Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Cole J. White

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2020 WI 88 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2019AP1162-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceeding Against 
Cole J. White, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
v. 
 
Cole J. White, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST WHITE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 25, 2020   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam.  
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2020 WI 88
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2019AP1162-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceeding 
Against Cole J. White, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
v. 
 
Cole J. White, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
NOV 25, 2020 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   On December 19, 2019, Referee Robert E. 
Kinney filed a report recommending that Attorney Cole J. White 
be declared in default, concluding that Attorney White engaged 
in 44 counts of misconduct in 13 separate client matters 
warranting a two-year suspension of his license to practice law 
in Wisconsin, and recommending that Attorney White be ordered to 
No. 
2019AP1162-D   
 
2 
 
make restitution to various clients1 and that this court impose 
the full costs of this proceeding, which are $2,514.74 as of 
January 7, 2020, on Attorney White. 
¶2 
We conclude that the referee's findings of fact 
pertaining to Attorney White's misconduct are supported by 
satisfactory and convincing evidence in the record.  Attorney 
White failed to present a defense despite being given multiple 
opportunities to do so, and we declare him to be in default.  We 
find that the egregiousness and extent of Attorney White's 
misconduct warrants a four-year suspension of his license rather 
than the two years recommended by the referee.  In addition, we 
agree with the referee that Attorney White should be required to 
make restitution to various clients and he should be assessed 
the full costs of the proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney White was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2013.  He practiced in Green Bay.  In 2019 his 
Wisconsin law license was suspended, effective October 4, 2019,  
for a period of 15 months for 27 counts of professional 
misconduct arising out of four client matters.  The misconduct 
included failing to hold advanced fees in trust; failing to 
respond to requests from opposing counsel; failing to take 
action to prosecute his clients' case; failing to respond to 
discovery requests; making false statements to his client about 
                                                 
1 In response to an order to show cause issued by this 
court, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) recommends that 
Attorney White be required to make restitution to an additional 
client. 
No. 
2019AP1162-D   
 
3 
 
the status of a case and the conduct of the opposing parties; 
fabricating an email to the OLR; charging an unreasonable fee; 
and failing to return a client's file upon termination of the 
representation.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against White, 
2019 WI 86, 388 Wis. 2d 277, 932 N.W.2d 410.  In addition, 
Attorney White's law license is administratively suspended for 
failure to pay state bar dues and failure to provide a trust 
account certification. 
¶4 
On June 27, 2019, the OLR filed its 44 count complaint 
against Attorney White.  On July 23, 2019, Attorney White, 
through his counsel, Attorney Jevon Jaconi, filed a one-page 
answer.  The referee was appointed on October 18, 2019.  After 
filing the answer, Attorney White failed to participate in any 
of the OLR proceedings, including failing to appear for a 
deposition that had been noticed at Attorney Jaconi's office for 
November 27, 2019.   
¶5 
On December 2, 2019, the OLR filed a notice of motion 
and motion to strike Attorney White's answer and a motion for 
default judgment.  A hearing on the motion was held before the 
referee on December 3, 2019.  The referee had previously signed 
an order for Attorney White to appear at the proceeding, but he 
did not in fact appear. 
¶6 
At the December 3, 2019 hearing, the referee granted 
Attorney Jaconi's motion to withdraw as counsel for Attorney 
White.  Attorney Jaconi stated at the hearing that Attorney 
White had "essentially disappeared" and had not been heard from 
since early October, around the time his license suspension went 
No. 
2019AP1162-D   
 
4 
 
into effect.  Attorney Jaconi stated that Attorney White had 
cleared out his office and left a moving company with an unpaid 
bill.  He further stated that all of Attorney White's telephone 
and email accounts were non-functional.  Attorney Jaconi stated 
that he was not aware of Attorney White's current whereabouts 
but had heard from one source that he had gone to California and 
from another source that he had gone to Washington, D.C.  
Attorney Jaconi testified he heard that Attorney White's brother 
told some circuit court judges that Attorney White had committed 
suicide.  There is no indication that this is true. 
¶7 
The referee then turned to the OLR's motion to strike 
Attorney White's answer and its motion for default judgment and 
granted both.  The referee said he had "never seen anything 
quite like" the OLR's complaint against Attorney White and, "the 
attitude and statements that are cited in the complaint are not 
only stunning, but they show a degree of disrespect for clients 
and for the system that I've never encountered . . .."  The 
referee found that Attorney White's conduct was egregious and 
that his abruptly leaving the area, without regard to his 
clients and without advising the OLR, was an extraordinary 
situation.  The referee said, "to leave everyone in a lurch, as 
Attorney White has done, is unfathomable.  Anyone would have to 
say how could any professional conduct himself in this way." 
¶8 
The referee said it was clear the public needed to be 
protected from Attorney White and for that reason he recommended 
that this court enter default judgment against Attorney White.  
The referee found that there was an adequate factual basis for 
No. 
2019AP1162-D   
 
