2017 WI 11

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2015AP1971-D

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Thad M. Gegner, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Thad M. Gegner,

 Respondent.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GEGNER

OPINION FILED: February 17, 2017

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT:

COUNTY:

JUDGE:

JUSTICES:

CONCURRED:

DISSENTED:

NOT PARTICIPATING: 

ATTORNEYS:
2017 WI 11

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2015AP1971-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Thad M. Gegner, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Thad M. Gegner,

 Respondent.

FILED

FEB 17, 2017

Diane M. Fremgen

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 October 12, 2016, by Referee James G. 

Curtis. The report recommends that this court accept Attorney 

Thad M. Gegner's petition for consensual license revocation, 

revoke his license to practice law in Wisconsin, and order him 

to pay restitution to certain aggrieved parties, including the 

Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (the Fund).

Attorney Gegner is the subject of a disciplinary proceeding 
No. 2015AP1971-D 

2

alleging that he committed 47 counts of misconduct in 11

different client matters, as well as an allegation of practicing 

law after suspension. He is also the subject of four additional 

pending Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) grievance matters that 

have not yet been fully investigated by the OLR.

¶2 We agree with the referee that both revocation and 

restitution are appropriate. We also agree with the referee's 

recommendation that Attorney Gegner should pay the full costs of 

this proceeding, which are $2,019.58 as of October 31, 2016.

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

Wisconsin in 2003. He does not have a disciplinary history. 

His Wisconsin law license has been suspended since April 17, 

2015, for non-cooperation with the OLR in certain of the matters

at issue in this case.

¶4 On September 28, 2015, the OLR filed a complaint 

against Attorney Gegner, setting forth 24 counts of misconduct 

over six client matters and an allegation of practicing law 

after suspension. The complaint requested a two-year 

suspension, plus payment of restitution and costs. On January 

6, 2016, the OLR filed an amended complaint against Attorney 

Gegner, setting forth 47 counts of misconduct over 11 client 

matters and an allegation of practicing law after suspension. 

The amended complaint requested revocation, plus payment of 

restitution and costs. Attorney Gegner retained counsel. At 

the parties' request, the referee stayed the proceedings while 

the parties discussed the possibility of Attorney Gegner filing 

a petition for consensual license revocation pursuant to Supreme 
No. 2015AP1971-D 

3

Court Rule (SCR) 22.19. On September 22, 2016, Attorney Gegner 

filed such a petition.

¶5 In his petition, Attorney Gegner acknowledges that he 

cannot successfully defend himself against the allegations in 

the amended complaint, which is attached to his petition as 

Appendix A. He also acknowledges that he cannot successfully 

defend himself against four pending investigative matters that 

have not been publicly charged, a summary of which is attached 

to his petition as Appendix B.

¶6 On September 29, 2016, the OLR filed a recommendation 

supporting Attorney Gegner's SCR 22.19 petition. The referee 

filed a report on October 12, 2016, recommending revocation and 

restitution. On November 30, 2016, the referee filed a 

recommendation on costs, in which he advised the court to impose 

full costs on Attorney Gegner. On October 26, 2016, the OLR 

filed a restitution statement, which it later supplemented in a 

December 29, 2016 filing. In those filings, the OLR states that 

Attorney Gegner should pay restitution as recommended by the 

referee.1

 

1 The referee determined that Attorney Gegner owes 

restitution to his former clients Dianna C., Kristin L., and 

Diane J., as well as to a subrogated party (American Family 

Mutual Insurance Company) in the Diane J. matter. The referee 

further determined that Attorney Gegner owes restitution to the 

Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection for amounts it 

paid to former clients Dianna C., Diane J., Cody W., Donald C., 

and Jose O.
No. 2015AP1971-D 

4

¶7 No appeal has been filed in this matter, so our review 

proceeds pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).

¶8 We revoke Attorney Gegner's Wisconsin law license 

effective the date of this order. The scope of his misconduct 

is vast and troubling. It is not necessary to set forth the 

particular factual allegations of every instance of misconduct 

in every client matter involved in this case. Doing so would be 

overly cumbersome, given that the amended complaint alone 

alleges almost four dozen misconduct counts, described in some 

231 separately numbered paragraphs. A synopsis of the 

information contained in the attachments to Attorney Gegner's 

petition for revocation will provide a sufficient description of 

the nature and scope of his professional misconduct.

