Title: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. Frank X. Kinast

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
98-0122-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Frank X. Kinast, Attorney at Law. 
  
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
Frank X. Kinast,  
 
Respondent.  
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KINAST 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
October 22, 1999 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
No. 
98-0122-D 
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 98-0122-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Frank X. Kinast, Attorney at  
Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional  
Responsibility,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Frank X. Kinast,  
 
          Respondent.  
FILED 
 
OCT 22, 1999  
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.  Proceeding dismissed. 
¶1 
PER CURIAM   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that this disciplinary proceeding against Attorney 
Frank X. Kinast be dismissed for reason of the failure of the 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board) to meet 
its burden of proof to establish that Attorney Kinast engaged in 
professional 
misconduct 
by 
charging 
a 
divorce 
client 
an 
excessive fee.  The Board did not appeal the referee's 
recommendation. 
¶2 
We determine that dismissal of this proceeding is 
appropriate.  Owing to the passage of time between the client's 
representation and the time of the hearing in the instant 
proceeding, the recollections of Attorney Kinast and of the 
No. 
98-0122-D 
 
2 
client differed on key issues.  Also, over that period of time, 
the substantive law regarding that representation and the 
applicable attorney professional conduct rules changed, and new 
methods of law office management and legal research had been 
developed.  Accordingly, the referee properly concluded that the 
Board did not establish by clear and satisfactory evidence that 
Attorney Kinast violated applicable professional conduct rules 
in respect to his fee agreement with the client or in charging 
the fee.   
¶3 
Attorney Kinast was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1947 and practices in Beloit.  He has been 
disciplined 
for 
professional 
misconduct 
on 
three 
prior 
occasions, once for charging a clearly excessive fee for 
representing a client in a divorce proceeding.   
¶4 
The referee in the instant proceeding, Attorney Cheryl 
Rosen Weston, made findings of fact following a lengthy 
disciplinary hearing concerning Attorney Kinast's representation 
of a divorce client in a matter that began in 1977 and continued 
several years thereafter.  He and the client did not enter into 
a written fee agreement for his services, but at the time he was 
engaged, the attorney professional conduct rules did not require 
a written fee agreement.  The parties gave conflicting testimony 
concerning 
the 
fee 
Attorney 
Kinast 
established 
at 
the 
commencement of the representation.  Their testimony also 
differed in respect to the day on which that representation 
began.   
No. 
98-0122-D 
 
3 
¶5 
Attorney Kinast's representation of the client was 
extensive and included actions in Illinois and Wisconsin courts 
and sixteen days of trial and more than thirty appearances in 
the Wisconsin circuit court between 1977 and the spring of 1980. 
 Appeals, petitions for review, and further proceedings followed 
through 1984.  
¶6 
After the client made payments on the bill between 
1981 and 1991, Attorney Kinast brought a collection action 
against the client in 1993 for the unpaid balance, and the 
client 
counterclaimed. 
 
The 
matter 
resulted 
in 
a 
jury 
determination of the reasonable amount of fees for all of the 
services Attorney Kinast had rendered to the client, and 
Attorney Kinast repaid the client the excess amount of fees that 
had been paid.  The fee determined by the jury was within the 
range of reasonable fee to which two expert witnesses called by 
the Board in the disciplinary proceeding testified.   
¶7 
The referee found that the client was completely 
satisfied with the quality of services Attorney Kinast had 
rendered, as well as with the result obtained in the divorce 
proceeding.  In addition, the client was not required to make 
any payment for Attorney Kinast's services throughout years of 
representation and then made payments over a 10-year span 
without paying any interest on the unpaid balance of the fee.  
While noting a "disturbing disparity" between Attorney Kinast's 
fees and the fees charged by the adverse party's lawyers, the 
referee was unable to determine that Attorney Kinast's fee was 
excessive.  The referee found equally credible the testimony of 
No. 
98-0122-D 
 
4 
the Board's expert witnesses and that of the expert who 
testified that Attorney Kinast in fact spent the time set forth 
in his billing statement and that the resulting fee was 
reasonable. 
¶8 
We adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusion 
that the Board failed to establish by clear and satisfactory 
evidence that the services Attorney Kinast claimed to have 
provided the client had not been provided, that his services did 
not bring about the result obtained for the client, or that the 
fee he charged for those services was excessive.   
¶9 
IT IS ORDERED that the disciplinary proceeding is 
dismissed.   
 
 
 
1