5 
 
each of the 44 counts of misconduct alleged in the OLR's 
complaint and that, by default, Attorney White was found to have 
committed all of the alleged violations.  The OLR had asked for 
a two-year license suspension, and the referee concluded that 
was an appropriate sanction for Attorney White's misconduct.  
The referee recommended that Attorney White be required to pay 
restitution to a number of clients and that he be required to 
pay the full costs of this proceeding.   
¶9 
The allegations of the OLR's complaint will be briefly 
summarized here.  In 2017, K.C. hired Attorney White to 
represent him in a case in which K.C. had been charged with 
resisting/obstructing an officer; possession of THC, 2nd or 
subsequent offense; possession of cocaine, 2nd or subsequent 
offense; and possession of drug paraphernalia.  K.C. paid 
Attorney White $2,100.  The funds were paid in contemplation of 
future services.  Attorney White did not deposit the funds into 
his trust account.  Attorney White appeared with K.C. for two 
court appearances, after which K.C. attempted to advise Attorney 
White that he no longer needed his services and he wanted a 
refund of any unearned fees.  Attorney White failed to respond 
to K.C. and he failed to respond to the OLR's request for 
information after K.C. filed a grievance.   
¶10 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney White's representation of 
K.C.: 
Count 1:  By failing to place advanced fees into his 
trust account, without evidence of an intention to 
No. 
2019AP1162-D   
 
6 
 
follow the SCR 20:1.5(g) alternative, Attorney White 
violated SCR 20:1.5(f).2 
Count 2:  By willfully failing to timely and fully 
respond to K.C.'s grievance, Attorney White violated 
SCR 22.03(2)3 and SCR 22.03(6),4 enforceable via 
SCR 20:8.4(h).5 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.5(f) provides: 
Except as provided in SCR 20:1.5(g), unearned 
fees and funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for 
payment of fees shall be held in trust until earned by 
the lawyer, and withdrawn pursuant to SCR 20:1.5(h). 
Funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for payment of 
costs shall be held in trust until the costs are 
incurred. 
3 SCR 22.03(2) provides: 
Upon commencing an investigation, the director 
shall notify the respondent of the matter being 
investigated unless in the opinion of the director the 
investigation of the matter requires otherwise.  The 
respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts 
and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct 
within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail a 
request for a written response.  The director may 
allow additional time to respond.  Following receipt 
of the response, the director may conduct further 
investigation and may compel the respondent to answer 
questions, 
furnish 
documents, 
and 
present 
any 
information deemed relevant to the investigation.   
4 SCR 
22.03(6) 
provides: 
 
"In 
the 
course 
of 
the 
investigation, the respondent's wilful failure to provide 
relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 
documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure 
are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted 
in the grievance." 
5 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to fail to cooperate in the investigation of a 
grievance filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required 
by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), 
or SCR 22.04(1)." 
No. 
2019AP1162-D   
 
7 
 
¶11 The next client matter detailed in the OLR's complaint 
involves Attorney White's representation of J.B., who hired 
Attorney White in 2017 to represent him in three criminal 
matters.  J.B. and his girlfriend, S.T., paid Attorney White 
$3,750.  The funds were paid in contemplation of future 
services.  Attorney White failed to deposit the funds into his 
trust account.  Attorney White responded to a text message from 
S.T. by using profanity.  After that exchange, S.T. and J.B. 
acted to terminate Attorney White's representation, which was 
followed by Attorney White's stipulated withdrawal from the 
cases.   
¶12 J.B. requested an itemized billing statement for the 
work Attorney White had performed.  Attorney White refused to 
provide the itemization and told J.B. not to contact him again.  
J.B. pursued fee arbitration through the State Bar of Wisconsin, 
but Attorney White failed to respond to the State Bar, which 
resulted in dismissal of the arbitration request.  After J.B. 
filed a grievance against Attorney White, Attorney White told 
the OLR investigator he would not participate in the process 
because he believed the investigation was the result of racial 
bias.  After this court issued an order to show cause why 
Attorney 
White's 
license 
to 
practice 
law 
should 
not 
be 
temporarily suspended as a result of his willful failure to 
cooperate with the OLR's investigation, Attorney White provided 
the OLR with a response to J.B.'s grievance.  This court then 
granted the OLR's request to withdraw its motion for temporary 
license suspension. 
No. 
2019AP1162-D   
 
8 
 
¶13 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney White's representation of 
J.B.: 
Count 3:  By failing to place advanced fees into his 
trust account, without evidence of an intention to 
follow the SCR 20:1.5(g) alternative, Attorney White 
violated SCR 20:1.5(f). 
Count 4:  By failing to respond to J.B.'s requests for 
an 
accounting, 
Attorney 
White 
violated 
SCR 20:1.5(b)(3).6 
Count 5:  By using vulgar and abusive language towards 
S.T., who was communicating with Attorney White on 
J.B.'s behalf regarding his case, Attorney White 
violated SCR 40.15,7 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(g).8 
Count 6:  By willfully failing to timely and fully 
respond to J.B.'s grievance, Attorney White violated 
SCR 22.03(2), and SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via 
SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶14 The next client matter detailed in the OLR's complaint 
involved Attorney White's representation of J.D.  J.D.'s father, 
J.B., hired Attorney White to represent J.D. in an appeal 
arising out of two criminal matters in Milwaukee County.  J.B. 
paid Attorney White an advanced fee of $2,400.  Attorney White 
did 
not 
provide 
a 
written 
communication 
regarding 
the 
                                                 
