Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Donald A. Hahnfeld
Citation: 2013 WI 14
Docket Number: 2011AP001570-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: January 30, 2013

2013 WI 14 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2011AP1570-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Donald A. Hahnfeld, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Donald A. Hahnfeld, 
          Respondent.   
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HAHNFELD    
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
January 30, 2013   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
2013 WI 14
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2011AP1570-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Donald A. Hahnfeld, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Donald A. Hahnfeld, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JAN 30, 2013 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM   We review the report and recommendation 
of the referee, Attorney Hannah Dugan, that the license of 
Attorney Donald A. Hahnfeld to practice law in Wisconsin should 
be revoked due to his professional misconduct, that Attorney 
Hahnfeld should pay a total of $47,200 in restitution to the 
Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (the Fund) and to client 
J.M., and that Attorney Hahnfeld should pay the costs of this 
No. 
2011AP1570-D   
 
2 
 
disciplinary proceeding, which were $26,988.61 as of August 16, 
2012. 
¶2 
After conducting our review of the matter under the 
established procedures, we accept and adopt the referee's 
findings of fact set forth later in this opinion and conclude 
that those findings establish that Attorney Hahnfeld committed 
the 11 counts of professional misconduct alleged by the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation (OLR).  We agree that the seriousness of 
Attorney 
Hahnfeld's 
misconduct, 
in 
light 
of 
his 
prior 
disciplinary 
record, 
warrants 
the 
revocation 
of 
Attorney 
Hahnfeld's license to practice law in Wisconsin.  Further, we 
determine that Attorney Hahnfeld should pay the restitution 
sought by the OLR and should also pay the full costs of this 
proceeding. 
¶3 
The OLR initiated this disciplinary proceeding with 
the filing of a formal complaint in July 2011.  Attorney 
Hahnfeld filed an answer, in which he denied or claimed to lack 
sufficient information to answer many of the allegations of the 
complaint.  The OLR subsequently moved for partial summary 
judgment on counts 7, 9, 10, and 11.  Attorney Hahnfeld did not 
file a response to the OLR's summary judgment motion.  The 
referee therefore summarily found that the OLR had proven the 
violations alleged in those counts.  After conducting a multi-
day evidentiary hearing, the referee issued her final report, in 
which she found that the OLR had proven the remaining counts 
alleged in its complaint.  Attorney Hahnfeld has not appealed, 
No. 
2011AP1570-D   
 
3 
 
leading 
to 
our 
review 
of 
the 
referee's 
report 
under 
SCR 22.17(2).1 
¶4 
Attorney Hahnfeld was admitted to the practice of law 
in Wisconsin in May 1987.  He most recently practiced in West 
Allis.  His license is not currently active. 
¶5 
Attorney Hahnfeld has a lengthy disciplinary history.  
In 1993 he consented to the imposition of a public reprimand due 
to his failure to exercise reasonable diligence in four divorce 
cases and a bankruptcy case, as well as his failure to comply 
with the client's requests for information and to return an 
unearned fee in the bankruptcy matter.  Public Reprimand of 
Donald A. Hahnfeld, No. 1993-7. 
¶6 
In 2003 Attorney Hahnfeld consented to another public 
reprimand for continuing to represent a party in a divorce 
matter while having a conflict of interest and for filing a 
defamation action for the sole purpose of maliciously injuring 
the attorney who had disclosed the conflict of interest.  Public 
Reprimand of Donald A. Hahnfeld, No. 2003-7. 
¶7 
This court suspended Attorney Hahnfeld's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin for the first time in 2007.  We 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) states: 
 
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. 
2011AP1570-D   
 
4 
 
imposed 
a 
60-day 
suspension 
due 
to 
Attorney 
Hahnfeld's 
misconduct that included failure to exercise diligence, failure 
to communicate with his clients, failure to explain the basis of 
a fee, failure to return a client file, failure to return 
unearned fees, and failure to respond to investigatory inquiries 
from the OLR.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hahnfeld, 
2007 WI 123, 305 Wis. 2d 48, 739 N.W.2d 280.  We conditioned the 
reinstatement of Attorney Hahnfeld's license upon completing a 
satisfactory psychological/AODA2 evaluation. 
¶8 
Attorney Hahnfeld's most recent discipline occurred in 
2012, when this court suspended his license for one year and 
ordered him to pay $6,000 in restitution for harm caused by his 
misconduct.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hahnfeld, 
2012 
WI 
17, 
338 
Wis. 2d 740, 809 N.W.2d 382.  In that 
proceeding, Attorney Hahnfeld was found to have committed nine 
counts of professional misconduct, including failing to hold 
client funds in trust, failing to notify a client of the 
suspension of his license, failing to refund advance fees and 
costs upon termination of the representation, continuing to 
practice law in this state despite the suspension of his 
license, making multiple misrepresentations to the OLR, and 
failing to respond in a timely manner to the OLR's requests for 
information. 
¶9 
The current disciplinary proceeding arises out of 
Attorney Hahnfeld's representation of two separate clients and 
                                                 
