
valid driver's license. 
¶5 
On August 28, 2012, Attorney Labanowsky was seen 
driving his car away from the Kenosha County courthouse.  He was 
stopped by a sheriff's deputy.  Attorney Labanowsky admitted he 
knew that his license was suspended and that his bail conditions 
prohibited him from driving.  Attorney Labanowsky was arrested 
No. 
2013AP2836-D   
 
4 
 
and released on a cash bond, again with conditions prohibiting 
possession or consumption of alcohol or the commission of any 
crimes.  He was charged with two counts of felony bail jumping 
in connection with this incident.  State v. Charles J. 
Labanowsky III, Kenosha County Case No. 20l2-CF-975. 
¶6 
On February 4, 2013, a sheriff's deputy responded to 
reports that Attorney Labanowsky was intoxicated at the Kenosha 
County courthouse.  Observers feared he might drive away 
intoxicated. 
Upon 
questioning, 
Attorney 
Labanowsky 
denied 
drinking.  While the deputy went to check the status of his 
driving privileges, Attorney Labanowsky drove away from the 
scene.  He was later apprehended and released on a cash bond, 
again with conditions.  He was charged with obstructing an 
officer and two counts of bail jumping in connection with this 
incident.  State v. Charles J. Labanowsky III, Kenosha County 
Case No. 20l3-CF-242. 
¶7 
On April 11, 2013, Attorney Labanowsky failed two 
breathalyzer tests conducted by a community services agency.  
Attorney Labanowsky posted a cash bond, again with conditions.  
He was charged with two counts of felony bail jumping.  State v. 
Charles J. Labanowsky III, Kenosha County Case No. 2013-CF-461. 
¶8 
Finally, on the morning of May 16, 2013, police 
responded to an anonymous tip that Attorney Labanowsky was 
consuming alcohol at his residence in violation of his bond.  
Attorney Labanowsky let the officers into his house and admitted 
that he had been drinking alcohol in violation of his bond 
conditions.  Attorney Labanowsky's blood alcohol concentration 
No. 
2013AP2836-D   
 
5 
 
level was tested and found to be .203.  This time, Attorney 
Labanowsky did not post bond and remained in custody.  He was 
subsequently charged with four counts of bail jumping in 
connection with this incident.  State v. Charles J. Labanowsky 
III, Kenosha County Case No. 20l3-CF-536. 
¶9 
On June 20, 2013, Attorney Labanowsky entered a plea 
agreement with respect to all five of the above-mentioned cases.  
Attorney Labanowsky was found guilty and convicted of one count 
of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of an 
intoxicant, 5th offense, in State v. Charles J. Labanowsky III, 
Kenosha County Case No. 20l2-CF-470; one count of felony bail 
jumping in State v. Charles J. Labanowsky III, Kenosha County 
Case No. 20l3-CF-242; and two counts of bail jumping in State v. 
Charles J. Labanowsky III, Kenosha County Case No. 2013-CF-536.  
The remaining charges were dismissed but read in.  Attorney 
Labanowsky was sentenced to 36 months in prison followed by 36 
months of extended supervision in the OWI matter; additional 
sentences were imposed and stayed in the related cases.  The OLR 
is investigating possible violations of SCR 20:8.4(b) in 
connection with the alcohol-related misconduct.  No restitution 
is requested. 
¶10 The OLR is also investigating possible trust account 
violations.  In October 2008 the OLR learned of two possible 
overdrafts on Attorney Labanowsky's client trust account.  The 
OLR reconstructed the trust account and ascertained that on 
numerous occasions Attorney Labanowsky had disbursed funds from 
the account on behalf of clients who either had no funds or had 
No. 
2013AP2836-D   
 
6 
 
insufficient 
funds 
in 
the 
account 
to 
satisfy 
those 
disbursements.  In one matter, Attorney Labanowsky represented 
P.C., the seller in a real estate transaction.  Briefly stated, 
Attorney Labanowsky disbursed $10,000 more to himself than he 
was entitled to receive in connection with the transaction. 
¶11 The OLR also discovered anomalies in a trust account 
relating to the Estate of M.W.  On April 1, 2009, the trust 
account for the Estate of M.W. had a balance of $802.85, but the 
client ledger indicated a balance of $23,669.06 should have been 
on deposit for that matter.  On April 29, 2009, Attorney 
Labanowsky deposited $25,000 in law firm funds to the trust 
account in order to make a $25,000 distribution relating to the 
Estate of M.W.  Attorney Labanowsky characterized that deposit 
as a partial refund of his legal fees. 
¶12 The OLR determined that on June 30, 2009, there should 
have been $16,819.93 in trust for the Estate of M.W. but there 
was only $6,568.42.  In addition, Attorney Labanowsky had a 
habit of leaving earned fees in the trust account for periods 
ranging from 18 to 39 months and occasionally deposited earned 
fees back to the trust account to cover shortfalls caused by the 
conversion of funds belonging to one client for the benefit of 
another client. 
¶13 In late 2009, after reviewing the OLR's initial 
findings relating to his trust account, Attorney Labanowsky 
deposited additional personal and/or law firm funds into the 
trust account to cover the shortfalls.  He also disbursed earned 
fees that had been held in trust for extended periods.  The 
No. 
2013AP2836-D   
 
7 
 
foregoing 
actions 
potentially 
violate 
SCR 
20:8.4(c), 
SCR 20:1.15(b) (1), SCR 20:1.15(b) (3), SCR 20:1.15(d) (1), and 
SCR 20:1.15(f) (l)a., b. and g. 
¶14 Attorney 
Labanowsky's 
petition 
for 
consensual 
revocation states that he cannot successfully defend against the 
allegations of professional misconduct set forth in the OLR's 
summary of the matters being investigated.  His petition asserts 
that he is seeking consensual revocation freely, voluntarily, 
and knowingly.  He states that he understands he is giving up 
his right to contest the OLR's allegations.  He states that he 
knows he has the right to counsel in this matter.  The OLR 
supports Attorney Labanowsky's petition for consensual license 
revocation.  See SCR 22.19(3).  The OLR is not seeking 
restitution. 
¶15 Having reviewed Attorney Labanowsky's petition, the 
OLR's summary of the matters it is investigating, and the OLR's 
recommendation, we accept Attorney Labanowsky's petition for the 
revocation of his license to practice law in Wisconsin.  See 
SCRs 22.19(1), (2), and (5).  The seriousness of Attorney 
Labanowsky's misconduct demonstrates the need to revoke his law 
license to protect the public, the courts, and the legal system 
from the repetition of misconduct; to impress upon Attorney 
Labanowsky the seriousness of his misconduct; and to deter other 
attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Arthur, 2005 WI 40, ¶78, 279 
Wis. 2d 583, 694 N.W.2d 910.  We accept the OLR's decision not 
to seek a restitution order. 
No. 
2013AP2836-D   
 
8 
 
¶16 Because 
Attorney 
Labanowsky 
petitioned 
for 
the 
consensual revocation of his Wisconsin law license before the 
appointment of a referee, and because the OLR has not requested 
the imposition of costs, we do not assess the costs of this 
disciplinary proceeding against Attorney Labanowsky. 
¶17 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for consensual license 
revocation is granted. 
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of Charles J. 
Labanowsky III to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, 
effective the date of this order. 
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Charles J. Labanowsky III 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. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
No. 
2013AP2836-D   
 
 
 
1