Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. William E. Fenger

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2023 WI 4 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2022AP1124-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against William E. Fenger, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
William E. Fenger, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST FENGER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
January 25, 2023   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per curiam. ZIEGLER, C.J., filed a concurring opinion in which 
REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY and HAGEDORN, J., joined. 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2023 WI 4
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2022AP1124-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against William E. Fenger, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
William E. Fenger, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JAN 25, 2023 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney's 
license 
revoked.    
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.  Attorney 
William E. Fenger filed a 
petition for the consensual revocation of his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 
22.19.1  In his petition, Attorney Fenger states that he cannot 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.19 provides:   
(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 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   (continued) 
No. 
2022AP1124-D   
 
2 
 
successfully defend against multiple allegations of misconduct 
in connection with a grievance investigated by the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation (OLR).  The referee appointed in this matter, 
the Honorable Jean A. DiMotto, recommends that this court grant 
Attorney Fenger's petition for consensual license revocation.  
¶2 
Attorney Fenger was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1974.  His license is currently suspended for 
                                                                                                                                                             
petition for the revocation by consent [of] his or her 
license to practice law. 
(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. 
2022AP1124-D   
 
3 
 
failure to pay state bar dues and failure to comply with trust 
account certification.  His disciplinary history consists of two 
private reprimands, one issued in 1994, Private Reprimand 1994-
21, and one issued in 1995, Private Reprimand 1995-34.  
 ¶3 On July 6, 2022, OLR filed a complaint against 
Attorney Fenger alleging seven counts of misconduct arising out 
of his representation of J.K.  In December 2010, H.W., J.K.'s 
brother, passed away.  J.K agreed to serve as personal 
representative for H.W.'s estate.  J.K. filed an application for 
informal probate and served as personal representative without 
legal representation for about two years.  
¶4 
In August 2013, J.K. filed a general inventory on 
behalf of the estate listing a residential property in Milwaukee 
as the only asset.  In December 2014, J.K. retained Attorney 
Fenger to assist her with the handling and closing of the 
estate. 
 
Attorney 
Fenger 
did 
not 
provide 
a 
written 
representation agreement to J.K. regarding the scope of his 
representation and did not intend to bill for his services due 
to prior work he had performed for J.K.'s spouse.  J.K. told 
Attorney Fenger that she wanted to sell the residential 
property.   
¶5 
R.T. is a residential tenant at a property owned by 
Attorney Fenger in St. Francis, Wisconsin.  That property 
consists of Attorney Fenger's law office on the ground floor and 
two residential units on the second floor.  In exchange for 
discounted rent, R.T. performed maintenance and repair work at 
properties owned by Attorney Fenger.  Attorney Fenger had 
No. 
2022AP1124-D   
 
4 
 
previously represented R.T. in a criminal matter in 2004 and 
2005.  In addition, in 2006, R.T. executed a general durable 
power of attorney (general POA) naming Attorney Fenger as his 
agent.  The general POA gave Attorney Fenger the authority to 
buy and sell real estate on R.T.'s behalf.  Attorney Fenger told 
OLR that R.T.'s health concerns had prompted him to execute the 
general POA.  
¶6 
After being retained by J.K., Attorney Fenger visited 
the residential property.  R.T. accompanied him on that visit.  
During the visit, a neighbor indicated to either R.T. or 
Attorney Fenger a willingness to pay $30,000 for the property.  
R.T. subsequently informed Attorney Fenger that he was willing 
to pay $30,000 for the property.  
¶7 
J.K.'s family originally told Attorney Fenger that 
they were willing to accept $20,000 for the sale of the 
residential property, which had been vacant for several years 
and was in disrepair.  Attorney Fenger advised them how to value 
the property and how to dispose of it.  J.K., as personal 
representative, did not seek an independent appraisal for the 
property prior to the sale, nor did Attorney Fenger advise her 
to obtain one.  Although it is disputed whether J.K. ever met 
R.T. in person, Attorney Fenger facilitated the agreement for 
J.K. to sell the property to R.T.  Attorney Fenger did not 
disclose his relationship with R.T. to J.K. prior to the sale of 
the property.   
¶8 
In January 2015, Attorney Fenger prepared a WB-11 
Residential Offer to Purchase in which he stated that he 
No. 
2022AP1124-D   
 
