2019 WI 86 

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2017AP1882-D 

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Cole J. White, Attorney at Law: 

Office of Lawyer Regulation, 

 Complainant, 

 v. 

Cole J. White, 

 Respondent. 

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST WHITE 

OPINION FILED: August 23, 2019 

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT: 

SOURCE OF APPEAL: 

 COURT: 

 COUNTY: 

 JUDGE: 

 

JUSTICES: 

 CONCURRED: 

 DISSENTED: 

 NOT PARTICIPATING: 

 

ATTORNEYS: 

 
2019 WI 86

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2017AP1882-D 

 

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT 

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Cole J. White, Attorney at Law: 

Office of Lawyer Regulation, 

 Complainant, 

 v. 

Cole J. White, 

 Respondent. 

FILED 

AUG 23, 2019 

Sheila T. Reiff 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license 

suspended. 

¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a supplemental referee's 

report and recommendation concluding that Attorney Cole J. White 

committed 27 counts of professional misconduct in his handling 

of four client matters. The referee recommended that this court 

impose a 15-month suspension of Attorney White's law license. 

We adopt the referee's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 

recommendation regarding discipline. We also agree with the 

referee's recommendation that Attorney White be required to make 

restitution to two clients. Finally, we impose the full costs 
No. 2017AP1882-D 

2 

of this proceeding, which total $17,105.44 as of January 23, 

2019, on Attorney White. 

¶2 Attorney White was admitted to practice law in 

Wisconsin in 2013 and practices in Green Bay. He has no prior 

disciplinary history. 

¶3 On September 26, 2017, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 

(OLR) filed a complaint against Attorney White alleging 28 

counts of professional misconduct. Attorney White filed an 

answer on November 24, 2017. James R. Erickson was appointed 

referee on December 12, 2017. 

¶4 An evidentiary hearing was held on September 12, 2018. 

Attorney White chose not to appear in person at the hearing. 

His counsel, Attorney Jevon J. Jaconi, appeared on his behalf. 

Pursuant to an agreement between Attorney Jaconi and counsel for 

the OLR, with the approval of the referee, the deposition 

transcript of Attorney White, including exhibits, was offered 

and received into evidence. Two of Attorney White's former 

clients testified in person at the hearing, and two testified 

telephonically. Testimony was also taken from other witnesses, 

both in person and telephonically. 

¶5 The referee issued his initial report and 

recommendation on January 3, 2019. On April 9, 2019, this court 

remanded the matter to the referee for further proceedings. The 

referee issued a supplemental report on June 10, 2019. 

¶6 In his supplemental report, the referee noted that the 

parties agreed to dismiss one of the counts in the complaint. 

The referee further noted that Attorney White stipulated to 17 
No. 2017AP1882-D 

3 

counts in the complaint. The referee found that the OLR had met 

its burden of proof with respect to the 10 remaining disputed 

counts. 

¶7 The OLR's complaint alleged eight counts of misconduct 

with respect to Attorney White's representation of S.E. In 

September 2012, the Neenah Police Department and the Lake 

Winnebago Area Metropolitan Enforcement Group conducted a raid 

of S.E.'s business pursuant to a "no-knock" search warrant 

issued by Winnebago County Circuit Court Judge Scott Woldt, 

based upon suspicious illegal drug activities. S.E. was charged 

with several felonies following the raid. In December 2013, he 

pled no contest to a signal misdemeanor possession charge. All 

other charges were dropped. 

¶8 During the criminal proceeding against S.E., S.E.'s 

attorney brought a motion to suppress evidence on the basis that 

the warrant was not valid because Judge Woldt was not "neutral 

and detached" and should have disqualified himself from issuing 

the warrant. The motion was denied. 

¶9 In June of 2014, S.E. hired Attorney White to file a 

federal civil rights lawsuit against the City of Neenah and 

others as a result of the raid. Attorney White provided S.E. 

with a fee agreement charging a flat fee of $4,500 plus a 30 

percent contingent fee on any settlement. S.E. was to be 

responsible for any costs. The fee agreement did not state 

Attorney White's intention to use the alterative fee placement 

measures allowed under former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m). S.E. paid 
No. 2017AP1882-D 

4 

Attorney White the $4,500 flat fee in installments. Attorney 

White did not place any of the money in his trust account. 

¶10 On December 2, 2014, Attorney White filed a lawsuit in 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

Wisconsin. The plaintiffs included S.E. and his business, as 

well as adjoining business owners. The defendants included the 

City of Neenah, the Neenah Police Department, Judge Woldt, the 

Neenah Police Chief, a captain of the Neenah Police Department, 

and Winnebago County. Attorney White's complaint against Judge 

Woldt was based on the judge's signing of the search warrant, 

which the plaintiffs asserted was "overly broad and invalid." 

