2020 WI 37

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2019AP1173-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: April 16, 2020 

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:

ORAL ARGUMENT: 

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT: 

COUNTY: 

JUDGE: 

JUSTICES:

NOT PARTICIPATING:

 

ATTORNEYS:
2020 WI 37

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2019AP1173-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of the Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Patrick J. Hudec, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

v.

Patrick J. Hudec,

 Respondent.

FILED

APR 16, 2020

Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license 

suspended.

¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a report filed by Referee James 

J. Winiarski, accepting a stipulation executed by Attorney Patrick 

J. Hudec and the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), in which 

Attorney Hudec pled no contest to four counts of professional 

misconduct and agreed that the allegations of the OLR's complaint 

were established by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence. 

Consistent with the terms of the stipulation the referee recommends 

we suspend Attorney Hudec's law license for 60 days and require 

Attorney Hudec to attend an OLR trust account seminar within one 
No. 2019AP1173-D 

2

year. The referee also recommends we order Attorney Hudec to pay 

the full costs of this proceeding, which total $3,991.10 as of 

January 29, 2020. The OLR did not request restitution and no 

restitution is ordered.

¶2 We adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions 

of law as derived from the parties' stipulation. We agree that a 

60-day suspension is appropriate and we direct Attorney Hudec to 

attend an OLR trust account seminar within one year of the date of 

this order as a condition of his continued practice of law. We 

impose the full costs of this proceeding on Attorney Hudec.

¶3 Attorney Hudec was admitted to the practice of law in 

Wisconsin in 1979. As the referee observed, Attorney Hudec has an 

extensive disciplinary history. 

 In November 1989, Attorney Hudec consented to a private

reprimand for misconduct that included accepting a 

representation that was adverse to a former client and which 

constituted a conflict of interest. Private Reprimand No. 

1989-27.

 In March 1993, Attorney Hudec consented to a second 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. Private Reprimand No. 1993-4 (electronic 
No. 2019AP1173-D 

3

copy available at https://compendium.wicourts.gov/

app/raw/002076.html).

 In May 2001, a third consensual private reprimand was imposed 

on Attorney Hudec for misconduct that included failing to 

obtain written consent to a potential conflict of interest in 

representing two clients and drafting a letter that contained 

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

 In 2008, Attorney Hudec received a consensual public 

reprimand for misconduct that included failing to act with 

reasonable diligence; failing to communicate with his client; 

and failing to cooperate with the OLR's investigation. Public 

Reprimand of Patrick J. Hudec, No. 2008-2 (electronic copy 

available at https://compendium.

wicourts.gov/app/raw/002005.html).

 In July 2014, we publicly reprimanded Attorney Hudec for four 

counts of misconduct to which Attorney Hudec had stipulated, 

including breach of his duty of competence, submitting a brief 

with inappropriate facts, and engaging in an ex parte 

communication. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hudec,

2014 WI 46, 354 Wis. 2d 728, 848 N.W.2d 287. 

 On April 18, 2019, this court suspended Attorney Hudec's 

Wisconsin law license for 60 days, effective May 30, 2019, 

for six counts of misconduct to which Attorney Hudec pled no 

contest. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hudec, 2019 

WI 39, 386 Wis. 2d 371, 925 N.W.2d 540. His misconduct 

involved shortcomings in his fee agreements; lack of 
No. 2019AP1173-D 

4

diligence; failure to communicate with clients; and failure 

to comply with discovery rules.

¶4 This disciplinary matter commenced on June 27, 2019, 

when the OLR filed a complaint against Attorney Hudec alleging 

four counts of professional misconduct. Referee Winiarski was 

appointed on August 7, 2019. Attorney Hudec failed to file a 

timely answer in this matter, so on October 1, 2019, the OLR sought 

a default judgment. 

¶5 On October 28, 2019, Attorney Hudec and the OLR entered 

into a stipulation in which Attorney Hudec pled no contest to all 

the allegations of misconduct. In the stipulation Attorney Hudec 

stated that his delays in responding to and/or cooperating with 

the OLR were medically related as a result of a lengthy illness 

during the summer of 2019, and major back surgery in January of 

2018. The parties confirmed that the stipulation was not the 

result of plea bargaining but reflects Attorney Hudec's voluntary 

decision not to contest this matter. Attorney Hudec represents 

and verifies that he fully understands the allegations to which he 

stipulated in this disciplinary matter; he fully understands his

right to contest this matter; he fully understands the

ramifications of his entry into the stipulation; he fully

understands that he has the right to consult counsel; and that his

entry into the stipulation was made knowingly and voluntarily. 