6 SCR 20:1.5(b)(3) provides:  "A lawyer shall promptly 
respond to a client's request for information concerning fees 
and expenses." 
7 SCR 40.15 provides: "I will abstain from all offensive 
personality and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or 
reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice 
of the cause with which I am charged; . . . " 
8 SCR 20:8.4(g) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to violate the attorney's oath." 
No. 
2019AP1162-D   
 
9 
 
representation, nor did he deposit the fees into his trust 
account.  Attorney White was subsequently asked to provide a 
refund of fees paid, but he refused to comply with the request.  
He also failed to cooperate with the OLR's investigation of a 
grievance until he was served with an order to show cause from 
this court. 
¶15 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney White's representation of 
J.D.:  
Count 
7: 
 
By 
failing 
to 
provide 
a 
written 
communication to J.D. and/or J.B. defining the terms 
and scope of the representation, and the purpose and 
effect of the $2,400 advanced fee paid by J.B., 
Attorney White violated SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2).9 
Count 8:  By failing to place advanced fees into his 
trust account, without evidence of an intention to 
                                                 
9 SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2) provides:  
(1) The scope of the representation and the basis 
or rate of the fee and expenses for which the client 
will be responsible shall be communicated to the 
client in writing, before or within a reasonable time 
after commencing the representation, except when the 
lawyer will charge a regularly represented client on 
the same basis or rate as in the past.  If it is 
reasonably 
foreseeable 
that 
the 
total 
cost 
of 
representation to the client, including attorney's 
fees, will be $1000 or less, the communication may be 
oral or in writing.  Any changes in the basis or rate 
of the fee or expenses shall also be communicated in 
writing to the client.   
(2) If the total cost of representation to the 
client, including attorney's fees, is more than $1000, 
the purpose and effect of any retainer or advance fee 
that is paid to the lawyer shall be communicated in 
writing.  
No. 
2019AP1162-D   
 
10 
 
follow the SCR 20:1.5(g) alternative, Attorney White 
violated SCR 20:1.5(f). 
Count 9:  By failing to advance J.D.'s interest in the 
matter of an appeal or postconviction motion, Attorney 
White violated SCR 20:1.3.10 
Count 10:  By falsely stating to F.D., J.D's then 
wife, that he had performed substantial work on J.D.'s 
case, including requesting transcripts and preparing 
documents for J.D.'s appeal, and by falsely stating to 
F.D. that he had five attorneys working on J.D.'s 
case, Attorney White violated SCR 20:8.4(c).11 
Count 11:  By failing to refund any unearned fees to 
J.D. and/or J.B. after having failed to advance J.D.'s 
case, thereby rendering at least a portion of the 
advanced 
fee 
unearned, 
Attorney 
White 
violated 
SCR 20:1.16(d).12 
Count 12:  By willfully failing to timely and fully 
respond to the OLR in the J.D. and J.B. grievance 
matter, Attorney White violated SCR 22.03(2) and 
SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶16 The next client matter detailed in the OLR's complaint 
involved Attorney White's representation of D.E., who hired 
                                                 
10 SCR 20:1.3 provides:  "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
11 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
12 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides:   
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer 
shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable 
to protect a client's interests, such as giving 
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for 
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and 
property to which the client is entitled and refunding 
any advance payment of fee or expense that has not 
been earned or incurred.  The lawyer may retain papers 
relating to the client to the extent permitted by 
other law. 
No. 
2019AP1162-D   
 
11 
 
Attorney White to represent him with respect to a bench warrant 
that had been issued against him in Dodge County and with 
respect to a civil claim against Madison Metro Transit.  
Attorney White received two payments of $300 from D.E. and 
agreed to a contingent fee arrangement regarding the civil 
claim.  Attorney White did not have a written fee agreement with 
D.E., nor did he deposit the fees paid into his trust account 
even though the funds paid were in contemplation of future 
services.   
¶17 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney White's representation of 
D.E.: 
Count 13:  To the extent that Attorney White's oral 
fee agreement with D.E. contained a contingent fee 
component, Attorney White violated SCR 20:1.5(c).13 
                                                 
13 SCR 20:1.5(c) provides:   
A fee may be contingent on the outcome of the 
matter for which the service is rendered, except in a 
matter in which a contingent fee is prohibited by par. 
(d) or other law.  A contingent fee agreement shall be 
in a writing signed by the client, and shall state the 
method by which the fee is to be determined, including 
the percentage or percentages that shall accrue to the 
lawyer in the event of settlement, trial or appeal; 
litigation and other expenses to be deducted from the 
recovery; and whether such expenses are to be deducted 
before or after the contingent fee is calculated. The 
agreement must clearly notify the client of any 
expenses for which the client will be liable whether 
or not the client is the prevailing party.  Upon 
conclusion of a contingent fee matter, the lawyer 
shall provide the client with a written statement 
stating the outcome of the matter and if there is a 
recovery, showing the remittance to the client and the 
method of its determination. 
No. 
2019AP1162-D   
 
