2015 WI 81 

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2014AP2578-D 

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against 

Joseph J. Kaupie, Attorney at Law: 

Office of Lawyer Regulation, 

 Complainant, 

 v. 

Joseph J. Kaupie, 

 Respondent. 

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KAUPIE 

OPINION FILED: July 15, 2015 

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT: 

SOURCE OF APPEAL: 

 COURT: 

 COUNTY: 

 JUDGE: 

 

JUSTICES: 

 CONCURRED: 

 DISSENTED: 

 NOT PARTICIPATING: 

 

ATTORNEYS: 
2015 WI 81

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2014AP2578-D 

 

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT 

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Joseph J. Kaupie, Attorney at Law: 

Office of Lawyer Regulation, 

 Complainant, 

 v. 

Joseph J. Kaupie, 

 Respondent. 

FILED 

JUL 15, 2015 

Diane M. Fremgen 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license 

suspended. 

¶1 PER CURIAM. We review, pursuant to Supreme Court 

Rule (SCR) 22.17(2), the report of the referee, Robert E. 

Kinney, recommending that the court suspend Attorney Joseph J. 

Kaupie's license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of 

five months for professional misconduct in connection with four 

client matters. No appeal has been filed. 

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

and conclusions of law. We conclude that Attorney Kaupie's 
No. 2014AP2578-D 

2 

misconduct warrants a five-month license suspension together 

with the imposition of full costs, which total $2,309.41 as of 

March 31, 2015. 

¶3 Attorney Kaupie was licensed to practice law in 

Wisconsin in 1999. He resides in Wausau. Attorney Kaupie's 

license has been administratively suspended since October 31, 

2011, for his failure to pay mandatory State Bar dues and his 

failure to file a trust account certification, and since 

June 12, 2012, for failure to comply with continuing legal 

education requirements. In addition, on March 15, 2012, this 

court temporarily suspended Attorney Kaupie's license for his 

willful failure to cooperate in Office of Lawyer Regulation 

(OLR) investigations concerning his conduct. He has not 

previously been the subject of disciplinary proceedings. 

¶4 On November 6, 2014, the OLR filed a complaint 

alleging that Attorney Kaupie committed 14 counts of 

professional misconduct. By order dated December 15, 2014, 

Robert E. Kinney was appointed referee. On March 9, 2015, the 

parties filed a stipulation and no contest plea agreement 

whereby Attorney Kaupie pled no contest to the misconduct 

alleged in the complaint. Attorney Kaupie acknowledged the 

accuracy of the complaint's factual allegations and the parties 

jointly requested that the referee recommend a five-month 

suspension. 

Matter of D.B. (Counts One-Three) 

¶5 In November 2010, Attorney Kaupie was appointed by the 

Office of the State Public Defender (SPD) to represent D.B. on 
No. 2014AP2578-D 

3 

D.B.'s appeal from his conviction for sexual assault. Attorney 

Kaupie failed to respond to telephone messages and failed to 

respond to written communications from his client and from the 

SPD. Attorney Kaupie had no contact at any time with D.B. 

regarding his appeal and, as a result, D.B.'s appellate 

deadlines lapsed. The SPD eventually removed Attorney Kaupie 

from its list of attorneys eligible to receive post-conviction 

appointments and a grievance was filed. Attorney Kaupie then 

failed to respond to repeated inquiries from the OLR concerning 

the grievance. The referee concluded, based on the parties' 

stipulation, that Attorney Kaupie's conduct in this matter 

violated SCR 20:1.3,1 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4),2 and SCR 22.03(2) 

and (6),3 enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).4

 

1 SCR 20:1.3 provides that "[a] lawyer shall act with 

reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 

2 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4) provide that a lawyer shall "keep 

the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter" 

and "promptly comply with reasonable requests by the client for 

information." 

3 SCR 22.03(2) and (6) provide: 

(2) 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 

(continued) 
No. 2014AP2578-D 

4 

Matter of P.E. (Counts Four-Seven) 

¶6 In 2010, Attorney Kaupie was appointed by the SPD to 

represent P.E. in post-conviction proceedings stemming from his 

conviction, on entry of a guilty plea, to burglary, receiving 

stolen property, criminal damage to property, and two counts of 

armed robbery. Attorney Kaupie did not file a statement on 

transcript or a brief in the case. He disregarded the court of 

appeal's delinquency notice regarding his failure to file P.E.'s 

brief. Attorney Kaupie was removed from the appeal and the SPD 

was ordered to appoint replacement counsel. Attorney Kaupie 

then failed to send successor counsel P.E.'s file and failed to 

respond to repeated inquiries from the OLR regarding the ensuing 

grievance investigation. The referee concluded, based on the 

parties' stipulation, that Attorney Kaupie's conduct in this 

 

present any information deemed relevant to the 

investigation. 

. . . . 

(6) 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 that 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. 2014AP2578-D 

5 

matter violated SCR 20:1.3, SCR 20:1.16(d),5 SCR 20:3.4(c),6 and 

SCR 22.03(2) and (6), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).

Matter of Y.M. (Counts Eight-Ten) 

¶7 In 2010, Attorney Kaupie was appointed by the SPD to 

represent Y.M. in post-conviction proceedings stemming from his 

conviction, on entry of a guilty plea, to several drug-related 

crimes and one count of resisting/obstructing an officer. 