¶6 The referee requested briefing from the parties 

regarding Attorney Hudec's previous misconduct; caselaw supporting 

the recommended 60-day license suspension; and evidence and/or 

agreement regarding Attorney Hudec's medical conditions. After 
No. 2019AP1173-D 

5

consideration of the OLR's supplemental brief, the referee issued 

his report on January 9, 2020. No appeal from that report was 

filed so we consider this matter pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1

¶7 The facts found by the referee derive from the parties' 

stipulation. On January 17, 2017, the OLR received a notice of an

overdraft on Attorney Hudec's trust account. The OLR subsequently 

received notice of several additional overdrafts. A review of 

Attorney Hudec's trust account statements revealed that Attorney 

Hudec disbursed funds from his trust account dozens of times to 

pay personal and/or law firm expenses. During the same period of 

time, Attorney Hudec made trust account checks payable to "cash"

and/or made cash withdrawals from his trust account on multiple

occasions. 

¶8 Attorney Hudec then failed to cooperate with the OLR. On 

September 6, 2017, the OLR sent a letter to Attorney Hudec

requesting that he submit a written response to its investigation. 

Attorney Hudec did not timely respond. He requested extensions of 

time to respond, but then repeatedly failed to meet the extended 

deadlines and failed to provide the OLR with the requested 

information despite the OLR's multiple attempts to contact him. 

 

1 SCR 22.17(2) provides:

If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 

shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 

modify the referee's findings and conclusions or remand 

the matter to the referee for additional findings; and 

determine and impose appropriate discipline. The court, 

on its own motion, may order the parties to file briefs 

in the matter.
No. 2019AP1173-D 

6

In January 2018, at the OLR's request, this court issued an order 

to show cause as to why Attorney Hudec's license should not be 

temporarily suspended for failing to cooperate with the OLR's

investigation. This apparently prompted Attorney Hudec to provide 

the OLR with enough information, so at the OLR's request, the 

motion was withdrawn. 

¶9 In June 2018, the OLR sought additional information from 

Attorney Hudec and again, he failed to timely respond, requested 

extensions of time, and then again failed to respond. In September 

2018, at the request of the OLR, we issued another order requiring 

Attorney Hudec to show cause why his law license should not be 

temporarily suspended for failure to cooperate with the OLR 

investigation. Attorney Hudec requested and received two 

extensions of time from this court but nonetheless failed to timely 

respond to our order. On November 8, 2018, Attorney Hudec finally 

provided the OLR with sufficient information so the OLR withdrew 

its motion.

¶10 The referee concluded that Attorney Hudec committed four 

counts of professional misconduct:

 Count 1: By depositing and retaining funds belonging to

himself or his law firm in his trust account, Attorney 

Hudec violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(3).2

 

2 SCR 20:1.15(b)(3) provides: "No funds belonging to the 

lawyer or law firm, except funds reasonably sufficient to pay 

monthly account service charges, may be deposited or retained in 

a trust account."
No. 2019AP1173-D 

7

 Count 2: By making trust account checks payable to 

"cash" and by making cash withdrawals from his trust 

account, Attorney Hudec violated SCR 20:1.15(f)(2)a.3

 Count 3: By having trust account checks returned for

insufficient funds, and therefore disbursing funds from 

his trust account without the funds being available for

disbursement, Attorney Hudec violated SCR 

20:1.15(f)(4)a.4

 Count 4: By willfully failing to provide the OLR with 

a timely initial written response to the OLR Matter no. 

2017MA1283, and by willfully failing to provide the OLR 

a timely response to its June 26, 2018 request for 

additional information, Attorney Hudec violated

 

3 SCR 20:1.15(f)(2)a. provides: "No withdrawal of cash shall 

be made from a trust account or from a deposit to a trust account. 

No check shall be made payable to 'Cash.' No withdrawal shall be 

made from a trust account by automated teller or cash dispensing 

machine."

4 SCR 20:1.15(f)(4)(a) provides: "A lawyer shall not disburse 

funds from any trust account less the deposit from which those 

funds will be disbursed has cleared, and the funds are available 

for disbursement."
No. 2019AP1173-D 

8

SCR 22.03(2)5 and 22.03(6),6 enforceable via 

SCR 20:8.4(h).7

¶11 Determining appropriate discipline for professional 

misconduct involves: (1) the seriousness, nature, and extent of 

the misconduct; (2) the level of discipline needed to protect the 

public, the courts, and the legal system from repetition of the 

attorney's misconduct; (3) the need to impress upon the attorney 

the seriousness of the misconduct; and (4) the need to deter other 

attorneys from committing similar misconduct. In re Disciplinary 

Proceedings Against Hammis, 2011 WI 3, ¶39, 331 Wis. 2d 19, 793 

N.W.2d 884.

