Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Courtney Kathleen Kelbel

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2019 WI 93 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
19AP543-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Courtney Kathleen Kelbel, Attorney at 
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Courtney Kathleen Kelbel, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KELBEL 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 22, 2019 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
      
 
 
2019 WI 93
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2019AP543-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Courtney Kathleen Kelbel, 
Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Courtney Kathleen Kelbel, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
OCT 22, 2019 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review Referee James W. Mohr, Jr.'s, 
recommendation that the court declare Attorney Courtney Kathleen 
Kelbel in default and suspend her license to practice law in 
Wisconsin for a period of six months for professional misconduct 
in connection with her representation of five clients.  The 
referee also recommended that Attorney Kelbel make restitution 
to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (the Fund) 
No. 
2019AP543-D   
 
2 
 
and that she pay the full costs of this proceeding, which are 
$1,037.25 as of July 24, 2019. 
¶2 
Since no appeal has been filed, we review the 
referee's report pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.17(2).  
After review of the matter, we agree with the referee that, 
based on Attorney Kelbel's failure to answer the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation's (OLR) complaint, the OLR is entitled to a 
default judgment.  We further agree with the referee that a six-
month suspension of Attorney Kelbel's license is an appropriate 
sanction for her professional misconduct.  Finally, we agree 
that Attorney Kelbel should be required to make restitution to 
the Fund and that she should be assessed the full costs of this 
proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney Kelbel was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2009.  Her last known address is in Milwaukee.  On 
October 9, 2018, Attorney Kelbel's Wisconsin law license was 
temporarily suspended by this court for non-cooperation with the 
OLR's investigations.  Her license is also administratively 
suspended for failure to pay state bar dues and failure to file 
a trust account certification. 
¶4 
The OLR filed a complaint against Attorney Kelbel on 
March 19, 2019.  The first client matter detailed in the 
complaint concerned Attorney Kelbel's representation of D.U., 
who hired Attorney Kelbel to assist him with the short sale of 
his home.  The short sale was completed on or around October 20, 
2017.   
No. 
2019AP543-D   
 
3 
 
¶5 
In February of 2018, D.U.'s mortgage lender sent him a 
1099-C (cancellation of debt) form related to the short sale.  
D.U. believed the 1099-C listed the wrong amount of mortgage 
relief.  He sent Attorney Kelbel multiple emails requesting her 
to contact him.  Attorney Kelbel called D.U. in late February 
2018 and agreed to write to D.U's lender requesting a breakdown 
of the amount shown on the 1099-C.   
¶6 
D.U. sent three emails to Attorney Kelbel in early 
March 2018 asking if and when the letter had been sent and how 
long the mortgage lender had to respond to the letter.  Attorney 
Kelbel wrote to D.U. on April 2, 2018, claiming she had sent a 
letter to the lender on March 9, 2018.  D.U. asked Attorney 
Kelbel for a copy of the letter, but he never received one.  
D.U.'s lender denied receiving a letter from Attorney Kelbel. 
¶7 
D.U. filed a grievance with the OLR against Attorney 
Kelbel on April 2, 2018.  On May 10, 2018, the OLR wrote to 
Attorney Kelbel via regular and certified mail, asking her to 
respond to D.U.'s grievance by June 4, 2018.  Attorney Kelbel 
did not respond.  The letter sent by regular mail was not 
returned. 
¶8 
On June 22, 2018, the OLR moved this court for an 
order to show cause as to why Attorney Kelbel's license should 
not 
be 
suspended 
for 
failing 
to 
cooperate 
in 
three 
investigations, including D.U.'s.  On August 1, 2018, this court 
ordered Attorney Kelbel to show cause, in writing, to the court 
within 20 days as to why the OLR's motion should not be granted.  
Attorney Kelbel failed to respond.  On October 9, 2018, this 
No. 
2019AP543-D   
 