12 
 
Count 14:  By failing to place advanced fees into his 
trust account, without evidence of an intention to 
follow the SCR 20:1.5(g) alternative, Attorney White 
violated SCR 20:1.5(f). 
¶18 The next client matter detailed in the OLR's complaint 
involved Attorney White's representation of K.G., who hired 
Attorney White with respect to a civil rights claim against the 
Village of Elm Grove Police Department.  Attorney White advised 
K.G. by email that he had reviewed documents relating to his 
potential civil rights claim and that he believed K.G. likely 
had a basis for a civil lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.  K.G. 
paid Attorney White $3,000 toward attorney fees, believing that 
Attorney White had agreed to file a civil suit on his behalf.  
Attorney White did not have a written fee agreement with K.G., 
nor did he deposit the fees paid into his trust account.  K.G. 
subsequently emailed Attorney White to request a refund of the 
$3,000 and an accounting of work that had been performed.  
Attorney White failed to provide an accounting or a refund.   
¶19 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney White's representation of 
K.G.:  
Count 
15: 
 
By 
failing 
to 
provide 
a 
written 
communication to K.G. defining the terms and scope of 
the representation and the purpose and effect of the 
advanced portion of the $3,000 fee paid by K.G., 
Attorney White violated SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2). 
Count 16:  By failing to place any of the $3,000 fee 
paid by K.G., at least a portion of which was an 
advanced fee, into his trust account, without evidence 
of 
an 
intention 
to 
follow 
the 
SCR 20:1.5(g) 
alternative, Attorney White violated SCR 20:1.5(f). 
No. 
2019AP1162-D   
 
13 
 
Count 17:  By failing to refund any unearned fees to 
K.G., Attorney White violated SCR 20:1.16(d). 
¶20 The next client matter detailed in the OLR's complaint 
involved Attorney White's representation of C.C., who hired 
Attorney White to represent her son in a postconviction juvenile 
criminal matter.  C.C. paid Attorney White $3,000 as an advanced 
fee.  Attorney White did not have a written fee agreement with 
C.C.  Attorney White told C.C. he would take action to attempt 
to have her son's guilty plea withdrawn.  Although Attorney 
White represented to C.C. that he had submitted petitions in the 
case, in fact he had not made any filings.  C.C. subsequently 
advised Attorney White she was terminating his representation 
and asked for a full refund of fees.  She then filed a grievance 
with the OLR.  Attorney White responded to the grievance by 
saying he never represented C.C. or her son and that he did not 
take on juvenile matters.   
¶21 In March of 2018, the State Bar of Wisconsin notified 
Attorney White that the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client 
Protection (the Fund) had approved payment of $3,000 to C.C. 
with the explanation that money had been "lost because of 
[White's] dishonest conduct." 
¶22 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney White's representation of 
C.C.: 
Count 
18: 
 
By 
failing 
to 
provide 
a 
written 
communication to C.C. defining the terms and scope of 
the representation and the purpose and effect of the 
$3,000 advanced fee paid by C.C., Attorney White 
violated SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2). 
No. 
2019AP1162-D   
 
14 
 
Count 19:  By failing to file a petition to withdraw 
C.C.'s son's plea, or to take steps to advance C.C.'s 
son's matter, Attorney White violated SCR 20:1.3. 
Count 20:  By falsely stating to C.C. that he 
requested transcripts, filed petitions, and refiled 
petitions on C.C.'s son's behalf, Attorney White 
violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
Count 21:  By failing to refund any unearned fees to 
C.C. after having failed to perform any work on C.C.'s 
son's matter, Attorney White violated SCR 20:1.16(d). 
Count 22:  By misrepresenting to the OLR that he never 
represented C.C. or her son, Attorney White violated 
SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶23 The next client matter detailed in the OLR's complaint 
involved Attorney White's representation of J.J., who hired 
Attorney White to represent him in a divorce matter and a 
criminal matter.  J.J. paid Attorney White $18,000.   
¶24 The OLR's complaint alleged the following count of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney White's representation of 
J.J.: 
Count 23:  By failing to place and hold advanced fees 
in his trust account until earned, without evidence of 
an intent to follow the alternative stated in former 
and current rules, Attorney White violated former 
SCR 20:1.15(b)(4),14 and current SCR 20:1.5(f). 
                                                 
14 Effective July 1, 2016, substantial changes were made to 
Supreme Court Rule 20:1.15, the "trust account rule."  See S. 
Ct. Order 14-07, 2016 WI 21 (issued Apr. 4, 2016, eff. July 1, 
2016).   
Former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) provides: 
Except as provided in par. (4m) unearned fees and 
advanced payments of fees shall be held in trust until 
earned by the lawyer, and withdrawn pursuant to sub. 
(g).  Funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for 
No. 
2019AP1162-D   
 
