Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Mark R. Kramer

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2010 WI 118 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2009AP3177-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Mark R. Kramer, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Mark R. Kramer, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KRAMER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 6, 2010   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2010 WI 118
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2009AP3177-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Mark R. Kramer, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Mark R. Kramer, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 6, 2010 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of 
Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of the referee, Attorney Kim M. Peterson, that Attorney Mark R. 
Kramer's license to practice law in Wisconsin be revoked, that 
he be required to pay restitution to various clients and the 
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (the Fund), and 
that he be required to pay the costs of this disciplinary 
proceeding, which were $893.23 as of May 20, 2010.   
No. 
2009AP3177-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
After fully reviewing the matter, we agree that 
Attorney 
Kramer 
committed 
numerous 
acts 
of 
professional 
misconduct, as alleged in the 69 counts of the complaint filed 
by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), and that Attorney 
Kramer's license to practice law in this state must be revoked.  
We further order that Attorney Kramer make restitution payments 
as outlined below and that he pay the full costs of this 
disciplinary proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney Kramer was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in May 1986.  He maintained a private law practice in 
Waukesha County.  Prior to the investigations that led to the 
current disciplinary proceeding, Attorney Kramer had not been 
the subject of professional discipline.  On October 20, 2008, 
however, this court suspended his license to practice law in 
this state due to his willful failure to cooperate with two OLR 
grievance investigations.  See SCR 22.03(4).  His license has 
remained suspended until the present date. 
¶4 
The OLR personally served its formal complaint on 
Attorney Kramer on January 19, 2010.  On February 24, 2010, 
after Attorney Kramer had not filed an answer or other response 
to the complaint, the OLR filed a motion for the entry of a 
default against him.  Attorney Kramer was given four weeks from 
the filing of the motion to respond, but he failed to do so.   
¶5 
Having heard nothing from Attorney Kramer, the referee 
granted the default requested by the OLR.  The referee therefore 
accepted all of the factual averments in the complaint as 
established and concluded that those facts supported the 69 
No. 
2009AP3177-D   
 
3 
 
counts of professional misconduct asserted by the OLR.  The 
referee strongly recommended that Attorney Kramer's license be 
revoked, stating that Attorney Kramer had "acted in a despicable 
and deceitful manner," "had not cooperated with the OLR in this 
investigation," had "provided no explanation for his conduct," 
and had not "made any effort to mitigate the effects of his 
conduct."  The referee also recommended that "all costs 
associated with this matter, and detailed in the OLR's complaint 
should be assessed against" Attorney Kramer.  Although the 
report used the term "costs," we interpret this recommendation 
to 
mean 
that 
Attorney Kramer should be ordered to pay 
restitution to the individuals and entities and in the amounts 
specified in the OLR's complaint because the complaint did not 
"detail" any costs.  
¶6 
Because of the voluminous nature of the allegations 
against Attorney Kramer, we will not repeat all of the referee's 
factual findings and legal conclusions here.  We will provide 
some summary information and a representative example of 
Attorney Kramer's misconduct.   
¶7 
It is sufficient to note that Attorney Kramer engaged 
in 69 separate acts of misconduct in 16 separate client 
representations, in his response to an inquiry from the Internal 
Revenue Service (IRS), and in the management of his client trust 
account.  Thirteen of the counts involved Attorney Kramer's 
conversion of funds belonging to clients or third parties that 
No. 
2009AP3177-D   
 
4 
 
he should have been holding in trust.  See SCRs 20:8.4(b),1 
20:8.4(c),2 and 20:1.15(b)(1).3  The total amount converted 
appears to be in excess of $150,000.4  Eight counts involved 
Attorney Kramer making affirmative false statements to clients 
or others, and one count involved dishonest conduct in using his 
client trust account to conceal assets from the IRS.  See SCR 
20:8.4(c).  Thirteen counts involved Attorney Kramer's failure 
to notify his clients of certain events (e.g., the settlement of 
their claims or the temporary suspension of his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin) or to communicate with his clients 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:8.4(b) states 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 SCR 20:8.4(c) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation; . . . ." 
3 SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) states: 
Separate account.  A lawyer shall hold in trust, 
separate from the lawyer's own property, that property 
of clients and 3rd parties that is in the lawyer's 
possession in connection with a representation.  All 
funds of clients and 3rd parties paid to a lawyer or 
law firm in connection with a representation shall be 
deposited in one or more identifiable trust accounts. 
4 The total of the various conversion amounts set forth in 
the OLR's complaint is $169,006.19, but that total could be 
lessened because in some instances Attorney Kramer may have 
lawfully been able to recoup certain expenses that he had 
incurred while pursuing lawsuits on behalf of his clients.  
Because Attorney Kramer refused to cooperate with the OLR's 
investigation or to participate in this disciplinary proceeding, 
the amounts of those expenses are unknown. 
No. 
2009AP3177-D   
 
5 
 
regarding the status of their matters.  See former SCR 20:1.4(a)5 
and current SCRs 20:1.4(a)(3),6 20:1.4(b),7 20:1.15(d)(1),8 and 
22.26(1)(a) and (b).9  Finally, fifteen of the counts related to 
                                                 
