Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Warren Lee Brandt

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2009 WI 43 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2007AP187-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Warren Lee Brandt, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
Complainant-Appellant, 
 
v. 
Warren Lee Brandt, 
 
Respondent-Respondent.   
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BRANDT 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 9, 2009   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
December 2, 2008   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
BRADLEY, J., opinion filed.   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the complainant-appellant there were briefs filed by 
Robert G. Krohn and Roethe Krohn Pope LLP, Edgerton, and oral 
argument by Robert G. Krohn. 
 
For the respondent-respondent there was a brief by Warren 
Lee Brandt and Brandt Law Office S.C., Prescott, and oral 
argument by Warren Lee Brandt. 
 
 
 
 
2009 WI 43
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2007AP187-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Warren Lee Brandt, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Appellant, 
 
     v. 
 
Warren Lee Brandt, 
 
          Respondent-Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 9, 2009 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
has appealed a referee's report concluding that Attorney Warren 
Lee Brandt's multiple convictions for operating a motor vehicle 
while intoxicated did not represent a violation of former SCR 
No. 
2007AP187-D   
 
2 
 
20:8.4(b).1  The referee found that Attorney Brandt did violate 
former SCR 20:5.3(b)2 by failing to adequately supervise an 
employee.  Attorney Brandt has not appealed that conclusion.  
The referee recommended that Attorney Brandt be publicly 
reprimanded for violating former SCR 20:5.3(b).  The OLR sought 
a 60-day suspension. 
¶2 
The OLR's appeal raises two issues: (1) whether 
multiple convictions for operating a motor vehicle while 
intoxicated represent a violation of former SCR 20:8.4(b), and 
(2) what is the appropriate sanction to impose in this case? 
¶3 
We conclude that the facts of this case support the 
conclusion that Attorney Brandt's multiple OWI convictions do 
represent a violation of former SCR 20:8.4(b).  Nevertheless, we 
conclude that a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction.  
                                                 
1 Effective July 1, 2007, substantial changes were made to 
the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct for 
Attorneys, SCR Chapter 20.  See S. Ct. Order 04-07, 2007 WI 4, 
293 Wis. 2d xv, 726 N.W.2d Ct.R-45 (eff. July 1, 2007); and 
S. Ct. 
Order 
06-04, 
2007 
WI 
48, 
297 
Wis. 2d xv, 
730 
N.W.2d Ct.R.-29 (eff. July 1, 2007).  Because the conduct 
underlying this case arose prior to July 1, 2007, unless 
otherwise indicated, all references to the supreme court rules 
will be to those in effect prior to July 1, 2007. 
Former SCR 20:8.4(b) provided that it is professional 
misconduct for a lawyer to "commit a criminal act that reflects 
adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as 
a lawyer in other respects." 
2 Former SCR 20:5.3(b) stated that, with respect to a 
nonlawyer employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer, 
"[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; . . . ." 
No. 
2007AP187-D   
 
3 
 
We also conclude that the full costs of the proceeding, which 
total $13,690.90 as of December 10, 2008, should be assessed 
against Attorney Brandt. 
¶4 
Attorney Brandt was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1978 and practices in Prescott.  
¶5 
In 1994 Attorney Brandt consented to the imposition of 
a private reprimand for using information relating to one client 
to the disadvantage of that client in a later divorce action, 
and failing to obtain the consent of his former clients prior to 
questioning one of them in open court during a subsequent 
divorce case.   
¶6 
In 2003 Attorney Brandt received a public reprimand 
for failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the 
status of a matter and failing to promptly comply with 
reasonable requests for information; failing to cooperate with 
the investigation; making false or misleading communications 
about himself and his services; and failing to identify on his 
office letterhead the jurisdictional limitation of an attorney 
not licensed to practice law in Wisconsin who was listed as 
being "of counsel."  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Brandt, 2003 WI 138, 266 Wis. 2d 47, 670 N.W.2d 552.   
¶7 
In 2004 a referee imposed a consensual private 
reprimand on Attorney Brandt for failing to provide competent 
representation in connection with representation of clients in a 
civil dispute relating to property damage and failing to return 
the clients' file after the clients requested he do so.  
No. 
2007AP187-D   
 
