Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Arik J. Guenther

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2005 WI 133 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2003AP1244-D & 2004AP1240-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Arik J. Guenther, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Arik J. Guenther,  
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Arik J. Guenther, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Arik J. Guenther, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GUENTHER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 19, 2005   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
March 10, 2005   
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the respondent-appellant there was a brief by Arik J. 
Guenther and Guenther & Haza, Ltd., Campbellsport. 
 
For the complainant-respondent there was a brief by William 
J. Weigel and Office of Lawyer Regulation, Madison. 
 
2005 WI 133
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
Nos.  2003AP1244-D & 2004AP1240-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Arik J. Guenther, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Arik J. Guenther, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 19, 2005 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Arik J. Guenther, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Arik J. Guenther, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.   Attorney's license 
suspended. 
 
Nos. 2003AP1244-D & 2004AP1240-D   
 
2 
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   We 
review 
the 
findings 
of 
fact, 
conclusions of law, and recommendations of the referees for 
sanctions in these two related matters.  Attorney Arik J. 
Guenther 
was 
found 
in 
both 
cases 
to 
have 
engaged 
in 
unprofessional conduct in the course of his practice of law in 
violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.   
¶2 
The referee in Case No. 2003AP1244-D, Kim M. Peterson, 
recommended a 
six-month 
suspension 
of 
Attorney Guenther's 
license to practice law and trust account monitoring as a 
condition of reinstatement.  The referee in Case No. 2004AP1240-
D, David R. Friedman, recommended a 60-day suspension of 
Attorney Guenther's license to practice law, concurrent to the 
six-month suspension in the earlier case, and the payment of the 
costs of the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR).   
¶3 
Attorney Guenther has appealed in Case No. 2003AP1244-
D pursuant to SCR 22.17(1) and (3).  We review Case No. 
2004AP1240-D pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1   
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17 provides: Review; appeal. 
 
(1) Within 20 days after the filing of the 
referee's report, the director or the respondent may 
file with the supreme court an appeal from the 
referee's report.  
 
(2) 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 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
Nos. 2003AP1244-D & 2004AP1240-D   
 
3 
 
¶4 
We approve the findings and conclusions of Referee 
Peterson 
and 
determine 
that 
the 
seriousness 
of 
Attorney 
Guenther's misconduct warrants the imposition of the recommended 
six-month suspension.  We also approve the findings and 
conclusions 
of 
Referee 
Friedman 
and 
determine 
that 
the 
seriousness of Attorney Guenther's misconduct in that case 
warrants the imposition of a two-month suspension.  However, we 
do not follow the referee's recommendation that the suspension 
be concurrent to the six-month suspension in the earlier case 
and instead, impose it consecutive, for a total suspension of 
eight months. 
¶5 
Attorney Guenther was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1981.  In 1989, he was privately reprimanded for 
neglect, failing to communicate with a client, and failing to 
cooperate 
with 
the 
Board 
of 
Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility.  In 2001, he was privately reprimanded for 
failing to prepare for a final divorce hearing, failing to 
consult and communicate with his client, failing to file a post-
trial brief, and failing to adequately supervise his secretary.  
Finally, in 2002, he was privately reprimanded for neglect and 
conflict of interest. 
¶6 
The standard of review before this court is that the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
are 
affirmed 
unless 
clearly 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
(3) An appeal from the report of a referee is 
conducted under the rules governing civil appeals to 
the supreme court.  The supreme court shall place the 
appeal on its first assignment of cases after the 
briefs are filed.  
Nos. 2003AP1244-D & 2004AP1240-D   
 
4 
 
erroneous; but conclusions of law are reviewed on a de novo 
basis.  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 deems appropriate regardless of the 
referee's 
recommendation. 
 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.   
CASE NO. 2003AP1244-D 
¶7 
Counts 1 and 2 arise out of Attorney Guenther's 
representation of the wife in a divorce and child custody matter 
and allege violations of SCR 20:1.4(a),2 failure to keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter, and SCR 
20:8.4(c),3 engaging in misconduct involving dishonesty, deceit 
or misrepresentation.  
¶8 
The referee found that Attorney Guenther attended a 
hearing to amend a temporary custody order without his client 
being present or even being made aware of the hearing.  At the 
hearing, the temporary order was significantly amended to the 
client's detriment.  When the opposing party arrived at the 
client's house days later to pick up the parties' child, 
pursuant to the changes resulting from the amended order, the 
client was still unaware of the change, a dispute ensued, and 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides: Communication.  "(a) A lawyer 
shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a 
matter 
and 
promptly 
comply 
with 
reasonable 
requests 
for 
information." 
3 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: Misconduct.  "It is professional 
misconduct for a lawyer to: (c) engage in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." 
Nos. 2003AP1244-D & 2004AP1240-D   
 
