Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Ryan P. Thompson

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2018 WI 97 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2018AP2473-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Ryan P. Thompson, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Ryan P. Thompson, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THOMPSON 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 16, 2018 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
      
 
 
2018 WI 97
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2017AP2473-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Ryan P. Thompson, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Ryan P. Thompson, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 16, 2018 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of Referee James W. Mohr, Jr., concluding that Attorney Ryan P. 
Thompson committed 16 counts of professional misconduct and 
recommending the court suspend his law license for 15 months, 
order him to pay restitution to one client, A.K., and impose the 
costs of this proceeding on him.   
¶2 
Upon careful review of this matter, we uphold the 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law and agree that 
No. 
2017AP2473-D   
 
2 
 
a 15-month suspension is an appropriate sanction for Attorney 
Thompson's misconduct.  We further agree that Attorney Thompson 
should pay restitution to A.K. in the amount of $1,000.  We also 
find it appropriate to impose the full costs of this proceeding 
on Attorney Thompson, which are $7,370.73 as of August 24, 2018.   
¶3 
Attorney Thompson was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2006.  He has not previously been professionally 
disciplined but his law license was suspended on May 6, 2016, 
for willful failure to cooperate with an Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR) investigation into the misconduct giving rise 
to this matter.  It remains suspended. 
¶4 
On December 20, 2017, the OLR filed a disciplinary 
complaint alleging 16 counts of misconduct.  Attorney Thompson 
filed an answer in which he admitted many of the factual 
allegations.  Referee Mohr conducted a hearing on July 10, 2018.  
Attorney Thompson appeared, but elected not to attend the 
hearing.  Before the hearing commenced, however, Attorney 
Thompson and the OLR advised the referee that they would 
stipulate to the discipline recommended in the OLR complaint, 
except for requested restitution for C.W., which Attorney 
Thompson had paid.  The parties stipulated that the restitution 
claim on behalf of A.K. could abide by the proof in the record.  
The parties additionally contemplated that restitution could be 
made as a condition of reinstatement.  The OLR called two 
witnesses.  The parties waived the opportunity for post-hearing 
briefing and the referee issued his report on August 6, 2018.   
No. 
2017AP2473-D   
 
3 
 
¶5 
No appeal has been filed so we consider this matter 
under SCR 22.17(2).1  The facts set forth in this decision are 
based on the referee's factual findings which have not been 
shown to be clearly erroneous in any respect.  The findings 
derive, in turn, from the OLR's complaint, Attorney Thompson's 
answer, the facts to which the parties stipulated before the 
evidentiary hearing, and evidence from the hearing itself. 
Matter of A.K. (Counts 1 & 2) 
¶6 
In 2014, A.K. retained Attorney Thompson and paid him 
a $1,000 retainer.  Shortly thereafter, she elected not to 
pursue her legal claim.  Since January 2015, A.K. has repeatedly 
asked Attorney Thompson to refund the unearned portion of her 
advanced fee.  Attorney Thompson failed to provide A.K. with an 
invoice, a written notice of intent to remove her funds from 
trust, an accounting, to return any unearned portion of her 
advanced fees, or to provide an explanation as to why he did not 
owe her a refund. 
¶7 
In September 2015, A.K. filed a grievance against 
Attorney Thompson with the OLR.  Attorney Thompson failed to 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) provides:  
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. 
 
No. 
2017AP2473-D   
 
4 
 
respond and, ultimately, on May 6, 2016, this court issued an 
order suspending Attorney Thompson's license to practice law due 
to 
his 
willful 
failure 
to 
cooperate 
with 
the 
OLR's 
investigation.  
¶8 
The complaint alleged and the referee concluded that, 
based on Attorney Thompson's own admission, by failing to refund 
the unearned portion of A.K.'s fees or, in the alternative, to  
timely explain to A.K. why she was not due a refund, Attorney 
Thompson violated SCR 20:1.16(d)2 (Count 1). 
¶9 
The complaint alleged and the referee concluded that, 
by failing to file a written response to OLR's November 17, 2015  
letter, Attorney Thompson willfully violated SCRs 22.03(2)3 and 
(6),4 enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h)5 (Count 2). 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:l.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 or expense that has not 
been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers 
relating to the client to the extent permitted by 
other law. 
3 SCR 22.03(2) provides: 
Upon commencing an investigation, the director 
shall notify the respondent of the matter being 
investigated unless in the opinion of the director the 
investigation of the matter requires otherwise.  The 
respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts 
and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct 
within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail a 
request for a written response.  The director may 
(continued) 
No. 
2017AP2473-D   
 