The complaint also alleged the judge was not neutral because of 

a prior dispute between him and S.E. 

¶11 Judge Woldt was represented in the lawsuit by 

Assistant Attorney General David C. Rice. On December 9, 2014, 

AAG Rice filed a motion to dismiss on numerous grounds including 

judicial immunity, Eleventh Amendment immunity, failure to state 

a claim upon which relief can be granted, issue preclusion, and 

lack of jurisdiction. Attorney White did not respond to the 

motion to dismiss, and the court granted it on February 5, 2015. 

Attorney White told the OLR he did not respond to the motion 

because he believed it would be granted. Attorney White 

admitted to the OLR that the complaint he filed was "bloviated 

and histrionic," but he said he filed it anyway because it was 

what his client wanted "in terms of sending a message." 

¶12 Attorney White failed to respond to requests that he 

provide dates that his clients would be available for a 
No. 2017AP1882-D 

5 

deposition. He also failed to respond to interrogatories and 

requests for production of documents. 

¶13 S.E. periodically contacted Attorney White to find out 

the status of the case. Attorney White would respond by saying 

that everything was taken care of, things were going well, and 

he hoped to set up a settlement conference. On November 13, 

2015, counsel for the City of Neenah and the Neenah Police 

Department filed a motion to dismiss based on the plaintiffs' 

failure to prosecute the action. Attorney White failed to 

provide his clients with a copy of the motion to dismiss. On 

November 30, 2015, Attorney White responded to the motion 

claiming he had moved his office and did not receive deposition 

notices until the day after they were scheduled to take place 

because the defendants had mailed the notices to his former 

office address. Attorney White also claimed he had notified the 

defendants of his new office address in June 2015 and that the 

plaintiffs had all the evidence they needed to proceed to trial. 

Attorney White did not copy his clients with his response to the 

motion to dismiss. After filing the response, Attorney White 

mentioned the motion to dismiss in a text message he sent to 

S.E. that included the statement "we filed a response calling 

out their game." 

¶14 On December 1, 2015, counsel for Winnebago County also 

filed a motion to dismiss due to the plaintiffs' failure to 

state a claim against the County and the plaintiffs' failure to 

prosecute the case. On December 14, 2015, counsel for the 

Neenah Police Department and the City of Neenah filed a reply to 
No. 2017AP1882-D 

6 

Attorney White's response to their motion to dismiss alleging 

that the response contained flagrant misrepresentations. 

¶15 On January 2, 2016, Attorney White filed a response to 

Winnebago County's motion to dismiss that was identical to his 

response to the City of Neenah's and Neenah Police Department's 

motion. Attorney White included no supporting affidavits or 

memorandum, and he did not copy his clients on his response. 

¶16 On January 20, 2016, the court issued a decision 

granting the remaining defendants' motions to dismiss and 

ordering Attorney White to personally pay a sanction of $1,500 

to the defendants. Attorney White failed to inform S.E. and the 

other plaintiffs of the dismissal order. S.E. learned about the 

dismissal when reporters asked him for comment. 

¶17 On January 26, 2016, S.E. wrote to Attorney White 

directing him to file an appeal. Attorney White falsely 

informed S.E. that he "never received a goddamned email from 

them about dates" and that the defendants had filed a motion to 

dismiss because Attorney White did not timely receive notice of 

the deposition. Attorney White agreed to file a notice of 

appeal and said the judge's decision was "filled with so many 

lies, misstatements and misconstructions it verges on the 

absurd." 

¶18 S.E. subsequently hired new counsel. On February 17, 

2016, S.E.'s new counsel filed a motion to alter or amend the 

judgment dismissing the case. The motion was denied, with the 

court commenting that "the merits of the complaint, which had 

named a judge, were not particularly strong." 
No. 2017AP1882-D 

7 

¶19 In April 2016, S.E. filed a grievance against Attorney 

White with the OLR. In Attorney White's response to the 

grievance, he falsely said that he had had several conversations 

with S.E. about the depositions and that S.E. had expressed 

exasperation and annoyance about having to answer questions. 

Attorney White also falsely stated that he had a telephone 

conversation with counsel for the defendants telling them the 

location of the depositions was problematic. Attorney White 

also falsely told the OLR that he had informed the defendants' 

counsel of his new address in a telephone call. 

¶20 Attorney White also provided an email to the OLR, 

purportedly written on September 14, 2015, in which he requested 

a call to discuss scheduling depositions. The email was 

fabricated. 

¶21 Attorney White has not paid the $1,500 in costs and 

attorney's fees as ordered in the court's January 20, 2016 

decision. 

