Title: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. Kathryn P. Karlsson

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2001 WI 126 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
00-2043-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Kathryn P. Karlsson, Attorney at Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional  
Responsibility,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
Kathryn P. Karlsson,  
 
Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KARLSSON 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 29, 2001   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
2001 WI 126 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The 
final version will appear in the 
bound volume of the official 
reports.   
No.  00-2043-D  
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Kathryn P. Karlsson, Attorney at  
Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional  
Responsibility,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Kathryn P. Karlsson,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
NOV 29, 2001 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that Attorney Kathryn P. Karlsson's license to practice 
law in Wisconsin be suspended for nine months based on separate 
counts of misconduct involving seven clients demonstrating a 
consistent pattern of neglect over many years; the 19 misconduct 
counts also included several counts of Attorney Karlsson's 
failure to cooperate with the Board of Attorneys Professional 
No. 
00-2043-D   
 
2 
 
Responsibility's1 
investigation 
into 
her 
misconduct.  
Furthermore, the referee concluded that Attorney Karlsson's 
misconduct 
reflected a 
significant 
long-term 
problem 
that 
predated her depression and her unresolved medical problems 
which the referee in any event concluded were not causative of 
the misconduct.  In addition to recommending a nine-month 
license 
suspension, 
the 
referee 
also 
recommended 
certain 
conditions be imposed for reinstatement including that Attorney 
Karlsson pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding totaling 
$17,923.83. 
¶2 
We 
determine 
that 
the 
seriousness 
of 
Attorney 
Karlsson's professional misconduct warrants a suspension of her 
license to practice law in this state for nine months.  We also 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
recommendation 
and 
impose 
specific 
conditions for reinstatement of her license.  
¶3 
Attorney Karlsson was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1990 and has practiced in Milwaukee since that 
time.  She has not previously been the subject of an attorney 
disciplinary proceeding.   
                                                 
1 Effective 
October 
1, 
2000, 
Wisconsin's 
attorney 
disciplinary process underwent a substantial restructuring.  The 
name of the body responsible for investigating and prosecuting 
cases involving attorney misconduct was changed to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation ("OLR") and the supreme court rules applicable 
to the lawyer regulation system were also revised in part.  
Because the misconduct underlying this case arose prior to 
October 1, 2000, the investigative body will be referred to as 
"the Board" and all references to supreme court rules will be to 
those in effect prior to October 1, 2000, unless otherwise 
noted. 
No. 
00-2043-D   
 
3 
 
¶4 
The 
Board 
of 
Attorneys 
Professional 
Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility filed a complaint in this court 
alleging that Attorney Karlsson had committed twelve counts of 
professional misconduct involving seven of her clients; in 
addition, the complaint charged Attorney Karlsson with seven 
separate counts of non-cooperation with the Board in its 
disciplinary investigation.   
¶5 
After Attorney Karlsson filed an answer, the matter 
was sent to a referee for a hearing pursuant to the new 
provisions in SCR 22.13(3).2  After three days of public hearings 
in this matter, referee Stanley Hack filed his report concluding 
that the Board had established all counts of alleged misconduct 
and non-cooperation by Attorney Karlsson.  Neither Attorney 
Karlsson nor the Board has filed an appeal in this matter.  
¶6 
We summarize the referee's findings and conclusions 
with respect to the 19 separate counts of misconduct alleged 
against Attorney Karlsson. 
COUNTS ONE, TWO, AND THREE 
¶7 
The Board alleged, and the referee so found, that 
Attorney Karlsson had failed to act with reasonable diligence 
and promptness in representing her client, T.S., who had 
                                                 
2 SCR 22.13(3) (effective October 1, 2000) provides in 
pertinent part: 
(3)  . . .  upon receipt of proof of service of the 
complaint, the clerk of the supreme court shall select a referee 
from the panel provided in SCR 21.08,  . . .  and the chief 
justice shall appoint the referee to conduct a hearing on the 
complaint. 
No. 
00-2043-D   
 
