Title: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. Richard A. Engelbrecht

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2000 WI 120 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
00-2674-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Richard A. Engelbrecht: 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, 
n/k/a Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
Richard A. Engelbrecht,  
 
Respondent.  
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ENGELBRECHT 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
November 10, 2000 
Submitted on Briefs: 
      
Oral Argument: 
      
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
      
 
Dissented: 
      
 
Not Participating:       
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
      
 
2000 WI 120 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear 
in the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 00-2674-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN                    :  
  IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Richard A. Engelbrecht: 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional 
Responsibility, n/k/a Office of Lawyer 
Regulation, 
 
 
Complainant, 
 
 
v. 
 
Richard A. Engelbrecht, 
 
 
Respondent. 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.  
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM   We 
review the 
stipulation 
filed by 
Attorney Richard A. Engelbrecht and the Board of Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility (Board)1 pursuant to SCR 21.09(3m)2 
                     
1 Effective 
October 
1, 
2000, 
Wisconsin's 
attorney 
disciplinary process underwent a substantial restructuring. The 
name of the body responsible for investigating and prosecuting 
cases involving attorney misconduct was changed to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation and the Supreme Court Rules applicable to the 
lawyer regulation system were also revised.  Since the conduct 
underlying this case arose prior to October 1, 2000, the body 
will be referred to as "the Board" and all references to Supreme 
Court Rules will be to those in effect prior to October 1, 2000.  
FILED 
 
NOV 10, 2000 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
 
No. 
00-2674-D 
 
 
2 
setting forth findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding 
Attorney Engelbrecht's professional misconduct in practicing law 
during a time when his license had been administratively 
suspended because he had not established compliance with his 
1997-98 Wisconsin mandatory Continuing Legal Education (CLE) 
requirement; 
in 
making 
deceptive 
and 
misleading 
misrepresentations in the attachment to his amended petition for 
reinstatement filed with the Board of Bar Examiners (BBE); and 
in failing to cooperate with the Board in the investigation of 
the alleged misconduct.  The parties also stipulated to a 60-day 
suspension of Attorney Engelbrecht's license to practice law as 
discipline for that misconduct.  
¶2 
We approve the stipulation and determine that the 
seriousness of Attorney Engelbrecht's misconduct warrants the 
suspension of his license to practice law for 60 days.  Attorney 
Engelbrecht's 
practice 
during 
the 
CLE 
suspension 
and 
particularly his false and misleading statements in an effort to 
                                                                  
 
2 Former SCR 21.09(3m) provided: 
(3m) The board may file with a complaint a stipulation by 
the board and the respondent attorney to the facts, conclusions 
of law and discipline to be imposed.  The supreme court may 
consider the complaint and stipulation without appointing a 
referee.  If the supreme court approves the stipulation, it 
shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law and 
impose the stipulated discipline. If the supreme court rejects 
the stipulation, a referee shall be appointed pursuant to sub. 
(4) and the matter shall proceed pursuant to SCR chapter 22.  A 
stipulation that is rejected has no evidentiary value and is 
without prejudice to the respondent's defense of the proceeding 
or the board's prosecution of the complaint. 
 
No. 
00-2674-D 
 
 
3 
suggest that he had not practiced while suspended, or that his 
unlicensed practice was so minimal as to not warrant scrutiny, 
are serious matters warranting a suspension of his license to 
practice law.   
¶3 
Attorney Engelbrecht was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1974 and has an office in Green Bay.  In 1989 he 
consented to a private reprimand for misconduct that included 
misrepresentation.  In that instance, Attorney Engelbrecht 
represented to his clients and a government agency that he had 
filed a complaint on the clients' behalf with the agency when in 
fact he knew that he had not yet done so.  
¶4 
At the close of business on June 8, 1999, Attorney 
Engelbrecht's law license was administratively suspended because 
he 
had 
not 
established 
compliance 
with 
his 
1997-98 
CLE 
requirement.  At that time, Attorney Engelbrecht was counsel of 
record for the defendant in a small claims eviction action.  He 
did not provide the court or plaintiff's counsel with notice of 
his law license suspension.  
¶5 
On June 12, 1999, Attorney Engelbrecht signed a 
petition seeking reinstatement from his CLE suspension.  The 
petition included the statement, "my practice during the period 
of ineligibility has consisted of no further legal work."  On 
June 18, 1999, while his license was still suspended, Attorney 
Engelbrecht appeared on behalf of the defendant at a court trial 
in the small claims eviction action.  During that trial, 
Attorney Engelbrecht engaged in the practice of law, including 
stating his client's position, requesting the opportunity to 
No. 
00-2674-D 
 
 
4 
file a written brief, engaging in witness examination, arguing 
against an objection of opposing counsel, and objecting to a 
question proposed by adverse counsel.  On June 23, 1999, while 
his license was still suspended, Attorney Engelbrecht filed a 
letter brief in the case.   
¶6 
On June 26, 1999, Attorney Engelbrecht signed an 
amended petition for reinstatement with the BBE.  In an 
attachment 
to 
the 
amended 
petition, 
Attorney 
Engelbrecht 
represented that his activities at the June 18, 1999, hearing in 
the small claims case consisted of informing his client that he 
should testify when called to the stand by plaintiff and tell 
his story.  Attorney Engelbrecht represented that his client 
offered no witnesses except his own testimony and offered no 
exhibits.  Attorney Engelbrecht further represented that he met 
with his client after the hearing and submitted an updated form 
of 
a 
brief 
that 
had 
earlier 
been 
prepared. 
 