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

misconduct with respect to Attorney White's representation of 

S.E.: 
No. 2017AP1882-D 

8 

Count 1: By failing to hold the advanced fees that 

S.E. paid to him in trust, Attorney White violated 

former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4).1

Count 2: By naming Judge Woldt as a defendant despite 

his immunity as a judge from civil suits for his 

judicial acts and the existence of multiple other 

grounds precluding a civil action against Judge Woldt, 

Attorney White violated SCR 20:3.1(a)(1).2

Count 3: By failing to respond to requests from 

opposing counsel and by failing to otherwise take 

action to prosecute his clients' case, Attorney White 

violated SCR 20:1.3.3

 

1 Effective July 1, 2016, substantial changes were made to 

Supreme Court Rule 20:1.15, the "trust account rule." See S. 

Ct. Order 14-07, 2016 WI 21 (issued Apr. 4, 2016, eff. July 1, 

2016). Because the conduct underlying this case arose prior to 

July 1, 2016, unless otherwise indicated, all references to the 

supreme court rules will be to those in effect prior to July 1, 

2016. 

Former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) provided: 

Except as provided in par. (4m) unearned fees and 

advanced payments of fees shall be held in trust until 

earned by the lawyer, and withdrawn pursuant to sub. 

(g). Funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for 

payment of costs shall be held in trust until the 

costs are incurred. 

2 SCR 20:3.1(a)(1) provides: "In representing a client, a 

lawyer shall not knowingly advance a claim or defense that is 

unwarranted under existing law, except that the lawyer may 

advance such claim or defense if it can be supported by good 

faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of 

existing law." 

3 SCR 20:1.3 provides: "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 

diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
No. 2017AP1882-D 

9 

Count 4: By failing to respond to the defendants' 

discovery requests, Attorney White violated 

SCR 20:3.4(d).4

Count 5: By failing to inform S.E. and the other 

plaintiffs of the defendants' discovery requests, 

including interrogatories and deposition notices and 

by failing to inform them of the dismissal of the 

lawsuit, Attorney White violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3).5

Count 6: In the course of the federal lawsuit filed 

on behalf of S.E., by making false statements in 

documents filed with the court, Attorney White 

violated SCR 20:3.3(a)(1).6

Count 7: By making false statements to his client 

about the status of the case and the conduct of the 

opposing parties, Attorney White violated 

SCR 20:8.4(c).7

Count 8: In the course of the OLR's investigation, by 

fabricating an email in an effort to show that he had 

responded to opposing counsel's request to schedule 

depositions and inform them of his new office address, 

by falsely asserting that he and/or his intern had 

telephone conversations with opposing counsel, and 

telling the OLR "the court records were updated" in 

response to the OLR's request for evidence that he had 

informed opposing counsel of his new address, and that 

 

4 SCR 20:3.4(d) provides: "A lawyer shall not in pretrial 

procedure, make a frivolous discovery request or fail to make 

reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper 

discovery request by an opposing party." 

5 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides: "A lawyer shall keep the 

client reasonably informed about the status of the matter." 

6 SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) provides: "A lawyer shall not make a 

false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct 

a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the 

tribunal by the lawyer." 

7 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: "It is professional misconduct 

for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 

deceit or misrepresentation." 
No. 2017AP1882-D 

10 

he had several conversations with his clients about 

scheduling depositions, Attorney White violated 

SCR 22.03(6),8 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h).9

¶23 The second client matter detailed in the OLR's 

complaint involved Attorney White's representation of R.R., who 

hired Attorney White to represent him in modifying a custody and 

placement order that granted R.R.'s ex-wife sole custody and 

granted R.R. supervised visits and telephone contact with his 

daughter. At the time he undertook this representation, 

Attorney White had little or no experience in custody and 

placement cases. 

¶24 On September 23, 2014, Attorney White provided R.R. 

with a written agreement to represent him "in connection with 

the alteration of custody and placement order currently in 

effect with K.K.," which would "include counseling, advocacy and 

representation in all hearings, motions, mediations and any 

other proceedings arising in or related to this action." 

Attorney White charged R.R. a flat fee of $11,000 and described 

the fee as being non-refundable. The fee agreement did not 

 

8 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." 

9 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. 2017AP1882-D 

11 

state Attorney White's intention to use the alterative fee 

placement measures allowed under former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m). 

R.R.'s mother and step-father paid the $11,000 advanced fee to 

Attorney White. Attorney White did not place the money in his 

trust account. 

¶25 On June 26, 2015, Attorney White filed a three-page 

standard "fill in the blank" motion to modify form available on 

the court's website. The motion requested that physical 

placement of R.R.'s daughter be modified from primary placement 

to shared placement and legal custody be modified to joint legal 

custody. The factual basis alleged in support of the motion was 

that the mother regularly withheld visitation and contact and 

had made baseless criminal allegations against Attorney White's 

client. 

