2015 WI 111

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2014AP2487-D

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against 

Eric L. Crandall, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Eric L. Crandall,

 Respondent.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CRANDALL

OPINION FILED: December 23, 2015

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT:

COUNTY:

JUDGE:

JUSTICES:

CONCURRED:

DISSENTED: ABRAHAMSON, A.W. BRADLEY, J.J., dissent. 

(Opinion filed)

NOT PARTICIPATING: 

ATTORNEYS:
2015 WI 111

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2014AP2487-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Eric L. Crandall, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Eric L. Crandall,

 Respondent.

FILED

DEC 23, 2015

Diane M. Fremgen

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney publicly 

reprimanded. 

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

James G. Curtis, adopting two stipulations between the Office of 

Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Eric L. Crandall. The 

referee agreed that Attorney Crandall committed five 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 Crandall's 

misconduct. Finally, the referee recommended that Attorney 
No. 2014AP2487-D 

2

Crandall should be assessed the full costs of the proceeding, 

which are $4,182.17 as of September 17, 2015. 

¶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 adopt the referee's 

conclusions of law. We agree that the appropriate discipline 

for Attorney Crandall's misconduct is a public reprimand, and we 

agree that Attorney Crandall should bear the full costs of this 

proceeding.

¶3 Attorney Crandall was admitted to the practice of law 

in Wisconsin on September 19, 1991. He resides in New Richmond, 

Wisconsin. He is also licensed to practice law in Minnesota.

¶4 Effective February 20, 2006, we suspended Attorney 

Crandall's Wisconsin law license for three months as reciprocal 

discipline to that imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court for 

neglecting client matters, failing to communicate with clients, 

failing to appear at court hearings, failing to comply with 

discovery rules, and failing to cooperate with the disciplinary 

investigation. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Crandall, 

2006 WI 6, 287 Wis. 2d 102, 708 N.W.2d 690. 

¶5 On March 4, 2008, we publicly reprimanded Attorney 

Crandall for advancing a frivolous claim, failing to file a 

client's affidavit or a brief in opposition to a summary 

judgment motion, failing to keep clients reasonably informed, 

failing to return clients' files in a timely manner, and failing 

to cooperate with the OLR's investigation. In re Disciplinary 
No. 2014AP2487-D 

3

Proceedings Against Crandall, 2008 WI 14, 307 Wis. 2d 536, 

745 N.W.2d 679. 

¶6 Effective September 2, 2008, we suspended Attorney 

Crandall's Wisconsin law license for 30 days as reciprocal 

discipline to that imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court for 

failing to act with diligence and promptness, failing to 

communicate with clients, engaging in conduct involving 

dishonesty and misrepresentation, and failing to cooperate with 

the Minnesota disciplinary investigation. In re Disciplinary 

Proceedings Against Crandall, 2008 WI 112, 314 Wis. 2d 33, 

754 N.W.2d 501. 

¶7 Effective May 31, 2011, we suspended Attorney 

Crandall's Wisconsin law license for five months for failing to 

hold advance fees in trust, failing to refund unearned fees, and 

failing to cooperate with the OLR's investigation. In re 

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Crandall, 2011 WI 21, 

332 Wis. 2d 698, 798 N.W.2d 183. Attorney Crandall was 

reinstated to the practice of law on January 5, 2012. 

¶8 On October 27, 2014, the OLR filed a five-count 

complaint against Attorney Crandall alleging (1) that Attorney 

Crandall had failed to comply with the requirements of Supreme 

Court Rule (SCR) 22.26 relating to the duties of an attorney 

whose license has been suspended and (2) that he had failed to 

cooperate with OLR's investigation into his alleged misconduct. 

¶9 Attorney Crandall filed an answer and this court 

appointed Referee Curtis. We subsequently denied Attorney 

Crandall's untimely motion to substitute a different referee. 
No. 2014AP2487-D 

4

On or about April 29, 2014, the parties submitted a stipulation 

in which Attorney Crandall admitted the facts and misconduct 

alleged in the complaint and authorized the referee to make 

findings of fact and conclusions of law based on these 

allegations. The parties requested an evidentiary hearing on 

the appropriate sanction. 

¶10 Before the scheduled hearing, the parties reached a 

second stipulation regarding the appropriate sanction. On 

August 7, 2015, the parties stipulated to a public reprimand as 

an appropriate sanction. 

¶11 The referee filed his findings of fact, conclusions of 

law, and recommendation for discipline on August 18, 2015. The 

referee determined that the OLR had met its burden of proof with 

respect to the five counts of misconduct alleged in the 

complaint, and recommended that we accept the stipulations. We 

summarize those counts now.

¶12 As previously stated, on April 26, 2011, Attorney 

Crandall's license to practice law in Wisconsin was suspended 

for a period of five months, effective May 31, 2011. The order

suspending Attorney Crandall mandated that he comply with the 

requirements of SCR 22.26 pertaining to the duties of an 

attorney whose license has been suspended. 

