2014 WI 94

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2013AP1485-D 

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Amoun Vang Sayaovong, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Amoun Vang Sayaovong,

 Respondent.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SAYAOVONG

OPINION FILED: July 30, 2014

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT:

COUNTY:

JUDGE:

JUSTICES:

CONCURRED:

DISSENTED:

NOT PARTICIPATING: 

ATTORNEYS:
2014 WI 94

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2013AP1485-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Amoun Vang Sayaovong, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Amoun Vang Sayaovong,

 Respondent.

FILED

JUL 30, 2014

Diane M. Fremgen

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney publicly 

reprimanded. 

¶1 PER CURIAM. On March 14, 2014, referee Daniel L. 

Icenogle issued a report recommending that Attorney Amoun Vang 

Sayaovong be declared in default and that he be publicly 

reprimanded, as requested in the complaint filed by the Office 

of Lawyer Regulation (OLR). The referee also recommended that 

Attorney Sayaovong make restitution to one client and that he 

either promptly submit a second client matter to binding fee 

arbitration or make restitution to that client. The OLR filed a 
No. 2013AP1485-D 

2

restitution statement indicating that the second client has died 

and asks that restitution be made to that client's heirs. The 

referee also recommended that Attorney Sayaovong be required to

pay the full costs of this proceeding, which are $371.80 as of 

April 1, 2014.

¶2 We declare Attorney Sayaovong to be in default. We 

agree with the referee that Attorney Sayaovong's professional 

misconduct warrants a public reprimand. We also agree that 

Attorney Sayaovong should be ordered to make restitution and pay 

the full costs of the proceeding. 

¶3 Attorney Sayaovong was admitted to practice law in 

Wisconsin in 2007. The address he has on file with the State 

Bar of Wisconsin is in St. Paul, Minnesota. He may also have an 

office in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. On February 19, 2014, Attorney 

Sayaovong's license to practice law in Wisconsin was temporarily 

suspended due to his willful failure to cooperate in an OLR 

investigation concerning his conduct. That suspension arose out 

of the OLR's investigation into allegations of misconduct other 

than those at issue in this case. 

¶4 On July 2, 2013, the OLR filed a complaint against 

Attorney Sayaovong alleging seven counts of misconduct with 

respect to his handling of two client matters. 

¶5 The first client matter detailed in the OLR's 

complaint involved Attorney Sayaovong's representation of Y.Y. 

In January of 2009, Y.Y. asked the Social Security 

Administration (SSA) to appoint him as payee for benefits for 

his minor children. On February 9, 2009, Y.Y. paid Attorney 
No. 2013AP1485-D 

3

Sayaovong a $2,000 retainer and signed a fee agreement for 

Attorney Sayaovong to represent him in his effort to change the 

SSA's payee. 

¶6 On February 13, 2009, the SSA denied Y.Y.'s requests. 

The notices from the SSA gave Y.Y. 60 days to appeal. The 

notices identified Jay Dess as a contact person. Attorney 

Sayaovong contacted Dess in March of 2009 and he also had Y.Y. 

complete appeal forms.

¶7 On April 6, 2009, according to his invoice, Attorney 

Sayaovong submitted Y.Y.'s appeal to Jay Dess at the SSA. He 

did not send a copy of the appeal to Y.Y. Attorney Sayaovong's 

invoice indicates no further action on Y.Y.'s appeal. 

¶8 In December of 2009, Y.Y. informed Attorney Sayaovong 

that he was terminating his services. Y.Y. filed a grievance 

against Attorney Sayaovong with the OLR on July 7, 2010. 

¶9 Between November 2010 and January 2011, the OLR made 

several attempts to contact Attorney Sayaovong to investigate 

Y.Y.'s grievance. Other than providing a new address, Attorney 

Sayaovong failed to respond to the OLR's communications. 

¶10 On March 28, 2011, this court ordered Attorney 

Sayaovong to show cause why his license should not be suspended 

for failure to cooperate with the OLR. Attorney Sayaovong 

failed to respond. On April 13, 2011, this court suspended 

Attorney Sayaovong's license for failure to cooperate with the 

OLR's investigation of Y.Y.'s grievance. Attorney Sayaovong 

subsequently satisfactorily responded to the OLR in the Y.Y. 
No. 2013AP1485-D 

4

matter, and on July 15, 2011, this court reinstated Attorney 

Sayaovong's Wisconsin law license. 