¶26 A motion hearing was held before a court commissioner 

on September 23, 2015. The court commissioner denied the 

motions since no substantial change had been alleged since the 

September 26, 2013 custody and placement order; the 

psychological issues that served as the basis for supervised 

visitation had not been addressed; and the allegations of 

interference with visitation were more properly the subject of 

an enforcement motion. 

¶27 Despite R.R. providing Attorney White with a 

substantial amount of documentation about the placement case, 

including police reports, court records, and other documents, 

Attorney White did not provide any of those documents to the 

court commissioner. 
No. 2017AP1882-D 

12 

¶28 Attorney White claimed that after the September 2015 

hearing he informed R.R. he would pursue a new application to 

the court to modify placement, but that R.R. never provided the 

necessary information. As a result, Attorney White said he 

considered the case closed. Attorney White had no documentation 

that he ever explained to R.R. the outcome of the motion, that 

he requested additional information from R.R. to pursue the 

matter, or that he considered the matter closed. Attorney White 

provided no documentation that he earned the entire $11,000 

advanced fee. 

¶29 Attorney White subsequently led R.R. to believe that 

the custody matter was ongoing and advised R.R. to claim a Texas 

residence in order to establish a substantial change in 

circumstances. 

¶30 On September 23, 2015, R.R. hired Attorney White to 

pursue a second matter, a defamation claim against his ex-wife 

alleging she falsely accused him of molesting their daughter. 

Attorney White provided R.R. a second fee agreement which 

provided for a flat fee of $5,000 that was described as nonrefundable. The agreement acknowledged receipt of an initial 

$200 payment and called for additional payments of $300 on 

September 24 and $4,500 by October 9. The second fee agreement 

did not state Attorney White's intention to use the alterative 

fee placement measures allowed under former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m). 

¶31 R.R. paid Attorney White a total of $2,700 toward the 

defamation action. Attorney White did not place the funds in 

his trust account. 
No. 2017AP1882-D 

13 

¶32 In January 2016, R.R. sent Attorney White a text 

message inquiring about the status of both cases. Attorney 

White offered to meet R.R. on January 15, 2016, and R.R. 

confirmed the meeting with a text message to Attorney White on 

January 15. When R.R., along with his mother and step-father, 

arrived for the meeting, Attorney White was leaving and claimed 

the meeting had not been confirmed. At the January 15, 2016 

meeting, R.R. provided Attorney White with a Texas address. 

Attorney White maintained the custody case was ongoing and he 

had scheduled 19 court dates but had to cancel them because R.R. 

was unavailable. 

¶33 On March 1, 2016, after not hearing from Attorney 

White, R.R. sent Attorney White a text message asking about a 

court date in the custody matter. R.R. asked that Attorney 

White return the remaining funds paid to him in the defamation 

case. Attorney White failed to respond. 

¶34 On April 27, 2016, R.R. filed a grievance against 

Attorney White with the OLR. In response, Attorney White 

acknowledged a refund was due in the defamation case. He said 

he had not provided R.R. with a refund because R.R. had not 

clarified that he wanted to terminate the representation, 

despite Attorney White's repeated efforts to reach him over the 

past 10 weeks. Attorney White had no documentation of any 

attempts to contact R.R. 

¶35 On June 5, 2016, Attorney White sent R.R. a letter 

accounting for the fees in the defamation action. Attorney 

White charged R.R. for 12.5 hours of legal work, for a total of 
No. 2017AP1882-D 

14 

$3,125. Although the accounting exceeded the advanced fees, 

Attorney White refunded R.R. $270. 

¶36 As to the reasonableness of the $11,000 advanced fee 

in the custody case, Attorney White acknowledged the "fee was 

higher than necessary." However, Attorney White told the OLR 

that the fee was reasonable based upon his research in Nolo 

guides and on Google, as well as his expectation that there 

would be weekly calls and meetings and a large amount of 

documents to review. 

¶37 R.R. says he visited Attorney White's office at least 

ten times and left repeated phone messages asking that Attorney 

White return his file. While Attorney White claims he returned 

the file to R.R. on June 5, 2016, R.R. denies receiving it. 

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

misconduct with respect to Attorney White's representation of 

R.R.: 

Count 9: By charging R.R. $11,000 to represent him in 

bringing a standard motion to modify a custody order 

when Attorney White had no experience handling such 

matters, performed little work, and achieved no 

results, Attorney White violated SCR 20:1.5(a).10

 

10 SCR 20:1.5(a) provides: 

A lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, 

or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable 

amount for expenses. The factors to be considered in 

determining the reasonableness of a fee include the 

following: 

(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and 

difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill 

requisite to perform the legal service properly; 

(continued) 
No. 2017AP1882-D 

15 

Count 10: By failing to hold in trust the $11,000 and 

the $2,700 advanced fees paid to him for the two 

matters he agreed to handle on R.R.'s behalf, with no 

evidence of an intention to utilize the advanced fee 

alternative, Attorney White in each instance violated 

former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4). 