4 
 
¶8 
On January 24, 2007, the OLR filed a complaint 
alleging two counts of misconduct against Attorney Brandt.  
Count 1 involved conduct by Attorney Brandt's legal secretary, 
Mindi Larson, and his failure to properly supervise her. 
Attorney Brandt hired Larson in September of 1998.  She 
continued to work for him until September 2004 when he 
terminated her employment.  While employed by Attorney Brandt, 
Larson performed all bookkeeping in the office and had signatory 
authority on Attorney Brandt's trust account as well as his 
business checking account.  Attorney Brandt delegated to Larson 
the responsibility to maintain ledgers and client sheets and 
receive bank account statements. 
¶9 
On June 30, 2004, there was an overdraft in Attorney 
Brandt's trust account at M&I Bank.  M&I Bank forwarded notice 
of the overdraft to the OLR that same day.  As a result of that 
notice, the OLR communicated with the Brandt Law Office.  It 
also subpoenaed records for Attorney Brandt's trust and business 
accounts from M&I Bank.  OLR staff audited Attorney Brandt's 
trust account for a period of time between December 1, 2002, and 
December 31, 2004.  A review of the canceled trust account 
checks revealed that Larson issued and signed most of the checks 
that were disbursed from the trust account during that period.  
As a result of the trust account audit, the OLR discovered a 
number of irregularities in various client matters.  The 
improprieties included conversions, use of trust account money 
to pay overdrafts in the business account, use of trust account 
No. 
2007AP187-D   
 
5 
 
funds belonging to one client to cover checks disbursed to 
another client, and other irregularities.   
¶10 In the summer of 2004 a former Prescott police officer 
contacted Attorney Brandt and advised him that Larson was 
stealing from him.  Attorney Brandt confronted Larson with the 
information, and she denied the allegation.  Attorney Brandt 
apparently chose to believe Larson. 
¶11 On September 10, 2004, Larson informed Attorney Brandt 
that she "had engaged in unauthorized activities" with respect 
to his business account, but she assured Attorney Brandt that 
the trust account was "in all respects uncompromised."   
¶12 On September 13, 2004, the manager of Attorney 
Brandt's bank told him that his business account was overdrawn 
and 
demanded 
payment 
of 
between 
$50,000 
and 
$70,000 
in 
overdrafts.  Attorney Brandt terminated Larson's authority to 
sign trust account checks on September 14, 2004.  He terminated 
her 
employment 
on 
September 
16, 
2004. 
 
Attorney 
Brandt 
subsequently obtained copies of business account records and 
determined that between April 2003 and September 2004, Larson 
had converted approximately $104,000 from his accounts to her 
own use.  No client lost money as the result of Larson's 
embezzlement. 
¶13 The OLR's complaint alleged that Attorney Brandt took 
no or insufficient steps to ensure that Larson was properly 
managing his client trust account, and took no or insufficient 
steps to ensure that she carried out her delegated authority in 
a manner that was compatible with an attorney's professional 
No. 
2007AP187-D   
 
