Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Patrick J. Hudec

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2020 WI 37 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2019AP1173-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Patrick J. Hudec, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Patrick J. Hudec, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HUDEC 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 16, 2020   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
 
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2020 WI 37
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2019AP1173-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of the Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Patrick J. Hudec, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
v. 
 
Patrick J. Hudec, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
APR 16, 2020 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a report filed by Referee James 
J. Winiarski, accepting a stipulation executed by Attorney Patrick 
J. Hudec and the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), in which 
Attorney Hudec pled no contest to four counts of professional 
misconduct and agreed that the allegations of the OLR's complaint 
were established by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence.  
Consistent with the terms of the stipulation the referee recommends 
we suspend Attorney Hudec's law license for 60 days and require 
Attorney Hudec to attend an OLR trust account seminar within one 
No. 
2019AP1173-D   
 
2 
 
year.  The referee also recommends we order Attorney Hudec to pay 
the full costs of this proceeding, which total $3,991.10 as of 
January 29, 2020.  The OLR did not request restitution and no 
restitution is ordered. 
¶2 
We adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions 
of law as derived from the parties' stipulation.  We agree that a 
60-day suspension is appropriate and we direct Attorney Hudec to 
attend an OLR trust account seminar within one year of the date of 
this order as a condition of his continued practice of law.  We 
impose the full costs of this proceeding on Attorney Hudec. 
¶3 
Attorney Hudec was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in 1979.  As the referee observed, Attorney Hudec has an 
extensive disciplinary history.  
 In November 1989, Attorney Hudec consented to a private 
reprimand 
for 
misconduct 
that 
included 
accepting 
a 
representation that was adverse to a former client and which 
constituted a conflict of interest.  Private Reprimand No. 
1989-27. 
 In March 1993, Attorney Hudec consented to a second private 
reprimand for misconduct that included entering into a 
business transaction that was adverse to the financial 
interests of a client; engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation; 
and 
withholding material evidence in failing to cooperate with 
the investigation of the Board of Attorneys Professional 
Responsibility.  Private Reprimand No. 1993-4 (electronic 
No. 
2019AP1173-D   
 
3 
 
copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/ 
app/raw/002076.html). 
 In May 2001, a third consensual private reprimand was imposed 
on Attorney Hudec for misconduct that included failing to 
obtain written consent to a potential conflict of interest in 
representing two clients and drafting a letter that contained 
a false statement of fact.  Private Reprimand No. 2001-15. 
 In 2008, Attorney Hudec received a consensual public 
reprimand for misconduct that included failing to act with 
reasonable diligence; failing to communicate with his client; 
and failing to cooperate with the OLR's investigation. Public 
Reprimand of Patrick J. Hudec, No. 2008-2 (electronic copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium. 
wicourts.gov/app/raw/002005.html). 
 In July 2014, we publicly reprimanded Attorney Hudec for four 
counts of misconduct to which Attorney Hudec had stipulated, 
including breach of his duty of competence, submitting a brief 
with inappropriate facts, and engaging in an ex parte 
communication.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hudec, 
2014 WI 46, 354 Wis. 2d 728, 848 N.W.2d 287.  
 On April 18, 2019, this court suspended Attorney Hudec's 
Wisconsin law license for 60 days, effective May 30, 2019, 
for six counts of misconduct to which Attorney Hudec pled no 
contest.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hudec, 2019 
WI 39, 386 Wis. 2d 371, 925 N.W.2d 540.  His misconduct 
involved shortcomings in his fee agreements; lack of 
No. 
2019AP1173-D   
 
4 
 
diligence; failure to communicate with clients; and failure 
to comply with discovery rules. 
¶4 
This disciplinary matter commenced on June 27, 2019, 
when the OLR filed a complaint against Attorney Hudec alleging 
four counts of professional misconduct.  Referee Winiarski was 
appointed on August 7, 2019.  Attorney Hudec failed to file a 
timely answer in this matter, so on October 1, 2019, the OLR sought 
a default judgment.   
¶5 
On October 28, 2019, Attorney Hudec and the OLR entered 
into a stipulation in which Attorney Hudec pled no contest to all 
the allegations of misconduct.  In the stipulation Attorney Hudec 
stated that his delays in responding to and/or cooperating with 
the OLR were medically related as a result of a lengthy illness 
during the summer of 2019, and major back surgery in January of 
2018.  The parties confirmed that the stipulation was not the 
result of plea bargaining but reflects Attorney Hudec's voluntary 
decision not to contest this matter.  Attorney Hudec represents 
and verifies that he fully understands the allegations to which he 
stipulated in this disciplinary matter; he fully understands his 
right 
to 
contest 
this 
matter; 
he 
fully 
understands 
the 
ramifications of his entry into the stipulation; he fully 
understands that he has the right to consult counsel; and that his 
entry into the stipulation was made knowingly and voluntarily.   
¶6 
The referee requested briefing from the parties 
regarding Attorney Hudec's previous misconduct; caselaw supporting 
the recommended 60-day license suspension; and evidence and/or 
agreement regarding Attorney Hudec's medical conditions.  After 
No. 
2019AP1173-D   
 