4 
 
court temporarily suspended Attorney Kelbel's Wisconsin law 
license for her willful failure to cooperate in the OLR's 
grievance investigations. 
¶9 
The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Kelbel's representation of 
D.U.: 
Count 1:  By failing to act on D.U.'s behalf in 
seeking clarification of the amount of mortgage relief 
obtained from his mortgage lender, Attorney Kelbel 
violated SCR 20:1.3.1   
Count 2:  By willfully failing to timely provide the 
OLR with a written response to the grievance in the 
D.U. matter, Attorney Kelbel violated SCR 22.03(2)2 and 
SCR 22.03(6),3 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h).4 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.3 provides:  "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
2 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 
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.   
3 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."  
No. 
2019AP543-D   
 
5 
 
¶10 The second client matter detailed in the OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney Kelbel's representation of V.L-C., 
who hired Attorney Kelbel to defend against the foreclosure of a 
Milwaukee condominium.  As part of the representation, Attorney 
Kelbel agreed to work with the Wisconsin Housing and Economic 
Development Authority (WHEDA) to arrange for approval of a short 
sale of the property including listing, showing, and selling the 
property.  Attorney Kelbel requested V.L-C. to provide her with 
specific financial documents which Attorney Kelbel would then 
submit to WHEDA as part of a short sale package. 
¶11 On 
September 
11, 
2017, 
V.L-C.'s 
condominium 
association filed a foreclosure action against her.  Attorney 
Kelbel had agreed to defend V.L-C. in the foreclosure case; 
however, Attorney Kelbel never filed a notice of appearance in 
the case. 
¶12 In late October or early November 2017, V.L-C. 
provided Attorney Kelbel with the documents needed for WHEDA, 
but Attorney Kelbel never sent a short sale package to WHEDA.  
In December 2017, V.L-C. paid Attorney Kelbel the agreed upon 
advanced fee of $1,250.  In early January 2018, V.L-C. sent 
Attorney Kelbel documents allowing Attorney Kelbel to list the 
condominium for sale.   
                                                                                                                                                             
4 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. 
2019AP543-D   
 
6 
 
¶13 On February 12, 2018, the attorney for the condominium 
association moved for default judgment against V.L-C. and sent 
notice of the motion to both V.L-C. and Attorney Kelbel.  When 
V.L-C received notice of the default motion, she asked Attorney 
Kelbel to contact the association's attorney.  Attorney Kelbel 
apparently did not do so. 
¶14 A hearing on the default motion was held on February 
19, 2018.  Neither V.L-C. nor Attorney Kelbel appeared at the 
hearing, and V.L-C. was found to be in default. 
¶15 In June 2018, V.L-C. met with Attorney Kelbel at a 
library and signed new listing documents.  After that meeting, 
Attorney Kelbel did not list V.L-C.'s condominium for sale and 
never communicated with V.L-C. again.  Attorney Kelbel never 
gave V.L-C. an itemized statement documenting any work she had 
performed on V.L-C.'s behalf, nor did she refund any fees. 
¶16 V.L-C. filed a grievance with the OLR against Attorney 
Kelbel on June 27, 2018.  On August 28, 2018, the OLR wrote to 
Attorney Kelbel asking her to respond to the grievance, sending 
the letter to Attorney Kelbel's last known address via regular 
mail.  The OLR also asked a process server to serve the letter 
on Attorney Kelbel.  The OLR asked Attorney Kelbel to respond to 
V.L-C.'s grievance by September 20, 2018.  The post office 
returned the OLR's letter and the process server was unable to 
effect service on Attorney Kelbel.  On September 18, 2018, the 
OLR emailed its August 28, 2018 letter and enclosures to 
Attorney Kelbel's email address listed with the State Bar of 
Wisconsin.  Attorney Kelbel failed to respond. 
No. 
2019AP543-D   
 