6 
 
obligations.  The complaint alleged that Attorney Brandt failed 
to regularly review monthly bank statements for either his trust 
account or his business account.   
¶14 The OLR's complaint also alleged that by failing to 
periodically review his trust account bank statements, canceled 
checks, and other records in connection with his nonlawyer 
employee's management of that account, thereby enabling Larson 
to convert funds belonging to clients and third parties, 
Attorney Brandt failed to make a reasonable effort to ensure 
that Larson's conduct was compatible with the professional 
obligations of a lawyer, as required by former SCR 20:5.3(b).  
¶15 The second count of misconduct alleged in the OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney Brandt's multiple convictions for 
drunk driving.  The complaint alleged that on February 23, 2005, 
Attorney Brandt was charged with operating a motor vehicle while 
under the influence (OWI) (third offense) and operating a motor 
vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration of .08 or more 
(third offense), stemming from an incident that occurred on 
February 2, 2005.  The complaint also alleged that on April 26, 
2005, Attorney Brandt was charged with OWI (third offense) and 
operating 
a 
motor 
vehicle 
with 
a 
prohibited 
alcohol 
concentration of .08 or more (third offense).  Those charges 
stemmed from an incident on March 14, 2005.  On June 16, 2006, 
the OWI (third offense) charge from the February 2, 2005, 
incident was amended to a charge of OWI (fourth offense). 
¶16 The OLR's complaint alleged that on June 16, 2006, 
Attorney Brandt pled no contest to and was adjudged guilty of 
No. 
2007AP187-D   
 
7 
 
OWI (third offense) and OWI (fourth offense).  The prohibited 
alcohol concentration charges in both cases were dismissed.   
¶17 The OLR's complaint further alleged that on August 24, 
2006, Attorney Brandt signed a petition to plead guilty to a 
third offense drunk driving charge in Minnesota stemming from an 
incident that occurred on October 6, 2003.  He was subsequently 
convicted in the Minnesota case. 
¶18 Attorney Brandt was sentenced for the third and fourth 
offense Wisconsin OWI matters on September 7, 2006.  His 
sentence on the OWI (third offense) included 95 days in jail, 
with Huber privileges allowed after the first 48 hours, and the 
revocation of his driver's license for 27 months.  His sentence 
on the OWI (fourth offense) included 185 days in jail with Huber 
privileges, and revocation of his driver's license for 36 
months.  The jail sentences and revocations on the two OWI 
offenses were ordered to run concurrently. 
¶19 The OLR's complaint also alleged that on April 25, 
2005, Attorney Brandt was charged with resisting or obstructing 
an officer.  The charge stemmed from a March 14, 2005, incident. 
That charge was later dismissed. 
¶20 The OLR's complaint alleged that by engaging in 
conduct that resulted in his criminal convictions for OWI (third 
offense) and OWI (fourth offense) in Wisconsin, and resulted in 
his being charged in Wisconsin with resisting or obstructing an 
officer, as well as being convicted in Minnesota of third 
offense drunk driving, Attorney Brandt engaged in conduct 
reflecting 
adversely upon his honesty, trustworthiness or 
No. 
2007AP187-D   
 
8 
 
fitness as a lawyer in other respects, in violation of former 
SCR 20:8.4(b).   
¶21 The OLR sought a 60-day suspension of Attorney 
Brandt's license to practice law in Wisconsin, and asked that he 
be ordered to comply with conditions relating to his alcohol 
issues and treatment.   
¶22 Attorney Brandt filed an answer to the OLR's complaint 
on February 23, 2007.  He admitted the OWI charges but denied 
his 
conduct violated former SCR 20:8.4(b).  As to the 
allegations that he failed to supervise Larson, Attorney Brandt 
denied, at paragraph 9 of his answer, that he "took no steps to 
ensure that Larson was properly managing his client trust 
account and took no steps to ensure that Larson carried out her 
delegated authority in a manner that was compatible with an 
attorney's professional obligations. . . ."   
¶23 Paragraph 21 of the OLR's complaint alleged: 
 
By failing to periodically review his trust 
account bank statements, canceled checks, and other 
records in connection with his non-lawyer employee's 
management of that account, thereby enabling that 
employee to convert or continue to convert funds 
belonging to clients and third parties, [Attorney 
Brandt] failed to make a reasonable effort to ensure 
that his assistant's conduct was compatible with the 
professional obligations of a lawyer, as required by 
SCR 20:5.3(b). 
¶24 Attorney Brandt's answer stated: 
 
Paragraph 
21 
is 
denied, 
but 
however 
the 
Respondent admits he failed in making reasonable 
efforts to ensure that his assistant's conduct was 
compatible 
with 
the 
professional 
obligations 
of 
lawyers required by SCR 20:5.3(b). 
No. 
2007AP187-D   
 