5 
 
the police were called.  The client subsequently asked Attorney 
Guenther to file a motion to change the amended order.  Attorney 
Guenther claimed he did so, but never actually did. 
¶9 
Attorney Guenther claims he should be excused from 
having appeared alone because he never had notice of the hearing 
and just happened to be at the courthouse on another matter when 
he found out about it. 
¶10 Attorney Guenther further claims that his failure to 
notify his client of what happened was not "so unreasonable" 
under the circumstances.  The hearing was held on a Tuesday 
afternoon, Thanksgiving intervened, and he eventually did talk 
to his client the following Monday, but after the incident with 
the opposing party. 
¶11 Finally, 
Attorney 
Guenther 
claims 
that 
he 
never 
intentionally misled his client as to the filing of the motion.  
Rather, he claims this occurred at a time when the client was in 
the process of discharging him and no decision had actually ever 
been made on whether to file the motion. 
¶12 Attorney Guenther asserts as a mitigating factor that 
although the events following the amended order were "very 
traumatic" for the client, in the subsequent two years the 
parties are still adhering to the amended order.  He thereby 
implied that it could not have been that bad to begin with.   
¶13 The same arguments that Attorney Guenther raises on 
appeal were raised to the referee and rejected.  The referee 
commented in part:   
Nos. 2003AP1244-D & 2004AP1240-D   
 
6 
 
Even if respondent could not reach G. by phone, a 
simple letter to G., sent on the day of the hearing, 
could have avoided the entire matter.  While a delay 
of a few days over the holiday may not [be] important 
in the typical case, in some cases a delay of a couple 
days is extremely important.  This is one of those 
cases.  Respondent's failure to keep his client 
informed is not a minor violation, but caused his 
client extreme distress.  I found G.'s emotional 
testimony on this point, more than two years after the 
event, very telling. . . . [H]e did in fact mislead G. 
. . . There does not appear to be any other credible 
explanation of respondent's statement that he filed 
the motion when in fact, he did not. . . .   
¶14 We find nothing in Attorney Guenther's arguments on 
appeal to conclude that the findings of fact of the referee on 
these two counts are clearly erroneous.  We therefore adopt them 
as well as the conclusions of law that the supreme court rules 
were violated.   
¶15 Counts 3 through 5 arise out of Attorney Guenther's 
representation of the husband in a divorce.  They allege 
violations of SCR 20:1.15(b),4 failing to render a full 
accounting and promptly delivering funds to which the client is 
entitled; SCR 20:1.15(d),5 failure to treat the client's funds as 
                                                 
4 SCR 20:1.15(b) provides: Safekeeping property.  
(b) Upon receiving funds or other property in 
which a client or third person has an interest, a 
lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third 
person in writing.  Except as stated in this rule or 
otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the 
client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client 
or third person any funds or other property that the 
client or third person is entitled to receive and, 
upon request by the client or third person, shall 
render a full accounting regarding such property. 
5 SCR 20:1.15(d) provides: Safekeeping property. 
Nos. 2003AP1244-D & 2004AP1240-D   
 
7 
 
trust property until there is an accounting and severance of the 
relationship; and SCR 22.03(6),6 failing to provide relevant 
information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish documents, 
all in the course of an OLR investigation.  
¶16 After 
this 
divorce 
and 
distribution 
of 
assets, 
Attorney Guenther was holding funds in trust for his client.  At 
the same time, the client owed attorney's fees, but Attorney 
Guenther had failed to provide an accounting of the exact amount 
owed.  The referee found that there were numerous trust account 
discrepancies.  These included unidentified funds both in, and 
paid from, the account; Attorney Guenther paying himself fees 
out of the account in excess of what he was owed; and checks 
written out of the wrong account, for example, Attorney 
Guenther's business account rather than trust account.   
¶17 The referee noted that Attorney Guenther essentially 
did not contest these counts.  She concluded that the evidence 
                                                                                                                                                             