¶13 In April and May of 2011, Attorney Crandall was listed 

as attorney of record for J.M., a party to an appeal thenpending before the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. On June 30, 

2011, the Court of Appeals certified the appeal to this court. 
No. 2014AP2487-D 

5

¶14 On September 27, 2011, this court issued an order in 

response to a motion filed by J.M. in which she advised the

court that she had only recently learned that Attorney 

Crandall's law license had been suspended. We granted J.M.'s 

motion for a briefing extension and permitted substitution of 

new counsel. 

¶15 The OLR complaint alleged and the referee determined 

that, by failing to send, on or before the effective date of his 

suspension, written notice of his suspension by certified mail 

to his client, J.M., Attorney Crandall violated SCR 22.26(1)(a) 

and (b)1 (Count One).

¶16 The OLR complaint alleged and the referee determined 

that, by failing to send, on or before the effective date of his 

suspension, written notice of his suspension to the Court of 

Appeals, Attorney Crandall also violated SCR 22.26(1)(c)2 (Count 

Two). 

 

1 SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b) provide that, on or before the 

effective date of license suspension, an attorney whose license 

is suspended shall: 

(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.

2 SCR 22.26(1)(c) provides that, on or before the effective 

date of license suspension, an attorney whose license is 

suspended shall:

(continued)
No. 2014AP2487-D 

6

¶17 In January of 2012, Attorney Crandall continued to be 

identified, during his period of suspension, as the attorney of 

record in three separate appellate cases. The OLR alleged that 

Attorney Crandall did not properly provide either his clients or 

the Court of Appeals with the notices required by SCR 22.26 in 

those three cases. Accordingly, the referee determined that, by 

failing to send, on or before the effective date of his 

suspension, written notice of his suspension by certified mail 

to the three clients in the three separate appeals, Attorney 

Crandall violated SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b) (Count Three). 

¶18 In addition, the referee determined that, by failing 

to send, on or before the effective date of his suspension, 

written notice of his suspension to the Court of Appeals in the 

three appellate cases, Attorney Crandall violated 

SCR 22.26(1)(c) (Count Four). 

¶19 Finally, the referee determined that Attorney Crandall 

violated SCR 22.03(2) and (6),

3 enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h),4 by 

 

Promptly provide written notification to the 

court or administrative agency and the attorney for 

each party in a matter pending before a court or 

administrative agency 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. The notice shall identify 

the successor attorney of the attorney's client 184 

or, if there is none at the time notice is given, 

shall state the client's place of residence.

3 SCR 22.03(2) and (6) provide:

(2) Upon commencing an investigation, the 

director shall notify the respondent of the matter 

(continued)
No. 2014AP2487-D 

7

failing to timely respond to the OLR's requests for a response 

to a grievance investigation, doing so only after this court 

issued an order to show cause (Count Five).

¶20 The referee then considered the stipulation for a 

public reprimand, mindful of his need to consider the 

seriousness, nature, and extent of misconduct, the level of 

discipline needed to protect the public and the legal system 

from repetition of the misconduct, the need to impress on the 

attorney the seriousness of the misconduct, and the need to 

deter others from committing similar acts. See In re 

 

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.

4 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides that 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. 2014AP2487-D 

8

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Scanlan, 2006 WI 38, ¶72, 

290 Wis. 2d 30, 712 N.W.2d 877, citing In re Disciplinary 

Proceedings Against Charlton, 174 Wis. 2d 844, 875-76, 

498 N.W.2d 380 (1993). The referee noted that he considered 

Attorney Crandall's prior disciplinary history and the concept 

of progressive discipline. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Nussberger, 2006 WI 111, ¶27, 296 Wis. 2d 47, 719 N.W.2d 

501. 

¶21 The referee noted that the OLR relied on three prior 

cases in support of the recommended discipline. Public 

Reprimand of Arik J. Guenther, 2007-3 (imposing public reprimand 

where attorney failed to notify two clients of his suspension, 

failed to include the two clients on his affidavit of compliance 

filed with the OLR, and also failed to cooperate with the OLR); 

Public Reprimand of Michael G. Trewin, 2006-6 (imposing public 

reprimand where lawyer failed to notify the court and opposing 

counsel of his suspension in several cases, failed to include 

those cases on his affidavit of compliance filed with the OLR, 

and had a conflict of interest on a matter); Public Reprimand of 

Hazel J. Washington, 2007-10 (imposing public reprimand for 

lawyer's failure to inform a client, opposing counsel, and the 

court of her suspension; failure to list the client, court, and 

file number on the affidavit of compliance filed with the OLR;

and failure to provide competent representation). The referee 

observed that Attorney Crandall's ethical violations in this 

matter reflect a level of indifference to the requirements of 

the supreme court rules. The referee concluded that public 
No. 2014AP2487-D 

9

discipline is appropriate and recommends that we publicly 

reprimand Attorney Crandall in this matter. 