4 
 
retained Attorney Karlsson to represent her in a divorce action.  
The referee's report detailed T.S.'s numerous attempts to 
contact 
Attorney 
Karlsson 
during 
the 
period 
of 
this 
representation.  The referee also made findings regarding 
Attorney Karlsson's failure to file a written response to T.S.'s 
grievances as requested by the Board's investigative staff.   
¶8 
The referee concluded that Attorney Karlsson's failure 
to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing 
T.S. was a violation of SCR 20:1.3.3  In addition, the referee 
concluded that Attorney Karlsson's failure to promptly comply 
with T.S.'s reasonable requests for information and Attorney 
Karlsson's failure to keep T.S. reasonably informed about the 
status of the divorce action, constituted a violation of SCR 
20:1.4(a).4  Likewise, the referee concluded that by failing to 
respond to several letters from Board staff and failing to 
appear for an investigative interview, Attorney Karlsson had 
failed to cooperate in the Board's investigation in violation of 
SCR 21.03(4) and SCR 22.07.5   
                                                 
3 SCR 20:1.3 provides that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client."  
4 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides that "[a] lawyer shall keep a 
client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and 
promptly comply with reasonable requests for information."  
5 Former SCR 21.03(4) provided that "[e]very attorney shall 
cooperate 
with 
the 
board 
and 
the 
administrator 
in 
the 
investigation, prosecution and disposition of grievances and 
complaints filed with or by the board or administrator." 
Former SCR 22.07 provided:  Investigation 
No. 
00-2043-D   
 
5 
 
COUNTS FOUR AND FIVE 
                                                                                                                                                             
(1) The administrator shall investigate any matter under 
the board's jurisdiction.  
(2) During 
the 
course 
of 
an 
investigation, 
the 
administrator or a committee may notify the respondent of the 
subject being investigated. The respondent shall fully and 
fairly disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct or medical incapacity within 20 days of being 
served by ordinary mail a request for response to a grievance. 
The administrator in his or her discretion may allow additional 
time 
to 
respond. 
Failure 
to 
provide 
information 
or 
misrepresentation 
in 
a 
disclosure 
is 
misconduct. 
The 
administrator or committee may make a further investigation 
before making a recommendation to the board.  
(3) The 
administrator 
or 
committee 
may 
compel 
the 
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents and present 
any information deemed relevant to the investigation. Failure of 
the respondent to answer questions, furnish documents or present 
relevant information is misconduct. The administrator or a 
committee may compel any other person to produce pertinent 
books, papers and documents under SCR 22.22.  
(4) The duty of the respondent to cooperate with the 
board's investigation does not affect the respondent's privilege 
against self-incrimination, but the privilege may be claimed 
only in respect to matters which may subject the respondent to 
criminal liability.  
(5) A committee shall report to the administrator the 
result of each investigation assigned to it and may make a 
recommendation for disposition of the matter. The administrator 
shall report the result of each investigation to the board and 
make a recommendation for disposition of the matter. If the 
administrator does not recommend dismissal of the grievance, the 
administrator shall first prepare an investigative report and 
provide a copy to the grievant and to the respondent. The 
grievant and the respondent may submit a written response to the 
report no later than 10 days following receipt of the report. 
The 
administrator 
shall 
then 
report 
the 
result 
of 
the 
investigation to the board, including any response submitted by 
the grievant or the respondent.  
No. 
00-2043-D   
 
