2014 WI 46

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2013AP360-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: July 1, 2014

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT: 

COUNTY:

JUDGE:

JUSTICES:

CONCURRED: 

DISSENTED: ABRAHAMSON, C.J., dissents. (Opinion filed.) 

NOT PARTICIPATING: 

ATTORNEYS:
2014 WI 46

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2013AP360-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Patrick J. Hudec, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Patrick J. Hudec,

 Respondent.

FILED

JUL 1, 2014

Diane M. Fremgen

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney publicly 

reprimanded.

¶1 PER CURIAM. We review the report filed by Referee 

Christine Harris Taylor which adopted a stipulation entered into 

between the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney 

Patrick J. Hudec. The referee agreed that Attorney Hudec 

committed four counts of misconduct, as alleged in the OLR's 

complaint. The referee further agreed with the parties that a 

public reprimand was an appropriate level of discipline for 

Attorney Hudec's misconduct. Finally, the referee recommended 
No. 2013AP360-D 

2

that Attorney Hudec should be assessed the full costs of the 

proceeding, which are $1,625.14 as of January 23, 2014.

¶2 After careful review of the matter, we conclude that 

the referee's findings of fact are supported by clear, 

satisfactory, and convincing evidence. We further adopt the 

referee's conclusions of law. We agree that the appropriate 

discipline for Attorney Hudec's misconduct is a public 

reprimand. Finally, we agree that Attorney Hudec should bear 

the full costs of this proceeding.

¶3 Attorney Hudec was admitted to practice law in 

Wisconsin in 1979. The most recent address on file for him with 

the State Bar of Wisconsin is East Troy, Wisconsin.

¶4 In November of 1989, Attorney Hudec consented to a 

private reprimand for misconduct that included accepting 

representation that was adverse to a former client and which 

constituted a conflict of interest. Private Reprimand No. 1989-

27.

¶5 In March of 1993, Attorney Hudec consented to a 

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, the predecessor to the 

OLR. Private Reprimand No. 1993-4.

¶6 In May of 2001, Attorney Hudec consented to a third 

private reprimand for misconduct that included failing to obtain 
No. 2013AP360-D 

3

written consent to a potential conflict of interest in 

representing two clients and drafting a letter which contained a 

false statement of fact. Private Reprimand No. 2001-OLR-15.

¶7 In March of 2008, Attorney Hudec consented to a public 

reprimand for misconduct that included failing to act with 

reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, 

failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of 

a matter and promptly comply with requests for information, and 

failing to timely respond to OLR letters and telephone calls and 

to timely produce information requested by the OLR. Public 

Reprimand of Patrick J. Hudec, No. 2008-OLR-2.

¶8 On February 13, 2013, the OLR filed a complaint 

alleging four counts of misconduct which occurred between 

November 2007 and January 2009. The allegations of misconduct 

arose out of Attorney Hudec's representation of Roma II –

Waterford, LLC, et al. (Roma II), a corporation that owned a 

restaurant. Roma II was the defendant in a lawsuit filed in 

Racine County circuit court. Attorney Hudec signed an answer to 

the plaintiff's complaint and filed it on November 13, 2007. 

The answer was incomplete and responded to only the first of the 

four causes of action alleged in the complaint. The paragraphs 

in the answer were misnumbered and started with paragraphs one 

through 11, then skipped to paragraphs 23 and 24. There was no 

claim for relief in the answer.

¶9 On December 17, 2007, the plaintiff in the suit filed 

a motion for default judgment on the second, third, and fourth 

causes of action. Two days later Attorney Hudec filed an 
No. 2013AP360-D 

4

amended answer and counterclaim. At a hearing on the 

plaintiff's motion for default judgment, Attorney Hudec told the 

circuit court that the first answer he had filed had been a 

draft that was filed by mistake.

¶10 Attorney Hudec further stated to the court that he had 

filed an affidavit in opposition to the defendant's default 

judgment motion. Attorney Hudec retracted his representation 

about filing an affidavit in opposition to the motion when both 

the plaintiff's counsel and the court remarked they had not 

received the affidavit. Electronic court records did not show a 

record of the affidavit referred to by Attorney Hudec.