5 
 
represented 
the 
buyer, 
R.T., 
even 
though 
the 
personal 
representative, J.K., was his client.  The WB-11 reflected a 
purchase price of $30,000.  According to Attorney Fenger, R.T. 
asked that the WB-11 be backdated to January 2014 for tax 
reasons.  Attorney Fenger knowingly backdated the offer and 
acceptance dates to January 2, 2014, and he drafted a closing 
statement which he backdated to January 3, 2014.  The personal 
representative's deed purports to have been signed by J.K. on 
January 3, 2014.   
¶9 
The WB-11 contained a number of provisions that make 
the buyer and seller's interests adverse, such as the fact that 
the seller could continue to accept offers on the property even 
after binding acceptance of R.T.'s offer; the selection of the 
closing date which would impact the proration of real estate 
taxes imposed on the seller versus the buyer; and the 
possibility of defects in the property being discovered between 
the acceptance of the offer and the closing date which could 
render the sale null and void if the seller failed to either 
elect to cure the defects or elected to cure and then failed to 
do so.  
¶10 In 
January 
2015, 
Attorney 
Fenger 
prepared 
and 
submitted paperwork to incorporate MILW8946 LLC on behalf of 
R.T.  Wisconsin Department of Financial Institution records 
reflect that the LLC's registration date was January 5, 2015.  
The sole purpose of the LLC was to purchase and then sell the 
residential property.   
No. 
2022AP1124-D   
 
6 
 
¶11 Instead of paying $30,000 of purchase money into 
Attorney Fenger's client trust account, Attorney Fenger decided 
that the $30,000 would be credited to his trust account over 
time in the form of work performed by R.T. on other real estate 
in which Attorney Fenger had an ownership interest.  The credits 
toward payment for the property were made in the form of 
deposits and checks by Attorney Fenger into his trust account.  
The practical effect of the arrangement was an interest free 
land contract purchase by R.T. from the estate.   
¶12 In a letter dated November 30, 2021 to OLR, Attorney 
Fenger represented that he considered the arrangement to be a 
loan between himself and R.T. and saw nothing wrong with the 
arrangement.  However, the estate and J.K.'s family were the 
parties to whom the money was owed.  Attorney Fenger never 
discussed the loan arrangement with the Ks; the Ks never 
consented to the loan agreement; the terms of the purported loan 
were never reduced to writing; and the Ks were not advised to 
seek the advice of independent legal counsel on the transaction.   
¶13 Attorney Fenger acquired a pecuniary interest adverse 
to the Ks in that he made the arrangement with R.T. to barter 
R.T.'s handyman services as payment for the property.  Attorney 
Fenger determined the value of services provided by R.T. to 
Attorney Fenger for work on Attorney Fenger's other real estate.  
Attorney Fenger determined when the credits resulting in 
payments by Attorney Fenger to his trust account would occur, 
and the $30,000 in actual funds for the sale of the property 
No. 
2022AP1124-D   
 
7 
 
were not deposited into Attorney Fenger's trust account in full 
until April 2017.  
¶14 Attorney 
Fenger 
failed 
to 
hold 
the 
funds, 
or 
"credits," in trust on behalf of the estate and the Ks.  The 
"credits" paid by Attorney Fenger into the trust account should 
have resulted in certain minimum balances in the trust account 
between the January 2015 sale of the property and July 2017, the 
termination of his representation of the Ks.  In fact, the trust 
account balance fell below those expected minimum balance 
amounts during various periods of time.   
¶15 In a letter dated February 3, 2020, Attorney Fenger 
represented to OLR's investigator that the funds from the 
January 2015 sale of the property were received by the estate 
and placed into Attorney Fenger's client trust account.  The 
statement was false because, in fact, no funds were received 
from anyone.  
¶16 In an April 9, 2021 email to OLR, Attorney Fenger 
represented that "[t]here were two cash payments from [Mr. T.].  
One was in the amount of $5,000 and then there was a later 
second payment in the amount of $3,000.  Those monies were 
placed in Mr. Fenger's trust account."      
¶17 Those statements were also false because no cash 
payments had been made by R.T. 
¶18 In a November 30, 2021 letter to OLR, Attorney Fenger 
disclosed that in fact, "[t]he $5,000 and $3,000 were not cash 
payments made by [Mr. T.], but rather credit."  This statement 
No. 
2022AP1124-D   
 
8 
 
directly contradicted Attorney Fenger's April 9, 2021 statement 
that they were cash payments.  
¶19 Attorney Fenger prepared a Statement For Closing Real 
Estate 
Transaction 
dated 
January 
3, 
2014, 
in 
which 
he 
represented that the buyer, R.T., was credited $30,000 toward 
the purchase of the property and that there was no balance due 
to the seller.  R.T. signed the statement; the Ks did not sign 
the document.  
¶20 On February 15, 2016, Attorney Fenger filed a petition 
for extension of time in the probate case requesting additional 
time to close the estate.  Although the residential property was 
the only real estate that had been owned by the estate and it 
had already been sold, Attorney Fenger stated as one basis for 
needing an extension, "[r]eal estate needs to be sold or 
problems with the sale/distribution of the land."  An addendum 
to the petition for extension of time stated, "[a]n Offer to 
Purchase Real Estate has been accepted – a closing is expected 
in early June . . . ."  At the time the petition for extension 
of time was filed, the court had no information on file 
regarding the already completed sale of the real estate.  
¶21 On or about July 11, 2017, J.K. terminated Attorney 
Fenger's representation of the estate.  Attorney Fenger then 
transferred funds belonging to the estate from his client trust 
account 
to 
successor 
counsel. 
 