6 
 
¶9 
The Board's complaint alleged, and the referee found, 
that in the spring of 1997 Attorney Karlsson was retained by 
E.G. to represent her in a custody and visitation dispute.  
Attorney Karlsson agreed that E.G. could make installment 
payments toward the retainer fee and that if E.G. chose 
ultimately not to file suit, the payments would be returned.  
E.G. thereafter made at least three $50 payments to Attorney 
Karlsson for the prepayment of legal fees and in addition, 
E.G.'s mother, C.L. also made four payments to Attorney Karlsson 
on behalf of E.G. 
¶10 The 
referee 
determined 
that 
Attorney 
Karlsson 
performed no services for E.G. and that in fact, E.G. appeared 
pro se at a subsequent hearing where she was able to resolve the 
custody issue herself.  In addition, the referee determined that 
Attorney Karlsson had not responded to E.G.'s and her mother's 
letters requesting refunds of the retainer payments.  Also, 
according to the referee, Attorney Karlsson had failed to 
respond to the Board's investigative staff's letters concerning 
the E.G. and C.L. grievances and she failed to appear for an 
investigative interview concerning those matters.  When Attorney 
Karlsson later appeared at a rescheduled interview, the Board 
staff requested that she provide a written response to the 
specific allegations of the grievances but, despite follow-up 
requests, Attorney Karlsson never filed a written response to 
the E.G. and C.L. grievances.  In addition, the referee 
determined that although Attorney Karlsson had returned some of 
the money, she had failed to return $100 to E.G. 
No. 
00-2043-D   
 
7 
 
¶11 Based on these findings, the referee concluded that by 
failing to promptly return unearned retainer fees paid by or for 
E.G., Attorney Karlsson had violated SCR 20:1.16(d).6  Similarly, 
the referee determined that by failing to respond to three 
letters from the Board's investigative staff and failing to 
appear for the scheduled investigative interview, Attorney 
Karlsson had failed to cooperate with the investigation of the 
E.G. and C.L. grievances in violation of SCR 21:03(4) and SCR 
22.07.   
COUNTS SIX AND SEVEN 
¶12 The Board's complaint alleged, and the referee found, 
that Attorney Karlsson had been retained by P.M. to represent 
her in a post-judgment divorce matter in May of 1997 and that 
P.M. paid Attorney Karlsson a $1500 fee advance.  The referee 
further determined that after P.M. provided certain material to 
Attorney Karlsson at her office, Attorney Karlsson had no 
further contact with P.M. for the next year.  
¶13 In addition, although P.M. subsequently sent Attorney 
Karlsson three letters between June and September of 1998 
                                                 
6 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides: 
(d) 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 that has not been earned. 
The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the 
extent permitted by other law.  
 
No. 
00-2043-D   
 
8 
 
requesting the return of her divorce file and a return of a 
portion of the advance fee, Attorney Karlsson did not reply. 
¶14 In April of 1999 P.M. obtained a $1500 small claims 
judgment against Attorney Karlsson; however, according to the 
referee's findings, Attorney Karlsson did not pay that judgment 
until March 2000, after the Board's investigator had contacted 
Attorney Karlsson about this grievance. 
¶15 In addition, the referee determined that Attorney 
Karlsson failed to respond to the Board's initial letter 
requesting a response to the P.M. grievance and that Attorney 
Karlsson then failed to respond to a subsequent certified letter 
again asking for a response.  Similarly, Attorney Karlsson 
failed to appear at the scheduled investigative interview.  When 
she later appeared for a rescheduled interview, the Board staff 
requested 
that 
she 
provide 
a 
response 
to 
the 
specific 
allegations of the P.M. grievance within 30 days; however, 
despite follow-up requests, Attorney Karlsson never supplied a 
written response to the P.M. grievance. 
¶16 The referee concluded that by failing to promptly 
return P.M.'s file upon request, failing to refund P.M.'s 
retainer until almost a year after P.M. had obtained the 
judgment against her, and failing to respond to three letters 
from P.M. requesting the refund and return of her file, Attorney 
Karlsson had failed to return property to which P.M. we entitled 
and had failed to refund any unused portion of the retainer in 
violation of SCR 20:1.16(d). 
No. 
00-2043-D   
 