Count 11: By failing to review file materials, obtain 

evidence, and develop a viable strategy for pursuing 

R.R.'s objective of modifying the placement order and 

addressing the specific issues that served as the 

basis for supervised placement, Attorney White 

violated SCR 20:1.1.11

Count 12: By failing to take sufficient action on 

behalf of R.R. to achieve his objective of returning 

to shared custody and unsupervised placement with his 

daughter, Attorney White violated SCR 20:1.3. 

 

(2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, 

that the acceptance of the particular employment will 

preclude other employment by the lawyer; 

(3) the fee customarily charged in the locality 

for similar legal services; 

(4) the amount involved and the results obtained; 

(5) the time limitations imposed by the client or 

by the circumstances; 

(6) the nature and length of the professional 

relationship with the client; 

(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of 

the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and 

(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent. 

11 SCR 20:1.1 provides: "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. 2017AP1882-D 

16 

Count 13: By failing to take any action on behalf of 

R.R. to pursue the defamation claim Attorney White 

agreed to handle, Attorney White violated SCR 20:1.3.

Count 14: By providing R.R. with false case status 

information in the post-divorce custody and placement 

case, including leading R.R. to believe the case was 

ongoing, Attorney White violated SCR 20:8.4(c).

Count 15: By failing to return R.R.'s file to him 

upon termination of the representation; failing upon 

termination of the representation to refund to R.R. 

the fees paid to Attorney White in advance to pursue 

modification of a custody and placement order, which 

fees Attorney White could not establish were earned; 

and failing upon termination of the representation to 

refund to R.R. the fees paid to Attorney White in 

advance to pursue a defamation action, which fees 

Attorney White could not establish were earned, 

Attorney White, in each instance, violated 

SCR 20:1.16(d).12

Count 16: By misrepresenting to the OLR that he had 

returned R.R.'s file, Attorney White violated 

SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h). 

¶39 The third client matter detailed in the OLR's 

complaint involved Attorney White's representation of K.G., who 

hired Attorney White to represent her in a dispute with her 

former landlord in January of 2016. In November 2015, K.G., who 

 

12 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides: 

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 or expense that has not 

been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers 

relating to the client to the extent permitted by 

other law. 
No. 2017AP1882-D 

17 

operated a dance studio, received a notice to quit or pay rent. 

The landlord asserted that K.G. owed over $38,000 in rent, 

maintenance, expenses, and property tax. K.G. vacated the 

property in late December 2015. 

¶40 On January 9, 2016, K.G. paid Attorney White an 

advanced fee of $1,000. Attorney White led K.G. to believe a 

resolution of the lease dispute was possible. K.G. denies 

receiving a fee agreement from Attorney White. Attorney White 

later gave the OLR an unsigned fee agreement that stated he 

agreed to provide "counseling, advocacy, and any negotiation 

conferences or settlement meetings should they occur," but not 

any "in court" activities. The agreement provided that the fees 

would be charged on a flat fee basis for a period of one year. 

The agreement did not state Attorney White's intention to use 

the alterative fee placement measures allowed under former 

SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m). 

¶41 Attorney White told the OLR that after he was hired he 

made several attempts to communicate with counsel for K.G.'s 

landlord, but he provided no documentation to support that 

statement. In May 2016, the landlord filed suit against K.G. 

and her business seeking a money judgment for amounts due under 

the lease agreement. K.G. was served on May 20, 2016. She 

notified Attorney White of the lawsuit by text message that day 

and informed him the answer was due in 20 days. Attorney White 

informed K.G. he had been "calling the lawyer for two weeks 

daily with no returns" and asked that she fax a copy of the 

complaint to him. 
No. 2017AP1882-D 

18 

¶42 K.G. did not have a fax machine and offered to drop 

off the complaint at Attorney White's office on May 21, 2016. 

Attorney White offered to meet K.G. elsewhere as his office 

would be closed. The meeting never took place. 

¶43 Throughout May and June 2016, K.G. contacted Attorney 

White several more times via text message with questions about 

filing for bankruptcy and requesting that Attorney White contact 

opposing counsel to offer a lesser amount. Attorney White told 

K.G. that the landlord's attorney stated on a couple occasions 

he would talk to his client, but that Attorney White had heard 

nothing back from him. 

¶44 On June 7, 2016, K.G. asked Attorney White if he could 

file an answer. Attorney White did not respond. K.G. sent 

another text message asking if Attorney White was able to file 

the answer. Attorney White responded that K.G. never provided 

him with a copy of the complaint and that he would need that in 

order to do anything. K.G. provided Attorney White with a copy 

of the complaint that same day via email and text message. 

Attorney White acknowledged receipt of the complaint and told 

K.G., "I'll file an answer at no additional charge. But if this 

goes into further litigation without resolution then there will 

be additional fees." 

