Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Tina M. Dahle

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2015 WI 29 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2013AP1137-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
Tina M. Dahle, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Tina M. Dahle, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DAHLE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 18, 2015 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2015 WI 29
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2013AP1137-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Tina M. Dahle, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Tina M. Dahle, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 18, 2015 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a report filed by referee 
Robert E. Kinney recommending that the court suspend the 
Wisconsin law license of Attorney Tina M. Dahle for two years 
and six months; require Attorney Dahle to pay restitution as 
described herein; and require Attorney Dahle to pay the full 
costs of this disciplinary proceeding, which total $11,911.68 as 
of December 8, 2014.  No appeal has been filed in this matter, 
No. 
2013AP1137-D   
 
2 
 
so 
our 
review 
proceeds 
pursuant 
to 
Supreme 
Court 
Rule 
(SCR) 22.17(2). 
¶2 
We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and we agree that Attorney Dahle's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin should be suspended for two years and 
six months.  We also agree with the referee that Attorney Dahle 
should be required to pay the full costs of this proceeding.  
For the reasons explained in this opinion, we accept part of the 
recommendation regarding restitution.   
¶3 
Attorney Dahle was admitted to the Wisconsin State Bar 
in 2002 and practiced in the Green Bay area.  On April 24, 2012, 
her law license was suspended for failure to cooperate with the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation's (OLR) investigation into some of 
the grievances giving rise to this disciplinary proceeding.  Her 
license is also subject to an administrative suspension for 
failure to pay Wisconsin State Bar dues, failure to file a trust 
account certification, and noncompliance with continuing legal 
education requirements.  She has no other prior disciplinary 
history.  Her license remains suspended. 
¶4 
In May 2013, the OLR filed a complaint alleging 50 
counts of professional misconduct.  Over the ensuing months, the 
OLR investigated several additional grievances filed against 
Attorney Dahle.  As a result, the OLR amended its disciplinary 
complaint several times, culminating in the filing of a third 
amended complaint on June 4, 2014, alleging 55 counts of 
professional misconduct. 
No. 
2013AP1137-D   
 
3 
 
¶5 
Attorney Dahle briefly contested some of the charges 
but ultimately entered pleas of "no contest" to all 55 charged 
counts of misconduct.  She opted to forego an evidentiary 
hearing and to address the issue of sanctions in writing.  
¶6 
The referee proceeded to find misconduct as to each of 
the 55 counts charged.  Specifically, the referee incorporated 
by reference key portions of the original complaint, second 
amended complaint, and third amended complaint, and, based on 
the uncontested facts contained in those paragraphs, the referee 
determined that there was an adequate factual basis for each of 
the 55 charges alleged in the complaint and amendments thereto.  
We wholly agree with the referee that the facts alleged by the 
OLR support a conclusion of professional misconduct on each of 
the 55 counts of misconduct set forth in the complaint, as 
amended. 
¶7 
The allegations of misconduct at issue are varied and 
numerous.  Attorney Dahle failed to commence actions prior to 
the expiration of statutes of limitations, failed to appear in 
court on several cases, and missed filing deadlines for briefs, 
discovery, and witness disclosures.  She essentially abandoned 
her law practice and her clients in 2012 when she closed her 
office without notice.  Her clients were left with cases in a 
state of neglect with no way to contact their attorney.  In 
addition, she borrowed or took some $400,000 from clients 
without 
regard 
to 
conflict 
of 
interest 
restrictions 
and 
requirements.  Attorney Dahle also repeatedly failed to respond 
No. 
2013AP1137-D   
 
4 
 
to inquiries from the OLR, resulting in her temporary suspension 
from the practice of law.  
¶8 
In sum, Attorney Dahle does not contest, the referee 
concluded, and we agree that Attorney Dahle committed the 
following ethical violations: 
 seven violations of SCR 20:1.3 (failure to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness); 
 ten violations of SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4) (failure to 
keep the client reasonably informed and comply with 
requests for information); 
 one 
violation 
of 
SCR 
20:1.5(a) 
(collecting 
an 
unreasonable fee); 
 one violation of SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2) (failure to 
have a written fee agreement); 
 two violations of SCR 20:1.8(a) (entering into a 
business transaction with a client without proper 
prior disclosure and consent of terms and lawyer's 
role in transaction); 
 11 violations of various SCR 20:1.15 trust account 
rules (failure to promptly deliver funds to which a 
client 
or 
third 
party 
is 
entitled 
to 
receive; 
disbursing funds from trust account before the deposit 
from which those funds are to be disbursed has 
cleared; failure to provide written notice to client 
at least five days prior to disbursing funds in trust 
for payment of fees; failure to provide written 
accounting to client upon final distribution of trust 
No. 
2013AP1137-D   
 