9 
 
¶17 Likewise, the referee determined that by failing to 
respond to three letters from the Board staff and failing to 
appear at an investigative interview, Attorney Karlsson had not 
cooperated with the investigation of the P.M. grievance in 
violation of SCR 21.03(4) and SCR 22.07. 
COUNTS EIGHT, NINE, AND TEN  
¶18 The Board's complaint alleged, and the referee found, 
that in July 1994 Attorney Karlsson was retained by C.M. to 
represent her in a personal injury claim stemming from a July 7, 
1994, automobile accident.  In March 1997, nearly four months 
before the statute of limitations on C.M.'s personal injury 
claim was to expire, C.M. forwarded the final medical bill 
related to the accident to Attorney Karlsson along with a letter 
requesting information on the status of the case.  Attorney 
Karlsson did not respond to that letter or to C.M.'s follow-up 
letters in July 1997 and October 1997.   
¶19 C.M. and her husband thereafter made a series of 
telephone calls to Attorney Karlsson and sent her another letter 
in May of 1998; again Attorney Karlsson made no response to the 
calls or letters.  
¶20 The referee also determined that Attorney Karlsson had 
failed to send a demand letter to the insurance company involved 
in C.M.'s claim before the statute of limitations on that claim 
expired. 
¶21 In addition, the referee determined that Attorney 
Karlsson had failed to respond to letters from the Board staff 
including certified requests for responses; likewise, she failed 
No. 
00-2043-D   
 
10 
 
to appear for the scheduled investigative interview and when she 
later appeared at the rescheduled interview and was asked to 
file a written response, she again failed to do so despite the 
Board's follow-up request. 
¶22 Based on these findings, the referee concluded that by 
allowing the statute of limitations to run on C.M.'s claim 
without making discernible efforts towards settlement, Attorney 
Karlsson had failed to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing C.M. in violation of SCR 20:1.3. 
¶23 Likewise, the referee concluded that by failing to 
respond to four letters and numerous telephone calls from C.M. 
requesting information about her case, and by failing to inform 
C.M. that the statute of limitations had run on her claim, 
Attorney Karlsson had failed to keep C.M. reasonably informed 
about the status of the matter and had failed to comply with 
C.M.'s reasonable requests for information in violation of SCR 
20:1.4(a). 
¶24 In addition, the referee concluded that Attorney 
Karlsson's failure to respond to letters from the Board staff 
and her failure to appear for the investigative interview 
concerning the investigation into C.M.'s grievance, was a 
violation of SCR 21.03(4) and SCR 22.07. 
COUNTS ELEVEN, TWELVE, THIRTEEN, AND FOURTEEN 
¶25 The Board's complaint alleged, and the referee found, 
that in February of 1993 Attorney Karlsson was retained by D.C. 
to represent him in a bankruptcy matter; D.C. paid Attorney 
Karlsson $800 as a retainer.  The retainer agreement provided 
No. 
00-2043-D   
 
11 
 
that it was "for bankruptcy . . . flat fee."  Thereafter D.C. 
met with Attorney Karlsson on three occasions to complete the 
necessary paperwork.  Subsequently D.C. made what he estimated 
to be 30 to 40 phone calls to Attorney Karlsson seeking 
information about the bankruptcy matter.  Attorney Karlsson's 
own message slips in her office file for the D.C. bankruptcy 
reflect that she had failed to respond to at least four or five 
of D.C.'s calls.  
¶26 The referee determined that after six years, D.C.'s 
bankruptcy still had not been filed.  At that point D.C. 
contacted an attorney who had shared office space with Attorney 
Karlsson.  That attorney attempted to assist D.C. in obtaining 
the return of the retainer and paperwork.  That other attorney 
contacted Attorney Karlsson and urged her to complete the 
bankruptcy or refund the retainer.  Attorney Karlsson responded 
that she would "take care of it."  However, Attorney Karlsson 
never filed the bankruptcy matter on behalf of D.C. and never 
refunded the $800 retainer fee to him. 
¶27 In addition, the referee determined that when the 
Board's investigative staff asked Attorney Karlsson to respond 
to D.C.'s grievance, she did not do so; a subsequent certified 
letter made a similar request and again Attorney Karlsson did 
not respond, nor did she provide a written response as requested 
when she later met with the Board's investigator. 
¶28 Based on these findings, the referee concluded that 
Attorney Karlsson's failure to take appropriate steps to advance 
the D.C. bankruptcy for almost seven years and her failure to 
No. 
00-2043-D   
 