7 
 
¶17 In January 2019, the Fund approved payment of a 
portion ($625) of V.L-C.'s reimbursement request and indicated 
it 
may 
further 
review 
V.L-C.'s 
claim 
for 
additional 
reimbursement. 
¶18 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Kelbel's representation  
V.L-C.: 
Count 3:  By failing to submit a complete short sale 
package to WHEDA, and by failing to represent V.L-C. 
in the foreclosure matter, Attorney Kelbel violated 
SCR 20:1.3. 
Count 4:  By failing to refund any unearned portion of 
V.L-C.'s advanced fee payment of $1,250, Attorney 
Kelbel violated SCR 20:1.16(d).5 
Count 5:  By failing to provide the OLR with a written 
response to the grievance in the V.L-C. matter, 
Attorney Kelbel violated SCR 22.03(2), enforceable via 
SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶19 The 
third 
client 
matter 
detailed 
in 
the 
OLR's 
complaint arose out of Attorney Kelbel's representation of K.H. 
and R.S., an unmarried couple who hired Attorney Kelbel to file 
                                                 
5 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 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. 
No. 
2019AP543-D   
 
8 
 
individual Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcies.  K.H. and R.S. 
agreed to pay Attorney Kelbel $3,000 in legal fees for the 
bankruptcies, as well as the filing fees.  In November 2017, 
K.H. and R.S. emailed Attorney Kelbel financial information that 
she had requested.  By December 22, 2017, K.H. and R.S. had paid 
Attorney Kelbel the $3,000 in legal fees.   
¶20 On March 10, 2018, K.H. and R.S. mailed updated 
financial information needed to draft bankruptcy petitions to 
Attorney Kelbel's office.  The post office returned their letter 
as undeliverable in late March 2018.  Attorney Kelbel has not 
communicated with K.H. or R.S. since March 19, 2018.   
¶21 Attorney Kelbel never filed bankruptcy petitions for 
K.H. or R.S. and would not have been able to draft bankruptcy 
petitions without the updated financial information.  Attorney 
Kelbel never notified K.H. or R.S. that she was terminating the 
representation.  She did not provide them with an itemized 
statement documenting any work performed on their behalf, nor 
did she refund any unearned fees. 
¶22 On June 11, 2018, K.H. and R.S. filed a claim with the 
Fund asking for the reimbursement of their $3,000 advanced fee.  
The Fund approved the claim on October 4, 2018.   
¶23 On July 28, 2018, K.H. and R.S. filed a grievance with 
the OLR against Attorney Kelbel.  On September 14, 2018, the OLR 
mailed certified and first class letters to Attorney Kelbel, 
requiring her to respond to the grievance by October 10, 2018.  
The letters were mailed to the address on file with the State 
No. 
2019AP543-D   
 
9 
 
Bar as well as Attorney Kelbel's last known residential address.  
The post office returned the letters as undeliverable. 
¶24 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Kelbel's representation of 
K.H. and R.S.: 
Count 6:  By failing to advance the interests of K.H. 
and R.S., Attorney Kelbel violated SCR 20:1.3. 
Count 7:  By failing to refund the entire unearned fee 
of $3,000, Attorney Kelbel violated SCR 20:1.16(d). 
Count 8:  By failing to provide the OLR with a written 
response to the grievance in the K.H. and R.S. matter, 
Attorney 
Kelbel 
violated 
SCR 
22.03(2), 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶25 The fourth client matter detailed in the OLR's 
complaint arose out of Attorney Kelbel's representation of L.W., 
who hired Attorney Kelbel to prepare a bankruptcy petition in 
December 2017.  L.W. paid Attorney Kelbel $1,835.  In January 
2018, Attorney Kelbel offered to refund $300 to L.W. but never 
did so.   
¶26 On January 30, 2018, L.W. sent Attorney Kelbel some 
financial 
information, 
which 
Attorney 
Kelbel 
acknowledged 
receiving the following day.  On February 20, 2018, Attorney 
Kelbel dropped L.W.'s file off at the offices of an unrelated 
law firm. 
¶27 L.W. filed a grievance with the OLR against Attorney 
Kelbel on March 7, 2018.  On March 9, 2018, Attorney Kelbel paid 
$835 to the unrelated law firm for L.W.'s representation. 
No. 
2019AP543-D   
 