5 
 
property; and disbursing funds from trust account via 
telephone transfer); 
 seven violations of SCR 20:1.16(d) (failure to notify 
clients of termination of representation and return 
client files and other property); 
 one violation of SCR 20:3.4(c) (knowingly disobeying 
an order of a tribunal); 
 three 
violations 
of 
SCR 
20:8.4(c) 
(engaging 
in 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); and 
 12 violations of SCR 22.03(2) and (6), enforced via 
SCR 20:8.4(h) (failure to promptly and fully cooperate 
with an OLR investigation).  
¶9 
The OLR sought a three-year suspension of Attorney 
Dahle's license to practice law in Wisconsin.  Attorney Dahle 
asked that her law license be suspended "for no more than one 
year," noting that her law license has been suspended since 
April 24, 2012.  She suggests there was some delay by the OLR in 
prosecuting the matter.  She asked that her suspension be 
imposed retroactive to the date of her temporary license 
suspension. 
¶10 The referee stated and considered the factors that 
must be evaluated when considering discipline, noting that the 
"seriousness, nature and extent of the misconduct here is 
nothing short of breathtaking."  The referee observed that 
misappropriation or conversion of client funds is one of the 
most serious acts of lawyer misconduct because it violates the 
fundamental principle of the lawyer-client relationship and 
No. 
2013AP1137-D   
 
6 
 
places the lawyer's pecuniary interest above the client's 
interest.  Misappropriation of client funds frequently warrants 
revocation.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bult, 
142 Wis. 2d 885, 890, 419 N.W. 2d 246 (1988).  Indeed, the 
referee considered whether Attorney Dahle's license should be 
revoked, but was mindful that license revocation is not always 
appropriate for misappropriation or conversion of client funds.  
Id. at 890-91.  
¶11 Ultimately, the referee considered the mitigating 
facts of Attorney Dahle's lack of previous misconduct and her 
eventual cooperation with the OLR and determined that a 
suspension of two years and six months was sufficient discipline 
for the misconduct committed in this case.  See In re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Cooper, 
2007 
WI 
37, 
300 Wis. 2d 61, 729 N.W.2d 206; In re Disciplinary Proceeding 
Against Tully, 2005 WI 100, 283 Wis. 2d 124, 699 N.W. 2d 882.  
The referee rejected Attorney Dahle's request to make her 
suspension retroactive to the date of her temporary license 
suspension, 
observing, 
correctly, 
that 
any 
"delay" 
in 
prosecuting this matter is likely due to Attorney Dahle's 
initial 
failure 
to 
cooperate 
with 
the 
OLR's 
efforts 
to 
investigate the many grievances filed against her. 
¶12 The undisputed facts show a clear pattern of neglect 
by Attorney Dahle of her clients' needs and objectives and 
disregard of her obligations as an attorney.  We agree with the 
referee's observation that the recommended suspension of two 
years and six months both recognizes Attorney Dahle's eventual 
No. 
2013AP1137-D   
 
7 
 
full cooperation with the disciplinary process and does not 
unduly 
depreciate 
the 
seriousness 
of 
her 
professional 
misconduct. 
¶13 We further agree that full costs shall be imposed on 
Attorney Dahle.  Attorney Dahle has not alleged any factors that 
would justify a reduction in costs.   
¶14 We now consider the question of restitution.  First, 
the OLR has advised the court that no restitution is warranted 
in a number of the client matters implicated in this proceeding 
and we accept that assessment.  The parties agreed and the 
referee recommended that Attorney Dahle should be ordered to 
comply with any final monetary order or judgment issued in 
Jane C. Kelley v. Tina M. Dahle, et al., United States District 
Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 11-CV-600.  We 
agree with this recommendation as well. 
¶15 The OLR declined to seek restitution in the matter of 
J.P., who loaned Attorney Dahle money that she failed to repay.  
J.P. obtained a judgment of $116,684.02 against Attorney Dahle 
in Brown County Circuit Court Case No. 11-CV-1237, but Attorney 
Dahle then filed for bankruptcy and identified J.P. as a 
creditor.  The record before the court indicates that the client 
did not avail himself of the procedures for challenging 
discharge under federal law and this debt was discharged.  The 
referee declined to make a formal recommendation regarding 
restitution to J.P. but observed that "[e]very lender assumes 
the risk that a loan may not be repaid, and/or that the loan 
obligation may be discharged in bankruptcy."  We accede to the 
No. 
2013AP1137-D   
 
