Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Richard A. Engelbrecht

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2008 WI 29 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2007AP2597-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Richard A. Engelbrecht, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Richard A. Engelbrecht, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ENGELBRECHT 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 8, 2008   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2008 WI 29
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2007AP2597-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Richard A. Engelbrecht, Attorney at 
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Richard A. Engelbrecht, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 8, 2008 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the stipulation filed by the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Richard A. 
Engelbrecht 
concerning 
misconduct 
charged 
in 
a 
six-count 
disciplinary complaint.  The misconduct involves Attorney 
Engelbrecht's lack of diligence, misrepresentation and other 
violations.  The parties have stipulated that the appropriate 
discipline is a two-year suspension of Attorney Engelbrecht's 
No. 
2007AP2597-D   
 
2 
 
license to practice law in Wisconsin, together with restitution 
of $1,000.   
¶2 
Pursuant to SCR 22.12(2), we approve the stipulation 
and adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law.  We agree 
that Attorney Engelbrecht's disciplinary history and the serious 
nature of his misconduct warrants the suspension of his license 
to practice law for a term of two years, along with the 
imposition of $1,000 in restitution. 
¶3 
Attorney Engelbrecht was admitted to practice law in 
June of 1974 and most recently practiced in Green Bay.  His 
disciplinary history includes:  (1) a 1989 consensual private 
reprimand related to neglect, misrepresentations to his clients 
and the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR), 
and the failure to keep his clients reasonably informed; (2) a 
60-day license suspension in December 2000 for practicing law 
while his license had been administratively suspended for 
noncompliance with continuing legal education requirements, 
misrepresentation on his reinstatement petition, and the failure 
to cooperate with the BAPR in an investigation; and (3) trust 
account violations, lack of diligence, and the failure to 
provide full information during an investigation, resulting in a 
six-month license suspension in January 2007.1  His law license 
remains under suspension. 
                                                 
1 See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Engelbrecht, 
2000 WI 120, 239 Wis. 2d 236, 618 N.W.2d 743, and In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Engelbrecht, 2007 WI 2, 298 
Wis. 2d 323, 725 N.W.2d 630. 
No. 
2007AP2597-D   
 
3 
 
¶4 
The 
misconduct 
charged 
here 
involves 
Attorney 
Engelbrecht's representation of E.M.  After consulting with 
Attorney Engelbrecht about filing an equal rights complaint 
alleging discrimination by a former employer, E.M. filed a pro 
se complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  
In May 2005 the pro se claim was dismissed.  The dismissal 
notice informed E.M. that he had the right to file a civil 
action against his former employer within 90 days or lose his 
right to do so.   
¶5 
In August 2005 E.M. met with Attorney Engelbrecht 
again and hired him to file the suit against E.M.'s former 
employer.  E.M. paid Attorney Engelbrecht $500.  Attorney 
Engelbrecht filed the summons and complaint on behalf of E.M. in 
Brown County circuit court.  E.M. made two additional payments 
to Attorney Engelbrecht amounting to $500.   
¶6 
Attorney Engelbrecht failed, however, to arrange for 
service of the complaint.  On January 24, 2006, Attorney 
Engelbrecht informed E.M. that the summons and complaint were 
never served, and asserted it was E.M.'s responsibility to 
obtain service.  E.M. objected, indicating he would have no idea 
how to obtain service.   
¶7 
The case was scheduled for a status conference the 
following day.  Attorney Engelbrecht and E.M. arrived at the 
courthouse together before it opened.  After the doors opened, 
Attorney Engelbrecht went to the judge's chambers alone.  When 
he returned, Attorney Engelbrecht advised E.M. that the action 
had been dismissed but that Attorney Engelbrecht would refile 
No. 
2007AP2597-D   
 
4 
 
it.  On February 14, 2006, the circuit court issued a written 
order dismissing E.M.'s action without prejudice.   
¶8 
Attorney Engelbrecht did not inform E.M. of any 
deadline.  In March 2006 E.M. inquired in a letter to Attorney 
Engelbrecht why he had not yet refiled the complaint.  Attorney 
Engelbrecht did not respond. 
¶9 
E.M. thereafter filed a grievance with the OLR.  In a 
response to the OLR, Attorney Engelbrecht enclosed a fabricated 
letter he claimed he had sent E.M.  The letter indicated that 
E.M. had the responsibility to serve a copy of the authenticated 
summons and complaint on his former employer by a specified 
date.  The letter also indicated that Attorney Engelbrecht 
"respect[ed] your decision to pursue the adverse decision from 
the office of the EEOC on your own and wish you well in your 
efforts."  Attorney Engelbrecht failed to cooperate with the 
efforts of the investigative committee. 
¶10 Subsequently, the OLR filed a six-count disciplinary 
complaint against Attorney Engelbrecht.  Count one charges that 
by failing to obtain service of a summons and complaint on 
behalf of E.M., resulting in the dismissal of the employment 
discrimination suit, Attorney Engelbrecht violated former SCR 
20:1.3, requiring an attorney to "act with reasonable diligence 
No. 
2007AP2597-D   
 
