Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. John R. Loew

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2012 WI 40 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2011AP777-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against John R. Loew, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
John R. Loew, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST LOEW 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 27, 2012   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2012 WI 40
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2011AP777-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against John R. Loew, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
John R. Loew, 
 
          Respondent.   
FILED 
 
APR 27, 2012 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   We 
review 
Referee 
Christine 
Harris 
Taylor's recommendation that this court publicly reprimand 
Attorney John R. Loew for two counts of professional misconduct.  
¶2 
Because no appeal has been filed, we review the 
referee's report pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1  After conducting our 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) states: 
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 
No. 
2011AP777-D   
 
2 
 
independent review of the matter, we accept and adopt the 
referee's findings of fact, which were based on the allegations 
of the complaint filed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), 
due to Attorney Loew's default.  We agree the OLR is entitled to 
a default judgment, and we determine that Attorney Loew's 
misconduct warrants a public reprimand.  We impose the full 
costs of this proceeding on Attorney Loew.  The costs totaled 
$549.23 as of November 9, 2011. 
¶3 
Attorney 
Loew 
was 
admitted 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin in 1994.  His Wisconsin law license is currently 
suspended for nonpayment of State Bar dues and for noncompliance 
with continuing legal education (CLE) requirements.  In 2010 
Attorney Loew was suspended for 60 days for seven counts of 
misconduct arising out of his handling of two probate matters.  
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Loew, 2010 WI 23, 323 
Wis. 2d 670, 780 N.W.2d 523.  That matter was also handled by 
Referee Taylor. 
¶4 
On April 8, 2011, the OLR filed the current complaint 
against Attorney Loew.  It alleges two counts of professional 
misconduct, both involving Attorney Loew's representation of 
R.H.  
¶5 
The complaint alleges that in October 2007, R.H. 
retained Attorney Loew to prepare her estate plan, which 
included removing her deceased husband's name from a deed and 
                                                                                                                                                             
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
No. 
2011AP777-D   
 
3 
 
titling a condominium solely in her name.  Attorney Loew and 
R.H. did not execute a written fee agreement.  Attorney Loew 
told R.H. that when he was done he would send her a bill.  
Attorney Loew met with R.H. on one occasion in October 2007.  
This was the only time Attorney Loew met in person with R.H.  
¶6 
On October 11, 2007, this court suspended Attorney 
Loew's license to practice law for misconduct unrelated to the 
R.H. matter.  On that same date, the court mailed Attorney 
Loew's notice of suspension to his home and office addresses. 
Attorney Loew did not advise R.H. of his suspension. 
¶7 
On October 12, 2007, Attorney Loew mailed R.H. drafts 
of her estate planning documents and requested that she comment 
on these drafts.  On October 15, 2007, Attorney Loew sent R.H. a 
bill for legal services in the amount of $650.  In November 2007 
R.H. paid this bill in full.  
¶8 
Between November 2007 and the spring of 2008, R.H. 
called Attorney Loew multiple times to advise him of some 
changes that she wanted him to make to the documents.  Attorney 
Loew did not respond.   
¶9 
In the summer of 2008, R.H. retained successor 
counsel.  On June 18, 2008, R.H.'s new lawyer sent Attorney Loew 
a letter requesting that Attorney Loew refund R.H. the fees she 
paid him for legal services.  On September 12, 2008, Attorney 
Loew e-mailed the lawyer to indicate he would refund R.H. $650, 
less $30 for travel, in exchange for R.H. returning all of the 
documents that Attorney Loew had previously prepared for her.  
No. 
2011AP777-D   
 
4 
 
On November 25, 2008, Attorney Loew sent a $620 refund check to 
R.H. 
¶10 The OLR'S complaint alleged that by failing to respond 
to R.H.'s telephone calls regarding information relating to his 
representation of her, Attorney Loew violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(4).2  
The second count of the complaint alleged that by failing to 
properly inform R.H. of his license suspension, his consequent 
inability to act as an attorney, and that R.H. should seek legal 
advice elsewhere, Attorney Loew violated SCR 22.26(1)(a) and 
(b),3 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f).4  The OLR sought a public 
reprimand and the imposition of costs.   
¶11 Attorney Loew failed to file an answer to the 
complaint and, on July 28, 2011, some 90 days after the answer 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) provides that a lawyer shall "promptly 
comply 
with 
reasonable 
requests 
by 
the 
client 
for 
information; . . . ." 
3 SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b) provide as follows:  
On or before the effective date of license 
suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 
suspended or revoked shall do all of the following:  
(a) Notify by certified mail all clients being 
represented in pending matters of the suspension or 
revocation and of the attorney's consequent inability 
to act as an attorney following the effective date of 
the suspension or revocation.  
(b) Advise the clients to seek legal advice of 
their choice elsewhere. 
4 SCR 20:8.4(f) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme court 
order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers; . . . ." 
No. 
2011AP777-D   
 
5 
 
was due, the OLR filed a motion for a default judgment to which 
Attorney Loew did not respond.  The referee conducted a 
telephonic scheduling conference.  Attorney Loew did not appear 
despite having received notice of the conference from the 
referee.   
¶12 On October 24, 2011, the referee issued a brief order 
entitled "Order for Default."  In this order she stated she 
granted the motion for default judgment against Attorney Loew 
and imposed a public reprimand and costs.5  No appeal was filed. 
¶13 In light of Attorney Loew's failure to appear or 
participate in this case we accept the referee's recommendation 
and agree that Attorney Loew has defaulted.  In view of his 
default we accept the allegations set forth in the complaint as 
true and conclude that the OLR has met its burden of proof with 
respect to the allegations in the complaint.   
¶14 The referee's findings of fact have not been shown to 
be clearly erroneous, and we adopt them.  We also agree with the 
referee's conclusions of law and we agree with the referee's 
recommendation for a public reprimand of Attorney Lowe's license 
to practice law.  Finally, we agree with the referee's 
recommendation that Attorney Loew be required to pay the costs 
of this proceeding. 
¶15 IT 
IS 
ORDERED 
that 
John 
R. 
Loew 
is 
publicly 
reprimanded for his professional misconduct.   
                                                 
5 We note that this court imposes discipline; referees are 
to recommend discipline to the court. 
No. 
2011AP777-D   
 
6 
 
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, John R. Loew shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If the costs are not 
paid within the time specified and John R. Loew has not entered 
into a payment plan approved by the Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
then the Office of Lawyer Regulation is authorized to move this 
court for a suspension of the license of John R. Loew to 
practice law in Wisconsin. 
 
 
No. 
2011AP777-D   
 
 
 
1