8 
 
parties' assertion that no restitution order should issue with 
respect to this client matter. 
¶16 We next consider whether Attorney Dahle's bankruptcy 
should preclude this court from ordering restitution to two 
other former clients.  During proceedings before the referee, 
the OLR requested that Attorney Dahle be ordered to pay 
$7,007.72 in restitution to L.G. and $4,911.51 in restitution to 
J.B.  
¶17 Shortly before the referee filed his report, Attorney 
Dahle objected to restitution in these client matters, stating 
that she had identified these individuals as creditors in her 
Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding, that neither filed an adversary 
proceeding or a claim in her bankruptcy proceeding, and that the 
debts were discharged.   
¶18 The referee was not persuaded.  The referee found 
that, unlike the matter of J.P., the funds Attorney Dahle had in 
her possession relating to L.G. and J.B. "consisted strictly of 
trust account property belonging to others" and recommended that 
the court order Attorney Dahle to pay restitution to L.G. and 
J.B.   
¶19 Neither party appealed the referee's report.  However, 
after the referee filed his report, the OLR provided the court 
with a restitution statement, as is standard practice.  The OLR 
advised the court that it no longer seeks restitution for L.G. 
and J.B. based on the fact that these clients were listed and 
noticed as creditors in Attorney Dahle's bankruptcy proceeding.  
The OLR states:  
No. 
2013AP1137-D   
 
9 
 
Such 
information 
. . . 
brings 
the 
circumstances 
outside of one of the OLR restitution criteria 
factors.  That factor is that Attorney Dahle's rights 
in 
a 
collateral 
proceeding 
(e.g., 
a 
future 
reinstatement proceeding) will likely be prejudiced if 
restitution is ordered to be paid to [these clients] 
when federal bankruptcy law eradicates the underlying 
debt and Attorney Dahle's obligation to pay it.1   
The OLR recognized that "assessing this issue delves into 
federal preemption issues not previously specifically addressed 
in 
prior 
Wisconsin 
attorney 
discipline 
or 
reinstatement 
proceedings."  The OLR acknowledges the considerations and 
rationale discussed by the referee in recommending restitution, 
in which the referee questioned Attorney Dahle's "attempt to get 
out of repaying [her clients] by discharging these debts in 
bankruptcy."  Nevertheless, the OLR explains that, "to be 
consistent with OLR's existing restitution criteria, OLR's 
Director determined to discontinue its restitution request."  
¶20 The question is whether a lawyer can trump this 
court's ability to order restitution in the context of a 
disciplinary proceeding by filing bankruptcy when the lawyer's 
misconduct involved conversion of client funds.  Attorney Dahle 
asserted 
this 
position 
quite 
late 
in 
this 
disciplinary 
proceeding so the issues were not fully developed.  The dilemma 
                                                 
1 The OLR's policy is to seek restitution only under the 
following 
circumstances: 
 
(1) 
there 
is 
a 
reasonably 
ascertainable amount; (2) the funds to be restored were in the 
respondent lawyer's direct control; (3) the funds to be restored 
do not constitute incidental or consequential damages; and 
(4) the grievant's or respondent's rights in a collateral 
proceeding will not likely be prejudiced.   
 
No. 
2013AP1137-D   
 
10 
 
identified by the OLR raises questions:  (1) whether imposition 
of the disputed restitution in this lawyer disciplinary matter 
is consistent with state and federal law where, as here, the 
underlying subject of the restitution has been discharged in 
bankruptcy; and (2) whether such a restitution order is a 
permissible rehabilitative condition of any future reinstatement 
proceeding.  
¶21 In view of these unresolved questions, we will not 
order Attorney Dahle to pay restitution to L.G. and J.B. at this 
time.  However, prior to any reinstatement of Attorney Dahle's 
Wisconsin law license, we will revisit the issue.  See 
SCR 22.29(4m) (any attorney petitioning for reinstatement from a 
disciplinary suspension of six months or more is required to 
allege and demonstrate that the attorney "has made restitution 
to or settled all claims of persons injured or harmed by [the 
attorney's] 
misconduct . . . or, 
if 
not, 
the 
[attorney's] 
explanation of the failure or inability to do so").   
¶22 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Tina M. Dahle to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of two years 
and six months, effective the date of this order. 
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Tina M. Dahle shall pay 
restitution to Jane Kelley consistent with any final monetary 
order or judgment issued in Jane C. Kelley v. Tina M. Dahle, 
et al., United States District Court, Eastern District of 
Wisconsin, Case No. 11-CV-600.  
No. 
2013AP1137-D   
 
11 
 
¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Tina M. Dahle shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution to Jane 
Kelley specified above is to be completed prior to paying costs 
to the Office of Lawyer Regulation. 
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of 
reinstatement of her license to practice law in Wisconsin, 
Tina M. Dahle will be required to demonstrate to this court the 
legal and/or factual basis to justify any failure to reimburse 
L.G. and J.B. for unearned client fees or funds that she held in 
trust for them.   
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent she has not 
already done so, Tina M. Dahle shall comply with the provisions 
of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2). 
 
 
 
No. 
2013AP1137-D   
 
 
 
1