5 
 
and promptness in representing a client." 2   Count two states by 
failing to inform E.M. that he did not obtain service, by 
failing to notify E.M. in a timely fashion that Attorney 
Engelbrecht would not refile the complaint, and by failing to 
respond to E.M.'s March 2006 letter, Attorney Engelbrecht 
violated SCR 20:1.4(a), which requires a lawyer to keep his 
client "reasonably informed about the status of a matter and 
promptly comply with [the client's] reasonable requests for 
information."  
¶11 Count three charges that by failing to return to E.M. 
the $1,000 in fees and costs after Attorney Engelbrecht's 
failure to pursue the lawsuit resulted in dismissal, Attorney 
Engelbrecht violated SCR 20:1.16(d),3 which requires a lawyer, 
upon termination of representation, to take reasonable steps to 
                                                 
2 Effective July 1, 2007, substantial changes were made to 
the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct for 
Attorneys, SCR Chapter 20.  See S. Ct. Order 04-07, 2007 WI 4, 
293 Wis. 2d xv, 726 N.W.2d Ct.R-45 (eff. July 1, 2007); and 
S. Ct. 
Order 
06-04, 
2007 
WI 
48, 
297 
Wis. 2d xv, 
730 
N.W.2d Ct.R.-29 (eff. July 1, 2007).  Because the conduct 
underlying this case arose prior to July 1, 2007, unless 
otherwise indicated, all references to the supreme court rules 
will be to those in effect prior to July 1, 2007. 
3 Former 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 that has not been earned.  
The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to 
the extent permitted by other law.   
No. 
2007AP2597-D   
 
6 
 
protect 
a 
client's 
interest. 
 
Count 
four 
charges 
by 
misrepresenting 
to 
E.M. 
that 
it 
had 
been 
the 
client's 
responsibility to obtain service, and by fabricating the 
purported letter to E.M., Attorney Engelbrecht violated SCR 
20:8.4(c), which states that "conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation" constitutes misconduct.  
¶12 Count five states by misrepresenting in his initial 
written response to the OLR that it was the client, rather than 
Attorney Engelbrecht, who was responsible for serving the 
summons and complaint, and by providing the OLR with a 
fabricated letter, Attorney Engelbrecht violated SCR 22.03(6).4 
This 
rule 
states 
a 
misrepresentation 
made 
during 
an 
investigation is misconduct.  Count six charges that by failing 
to cooperate with the OLR's investigative committee, Attorney 
Engelbrecht violated SCR 22.04(1),5 which requires a lawyer's 
cooperation.   
¶13 The OLR and Attorney Engelbrecht stipulated to the 
misconduct charged in counts one through six and agreed the 
                                                 
4 SCR 22.03(6) provides:  Investigation. 
 
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 22.04(1) states, in pertinent part, that "[t]he 
director may refer a matter to a district committee for 
assistance in the investigation.  A [lawyer] has the duty to 
cooperate specified in SCR 21.15(4) and 22.03(2) in respect to 
the district committee.  . . ."  
No. 
2007AP2597-D   
 
7 
 
appropriate level of discipline would be a two-year suspension 
of Attorney Engelbrecht's license to practice law in Wisconsin, 
along with his payment of $1,000 in restitution to the Wisconsin 
Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection, which had approved payment 
to E.M. in November 2007.  Based on Attorney Engelbrecht's 
stipulation, 
the 
OLR 
does 
not 
seek 
the 
costs 
of 
this 
disciplinary proceeding. 
¶14 In the stipulation Attorney Engelbrecht represents 
that he fully understands the misconduct allegations, the 
ramifications of the stipulated level of discipline, his right 
to contest the matter and his right to consult with counsel.  He 
represents he entered into the stipulation knowingly and 
voluntarily, and that his entry into the stipulation represents 
his admission of the misconduct charged.   
¶15 We adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law.  
We 
conclude 
the 
misconduct 
and 
Attorney 
Engelbrecht's 
disciplinary history warrants the suspension of his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin for a term of two years, together with 
$1,000 in restitution to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client 
Protection.  In reaching this conclusion, we consider that 
Attorney 
Engelbrecht's 
misconduct 
involves 
a 
number 
of 
aggravating factors, including his recent disciplinary history.  
Attorney Engelbrecht's misconduct is serious because it exhibits 
dishonest and selfish motives, multiple offenses, failure to 
cooperate 
with 
the 
disciplinary 
agency, 
submitting 
false 
evidence and using deceptive practices during a disciplinary 
process, indifference to making restitution, and harm to 
No. 
2007AP2597-D   
 
