Title: David J. Winkel v.

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
96-3680 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against David J. Winkel, Attorney at Law. 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST WINKEL 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
April 21, 1998 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
No.  96-3680-D 
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 96-3680-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against DAVID J. WINKEL, Attorney at Law. 
FILED 
 
APR 21, 1998 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that David J. Winkel be publicly reprimanded for 
professional misconduct in failing to do adequate preparation in 
the representation of clients and explain their legal matter to 
them to the extent reasonably necessary for them to make an 
informed decision in it, failing to competently represent a 
client in an estate matter, misrepresenting that he had prepared 
a document, and failing to respond to successor counsel’s 
requests for information and the client’s file in that matter, 
and failing to respond to inquiries from the Board of Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility (Board) in its investigation into 
his conduct. Attorney Winkel filed a notice of appeal from the 
referee’s report, but that appeal was dismissed for his failure 
to file his brief within the time required.  
No.  96-3680-D 
 
2 
¶2 
We determine that the public reprimand recommended by 
the referee is the appropriate discipline to impose on Attorney 
Winkel for his professional misconduct in these matters. His 
failure to do the necessary legal work in two client matters 
caused serious repercussions to those clients, financial and 
otherwise, and by not responding to the Board’s inquiries, he 
failed to meet his professional obligation to cooperate in the 
court’s exercise of its disciplinary authority over those it 
licenses to practice law.  
¶3 
Attorney Winkel was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1984 and practices in Neenah. He has not been the 
subject of a prior attorney disciplinary proceeding. Following 
an evidentiary hearing, the referee, Attorney John E. Shannon, 
Jr., made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.  
¶4 
Attorney Winkel was retained in November, 1989 by a 
couple contemplating litigation against the persons from whom 
they had purchased a remodeling business. The clients had 
obtained a bank loan to purchase the business and had personally 
guaranteed the loan. The business was not doing well, and the 
clients wanted to sell it. Attorney Winkel advised them not to 
pay any of its outstanding debts and to put as much cash as 
possible in its accounts at the lending bank in the hope that 
the bank would release them from personal liability on the loan.  
¶5 
Attorney Winkel was aware that the clients had not 
been keeping separate and treating as trust funds the deposits 
they had received on remodeling jobs, as required by law. Those 
deposits were commingled with other business receipts in the 
No.  96-3680-D 
 
3 
bank accounts that constituted a portion of the collateral 
securing the bank’s loan.  
¶6 
A buyer for the business was located and a closing was 
scheduled for March 30, 1990, but the buyer withdrew the offer 
to purchase in part because the sellers informed them that there 
would be creditors of the business who would not be paid out of 
the sale proceeds. When Attorney Winkel met with the clients on 
the day of the scheduled closing and reviewed the accounts 
payable, he learned that the business’ debts were almost 
$149,000, 
of 
which 
almost 
$33,000 
was 
owed 
to 
several 
subcontractors. At that time, he discussed with his clients the 
likelihood that when it learned the sale was not completed, the 
bank would seize the funds in the business checking account and 
apply it toward the $75,000 loan outstanding. He and his clients 
discussed removing the funds from the bank before that could 
happen in order that the clients would be in a position to ask 
the bank to release them from their personal guaranties. They 
also discussed the fees, approximately $5000, owing to Attorney 
Winkel’s 
law 
firm 
and 
the 
possibility 
of 
the 
clients’ 
bankruptcy.  
¶7 
When the clients subsequently told Attorney Winkel 
they could not continue the business and asked what to do with 
the bank accounts, totaling approximately $22,000, Attorney 
Winkel advised them that there were many legal ramifications to 
the matter, including the possibility of adverse claims of trust 
fund creditors, but he did not discuss with them how much they 
had received in deposits for three remodeling projects that 
No.  96-3680-D 
 