(d) When, in the representation, a lawyer is in 
possession of property in which both the lawyer and 
another person claim interests, the property shall be 
treated by the lawyer as trust property until there is 
an accounting and severance of their interests.  If a 
dispute arises concerning their respective interests, 
the portion in dispute shall continue to be treated as 
trust property until the dispute is resolved. 
6 SCR 22.03(6) provides: Investigation.  "(6) 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." 
Nos. 2003AP1244-D & 2004AP1240-D   
 
8 
 
was clear that the allegations were accurate and that Attorney 
Guenther's trust accounts were "in a shambles."   
¶18 Attorney Guenther has not challenged the referee's 
findings and conclusions regarding these three counts on appeal 
and, accordingly, we adopt them. 
¶19 Counts 6 through 8 arise out of Attorney Guenther's 
response to the OLR investigation of Counts 3 through 5.  They 
allege violations of SCR 20:1.15(e),7 failing to retain complete 
trust account records for at least six years; SCR 20:1.15(f),8 
failing to submit trust account records for OLR's inspection, 
audit, use and evidence; and SCR 20:1.15(g),9 filing false 
                                                 
7 SCR 20:1.15(e) provides in relevant part: Safekeeping 
property. "(e) Complete records of trust account funds and other 
trust property shall be kept by the lawyer and shall be 
preserved for a period of at least six years after termination 
of the representation. . . ." 
8 SCR 20:1.15(f) provides: Safekeeping property.  
(f) Upon 
request 
of 
the 
office 
of 
lawyer 
regulation, or upon direction of the Supreme Court, 
the records shall be submitted to the office for its 
inspection, audit, use, 
and 
evidence 
under 
such 
conditions to protect the privilege of clients as the 
court may provide.  The records, or an audit thereof, 
shall be produced at any disciplinary proceeding 
involving the attorney wherever material.  Failure to 
produce the records shall constitute unprofessional 
conduct and grounds for disciplinary action. 
9 SCR 20:1.15(g) provides in relevant part: Safekeeping 
property. 
Nos. 2003AP1244-D & 2004AP1240-D   
 
9 
 
certifications with the State Bar of Wisconsin that required 
records were being maintained. 
¶20 The referee found that Attorney Guenther failed to 
respond to OLR investigatory requests on several occasions and 
even when he did respond provided incomplete records, claiming 
on at least one occasion that he had a "difficult time" locating 
much of his financial information.   
¶21 The referee further found that on Attorney Guenther's 
1997-2001 State Bar dues statements he falsely signed a 
certification stating that he had complied with the record-
keeping requirements set forth in SCR 20:1.15(e).   
¶22 The referee stated with respect to all of the counts 
in this case that involved Attorney Guenther's failure to fully 
cooperate with OLR: 
I find that respondent was extraordinarily slow in 
responding 
to 
OLR's 
demands 
. . . 
provid[ing] 
responses in a "piecemeal" fashion, and . . . the 
information was in a disarray, unclear and virtually 
impossible to decipher . . . [with a] lack of any 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
(g) A member of the State Bar of Wisconsin shall 
file with the State Bar annually . . . a certificate 
stating whether the member is engaged in the private 
practice of law in Wisconsin and, if so, the name of 
each bank, trust company, credit union or savings and 
loan association in which the member maintains a trust 
account, safe deposit box, or both, as required by 
this section.  Each member shall explicitly certify 
therein that he or she has complied with each of the 
record-keeping requirements . . . . The failure of a 
member to file the certificate required by this 
section is grounds for automatic suspension of the 
member's membership in the State Bar . . . . The 
filing of 
a 
false 
certificate 
is unprofessional 
conduct and is grounds for disciplinary action. . . . 
Nos. 2003AP1244-D & 2004AP1240-D   
 