5 
 
Matter of C.W. (Counts 3-8) 
¶10 In November 2014, C.W. hired Attorney Thompson to 
represent her in an employment matter.  She signed a legal 
services agreement and paid Attorney Thompson a $2,500 advance 
fee.  Attorney Thompson told C.W. he would file a claim alleging 
a violation of the Wisconsin Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and 
a disability discrimination claim on her behalf.  
¶11 On December 12, 2014, Attorney Thompson duly filed 
C.W.'s state FMLA complaint with the Wisconsin Department of 
Workforce and Development.  On February 18, 2015, the complaint 
was denied.  Attorney Thompson did not appeal and, in March 
2015, the case was closed.  
¶12 After her state FMLA claim was denied, Attorney 
Thompson told C.W. that he would file a federal disability 
discrimination and federal FMLA claim on her behalf.  He failed 
                                                                                                                                                             
allow additional time to respond.  Following receipt 
of the response, the director may conduct further 
investigation and may compel the respondent to answer 
questions, 
furnish 
documents, 
and 
present 
any 
information deemed relevant to the investigation.   
4 SCR 
22.03(6) 
provides: 
 
"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 20:8.4(h) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to fail to cooperate in the investigation of a 
grievance filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required 
by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), 
or SCR 22.04(1)." 
No. 
2017AP2473-D   
 
6 
 
to file any other claims on C.W.'s behalf within the statutory 
period allowed to pursue those claims and he did not inform C.W. 
he would not file any additional claims on her behalf. 
¶13 Subsequently, C.W. made numerous telephone calls to 
Attorney Thompson and sent him emails and text messages 
requesting information regarding the status of her case.  
Attorney Thompson failed to respond. 
¶14 On 
May 
6, 
2016, 
this 
court 
suspended 
Attorney 
Thompson's law license based on his failure to cooperate with 
the A.K. investigation.  Attorney Thompson did not advise C.W. 
of his suspension. 
¶15 On July 22, 2016, C.W. terminated Attorney Thompson's 
representation of her and requested a copy of her file, an 
accounting, and a refund of unearned fees.  Attorney Thompson 
failed to respond. 
¶16 C.W. hired another attorney who contacted Attorney 
Thompson on September 7, 2016, requesting a copy of C.W.'s file 
and a refund of her advanced fee.  Attorney Thompson failed to 
respond.  C.W. eventually filed a grievance with the OLR.  
Attorney Thompson failed to respond to the OLR inquiries as 
well.   
¶17 At some point thereafter, Attorney Thompson apparently 
provided C.W. with a refund.  The parties agree that no 
restitution is warranted in this matter.  
¶18 The complaint alleged and the record supports the 
conclusion that, after dismissal of C.W.'s Wisconsin FMLA claim, 
No. 
2017AP2473-D   
 
7 
 
by failing to file any other claims on C.W.'s behalf, Attorney 
Thompson violated SCR 20:1.3 (Count 3).6 
¶19 The complaint alleged and the referee concluded that 
by failing to communicate with C.W. about the status of her 
claims, and failing to respond to C.W.'s reasonable requests for 
information, Attorney Thompson violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3)7 and 
(4)8 (Count 4). 
¶20 The complaint alleged and the referee concluded that 
by failing to provide C.W. with a written accounting following 
her 
request 
for 
one, 
Attorney 
Thompson 
violated 
former 
SCR 20:l.15(d)(2) and current SCR 20:l.15(e)(2)9 (Count 5).  
                                                 
6 It appears the referee inadvertently failed to formally 
conclude, as a matter of law, that Attorney Thompson violated 
SCR 20:1.3 (Count 3), see Report at 8.  However, the referee's 
narrative 
and 
undisputed 
factual 
findings 
(that 
Attorney 
Thompson failed to file an appeal from C.W.'s state FMLA matter 
and did not file any other claims on C.W.'s behalf) support the 
conclusion.  We independently conclude that Attorney Thompson 
committed the misconduct alleged in Count 3 of the OLR 
complaint, and note than even if this count were to be 
dismissed, it would not alter our analysis or the discipline we 
impose today. 
SCR 20:1.3 provides:  "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
7 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides:  "A lawyer shall keep the 
client reasonably informed about the status of the matter." 
8 SCR 20:l.4(a)(4) provides: "A lawyer shall promptly comply 
with reasonable requests by the client for information." 
9 Effective July 1, 2016, substantial changes were made to 
Supreme Court Rule 20:1.15, the "trust account rule."  See S. 
Ct. Order 14-07, (issued Apr. 4, 2016, eff. July 1, 2016). 
(continued) 
No. 
2017AP2473-D   
 
