Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Ty Christopher Willihnganz

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2004 WI 31 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
03-2161-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Ty Christopher Willihnganz, 
Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Ty Christopher Willihnganz,  
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST WILLIHNGANZ 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 26, 2004   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2004 WI 31 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  03-2161-D  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Ty Christopher Willihnganz, 
Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Ty Christopher Willihnganz,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 26, 2004 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that Attorney Ty Christopher Willihnganz be publicly 
reprimanded for professional 
misconduct.  
That 
misconduct 
consisted of failing to abide by a client's decision concerning 
the objectives of representation, failing to consult with the 
client as to means by which such objectives are to be pursued, 
and 
failing 
to 
abide 
by 
the 
client's 
decision, 
after 
consultation, as to a plea to be entered, in violation of SCR 
No. 
03-2161-D   
 
2 
 
20:1.2(a).  Also, the misconduct consisted of Willihnganz's 
willful failure to provide relevant information, to answer 
questions fully, or to furnish documents to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR) during the course of an investigation into 
misconduct allegations, in violation of SCR 21.15(4), SCR 
22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), and SCR 22.04(1).  Neither Attorney 
Willihnganz nor the OLR has appealed from the referee's findings 
of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended discipline.   
¶2 
We 
conclude 
that 
Ty 
Christopher 
Willihnganz's 
professional misconduct warrants a public reprimand for his 
violation of various supreme court rules.  We also agree with the 
referee's recommendation that Willihnganz be required to pay the 
costs of this disciplinary proceeding totaling $1207.92.  
¶3 
Ty Christopher Willihnganz was admitted to practice law 
in Wisconsin on April 11, 1996.  His license to practice law was 
suspended on June 6, 2001, for noncompliance with Continuing 
Legal Education (CLE) reporting requirements.  His license 
remains suspended.  
¶4 
On August 15, 2003, the OLR filed a complaint in this 
court alleging two counts of violation of the rules of 
professional 
responsibility 
by 
Willihnganz. 
 
Willihnganz 
subsequently filed an untimely answer to the complaint and 
Attorney John A. Fiorenza was appointed as referee in this 
matter.  Subsequently, Referee Fiorenza granted the OLR's motion 
for a default judgment based on Willihnganz's failure to respond 
to 
the 
referee's 
request 
for 
a 
pretrial 
conference 
and 
Willihnganz's failure to appear at the scheduled pretrial 
No. 
03-2161-D   
 
3 
 
conference.  Referee Fiorenza noted that the correspondence to 
Willihnganz had been returned indicating that he has moved and 
left no forwarding address.  Referee Fiorenza, on December 19, 
2003, filed his report and recommendation in this disciplinary 
action.  
¶5 
The two counts of professional misconduct alleged in 
the OLR complaint briefly summarized are these: 
CLIENT G.H.B. 
¶6 
G.H.B. retained Attorney Charles J. Hertel, a partner 
in the law firm in which Willihnganz was then an associate.  
G.H.B. retained Attorney Hertel to represent him on an August 20, 
1998, municipal ordinance citation for trespassing.  Attorney 
Hertel entered a plea of not guilty on G.H.B.'s behalf.   
¶7 
On September 15, 1998, G.H.B. executed an authorization 
form which allowed the law firm to appear on G.H.B.'s behalf in 
the trespass matter without G.H.B. being present.  Attorney 
Hertel informed G.H.B., in correspondence dated September 11, 
1998, which enclosed the "Written Authorization to Appear" as 
follows: "You should be advised that we will take no action 
unless it is first authorized by you."   
¶8 
Trial in the trespass matter was scheduled for October 
29, 1998; however, because Attorney Hertel was unavailable on 
that date, the case was assigned to Willihnganz.  G.H.B. was not 
given written notice of the October 29, 1998, trial date.  
¶9 
Subsequently, Attorney Hertel instructed Willihnganz to 
contact G.H.B. to prepare for trial and to contest the trespass 
charges. 
 