¶9 As stated above, the OLR's amended complaint in this 

disciplinary proceeding, attached as Appendix A to the 

revocation petition, sets forth 47 counts of misconduct 

involving 11 different clients and an allegation of practicing 

law after suspension. The alleged misconduct involved 

violations of the following supreme court rules: SCR 20:1.3 

(failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 

representing a client); SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) (failing to keep a 

client reasonably informed about the status of a matter); SCR 

20:1.4(a)(4) (failing to promptly comply with reasonable 

requests by the client for information); SCR 20:1.5(b)(3) 

(failing to promptly respond to a client's request for 
No. 2015AP1971-D 

5

information concerning fees and expenses); SCR 20:1.15(b)(4)2

(failing to deposit advanced payments of fees and costs into 

trust account); SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) (failing to notify a client 

promptly after receiving funds in which a client has an interest 

and promptly deliver the funds absent an agreement or legal 

requirement to do otherwise); SCR 20:1.16(d) (failing to take 

steps to protect client's interests upon termination of 

representation); SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) (knowingly making a false 

statement of fact to a tribunal); SCR 20:3.4(c) (knowingly 

disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal); SCR 

20:8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 

deceit or misrepresentation); SCR 22.03(2) and (6), enforced via 

SCR 20:8.4(h) (failing to promptly and fully cooperate with an 

OLR investigation); and SCR 31.10(1) (engaging in the practice 

of law after a suspension for failing to satisfy continuing 

legal education requirements).

¶10 The OLR's summary of misconduct allegations in the 

four pending investigative matters that have not been publicly 

charged, attached as Appendix B to the revocation petition, 

summarizes alleged violations or potential violations of the 

following supreme court rules: SCR 20:1.3 (failing to act with 

 

2 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, (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.
No. 2015AP1971-D 

6

reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client); 

SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) (failing to keep a client reasonably informed 

about the status of a matter); SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) (failing to 

promptly comply with reasonable requests by the client for 

information); SCR 20:1.5(a) (charging an unreasonable fee); 

SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) (failing to notify a client promptly after 

receiving funds in which a client has an interest and promptly 

deliver the funds absent an agreement or legal requirement to do 

otherwise); SCR 20:1.15(g)(1) (failing to notify clients of 

withdrawal of non-contingent fees from trust account); 

SCR 20:1.16(d) (failing to take steps to protect a client's 

interests upon termination of representation); SCR 20:3.4(c) 

(knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a 

tribunal); SCR 20:8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving 

dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation); SCR 21.15(4) 

(failing to cooperate with an OLR investigation); SCR 22.03(2) 

and (6), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h) (failing to promptly and 

fully cooperate with an OLR investigation); and SCR 22.26 

(failing to comply with the duties of a person whose license to 

practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended).

¶11 We find instructive the referee's synopsis of Attorney 

Gegner's misconduct:

The facts established by OLR portray a repeated 

pattern of serious misconduct from 2011 into 2015. 

The facts establish a law practice that was spiraling 

out of control. Mr. Gegner would fail to communicate 

with his clients and would fail to perform the legal 

work and services that were necessary. He would at 

times misrepresent the status of his work to both the 
No. 2015AP1971-D 

7

clients and court. He misused and converted client 

funds and failed to provide any accounting. The 

record establishes numerous aggravating factors in 

this case and based on the Petition for Revocation by 

Consent, no mitigating factors have been shown.

"[T]o make matters worse," the referee noted, "there are at 

least 13 counts relating to Mr. Gegner's obstinate failure to 

cooperate with OLR's investigations, contrary to SCR 22.03(2) 

and (6)."

¶12 Attorney Gegner's petition for consensual revocation 

states that he cannot successfully defend against the 

allegations of professional misconduct set forth above. His 

petition asserts that he is seeking consensual revocation 

freely, voluntarily, and knowingly, and that restitution should 

be imposed. He states that he understands he is giving up his 

right to contest the OLR's allegations. He has counsel in this 

matter. The OLR supports Attorney Gegner's petition. 

¶13 As stated above, Referee Curtis has filed a report in 

this matter. The referee determined, based on Attorney Gegner's 

petition and the OLR's response, that there exists clear, 

satisfactory, and convincing evidence that Attorney Gegner has 

engaged in the misconduct alleged in the OLR's amended complaint 

in this disciplinary proceeding and in the OLR's summary of the 

matters still in the investigative process. He recommends that 

we accept the petition, order restitution, and revoke Attorney 

Gegner's license to practice law.