9 
 
¶25 Larson was criminally prosecuted for her actions and 
entered a guilty plea to a class G felony of embezzlement.  She 
was sentenced to five years of probation with one year in the 
county jail.   
¶26 The Honorable Timothy L. Vocke was appointed referee 
on June 12, 2007.  A hearing before the referee was held on 
December 3, 2007.  The witnesses at the hearing were Attorney 
Brandt, Larson, and Mary Smith, the OLR's trust account program 
administrator. 
¶27 The referee issued his report and recommendation on 
December 26, 2007.   
¶28 In discussing the credibility of the three witnesses 
who testified at the hearing, the referee said, 
Mindi Larson is a liar, she's manipulative, she's 
dishonest, she abused trust in this case, and today 
she really didn't want to talk about some of the 
details.  . . .  But the bottom line is she is a 
convicted criminal, and the respondent in this case, 
Mr. Brandt, is the victim of her criminal activity. 
The referee found Ms. Smith to be "an extremely credible and 
competent witness."  As to Attorney Brandt's credibility, the 
referee stated: 
I believe he's honest.  I also believe he's careless, 
which is part of why he's here.  I found his testimony 
believable.  When he said he never saw the letters 
from Keith Sellen, I found that to be credible 
testimony.  I think that Mindi Larson did nick those 
letters, as he mentioned.  When Mr. Brandt was talking 
about the DUI charge, he was extremely focused on the 
issues and responsive; not so much when he was talking 
about the trust account violations, however.  I think 
he was more focused upon portraying himself as a 
victim, and he has every right to do that, and he was 
No. 
2007AP187-D   
 
10 
 
intent upon showing that none of his clients were 
injured, and I can understand that motivation, as 
well; but the problem is that he's a licensed 
attorney, and, therefore, much like a captain of a 
ship, he is responsible for what goes on on his watch. 
¶29 As to Count 1 of the OLR's complaint, the referee 
found that during the time Larson worked for Attorney Brandt, he 
took no or insufficient steps to ensure that she was properly 
managing the trust and business accounts, and took no or 
insufficient steps to ensure that she carried out her delegated 
authority in a manner that was compatible with Attorney Brandt's 
professional obligations.  The referee found Attorney Brandt 
should not have allowed Larson to make deposits and should not 
have allowed her to sign checks.  The referee said: 
It's clear that he was a victim of somebody who 
lied, cheated, covered up, and stole from him; and yet 
as Mary Smith said, what she, Mindi Larson, was doing 
was glaringly obvious for anybody that had their eyes 
open.  Basically, the respondent chose to ignore it. 
¶30 The referee concluded that by failing to periodically 
review his trust account bank records, canceled checks, and 
other records in connection with Larson's management of the 
account and thereby enabling Larson to convert and continue to 
convert funds belonging to clients and third parties, Attorney 
Brandt failed to make a reasonable effort to ensure that 
Larson's 
conduct 
was 
compatible 
with 
the 
professional 
obligations of a lawyer as required by former SCR 20:5.3(b).   
¶31 As to Count 2 of the OLR's complaint, the referee 
concluded that the OWI offenses were situational in nature and 
were related to the stress of the OLR's investigation and the 
No. 
2007AP187-D   
 