10 
 
¶28 On March 12, 2018, an attorney at the unrelated law 
firm informed L.W. of Attorney Kelbel's actions and offered to 
continue the representation.  L.W. agreed.  Attorney Kelbel 
never provided L.W. with any statement or documentation of work 
she had performed on L.W.'s behalf. 
¶29 On April 4, 2018, the OLR mailed certified and first 
class letters to Attorney Kelbel requiring her to respond to 
L.W.'s grievance by April 27, 2018.  The post office did not 
return either letter.  Attorney Kelbel did not respond. 
¶30 On May 10, 2018, the OLR mailed certified and first 
class letters to Attorney Kelbel requiring her to respond to 
L.W.'s grievance by May 21, 2018.  The post office did not 
return the letter sent via regular mail.  Attorney Kelbel did 
not respond.  L.W.'s grievance was one of the three matters that 
formed the basis of this court's October 9, 2018 temporary 
suspension of Attorney Kelbel's Wisconsin law license, due to 
her willful failure to cooperate with the OLR's investigations. 
¶31 On October 4, 2018, the Fund approved payment of 
$1,000 to L.W. for Attorney Kelbel's actions. 
¶32 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Kelbel's representation of 
L.W.: 
Count 9:  By retaining $1,000 of L.W.'s advanced but 
unearned fee on termination of the representation, 
Attorney Kelbel violated SCR 20:1.16(d). 
Count 10:  By willfully failing to timely provide the 
OLR with a written response to the grievance in the 
L.W. matter, Attorney Kelbel violated SCR 22.03(2) and 
SCR 22.03(6), via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
No. 
2019AP543-D   
 
11 
 
¶33 The 
final 
client 
matter 
detailed 
in 
the 
OLR's 
complaint concerned Attorney Kelbel's representation of S.Z.  On 
September 25, 2017, S.Z. filed a grievance with the OLR against 
Attorney Kelbel related to her representation of him in a real 
estate matter.  Attorney Kelbel communicated with the OLR 
several times via email in January of 2018 about S.Z.'s 
grievance. 
¶34 On March 7, 2018, the OLR wrote to Attorney Kelbel 
requiring her to respond to questions about the grievance by 
March 30, 2018.  Attorney Kelbel did not respond. 
¶35 On April 2, 2018, the OLR mailed certified and first 
class letters to Attorney Kelbel requiring her to respond to 
S.Z.'s grievance by April 12, 2018.  Neither letter was 
returned, but Attorney Kelbel did not respond. 
¶36 In May 2018, the OLR attempted to personally serve 
Attorney Kelbel with copies of its previous letters at her last 
known office and personal addresses, without success.  Attorney 
Kelbel's failure to cooperate with the OLR's investigation of 
S.Z.'s grievance was one of the matters forming the basis for 
this court's October 9, 2018 temporary suspension of Attorney 
Kelbel's Wisconsin law license. 
¶37 The OLR's complaint alleged the following count of 
misconduct with respect to S.Z.'s grievance: 
Count 11:  By willfully failing to timely provide the 
OLR with a written response to the grievance in the 
S.Z. matter, Attorney Kelbel violated SCR 22.03(2) and 
SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
No. 
2019AP543-D   
 
12 
 
¶38 The referee was appointed on May 9, 2019.  On May 20, 
2019, the referee notified Attorney Kelbel and counsel for the 
OLR by email of a scheduling conference to be held on May 30, 
2019 by telephone conference call.  Neither that email nor any 
subsequent emails from the referee to Attorney Kelbel were 
rejected or returned to the referee or identified as being 
undeliverable.  Attorney Kelbel failed to appear or participate 
in any fashion at the telephone scheduling conference.   
¶39 On June 14, 2019, the OLR filed a notice of motion and 
motion for default judgment, serving it upon Attorney Kelbel at 
her last known addresses.  On June 21, 2019, the referee 
notified Attorney Kelbel via email and U.S. mail, at the same 
addresses, that the motion for default judgment would be heard 
at 10 a.m. on July 1, 2019 via telephone conference call.  
Attorney Kelbel failed to file any written response to the 
motion and did participate in the conference call. 
¶40 On 
July 
5, 
2019, 
the 
referee 
issued 
a 
report 
recommending that this court grant the OLR's motion for default 
judgment.  The referee noted that SCR 22.13(1) provides that 
service of the complaint and order to answer shall be 
accomplished "in the same manner as a summons under section 
801.11(1) of the statutes."  If, with reasonable diligence, 
service cannot be made in that fashion, SCR 22.13 provides that 
"service 
may 
be 
made 
by 
sending 
by 
certified 
mail 
an 
authenticated copy of the complaint and order to answer to the 
most recent address furnished by the respondent to the state 
No. 
2019AP543-D   
 
