2024 WI 34

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2024AP244-D

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Kristin D. Lein, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Kristin D. Lein,

 Respondent.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST LEIN

OPINION FILED: August 9, 2024 

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT: 

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT: 

COUNTY: 

JUDGE: 

JUSTICES:

Per curiam. 

ATTORNEYS:
2024 WI 34

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2024AP244-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Kristin D. Lein, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Kristin D. Lein,

 Respondent.

FILED

AUG 9, 2024

Samuel A. Christensen

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license 

revoked. 

¶1 PER CURIAM. The court has before it a report and 

recommendation filed on June 3, 2024, by Referee James D. 

Friedman. The report recommends that this court revoke the 

license of Attorney Kristin Debra Lein to practice law in 

Wisconsin for conduct related to her recent federal criminal 

conviction. The parties have stipulated that revocation is 

appropriate. We agree that revocation is appropriate and direct 

Attorney Lein to pay the costs of this proceeding, which total 

$659.17 as of July 25, 2024. In addition, consistent with the 
No. 2024AP244-D 

2

parties' stipulation and the referee's report, we direct 

Attorney Lein to satisfy a restitution obligation imposed in the 

federal judgment of conviction. 

¶2 Attorney Lein was licensed to practice law in 

Wisconsin on December 17, 1998. This court summarily suspended 

her Wisconsin law license on December 12, 2023, due to her 

federal criminal conviction, described more fully below. Her 

license remains suspended.

¶3 On May 23, 2023, the United States Attorney for the 

Western District of Wisconsin filed an Information charging 

Attorney Lein with three criminal counts related to her 

misappropriation of funds from an estate. The Information 

alleged that Attorney Lein had drafted estate planning documents 

for an individual, J.S., and was the sole trustee of J.S.'s 

estate upon J.S.'s death. The Information further alleged that 

Attorney Lein received $1,643,818 in funds belonging to the 

estate and used the vast majority of those funds for her own 

purposes. The Information further alleged that Attorney Lein 

knowingly failed to report funds she transferred from J.S.'s 

estate to her personal bank account on her federal income taxes. 

The Information charged Attorney Lein with wire fraud, engaging 

in a monetary transaction in property derived from a specified 

unlawful activity, and tax fraud.

¶4 On the same day the Information was filed, Attorney 

Lein and the United States filed a plea agreement in which 

Attorney Lein pled guilty to all three counts and agreed that 

the factual basis of the Information was true. 
No. 2024AP244-D 

3

¶5 On September 7, 2023, the federal district court 

accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Attorney Lein to 45 

months in prison for two counts and 36 months on the third. The 

court ordered Attorney Lein to pay $1,369,491 to J.S.'s wife, 

B.T., or, in the event of B.T.'s death, to J.S.'s daughters, 

D.G. and M.R., in equal amounts. The court also ordered 

Attorney Lein to pay $239,641.56 in restitution to the Internal 

Revenue Service (IRS). 

¶6 Attorney Lein's criminal conviction formed the basis 

for this court's December 12, 2023 order summarily suspending 

her license to practice law, as well as for the Office of Lawyer 

Regulation's (OLR) ensuing disciplinary complaint filed on 

February 12, 2024, alleging one count of violating SCR 20:8.4(b)1

and one count of violating SCR 20:8.4(c).2 The OLR sought 

revocation of Attorney Lein's law license and a restitution 

award consistent with that ordered by the federal district court 

related to her misconduct toward J.S.'s estate; i.e., $1,369,491 

to J.S.'s wife, B.T., or, in the event of B.T.'s death, to 

J.S.'s daughters, D.G. and M.R., in equal amounts.3

 

1 SCR 20:8.4(b) provides that "[i]t is professional 

misconduct for a lawyer to: . . . (b) commit a criminal act that 

reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or 

fitness as a lawyer in other respects."

2 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides that "[i]t is professional 

misconduct for a lawyer to: . . . (c) engage in conduct 

involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." 

3 In the factual allegation section of its complaint, the 

OLR stated that the federal district court ordered Attorney Lein 

to pay $1,609,132.56 in restitution related to her misconduct 

toward J.S.'s estate. This appears to have been a typographical 
No. 2024AP244-D 

4

¶7 On March 13, 2024, this court appointed James D. 

Friedman as the referee in this matter.

¶8 On March 19, 2024, Attorney Lein filed an answer to 

the OLR's complaint, admitting all essential allegations and 

clarifying her understanding of the amount of restitution sought 

by the OLR. 

¶9 On May 30, 2024, the OLR and Attorney Lein filed a 

stipulation. In the stipulation, Attorney Lein stipulated to 

the two counts of misconduct alleged in the complaint and to the 

revocation of her Wisconsin law license. Attorney Lein also 

stipulated to this court requiring her to satisfy the 

restitution obligation set forth in the federal judgment of 

conviction with respect to her misconduct towards J.S.'s estate. 

Attorney Lein also agreed that the referee could use the 

allegations of the disciplinary complaint as an adequate factual 

basis for a determination of misconduct as to both counts of the 

complaint.

¶10 The referee filed a report on June 3, 2024. On the 

basis of the stipulation, the referee found as facts the 

 

error; $1,609,132.56 is the total amount of restitution ordered 

by the federal court, encompassing both the restitution owed by 

Attorney Lein related to her misconduct toward J.S.'s estate 

($1,369,491) and the restitution she owed to the IRS resulting 

from her failure to report misappropriated funds on her federal 

income taxes ($239,641.56). In the request for relief section 

of the complaint, the OLR accurately cited and requested the 

$1,369,491 in restitution ordered by the federal court related 

to Attorney Lein's misconduct toward J.S.'s estate.
No. 2024AP244-D 

5

allegations of the complaint.4 The referee concluded that 

Attorney Lein had violated SCR 20:8.4(b) and (c), as alleged. 