¶45 On June 9 and 10, 2016, K.G. asked Attorney White if 

there were any updates, and Attorney White failed to respond. 

Attorney White failed to file an answer on K.G.'s behalf. On 

June 21, 2016, the landlord's attorney filed a motion for 

default judgment. K.G. received notice of the default judgment 
No. 2017AP1882-D 

19 

motion in the mail on June 22, 2016. She contacted Attorney 

White, who responded that he had not known that half the time 

for a response had elapsed when he agreed to file an answer and 

said "an Answer isn't something that I can turn out overnight." 

¶46 On June 23, 2016, K.G. sent Attorney White a certified 

letter terminating his representation and requesting that 

Attorney White send her an itemization of his services. 

Attorney White responded on July 18, 2016, refusing to return 

any fees. He claimed he had fulfilled the purpose of their 

agreement, and he failed to provide an accounting. 

¶47 Counsel for K.G.'s landlord said that to his knowledge 

he never had any contact with Attorney White either before or 

after filing the lawsuit against K.G. 

¶48 K.G. hired successor counsel, who moved to reopen the 

case. The matter was settled before the action was reopened, 

with K.G. paying the full amount owed. 

¶49 K.G. filed a grievance against Attorney White with the 

OLR. During the OLR's investigation, Attorney White falsely 

told the OLR he had made several attempts to contact the 

landlord's attorney and that after the lawsuit was filed he 

informed opposing counsel's office that he represented K.G. 

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

misconduct of with respect to Attorney White's representation of 

K.G.: 

Count 17: By failing to hold in trust the advanced 

fees paid to him by K.G., Attorney White violated 

former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4). 
No. 2017AP1882-D 

20 

Count 18: By failing to take any action to attempt to 

resolve K.G.'s dispute with her landlord prior to the 

filing of the collection lawsuit; and by failing to 

file an answer on K.G.'s behalf to the collection 

lawsuit, Attorney White, in each instance, violated 

SCR 20:1.3. 

Count 19: By providing K.G. with inaccurate case 

status information, including by representing to his 

client that he had contacted opposing counsel in an 

effort to negotiate resolution of her lease dispute, 

when he had taken no such action, Attorney White 

violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 

Count 20: By failing to provide K.G. a bill itemizing 

the services he provided in order to substantiate that 

he had earned the fee advanced to him, Attorney White 

violated SCR 20:1.5(b)(3).13

Count 21: By failing upon termination of the 

representation to refund to K.G. the $1,000 advanced 

fees she paid and which he had not earned, Attorney 

White violated SCR 20:1.16(d). 

Count 22: In the course of the OLR's investigation of 

K.G.'s grievance, by willfully providing the OLR false 

information that he had made several attempts to 

contact counsel for the landlord and, once the lawsuit 

was filed, had informed opposing counsel's office that 

he represented K.G., Attorney White violated 

SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h). 

¶51 The final client matter detailed in the OLR's 

complaint involved Attorney White's representation of W.B., who 

hired Attorney White to file a social security disability claim 

in September 2015. On September 11, 2015, W.B. signed a fee 

agreement. The agreement required a $1,500 flat fee and stated 

that Attorney White would charge an additional "10% of any back-

 

13 SCR 20:1.5(b)(3) provides: "A lawyer shall promptly 

respond to a client's request for information concerning fees 

and expenses." 
No. 2017AP1882-D 

21 

pay settlement amount collected." The fee agreement did not 

state Attorney White's intention to use the alterative fee 

placement measures allowed under former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m). 

Attorney White failed to place the $1,500 advanced fee in his 

trust account. 

¶52 In December 2015, W.B. moved to Florida and provided 

Attorney White with his new address. Over the next few months, 

W.B. sent Attorney White periodic text messages inquiring about 

the status of the claim. On March 1, 2016, W.B. texted Attorney 

White. Attorney White failed to respond. On April 25, 2016, 

Attorney White responded to W.B.'s request for an update saying, 

"Yes it's under review. It's a painfully slow process." On 

June 29, 2016, W.B. again requested an update, and Attorney 

White again failed to respond. 

¶53 On July 5, 2016, W.B. sent Attorney White a message 

saying he understood that Attorney White was experiencing some 

health issues but that W.B. needed to know what was happening. 

Attorney White responded the same day saying, "It takes 6-12 

months for even an initial review date." 

¶54 On August 18, 2016, W.B. went to a Social Security 

Administration office in Florida to check on his disability 

application and learned there was no application on file for 

him. When W.B. texted Attorney White informing him that the 

Social Security Administration had no record of his claim, 

Attorney White responded that he uses a "sub atty for those 

cases" and he promised to follow up. Attorney White said if no 

action had been taken he would refund W.B.'s fee. W.B. was not 
No. 2017AP1882-D 

22 

aware of and never consented to Attorney White referring his 

case to another attorney. 