15 
 
¶25 The next client matter detailed in the OLR's complaint 
involved Attorney White's representation of W.M., who filed a 
Fair Housing Discrimination complaint against his landlord.  The 
Equal Rights Division (ERD) found probable cause to believe that 
the landlord had discriminated against W.M. because of race, 
color, and national origin under the Wisconsin Open Housing Law.  
W.M. hired Attorney White to represent him with respect to 
claims of eviction allegedly based on race, color, and national 
origin and paid Attorney White $750 for his representation.  
Although the fees were paid in contemplation of future services, 
Attorney White did not provide W.M. with a written fee agreement 
nor did he place the $750 into his trust account.   
¶26 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney White's representation of 
W.M.: 
Count 24:  By failing to file a notice of appearance 
or otherwise advance W.M.'s interests in the ERD 
matter, Attorney White violated SCR 20:1.3. 
Count 25:  By failing to place advanced fees into his 
trust account, without evidence of an intention to 
follow the SCR 20:1.5(g) alternative, Attorney White 
violated SCR 20:1.5(f). 
Count 26:  By falsely stating to W.M. that he sent a 
letter notifying ERD of his representation, Attorney 
White violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
Count 27:  By failing to refund any unearned fees to 
W.M. after having failed to perform any work on W.M.'s 
matter, Attorney White violated SCR 20:1.16(d). 
                                                                                                                                                             
payment of costs shall be held in trust until the 
costs are incurred.     
No. 
2019AP1162-D   
 
16 
 
Count 28:  By misrepresenting to the OLR that he 
terminated his representation of W.M. after one week 
and that he had refunded the $750 fee to W.M., 
Attorney White violated SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via 
SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶27 The next client matter detailed in the OLR's complaint 
involved Attorney White's representation of P.W.  According to 
an engagement letter and fee agreement, P.W. would pay Attorney 
White a flat fee of $7,500, which included representation "up 
and through trial if necessary."  P.W. paid Attorney White 
$2,000 and agreed to pay him the remainder of the balance 
through monthly payments of at least $400.  P.W. through his 
girlfriend, S.A., made $400 payments to Attorney White by check 
on four occasions, although P.W. or S.A. later placed a stop 
payment on the final check.  Attorney White did not deposit the 
fees paid into his trust account although they were paid in 
contemplation of future services.   
¶28 Attorney White made several court appearances on 
behalf of P.W.  P.W. appeared in court for his final pretrial 
conference, but Attorney White did not appear.  The circuit 
court noted that Attorney White's license had been suspended 
and, as a result, he could not provide legal representation to 
P.W.  The court ordered Attorney White withdrawn from the case 
and referred P.W. to the state public defender's office to be 
evaluated for representation.   
¶29 After P.W. filed a grievance with the OLR against 
Attorney White, Attorney White told the OLR that P.W. told him 
he had hired another attorney.  In February of 2018, Attorney 
Jaconi forwarded to the OLR a profanity laden email from 
No. 
2019AP1162-D   
 
17 
 
Attorney 
White 
regarding 
three 
grievance 
investigations, 
including P.W.'s grievance.  Among other things, Attorney 
White's email said, "I plan on doing nothing until [OLR 
investigator] is lying in her own blood.  Please feel free to 
tell her, I am this close to becoming violent." 
¶30 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney White's representation of 
P.W.: 
Count 29:  By failing to place advanced fees into his 
trust account, without evidence of an intention to 
follow the SCR 20:1.5(g) alternative, Attorney White 
violated SCR 20:1.5(f). 
Count 30:  By using threatening, vulgar, and abusive 
language directed towards the OLR staff, Attorney 
White 
violated 
SCR 
40.15, 
enforceable 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(g). 
¶31 The next client matter detailed in the OLR's complaint 
arose out of Attorney White's representation of R.S., who hired 
White Law Offices LLC to represent M.A. in a medical malpractice 
suit and to represent R.S. with respect to a probate matter 
involving his mother's estate.  The engagement letter and fee 
agreement signed by R.S. provided that R.S. agreed to pay White 
Law Offices LLC a $5,000 flat fee plus a 25 percent contingent 
fee on any settlement or award in the medical malpractice suit.  
Attorney White signed the engagement letter and fee agreement on 
behalf of White Law Offices LLC.   
¶32 Jonathan Gigot, an attorney formerly associated with 
Attorney White's firm was the attorney assigned to handle these 
cases.  The engagement letter and fee agreement stated that R.S. 
No. 
2019AP1162-D   
 
18 
 
and M.A. gave "informed consent after Jonathan Gigot has 
proposed the course of conduct, has communicated adequate 
information, and has explained all material risks of and 
reasonable available alternatives to the proposed course of 
conduct."   
¶33 R.S. 
paid 
Attorney 
White 
$5,000, 
which 
was 
characterized by the engagement letter and fee agreement as "in 
the form of a Firm Credit, secured by Cole White."  The firm 
credit resulted from the sale of a camper vehicle from R.S. to 
Attorney White, with the Bill of Sale listing a total purchase 
price for the camper of $6,700, of which $5,000 was a legal fee 
credit and $1,700 was paid in cash.  Neither R.S. nor M.A. 
provided informed consent, in writing and signed, as to Attorney 
White's role in the camper transaction.  Attorney White did not 
advise 
them 
in 
writing 
of 
the 
desirability 
of 
seeking 
independent legal counsel on the transaction. 
¶34 Attorney Gigot subsequently left White Law Offices 
LLC, at which time he explained to R.S. and M.A. that he 
believed their cases were too much for a one- or two-person law 
firm to handle and advised them to seek out a larger law firm to 
handle their matters.  Attorney White offered to return the 
camper vehicle to R.S. in exchange for a return of the $1,700 
paid by Attorney White plus all maintenance, upkeep, and 
everything else that went into it.  Attorney White made no other 
effort to refund any unearned fees to R.S. or M.A.  
¶35 After R.S. filed a grievance with the OLR, Attorney 
White told the OLR at various times:  that he told R.S. and M.A. 
No. 
2019AP1162-D   
 