¶14 When reviewing a report and recommendation in an 

attorney disciplinary proceeding, we affirm a referee's findings 

of fact unless they are found to be clearly erroneous. In re 
No. 2015AP1971-D 

8

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 

Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125. We review the referee's conclusions 

of law on a de novo basis. Id. We determine the appropriate 

level of discipline given the particular facts of each case, 

independent of the referee's recommendation, but benefitting 

from it. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 

34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.

¶15 We agree with the referee that Attorney Gegner's 

petition for consensual revocation should be granted. Attorney 

Gegner has engaged in a widespread pattern of serious 

professional misconduct that has harmed his clients. He is 

either unwilling or unable to conform his conduct to the 

standards that are required to practice law in this state. 

Anything less than a revocation of his law license would unduly 

depreciate the seriousness of his misconduct, fail to protect 

the public and the court system from further misconduct, and 

inadequately deter similar misbehavior by other attorneys. 

Revocation is clearly deserved. 

¶16 We now consider restitution. The referee's 

recommendations for restitution are consistent with Attorney 

Gegner's petition and the OLR's recommendation on that petition.

3 

 

3 The referee noted in his report that, according to the 

OLR's recommendation on Attorney Gegner's SCR 22.19 petition, 

the Fund authorized payments to some of Attorney Gegner's former 

clients after he agreed in his petition to pay restitution to 

them. The referee recommended that Attorney Gegner make 

restitution to the Fund for these payments; Attorney Gegner has 

not objected. 
No. 2015AP1971-D 

9

We order Attorney Gegner to pay $652.88 to former client Dianna 

C.; $1,000 to former client Kristin L.; $2,638.90 to American 

Family Mutual Insurance Company; $3.10 to former client Diane 

J.; and $10,894 to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client 

Protection, attributable to the Fund's payments to the following 

former clients: $3,100 to Dianna C., $2,694 to Diane J., $1,800 

to Cody W., $1,700 to Donald C., and $1,600 to Jose O.

¶17 We make one further observation (and ruling) on the 

issue of restitution. In the OLR's December 29, 2016 

supplemental restitution statement, the OLR stated that it would 

not seek restitution for a $1,000 payment to Attorney Gegner's 

former client, Michelle A., which the Fund approved on December 

14, 2016. The OLR explained that, notwithstanding this payment 

by the Fund, the OLR's investigation did not identify a 

reasonably ascertainable amount of restitution to seek in the 

Michelle A. matter, and therefore it had not sought restitution 

in this matter, and would not do so now. Mindful that the Fund 

is financed by State Bar of Wisconsin members' annual fees, we 

fail to see why the $1,000 payment by the Fund to Michelle A. 

should be financed by members of the bar who have not engaged in 

misconduct, as opposed to Attorney Gegner, who has conceded his 

misconduct in the Michelle A. matter. We acknowledge that the 

Fund's $1,000 payment to Michelle A. was not addressed in the 

consensual revocation petition or in the referee's report, but 

we cannot envision any scenario in which Attorney Gegner could 

avoid reimbursing the Fund for this payment. We therefore order 

Attorney Gegner to reimburse the Fund in this amount. To the 
No. 2015AP1971-D 

10

extent that Attorney Gegner disagrees with this court's ruling 

on this point, he is free to move the court to reconsider its 

ruling. 

¶18 Finally, and consistent with the referee's 

recommendation, we determine that Attorney Gegner should be 

required to pay the full costs of this proceeding. See SCR 

22.24(1m).

¶19 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for consensual license 

revocation is granted.

¶20 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Thad M. Gegner to 

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

order.

¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Thad M. Gegner pay 

restitution in the following amounts:

 $652.88 to former client Dianna C.; 

 $1,000 to former client Kristin L.; 

 $2,638.90 to American Family Mutual 

Insurance Company; 

 $3.10 to former client Diane J.; and 

 $11,894 to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for 

Client Protection, attributable to the 

Fund's payments to the following former 

clients: $3,100 to Dianna C.; $2,694 to 

Diane J.; $1,800 to Cody W.; $1,700 to 

Donald C.; $1,600 to Jose O; and $1,000 to 

Michelle A.

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

of this order, Thad M. Gegner shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
No. 2015AP1971-D 

11

Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $2,019.58 as 

of October 31, 2016.

¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified 

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

Lawyer Regulation.

¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 

already done so, Thad M. Gegner 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. 2015AP1971-D 

1