¶22 The referee further recommends that the court follow 

its general policy and impose the full costs of the proceeding 

on Attorney Crandall. 

¶23 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. 

¶24 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 

Crandall violated the supreme court rules set forth above. In 

view of Attorney Crandall's fairly extensive prior disciplinary 

history, we considered whether suspension is necessary to 

impress upon Attorney Crandall the seriousness of his misconduct 

and the importance of abiding by the rules of professional 

conduct. On balance, we accept the referee's recommendation 

that a public reprimand is an appropriate sanction for Attorney 

Crandall's misconduct. Although no two fact situations are 

identical, a public reprimand is generally consistent with the 

sanction imposed in somewhat analogous cases. See Public 

Reprimand of Ronald J. Thompson, 2012-18 (imposing public 

reprimand for failure to comply with SCR 22.26 following license 
No. 2014AP2487-D 

10

suspension); see also In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 

Mulligan, 2009 WI 12, 315 Wis. 2d 605, 759 N.W.2d 766 (imposing 

public reprimand on lawyer with two prior reprimands).

¶25 We also agree that Attorney Crandall should be 

required to pay the full costs of the proceeding, which are 

$4,182.17. 

¶26 IT IS ORDERED that Eric L. Crandall is publicly 

reprimanded for professional misconduct. 

¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 

of this order, Eric L. Crandall shall pay to the Office of 

Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 

¶28 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. 2014AP2487-D.ssa

1

¶29 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J. (dissenting). I write in 

dissent in several attorney discipline cases because I have 

concerns about the discipline imposed.

¶30 This is Attorney Crandall's fifth brush with the OLR 

in the seven years since 2008. He has been disciplined four 

times previously: a three-month suspension, a public reprimand, 

a 30-day suspension, and a five-month suspension. It does not 

appear that the previous discipline had the impact the court 

intended. Nevertheless, the court now imposes another public 

reprimand. This sanction is too light. The court professes 

that it has "long adhered to progressive discipline." OLR v.

Netzer, 2014 WI 7, ¶49, 352 Wis. 2d 310, 841 N.W.2d 820. The 

principle of progressive discipline should be applied here. It 

is not. 

¶31 Moreover, I write to state my difficulty reconciling 

the significantly different levels of discipline imposed in the 

instant case (public reprimand) and in OLR v. Boyle, 2015 WI 

110, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___. 

¶32 In OLR v. Boyle, the referee found (and the court 

agreed) that the respondent attorney committed all six charged 

offenses (including two trust account violations). The 

discipline: a 60-day suspension plus conditions. The 

respondent attorney had received three private reprimands 

between 2002 and 2012. How does the court justify imposing 

harsher discipline on Attorney Boyle than on Attorney Crandall? 

¶33 I also have difficulty reconciling the significantly 

different levels of discipline imposed in the following three 
No. 2014AP2487-D.ssa

2

cases. The first two cases are based on a stipulation of the 

parties. The third case is a default by the respondent 

attorney:

• OLR v. Krogman, 2015 WI 113, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ 

N.W.2d ___: Upon stipulation admitting the factual 

allegations, the court orders a four-month suspension 

of license and conditions upon reinstatement. The 

complaint alleged 22 counts of professional misconduct 

involving four clients, misconduct relating to license 

suspension, and misconduct relating to trust accounts. 

The four-month suspension seems too light compared to 

the discipline imposed in the other cases.

• OLR v. Aleman, 2015 WI 112, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ 

N.W.2d ___: Illinois imposed a two-year suspension 

for two counts of misconduct stemming from co-founding 

and working with a national debt settlement firm. 

Upon stipulation of the parties, this court orders 

reciprocal discipline in Wisconsin. The two-year 

suspension seems too harsh compared to the discipline 

imposed in other cases.

• OLR v. Sayaovong, 2015 WI 100, 365 Wis. 2d 200, 871 

N.W.2d 217: This per curiam was released November 18, 

2015, imposing suspension for a period of six months. 

Attorney Sayaovong defaulted in the discipline case. 

The complaint alleged six counts of misconduct, four

counts involving two clients and two counts involving 

another client. In 2014 Attorney Sayaovong was 
No. 2014AP2487-D.ssa

3

publicly reprimanded for misconduct in two separate 

client matters. See OLR v. Sayaovong, 2014 WI 94, 357 

Wis. 2d 312, 850 N.W.2d 940. The discipline does not 

seem consistent with the discipline imposed in other 

cases.

¶34 For the reasons set forth, I write in each of these 

cases.

¶35 I am authorized to state that Justice ANN WALSH 

BRADLEY joins this opinion.
No. 2014AP2487-D.ssa

1