¶11 The circuit court granted the plaintiff's motion for a 

default judgment on the second, third, and fourth causes of 

action and did not discuss Attorney Hudec's amended answer in 

its decision. Attorney Hudec filed a motion for reconsideration 

and a motion to vacate the default judgment. Following a 

hearing, the circuit court signed a document entitled "Final 

Order" that stated the defendant's motions for reconsideration 

and to vacate the default judgment were denied and that a 

proposed order for judgment and judgment filed by the plaintiff 

was stayed pending appeal. The circuit court's order did not 

say it was final for purposes of appeal. No judgment was filed 

or entered.

¶12 On June 5, 2008, Attorney Hudec filed an appeal on 

behalf of Roma II in the court of appeals. He filed his brief 

on November 12, 2008. Attorney Hudec alleged on appeal that the 

default judgment was unfair because the defendant's failure to 
No. 2013AP360-D 

5

answer three of the four causes of action was due to a mistake 

on Attorney Hudec's part. The plaintiff filed his responsive 

appellate brief on December 1, 2008. Attorney Hudec filed a 

reply brief on January 30, 2009, but failed to copy the 

plaintiff's counsel.

¶13 Although the court of appeals ultimately reversed the 

circuit court since Attorney Hudec timely filed an amended 

answer that joined issue as to all causes of action, the court 

of appeals criticized statements made by Attorney Hudec at the 

motion hearing in circuit court. The court of appeals referred 

to Attorney Hudec's "lack of attention to detail." The court of 

appeals also said Attorney Hudec's conduct was "egregious." The 

court of appeals further found that Attorney Hudec incorrectly 

stated the standard of review as being de novo, whereas the 

correct standard of review was whether the lower court's 

decision was an erroneous exercise of discretion.

¶14 The court of appeals also said Attorney Hudec's 

"mistake" in signing and filing an incomplete answer appeared 

"not to be an isolated incident but a pattern of gross and 

inexcusable inattention to details." The court of appeals 

sanctioned Attorney Hudec for intentionally including materials 

not appropriate to the appeal, including an administrative 

decision which postdated the decision being appealed and for 

intentionally including materials the court deemed "salacious." 

The court of appeals imposed a $500 penalty as a sanction.

¶15 The court of appeals also found that Attorney Hudec 

failed to serve a copy of the reply brief on the respondent as 
No. 2013AP360-D 

6

required by Wis. Stat. § 809.19(8). The court of appeals also 

chastised Attorney Hudec for failing to proofread his 

submissions and said, "Frankly, we are at a loss to understand 

what is clearly Hudec's intentional disregard of the rules and 

the details, including his failure to proofread."

¶16 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 

misconduct:

[COUNT 1] By engaging in what the Court of 

Appeals later described as "a pattern of gross and 

inexcusable inattention to details," including the 

signing and filing of an incomplete answer in the 

[Racine County circuit court] litigation; incorrectly 

informing the circuit court that he had filed an 

affidavit in opposition to the plaintiff's motion for 

default judgment; and stating a presumption that his 

"testimony" was under oath, while making an argument 

to the court (as opposed to testifying as a witness), 

[Attorney] Hudec violated SCR 20:1.1.1

[COUNT 2] When, as described by the Court of 

Appeals, [Attorney] Hudec continued at the appellate 

level to engage in "egregious conduct," including 

failing to ensure that a proper final order or 

judgment was in the record when he filed his notice of 

appeal; misstating the standard of review of a default 

judgment; filing a principal brief rife with 

grammatical and spelling errors; including in his 

principal brief a statement of facts that included 

facts not germane to the issues on appeal; and filing 

a reply brief that was struck as untimely and which 

was not served on opposing counsel, [Attorney] Hudec 

violated SCR 20:1.1.