13 
 
bar."  The referee found service in accordance with SCR 22.13 
was accomplished in this case.   
¶41 Based upon Attorney Kelbel's failure to file an answer 
or appear in the proceeding, the referee recommended that she be 
declared to be in default.  The referee found that the factual 
allegations of the OLR's complaint should be taken as true and 
proven by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence.  The 
referee recommended a six-month suspension of Attorney Kelbel's 
Wisconsin law license, the imposition of the full costs of the 
proceeding, and the imposition of restitution to the Fund in the 
amount of $4,625. 
¶42 Attorney Kelbel did not appeal from the referee's 
report and recommendation, so we proceed with our review of the 
matter pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).  We review a referee's findings 
of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 
Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  We review the referee's conclusions 
of law de novo.  Id.  We determine the appropriate level of 
discipline independent 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 agree with the referee that Attorney Kelbel should 
be declared in default.  In addition, the referee properly 
relied on the allegations of the complaint, which were deemed 
admitted by Attorney Kelbel's failure to answer.  We therefore 
agree with the referee that the factual allegations of the OLR's 
complaint may be taken as true and prove by clear, satisfactory, 
No. 
2019AP543-D   
 
14 
 
and convincing evidence that Attorney Kelbel committed all of 
the counts of misconduct alleged in the complaint. 
¶44 With respect to the appropriate level of discipline, 
upon careful review of the matter, we agree with the referee's 
recommendation for a six-month suspension of Attorney Kelbel's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin.  Although no two 
disciplinary proceedings are identical, a six-month suspension 
is generally consistent with the sanction imposed in In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Templin, 2016 WI 18, 367 
Wis. 2d 351, 877 N.W.2d 107 (attorney's license suspended for 
six months for multiple counts of misconduct involving four 
clients.  The misconduct in Templin included failing to provide 
competent representation to a client, failing to respond to a 
client's request for information, and failing to cooperate in 
the investigation of grievances); and In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Hartigan 2005 WI 3, 277 Wis. 2d 341, 690 
N.W.2d 831 (attorney's license suspended for six months for six 
counts of misconduct involving two client matters.  The 
misconduct in Hartigan included failing to keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly 
comply with reasonable requests for information).  
¶45 We further agree with the referee's recommendation 
that Attorney Kelbel be required to make restitution to the Fund 
in the amount of $4,625, and we agree that Attorney Kelbel 
should be required to pay the full costs of this proceeding. 
No. 
2019AP543-D   
 
15 
 
¶46 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Courtney Kathleen 
Kelbel to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 
six months, effective the date of this order. 
¶47 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Courtney Kathleen Kelbel shall pay to the 
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection the amount of 
$4,625.  
¶48 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Courtney Kathleen Kelbel shall pay to the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$1,037.25 as of July 24, 2019. 
¶49 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent she has not 
already done so, Courtney Kathleen Kelbel shall comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an attorney 
whose license to practice law has been suspended. 
¶50 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified 
above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation. 
¶51 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions with this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.29(4). 
¶52 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the temporary suspension of 
Courtney Kathleen Kelbel's Wisconsin law license imposed on 
October 9, 2018, is hereby lifted. 
 
No. 
2019AP543-D   
 
 
 
1