5 
 
consideration of the OLR's supplemental brief, the referee issued 
his report on January 9, 2020.  No appeal from that report was 
filed so we consider this matter pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1 
¶7 
The facts found by the referee derive from the parties' 
stipulation.  On January 17, 2017, the OLR received a notice of an 
overdraft on Attorney Hudec's trust account. The OLR subsequently 
received notice of several additional overdrafts.  A review of 
Attorney Hudec's trust account statements revealed that Attorney 
Hudec disbursed funds from his trust account dozens of times to 
pay personal and/or law firm expenses.  During the same period of 
time, Attorney Hudec made trust account checks payable to "cash" 
and/or made cash withdrawals from his trust account on multiple 
occasions.   
¶8 
Attorney Hudec then failed to cooperate with the OLR. On 
September 6, 2017, the OLR sent a letter to Attorney Hudec 
requesting that he submit a written response to its investigation.  
Attorney Hudec did not timely respond.  He requested extensions of 
time to respond, but then repeatedly failed to meet the extended 
deadlines and failed to provide the OLR with the requested 
information despite the OLR's multiple attempts to contact him.  
                                                 
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. 
2019AP1173-D   
 
6 
 
In January 2018, at the OLR's request, this court issued an order 
to show cause as to why Attorney Hudec's license should not be 
temporarily suspended for failing to cooperate with the OLR's 
investigation.  This apparently prompted Attorney Hudec to provide 
the OLR with enough information, so at the OLR's request, the 
motion was withdrawn.   
¶9 
In June 2018, the OLR sought additional information from 
Attorney Hudec and again, he failed to timely respond, requested 
extensions of time, and then again failed to respond.  In September 
2018, at the request of the OLR, we issued another order requiring 
Attorney Hudec to show cause why his law license should not be 
temporarily suspended for failure to cooperate with the OLR 
investigation.  Attorney Hudec requested and received two 
extensions of time from this court but nonetheless failed to timely 
respond to our order.  On November 8, 2018, Attorney Hudec finally 
provided the OLR with sufficient information so the OLR withdrew 
its motion. 
¶10 The referee concluded that Attorney Hudec committed four 
counts of professional misconduct: 
 
 Count 1:  By depositing and retaining funds belonging to 
himself or his law firm in his trust account, Attorney 
Hudec violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(3).2  
 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.15(b)(3) provides: "No funds belonging to the 
lawyer or law firm, except funds reasonably sufficient to pay 
monthly account service charges, may be deposited or retained in 
a trust account." 
No. 
2019AP1173-D   
 
7 
 
 Count 2:  By making trust account checks payable to 
"cash" and by making cash withdrawals from his trust 
account, Attorney Hudec violated SCR 20:1.15(f)(2)a.3  
 
 Count 3:  By having trust account checks returned for 
insufficient funds, and therefore disbursing funds from 
his trust account without the funds being available for 
disbursement, 
Attorney 
Hudec 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.15(f)(4)a.4  
 
 Count 4:  By willfully failing to provide the OLR with 
a timely initial written response to the OLR Matter no. 
2017MA1283, and by willfully failing to provide the OLR 
a timely response to its June 26, 2018 request for 
additional 
information, 
Attorney 
Hudec 
violated 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:1.15(f)(2)a. provides:  "No withdrawal of cash shall 
be made from a trust account or from a deposit to a trust account.  
No check shall be made payable to 'Cash.'  No withdrawal shall be 
made from a trust account by automated teller or cash dispensing 
machine." 
4 SCR 20:1.15(f)(4)(a) provides:  "A lawyer shall not disburse 
funds from any trust account less the deposit from which those 
funds will be disbursed has cleared, and the funds are available 
for disbursement." 
No. 
2019AP1173-D   
 
8 
 
SCR 22.03(2)5 
and 
22.03(6),6 
enforceable 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(h).7 
¶11 Determining appropriate discipline for professional 
misconduct involves: (1) the seriousness, nature, and extent of 
the misconduct; (2) the level of discipline needed to protect the 
public, the courts, and the legal system from repetition of the 
attorney's misconduct; (3) the need to impress upon the attorney 
the seriousness of the misconduct; and (4) the need to deter other 
attorneys from committing similar misconduct.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Hammis, 2011 WI 3, ¶39, 331 Wis. 2d 19, 793 
N.W.2d 884. 
                                                 