11 
 
fact that Attorney Brandt had been a victim of Larson's criminal 
activity.  The referee said: 
I do not think that simply being convicted of 
operating under the influence of an intoxicant, even 
multiple times, necessarily shows moral turpitude as 
that term is used in the ABA comment.  There's no 
violence, no dishonesty, no breach of trust, nor 
serious 
interference 
with 
the 
administration 
of 
justice, and therefore, I do not believe that these 
convictions reflect adversely on Attorney Brandt's 
honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as an attorney in 
other respects. 
¶32 As to the appropriate sanction, the referee noted that 
the purpose of attorney discipline is both to protect the public 
and to convince a particular attorney not to engage in similar 
conduct in the future.  The referee reasoned the fact that 
Attorney Brandt had lost a great deal of money due to Larson's 
embezzlement was a huge incentive for him not to make similar 
mistakes in the future since no attorney having suffered such a 
loss would put himself at financial risk again. 
¶33 The referee noted that Attorney Brandt had previously 
received two private reprimands and one public reprimand, but 
the referee said none of the previous discipline was related to 
the allegations at issue in this case.  The referee pointed to a 
number of mitigating factors including the fact that Attorney 
Brandt was the victim of a crime; his offense was one of 
omission rather than commission; no clients were adversely 
affected; he was cooperative with the OLR; he received no 
benefit from the violations he was charged with; and he was 
appropriately repentant and embarrassed.  Based on these 
No. 
2007AP187-D   
 
12 
 
factors, the referee concluded that a public reprimand was an 
appropriate sanction.   
¶34 The referee also recommended that the court impose 
conditions related to Attorney Brandt's consumption of alcohol 
and other drugs; that he be required to undergo another alcohol 
and drug assessment; that he hire an outside accountant to 
review his trust and business accounts at least quarterly, with 
the results of those audits being forwarded to the OLR for a 
period of three years; and that he be required to attend a trust 
account school sponsored by the OLR.  The referee also 
recommended that Attorney Brandt be assessed the full costs and 
attorneys fees of the proceeding.   
¶35 As noted above, the OLR has appealed.  The OLR does 
not challenge the referee's findings of fact.  Rather, it argues 
that the referee erroneously concluded that the OLR failed to 
meet its burden of proof as to Count 2 of the complaint, the 
alleged violation of former SCR 20:8.4(b).  The OLR also argues 
that a 60-day suspension, rather than a public reprimand, is the 
appropriate discipline for Attorney Brandt's misconduct. 
¶36 The OLR notes that former SCR 20:8.4(b) defined 
professional misconduct to include criminal acts that reflect 
adversely on a lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as 
a lawyer in other respects.  The OLR concedes that repetitive 
drunk driving convictions are not, per se, reflections on a 
lawyer's honesty.  It also says that repetitive drunk driving 
convictions may or may not relate to a lawyer's trustworthiness.  
No. 
2007AP187-D   
 
13 
 
However, the OLR argues that multiple drunk driving convictions 
certainly relate to a lawyer's "fitness in other respects."   
¶37 The OLR notes that this court imposed a 60-day 
suspension on an attorney who was convicted of a variety of 
criminal offenses, including second and third drunk driving 
convictions.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Cahill, 
219 Wis. 2d 330, 579 N.W.2d 231 (1998).  The OLR also notes that 
this court granted an attorney's petition for a consensual 
license revocation in a case involving a criminal conviction for 
homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle.  In granting the 
petition for consensual license revocation, this court concluded 
the attorney's conduct was contrary to former SCR 20:8.4(b).  
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Stearn, 2004 WI 73, 
272 Wis. 2d 141, 682 N.W.2d 326.  The OLR also notes that this 
court has previously imposed both public and private reprimands 
based on repeated drunk driving convictions and in each of those 
cases, the convictions were determined to be violations of 
former SCR 20:8.4(b).   
¶38 The OLR asserts that the referee's conclusion that 
Attorney Brandt's repeated operation of a motor vehicle while 
intoxicated was the product of stress and/or of being the victim 
of criminal activity is more properly viewed as a mitigating 
factor that is relevant as to the appropriate sanction and 
should not be viewed as a defense to the misconduct.  The OLR 
says, 
"[t]he 
referee's 
sympathetic 
response 
to 
[Attorney 
Brandt's] 
professional dilemma is understandable, but his 
leniency is misplaced.  . . .  A de novo review of that 
No. 
2007AP187-D   
 