2 AODA stands for alcohol and other drug abuse. 
No. 
2011AP1570-D   
 
5 
 
his continued practice of law during a period of suspension.  
The referee made the following findings of fact regarding those 
subjects. 
¶10 In April 2001 J.M. paid a flat advance fee of $7,500 
to Attorney Hahnfeld for representation in post-judgment divorce 
proceedings regarding the division of marital property.  The 
circuit court ultimately left those issues unresolved and 
referred them to a referee for further proceedings, which lasted 
at least until May 2003. 
¶11 In March 2002 J.M. paid Attorney Hahnfeld another 
$30,000 flat advance fee for representation in a civil action.  
Specifically, J.M. wanted Attorney Hahnfeld to file a new civil 
action against his ex-wife and their three sons to recover 
assets that J.M believed had been either concealed or under-
valued during the divorce proceedings before the circuit court 
and the referee.  J.M. disputed the valuation and division of 
certain business property and equipment that had been connected 
with a variety of companies that J.M. and his ex-wife had owned 
during their marriage. 
¶12 On 
April 
1, 
2002, 
Attorney 
Hahnfeld 
drafted 
a 
memorandum to an associate attorney in his law firm.  The 
memorandum informed the associate attorney that J.M. had 
delivered a substantial retainer to the firm, that Attorney 
Hahnfeld wanted to file the new action requested by J.M. in May 
or June 2002, that she was to "work up the file," and that she 
should bill the matter aggressively.   
No. 
2011AP1570-D   
 
6 
 
¶13 On May 31, 2002, Attorney Hahnfeld received J.M.'s 
share of a state income tax refund in the amount of $2,184.39, 
which was part of the property division in the divorce 
proceeding.  Although Attorney Hahnfeld deposited the refund 
into his client trust account, he failed to notify J.M. of the 
refund or deliver it to J.M. in a timely manner.  On June 23, 
2003, Attorney Hahnfeld delivered $1,184.39 to J.M., retaining 
$1,000 without J.M.'s authorization purportedly as attorney fees 
for reviewing issues related to the new civil action he was to 
file on J.M.'s behalf. 
¶14 On May 15, 2003, the referee in the divorce proceeding 
issued a check in the amount of $64,263.09 made payable to 
Attorney Hahnfeld's trust account.  This check represented 
J.M.'s property division settlement.  Attorney Hahnfeld failed 
to notify J.M. in writing of the receipt of these funds or to 
deliver them promptly to J.M.  On June 23, 2003, Attorney 
Hahnfeld delivered only $42,263.09 to J.M., retaining $22,000 of 
the funds without J.M.'s authorization purportedly as additional 
attorney fees related to the review and preparation of the civil 
action. 
¶15 On September 8, 2003, Attorney Hahnfeld received 
another $5,000 payable to his law firm that represented a 
maintenance payment to J.M.  Attorney Hahnfeld again failed to 
notify J.M. of the payment and to deliver the funds to J.M. in a 
timely manner.  Indeed, Attorney Hahnfeld retained the entire 
$5,000 amount without J.M.'s authorization, again as attorney 
fees purportedly related to the contemplated civil action. 
No. 
2011AP1570-D   
 
7 
 
¶16 On March 22, 2004, Attorney Hahnfeld filed a civil 
action on J.M.'s behalf against his ex-wife and their adult sons 
in 
Milwaukee 
County 
circuit 
court. 
 
Attorney 
Hahnfeld 
subsequently failed to appear at a scheduling conference, failed 
to comply with discovery requests, and failed to file a pre-
trial report.  As a result, the circuit court dismissed the 
action with prejudice in October 2005 for failure to prosecute.   
¶17 On 
December 
11, 
2005, 
J.M. 
terminated 
Attorney 
Hahnfeld's representation and requested a full refund of funds 
paid to him.  Attorney Hahnfeld refused to refund any funds to 
J.M.  The referee specifically found that Attorney Hahnfeld had 
failed to hold in trust J.M.'s funds that had not been earned as 
attorney fees and instead converted those funds.  In response to 
J.M.'s request for his complete files, Attorney Hahnfeld had 
turned over just two boxes of materials. 
¶18 The referee further found that Attorney Hahnfeld had 
failed to retain relevant client trust account records for six 
years following the termination of his representation of J.M. 
¶19 In February 2006 J.M. filed a legal malpractice action 
against Attorney Hahnfeld.  Pursuant to a June 30, 2006 
settlement, Attorney Hahnfeld agreed to make certain payments 
over time to J.M. and further agreed that if he failed to comply 
with the terms of the settlement agreement, J.M. would be 
entitled to the entry of a judgment against him in the amount of 
$75,000 (less the amount of any payments already made).  
Attorney Hahnfeld subsequently defaulted on his obligation to 
make the specified payments, which led to the entry of a 
No. 
2011AP1570-D   
 