19 
 
to speak to a different firm about the camper transaction; that 
he did not advise them of the desirability of seeking the advice 
of independent legal counsel about the camper transaction; and 
that R.S. and M.A. did provide a signed written informed 
consent, but Attorney White was not able to produce it. 
¶36 Attorney 
White 
made 
profane 
Instagram 
comments 
directed at R.S. including, "keep fucking with me [R.].  I 
promise you'll live to regret it.  I'm keeping a tab on everyone 
who's crossed me, and the bill is going to come due soon."  
Attorney White also stated in an Instagram comment directed to 
R.S., "you are such an obsessed, pathetic loser." 
¶37 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney White's representation of 
R.S. and M.A.: 
Count 31:  By obtaining the camper vehicle via a 
business 
transaction 
with 
his 
client(s), 
without 
providing 
required 
written 
advice 
or 
obtaining 
informed written consent, Attorney White violated 
SCR 20:1.8(a)(2) and (3).15  
                                                 
15 SCR 20:1.8(a)(2) and (3) provides: 
(a) 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: 
(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 
No. 
2019AP1162-D   
 
20 
 
Count 32:  By failing to return any unearned portion 
of the net advanced fee of $5,000, Attorney White 
violated SCR 20:1.16(d). 
Count 33:  By using threatening, vulgar, and abusive 
language 
towards 
R.S., 
Attorney 
White 
violated 
SCR 40.15, enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(g). 
¶38 The next client matter detailed in the OLR's complaint 
involved Attorney White's representation of D.N., who hired 
Attorney White to represent him in an Oconto County case.  The 
engagement letter and fee agreement signed by D.N. provided that 
he would pay Attorney White a flat fee of $10,800.  D.N. paid 
Attorney White $10,800 and made an additional $40 payment.  
Although the funds paid were in contemplation of future 
services, Attorney White did not place the advanced fees into 
his trust account. 
¶39 Attorney White entered an appearance in D.N.'s case on 
February 12, 2018 and withdrew on March 22, 2018.  On February 
20, 2018, Attorney White met with D.N. to review discovery.  
D.N. asked Attorney White about any disciplinary complaints that 
were pending against him at that time.  Attorney White told D.N. 
that any disciplinary complaints had been resolved and there 
were no complaints currently pending.  This was a false 
statement.   
¶40 On March 23, 2018, D.N. requested a full refund of the 
$10,800 he had paid Attorney White.  Attorney White did not 
provide D.N. with a closing letter or accounting after his 
                                                                                                                                                             
transaction, 
including 
whether 
the 
lawyer 
is 
representing the client in the transaction. 
No. 
2019AP1162-D   
 
21 
 
representation was terminated, nor did he refund any fees.  
Attorney White did not earn the $10,800 he was paid. 
¶41 After D.N. filed a grievance with the OLR, Attorney 
White told the OLR he had completed "total trial prep" for the 
case, but he provided no documentation to support this claim.  
Attorney White accused D.N. of sending "a threatening lie filled 
text message that shows OLR influenced his behavior and decision 
making."  He also accused D.N. of using "racially charged 
language" on the phone.  In fact, D.N.'s text messages to 
Attorney White did not contain any threatening language.   
¶42 On October 9, 2018, the Fund approved payment of 
$10,840 to D.N. because the funds had been, "lost because of 
[White's] dishonest conduct." 
¶43 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney White's representation of 
D.N.: 
Count 34:  By failing to place advanced fees into his 
trust account, without evidence of an intention to 
follow the SCR 20:1.5(g) alternative, Attorney White 
violated SCR 20:1.5(f). 
Count 35:  By falsely stating to D.N. that he had no 
pending disciplinary matters, Attorney White violated 
SCR 20:8.4(c). 
Count 36:  By failing to refund the unearned portion 
of D.N.'s fees upon termination of the representation, 
and failing to provide D.N. an accounting, Attorney 
White violated SCR 20:1.16(d). 
¶44 The next client matter detailed in the OLR's complaint 
alleged four counts of misconduct arising out of Attorney 
White's representation of C.T., who hired him to represent her 
No. 
2019AP1162-D   
 
22 
 
on a petition to obtain court approval to move from Wisconsin to 
Puerto Rico with her minor children.  She shared custody of the 
children with her ex-husband.  C.T. paid Attorney White $1,500 
to "cover the drafting of a stipulation and notice to your ex-
husband for the purposes of moving the children."  The 
engagement letter and fee agreement provided that if the ex-
husband 
agreed 
to 
the 
stipulation, 
the 
matter 
would 
be 
concluded, but if he did not agree, C.T. would pay an additional 
$2,000 to Attorney White to undertake additional proceedings 
relating to the custody of the children.  Although the funds 
paid by C.T. were paid in contemplation of future services, 
making them advanced fees, Attorney White did not place the 
money in his trust account.   
¶45 On July 18, 2017, Attorney White advised C.T. that he 
had filed the notice of her move with the circuit court and the 
ex-husband had failed to respond.  At that time, Attorney White 
had not in fact filed anything in C.T.'s case.  On September 21, 
2017, Attorney White advised C.T. that there had been a hearing 
that morning in which the court granted his request for a 
default and that C.T. was free to move.  Attorney White did not 
provide any documentation to C.T. relating to any hearing or her 
ability to move with the children.  C.T. subsequently contacted 
the circuit court to obtain records regarding the default 
judgment and discovered nothing had ever been filed with the 
court and there had been no hearing or default judgment entered.   
¶46 After C.T. filed a grievance with the OLR, Attorney 
White denied sending communications to C.T.  He also told the 
No. 
2019AP1162-D   
 