¶11 On November 28, 2011, the OLR wrote to Attorney 

Sayaovong asking for more information and a copy of his Y.Y. 

file by December 12, 2011. Attorney Sayaovong failed to 

respond. The OLR sent a follow-up letter on January 10, 2012, 

reiterating its request and giving Attorney Sayaovong until 

January 20, 2012, to provide the information. Attorney 

Sayaovong failed to respond. 

¶12 On February 29, 2012, based on a motion filed by the 

OLR, this court ordered Attorney Sayaovong to show cause why his 

license should not be suspended for failure to cooperate with 

the OLR. Attorney Sayaovong filed a partial response on 

March 15, 2012, and on March 22, 2012, the OLR withdrew its 

motion. 

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

misconduct with respect to Attorney Sayaovong's representation 

of Y.Y.: 

[Count 1] Contacts with Jay Dess of the Social 

Security Administration notwithstanding, by failing 

during the period of representation to advance 

[Y.Y.'s] matter toward formal resolution, Sayaovong 

violated SCR 20:1.3.1 

[Count 2] By failing to timely file his initial 

response to [Y.Y.'s] grievance, and doing so only 

after the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause 

pursuant to SCR 22.03(4) and suspended his law license 

for willful noncooperation with OLR's investigation, 

 

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

diligence and promptness in representing a client."
No. 2013AP1485-D 

5

Sayaovong violated SCR 22.03(2)2 [and] SCR 22.03(6),

3

enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).

4

[Count 3] By failing to provide a complete 

response to OLR's November 28, 2011 request for 

additional information, and providing an incomplete 

and late response received by OLR on March 15, 2012, 

and only after the Supreme Court issued an order to 

show cause why his license should not be suspended for 

willful noncooperation with the investigation, 

Sayaovong violated SCR 22.03(6), enforced via 

SCR 20:8.4(h).

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

complaint involved Attorney Sayaovong's representation of L.Y., 

who hired Attorney Sayaovong to represent him in his immigration 

 

2 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.

3 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."

4 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. 2013AP1485-D 

6

removal proceedings in September of 2010. L.Y.'s brother paid 

Attorney Sayaovong $4,000. The parties did not sign a written 

fee agreement. The record indicates that Attorney Sayaovong 

failed to place the $4,000 in a trust account. 

¶15 In November of 2010, L.Y. terminated the 

representation and asked Attorney Sayaovong to give him an 

accounting of his fees and work and to refund $2,000. Attorney 

Sayaovong responded on November 3, 2010, saying the $4,000 was a 

nonrefundable flat fee. He failed to provide L.Y. with an 

accounting.

¶16 On February 1, 2011, L.Y. filed a grievance against 

Attorney Sayaovong. In the following months, the OLR 

corresponded with Attorney Sayaovong about this grievance. On 

February 29, 2012, based on an OLR motion, this court ordered 

Attorney Sayaovong to show cause why his license should not be 

suspended for failure to cooperate with the OLR. On March 15, 

2012, Attorney Sayaovong sent the OLR some information it had 

requested along with a copy of the L.Y. file. On March 22, 

2012, the OLR informed this court that although Attorney 

Sayaovong had not fully responded to the OLR's questions, the 

OLR could continue its investigation. 

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

misconduct with respect to Attorney Sayaovong's representation 

of L.Y.:

[Count 4] By failing to have a written fee 

agreement in the [L.Y.] matter setting forth the basis 
No. 2013AP1485-D 

7

and rate for the fee, Sayaovong violated 

SCR 20:1.16(a)(3).

5

[Count 5] By receiving $4,000 in contemplation 

of providing future legal services to [L.Y.], and by 

failing to place the $4,000 advanced fee into a trust 

account or otherwise hold the funds in trust until 

earned, and with no evidence of any intention to make 

use of the alternative advanced fee placement 

provisions stated in SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m), Sayaovong 

violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(4).6

[Count 6] By failing, upon termination of 

representation, to timely provide [L.Y.] with an 

itemized statement as to legal services rendered and 

costs incurred in connection with [L.Y.'s] immigration 

matter, Sayaovong violated SCR 20:1.16(d).7

 

5 SCR 20:1.16(a)(3) provides, "Except as stated in par. (c), 

a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation 

has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a 

client if . . . the lawyer is discharged."