10 
 
logical 
explanation 
for 
the 
various 
inconsistencies. . . . 
¶23 Attorney Guenther claims there was never any intent on 
his part to withhold anything from OLR.  He points to the sudden 
departure of his secretary as the cause of his inability to 
locate many of his financial records.   
¶24 As to the false certification regarding the financial 
records, 
Attorney 
Guenther 
similarly 
claims 
he 
did 
not 
intentionally violate the supreme court rules.  He stresses that 
he has always admitted there were problems with his record-
keeping system.  He believes it is a mitigating factor that he 
has tried to correct those problems as soon as possible.  He 
asserts that he is unfairly being sanctioned twice for basically 
the same thing, apparently referring to the fact that not only 
is he being punished because his records are in disarray, but he 
is also being punished for failing to acknowledge those problems 
via the certification.   
¶25 We find no basis on which to overturn the referee's 
findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning these counts.  
An attorney cannot hide behind the loss of support staff to 
excuse faulty record keeping that obviously was deficient even 
before.  Further, SCR 20:1.15(g) creates a separate offense for 
false 
certification, 
even 
though 
that 
may 
arise 
out 
of 
underlying 
trust 
account 
violations 
that 
also 
constitute 
misconduct under separate supreme court rules.   
¶26 Counts 9 through 13 arise out of numerous trust 
account discrepancies involving a dozen clients.  These counts 
Nos. 2003AP1244-D & 2004AP1240-D   
 
11 
 
allege violations of SCR 20:1.15(a),10 failing to hold the 
client's property in trust, separate from the lawyer's own 
property; SCR 22:03(6), failing to provide relevant information, 
to answer questions fully, or to furnish documents to the OLR; 
SCR 20:8.4(c), conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or 
misrepresentation; SCR 20:5.3(a),11 failing to make reasonable 
efforts to ensure that the law firm has in effect measures 
giving reasonable assurance that a nonlawyer's conduct is 
compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; and 
                                                 
10 20:1.15(a) 
provides 
in 
relevant 
part: 
Safekeeping 
property. 
(a) A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from 
the lawyer's own property, that property of clients 
and third persons that is in the lawyer's possession 
in connection with a representation . . . . All funds 
of clients and third persons paid to a lawyer or law 
firm shall be deposited in one or more identifiable 
trust accounts . . . . The trust account shall be 
clearly designated as "Client's Account" or "Trust 
Account" or words of similar import.  No funds 
belonging to the lawyer or law firm . . . may be 
deposited in such an account. . . .  
11 SCR 
20.5.3(a) 
provides: 
Responsibilities 
regarding 
nonlawyer assistants.  "With respect to a nonlawyer employed or 
retained by or associated with a lawyer: (a) A partner in a law 
firm shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has 
in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the person's 
conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the 
lawyer." 
Nos. 2003AP1244-D & 2004AP1240-D   
 
12 
 
SCR 20:5.3(b),12 failing to assure that a nonlawyer's conduct was 
compatible with his professional obligations.   
¶27 Attorney Guenther does not contest these counts, 
except to the extent that, as previously noted, he objects to 
any violation of SCR 22:03(6) on grounds that he did the best he 
could to provide OLR with the proper documentation.  All of 
these violations involve discrepancies between amounts that 
Attorney Guenther was supposed to be holding in trust for his 
clients and what was or was not properly disbursed to them or 
third parties.  This group of counts also involves Attorney 
Guenther's failure to adequately train and supervise the 
bookkeeping and accounting work done by his now missing 
secretary. 
¶28 We again find no basis to conclude that the referee's 
findings of fact with respect to these counts are clearly 
erroneous and thus we adopt them as well as the accompanying 
conclusions of law. 
¶29 Counts 14 and 15 arise out of Attorney Guenther's 
representation of a client in a civil action against her former 
employer out of which she received a judgment of approximately 
$10,600.  The counts allege violations of SCR 20:1.15(a), 
failing to hold the property of clients/third-persons in trust, 
                                                 
12 SCR 
20.5.3(b) 
provides: 
Responsibilities 
regarding 
nonlawyer assistants.  "With respect to a nonlawyer employed or 
retained by or associated with a lawyer: (b) A lawyer having 
direct supervisory authority over the nonlawyer shall make 
reasonable efforts to ensure that the person's conduct is 
compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer." 
Nos. 2003AP1244-D & 2004AP1240-D   
 