8 
 
¶21 The complaint alleged and the referee concluded that 
by failing to refund the unearned portion of C.W.'s fee or, 
alternatively, to timely explain why she was not due a refund; 
by failing to provide C.W. or her counsel with the contents of 
her file; and by failing to notify C.W. that he was closing his 
private practice, Attorney Thompson in each instance violated 
SCR 20:l.16(d) (Count 6). 
¶22 The complaint alleged and the referee concluded that 
by failing to notify C.W. of the May 6, 2016 suspension of his 
license to practice law and that she should seek legal advice 
from 
another 
attorney, 
Attorney 
Thompson 
violated 
SCR 22.26(l)(a) and (b),10 enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f)11 (Count 7). 
                                                                                                                                                             
Former 
SCR 
20:1.15(d)(2) 
was 
renumbered 
as 
SCR 20:1.15(e)(2).  The text of the rule was not changed and 
provides:  "Upon final distribution of any trust property or 
upon request by the client or a 3rd party having an ownership 
interest in the property, the lawyer shall promptly render a 
full written accounting regarding the property." 
10 SCR 22.26(1) provides:   
On or before the effective date of license 
suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 
suspended or revoked shall do all of the following: 
(a) Notify by certified mail all clients being 
represented in pending matters of the suspension or 
revocation and of the attorney's consequent inability 
to act as an attorney following the effective date of 
the suspension or revocation. 
(b) Advise the clients to seek legal advice of 
their choice elsewhere. 
No. 
2017AP2473-D   
 
9 
 
¶23 The complaint alleged and the referee concluded that 
by failing to file a written response to the OLR's November 23, 
2016 letter, Attorney Thompson willfully violated SCR 22.03(2) 
and (6), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h) (Count 8). 
Matter of L.R. (Counts 9-11) 
¶24 In June 2015 L.R. hired Attorney Thompson to defend 
him in a civil matter.  L.R. signed a retainer agreement and 
paid Attorney Thompson a $2,500 advance fee.  On May 6, 2016, 
this court suspended Attorney Thompson's law license so Attorney 
Thompson was unable to proceed with L.R.'s matter. 
¶25 Between June 3, 2016 and October 31, 2016, L.R. spoke 
with and wrote Attorney Thompson several times requesting an 
accounting and refund of the unearned portion of his $2,500 
advance fee.  Attorney Thompson failed to provide L.R. with an 
invoice, an accounting, or refund of any unearned fees.  
¶26 On November 15, 2016, L.R. filed a grievance with the 
OLR seeking a refund of at least $1,750.  In an email dated 
December 14, 2016, Attorney Thompson acknowledged to the OLR 
that he owed L.R. both an accounting and a refund.  In an email 
to L.R. dated February 23, 2017, Attorney Thompson stated he 
owed L.R. a refund of $1,000 but failed to provide L.R. with an 
invoice or a refund.  
                                                                                                                                                             
11 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme 
court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers." 
No. 
2017AP2473-D   
 
10 
 
¶27 On May 17, 2017, L.R. filed a request for arbitration 
of his fee dispute with the State Bar of Wisconsin.  On July 21, 
2017, pursuant to a mediation agreement, L.R. received a $1,000 
refund from Attorney Thompson.  Attorney Thompson never provided 
L.R. with a written invoice, a billing statement, or an 
accounting. 
¶28 The complaint alleged and the referee concluded that, 
by failing to provide L.R. with a written accounting upon his 
request, Attorney Thompson violated former SCR 20:l.15(d)(2) and 
current SCR 20:l.15(e)(2) (Count 9).  
¶29 The complaint alleged and the referee concluded that, 
by failing, upon termination of the representation, to properly 
refund the unearned portion of L.R.'s fees or, in the 
alternative, to timely explain why he was not due a refund, 
Attorney Thompson violated SCR 20:l.16(d) (Count 10). 
¶30 The complaint alleged and the referee concluded that, 
by willfully failing to file a written response to the OLR's 
December 
23, 
2016 
letter, 
Attorney 
Thompson 
violated 
SCR 22.03(2) and (6), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h) (Count 11). 
Practicing after Suspension (Counts 12-16) 
¶31 When Attorney Thompson was suspended by this court on 
May 6, 2016, he was employed as an in-house attorney for 
Heartland Business Systems LLC (Heartland).  He continued to 
work for them after the suspension, holding himself out - both 
to Heartland and to others - as an attorney licensed to practice 
law in Wisconsin.  
No. 
2017AP2473-D   
 