5 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.   
6 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." 
7 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. 
2019AP1173-D   
 
9 
 
¶12 It is clear from the report that the referee questioned 
whether a 60-day suspension is adequate given Attorney Hudec's 
disciplinary history and the facts of this matter.  The referee 
thus requested additional information from the parties.  The OLR 
submitted a memorandum.  Attorney Hudec did not respond. 
¶13 The OLR's memorandum indicates that Attorney Hudec did 
not provide evidence to establish that the medical conditions he 
described caused his misconduct.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Sosnay, 209 Wis. 2d 241, 243, 562 N.W.2d 137 (1997) 
("Absent a causal connection between an attorney's medical 
condition and that attorney's professional misconduct, the medical 
condition may not be considered a factor mitigating either the 
seriousness of the misconduct or the severity of discipline to be 
imposed for it.")  The OLR confirmed that Attorney Hudec's medical 
concerns did not mitigate the proposed discipline.  
¶14 At the referee's request, the OLR also addressed the 
concept of progressive discipline in light of Attorney Hudec's 
lengthy history of disciplinary offenses.  The OLR confirmed that 
it had factored progressive discipline into its recommended 
sanction, citing a number of cases in which an attorney with prior 
discipline was suspended for 60 days for misconduct that amounted 
to commingling of funds and prohibited trust account transactions.  
See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Runyon, 2015 WI 
95, 365 Wis. 2d 32, 870 N.W.2d 228; and In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Grogan, 2011 WI 7, 331 Wis. 2d 341, 795 
N.W.2d 745. 
No. 
2019AP1173-D   
 
10 
 
¶15 The referee was particularly troubled by Attorney Hudec's 
persistent 
failure 
to 
cooperate, 
both 
during 
the 
OLR's 
investigation and during the proceedings before the referee.  The 
referee observed: 
It is safe to conclude that the respondent knowingly and 
deliberately delays and drags his feet before giving 
proper attention to disciplinary matters. A prior 60-
day license suspension, three prior private reprimands, 
and two prior public reprimands apparently have not 
convinced the respondent of the need to fully and timely 
cooperate 
in 
OLR 
investigations 
and 
disciplinary 
matters. 
However, the referee noted that there was no evidence that any of 
Attorney Hudec's misconduct resulted in misappropriation or 
conversion of client funds; rather, Attorney Hudec's misconduct 
amounted to bookkeeping or accounting deficiencies.  
¶16 On balance, informed by Wisconsin caselaw, supplemental 
briefing provided by the OLR, and the ABA Standards for Imposing 
Lawyer Sanctions, the referee accepted the proposed sanctions and 
recommends this court suspend Attorney Hudec's law license for a 
period of 60 days and require him to attend the OLR's trust account 
management seminar within one year of the date of this order.  The 
referee also recommends we impose the full costs of this proceeding 
on Attorney Hudec. 
¶17 Considering all of the above, we accept the referee's 
findings of fact and conclusions of law as derived from the 
stipulation, and we agree with the recommended sanctions and the 
imposition of costs.  We share the referee's concern about Attorney 
Hudec's troubling propensity for delay and lack of cooperation in 
No. 
2019AP1173-D   
 
11 
 
disciplinary matters and warn Attorney Hudec that his failure to 
comply with the conditions imposed upon his continued practice of 
law may subject Attorney Hudec to immediate license suspension.8  
¶18 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Patrick J. Hudec to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective May 28, 2020  
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if he has not already done 
so, Patrick J. Hudec shall comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 
regarding the duties of a person whose license to practice law in 
Wisconsin has been suspended. 
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of his license 
to practice law in Wisconsin, Patrick J. Hudec shall attend and 
successfully complete an Office of Lawyer Regulation trust account 
seminar within one year of the date of this order.  
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Patrick J. Hudec fails to 
timely complete the requirement that he attend an Office of Lawyer 
Regulation trust account seminar, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
is directed to inform this court promptly and Patrick J. Hudec's 
law license may be subject to immediate suspension. 
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of 
this order, Patrick J. Hudec shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $3,991.10 as of 
January 29, 2020. 
  
                                                 
8 Attending the trust account management seminar within a year 
is not a prerequisite to Attorney Hudec's reinstatement from the 
suspension we impose today. 
No. 
2019AP1173-D   
 
 
 
1