Attorney 
Engelbrecht's representation that the brief simply constituted 
an updated version of an earlier brief filed when Attorney 
Engelbrecht was licensed to practice law was inaccurate.   
¶7 
On June 28, 1999, based on his filing of the amended 
petition with the BBE, Attorney Engelbrecht was reinstated from 
the administrative suspension.  In July of 1999, the BBE 
referred the matter to the Board for an investigation of 
Attorney Engelbrecht's possible practice during suspension.  
Attorney Engelbrecht's response did not fully and fairly 
disclose the extent of his activities at the June 18, 1999, 
hearing in the small claims case.  
No. 
00-2674-D 
 
 
5 
¶8 
On January 21, 2000, Attorney Engelbrecht met with a 
representative 
of 
the 
Board's 
District 
14 
Professional 
Responsibility Committee.  At that time, Attorney Engelbrecht 
gave assurances that his accompanying his client to the June 18, 
1999, small claims court trial did not constitute the practice 
of law since he participated in no oral argument and examined no 
witnesses.  These statements to a member of the District 14 
Professional Responsibility Committee were false and misleading. 
¶9 
The parties stipulated that Attorney Engelbrecht's 
actions in the foregoing matter constituted the following 
professional misconduct: 
 
(a) His failure to provide the court or plaintiff's 
counsel with notice of his law license suspension 
violated SCR 22.26(1)(b).3 
 
(b) His appearing on behalf of a party at the court 
trial 
and 
filing 
a 
letter 
in 
the 
matter 
constituted the practice of law during a CLE 
suspension, in violation of SCR 10.03(4)4 and SCR 
                     
3 Former SCR 22.26(1)(b) provided: 
(b) A disbarred or suspended attorney with a matter pending 
before a court or administrative agency shall promptly notify 
the court or administrative agency and the attorney for each 
party of the disbarment or suspension and consequent inability 
to act as an attorney after the effective date of the disbarment 
or suspension.  The notice must identify the successor attorney 
or, if there is none at the time of the notice, state the place 
of residence of the client of the disbarred or suspended 
attorney. 
4 SCR 10.03(4) provides: 
Only active members may practice law.  . . .    
No. 
00-2674-D 
 
 
6 
31.10,5 which violations constitute professional 
misconduct pursuant to SCR 20:8.4(f).6 
 
(c) His deceptive and misleading representations in 
the attachment to his amended petition for 
reinstatement filed with the BBE violated SCR 
20:8.4(c).7 
 
(d) His failure to fully and fairly disclose the 
extent of his activities in the small claims case 
violated SCR 21.03(4).8 
 
(e) His failure to provide full and fair information 
to 
the 
Board 
and 
his 
misrepresenting 
the 
circumstances 
pertaining 
to 
the 
alleged 
misconduct violated SCR 22.07(2).9 
                     
5 SCR 31.10 provides: 
. . . A lawyer shall not engage in the practice of law in 
Wisconsin while his or her state bar membership is suspended 
under this rule [for failure to comply with the attendance 
requirement of SCR 31.02 or for failure to comply with the 
reporting requirement of SCR 31.03(1)]. 
6 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides: 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:  
(f) violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme court 
order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers;  . . .  
7 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: 
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation. 
8 Former SCR 21.03(4) provided: 
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. 
9 Former SCR 22.07(2) provided: 
No. 
00-2674-D 
 
 
7 
¶10 We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law 
set forth in the parties' stipulation.  Attorney Engelbrecht's 
practice of law during a time he knew his license had been 
suspended and, more significant, his false and misleading 
statements in an effort to suggest that he had either not 
practiced while suspended or that his unlicensed practice was so 
minimal 
as 
to 
not 
warrant 
scrutiny 
are 
serious 
matters 
warranting a suspension.  Attorney Engelbrecht's subsequent 
acknowledgement of his actions and his willingness to accept 
responsibility for his misconduct are mitigating factors.  A 60-
day suspension of his license to practice law is appropriate 
discipline for his professional misconduct. 
¶11 IT 
IS 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
license 
of 
Richard 
A. 
Engelbrecht to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a 
period of 60 days, effective December 17, 2000. 
¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Richard A. Engelbrecht pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, provided that in the 
event the costs are not paid within the time specified and 
                                                                  
(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. 
00-2674-D 
 
 
8 
absent a showing to this court in writing of his inability to 
pay the costs within that time, the license of Richard A. 
Engelbrecht to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended 
until further order of the court.   
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Richard A. Engelbrecht 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
 
No. 
00-2674-D 
 
 
1