14 
 
erroneous conclusion of law should determine that [Attorney 
Brandt's] multiple criminal convictions represent this violation 
of [former] SCR 20:8.4(b)."   
¶39 The OLR also argues that a 60-day suspension of 
Attorney Brandt's license to practice law is the appropriate 
sanction for his misconduct.  The OLR notes that Attorney Brandt 
has previously received two private reprimands and one public 
reprimand, and it notes this court has traditionally endorsed 
the concept of progressive discipline.  While the OLR recognizes 
there was no evidence of any dishonesty on Attorney Brandt's 
part concerning his failure to supervise his employee, it says 
he was grossly negligent in the management of his trust account. 
As to the drunk driving convictions, the OLR says Attorney 
Brandt engaged in a clear pattern of continued illegal conduct.  
¶40 Attorney Brandt argues that the referee appropriately 
concluded that his repeated drunk driving convictions did not 
constitute a violation of former SCR 20:8.4(b).  He argues that 
intoxication and driving while impaired are usually associated 
with chemical dependency and/or loss of control due to impaired 
judgment and are not intentional wrongful acts involving moral 
turpitude.  Attorney Brandt also argues that a public reprimand 
is an appropriate sanction for his failure to supervise 
Ms. Larson.  Attorney Brandt has also filed an objection to the 
OLR's statements of costs, arguing that the number of hours 
billed by the OLR's outside counsel is excessive and outrageous. 
¶41 This court will affirm a referee's findings of fact 
unless they are found to be clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of 
No. 
2007AP187-D   
 
15 
 
law are reviewed de novo.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 
N.W.2d 718.  The appropriate level of discipline is determined 
given the particular facts of each case, independent of the 
referee's recommendation, but benefitting from it.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 
Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.   
¶42 From our independent review of the record, we conclude 
that Attorney Brandt's multiple drunk driving convictions do 
constitute a violation of former SCR 20:8.4(b).  While it is 
true that no prior cases have held that an attorney who was 
convicted 
of 
drunk 
driving 
on 
more 
than 
one 
occasion 
automatically violates former SCR 20:8.4(b), and while it is 
also true that each case must be reviewed on the particular 
facts presented, Attorney Brandt has been convicted of drunk 
driving on five separate occasions.  Based on that record, we 
agree 
with 
the 
OLR 
that 
Attorney 
Brandt's 
multiple 
OWI 
convictions demonstrate a pattern of misconduct that evinces a 
serious lack of respect for the law and as such relate to his 
"fitness as a lawyer in other respects."  Attorneys are officers 
of the court and should be leaders in their communities and 
should set a good example for others.  Driving while intoxicated 
is a very serious offense with the potential to cause great 
harm——or even death.  See Stearn, 272 Wis. 2d 141.  While it is 
indeed fortunate that Attorney Brandt did not injure anyone by 
his intoxicated driving, the fact that he repeatedly drove while 
No. 
2007AP187-D   
 
16 
 
intoxicated reflects adversely on his fitness as a lawyer and 
consequently constitutes a violation of former SCR 20:8.4(b).   
¶43 The remaining issue raised by the OLR's appeal is the 
appropriate sanction to impose for Attorney Brandt's admitted 
misconduct 
in 
failing 
to 
supervise 
an 
employee 
and 
for 
repeatedly operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.  In 
determining the appropriate sanction, we agree with the OLR that 
many of the factors cited by the referee in support of his legal 
conclusion 
that 
Attorney 
Brandt's 
repeated 
drunk 
driving 
convictions did not constitute a violation of former SCR 
20:8.4(b) are more appropriately viewed as mitigating factors 
that are relevant as to the sanction.   
¶44 Attorney Brandt was a victim and lost a large sum of 
money 
due 
to 
Larson's 
embezzlement. 
 