Attorney Kaupie did not file a brief or do meaningful work to 

advance Y.M.'s appeal. Y.M. briefly met with Attorney Kaupie in 

the prison but had no further communication with him. Y.M. was 

unable to contact Kaupie by telephone or by mail and eventually 

learned that his appeal had been dismissed because of Attorney 

Kaupie's failure to file a brief on his behalf. Attorney Kaupie 

then failed to respond to repeated inquiries from the OLR 

regarding the ensuing grievance investigation. The referee 

 

5 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. 

6 SCR 20:3.4(c) provides that a lawyer shall not "knowingly 

disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except for 

an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation 

exists." 
No. 2014AP2578-D 

6 

concluded, based on the parties' stipulation, that Attorney 

Kaupie's conduct in this matter violated SCR 20:1.3, SCR 

20:1.4(a)(3) and (4), and SCR 22.03(2) and (6), enforced via SCR 

20:8.4(h). 

Matter of J.W. (Counts 11-14) 

¶8 In December 2009, Attorney Kaupie was appointed by the 

SPD to represent J.W. in post-conviction proceedings stemming 

from J.W.'s conviction for second degree sexual assault of a 

child. Attorney Kaupie handled a post-conviction motion but 

failed to respond to multiple directives from the court of 

appeals relating to J.W.'s appeal. In August 2011, the court of 

appeals issued an order rejecting a no-merit report filed by 

Attorney Kaupie and ordering Attorney Kaupie to pursue an 

appeal. Attorney Kaupie did not respond to the court's order or 

to communications from the SPD. In September 2011, the SPD 

suspended Attorney Kaupie "[b]ased on your pattern of failing to 

communicate with the court, our appellate office and your 

client." 

¶9 Attorney Kaupie then failed to send successor counsel 

J.W.'s file and failed to respond to repeated inquiries from the 

OLR regarding the ensuing grievance investigation. The referee 

concluded, based on the parties' stipulation, that Attorney 

Kaupie's conduct in this matter violated SCR 20:1.3, 

SCR 20:1.16(d), SCR 20:3.4(c), and SCR 22.03(2) and (6), 

enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h). 

¶10 Attorney Kaupie has stipulated that he fully 

understands the misconduct allegations; that he understands his 
No. 2014AP2578-D 

7 

right to contest this matter; that he understands the 

ramifications should the court impose a five-month suspension; 

and that his entry into the stipulation is made knowingly and 

voluntarily and represents his admission of the alleged 

misconduct and his agreement with the level of discipline sought 

by the OLR. The parties asked the referee to approve the 

stipulation and file a report finding facts and misconduct 

consistent with the stipulation and recommending that Attorney 

Kaupie's license to practice law be suspended for five months.

¶11 On March 11, 2015, the referee filed his findings of 

fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation in which he adopted 

the parties' stipulated findings of fact, determined that the 

OLR had proven by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence 

that Attorney Kaupie had engaged in the alleged misconduct, 

recommended that Attorney Kaupie's license to practice law be 

suspended for five months, and recommended imposition of full 

costs. No appeal was filed from the referee's report and 

recommendation. Restitution is neither sought nor recommended 

in this matter. 

¶12 This court will affirm a referee's findings of fact 

unless they are clearly erroneous, but 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. This 

court is free to impose whatever discipline it deems 

appropriate, 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. 
No. 2014AP2578-D 

8 

¶13 As the referee observed, abandonment of clients, 

especially those who are vulnerable due to incarceration and 

indigency, is a serious matter and Attorney Kaupie's cooperation 

with the ensuing investigation was "abysmal." The referee was 

mindful, however, that Attorney Kaupie had no prior disciplinary 

history and that Attorney Kaupie acknowledged complete 

culpability for his misconduct. 

¶14 The stipulation discloses that in 2009, when this 

misconduct commenced, Attorney Kaupie was a sole practitioner 

with no office staff, practicing primarily in the area of 

criminal defense. That year, Attorney Kaupie's mother, who 

suffered from Alzheimer's disease, experienced declining health. 

Attorney Kaupie spent considerable time caring for his mother, 

whose condition increasingly needed constant supervision. The 

stipulation discloses that Attorney Kaupie essentially stopped 

practicing law to care for his mother, who passed away in 

November 2014. 

¶15 We adopt the referee's findings of fact and 

conclusions of law and determine that, in view of the 

circumstances presented, a five-month suspension is the 

appropriate discipline for Attorney Kaupie's professional 

misconduct. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Diamon, 

2001 WI 28, 242 Wis. 2d 110, 624 N.W.2d 147 (five-month 

suspension for failure to act with reasonable diligence and 

promptness in representing clients, failure to communicate with 

clients, terminating representation of clients without 

performing any legal services or refunding any unearned fees, 
No. 2014AP2578-D 

9 

and failure to cooperate in the misconduct investigation). We 

find no reason to diverge from our general policy of imposing 

full costs in this matter. 

¶16 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Joseph J. Kaupie to 

practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of five 

months, effective the date of this order. 

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

of this order, Joseph J. Kaupie shall pay to the Office of 

Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 

$2,309.41. 

¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the March 15, 2012 

temporary suspension of Joseph J. Kaupie's license to practice 

law in Wisconsin, due to his willful failure to cooperate with 

the OLR's grievance investigation in this matter, is lifted. 

The administrative suspensions imposed upon Attorney Kaupie's 

license for failure to pay mandatory bar dues, failure to file a 

trust account certification, and failure to comply with 

continuing legal education requirements, however, will remain in 

effect until each reason for the administrative suspension has 

been rectified, pursuant to SCR 22.28(1). 

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

already done so, Joseph J. Kaupie shall comply with the 

provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an attorney 

whose license to practice law has been suspended. 

¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 

conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See 

SCR 22.28(2). 
No. 2014AP2578-D 

1