¶55 On August 26, 2016, W.B. filed his own application for 

disability benefits with the Social Security Administration and 

instructed Attorney White to send him a refund by the end of the 

week. Attorney White said he would send a refund. He also said 

he spoke to and terminated the attorney to whom he had referred 

W.B.'s case. However, on or about August 26, 2016 through 

September 29, 2016, the attorney to whom Attorney White claimed 

he referred the case was in jail. 

¶56 On September 7, 2016, W.B. sent Attorney White a text 

message asking about the refund. Attorney White said it "went 

in the mail on Friday." On September 14, 2016, W.B. texted 

Attorney White again saying he had not received the refund. 

Attorney White failed to respond. On September 19, 2016, still 

not having received a refund, W.B. sent Attorney White another 

text message expressing his frustration with Attorney White's 

dishonesty and asking that he "do the right thing." Attorney 

White responded by saying he was trying to track down the 

mailing and denied he was trying to deceive W.B. W.B. replied 

with a request for a replacement check. Attorney White promised 

to check on the issue the next morning. 

¶57 On October 10, 2016, W.B filed a grievance against 

Attorney White with the OLR. Attorney White failed to respond 

to an initial request to respond to the grievance. On December 

12, 2016, Attorney White emailed the OLR acknowledging that 

nothing had been done on W.B.'s case and claiming he had 
No. 2017AP1882-D 

23 

contracted the filing out to another attorney and that attorney 

was having legal problems. Attorney White said he planned to 

refund W.B.'s fee in two installments, but he held off because 

he did not want there to be an appearance of impropriety in 

sending W.B. money without the OLR's approval. 

¶58 On December 19, 2016, the OLR sent follow-up 

correspondence to Attorney White informing him that his email 

did not fully respond to all issues raised by W.B.'s grievance. 

The OLR also informed Attorney White he did not need the OLR's 

approval to refund fees. 

¶59 On January 24, 2017, the OLR received Attorney White's 

supplemental response to W.B.'s grievance. Attorney White 

provided copies of forwarded email messages purportedly 

exchanged with the attorney he claimed he retained to handle 

W.B.'s case. Attorney White claimed, without documentation, 

that he had paid the other attorney $1,200 to handle W.B.'s case 

via a money order from Kwik Trip. The other attorney reviewed 

all of his emails, text messages, and personal calendar and was 

unable to place W.B. as a client. The other attorney also could 

not locate any emails purportedly sent to him from Attorney 

White regarding W.B.; he denied ever receiving $1,200 from 

Attorney White to handle W.B.'s case; and he said he never 

handled or wanted to handle social security disability claims. 

¶60 Attorney White told the OLR he mailed a $750 refund 

check to W.B. on January 10, 2017 and that he would mail a 

second $750 refund check on February 19, 2017. As of March 2, 

2017, W.B. had not received any refund check. 
No. 2017AP1882-D 

24 

¶61 On March 2, 2017, the OLR sent Attorney White 

correspondence via email and regular mail inquiring about the 

refund. Despite being copied with the OLR's correspondence to 

W.B. at his current address, Attorney White told the OLR, "I 

don't have a good address for him and no contact information for 

him anymore. The address I had is not correct. If you have it 

I'd love to get this to him." The OLR responded by providing 

Attorney White with W.B.'s current address. On March 9, 2017, 

W.B. confirmed receipt of two $750 refund checks from Attorney 

White. Attorney White included a handwritten note claiming he 

had initially missed a "9" in W.B.'s address. The note asked 

that W.B. only cash one of the checks and wait until the end of 

the month to cash the other one. 

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

misconduct with respect to Attorney White's representation of 

W.B.: 

Count 23: By failing to hold the advanced fee he 

received from W.B. in trust, Attorney White violated 

former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4). 

Count 24: By failing to pursue W.B.'s social security 

disability claim, Attorney White violated SCR 20:1.3. 

Count 25: By providing W.B. misleading information 

regarding the status of his social security claim, 

implying that the case was progressing and that he had 

hired another attorney to pursue the claim when 

neither was true, Attorney White violated 

SCR 20:8.4(c). 

Count 26: By failing upon termination of the 

representation to promptly refund W.B.'s entire fee, 

none of which was earned, Attorney White violated 

SCR 20:1.16(d). 
No. 2017AP1882-D 

25 

County 27: By misrepresenting to W.B. in September 

2016 that he had mailed his refund to him, Attorney 

White violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 

Count 28: In the course of the OLR's investigation of 

W.B.'s grievance, by willfully providing the OLR 

information that was not true, including falsified 

emails and assertions that he had referred W.B.'s case 

to another lawyer who neglected the case, that he had 

paid that lawyer $1,200 to handle the case, and that 

he had mailed W.B. a refund check on January 10, 2017, 

Attorney White violated SCR 22.03(6), enforced under 

the Rules of Professional Conduct via SCR 20:8.4(h). 