6 SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) provides: 

Unearned fees and cost advances. 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.

7 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. 2013AP1485-D 

8

[Count 7] By failing to provide a complete 

supplemental response to OLR's December 28, 2011 

letter requesting addition information relating to his 

representation of [L.Y.] in his immigration matter and 

providing his incomplete response in an untimely 

manner and only after the Court issued an order to 

show cause why his license should not be suspended for 

willful noncooperation with the investigation, 

Sayaovong violated SCR 22.03(6), enforced via 

SCR 20:8.4(h).

¶18 Daniel L. Icenogle was appointed referee in the matter 

on September 23, 2013. On November 27, 2013, the OLR filed a 

motion for default judgment. The motion asked the referee to 

determine that the OLR had properly served Attorney Sayaovong by 

certified mail under SCR 22.13(1).8 The motion further sought a 

determination that Attorney Sayaovong was in default by failing 

to timely file an answer to the complaint. The motion sought an 

order for default judgment and issuance of a report making 

findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with the 

allegations in the complaint. 

¶19 The referee issued a decision on March 14, 2014, 

recommending that this court grant the OLR's motion for default 

judgment. The motion asked the referee to enter an order for 

default judgment, including a determination that all of the 

 

8 SCR 22.13(1) provides:

The complaint and the order to answer shall be 

served upon the respondent in the same manner as a 

summons under section 801.11(1) of the statutes. If, 

with reasonable diligence, the respondent cannot be 

served under section 801.11(1)(a) or (b) of the 

statutes, service may be made by sending by certified 

mail an authenticated copy of the complaint and order 

to answer to the most recent address furnished by the 

respondent to the state bar.
No. 2013AP1485-D 

9

allegations of the complaint are deemed established. By 

recommending that this court grant the motion for default 

judgment, the referee implicitly incorporated by reference the 

allegations in the OLR's complaint and deemed them established. 

The referee also recommended that Attorney Sayaovong be publicly 

reprimanded; that he be ordered to pay restitution of $2,000 to 

L.Y.; that he either promptly submit the Y.Y. matter to binding 

fee arbitration or pay restitution of $2,000 to Y.Y.; and that 

he be ordered to pay the full costs of this proceeding. 

¶20 The OLR filed a restitution statement on April 1, 

2014, saying the OLR has learned through communications with a 

relative of Y.Y. that Y.Y. died in 2013. As a result, the OLR 

requests that this court order Attorney Sayaovong to make 

restitution to Y.Y.'s heirs. 

¶21 Attorney Sayaovong has not filed an appeal from the 

referee's report.

¶22 We agree with the referee that Attorney Sayaovong 

should be declared in default. Although the OLR effected 

service of its complaint pursuant to SCR 22.13(1) and although 

Attorney Sayaovong was given notice of the hearing on the motion 

for default judgment, he failed to appear or present a defense. 

Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to declare him in default. 

¶23 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless they 

are 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 
No. 2013AP1485-D 

10

referee's recommendation. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 

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

¶24 We agree with the referee that the allegations in the 

OLR's complaint have been established and that Attorney 

Sayaovong engaged in the seven counts of misconduct alleged in 

the complaint. We further agree that a public reprimand is an 

appropriate sanction for Attorney Sayaovong's misconduct, and we 

agree that he should pay the full costs of the proceeding. 

Finally, we agree that Attorney Sayaovong should be ordered to 

make restitution of $2,000 to Y.Y.'s heirs and should be ordered 

to make restitution of $2,000 to L.Y.

¶25 IT IS ORDERED that Amoun Vang Sayaovong is publicly 

reprimanded. 

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

of this order, Amoun Vang Sayaovong shall make restitution of 

$2,000 to Y.Y.'s heirs and shall make restitution of $2,000 to 

L.Y. 

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

of this order, Amoun Vang Sayaovong shall pay to the Office of 

Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 

$371.80.

¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified 

above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of 

Lawyer Regulation.

¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of Amoun Vang 

Sayaovong to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain temporarily 

suspended pursuant to this court's February 19, 2014 order. 
No. 2013AP1485-D 

11
No. 2013AP1485-D 

1