23 
 
OLR he had no recollection of C.T.'s case and that he had 
limited recollection of any matters from June 2017 through the 
summer of 2018 due to mental health treatment. 
¶47 On October 9, 2018, the State Bar of Wisconsin 
notified Attorney White that the Fund had approved payment of 
$1,500 to C.T. because the funds had been "lost because of 
[White's] dishonest conduct." 
¶48 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney White's representation of 
C.T.: 
Count 37:  By failing to place advanced fees in his 
trust account, without evidence of an intention to 
follow the SCR 20:1.5(g) alternative, Attorney White 
violated SCR 20:1.5(f).   
Count 38:  By failing to act in furtherance of C.T.'s 
interests in lawfully moving with her minor children, 
Attorney White violated SCR 20:1.3. 
Count 39:  By falsely stating to C.T. that he had 
filed a notice with the court and that he had obtained 
a default judgment in C.T.'s favor, Attorney White 
violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
Count 40:  By failing to refund any unearned fees to 
C.T. after having failed to advance C.T.'s case, 
Attorney White violated SCR 20:1.16(d). 
¶49 The final matter detailed in the OLR's complaint arose 
out of Attorney White's representation of F.T., who hired 
Attorney White to represent him and his wife (the T.s) in a real 
estate contract dispute regarding the release of an earnest 
money deposit of $17,000 relating to the purchase of property in 
Puerto Rico.  There was no fee agreement to define or limit the 
scope of Attorney White's representation.  F.T. paid Attorney 
No. 
2019AP1162-D   
 
24 
 
White a $1,000 advanced fee, which Attorney White did not place 
in his trust account.   
¶50 On July 30, 2017, Fox Communities Credit Union 
returned the $17,000 earnest money payment to the T.s from 
escrow.  On December 6, 2017, the sellers of the property in 
Puerto Rico demanded that the T.s replace the $17,000 to escrow, 
and the T.s bank placed a hold on the $17,000 earnest money 
deposit as a result of the dispute. 
¶51 By correspondence dated February 22, 2018, counsel for 
the sellers of the property wrote to the T.s requesting return 
of the earnest money deposit and advising that if the T.s did 
not respond within 10 days the sellers intended to initiate 
litigation.  On February 27, 2018, F.T. contacted Attorney White 
about the February 22, 2018 letter and asked Attorney White to 
meet to discuss the next step.  Attorney White agreed to meet. 
¶52 On March 30, 2018, Attorney White emailed F.T. 
advising that he had sent notices and a denial of claim relating 
to the earnest money deposit issue and that he would try to 
contact them again regarding the status of the matter.   
¶53 On March 31, 2018, the T.s were served with a lawsuit 
by the sellers of the Puerto Rico property.  F.T. contacted 
Attorney White about the lawsuit.  Attorney White had not been 
aware of it. 
¶54 On April 3, 2018, the T.s terminated Attorney White's 
representation and asked to have their file returned.  Upon 
receiving their file, the T.s discovered that Attorney White had 
not prepared or sent anything on their behalf in response to the 
No. 
2019AP1162-D   
 
25 
 
February 22, 2018 letter and had not attempted any contact with 
the sellers' attorney. 
¶55 After the T.s filed a grievance against Attorney White 
with the OLR, Attorney White told the OLR he did not represent 
the T.s with respect to the sellers' demand as outlined in the 
February 22, 2018 letter.  Attorney White also questioned the 
veracity of the emails between himself and F.T., saying, 
"Bullshit.  That's the totality of my response . . . I got them 
their 17k back.  You people really are fucking unbelievable.  
Don't message me with any of these bullshit liars anymore." 
¶56 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney White's representation of 
the T.s: 
Count 41:  By failing to place advanced fees into his 
trust account, without evidence of an intention to 
follow the SCR 20:1.5(g) alternative, Attorney White 
violated SCR 20:1.5(f). 
Count 42:  By failing to communicate the scope of the 
representation either orally or in writing, Attorney 
White violated SCR 20:1.5(b)(1). 
Count 43:  By failing to respond to the sellers' 
demand for the return of the $17,000 earnest deposit, 
Attorney White violated SCR 20:1.3. 
Count 44:  By falsely stating to F.T. that he prepared 
and/or filed notices and a denial of claim, Attorney 
White violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
¶57 The OLR requested, and the referee agreed, that 
Attorney White should be required to make restitution to the 
following clients in the following amounts: 
• In the J.D. matter, to J.B. in the amount of $2,400; 
No. 
2019AP1162-D   
 