He 
has 
accepted 
responsibility for his failure to supervise his employee.  He 
entered pleas to the drunk driving charges and served a 
significant jail sentence.  He incurred substantial fines.  He 
lost his driver's license and for a period of time was unable to 
obtain an occupational license.  He undertook remedial action in 
early 2005 to address his drinking problem and sought treatment.  
He has informed the court that he has maintained complete 
sobriety since that time.   
¶45 A significant amount of time has passed since the 
occurrence of the events that gave rise to this disciplinary 
proceeding.  The misconduct at issue in this case occurred 
between 2003 and 2005.  Since that time Attorney Brandt has 
taken positive steps to turn his life around and atone for his 
No. 
2007AP187-D   
 
17 
 
bad behavior.  Attorney Brandt's multiple OWI convictions are a 
serious failing.  In addition, he has been reprimanded on three 
prior occasions.  The question of whether to impose a fourth 
reprimand or a suspension is a very close call.  Based on the 
circumstances of this case, we conclude that a public reprimand, 
coupled with the conditions recommended by the referee, is an 
appropriate sanction for the two counts of misconduct alleged in 
the OLR's complaint. 
¶46 Finally, we find it appropriate to assess the full 
costs of the proceeding against Attorney Brandt.  While Attorney 
Brandt argues that the case was overlitigated and that he 
substantially admitted the allegations of the OLR's complaint 
regarding his failure to supervise Larson such that the OLR 
would not have needed to present testimony on this count at the 
hearing, a review of the record fails to support his contention.  
Attorney Brandt's answer to the complaint was equivocal and 
contained no clear admission of misconduct regarding his failure 
to supervise Ms. Larson.  Under the circumstances, the OLR was 
forced to fully prosecute the case in an effort to meet its 
burden of proof.  We have concluded the OLR did meet its burden 
of proof as to both counts alleged in its complaint.   
¶47 SCR 22.24(1m) provides that it is the court's general 
policy, upon a finding of misconduct, to impose all costs upon 
the respondent.  In cases involving extraordinary circumstances, 
the court may, in the exercise of its discretion, reduce the 
amount of costs imposed upon a respondent.  This case does not 
No. 
2007AP187-D   
 
18 
 
present any extraordinary circumstances that would warrant a 
reduction in the amount of costs imposed on Attorney Brandt. 
¶48 IT IS ORDERED that Warren Lee Brandt is publicly 
reprimanded. 
¶49 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of his 
continued practice of law, Warren Lee Brandt shall comply with 
the following conditions: 
A. 
He shall refrain from the consumption of alcohol and 
other non-prescription drugs; 
B. 
He shall undergo another alcohol and drug assessment 
within 120 days of the date of this order, and furnish the 
results of said assessment to the Office of Lawyer Regulation;  
C. 
He shall hire an outside accountant to review his 
trust account and business account quarterly and shall furnish 
the results of those quarterly examinations to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation for a period of three years from the date of 
this order; and 
D. 
He shall attend a trust account training session 
sponsored by the Office of Lawyer Regulation within 120 days of 
the date of this order.   
¶50 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Warren Lee Brandt shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  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 Warren Lee Brandt to practice law in Wisconsin 
shall be suspended until further order of the court. 
No.  2007AP187-D.awb 
 
1 
 
¶51 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.   (dissenting).  Attorney Warren 
Lee Brandt comes before this court, having been the subject of 
three prior attorney discipline actions and five operating while 
intoxicated offenses.  In 1994 he received a private reprimand.  
In 2003 he received a public reprimand, and in 2004 yet another 
public reprimand.   
¶52 The first question before the court today is whether 
multiple convictions for operating a motor vehicle while 
intoxicated represent a violation of former SCR 20:8.4(b).1  The 
majority concludes that it does, and I agree. 
¶53 I part ways with my colleagues in the determination of 
the second question, the appropriate level of discipline to be 
imposed.  The majority has determined that the discipline to be 
imposed here for two more distinct violations is yet again 
another public reprimand.  Because I believe that discipline 
generally should be progressive and that the discipline imposed 
here does not adequately address either the nature of the 
violation 
or 
Attorney 
Brandt's 
fitness 
to 
practice, 
I 
respectfully dissent. 
¶54 The OLR sought a 60-day suspension for two code 
violations.  The referee determined that Attorney Brandt 
violated former SCR 20:5.3(b) by failing to adequately supervise 
an employee.  For that one violation, he recommended a public 
reprimand.  He further determined, however, that multiple 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:8.4(b) (2006) provides that it is professional 
misconduct for a lawyer to "commit a criminal act that reflects 
adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as 
a lawyer in other respects . . . ." 
No.  2007AP187-D.awb 
 