4 
remained uncompleted, the disbursements the clients had made on 
those projects, or the claims of subcontractors that remained to 
be paid out of the funds that had been received. If Attorney 
Winkel had obtained that information, he would have learned that 
between December, 1989 and March 30, 1990, the business received 
$70,000 from three homeowners for the remodeling projects and 
that there was approximately $33,000 in subcontractor bills that 
should have been paid out of those deposits but were not. As a 
consequence, he did not tell the clients that if they used the 
$22,000 in the bank accounts for something other than payment of 
the subcontractor bills, they would risk being charged with 
felony theft by a contractor.  
¶8 
Following that discussion, the clients paid some tax 
bills of the business and withdrew approximately $20,000 from 
the business account in the form of two money orders, one to 
Attorney Winkel’s law firm for $5000 and the other to themselves 
for the balance. They gave the $5000 to Attorney Winkel’s firm 
and returned the balance to the bank in exchange for its release 
of their personal guaranties on the loan. At the same time, 
Attorney Winkel wrote the business’ creditors that the business 
had surrendered all of its assets to the bank and that it 
appeared there would not be sufficient funds to satisfy other 
creditor claims. When several creditors contacted him, he took 
the position that the business no longer had any assets and that 
the creditors would not have a claim against the owners 
personally.  
No.  96-3680-D 
 
5 
¶9 
After one of the homeowners who had contracted for 
remodeling services was unsuccessful in obtaining a refund of 
the deposit contacted the district attorney, the clients were 
charged with nine felony counts and four misdemeanor counts of 
contractor theft for their conversion of trust monies that 
should have been used to pay the subcontractors on the 
remodeling jobs. One of the clients pleaded no contest to three 
misdemeanor counts of contractor theft; the case against the 
other client was held open and subsequently dismissed. The 
clients made full restitution of all trust monies they had 
received.  
¶10 Based on those facts, the referee concluded that 
Attorney Winkel’s failure to obtain information about the trust 
funds held by the business before the clients surrendered its 
assets to the bank constituted a failure to do adequate 
preparation with respect to his representation of the clients, 
in violation of SCR 20:1.1.1 In addition, his failure to inform 
the clients about the risks of criminal prosecution by their 
surrender of business assets to the bank and payment of his law 
firm fees without paying or agreeing to pay the subcontractor 
bills constituted a failure to explain the matter to the clients 
to the extent reasonably necessary to permit them to make an 
                     
1 SCR 20:1.1 provides: Competence  
A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a 
client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, 
skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the 
representation.  
No.  96-3680-D 
 
6 
informed decision about the best use of the remaining business 
assets, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(b).2  
¶11 The 
second matter 
considered in 
this 
proceeding 
concerned Attorney Winkel’s representation of a man, his wife, 
and their son in estate planning matters, beginning in 1991. 
Attorney Winkel reviewed the trust agreement the husband had 
executed that provided that, upon his death, all of his assets 
would be allocated to his wife’s marital share unless she 
disclaimed all or part of them. Under the terms of the trust, if 
no disclaimer were made, all of those assets would pass directly 
to the wife and be included in her estate at her death.  
¶12 When the husband died February 14, 1992, approximately 
$600,000 was to be transferred to the wife’s marital share and 
become part of her estate unless her disclaimer were filed by 
November 14, 1992. Although he continued to provide legal 
services and advice to the wife and son, including advising that 
a “waiver” of rights under the husband’s will be made in order 
that his assets be treated as trust assets, Attorney Winkel 
failed to recognize the significance of the trust’s disclaimer 
requirement and did not perform the necessary analysis to advise 
the wife of the need for a written disclaimer of her husband’s 
                     
2 SCR 20:1.4 provides, in pertinent part: Communication  
 . . .  
(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent 
reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed 
decisions regarding the representation.  
No.  96-3680-D 
 