12 
 
file the bankruptcy action during the time she was representing 
D.C., established that Attorney Karlsson had failed to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing D.C. in 
violation of SCR. 20:1.3. 
¶29 In addition, the referee concluded that by failing to 
respond to numerous telephone calls from D.C. and failing to 
write to him after mid-1993, Attorney Karlsson had failed to 
comply with her client's reasonable requests for information and 
failed to keep him reasonably informed about the status of the 
matter in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a). 
¶30 Furthermore, the referee concluded that by failing to 
respond to two investigative letters from the Board's staff, 
Attorney Karlsson had failed to cooperate in the investigation 
of the D.C. grievance in violation of SCR 21.03(4) and SCR 
22.07. 
¶31 In addition, the referee concluded that Attorney 
Karlsson's failure to refund any portion of D.C.'s $800 
retainer, even though she had never completed or even filed the 
bankruptcy, and her failure on termination of her representation 
of D.C. to refund any of the unearned portion of the retainer, 
violated SCR 20:1.16(d). 
No. 
00-2043-D   
 
13 
 
COUNTS FIFTEEN, SIXTEEN, AND SEVENTEEN 
¶32 The Board's complaint alleged, and the referee found, 
that in October of 1993 P.M.7 retained Attorney Karlsson to 
represent him in a personal injury action stemming from injuries 
P.M. had sustained on October 2, 1993.  Attorney Karlsson 
subsequently filed a personal injury action on behalf of P.M. on 
October 2, 1996.  The defendant in that personal injury action 
then moved to dismiss it for failure to prosecute and for 
failure to answer written discovery requests, failure to appear 
at scheduled depositions, and failure to file a witness list.   
¶33 At the public hearing before the referee in this 
matter, Attorney Karlsson and her former client, P.M., presented 
conflicting testimony as to whether Attorney Karlsson had 
communicated with P.M. about the defense discovery requests; 
also disputed was the question of whose fault it was that the 
discovery requests had not been answered in the P.M. case.  The 
referee determined that even though the motion to dismiss the 
personal injury action had been denied, the circuit court had 
assessed $498 in costs against P.M.  Attorney Karlsson, however, 
never notified P.M. of that assessment of costs.   
¶34 At the public hearing in this matter, P.M. testified 
that he had been unsuccessful in obtaining a response from 
Attorney Karlsson about the status of his personal injury case 
after his deposition had been taken in the fall of 1997.  
                                                 
7 This individual is not the same P.M. involved in counts 
six and seven discussed above.   
No. 
00-2043-D   
 
14 
 
Attorney Karlsson, on the other hand, claimed that she had kept 
P.M. reasonably informed about the status of the case through 
May of 1998. 
¶35 The circuit court in the personal injury action 
ultimately granted summary judgment against P.M. as to all but 
one of the defendants and judgment was entered against P.M. for 
costs in the amount of $412.34.  Although the default judgment 
in favor of P.M. against the remaining defendant in the amount 
of $5000 was later granted, Attorney Karlsson never prepared an 
order for the circuit court's signature and that judgment was 
never entered, nor did she inform P.M. about that judgment.  
When P.M. later received information that his personal injury 
action had been resolved, he and his father made numerous 
telephone calls to Attorney Karlsson in May and June of 1999 
seeking information about the status of his case.  P.M. also 
sent Attorney Karlsson a certified letter asking for information 
but she did not respond.   
¶36 The referee determined that the Board's investigative 
staff sent an initial letter to Attorney Karlsson asking her to 
respond to P.M.'s grievance but she did not do so.  Subsequently 
two other similar letters were sent by certified mail to 
Attorney Karlsson asking for her to respond to this grievance, 
and again she failed to do so. 
¶37 Likewise, the referee found that after the P.M. 
grievance was referred to a district responsibility committee, 
an investigator from that committee attempted to call Attorney 
Karlsson six times during April and May 2000 but Attorney 
No. 
00-2043-D   
 