 

5 SCR 22.03(2) provides:

Upon commencing an investigation, the director 

shall notify the respondent of the matter 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 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."

7 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. 2019AP1173-D 

9

¶12 It is clear from the report that the referee questioned 

whether a 60-day suspension is adequate given Attorney Hudec's 

disciplinary history and the facts of this matter. The referee 

thus requested additional information from the parties. The OLR 

submitted a memorandum. Attorney Hudec did not respond.

¶13 The OLR's memorandum indicates that Attorney Hudec did 

not provide evidence to establish that the medical conditions he 

described caused his misconduct. In re Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Sosnay, 209 Wis. 2d 241, 243, 562 N.W.2d 137 (1997) 

("Absent a causal connection between an attorney's medical 

condition and that attorney's professional misconduct, the medical 

condition may not be considered a factor mitigating either the 

seriousness of the misconduct or the severity of discipline to be 

imposed for it.") The OLR confirmed that Attorney Hudec's medical 

concerns did not mitigate the proposed discipline. 

¶14 At the referee's request, the OLR also addressed the 

concept of progressive discipline in light of Attorney Hudec's 

lengthy history of disciplinary offenses. The OLR confirmed that 

it had factored progressive discipline into its recommended 

sanction, citing a number of cases in which an attorney with prior 

discipline was suspended for 60 days for misconduct that amounted 

to commingling of funds and prohibited trust account transactions. 

See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Runyon, 2015 WI 

95, 365 Wis. 2d 32, 870 N.W.2d 228; and In re Disciplinary 

Proceedings Against Grogan, 2011 WI 7, 331 Wis. 2d 341, 795 

N.W.2d 745.
No. 2019AP1173-D 

10

¶15 The referee was particularly troubled by Attorney Hudec's 

persistent failure to cooperate, both during the OLR's 

investigation and during the proceedings before the referee. The 

referee observed:

It is safe to conclude that the respondent knowingly and 

deliberately delays and drags his feet before giving 

proper attention to disciplinary matters. A prior 60-

day license suspension, three prior private reprimands, 

and two prior public reprimands apparently have not 

convinced the respondent of the need to fully and timely

cooperate in OLR investigations and disciplinary 

matters.

However, the referee noted that there was no evidence that any of 

Attorney Hudec's misconduct resulted in misappropriation or 

conversion of client funds; rather, Attorney Hudec's misconduct 

amounted to bookkeeping or accounting deficiencies.

¶16 On balance, informed by Wisconsin caselaw, supplemental 

briefing provided by the OLR, and the ABA Standards for Imposing 

Lawyer Sanctions, the referee accepted the proposed sanctions and 

recommends this court suspend Attorney Hudec's law license for a 

period of 60 days and require him to attend the OLR's trust account 

management seminar within one year of the date of this order. The 

referee also recommends we impose the full costs of this proceeding 

on Attorney Hudec.

¶17 Considering all of the above, we accept the referee's 

findings of fact and conclusions of law as derived from the 

stipulation, and we agree with the recommended sanctions and the 

imposition of costs. We share the referee's concern about Attorney 

Hudec's troubling propensity for delay and lack of cooperation in 
No. 2019AP1173-D 

11

disciplinary matters and warn Attorney Hudec that his failure to 

comply with the conditions imposed upon his continued practice of 

law may subject Attorney Hudec to immediate license suspension.8

¶18 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Patrick J. Hudec to 

practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 

effective May 28, 2020

¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if he has not already done 

so, Patrick J. Hudec 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.

¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of his license 

to practice law in Wisconsin, Patrick J. Hudec shall attend and 

successfully complete an Office of Lawyer Regulation trust account 

seminar within one year of the date of this order. 

¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Patrick J. Hudec fails to 

timely complete the requirement that he attend an Office of Lawyer 

Regulation trust account seminar, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 

is directed to inform this court promptly and Patrick J. Hudec's 

law license may be subject to immediate suspension.

¶22 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, which are $3,991.10 as of 

January 29, 2020.

 

8 Attending the trust account management seminar within a year 

is not a prerequisite to Attorney Hudec's reinstatement from the 

suspension we impose today.
No. 2019AP1173-D 

1