Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. James J. Ermert
Citation: 2007 WI 10
Docket Number: 2006AP000278-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: January 23, 2007

2007 WI 10 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2006AP278-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  James J. Ermert, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
James J. Ermert, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ERMERT 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
January 23, 2007   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2007 WI 10
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2006AP278-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against James J. Ermert, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
James J. Ermert, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JAN 23, 2007 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that the license of Attorney James J. Ermert to practice 
law in Wisconsin be suspended for 60 days for professional 
misconduct in his handling of two client matters.  In addition 
to the license suspension, the referee recommended that Attorney 
Ermert pay the costs of this proceeding, which are $2635.38 as 
of October 13, 2006.   
No. 
2006AP278-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
We conclude that the referee's findings of fact are 
supported by satisfactory and convincing evidence.  We further 
agree that the seriousness of Attorney Ermert's professional 
misconduct warrants a 60-day suspension of his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin. 
¶3 
Attorney Ermert was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1962 and is a sole practitioner in Racine.  He has 
been disciplined on five prior occasions.  In 1987 he was 
privately reprimanded for failing to file a bankruptcy petition 
on behalf of a client for more than two years despite repeated 
representations to the client that the petition would be filed.  
In 1989 he was publicly reprimanded for failing to act on behalf 
of a criminal client whom he was appointed to represent by the 
state public defender.  In 1990 he was privately reprimanded for 
failing to file findings of fact, conclusions of law and the 
judgment in a divorce case, with the result being that opposing 
counsel had to prepare and file the documents, for which the 
other party bore the cost.   
¶4 
In 1994 this court suspended Attorney Ermert's license 
for 60 days for failing to file an action for which he had been 
retained and for misrepresenting to his client that the action 
had been filed and that hearing dates had been obtained.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ermert, 182 Wis. 2d 516, 513 
N.W.2d 608 (1994).  In 2003 Attorney Ermert received a 
consensual public reprimand for failing to close the probate of 
an estate for over 30 months in one matter and for failing to 
No. 
2006AP278-D   
 
3 
 
timely file a brief and failing to keep his client reasonably 
informed about the status of her case in a second matter. 
¶5 
On February 3, 2006, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a complaint alleging that Attorney Ermert had 
engaged in misconduct in his handling of two client matters.  
The first matter involved his representation of T.B. in a 
divorce action.  T.B. hired Attorney Ermert to represent her in 
August 2004 and paid him a $750 retainer.  On September 10, 
2004, Attorney Ermert filed T.B.'s divorce in Racine County 
Circuit Court.  That action was dismissed on November 23, 2004.  
Attorney Ermert re-filed the divorce action on June 8, 2005.  No 
action was taken in that matter other than the scheduling of a 
first hearing.  The second action was dismissed on August 23, 
2005.   
¶6 
On seven separate occasions between September 2004 and 
July 2005 Attorney Ermert told T.B. that a specific date and 
time had been set for a hearing in her divorce.  In each 
instance Attorney Ermert called T.B. one or two hours before the 
purported hearing times and told her the hearings had been 
cancelled.  As of July 2005 the circuit court had never 
scheduled any hearing dates in the matter.   
¶7 
During the course of the representation, T.B. called 
Attorney Ermert many times in an attempt to terminate his 
representation and obtain a refund of the $750 retainer she had 
paid him.  Attorney Ermert failed to return her calls.  On July 
28, 2005, T.B. sent a grievance to the OLR complaining about 
Attorney Ermert's conduct.  T.B. received a full refund of her 
No. 
2006AP278-D   
 
4 
 
retainer the next day.  By letter dated September 30, 2005, 
Attorney Ermert advised the OLR staff that he was not opposing 
T.B.'s allegation that he had misled her and failed to complete 
her case properly.   
¶8 
The OLR's complaint alleged that Attorney Ermert 
failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3;1 failed to 
keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter 
and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.4(a);2 and engaged in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of 
SCR 20:8.4(c).3 
¶9 
The second client matter detailed in the OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney Ermert's representation of C.P., who 
retained Attorney Ermert in August 2002 to represent her in a 
divorce proceeding.  C.P. initially paid Attorney Ermert a flat 
fee of $750.  She later paid an additional $250 for the 
preparation of real estate documents relating to the property 
division.   
                                                 