13 
 
separate from the attorney's own property, and SCR 20:1.15(f), 
failing to produce trust account records for inspection, audit, 
use and evidence, as requested by OLR.  
¶30 The 
referee found 
more 
trust account 
violations 
pertaining to this client's judgment.  In general, Attorney 
Guenther failed to properly record the funds he received from 
the former employer, failed to properly document what was being 
forwarded to the client or credited to himself for outstanding 
fees and similar discrepancies.  In addition, Attorney Guenther 
was 
unable 
to 
provide 
OLR 
with 
sufficient 
documentation 
regarding this entire series of events.   
¶31 The 
referee 
concluded 
the 
evidence 
clearly 
demonstrated that Attorney Guenther failed to adequately account 
for the funds he received on behalf of his client. 
¶32 Once again, Attorney Guenther does not challenge on 
appeal either of these two counts except to the extent that he 
has generally denied that he failed to cooperate with OLR. 
¶33 We find no basis on which to overturn the referee's 
findings of fact and conclusions of law and therefore, adopt 
them. 
¶34 With respect to the sanction in this case, the referee 
states: 
Although I find that most of the conduct engaged 
in by the respondent was not the result of a malicious 
intent, but rather the result of extremely poor 
bookkeeping, the sheer volume of problematic records, 
along with the failure to fully and promptly respond 
to the OLR's demands for records, demonstrates a 
disturbing pattern of indifference, which has resulted 
Nos. 2003AP1244-D & 2004AP1240-D   
 
14 
 
in distress for several clients, and presents the 
likely possibility of future harm to clients as well. 
. . . .  
[A 6-month] period of suspension is warranted, 
due to the severe nature of the misconduct.  Moreover, 
respondent has not been particularly remorseful, and 
in fact, has argued that his conduct is really not 
particularly 
severe. . . . 
Clearly, 
these 
[prior] 
reprimands have not resulted in an alteration of the 
respondent's behavior and therefore, a more severe 
sanction is warranted.  
The referee submits that this case is comparable, if not more 
egregious, than In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Zablocki, 
219 Wis. 2d 313, 579 N.W.2d 233 (1998), where a six-month 
suspension 
was 
given 
for 
somewhat 
similar 
trust 
account 
violations even though the attorney had only been previously 
reprimanded once and had been practicing for only nine years.   
¶35 The referee also recommends that as a condition of 
reinstatement, Attorney Guenther file two years of quarterly 
reports concerning his trust account record keeping.  The 
referee has made no specific recommendation with respect to 
costs. 
¶36 Attorney Guenther opposes a six-month suspension.  He 
submits that he has "only" had private reprimands in the past.  
He also points to the referee's assessment that none of this 
conduct was malicious.  He assures the court that he has put 
into 
place 
a 
"complete 
bookkeeping 
system" 
since 
these 
difficulties.  Without expressly so stating, he apparently 
believes another reprimand is appropriate.   
Nos. 2003AP1244-D & 2004AP1240-D   
 
15 
 
¶37 Attorney Guenther also objects to the OLR's requested 
costs of $12,713.60, although he does not take issue with any 
particular portion of the amount.  He claims it is unfair to 
require that he pay all of it.  He believes he has partially 
prevailed because the OLR originally sought a nine-month 
suspension.  He also notes that he stipulated to portions of the 
case and that to which he did not stipulate was "rather 
simplistic in nature."  He submits this case could have been 
prosecuted for much less than the submitted amount.   
¶38 In response, the OLR does not appear to oppose the 
six-month suspension.  It agrees that reinstatement should be 
conditioned on trust account monitoring.  Finally, the OLR 
submits this was not a simple case to prosecute, noting the 39-
page complaint and over 1300 pages of exhibits.   
¶39 We conclude that the recommended suspension should be 
imposed. 
 
This 
is 
Attorney 
Guenther's 
fourth 
round 
of 
disciplinary problems.  Although it is difficult to compare 
disciplinary cases because of the unique facts of each, this is 
similar to Zablocki in the sense that if a six-month suspension 
was warranted there, it certainly is warranted here as well.   
¶40 It is also appropriate to assess the entire costs of 
$12,713.60 against Attorney Guenther.  Whether he stipulated to 
some matters or not, he lost on all counts.  Although the 
referee may have recommended a suspension shorter than that 
sought by the OLR, a six-month suspension is still a severe 
sanction and certainly does not constitute a victory for 
Attorney Guenther.   
Nos. 2003AP1244-D & 2004AP1240-D   
 