5 Former SCR 20:1.4(a) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
provided, "A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed 
about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable 
requests for information." 
6 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides a lawyer shall "keep the client 
reasonably informed about the status of the matter; . . . ." 
7 SCR 20:1.4(b) states, "A lawyer shall explain a matter to 
the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make 
informed decisions regarding the representation." 
8 SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) provides: 
Notice and disbursement.  Upon receiving funds or 
other property in which a client has an interest, or 
in which the lawyer has received notice that a 3rd 
party has an interest identified by a lien, court 
order, 
judgment, 
or 
contract, 
the 
lawyer 
shall 
promptly notify the client or 3rd party in writing.  
Except as stated in this rule or otherwise permitted 
by law or by agreement with the client, the lawyer 
shall promptly deliver to the client or 3rd party any 
funds or other property that the client or 3rd party 
is entitled to receive. 
9 SCRs 22.26(1)(a) and (b) state: 
(1) 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. 
2009AP3177-D   
 
6 
 
Attorney Kramer's failure to respond to the OLR's inquiries 
regarding grievances received from clients and Attorney Kramer's 
conduct.  See SCRs 22.03(2) and (6).10   
¶8 
One representation provides an illustrative example of 
Attorney Kramer's misconduct.  Attorney Kramer was retained to 
represent J.H. and his wife regarding an accident.  After 
settling the claim, Attorney Kramer deposited the settlement 
proceeds of $100,000 into his client trust account.  He did not, 
however, disburse any of the settlement proceeds to the clients.  
Instead, Attorney Kramer told J.H. and his wife that he would 
have to hold the settlement funds in trust pending resolution of 
                                                 
10 SCRs 22.03(2) and (6) provide as follows: 
(2) 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. 
. . .  
(6) 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. 
2009AP3177-D   
 
7 
 
an under-insured motorist claim, but he never pursued any such 
claim.  He did, however, disburse $99,902.40 from those 
settlement funds out of his trust account.  Some of the funds 
were disbursed to Attorney Kramer's law firm for its fees and 
costs, some were disbursed to Attorney Kramer personally, some 
were disbursed to another client, and some were disbursed to a 
law firm where Attorney Kramer had previously practiced.  
Although after deduction of the proper amount of fees and costs 
J.H. and his wife were entitled to receive $65,667 from the 
settlement proceeds, none of the settlement proceeds were ever 
disbursed to them.  This pattern of accepting settlement 
proceeds or other client funds and then converting them to 
Attorney Kramer's personal uses was repeated in a number of 
representations. 
¶9 
Because no appeal was filed from the referee's report 
and 
recommendation, 
our 
review 
proceeds 
pursuant 
to 
SCR 22.17(2).11  When reviewing a report and recommendation in an 
attorney disciplinary proceeding, we affirm a referee's findings 
of fact unless they are found to be clearly erroneous.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 
                                                 
11 SCR 22.17(2) states: 
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. 
2009AP3177-D   
 
8 
 
Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125.  We review the referee's conclusions 
of law, however, on a de novo basis.  Id.  Finally, we determine 
the appropriate level of discipline given the particular facts 
of each case, independent of the referee's recommendation, but 
benefiting from it.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶10 Given 
Attorney 
Kramer's 
default, 
we 
accept 
the 
referee's findings of fact.  We also agree with the referee that 
the facts set forth in the complaint support the legal 
conclusion that Attorney Kramer engaged in 69 counts of 
professional misconduct. 
¶11 It is clear that Attorney Kramer's professional 
misconduct requires the severest level of discipline that we 
impose, namely, the revocation of his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin.  Attorney Kramer engaged in a pattern of lying to and 
stealing from his clients and third parties.  Moreover, when 
confronted with his misconduct, he consistently failed to 
respond to the OLR's investigations or to accept responsibility 
for his actions.  By his deceitful and dishonest conduct, he has 
forfeited the privilege of practicing law in this state. 
¶12 Because 
this 
case 
presents 
no 
extraordinary 
circumstances, we further determine that Attorney Kramer should 
be required to pay the full costs of this matter.  See 
SCR 22.24(1m) (supreme court's general policy upon a finding of 
misconduct is to impose all costs upon the respondent attorney). 
¶13 Finally, we turn to the issue of restitution.  The 
OLR's complaint sought restitution in specific amounts for sums 
No. 
2009AP3177-D   
 
9 
 
that the Fund paid to certain injured clients and for other sums 
that Attorney Kramer converted from other specified clients.  
Attorney Kramer had multiple opportunities to object to the 
restitution amounts before both the referee and this court.  He 
has not contested the allegations that he converted the 
specified sums nor has he alleged that restitution is improper.  
Consequently, we determine that Attorney Kramer should be 
ordered to pay restitution to the individuals/entities and in 
the amounts set forth in the OLR's complaint. 
¶14 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Mark R. Kramer to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective as of the date 
of this order. 
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 180 days of the date 
of this order Mark R. Kramer shall pay restitution in the 
following amounts to the following individuals/entities: 
• 
$37,589 to the Wisconsin Lawyers Fund for Client 
Protection ($22,784 regarding client J.G.; $4,000 
regarding client H.B.; $5,280 regarding client L.H.; 
$4,000 regarding client J.E.; $1,000 regarding client 
B.A.; and $525 regarding clients J.S. and J.S.); 
• 
$65,667 to client J.H.; 
• 
$12,741.94 to client K.B.; 
• 
$4,500.25 to client A.F. & E.; 
• 
$2,000 to client H.B.; and 
• 
$3,943.78 to client S.M.   
No. 
2009AP3177-D   
 
10 
 
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 180 days of the date 
of this order, Mark R. Kramer shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.   
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified 
above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation. 
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent he has not 
already done so, Mark R. Kramer shall comply with the provisions 
of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked. 
 
No. 
2009AP3177-D   
 
 
 
1