8 
 
judgment against him in the amount of $62,250.85 on April 1, 
2010. 
¶20 The referee found that J.M. had "paid" a total of 
$58,000 to Attorney Hahnfeld regarding the second civil action, 
which represented the initial $30,000 advance "flat" fee, plus 
the amounts that Attorney Hahnfeld had retained for himself 
without J.M.'s authorization.  The referee further found that 
Attorney Hahnfeld repaid only $10,800 to J.M. pursuant to the 
settlement agreement in the legal malpractice action.  The 
difference between the amount "paid" by J.M. and the amount 
returned by Attorney Hahnfeld is $47,200. 
¶21 J.M. filed a claim with the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund 
for Client Protection (the Fund), in which he sought an award of 
$58,000.  The Fund ultimately granted J.M. an award of $14,400. 
¶22 J.M. also filed a grievance with the OLR.  The OLR 
formally requested a response to the grievance from Attorney 
Hahnfeld on November 4, 2009.  When Attorney Hahnfeld failed to 
respond, the OLR sent a second letter requesting a response on 
December 3, 2009, and personally served a third letter on 
Attorney Hahnfeld on January 12, 2010.  Although Attorney 
Hahnfeld subsequently promised to provide a written response by 
February 12, 2010, he did not file a response until February 15, 
2010.  The OLR referred the matter to a District Committee for 
further investigation.  Attorney Hahnfeld failed to respond in a 
timely 
manner 
to 
letters 
from 
the 
District 
Committee 
investigator requesting a meeting.   
No. 
2011AP1570-D   
 
9 
 
¶23 Based on these findings of fact, the referee concluded 
that the OLR had proven seven counts of professional misconduct 
by Attorney Hahnfeld.  First, Attorney Hahnfeld's failure to 
file the requested civil action for nearly two years and his 
failure to prosecute the action after it had been filed, 
resulting in the dismissal of the action with prejudice, 
violated SCR 20:1.3.3  Second, Attorney Hahnfeld violated former 
SCR 20:1.15(b)4 on three separate occasions by failing to notify 
J.M. in writing of Attorney Hahnfeld's receipt of funds in which 
J.M. had an interest.  Third, the referee concluded that by 
making multiple disbursements to himself from monies belonging 
to J.M. without authorization from J.M., Attorney Hahnfeld 
violated the standards set forth by this court in In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Marine, 82 Wis. 2d 602, 610, 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:1.3 states, "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
4 Former SCR 20:1.15(b) (effective through June 30, 2004) 
stated: 
 
Upon receiving funds or other property in which a 
client or third person has an interest, a lawyer shall 
promptly notify the client or third person in writing.  
Except as stated in this rule or otherwise permitted 
by law or by agreement with the client, a lawyer shall 
promptly deliver to the client or third person any 
funds or other property that the client or third 
person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the 
client or third person, shall render a full accounting 
regarding such property. 
No. 
2011AP1570-D   
 
10 
 
264 N.W.2d 285 (1978), which are enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f).5  
Fourth, Attorney Hahnfeld violated SCR 20:1.16(d)6 by failing to 
refund unearned fees to J.M. upon the termination of the 
representation.  By converting to his own use funds belonging to 
J.M., Attorney Hahnfeld engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation, 
in 
violation 
of 
SCR 20:8.4(c).7  Sixth, by failing to maintain client trust 
account records for at least six years after the termination of 
his 
representation 
of 
J.M., 
Attorney 
Hahnfeld 
violated 
SCR 20:1.15(e)(6).8  Finally, by failing to cooperate with the 
                                                 
5 SCR 20:8.4(f) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme court 
order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers; . . . ." 
6 SCR 20:1.16(d) states: 
 
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. 
7 SCR 20:8.4(c) says it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation; . . . ." 
8 SCR 20:1.15(e)(6) (Record retention) provides as follows:  
"A lawyer shall maintain complete records of trust account funds 
and other trust property and shall preserve those records for at 
least 
6 
years 
after 
the 
date 
of 
termination 
of 
the 
representation." 
No. 
2011AP1570-D   
 