The referee recommended the license revocation and the 

restitution obligation agreed upon by the parties. Finally, the 

referee recommended that the court order Attorney Lein to pay 

the costs of the disciplinary proceeding.

¶11 The matter is now before this court to review the 

referee's report and recommendation. No appeal has been filed.

¶12 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.

¶13 Given the parties' stipulation to the facts described 

above and the absence of any argument that the referee's factual 

findings are clearly erroneous, we adopt them. We also agree 

with the referee's conclusions of law that Attorney Lein 

violated the two supreme court rules set forth above. Attorney 

Lein's million-dollar-plus embezzlement from J.S.'s estate and 

related tax improprieties amount to an obvious SCR 20:8.4(b) 

violation; i.e., her conduct "is so revealing of character 

 

4 The referee noted a typographical error in the OLR's 

complaint related to the amount of funds Attorney Lein 

misappropriated from J.S.'s estate, as determined by the federal 

district court. See n.3.
No. 2024AP244-D 

6

defects, and so undermines public confidence in the legal 

profession, that it necessarily reflects adversely on an 

attorney's fitness as a lawyer." In re Disciplinary Proceedings

against Johns, 2014 WI 32, ¶38, 353 Wis. 2d 746, 847 N.W.2d 179. 

So, too, is it dishonest conduct within the scope of SCR 

20:8.4(c). In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Schaller,

2006 WI 40, 290 Wis.2d 65, 713 N.W.2d 105 (holding that attorney 

violated SCR 20:8.4(c) by improperly converting payments made by 

various clients and failing to report those funds as income on 

his income tax returns).

¶14 With respect to discipline, we agree with the 

referee's observation that revocation is appropriate. The 

seriousness, scope, and sheer audacity of the misconduct at 

issue evince an attorney who lost her way and was unable or 

unwilling to adhere to her professional duties. Revocation is 

the only sanction proportionate to Attorney Lein's wrongdoing; 

anything else would unduly minimize its gravity, as the size of 

her misappropriations dwarfs those that have earned revocation 

in the past. See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 

Friesler, 2013 WI 104, 351 Wis. 2d 733, 840 N.W.2d 692 (granting 

consensual revocation petition involving allegations that 

attorney misappropriated a total of approximately $180,000 from 

two estates); Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against 

Pigatti, 207 Wis. 2d 41, 558 N.W.2d 626 (1997)(granting 

consensual revocation petition involving allegations that 

attorney misappropriated more than $80,000 belonging to an 

estate in which he was acting as attorney, disbursed $80,000 
No. 2024AP244-D 

7

from a testamentary trust contrary to the terms of the will 

creating the trust, and failed to keep the personal 

representative of the estate informed of actions taken with 

probate and trust funds); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 

Wright, 180 Wis. 2d 492, 509 N.W.2d 290 (1994) (revoking license 

of attorney who converted about $11,000 from an estate). 

¶15 In addition, consistent with the parties' stipulation 

and the referee's recommendation, we order Attorney Lein to 

satisfy the restitution obligation set forth in the federal 

judgment of conviction with respect to her misconduct toward 

J.S.'s estate ($1,369,491 to J.S.'s wife or, in the event of her 

death, to J.S.'s daughters, D.G. and M.R., in equal amounts).

¶16 Finally, we turn to the issue of costs. They total 

$659.17 as of July 25, 2024. Attorney Lein does not dispute

them, and we see no reason on this record to shift them away 

from her. We impose them in full. See SCR 22.24(1m).

¶17 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Kristin Debra Lein 

to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of 

this order.

¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Kristin Debra Lein shall 

satisfy the restitution obligation set forth in the federal 

judgment of conviction with respect to her misconduct toward 

J.S.'s estate ($1,369,491 to J.S.'s wife, B.T., or, in the event 

of her death, to J.S.'s daughters, D.G. and M.R., in equal 

amounts).

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

of this order, Kristin Debra Lein shall pay to the Office of 
No. 2024AP244-D 

8

Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 

$659.17 as of July 25, 2024.

¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent she has not 

already done so, Kristin Debra Lein shall comply with the 

provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 

license to practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked.
No. 2024AP244-D.akz

1

¶21 ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, C.J. (concurring). I 

concur in the court's order revoking Attorney Lein’s license to 

practice law in Wisconsin. I write separately to point out that 

in Wisconsin the "revocation" of an attorney's law license is 

not truly revocation because the attorney may petition for 

reinstatement after a period of five years. See SCR 

22.29(2). I believe that when it comes to lawyer discipline, 

courts should say what they mean and mean what they say. We 

should not be creating false perceptions to both the public and 

to the lawyer seeking to practice law again. See In re 

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Moodie, 2020 WI 39, 391 Wis. 2d 

196, 942 N.W.2d 302 (Ziegler, J., dissenting). And, as I stated 

in my dissent to this court's order denying Rule Petition 19-10, 

In the Matter of Amending Supreme Court Rules Pertaining to 

Permanent Revocation of a License to Practice Law in Attorney 

Disciplinary Proceedings, I believe there may be rare and 

unusual cases that would warrant the permanent revocation of an 

attorney's license to practice law. See S. Ct. Order 19-10 

(issued Dec. 18, 2019) (Ziegler, J., dissenting).

¶22 For the foregoing reason, I concur.

¶23 I am authorized to state that Justices REBECCA GRASSL 

BRADLEY, BRIAN HAGEDORN, and JILL J. KAROFSKY join this 

concurrence.
No. 2024AP244-D.akz

1