¶63 The referee noted in his supplemental report that the 

parties agreed to the dismissal of count 14 of the complaint. 

It also noted that by stipulation of the parties filed on 

September 20, 2018, Attorney White agreed he was not contesting 

counts 1, 10, 17, and 23 of the complaint. The referee also 

noted that in his post-trial brief Attorney White stipulated to 

counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 

28. The referee said that since Attorney White was essentially 

admitting the facts of the 16 stipulated counts, the facts 

alleged in the complaint as to each of those counts were found 

as true and correct and the referee further found that Attorney 

White committed each of those counts of misconduct. 

¶64 The referee went on to conclude that the OLR met its 

burden of proof as to the remaining ten counts of misconduct. 

As to the appropriate sanction, the referee said it was quite 

clear that Attorney White was obviously not sufficiently 

experienced or knowledgeable enough to take on responsibility 

for any of the legal matters he accepted for any of the four 

clients who filed grievances against him. The referee noted 
No. 2017AP1882-D 

26 

Attorney White apparently commenced his solo law practice 

shortly after graduating from law school. The referee said 

Attorney White: 

[H]as shown an apparent disdain for doing the 

necessary research or other work required to become a 

capable advocate for his clients in each case. 

Apparently he never asked himself "what do I have to 

prove in order to win this case?" Assistance that 

could have helped him has been readily available in 

Wisconsin if he had only been capable of recognizing 

his early limitations in complicated legal and 

practical matters of assisting his clients. The sad 

result is that his clients each suffered the 

consequences of his deficiencies. 

¶65 The referee agreed with the OLR's recommended 

sanction, a 15-month suspension of Attorney White's license to 

practice law in Wisconsin. While the referee said that, to 

Attorney White's credit, he has admitted to many of the counts 

of misconduct, he "has offered no regrets or ideas for needed 

restitution due to his lack of ability in handling the matters 

which he undertook." 

¶66 The referee recommended that Attorney White should be 

ordered to reimburse K.G. $1,000 and should be ordered to 

reimburse R.R. $13,430. Finally, the referee recommended that 

Attorney White be required to pay the full costs of this 

proceeding. 

¶67 Neither party has appealed the referee's report, so 

this matter is submitted to the court for review pursuant to 

SCR 22.17(2). We review a referee's findings of fact subject to 

the clearly erroneous standard. See In re Disciplinary 

Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 
No. 2017AP1882-D 

27 

675 N.W.2d 747. We review the referee's conclusions of law 

de novo. We determine the appropriate level of discipline 

independent 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. 

¶68 After careful review of the matter, we agree that a 

15-month suspension of Attorney White's license to practice law 

in Wisconsin is appropriate. Although no two disciplinary 

matters are precisely alike, we find that the misconduct at 

issue here is somewhat similar to that presented in In re 

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ruppelt, 2017 WI 80, 377 

Wis. 2d 441, 898 N.W.2d 473. In that case, an attorney's 

license was suspended for 15 months for multiple counts of 

misconduct which included failure to hold client money in trust; 

dishonest billing practices; dishonesty to the OLR in its 

investigation; failure to properly communicate with a client; 

and false statements to a tribunal. 

¶69 There are many similarities between the misconduct at 

issue in Ruppelt and the misconduct at issue here. In both 

cases, the attorneys repeatedly failed to follow the rules of 

professional conduct and engaged in a variety of misleading and 

deceptive behavior in an attempt to conceal their misconduct. 

Attorney White agreed to represent clients in areas of law in 

which he had little or no experience. He took their money and, 

to the extent he performed any legal services for the clients, 

his representation was profoundly deficient. He lied to his 
No. 2017AP1882-D 

28 

clients and the OLR, and he has refused to refund fees. His 

misconduct warrants a 15-month license suspension. 

¶70 We also agree with the referee's recommendation that 

Attorney White be required to make restitution in the amount of 

$1,000 to K.G. and $13,430 to R.R. Finally, as is our normal 

practice, we find it appropriate to impose the full costs of 

this disciplinary proceeding, which are $17,105.44, on Attorney 

White. 

¶71 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Cole J. White to 

practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 15 

months, effective October 4, 2019. 

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

of this order, Cole J. White shall pay restitution to R.R. in 

the amount of $13,430 and to K.G. in the amount of $1,000. 

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

of this order, Cole J. White shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 

Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $17,105.44. 

¶74 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that restitution is to be 

completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer 

Regulation. 

¶75 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Cole J. White 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. 

¶76 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 

conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See 

SCR 22.29(4)(c). 
No. 2017AP1882-D 

1