11 
 
OLR's investigation on multiple occasions, Attorney Hahnfeld 
violated SCRs 22.03(2)9 and 22.04(1),10 which are enforced via 
SCR 20:8.4(h).11 
¶24 The 
second 
representation 
at 
issue 
in 
this 
disciplinary proceeding involves client D.L., who was charged 
via citation in May 2003 in the Waukesha County circuit court 
with operating a motor vehicle after revocation, operating a 
motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) (fifth offense), and 
                                                 
9 SCR 22.03(2) states: 
 
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. 
10 SCR 22.04(1) provides as follows: 
 
The director may refer a matter to a district 
committee for assistance in the investigation.  A 
respondent has the duty to cooperate specified in SCR 
21.15(4) and 22.03(2) in respect to the district 
committee.  The committee may subpoena and compel the 
production of documents specified in SCR 22.03(8) and 
22.42. 
11 SCR 20:8.4(h) says 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. 
2011AP1570-D   
 
12 
 
operating 
a 
motor 
vehicle 
with 
a 
prohibited 
alcohol 
concentration with a minor passenger under the age of 16 years 
in the vehicle (third offense).  
¶25 D.L. retained Attorney Hahnfeld to represent him 
regarding the Waukesha County charges.  Attorney Hahnfeld was 
already representing D.L. in a Juneau County case, in which D.L. 
had been convicted of criminal battery of a police officer.  
¶26 Attorney Hahnfeld met with D.L. approximately five 
times regarding the Waukesha County charges, but never discussed 
D.L.'s legal options, including whether to challenge any of 
D.L.'s prior OWI convictions.  Attorney Hahnfeld advised D.L. to 
plead guilty to OWI (Fifth Offense) in the Waukesha County 
action, which was a felony offense at the time.  The circuit 
court's docket record indicates that the other two charges were   
dismissed.  The circuit court subsequently sentenced D.L. on the 
OWI (Fifth Offense) charge to two years of initial confinement 
and three years of extended supervision. 
¶27 Based in part on the expert testimony of a criminal 
defense lawyer, the referee found that the number of D.L.'s 
prior OWI convictions had been a significant factor affecting 
D.L.'s decision to plead guilty and the length of the sentence 
imposed by the circuit court.  The referee further found that 
Attorney Hahnfeld had failed to investigate or inquire into the 
circumstances and validity of two previous OWI convictions, 
which a competent attorney would have discussed with D.L. in 
order to determine the proper number of prior OWI convictions.  
The referee found that a collateral challenge to either 
No. 
2011AP1570-D   
 
13 
 
conviction would have been a competent legal strategy that would 
have been in accord with D.L.'s goal of minimizing the length of 
incarceration.  The referee further found that Attorney Hahnfeld 
had failed to consult with D.L. prior to and during D.L.'s plea 
hearing so that D.L. could enter a knowing, intelligent, and 
voluntary plea.   
¶28 In 
the 
spring 
of 
2010, 
D.L.'s 
successor 
postconviction/appellate 
counsel 
filed 
a 
motion 
for 
postconviction relief seeking resentencing due to Attorney 
Hahnfeld's ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to 
investigate 
D.L.'s 
prior 
OWI 
convictions. 
 
The 
State 
subsequently entered into a stipulation providing that D.L. 
should have been convicted of OWI (Fourth Offense), which was a 
misdemeanor offense at the time of D.L.'s conviction rather than 
the felony fifth offense of which he was originally convicted.  
Pursuant to the stipulation, the circuit court retroactively 
modified D.L.'s sentence to one year in the county jail, with 
credit for time served of more than two years and ten months. 
¶29 Following the filing of a grievance by D.L., the OLR 
notified Attorney Hahnfeld on July 22, 2010, that he was 
required to file a written response within 20 days.  Attorney 
Hahnfeld promised the OLR he would file his written response by 
August 20, 2010, but he failed to do so.  On August 26, 2010, 
the OLR sent a second letter to Attorney Hahnfeld informing him 
that he needed to file a response by September 7, 2010.  When 
Attorney Hahnfeld again failed to submit a response, the OLR 
left a message for him that his response was overdue and that he 
No. 
2011AP1570-D   
 
14 
 
should contact the OLR.  Attorney Hahnfeld did not respond.  On 
October 12, 2010, the OLR filed a motion requesting this court 
to issue an order directing Attorney Hahnfeld to show cause why 
his license should not be temporarily suspended due to his 
willful failure to cooperate with the OLR's investigation.  Only 
after the filing of this motion did Attorney Hahnfeld submit a 
response to D.L.'s grievance.  The OLR then withdrew its motion 
for a temporary suspension. 
¶30 The referee concluded that Attorney Hahnfeld had 
engaged in two counts of professional misconduct related to his 
representation of D.L. and the OLR's investigation of D.L.'s 
grievance.  First, the referee determined that by failing to 
adequately 
investigate, analyze, and discuss D.L.'s prior 
convictions and his legal options and to present relevant 
information and argument about those prior convictions to the 
circuit court, Attorney Hahnfeld had failed to provide competent 
representation to D.L., in violation of SCR 20:1.1.12  Further, 
by failing to respond to D.L.'s grievance and the OLR's letters, 
Attorney Hahnfeld violated SCR 22.03(2), which is enforced via 
SCR 20:8.4(f). 
¶31 The final matter in this proceeding involves Attorney 
Hahnfeld's practice of law during a period of administrative 
suspension.  Like all active attorneys who practice law in this 
                                                 