15 
 
Karlsson never returned any of the telephone calls and never 
provided a response to the P.M. grievance investigation.  The 
referee determined that, in fact, Attorney Karlsson had never 
provided any information regarding the P.M. grievance until this 
disciplinary proceeding was commenced. 
¶38 Based on these findings, the referee concluded that 
Attorney Karlsson's failure to respond to numerous telephone 
calls made by or on behalf of P.M. inquiring as to the status or 
outcome of his personal injury action, constituted a failure to 
keep her client reasonably informed about the status of the 
matter and her failure to respond to a client's reasonable 
request for information in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).   
¶39 In addition, the referee concluded that by failing to 
respond to several letters from the Board's staff and failing to 
respond to at least six telephone messages from the district 
committee's investigator, 
Attorney 
Karlsson 
had 
failed to 
cooperate with the Board's investigation of the P.M. grievance 
in violation of SCR 21.03(4) and SCR 22.07.  
COUNTS EIGHTEEN AND NINETEEN 
¶40 The Board's complaint alleged, and the referee so 
found, that in January 1996 Attorney Karlsson was retained by 
D.D. to represent her in a partition action involving real 
estate D.D. had purchased with a friend.  After she was retained 
by D.D., Attorney Karlsson contacted the parties in the real 
estate transaction and discovered that the land contract had 
never been recorded.  Attorney Karlsson on behalf of her client, 
No. 
00-2043-D   
 
16 
 
D.D., recorded the land contract and wrote several letters to 
opposing parties but the matter was not resolved at that time. 
¶41 The referee found that more than three years after she 
had been retained, Attorney Karlsson met with D.D. to review the 
summons and complaint Attorney Karlsson had drafted in the 
partition action.  Several months later Attorney Karlsson 
informed D.D. that she was winding down her law practice and 
that she would refer the partition matter to another attorney.  
The referee determined, however, that Attorney Karlsson never 
referred the partition case to another attorney and never filed 
the summons and complaint she had drafted on D.D.'s behalf.  
¶42 After 
D.D. 
filed 
a 
grievance, 
the 
Board's 
investigative staff wrote three letters, two by certified mail, 
asking Attorney Karlsson to respond but she never did.  In 
addition, at the subsequent investigative interview, the Board's 
staff requested Attorney Karlsson to provide copies of her 
activities/telephone logs in D.D.'s case; that request was 
repeated in a follow-up letter but Attorney Karlsson never 
supplied the telephone logs.  
¶43 Based on these findings, the referee concluded that by 
failing to either settle D.D.'s claim, file suit, or refer the 
matter to another attorney for over four years, Attorney 
Karlsson had failed to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing D.D. in violation of SCR 20:1.3. 
¶44 In addition, the referee concluded that by failing to 
respond to several letters from the Board's staff and by failing 
to provide the activities/telephone logs as requested, and as 
No. 
00-2043-D   
 
17 
 
she promised to do, Attorney Karlsson had failed to cooperate in 
the Board's investigation of the D.D. grievance in violation of 
SCR 21.03(4) and SCR 22.07.  
¶45 In addition to 
hearing 
testimony 
concerning the 
various grievances in violation of the SCR, the referee also 
heard medical evidence presented by Attorney Karlsson concerning 
her 
consultations 
with 
an 
internist, 
an 
obstetrician-
gynecologist, and a psychologist.  The referee determined that 
although Attorney Karlsson's claims of intermittent anxiety and 
depression were verified, the medical records and reports from 
the internist did not demonstrate that Attorney Karlsson's 
medical condition caused her to commit the misconduct with which 
she was charged. 
¶46 Similarly, the referee determined that the records and 
reports of the obstetrician-gynecologist did not relate to 
Attorney Karlsson's specific work performance, nor did they 
establish that her medical condition caused her to commit the 
misconduct.   
¶47 With respect to the psychologist's report, the referee 
noted that the psychologist never offered a clear opinion of 
causality with respect to the majority of the misconduct counts 
at issue and that in any event, the psychologist's opinions 
were, 
according 
to 
the 
referee, 
"somewhat 
unclear."  
Accordingly, the referee discounted the psychologist's reports 
and opinion because of inconsistencies and the lack of detail in 
the records; the referee observed that the psychologist had made 
no notes or records for any meetings with Attorney Karlsson that 
No. 
00-2043-D   
 