11 
 
¶32 Attorney Thompson later admitted to the OLR that he 
had been practicing law between May 2016 and at least November 
2016 and retained the title of General Counsel.  Attorney 
Thompson made numerous misrepresentations to the OLR when 
discussing his suspension, including: 
 That he told the President and Vice President of 
Heartland's parent company that his license had been 
suspended; 
 That when he informed Heartland of his suspension, 
they restricted his signing authority and caused 
Heartland to begin looking for another attorney; 
 That the Vice President took over the handling of all 
contract matters until another attorney was hired; 
 That the Vice President began to supervise a legal 
assistant for all law-related work; 
 That Attorney Thompson did not supervise the new 
attorney's legal work; 
 That after Attorney Thompson informed Heartland of his 
suspension, he stopped practicing law on behalf of 
Heartland; and 
 That Attorney Thompson changed his title from General 
Counsel to Chief Operating Officer, Compliance Leader 
and Privacy Officer. 
¶33 The referee found that, in fact, Heartland had no 
knowledge of Attorney Thompson's suspension until April 27, 2017 
and during that time, he was still providing what the company 
would consider legal services and legal advice.  The referee 
No. 
2017AP2473-D   
 
12 
 
further found that had Heartland known of his May 2016 
suspension, Attorney Thompson would have been terminated.12  
¶34 The complaint alleged and the referee concluded that 
by practicing law in Wisconsin at a time when his license to 
practice law was suspended, Attorney Thompson violated SCRs 
22.26(2)13 and 23.02(1),14 enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f) (Count 12). 
¶35 The complaint alleged and the referee concluded that, 
by using the title General Counsel and otherwise holding himself 
out as a licensed attorney while employed in Wisconsin at a time 
when his license to practice law in Wisconsin was suspended, 
                                                 
12 He was eventually terminated on August 7, 2017, in part 
because he lied to the company about his license suspension. 
13 SCR 22.26(2) provides:   
An attorney whose license to practice law is 
suspended or revoked or who is suspended from the 
practice of law may not engage in this state in the 
practice 
of 
law 
or 
in 
any 
law 
work 
activity 
customarily done by law students, law clerks, or other 
paralegal personnel, except that the attorney may 
engage in law related work in this state for a 
commercial employer itself not engaged in the practice 
of law. 
14 SCR 23.02(1) provides:   
A person who is duly licensed to practice law in 
this state by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and who is 
an active member of the State Bar of Wisconsin may 
practice law in Wisconsin.  No person may engage in 
the practice of law in Wisconsin, or attempt to do so, 
or make a representation that he or she is authorized 
to do so, unless the person is currently licensed to 
practice law in Wisconsin by the Wisconsin Supreme 
court is an active member of the State Bar of 
Wisconsin. 
No. 
2017AP2473-D   
 
13 
 
Attorney 
Thompson 
violated 
SCR 
23.02(3),15 
enforced 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(f) (Count 13). 
¶36 The complaint alleged and the referee concluded that, 
by engaging in a dishonest and deceitful course of conduct 
related to the status of his license to practice law and his 
ability to act as legal counsel for Heartland, which included 
material misrepresentations and omissions in his interactions 
with Heartland, Attorney Thompson violated SCR 20:8.4(c)16 (Count 
14). 
¶37 The complaint alleged and the referee concluded that, 
by failing to file a written response to the OLR's March 23, 
2017 
letter 
until 
September 
18, 
2017, 
Attorney 
Thompson 
willfully 
violated 
SCR 
22.03(2) 
and 
(6), 
enforced 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(h) (Count 15). 
                                                 