12 SCR 20:1.1 provides, "A lawyer shall provide competent 
representation to a client. Competent representation requires 
the 
legal 
knowledge, 
skill, 
thoroughness 
and 
preparation 
reasonably necessary for the representation." 
No. 
2011AP1570-D   
 
15 
 
state, Attorney Hahnfeld was required to report attendance at 30 
credit hours of continuing legal education (CLE) every two 
years.  Attorney Hahnfeld failed to report his CLE attendance 
for his 2008-09 reporting period.  On April 8, 2010, the Board 
of Bar Examiners (BBE) sent a notice to Attorney Hahnfeld 
advising him of his CLE noncompliance and stating that his 
license to practice law in Wisconsin would be automatically 
suspended at 4:30 p.m. on June 7, 2010, unless he complied in 
all respects with his CLE requirements for the 2008-09 reporting 
period.  The notice further advised Attorney Hahnfeld that it 
constituted his formal notice of that suspension.  The BBE sent 
that notice via certified mail to the address that Attorney 
Hahnfeld had provided to the State Bar of Wisconsin.  Attorney 
Hahnfeld did not claim the certified letter despite three 
attempts by the post office to deliver it.  
¶32 Attorney 
Hahnfeld 
did 
not 
comply 
with 
his 
CLE 
requirements by June 7, 2010, and his license was therefore 
administratively suspended as of 4:30 p.m. on that date.  On 
June 8, 2010, Attorney Hahnfeld appeared as attorney of record 
in two separate criminal matters in the Milwaukee County circuit 
court.  On June 11, 2010, Attorney Hahnfeld sought reinstatement 
from his administrative suspension, but his request was denied 
because he reported an insufficient number of CLE credits.  On 
June 23, 2010, he filed an amended petition for reinstatement, 
which was granted.   
¶33 Because his reinstatement petition acknowledged that 
he had engaged in the practice of law during his administrative 
No. 
2011AP1570-D   
 
16 
 
suspension, the BBE referred the matter to the OLR.  On July 22, 
2010, the OLR informed Attorney Hahnfeld that he was required to 
file 
a 
response 
to 
its 
investigative 
inquiry 
about 
the 
unauthorized practice of law within 20 days.  On August 16, 
2010, Attorney Hahnfeld left a voicemail with the OLR stating 
that he would be filing a response to another OLR inquiry, but 
omitting any mention of the investigation of his practicing law 
while suspended.  The OLR sent a letter to him the next day 
acknowledging receipt of his message and reminding him that he 
was required to respond by August 23, 2010, to the OLR's inquiry 
regarding his practice of law while administratively suspended.  
Attorney Hahnfeld failed to file his response by the due date.  
The OLR communicated twice more with Attorney Hahnfeld regarding 
his failure to provide a response to its inquiry.  Only after 
the OLR filed a motion for a temporary suspension of Attorney 
Hahnfeld's license due to his willful failure to cooperate with 
its investigation did Attorney Hahnfeld file a response. 
¶34 The referee found that Attorney Hahnfeld had committed 
two counts of professional misconduct regarding this matter.  
First, he violated SCR 31.10(1),13 which is enforced via 
                                                 
13 SCR 31.10(1) states as follows: 
 
If a lawyer fails to comply with the attendance 
requirement of SCR 31.02, fails to comply with the 
reporting requirement of SCR 31.03(1), or fails to pay 
the late fee under SCR 31.03(2), the board shall serve 
a notice of noncompliance on the lawyer.  This notice 
shall advise the lawyer that the lawyer's state bar 
membership 
shall 
be 
automatically 
suspended 
for 
failing to file evidence of compliance or to pay the 
late fee within 60 days after service of the notice.  
No. 
2011AP1570-D   
 
17 
 
SCR 20:8.4(f), by engaging in the practice of law in this state 
while his license was administratively suspended.  Second, by 
failing to respond to the OLR's investigative inquiry for more 
than two months after the original due date for a response, 
Attorney Hahnfeld again violated SCR 22.03(2), enforceable via 
SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶35 The referee's report contained an extensive discussion 
of the counts of professional misconduct proven by the OLR, 
Attorney Hahnfeld's prior disciplinary history, his actions in 
defending against the charges in this disciplinary proceeding, 
and the proper level of discipline that should be imposed.  The 
referee noted that a number of the counts proven in this 
proceeding were similar to counts proven in prior disciplinary 
proceedings.  Attorney Hahnfeld's return to the disciplinary 
process on multiple occasions with the same problems indicated a 
failure to grasp or adhere to the standards that are required of 
attorneys practicing in this state and a lack of remorse for his 
prior 
ethical 
violations. 
 