Attorney 
Fenger 
provided 
successor counsel with a check for $36,603.28 representing the 
estate's funds, which included funds received from the sale of 
the real estate.  A few weeks after the first check, Attorney 
No. 
2022AP1124-D   
 
9 
 
Fenger provided successor counsel with a second check for 
$2,985.67 for the 2014 property taxes on the real estate.  
¶22 In November 2017, after R.T. had performed renovations 
on the property, Attorney Fenger helped R.T. sell the property 
for $91,000.  
¶23 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct:  
Count 1:  By failing to disclose and describe his 
relationship to [R.T.] to the personal representative 
prior to the sale of the [residential property], 
Fenger violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(1).2   
Count 2: By arranging the sale of the [residential 
property] from his client personal representative to 
[R.T.], with whom he had personal and professional 
connections and whom he assisted in the transaction, 
Fenger violated SCR 20:1.7(a)(2).3 
Count 3: By knowingly backdating an offer to purchase 
and the Personal Representative's Deed conveying real 
property in order to make it appear that the real 
                                                 
2  20:1.4(a)(1) provides: "A lawyer shall promptly inform 
the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which 
the client's informed consent, as defined in SCR 20:1.0(f), is 
required by these rules."  
3 SCR 20:1.7(a)(2) provides:  
Except as provided in par. (b), a lawyer shall 
not represent a client if the representation involves 
a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent 
conflict of interest exists if: (2) there is a 
significant risk that the representation of one or 
more clients will be materially limited by the 
lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former 
client or a third person or by a personal interest of 
the lawyer.  
No. 
2022AP1124-D   
 
10 
 
property sale had occurred a year prior to the actual 
sale, Fenger violated SCR 20:8.4(c).4    
Count 4: By filing a petition for extension of time in 
the 
matter 
of 
the 
estate 
that 
contained 
misrepresentations of fact and material omissions 
concerning the status of the real estate owned by the 
decedent, Fenger violated SCR 20:3.3(a)(1).5    
Count 5: By failing to hold in trust the funds or 
proceeds from the sale of the [residential property] 
on behalf of the Estate and the [Ks], Fenger violated 
SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).6   
Count 6: By making false statements to OLR during its 
investigation regarding cash payments made by [R.T.] 
to Fenger for the purchase of the [residential 
property], Fenger violated SCR 22.03(6).7  
                                                 
4 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: "It is professional misconduct for 
a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation."  
5 SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) provides: "A lawyer shall not knowingly 
make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to 
correct a false statement of material fact or law previously 
made to the tribunal by the lawyer." 
6 SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) provides:  
A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the 
lawyer's own property, that property of clients and 
3rd parties that is in the lawyer's possession in 
connection with a representation. All funds of clients 
and 3rd parties paid to a lawyer or law firm in 
connection with a representation shall be deposited in 
one or more identifiable trust accounts.  
7 SCR 
22.03(6) 
provides: 
"In 
the 
course 
of 
the 
investigation, the respondent's willful failure to provide 
relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 
documents 
and 
the 
respondent's 
misrepresentations 
in 
a 
disclosure are misconduct regardless of the merits asserted in 
the grievance." 
No. 
2022AP1124-D   
 
11 
 
Count 7: By acquiring a pecuniary interest adverse to 
the 
Estate 
and 
the 
[Ks], 
Fenger 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.8(a).8 
¶24 Attorney Fenger filed his petition for revocation by 
consent on October 17, 2022.  The petition states he cannot 
successfully 
defend 
himself 
against 
the 
allegations 
of 
professional misconduct set forth in OLR's complaint.  The 
petition states that Attorney Fenger has closed his law office, 
currently has no clients and has no intention of accepting any 
new clients, and has no intention or plan to resume the practice 
of law in the future.  Attorney Fenger states he has been 
represented by counsel in this matter, is freely, voluntarily, 
and knowingly filing his petition and understands that by doing 
                                                 
8 SCR 20:1.8(a) provides:  
A 
lawyer 
shall 
not 
enter 
into 
a 
business 
transaction with a client or knowingly acquire an 
ownership, possessory, security or other pecuniary 
interest adverse to a client unless: 
(1) the transaction and terms on which the lawyer 
acquires the interest are fair and reasonable to the 
client and are fully disclosed and transmitted in 
writing in a manner that can be reasonably understood 
by the client; 
(2) 
the 
client 
is 
advised 
in 
writing 
of 
the 
desirability of seeking and is given a reasonable 
opportunity to seek the advice of independent legal 
counsel on the transaction; and                               
(3) the client gives informed consent, in a writing 
signed by the client, to the essential terms of the 
transaction and the lawyer's role in the transaction, 
including whether the lawyer is representing the 
client in the transaction. 
No. 
2022AP1124-D   
 