On 
October 
28, 
1998, 
Hertel 
again 
instructed 
No. 
03-2161-D   
 
4 
 
Willihnganz to contest the charges pending against G.H.B.  On 
October 29, 1998, the scheduled trial date, Willihnganz appeared 
in court on G.H.B.'s behalf; G.H.B. was not present.  Willihnganz 
entered a no contest plea on G.H.B.'s behalf; G.H.B. was found 
guilty and a forfeiture of $147.50 was assessed against him in 
the trespass matter. 
¶10 Subsequently, Attorney Hertel asked Willihnganz about 
what had occurred at that court hearing.  Willihnganz informed 
Attorney 
Hertel that G.H.B. 
had 
not 
appeared 
and 
as a 
consequence, he had been found guilty.   
¶11 Attorney Hertel asked Willihnganz whether he had been 
in contact with G.H.B.  Willihnganz responded that he had left a 
number of telephone messages for G.H.B., but the client had not 
returned the calls.  G.H.B. was not given written notice by 
Willihnganz of the disposition in his trespass matter.  
¶12 G.H.B. 
remained 
unaware 
of 
the 
forfeiture 
and 
subsequently, his driver's license was suspended for nonpayment 
of it.  G.H.B. thereafter paid the forfeiture, plus a fee, to get 
his driver's license reinstated.   
¶13 Willihnganz 
left 
the 
Hertel 
firm 
and 
accepted 
employment 
with 
a 
law 
firm 
in 
Brookfield, 
Wisconsin.  
Willihnganz's employment with the Brookfield firm, however, ended 
after his license to practice law in this state was suspended on 
June 6, 2001, for his failure to comply with mandatory CLE 
requirements.  
¶14 By letter dated February 13, 2002, the OLR staff 
informed Willihnganz of a grievance inquiry concerning the G.H.B. 
No. 
03-2161-D   
 
5 
 
matter.  The OLR requested his written response by March 8, 2002, 
but Willihnganz failed to respond by that date.  On March 11, 
2002, the OLR staff sent a follow-up letter to Willihnganz by 
certified and first-class mail requesting a response by March 21, 
2002.  Willihnganz signed the certified mail receipt on March 12, 
2002, but failed to respond as requested by March 21, 2002.  
¶15 Subsequently, on May 14, 2002, the OLR staff forwarded 
Willihnganz's file to OLR's district committee for investigation.  
On June 25, 2002, the OLR staff received a response from 
Willihnganz dated June 10, 2002, which was forwarded to the 
district committee.  In that correspondence Willihnganz stated 
that he had no relevant information to add to the matter and he 
had no recollection at all of the representation he had provided 
for G.H.B.   
¶16 The 
OLR 
district 
committee 
investigator, 
despite 
writing to Willihnganz and leaving a phone message, and, later 
conducting 
an 
internet 
search 
in 
an 
attempt 
to 
locate 
Willihnganz, never heard from Willihnganz regarding this matter.   
COUNT ONE 
¶17 The OLR complaint alleged and the referee determined 
that by changing his client's plea from not guilty to no contest 
without the client's knowledge or consent, which resulted in the 
client being found guilty of trespass, Willihnganz had failed to 
abide by a client's decision concerning the objectives of 
representation, had failed to consult with a client as to means 
by which the objectives were to be pursued, and had failed to 
abide by the client's decision, after consultation with the 
No. 
03-2161-D   
 
6 
 
lawyer, as to the plea to be entered, in violation of SCR 
20:1.2(a). 
COUNT TWO 
¶18 The OLR complaint further alleged and the referee also 
determined that by failing to provide a timely response to the 
OLR staff concerning the G.H.B. grievance and by failing to 
respond to requests for information from the OLR's district 
committee investigator, Willihnganz had willfully failed to 
provide relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to 
furnish documents 
to the 
OLR 
during 
the 
course of the 
investigation, in violation of SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 
22.03(6), and SCR 22.04(1). 
¶19 After concluding that Willihnganz had engaged in the 
misconduct as alleged in the complaint, the referee recommended 
that Willihnganz be publicly reprimanded for his misconduct.  
¶20 We adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions 
of law and determine that Willihnganz's misconduct as established 
in this proceeding warrants a public reprimand.  
¶21 IT IS ORDERED that Attorney Ty Christopher Willihnganz 
is publicly reprimanded for his professional misconduct.  
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Ty Christopher Willihnganz pay to the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs and fees incurred in this 
proceeding totaling $1207.92. 
 
No. 
03-2161-D   
 
 
 
1