2 
 
convictions for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated did 
not represent a violation of the code and dismissed that count 
of the complaint.  The OLR appealed.  Although the majority 
concludes on appeal that the referee was in error and that the 
multiple convictions for OWI do indeed constitute a code 
violation, it nevertheless imposes only a public reprimand as 
discipline to cover both violations. 
A.  Progressive Discipline 
¶55 Generally, discipline is progressive in nature.  See, 
e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Nussberger, 2006 WI 
111, 296 Wis. 2d 47, 719 N.W.2d 501.  Admittedly, at times 
progressive discipline is not appropriate given the nature of 
the subsequent violation or other extenuating circumstances.  A 
recent study of the OLR reveals that in 73% of the cases where a 
public reprimand was imposed, a subsequent progressive sanction 
was imposed.  A subsequent progressive sanction was imposed in 
83% of the cases involving short suspensions and 80% of the 
cases with long suspensions.2  
B.  Severity of the Offense 
¶56 The record reflects that on October 6, 2003, Attorney 
Brandt was arrested in Minnesota for third offense OWI.3  He was 
next arrested for OWI in Wisconsin on February 2, 2005, and 
                                                 
2 Recidivism & Sanction Study, June 2008 OLR Strategy 
Meeting, on file with the Office of Lawyer Regulation, Madison, 
WI. 
3 Petition to Plead Guilty in DWI Gross Misdemeanor or 
Misdemeanor Case, File No. TO-03-27682, filed August 28, 2006, 
Washington County (MN) District Court. 
No.  2007AP187-D.awb 
 
3 
 
again on March 14, 2005.  Attorney Brandt advances that he 
should receive no additional discipline for his multiple OWI 
convictions because he has already received a substantial 
consequence by serving 185 days in jail and having a restricted 
driver's license.  Apparently my colleagues agree with this 
argument.  I don't.  
¶57 Although the court may consider the sentence Attorney 
Brandt received under the criminal law, that sentence is not a 
substitute 
for 
this 
court's 
separate 
inquiry 
as 
to 
the 
appropriate sanction in this attorney discipline case.   
C.  Fitness to Practice 
¶58 Attorney Brandt acknowledges that he is addicted to 
alcohol.  What is of concern to me is that although he has had 
outpatient treatment, there is no indication in the record that 
he has ever had inpatient treatment.  Given the number of OWI 
offenses alone, I would generally expect to see an inpatient 
treatment program in order to maintain sobriety.  Of additional 
concern to me is that there is no evidence in the record, except 
for his own statements, that he indeed is maintaining sobriety.  
Without 
corroboration, 
I 
do 
not 
find 
such 
statements 
sufficiently reliable.  
¶59 Attorney 
Brandt 
indicates 
that 
he 
does 
attend 
Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, but the extent of his attendance 
is unclear in the record.  He testified that "I go to AA 
meetings when I think that it's important to impress myself with 
again putting it to the floor and not being complacent."  
No.  2007AP187-D.awb 
 
4 
 
¶60 The Office of Lawyer Regulation asks that we impose a 
60-day suspension of Attorney Brandt's license.  Given the 
concept of progressive discipline, the nature of the multiple 
offenses, and a record that leaves unanswered questions about 
his sobriety, I believe that the appropriate sanction is in the 
range of 60 days to six months. I would also require as a 
condition of the suspension that Attorney Brandt cooperate with 
any conditions or treatment deemed necessary by OLR.  See, e.g., 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings against Fay, 123 
Wis. 2d 73, 78, 365 N.W.2d 13 (1985).   
 
 
No.  2007AP187-D.awb 
 
 
 
1