[COUNT 3] By including in his principal appellate 

brief facts that were described by the Court of 

 

1 SCR 20:1.1 states, "A lawyer shall provide competent 

representation to a client. Competent representation requires 

the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation 

reasonably necessary for the representation." 
No. 2013AP360-D 

7

Appeals as "salacious," not germane to the issues on 

appeal, and which "could only have been included to 

prejudice [the plaintiff,"] [Attorney] Hudec violated 

SCR 20:3.1(a)(3).2

[COUNT 4] By failing to serve opposing counsel 

with a copy of the reply brief that he filed in the 

Court of Appeals thereby engaging in an ex parte 

communication with the court, [Attorney] Hudec 

violated SCR [20:3.5(b)].3

¶17 Attorney Hudec filed an answer to the complaint on 

April 5, 2013. Christine Harris Taylor was appointed as referee 

on April 15, 2013.

¶18 On October 11, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation 

whereby Attorney Hudec agreed that each factual allegation in 

the OLR's complaint was accurate and admitted. He further 

admitted and stipulated to his commission of each of the four 

counts of misconduct alleged in the complaint. The parties 

stipulated an appropriate level of discipline to impose in 

response to Attorney Hudec's misconduct was a public reprimand.

 

2 SCR 20:3.1(a)(3) states that in representing a client, a 

lawyer shall not "file a suit, assert a position, conduct a 

defense, delay a trial or take other action on behalf of the 

client when the lawyer knows or when it is obvious that such an 

action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure 

another."

3 SCR 20:3.5(b) states a lawyer shall not:

[C]ommunicate ex parte with such a person during 

the proceeding unless authorized to do so by law or 

court order or for scheduling purposes if permitted by 

the court. If communication between a lawyer and 

judge has occurred in order to schedule the matter, 

the lawyer involved shall promptly notify the lawyer 

for the other party or the other party, if 

unrepresented, of such communication; . . . .
No. 2013AP360-D 

8

¶19 The referee issued her findings of fact, conclusions 

of law, and recommendation for discipline on December 4, 2013. 

The referee adopted the stipulation filed by the parties and 

found that the OLR had met its burden of proof with respect to 

the four counts of misconduct alleged in the complaint. The 

referee also agreed with the parties that a public reprimand was 

an appropriate sanction. While the referee noted that Attorney 

Hudec has previously received three private reprimands and one 

public reprimand, the referee pointed out that the current 

disciplinary complaint was based upon a referral to the OLR from 

the court of appeals, District II, and there was no direct 

reference in the record as to whether Attorney Hudec's conduct 

or deficiencies harmed his client. The referee also recommended 

that Attorney Hudec should be assessed the full costs of the 

proceeding.

¶20 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless 

clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 

See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 

14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747. The court may impose 

whatever sanction it sees fit regardless of the referee's 

recommendation. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 

Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.

¶21 There is no showing that any of the referee's findings 

of fact are erroneous. Accordingly, we adopt them. We also 

agree with the referee's conclusions of law that Attorney Hudec 

violated the supreme court rules set forth above. We further 

agree with the referee that a public reprimand is an appropriate 
No. 2013AP360-D 

9

sanction for the misconduct at issue here. Finally, we agree 

with the referee that Attorney Hudec should be required to pay 

the full costs of the proceeding, which are $1,625.14.

¶22 IT IS ORDERED that Patrick J. Hudec is publicly 

reprimanded for professional misconduct.

¶23 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.

¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the director of the Office 

of Lawyer Regulation shall advise the court if there has not 

been full compliance with all conditions of this order.
No. 2013AP360-D.ssa

1

¶25 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J. (dissenting). I would 

not adopt the stipulation that imposes a public reprimand. The 

court of appeals characterized Attorney Hudec's conduct as 

demonstrating "a pattern of gross and inexcusable inattention to 

details." Attorney Hudec has in the past been the subject of 

three private reprimands and one public reprimand. A public 

reprimand in the present case does not comport with the 

violation of the Code or the concept of progressive discipline.
No. 2013AP360-D.ssa

1