Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Thomas A. Fadner

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2006 WI 18 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2004AP1944-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Thomas A. Fadner, II, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Thomas A. Fadner, II, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST FADNER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 23, 2006   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2006 WI 18
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2004AP1944-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Thomas A. Fadner, II, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Thomas A. Fadner, II, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 23, 2006 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that the license of Attorney Thomas A. Fadner, II to 
practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for nine months for 
professional misconduct, and that he be required to pay the 
costs of this proceeding.  Attorney Fadner's misconduct involved 
his billing practices to the Office of the State Public Defender 
(SPD) and mishandling of payments to an investigator.  We 
No. 
2004AP1944-D   
 
2 
 
determine that the seriousness of Attorney Fadner's misconduct 
warrants the recommended penalty.   
¶2 
Attorney Fadner was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1996 and practiced in Oshkosh.  He was privately 
reprimanded in 1998 for a violation of supreme court rules.    
¶3 
On July 22, 2004, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a complaint alleging four counts of misconduct 
against Attorney Fadner.  The complaint stated that Attorney 
Fadner was appointed on a number of SPD matters and in April, 
May 
and 
June 
of 
2001, 
the 
SPD 
received 
invoices 
with 
questionable 
claims 
for 
time 
charges 
and 
photocopying 
reimbursements.  The complaint also alleged that Attorney Fadner 
had engaged an investigator, and on at least three occasions, 
when the SPD paid Attorney Fadner for the investigator fees, he 
did not timely deliver the money to the investigator or deposit 
the investigator fees into his trust account.     
¶4 
Cheryl Rosen Weston was appointed referee.  Although 
Attorney Fadner filed an answer to the complaint, he did not 
appear 
at 
scheduling 
conferences 
held 
after 
the 
initial 
conference, and ultimately, the referee struck his answer and 
entered a default judgment.  Attorney Fadner has not appealed.  
¶5 
The referee issued a report on June 15, 2005.  The 
report adopted each allegation of the complaint, noting a 
factual basis existed for its allegations.  The referee found 
that after the SPD received questionable billings, it notified 
Attorney Fadner it was placing a hold on termination of parental 
rights billings that exceeded $10,000 in a case that did not go 
No. 
2004AP1944-D   
 
3 
 
to trial.  In a telephone call with the SPD, Attorney Fadner 
stated his billing system had problems, but his photocopying 
charges were duly incurred at a business called KopyKats.  The 
referee found Attorney Fadner was aware that under SPD rules, 
in-house copying charges were not reimbursable.  
¶6 
The referee further found that KopyKats consisted of 
one photocopy machine owned by Attorney Fadner.  It was located 
in the building where Attorney Fadner had his law office and for 
which Attorney Fadner paid rent out of his law office budget.  
KopyKats had no sign indicating it was open as a separate 
business, it had no staff, and it did not advertise.  The 
referee determined KopyKats was not a separate business.  On his 
invoices, however, Attorney Fadner had asked for reimbursement 
for third-party copy services that were actually performed by 
himself on his own machine.  Additionally, he had charged sales 
tax to the SPD, but did not pay sales tax to the Wisconsin 
Department of Revenue during the time in question.  
¶7 
The referee stated that with respect to the billing 
irregularities for time charges, the SPD and Attorney Fadner 
reached a settlement agreement.  The referee concluded that 
Attorney Fadner's conduct of charging the SPD for in-house 
photocopying on a machine he owned and for charging the SPD 
sales tax and not timely remitting sales tax to the Department 
of Revenue constituted fraud and deceit contrary to SCR 
No. 
2004AP1944-D   
 
4 
 
20:8.4(c).1  The referee also concluded Attorney Fadner violated 
former SCR 20:1.15(a)2 and (b)3 concerning the safekeeping of 
property by taking funds belonging to the investigator, failing 
to deliver them to the investigator and failing to deposit them 
in Attorney Fadner's trust account.   
¶8 
The referee noted the complaint did not identify the 
amounts of money allegedly improperly charged for copying, or 
for investigator services not timely deposited or delivered.  
While this information was relevant to the seriousness of the 
allegations, the referee concluded Attorney Fadner had foregone 
the opportunity to provide facts to mitigate the complaint's 
allegations.   
¶9 
The referee also observed that in support of its 
request for the sanction of a license suspension of nine months, 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:8.4(c) states that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
2 Former SCR 20:1.15 applies to misconduct committed prior 
to July 1, 2004.  Former SCR 20:1.15(a) provided in pertinent 
part that "[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 or when acting in a fiduciary capacity. . . . All 
funds of clients and third persons paid to a lawyer or law firm 
shall be deposited in one or more identifiable trust accounts 
. . . ." 
3 Former SCR 20:1.5(b) provided in pertinent part that "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 . . . [and] promptly deliver 
to the client or third person any funds or other property that 
the client or third person is entitled to receive . . . ." 
No. 
2004AP1944-D   
 
5 
 
the OLR submitted evidence of a previous private reprimand 
issued in June of 1998 for a rule violation.  Given that 
previous discipline had been imposed, and that the sanction 
recommended by the OLR was consistent with discipline imposed 
against other attorneys for similar conduct, the referee 
concluded that a nine-month license suspension was appropriate.  
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Davison, 2002 WI 24, 
251 Wis. 2d 1, 640 N.W.2d 508 (agreed upon six-month suspension 
for numerous parking expense billings not actually incurred).  
The referee also required Attorney Fadner to pay the costs 
associated with the proceeding.  The OLR reported costs of 
$1411.88 as of July 6, 2005.  
¶10 We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law.  In reviewing a referee's report and 
recommendation, we affirm the referee's findings of fact unless 
they are clearly erroneous.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 
718.  We review the referee's conclusions of law de novo.  Id. 
¶11 We observe that the disciplinary process is designed 
"for the protection of the public, the courts and the legal 
profession."  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Harman, 137 
Wis. 2d 148, 150-51, 403 N.W.2d 459 (1987).  "It is not the 
purpose of lawyer discipline to make whole those harmed by 
attorney misconduct, although restitution is one of the stated 
requirements for reinstatement of a suspended or revoked 
No. 
2004AP1944-D   
 
6 
 
license."  Id. at 151.4  Thus, while the referee's recommendation 
of nine months suspension of Attorney Fadner's law license and 
payment 
of 
costs 
does 
not 
include 
the 
requirement 
of 
restitution, 
we 
are 
satisfied 
the 
recommendation 
is 
an 
appropriate discipline for his violation of supreme court rules. 
¶12 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Thomas A. 
Fadner, II to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for nine 
months, effective March 30, 2006, and until further order of 
this court. 
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Thomas A. Fadner, II pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, provided that if 
the costs are not paid within the time specified and absent a 
showing to this court of his inability to pay the costs within 
that time, the license of Attorney Thomas A. Fadner, II to 
practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further 
order of this court. 
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Thomas A. Fadner, 
II comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties 
of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
                                                 
4 A petition for reinstatement must show, among other 
things, that "[t]he petitioner has made restitution to or 
settled all claims of persons injured or harmed by petitioner's 
misconduct, including reimbursement to the Wisconsin lawyers' 
fund for client protection for all payments made from that fund, 
or, if not, the petitioner's explanation of the failure or 
inability to do so."  SCR 22.29(4m). 
No. 
2004AP1944-D   
 
 
 
1