26 
 
• In the K.G. matter, to the Fund in the amount of 
$3,000, as reimbursement the Fund paid to K.G.; 
• In the C.C. matter, to the Fund in the amount of the 
$3,000, as reimbursement the Fund paid to C.C.; 
• In the W.M. matter, to W.M. in the amount of $750; 
• In the R.S. matter, to R.S. in the amount of $5,000; 
• In the D.N. matter, to the Fund in the amount of the 
$10,840, as reimbursement the Fund paid to D.N.; 
• In the C.T. matter, to the Fund in the amount of the 
$1,500, as reimbursement the Fund paid to C.T. 
¶58 Attorney White has not filed an appeal from the 
referee's recommendation.  Accordingly, our review proceeds 
pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).  On September 17, 2020, this court 
issued an order directing the parties to explain why Attorney 
White should not be ordered to pay restitution to all clients.  
Attorney White did not respond.  The OLR responded on October 5, 
2020.  It said that, in addition to those clients mentioned in 
the referee's report, Attorney White should also be required to 
make restitution to J.B. and S.T. in the amount of $3,750, less 
any amounts Attorney White can prove he earned. 
¶59 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless 
clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.  
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 
14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  The court may impose 
whatever sanction it sees fit, regardless of the referee's 
recommendation.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
No. 
2019AP1162-D   
 
27 
 
¶60 We agree with the referee that Attorney White should 
be declared in default.  Although Attorney White was given 
notice of the hearing on the motion for a default judgment, he 
failed to appear or present a defense. 
¶61 We also agree with the referee that the allegations in 
the OLR's complaint have been established and that Attorney 
White engaged in all of the acts of the misconduct alleged in 
the complaint. 
¶62 As to the sanction, after careful review of the 
matter, we conclude that a two-year suspension is an inadequate 
sanction for Attorney White's misconduct.  As noted, in the 
previous 
disciplinary 
action, 
Attorney 
White 
apparently 
commenced his solo law practice shortly after graduating from 
law school and almost immediately got himself into trouble due 
to his apparent disdain for doing the necessary research or work 
to perform as a capable advocate for his clients.  In the 
previous disciplinary matter, Attorney White was found to have 
committed 27 counts of professional misconduct in his handling 
of four client matters.  In this case, he was found to have 
committed 44 counts of misconduct involving 13 separate clients.  
He showed an utter lack of regard for his clients, and when 
called to account for his actions he lashed out at both the 
clients and the OLR investigators with profane comments and 
threats of physical violence. 
¶63 Although no two disciplinary matters are precisely  
alike, we find that the misconduct at issue here is somewhat 
analogous to that presented in In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
No. 
2019AP1162-D   
 
28 
 
Against Hicks, 2012 WI 101, 343 Wis. 2d 411, 816 N.W.2d 316.  In 
Hicks, 
we 
imposed 
a 
four-year 
suspension 
as 
discipline 
reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme Court of Tennessee.  
The misconduct rose out of six separate grievances and included 
neglecting client matters, charging an unreasonable fee, failing 
to 
respond 
to 
client 
inquiries, 
and 
making 
multiple 
misrepresentations to a client, to opposing counsel, and the 
State's lawyer regulatory agency.  Given the number of counts of 
misconduct at issue here, which included threats by physical 
violence against the OLR's investigator and at least one client, 
the number of clients affected by the misconduct, and the 
seriousness of the misconduct, a four-year suspension is 
appropriate. 
¶64 Finally, we find that Attorney White should be 
required to make restitution to the clients listed in the 
referee's report as well as the additional client identified in 
the OLR's October 5, 2020 response to this court's order to show 
cause.  We also agree with the referee that Attorney White 
should pay the full costs of the proceeding. 
¶65 IT IS ORDERED that that the license of Cole J. White 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of four 
years, effective the date of this order. 
¶66 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Cole J. White shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $2,514.74 as 
of January 7, 2020. 
No. 
2019AP1162-D   
 
29 
 
¶67 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Cole J. White shall make restitution as follows:   
• In the J.B. matter, to J.B. and S.T., in the amount 
of $3,750, less any amounts Attorney White can prove 
he earned. 
• In the J.D. matter, to J.B. in the amount of $2,400; 
• In the K.G. matter, to the Fund in the amount of 
$3,000, as reimbursement the Fund paid to K.G.; 
• In the C.C. matter, to the Fund in the amount of the 
$3,000, as reimbursement the Fund paid to C.C.; 
• In the W.M. matter, to W.M. in the amount of $750; 
• In the R.S. matter, to R.S. in the amount of $5,000; 
• In the D.N. matter, to the Fund in the amount of the 
$10,840, as reimbursement the Fund paid to D.N.; 
• In the C.T. matter, to the Fund in the amount of the 
$1,500, as reimbursement the Fund paid to C.T. 
¶68 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified 
above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation.   
¶69 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Cole J. White shall comply with the provisions 
of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
¶70 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
administrative 
suspension of Cole J. White's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin, due to his failure to pay mandatory bar dues and for 
failure to file Office of Lawyer Regulation trust account 
certification, will remain in effect until each reason for the 
No. 
2019AP1162-D   
 
30 
 
administrative 
suspension 
has 
been 
rectified 
pursuant 
to 
SCR 22.28(1). 
¶71 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(3). 
 
No. 
2019AP1162-D   
 
 
 
1