Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Ronald L. Brandt

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2011 WI 92 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2011AP1193-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  Ronald L. Brandt, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Ronald L. Brandt, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BRANDT 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 5, 2011   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
2011 WI 92
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2011AP1193-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Ronald L. Brandt, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Ronald L. Brandt, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 5, 2011 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   In 
this 
reciprocal 
discipline 
proceeding, we must determine whether to publicly reprimand 
Attorney Ronald L. Brandt as discipline identical to that 
imposed on him by the Board of Bar Overseers of the Supreme 
Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the 
Massachusetts Board). 
¶2 
On May 25, 2011, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
filed a complaint and order to answer against Attorney Brandt 
No. 
2011AP1193-D   
 
2 
 
pursuant to SCR 22.22.1  The OLR also filed a motion asking this 
court to direct Attorney Brandt to inform the court of any claim 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.22 provides, in part: Reciprocal discipline.  
(1) An attorney on whom public discipline for 
misconduct 
or 
a 
license 
suspension 
for 
medical 
incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction 
shall promptly notify the director of the matter. 
Failure to furnish the notice within 20 days of the 
effective date of the order or judgment of the other 
jurisdiction constitutes misconduct.  
(2) Upon the receipt of a certified copy of a 
judgment or order of another jurisdiction imposing 
discipline for misconduct or a license suspension for 
medical incapacity of an attorney admitted to the 
practice of law or engaged in the practice of law in 
this state, the director may file a complaint in the 
supreme court containing all of the following:  
(a) A certified copy of the judgment or order 
from the other jurisdiction.  
(b) A motion requesting an order directing the 
attorney to inform the supreme court in writing within 
20 days of any claim of the attorney predicated on the 
grounds set forth in sub. (3) that the imposition of 
the identical discipline or license suspension by the 
supreme court would be unwarranted and the factual 
basis for the claim.  
(3) The supreme court shall impose the identical 
discipline or license suspension unless one or more of 
the following is present:  
(a) The procedure in the other jurisdiction was 
so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to 
constitute a deprivation of due process.  
(b) There 
was 
such 
an 
infirmity 
of 
proof 
establishing the misconduct or medical incapacity that 
the supreme court could not accept as final the 
conclusion in respect to the misconduct or medical 
incapacity.  
No. 
2011AP1193-D   
 
3 
 
under SCR 22.22(3) that the imposition of reciprocal discipline 
would be unwarranted. 
¶3 
On June 7, 2011, the court granted the OLR's motion 
and directed Attorney Brandt to so inform the court of any claim 
under SCR 22.22(3) by June 27, 2011.  Attorney Brandt did not 
file any response to the court's order by the specified date. 
¶4 
On July 29, 2011, Attorney Brandt and the OLR filed a 
stipulation.  The stipulation repeats the factual allegations 
contained in the OLR's complaint, which are drawn from the 
Massachusetts disciplinary materials.  In the stipulation, 
Attorney Brandt acknowledges that he received a public reprimand 
in Massachusetts and agrees that he should receive a public 
reprimand in Wisconsin as reciprocal discipline.  He states that 
he does not claim any of the "defenses" to the imposition of 
reciprocal 
discipline 
set 
forth 
in 
SCR 
22.22(3). 
 
The 
stipulation contains the proper averments that Attorney Brandt 
understands the allegations against him and the ramifications of 
the requested discipline, that he understands his rights to 
contest the allegations and to consult with and retain counsel, 
                                                                                                                                                             
(c) The 
misconduct 
justifies 
substantially 
different discipline in this state.  
(4) Except as provided in sub. (3), a final 
adjudication in another jurisdiction that an attorney 
has engaged in misconduct or has a medical incapacity 
shall 
be 
conclusive 
evidence 
of 
the 
attorney's 
misconduct or medical incapacity for purposes of a 
proceeding under this rule. 
No. 
2011AP1193-D   
 
4 
 
and that his entry into the stipulation has been made knowingly 
and voluntarily. 
¶5 
Attorney Brandt was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in June 1972.  He was admitted to the practice of law 
in Massachusetts in January 1982.  The most recent address 
provided by Attorney Brandt to the State Bar of Wisconsin is 
located in Quincy, Massachusetts. 
¶6 
Attached to the OLR's complaint and the stipulation 
are copies of an "Order of Public Reprimand" and an attached 
summary 
of 
the 
disciplinary 
proceedings 
issued 
by 
the 
Massachusetts Board on April 8, 2010.  It appears from the 
summary that the public reprimand resulted from a stipulation of 
facts and joint recommendation for discipline executed by 
Attorney Brandt and the Massachusetts regulatory authorities. 
¶7 
According to the summary, a client retained Attorney 
Brandt in October 2005 to represent him in a medical malpractice 
case regarding a surgery and post-operative care that occurred 
in October 2004.  The client gave copies of some of his medical 
records to Attorney Brandt. 
¶8 
In early August 2007, Attorney Brandt decided not to 
pursue the client's medical malpractice claim.  He did not 
notify the client of this decision, however, nor did he return 
the client's medical records.  In addition, Attorney Brandt did 
not advise the client of his right to consult other attorneys, 
of the applicable statute of limitations, or of the consequences 
of failing to file suit before the expiration of the statute of 
limitations.  He did not take any steps to toll the statute of 
No. 
2011AP1193-D   
 
5 
 
limitations on the client's behalf or to otherwise protect the 
client's rights so that he could consult with other attorneys.  
Indeed, for more than 2 1/2 years, from November 2005 until June 
2008, Attorney Brandt never communicated with his client.  In 
June 2008 the client learned for the first time that no lawsuit 
had been filed on his behalf when he went to Attorney Brandt's 
office to inquire. 
¶9 
The 
Massachusetts 
Board 
determined 
that 
Attorney 
Brandt's failure to keep his client informed about the status of 
the matter and to advise the client of his decision not to 
pursue a claim violated Massachusetts Rules of Professional 
Conduct (MRPC) 1.2(a), 1.3, and 1.4.  It further concluded that 
Attorney Brandt's decision to terminate the representation of 
the client without taking reasonably practical steps to protect 
the client's interests and his failure to return all of the 
client's files to the client in a seasonable manner violated 
MRPC 1.16(d). 
¶10 The 
Massachusetts 
Board 
accepted 
the 
parties' 
stipulation of facts and imposed the requested public reprimand.  
It noted as an aggravating factor that Attorney Brandt had 
substantial experience in the practice of law. 
¶11 As noted above, Attorney Brandt has not raised any of 
the reasons for imposing a different level of discipline set 
forth in SCR 22.22(3).  Our review of the record also discloses 
no reason why a different level of discipline should be imposed 
in this state.  Consequently, we impose a public reprimand under 
No. 
2011AP1193-D   
 
6 
 
SCR 22.22(3) as discipline identical to that imposed in the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.   
¶12 Because this is a reciprocal discipline matter that 
has been resolved by stipulation without the appointment of a 
referee and the OLR has requested that we not impose costs, we 
do not require Attorney Brandt to pay the costs of this 
proceeding. 
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that Ronald L. Brandt is publicly 
reprimanded for his professional misconduct. 
 
No. 
2011AP1193-D   
 
 
 
1