15 SCR 23.02(3) provides:  
Except as permitted by SCR 10.03(4), only a 
person who is currently licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin and who is an active member of the State Bar 
of Wisconsin may represent himself or herself to the 
public using the words attorney at law, lawyer, 
solicitor, counselor, attorney and counselor, proctor, 
law, 
law 
office, 
or 
other 
equivalent 
words 
in 
connection 
with 
his 
or 
her 
name 
or 
any 
sign, 
advertisement, business card, letterhead, circular, 
notice, or other writing, document or design, the 
evident purpose of which is to induce others to 
believe or understand the person to be authorized to 
practice law in this state or otherwise qualified to 
provide professional legal services or advice. 
16 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
No. 
2017AP2473-D   
 
14 
 
¶38 Finally, 
the 
complaint 
alleged 
and 
the 
referee 
concluded that, by making misrepresentations to the OLR during 
the course of its investigations, Attorney Thompson violated 
SCR 22.03(6), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h) (Count 16). 
¶39 With respect to the appropriate discipline, the 
parties stipulated before the evidentiary hearing that a one-
year suspension of Attorney Thompson's license to practice law 
was appropriate, together with restitution to A.K. as a 
condition of any future reinstatement. 
¶40 The referee was troubled by Attorney Thompson's 
misconduct, particularly his blatant disregard of a supreme 
court order and his misrepresentations to the OLR.  In reaching 
an independent recommendation regarding discipline, the referee 
deemed instructive 
In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Rostollan, 2018 WI 38, 381 Wis. 2d 5, 911 N.W.2d 112.  Attorney 
Rostollan, who had no prior disciplinary history, was suspended 
for failure to cooperate in an OLR investigation.  He was then 
suspended for two years for failing to properly document advance 
fees; making misrepresentations to a federal bankruptcy court; 
failure to hold fees in trust; failure to cooperate with an OLR 
investigation; failure to keep a client properly informed; and 
practicing after suspension.  The referee acknowledged that 
Attorney Rostollan's conduct was more egregious than that of 
Attorney Thompson, but noted, correctly, that many of the same 
elements are present. 
¶41 The referee was also informed by In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Ruppelt, 2017 WI 80, 377 Wis. 2d 441, 898 
No. 
2017AP2473-D   
 
15 
 
N.W.2d 473 where the attorney stipulated to 16 counts of 
misconduct and a one-year suspension for failure to hold client 
money in trust; dishonest billing practices; dishonesty toward 
the OLR in its investigation; failure to properly communicate 
with a client; and false statements to a tribunal.  There, the 
referee opted to recommend a 15-month suspension, which this 
court imposed.  The referee observed that Attorney Thompson's 
case also involved "troublesome conduct toward at least three 
(3) clients" and determined that here, a 15-month suspension is 
needed. 
¶42 This court will adopt the referee's findings of fact 
unless they are clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law are 
reviewed de novo.  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 sees fit, regardless of 
the 
referee's 
recommendation. 
 
See 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 
N.W.2d 686.   
¶43 We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law that Attorney Thompson violated the supreme 
court rules as set forth above.  We further agree with the 
referee that a 15-month suspension of Attorney Thompson's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin is a more appropriate level 
of discipline than the 12-month suspension proposed by the 
parties.  We agree with the referee that Attorney Thompson 
should be required to pay restitution to A.K.  We impose this 
obligation on Attorney Thompson now.  It is not our practice to 
No. 
2017AP2473-D   
 
16 
 
defer imposition of a restitution award.17  Finally, we deem it 
appropriate, as is our usual custom, to impose the full costs of 
this disciplinary proceeding on Attorney Thompson. 
¶44 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Ryan P. Thompson to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 15 
months, effective the date of this order. 
¶45 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Ryan P. Thompson shall pay restitution to A.K. in 
the amount of $1,000. 
¶46 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Ryan P. Thompson shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $7,370.73 as 
of August 24, 2018. 
¶47 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that restitution shall be paid 
before the payment of costs to the Office of Lawyer Regulation. 
¶48 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent that he has 
not already done so, Ryan P. Thompson shall comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
¶49 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the temporary suspension of 
Ryan P. Thompson's license to practice law in Wisconsin, which 
was imposed on May 6, 2016, due to his willful failure to 
                                                 
17 To the extent Attorney Thompson is unable to pay 
restitution and costs now, he may contact the OLR and request a 
repayment plan. 
No. 
2017AP2473-D   
 
17 
 
cooperate with the Office of Lawyer Regulation's investigation 
is lifted. 
¶50 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(3). 
 
No. 
2017AP2473-D   
 
 
 
1