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) states "[a] lawyer shall keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly 
comply with reasonable requests for information." 
3 SCR 20:8.4(c) states that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
No. 
2006AP278-D   
 
5 
 
¶10 The divorce action was filed in Racine County Circuit 
Court on April 4, 2003.  The original divorce judgment was filed 
on December 3, 2003, and amended findings were filed on June 1, 
2004.  
¶11 Following C.P.'s divorce, Attorney Ermert was to draft 
and file two quit claim deeds to address two pieces of real 
estate owned by C.P. and her former husband.  At least one of 
the deeds was drafted and signed by the former husband at the 
time of the final divorce hearing, but Attorney Ermert put the 
deed in his file and neglected to file it.  It is unclear 
whether the second deed was ever drafted, but if it was Attorney 
Ermert did not file it.  C.P. discovered that the deeds had not 
been filed some months after the divorce had been granted, at 
which time she contacted Attorney Ermert.  Attorney Ermert 
acknowledged that he never filed the deeds.  The deeds were 
eventually drafted by a mortgage or title company and Attorney 
Ermert refunded the $250 C.P. had paid him to prepare and file 
the deeds.  The OLR's complaint alleged that by failing to file 
the quit claim deeds in a timely fashion, Attorney Ermert failed 
to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing 
a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.   
¶12 Richard Ninneman was appointed referee.  A hearing was 
held on September 7, 2006.  The referee issued his report and 
recommendation on September 26, 2006.  The referee found that 
the OLR had proven by clear and convincing evidence all of the 
counts of misconduct set forth in the OLR's complaint.  The 
referee noted that the OLR requested that Attorney Ermert's 
No. 
2006AP278-D   
 
6 
 
license to practice law be suspended for 60 days.  Attorney 
Ermert argued this proposed discipline was excessive, and he 
asked for another public reprimand, coupled with a requirement 
that he be required to have more continuing legal education 
(CLE) hours in the area of ethics.   
¶13 The referee rejected Attorney Ermert's request for a 
public reprimand, noting that Attorney Ermert had been the 
subject of five previous disciplinary proceedings.  The referee 
said: 
It is clear that [Attorney] Ermert needs to be 
impressed concerning the seriousness of his misconduct 
and the need to ensure that similar misconduct does 
not 
occur 
in 
the 
future. 
 
[Attorney] 
Ermert's 
suggestion that a public reprimand, coupled with some 
additional CLE requirements, would not have that 
effect in light of his pattern of misconduct in the 
past. 
¶14 The referee also recommended that Attorney Ermert pay 
the costs of the proceeding.  Attorney Ermert has not appealed 
from the referee's report and recommendation.   
¶15 This court will adopt a referee's findings of fact 
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 
referee's recommendation.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶16 We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and determine that a 60-day suspension is the 
No. 
2006AP278-D   
 
7 
 
appropriate 
discipline 
for 
Attorney 
Ermert's 
professional 
misconduct.  Attorney Ermert's neglect of the two client matters 
at issue in this case are serious failings, and his current 
misconduct, coupled with his rather extensive prior disciplinary 
history, warrants a 60-day suspension.  We further agree with 
the referee that Attorney Ermert should pay the full costs of 
the proceeding. 
¶17 IT IS ORDERED that the license of James J. Ermert to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective March 2, 2007. 
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that James J. Ermert comply with 
the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person 
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order James J. Ermert pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If the costs are not 
paid within the time specified, and absent a showing to this 
court of his inability to pay the costs within that time, the 
license of James J. Ermert to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
remain suspended until further order of the court. 
 
No. 
2006AP278-D   
 
 
 
1