7 
assets. As a result, the estate of the wife, who died May 24, 
1993, had a potentially greater tax liability.  
¶13 During the course of the Board’s investigation of this 
matter, Attorney Winkel stated that he had prepared the 
necessary disclaimer, but his files did not substantiate that he 
had done so. The son, who had regularly received copies of 
correspondence and communication between Attorney Winkel and his 
parents, was unable to find any indication in his records that 
his mother had executed a disclaimer.  
¶14 Following his mother’s death, the son retained another 
attorney to represent him in estate matters. That attorney wrote 
Attorney Winkel inquiring into the existence of a disclaimer and 
asking for the clients’ estate file. Attorney Winkel did not 
return his telephone calls and, after that attorney filed a 
grievance, 
did 
not 
respond 
to 
the 
Board’s 
first 
letter 
requesting information. He did not respond timely to a second 
letter and did not return a telephone call from the district 
professional responsibility committee investigator assigned to 
the matter. In explaining his failure to respond to the Board’s 
inquiry, Attorney Winkel asserted that when he received it, he 
had undergone surgery and had been taking pain medication. In 
fact, he had had two surgeries more than one year prior to 
receiving the Board’s inquiry and a third surgery not long 
thereafter.  
¶15 The referee concluded that in this matter Attorney 
Winkel’s failure to have the wife execute the disclaimer 
required under the father’s trust constituted a failure to 
No.  96-3680-D 
 
8 
provide the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation 
reasonably 
necessary 
for 
competent 
representation 
of 
the 
clients, in violation of SCR 20:1.1. By misrepresenting that he 
had prepared the necessary disclaimer and by misrepresenting the 
reason for his failure to respond to inquiries from the Board, 
he engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).3 The referee 
also concluded that Attorney Winkel’s failure to respond to 
successor counsel’s request for estate information necessary for 
the preparation and filing of estate tax returns constituted a 
failure to keep a client reasonably informed of the status of a 
matter 
and 
promptly 
comply 
with 
reasonable 
requests 
for 
information, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).4 Finally, by failing 
to respond to the Board’s initial request for information and 
subsequent contacts from the Board and the district committee 
investigator, Attorney Winkel failed to cooperate in the 
                     
3 SCR 20:8.4 provides, in pertinent part: Misconduct  
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:  
 . . .  
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation;  
4 SCR 20:1.4 provides, in pertinent part: Communication  
(a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about 
the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable 
requests for information.  
No.  96-3680-D 
 
9 
investigation of this matter, in violation of SCR 21.03(4)5 and 
22.07(2).6  
¶16 As discipline for his professional misconduct in these 
two matters, the referee recommended that Attorney Winkel be 
publicly reprimanded. In addition, he recommended that Attorney 
Winkel be required to pay the costs of this proceeding.  
¶17 We 
adopt 
the 
referee’s 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and impose the recommended public reprimand 
on Attorney Winkel as discipline for his professional misconduct 
established in this proceeding.  
¶18 IT IS ORDERED that David J. Winkel is publicly 
reprimanded for professional misconduct.  
                     
5 SCR 21.03 provides, in pertinent part: General principles.  
 . . .  
(4) Every attorney shall cooperate with the board and the 
administrator in the investigation, prosecution and disposition 
of grievances and complaints filed with or by the board or 
administrator.  
6 SCR 22.07 provides, in pertinent part: Investigation.  
 . . .  
(2) 
During 
the 
course 
of 
an 
investigation, 
the 
administrator or a committee may notify the respondent of the 
subject being investigated. The respondent shall fully and 
fairly disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct or medical incapacity within 20 days of being 
served by ordinary mail a request for response to a grievance. 
The administrator in his or her discretion may allow additional 
time 
to 
respond. 
Failure 
to 
provide 
information 
or 
misrepresentation 
in 
a 
disclosure 
is 
misconduct. 
The 
administrator or committee may make a further investigation 
before making a recommendation to the board.  
No.  96-3680-D 
 
10
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this proceeding, David J. Winkel pay to the Board of 
Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility 
the 
costs 
of 
this 
proceeding, provided that if the costs are not paid within the 
time specified and absent a showing to the court of his 
inability to pay the costs within that time, the license of 
David J. Winkel to practice law in Wisconsin shall be suspended 
until further order of the court.  
 
 
 
1