12 
 
so he is giving up his right to further contest each misconduct 
allegation in OLR's complaint. 
¶25 The OLR filed a memorandum recommending that Attorney 
Fenger's petition for revocation by consent be granted and that 
his Wisconsin law license be revoked.  
¶26 On November 9, 2022, the referee issued a report 
recommending that this court grant Attorney Fenger's petition 
for revocation of his license to practice law in Wisconsin.  The 
referee noted that, "[t]he breadth and depth of the Respondent's 
misconduct is noteworthy" and that Attorney Fenger concurrently 
represented an individual whose interests were absolutely 
adverse to his client's and that he engaged in a pattern of 
deceit 
and 
fraud, 
including 
making 
false 
and 
misleading 
representations to his client, to a government agency, to a 
court, and to OLR.  The referee also found that Attorney Fenger 
engaged in blatant trust account violations and "[h]is pattern 
of fraud and deceit was self-serving, and compromised his 
client's interests."  The referee said that it was fitting that, 
with the advice of counsel, Attorney Fenger has petitioned this 
court for revocation by consent.  The referee says, "[t]his is a 
satisfactory conclusion of this matter because it protects the 
public and the legal system from any further misconduct by 
Attorney Fenger."  
¶27 Having 
reviewed 
Attorney 
Fenger's 
petition 
for 
consensual revocation, the OLR's recommendation on the petition, 
and the referee's report, we grant Attorney Fenger's petition 
for the revocation of his license to practice law in Wisconsin.  
No. 
2022AP1124-D   
 
13 
 
As the referee noted, Attorney Fenger engaged in multiple counts 
of misconduct by representing a client in the face of a clear 
conflict 
of 
interest. 
 
He 
engaged 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.  He knowingly 
made false statements of fact or law to a tribunal.  He failed 
to hold client funds in trust.  He made misrepresentations to 
OLR in the course of its investigation, and he acquired 
pecuniary interest adverse to his client.  
¶28 The 
seriousness 
of 
Attorney 
Fenger's 
misconduct 
demonstrates the need to revoke his law license in order to 
protect the public, the courts, and the legal system from 
repetition 
of 
his 
misconduct; 
to 
impress 
upon 
him 
the 
seriousness of his misconduct; and to deter other attorneys from 
engaging in similar misconduct.  The court has previously 
revoked attorneys' licenses when they face multiple counts of 
misconduct, including allegations of dishonest conduct and 
failing to hold funds in trust.  See, e.g., In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Knapp, 2021 WI 15, 395 Wis. 2d 833, 955 
N.W.2d 152.  
¶29  OLR states that it is not seeking to assess cost in 
this matter because Attorney Fenger agreed to resolve the matter 
soon after the complaint was filed, and OLR asked for the 
appointment of a referee solely for the purpose of reviewing the 
petition for consensual revocation and OLR's response.  We 
accede to OLR's request that no costs be assessed against 
Attorney Fenger. 
No. 
2022AP1124-D   
 
14 
 
¶30 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for consensual license 
revocation is granted.   
¶31 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of William E. 
Fenger to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the 
date of this order.  
¶32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that William E. Fenger 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.  2022AP1124-D.akz 
 
1 
 
 
¶33 ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, C.J.   (concurring).  I 
concur in the court's order revoking Attorney Fenger's license 
to practice law in Wisconsin.  I write separately to point out 
that in Wisconsin the "revocation" of an attorney's law license 
is not truly revocation because the attorney may petition for 
reinstatement after a period of five years.  See SCR 22.29(2).  
I believe that when it comes to lawyer discipline, courts should 
say what they mean and mean what they say.  We should not be 
creating false perceptions to both the public and to the lawyer 
seeking to practice law again.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Moodie, 2020 WI 39, 391 Wis. 2d 196, 942 
N.W.2d 302 (Ziegler, J., dissenting).  And, as I stated in my 
dissent to this court's order denying Rule Petition 19-10, In 
the Matter of Amending Supreme Court Rules Pertaining to 
Permanent Revocation of a License to Practice Law in Attorney 
Disciplinary Proceedings, I believe there may be rare and 
unusual cases that would warrant the permanent revocation of an 
attorney's license to practice law.  See S. Ct. Order 19-10 
(issued Dec. 18, 2019) (Ziegler, J., dissenting). 
¶34 I am authorized to state that Justices REBECCA GRASSL 
BRADLEY and BRIAN HAGEDORN join this concurrence. 
 
 
 
No.  2022AP1124-D.akz 
 
 
 
1