16 
 
¶41 Finally, we agree that trust account monitoring should 
be a condition of reinstatement. 
CASE NO. 2004AP1240-D 
¶42 This case was submitted to the referee on stipulation 
of the parties.  The matters alleged in Counts 1-2 and 4-5 of 
this case (Count 3 was withdrawn by the OLR) involve new 
information regarding the matters surrounding Counts 14 and 15 
of the previous case that the OLR uncovered in the course of 
prosecuting that matter. 
¶43 Counts 
1 
and 
2 
allege 
more 
violations 
of 
SCR 
20:1.15(a) and (b).  These again generally involve Attorney 
Guenther's failure to adequately account for funds received on 
behalf of his client, the disbursements ultimately made to her, 
and all trust account matters concerning the entire transaction.   
¶44 The referee recommended that Count 1 be dismissed on 
grounds that it is generally based on the same facts as Count 14 
in the earlier case.  The referee further expresses "trouble" 
with Count 2, which he similarly believes is basically the same 
as the two counts (14 and 15) in the earlier case.  As a result, 
he has not factored either of these two counts into his sanction 
recommendation.   
¶45 Counts 4 and 5 allege additional violations of SCR 
20:8.4(c) and SCR 22.03(6).  They pertain to Attorney Guenther's 
misrepresentation to his client that he had completely paid her 
everything she was owed and his failure to fully cooperate with 
the OLR investigation surrounding the matter.  These counts do 
not overlap those in the earlier case and based on the 
Nos. 2003AP1244-D & 2004AP1240-D   
 
17 
 
stipulation of the parties, the referee found against Attorney 
Guenther on both counts.  However, the referee expressed 
uncertainty whether Attorney Guenther's failure to cooperate 
with the OLR was willful as opposed to merely reckless in 
nature.   
¶46 The parties stipulated to a 60-day suspension in this 
case.  However, they did not agree whether this additional time 
should be consecutive to, or merely concurrent with, the 
suspension imposed in the previous case.   
¶47 The referee expressed concern with the extent to which 
the counts in this case overlap those in the previous case.  He 
nonetheless was still "very concerned" with Attorney Guenther's 
inability to keep his financial house in order.  The referee 
submitted that Counts 4 and 5 alone, notwithstanding the 
possible lack of willfulness, justified the 60-day suspension. 
¶48 However, 
the 
referee 
has 
recommended 
that 
the 
suspension be concurrent to the one in the earlier case stating:  
"I believe he has gotten the message regarding trust accounts.  
If not, I doubt another 60 days at the end of 6 months will make 
a difference." 
¶49 The referee also agrees that Attorney Guenther should 
be subject to trust account monitoring and has no objection to 
the stipulated costs of this case, $3,493.61, being assessed 
against Attorney Guenther.   
¶50 We do not find the referee's findings of fact with 
respect to any of the four counts in this case to be clearly 
Nos. 2003AP1244-D & 2004AP1240-D   
 
18 
 
erroneous.  Accordingly, we adopt them as well as the referee's 
conclusions of law with respect to these counts. 
¶51 However, we do not accept the referee's recommendation 
that the stipulated 60-day suspension be served concurrently.  
Any period of suspension of an attorney's license to practice 
law in this state is a severe matter.  An eight-month suspension 
is more severe than a six-month suspension and we expect that it 
will indeed "make a difference" in Attorney Guenther's future 
conduct, particularly in light of his substantial disciplinary 
history.  Accordingly, we impose a two-month consecutive 
suspension along with payment of the costs and trust account 
monitoring.   
¶52 In conclusion, we adopt the findings of fact and 
conclusions of law of the referees in these two cases.  Attorney 
Guenther's misconduct represents a serious failure to comply 
with the Rules of Professional Conduct.  We conclude that an 
eight-month suspension 
is 
appropriate 
discipline 
for 
this 
conduct.   
¶53 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Arik J. 
Guenther to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period 
of eight months, effective August 30, 2005. 
¶54 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Guenther shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation costs of $16,207.21. 
¶55 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Guenther comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an 
attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended. 
Nos. 2003AP1244-D & 2004AP1240-D   
 
19 
 
¶56 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
as 
a 
condition 
of 
reinstatement Attorney Guenther must file quarterly reports for 
a period of two years with the Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
pursuant to its requirement concerning his trust account record 
keeping.   
 
 
Nos. 2003AP1244-D & 2004AP1240-D   
 
 
 
1