The 
lack 
of 
acceptance 
of 
                                                                                                                                                             
The board shall certify the names of all lawyers so 
suspended under this rule to the clerk of the supreme 
court, all supreme court justices, all court of 
appeals and circuit court judges, all circuit court 
commissioners appointed under SCR 75.02(1) in this 
state, all circuit court clerks, all juvenile court 
clerks, all registers in probate, the executive 
director of the state bar of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin 
State Public Defender's Office, and the clerks of the 
federal district courts in Wisconsin.  A lawyer shall 
not engage in the practice of law in Wisconsin while 
his or her state bar membership is suspended under 
this rule. 
No. 
2011AP1570-D   
 
18 
 
responsibility and lack of remorse was also demonstrated by 
Attorney Hahnfeld's attempts to blame J.M. and his associate 
attorney for the delay in filing the new civil action.  He also 
claimed that J.M. was withholding documents from him because he 
delivered more than two boxes of file documents to J.M. upon 
termination of the representation.  The referee, however, found 
more credible the testimony of J.M. and his significant other 
that Attorney Hahnfeld had provided only two boxes of documents 
that purportedly represented the sum of Attorney Hahnfeld's file 
on the J.M. representation.   
¶36 The referee also commented on Attorney Hahnfeld's 
serious inability to develop and manage a case competently.  He 
took two years to produce a four-page complaint in the J.M. 
civil action and then failed to appear at court proceedings, to 
respond to discovery requests, or to otherwise move the case 
forward properly, resulting in the dismissal of the complaint 
with prejudice for failure to prosecute.  Similarly, Attorney 
Hahnfeld failed to undertake a review of the prior Ohio or 
Wisconsin convictions that could have led him to a basis to 
reduce the seriousness of the 2003 charge against D.L. from a 
fifth OWI offense (a felony) to a fourth OWI offense (a 
misdemeanor).  Indeed, Attorney Hahnfeld admitted that he did 
not even seek to obtain documents regarding the Ohio conviction. 
¶37 The referee stated that Attorney Hahnfeld's inability 
to represent himself properly in the disciplinary proceeding 
confirmed the referee's belief that Attorney Hahnfeld lacks an 
understanding 
of 
and 
proper 
attitude 
toward 
meeting 
the 
No. 
2011AP1570-D   
 
19 
 
professional standards imposed on an attorney in this state.  In 
the disciplinary proceeding, Attorney Hahnfeld failed to comply 
with subpoenas, failed to issue subpoenas to collect records for 
use at the evidentiary hearing, failed to submit a witness list, 
failed to present witnesses or exhibits that could refute the 
OLR's evidence, failed to follow the referee's orders to file 
briefs on certain issues, and failed even to attend certain 
scheduled proceedings in this matter.  The referee stated that 
Attorney Hahnfeld was unprepared for the evidentiary hearing in 
this matter, including apparently not knowing the elements of 
some of the counts against him or the standards for determining 
appropriate sanctions. 
¶38 Attorney Hahnfeld repeatedly claimed that he could 
have refuted certain portions of the OLR's case, but that he no 
longer had the needed case files or other documentation because 
his computer had "crashed" and the cost of retrieving the 
computerized files from that "crashed" computer was prohibitive.  
The referee stated, however, that Attorney Hahnfeld had never 
provided proof that the recovery of the needed information was 
cost prohibitive.  Attorney Hahnfeld also did not explain why he 
could not have produced hard copy documents from his files.   
¶39 The referee stated that there was a dispute in the 
testimony 
regarding 
the 
financial 
components 
of 
Attorney 
Hahnfeld's representation of J.M.  Attorney Hahnfeld disputed 
the amount of funds received from J.M. and whether J.M. had 
authorized Attorney Hahnfeld to retain funds as payments for 
additional attorney fees.  The referee found the testimony of 
No. 
2011AP1570-D   
 