8 
 
clients.  Attorney Engelbrecht kept $1,000 of his client's money 
which he did not earn and attempted to disguise his own 
culpability.  Attorney Engelbrecht failed to respond to several 
letters and phone calls from the OLR's investigator.  In 
addition, Attorney Engelbrecht misrepresented to the OLR that it 
was his client who had failed to obtain service.  Attorney 
Engelbrecht submitted a fabricated letter in support of that 
misrepresentation.  We note that Attorney Engelbrecht was 
cooperative with the OLR during the litigation of this matter, 
however, 
and 
admitted 
his 
misconduct 
and 
accepted 
responsibility.   
¶16 In accepting the parties' stipulated discipline, we 
consider In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Graf, 2003 WI 
122, ¶¶2-3, 265 Wis. 2d 376, 667 N.W.2d 340, in which a two-year 
suspension 
was 
imposed 
based 
upon 
Attorney 
Graf's 
misrepresentation to his client that he filed a complaint and 
conducted witness interviews.  Attorney Graf compounded his 
misconduct by practicing law during an administrative and 
temporary disciplinary suspension and by his misrepresentation 
that he had not practiced during his suspension.  Attorney Graf 
had been privately reprimanded in 2001 for practicing law under 
an administrative suspension and noncooperation and, in 2002, 
his license had again been ordered suspended after his failure 
to pay the costs of his disciplinary proceeding.   
¶17 Other cases with similar misconduct involving shorter 
periods of suspension did not involve attorneys with recent 
disciplinary histories.  For example, in In re Disciplinary 
No. 
2007AP2597-D   
 
9 
 
Proceedings Against Danielson, 2006 WI 33, ¶2, 290 Wis. 2d 12, 
712 N.W.2d 671, Attorney Danielson's law license was suspended 
for six months.  Her misconduct involved failures to pursue an 
insurance claim after the client had paid a $500 retainer, to 
respond to OLR inquiries and to notify her client of her license 
suspension. 
 
Attorney 
Danielson's 
case 
did 
not 
involve 
misrepresentation and did not involve prior discipline.   
¶18 Also, 
in 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Lister, 2007 WI 55, 300 Wis. 2d 326, 731 N.W.2d 254, Attorney 
Lister committed 17 violations, including a false statement to 
the court, failures to communicate with clients, a lack of 
competent and diligent representation, and failure to respond 
during 
the 
OLR's 
investigation. 
 
The 
evidence 
showed 
a 
disturbing pattern of failing to act diligently on behalf of the 
client and failing to communicate with his clients about the 
status of their matters.  Id., ¶78.  Although Attorney Lister 
had received a prior reprimand for similar conduct, the 
reprimand occurred over 20 years earlier and was the only 
discipline imposed during 30 years of practice.  Id.  Attorney 
Lister's license was suspended for five months; he also was 
ordered to pay restitution of $12,209 and costs of $10,132.35.  
Id., ¶2.   
¶19 In light of the seriousness of Attorney Engelbrecht's 
misconduct and his recent disciplinary history, we conclude that 
the stipulated two-year suspension of Attorney Engelbrecht's 
license to practice law, together with restitution of $1,000, is 
appropriate discipline.   
No. 
2007AP2597-D   
 
10 
 
¶20 IT 
IS 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
license 
of 
Richard 
A. 
Engelbrecht to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a 
period of two years, effective the date of this order.   
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent he has not 
done so, Attorney 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.   
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Attorney Engelbrecht shall pay restitution to the 
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection in the sum of 
$1,000.  If restitution is not paid within the time specified 
and absent a showing to this court of his inability to pay 
restitution 
within 
that 
time, 
the 
license 
of 
Attorney 
Engelbrecht to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended 
until further order of this court.    
No. 
2007AP2597-D   
 
 
 
1