18 
 
had taken place before this disciplinary matter was commenced.  
Also, the referee noted that the psychologist's records did not 
reflect any meeting at all with Attorney Karlsson during the 
year 1999 which was the year during which attorney Karlsson had 
repeatedly failed to cooperate with the Board's investigations. 
¶48 The 
referee 
concluded 
that 
the 
psychologist's 
diagnosis did not adequately establish causation for Attorney 
Karlsson's failings with respect to the seven client files at 
issue in this proceeding, especially since Attorney Karlsson had 
been able to maintain and represent other clients during this 
period when she was purportedly suffering from anxiety and 
depression.  
¶49 Based on his findings and conclusions, the referee 
rejected Attorney Karlsson's suggestion that as a penalty for 
her misconduct in this matter, she be subjected to monitoring by 
the Board and mentoring by other attorneys.  The referee also 
rejected Attorney Karlsson's claim that her non-cooperation with 
the Board's investigation had been caused by her illness, and 
therefore no restitution should be ordered and any costs in this 
matter should be waived. 
¶50 Instead, the referee, based on his findings and 
conclusions of the 19 counts of misconduct, recommended that 
Attorney Karlsson's license to practice law be suspended for a 
nine-month period and that the following conditions be met 
before her license could be reinstated: (1) that Attorney 
Karlsson be required to refund the $800 retainer fee paid by 
D.C. for his bankruptcy proceeding; (2) that she be required to 
No. 
00-2043-D   
 
19 
 
refund $100 she received in the E.G. case; (3) that for a period 
of two years after reinstatement Attorney Karlsson must arrange 
for another attorney, approved by the OLR director, to monitor 
Attorney Karlsson's practice in quarterly meetings with her at 
which the status of all of Attorney Karlsson's client files will 
be reviewed and the monitoring attorney will then submit 
quarterly reports to the OLR on the status of all pending 
matters in Attorney Karlsson's practice; and (4) that Attorney 
Karlsson pay the costs of this disciplinary matter within six 
months of this court's order and that if she fails to do so and 
fails to show an inability to pay the costs within that time, 
that she not be allowed to seek reinstatement of her license to 
practice law.   
¶51 The findings of the referee are not clearly erroneous 
and we adopt them.  We also agree with the conclusions of law 
set forth in the referee's report and his recommendation for 
sanctions.  Attorney Karlsson's misconduct with respect to the 
handling of the seven client grievances and her failure to 
cooperate with the Board's investigation are serious failings 
warranting a suspension of her license.  We believe a nine-month 
suspension of her license to practice law in this state is 
appropriate discipline for her professional misconduct. 
¶52 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Kathryn P. Karlsson 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of nine 
months, effective January 4, 2002. 
¶53 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Kathryn P. Karlsson comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
No. 
00-2043-D   
 
20 
 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
¶54 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Kathryn P. Karlsson refund, 
within 60 days of the date of this order, with interest at 5%, 
the $800 paid to her by her client D.C. for his bankruptcy 
proceeding and $100 of the retainer she received in the E.G. 
matter.  If these refunds are not made within the specified 
time, the license of Kathryn P. Karlsson to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the 
court. 
¶55 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within six months of the 
date of this order Kathryn P. Karlsson pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation, as successor to the Board of Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility, the costs of this disciplinary 
proceeding totaling $17,923.83.  If the costs are not paid 
within the time specified and absent a showing to this court of 
her inability to pay the costs within that time, the license of 
Kathryn P. Karlsson to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain 
suspended until further order of the court.   
No. 
00-2043-D   
 
 
 
1