20 
 
J.M. and his significant other to be more credible, including 
the testimony that J.M. had never authorized Attorney Hahnfeld 
to retain client funds as payment for fees and costs.  Moreover, 
the referee rejected Attorney Hahnfeld's unsubstantiated claim 
that he and his firm had earned the $58,000 he had received from 
J.M. or had retained from funds belonging to J.M.  Thus, the 
referee found that Attorney Hahnfeld had intentionally failed to 
hold J.M.'s funds in trust and had instead converted those funds 
to his own use.  Indeed, the referee accepted the testimony of 
J.M. and his significant other that they did not learn about 
Attorney Hahnfeld's receipt of monies belonging to J.M. until 
they retrieved the two boxes of files from Attorney Hahnfeld's 
office. 
¶40 The 
referee 
was 
less 
concerned 
with 
Attorney 
Hahnfeld's practice of law during his administrative suspension 
for CLE noncompliance.  The referee stated that Attorney 
Hahnfeld had shown to the OLR that he had relied on the CLE 
reporting system maintained by the Office of the State Public 
Defender (SPD), which had erroneously indicated that Attorney 
Hahnfeld had obtained the proper number of CLE credits.  The 
referee acknowledged that Attorney Hahnfeld's practice of law 
during his suspension was likely unintended.  The referee was 
nonetheless troubled by Attorney Hahnfeld's response to this 
charge by the OLR.  The referee noted that if Attorney Hahnfeld 
had accepted the BBE's certified notice, he would have been 
aware of the BBE's belief that he was not in compliance and of 
his pending suspension, and he could have taken steps to avoid 
No. 
2011AP1570-D   
 
21 
 
the 
suspension.  
Moreover, if he had provided the SPD 
information earlier, he might have been able to convince the OLR 
to omit the charge from its complaint.  Finally, although 
Attorney Hahnfeld apparently had an explanation for his CLE 
noncompliance, he never bothered to dispute the OLR's summary 
judgment motion on that charge and instead allowed the referee 
to grant summary judgment to the OLR.  This again demonstrated 
to the referee Attorney Hahnfeld's failure to competently manage 
a case. 
¶41 In summary, given Attorney Hahnfeld's extensive prior 
disciplinary history, including a pattern of similar misconduct, 
his lack of appreciation for his wrongdoing or remorse, and his 
demonstrated inability to handle the basic tasks of competently 
managing a case or a law practice, the referee concluded that 
Attorney Hahnfeld lacked the necessary fitness to be consulted 
by members of the public and to act as an attorney in matters of 
trust and confidence.  Consequently, the referee recommended 
that Attorney Hahnfeld's license to practice law in Wisconsin be 
revoked. 
¶42 The referee also recommended that Attorney Hahnfeld 
should be required to pay $47,200 in restitution to J.M. and the 
Fund.  The referee found that Attorney Hahnfeld had received 
$58,000 from J.M. and his significant other and that J.M. had 
essentially received no benefit in return because Attorney 
Hahnfeld took two years to prepare a four-page complaint and 
then failed to prosecute the case, resulting in the dismissal of 
the complaint with prejudice.  Subtracting the $10,800 that 
No. 
2011AP1570-D   
 
22 
 
Attorney Hahnfeld paid to J.M. pursuant to the settlement of 
J.M.'s malpractice action left a balance of $47,200 that 
Attorney Hahnfeld should have returned to J.M.  In light of the 
Fund's payment to J.M., the referee recommended that Attorney 
Hahnfeld pay restitution to the Fund in the amount of the 
$14,400 that it paid to J.M. and also pay restitution directly 
to J.M. in the amount of $32,800. 
¶43 Finally, 
the referee recommended that the court 
require Attorney Hahnfeld to pay the full costs of this 
disciplinary proceeding.  The referee noted that this court's 
general policy is to require respondent attorneys who have been 
found to have committed professional misconduct to pay the costs 
of the disciplinary proceeding.  The referee indicated that 
Attorney Hahnfeld had provided nothing to suggest that the 
general rule should not be followed in this case.  Moreover, the 
referee also commented that Attorney Hahnfeld had not asked for 
waiver of the costs and that his lack of records and his conduct 
during the proceeding had needlessly increased the time and 
expense needed to develop the evidence and present it at trial. 
¶44 Our 
review 
of 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact, 
conclusions of law, and sanction recommendation follows long-
established standards.  Specifically, we affirm a referee's 
findings of fact unless they are found to be clearly erroneous, 
but we review the referee's conclusions of law on a de novo 
basis.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 
126, ¶5, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125.  We determine the 
appropriate level of discipline given the particular facts of 
No. 
2011AP1570-D   
 
23 
 
each case, independent of the referee's recommendation, but 
benefiting from it.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶45 Attorney Hahnfeld has not appealed from the referee's 
report and recommendation.  He has not alleged that the 
referee's findings of fact are clearly erroneous.  We do not 
discern that any of the referee's findings set forth in this 
opinion are clearly erroneous, and we adopt them.  Further, like 
the referee, we conclude that those factual findings support the 
legal conclusion that Attorney Hahnfeld engaged in the 11 counts 
of professional misconduct alleged in the OLR's complaint.   
¶46 Turning to the issue of the appropriate level of 
discipline, we determine that Attorney Hahnfeld's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin should be revoked.  We note that this 
is the fifth disciplinary proceeding against Attorney Hahnfeld, 
and that he has now been disciplined for the same types of 
misconduct on multiple occasions.  He has therefore demonstrated 
that he is unable to conform his conduct to the rules of 
professional conduct for attorneys in this state.  As the 
referee noted, even when representing himself in this proceeding 
with his license status at issue, he failed to perform as a 
responsible attorney, ignoring the need to develop a defense 
substantiated by documentary evidence, to appear for court 
proceedings, and to file briefs, exhibit lists, etc., as 
requested by the referee.  Moreover, of great importance to our 
determination is the referee's finding that Attorney Hahnfeld 
took $58,000 of his client's money and produced no benefit for 
No. 
2011AP1570-D   
 
24 
 
the client.  Indeed, he converted $28,000 of his client's money 
to his own personal uses without his client's knowledge.  He has 
therefore demonstrated that he is not currently fit to hold a 
license to practice law in this state and to represent members 
of the public in important legal matters. 
¶47 We further determine that Attorney Hahnfeld should pay 
restitution to J.M. and the Fund in the amount of $47,200.  
While Attorney Hahnfeld and his associate did spend some amount 
of time on J.M.'s requested civil action, the referee found that 
J.M. did not receive any real benefit from their time because 
Attorney Hahnfeld's failure to prosecute the case ultimately led 
to its dismissal with prejudice.  Attorney Hahnfeld has not 
challenged this determination by the referee nor has he appealed 
from the referee's restitution recommendation.  Thus, we 
conclude 
that 
restitution 
is 
appropriate 
in 
the 
amounts 
requested by the OLR.14 
¶48 Finally, the referee correctly noted that this court's 
general policy is to impose the full costs of a disciplinary 
proceeding 
upon 
the 
respondent 
attorney 
whose 
misconduct 
necessitated the proceeding.  See SCR 22.24(1m).15  We see no 
                                                 
14 The referee recommended that we expressly condition any 
future reinstatement of Attorney Hahnfeld's license on the 
timely and satisfactory payment of restitution.  It is not 
necessary for the court to include such a condition in this 
opinion and order.  The rule setting forth the requirements for 
reinstatement already requires a suspended or revoked attorney 
seeking reinstatement to allege and prove that the attorney has 
made restitution to persons injured or harmed by the attorney’s 
conduct, including the Fund.  See SCR 22.29(4m). 
15 SCR 22.24(1m) states: 
No. 
2011AP1570-D   
 
25 
 
reason to depart from that policy in this case.  There are no 
extraordinary circumstances here that would call for a reduction 
of the costs.  The OLR proved each of the 11 counts that it 
alleged.  Further, the referee found that Attorney Hahnfeld's 
lack of cooperation and preparation caused the OLR and the 
referee to spend more time on this matter than would otherwise 
have been necessary.  In addition, we note that Attorney 
Hahnfeld has not objected to the OLR's statement of costs. 
¶49 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Donald A. Hahnfeld 
to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of 
this order. 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
The court's general policy is that upon a finding 
of misconduct it is appropriate to impose all costs, 
including the expenses of counsel for the office of 
lawyer regulation, upon the respondent.  In cases 
involving extraordinary circumstances the court may, 
in the exercise of its discretion, reduce the amount 
of costs imposed upon a respondent.  In exercising its 
discretion regarding the assessment of costs, the 
court will consider the submissions of the parties and 
all of the following factors: 
 
(a)  The number of counts charged, contested, and 
proven. 
 
(b)  The nature of the misconduct. 
 
(c)  The 
level of discipline sought by the 
parties and recommended by the referee. 
 
(d)  The 
respondent's 
cooperation 
with 
the 
disciplinary process. 
 
(e)  Prior discipline, if any. 
 
(f)  Other relevant circumstances. 
No. 
2011AP1570-D   
 
26 
 
¶50 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Donald A. Hahnfeld shall pay restitution to 
former client J.M. in the amount of $32,800 and to the Wisconsin 
Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection in the amount of $14,400. 
¶51 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Donald A. Hahnfeld shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
¶52 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that payment of restitution to 
former client J.M. and to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client 
Protection is to be completed prior to paying costs to the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation. 
¶53 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Donald A. Hahnfeld shall 
comply, if he has not already done so, with the requirements of 
SCR 22.26 pertaining to the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked. 
 
 
No. 
2011AP1570-D   
 
 
 
1