Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Thomas A. Fadner, II
Citation: 2007 WI 18
Docket Number: 2005AP003005-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: February 7, 2007

2007 WI 18 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2005AP3005-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Thomas A. Fadner, II , Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Thomas A. Fadner, II, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST FADNER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 7, 2007   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2007 WI 18
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2005AP3005-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Thomas A. Fadner, II , Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Thomas A. Fadner, II, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 7, 2007 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.    Attorney's license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the referee's report and 
recommendation that the license of Attorney Thomas A. Fadner, 
II, to practice law in Wisconsin be revoked and that Attorney 
Fadner be ordered to pay restitution to the Wisconsin Lawyers' 
Fund for Client Protection (the Fund) in the amount of $12,500.  
Based on our independent review of the matter, we adopt the 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law, which were 
made after entering a default judgment against Attorney Fadner.  
No. 
2005AP3005-D   
 
2 
 
We agree that Attorney Fadner's license to practice law in this 
state must be revoked.  We also agree that restitution is in 
order, but we determine that in addition to the restitution 
payment 
to 
the 
Fund, 
Attorney 
Fadner 
should 
also 
make 
restitution payments to clients G.T. and D.R.  Finally, we 
conclude that Attorney Fadner should pay the costs of this 
disciplinary proceeding, which totaled $1758.16, as of July 26, 
2006.   
¶2 
Attorney Fadner was admitted to practice in Wisconsin 
in April 1996.  He most recently practiced in Oshkosh.  He has 
been subject to discipline on two prior occasions.  He received 
a private reprimand in 1998.  In January 2005 this court 
temporarily suspended Attorney Fadner's license as a result of 
his willful failure to cooperate with the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR) in at least three grievance investigations.  In 
February 2006 the court suspended Attorney Fadner's license to 
practice law for nine months, and until further order of this 
court, effective March 30, 2006.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Fadner, 2006 WI 18, 289 Wis. 2d 1, 709 
N.W.2d 868.  That suspension related to Attorney Fadner's 
misconduct concerning billings to the Office of the State Public 
Defender and his mishandling of payments due to an investigator.  
Attorney Fadner's license remains suspended. 
¶3 
On December 8, 2005, the OLR filed the complaint in 
the present case.  The OLR's complaint alleged 45 separate 
counts of misconduct arising from 10 different representations. 
No. 
2005AP3005-D   
 
3 
 
¶4 
The OLR made multiple attempts to serve the complaint 
and order to answer on Attorney Fadner, both via personal 
service through sheriff's departments and via certified mail at 
multiple addresses.  Having made reasonably diligent attempts to 
serve Attorney Fadner, the OLR moved for a finding of default.  
Notice of the hearing on the OLR's default motion was sent to 
the last known address Attorney Fadner had provided to the State 
Bar of Wisconsin, but Attorney Fadner did not respond or appear 
at the hearing.  On April 26, 2006, Referee Kim M. Peterson 
granted the OLR's default motion.   
¶5 
The referee subsequently filed a report finding the 
facts as alleged in the OLR's complaint and concluding that 
Attorney Fadner had committed each of the 45 counts of 
misconduct.  Based on the conclusions of misconduct, the referee 
recommended that Attorney Fadner's license to practice law in 
this state be revoked.  The referee also recommended that 
Attorney Fadner be ordered to reimburse the Fund in the total 
amount of $12,500 for payments it had made to five of Attorney 
Fadner's clients due to his misconduct.   
¶6 
Attorney Fadner did not appeal from the referee's 
report and recommendation.  Thus, we proceed with our review of 
the matter pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1  We will affirm the 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) provides:  Review: appeal. 
 
(2) 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 
No. 
2005AP3005-D   
 
4 
 
referee's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.  
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Sosnay, 209 Wis. 2d 
241, 243, 562 N.W.2d 137 (1997).  We review the referee's 
conclusions of law, however, on a de novo basis.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 
Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 718.  We determine the level of 
discipline 
that 
is 
appropriate 
under 
the 
particular 
circumstances, independent of the referee's recommendation, but 
benefiting from it.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶7 
As noted above, the findings of misconduct relate to 
ten separate client matters.  We will briefly summarize the 
referee's findings of fact concerning those representations and 
the accompanying legal conclusions of professional misconduct. 
¶8 
With respect to Counts 1—3, Attorney Fadner was 
retained in a paternity matter pending before Waupaca County 
Circuit Judge Raymond Huber.  At a child support hearing on 
September 26, 2002, Attorney Fadner told the court that, 
although most issues concerning child placement had been 
resolved, the parties wished to stipulate to a change in a 
previous order issued by a family court commissioner.  Under 
Waupaca County Circuit Court Rule 8.14, Attorney Fadner was 
required 
to 
prepare 
an 
order 
for 
the 
court's 
signature 
                                                                                                                                                             
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
No. 
2005AP3005-D   
 
5 
 
memorializing the stipulation.  Attorney Fadner did not prepare 
the order. 
¶9 
When Judge Huber subsequently noticed that Attorney 
Fadner had not prepared the order, he sent a letter to Attorney 
Fadner advising him to file the required order within seven 
days.  Although Attorney Fadner and Judge Huber exchanged 
telephone messages, Attorney Fadner did not file the order as 
required.  The court then issued an order to show cause 
requiring Attorney Fadner to appear in person on July 22, 2004, 
unless the order was filed before then.  Attorney Fadner failed 
to file the order or to appear at the July 22, 2004 hearing. 
¶10 After yet another letter from the court and no 
response by Attorney Fadner, Judge Huber referred Attorney 
Fadner to the OLR.  The OLR sent letters to Attorney Fadner on 
September 15 and October 14, 2004, seeking a response to Judge 
Huber's letter.  Although Attorney Fadner signed for a certified 
copy of one of the letters, he never responded to the OLR. 
¶11 Based on these facts, the referee concluded that, 
contrary to SCR 20:3.4(c),2 Attorney Fadner had knowingly 
disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal on two 
separate occasions—once when he failed to submit the order as 
required by the local rule and Judge Huber's letter, and once 
when he failed to respond to the order to show cause or appear 
                                                 
2 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. 
2005AP3005-D   
 
6 
 
at the hearing.  The referee further found that Attorney Fadner 
had violated SCR 22.03(2) and (6),3 thereby also violating SCR 
20:8.4(f),4 by failing to file a written response to the 
grievance and by failing otherwise to cooperate with the OLR's 
investigation. 
¶12 Counts 4—11 relate to Attorney Fadner's representation 
of client G.T.  In April 2004 G.T. met with Attorney Fadner and 
retained him to represent her in a post-divorce matter, which 
included an issue regarding where G.T.'s daughter should be 
enrolled for preschool.  G.T. gave Attorney Fadner a $1000 
                                                 
3 SCR 22.03(2) and (6) provide:  Investigation. 
 
(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 
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(f) provides that 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." 
No. 
2005AP3005-D   
 
7 
 
retainer, but there was no written retainer agreement.  Attorney 
Fadner failed to deposit the retainer in his client trust 
account.  Attorney Fadner promised G.T. that he would draft a 
motion and supporting affidavit within two weeks.  He did not 
draft and file the papers as promised.  After not hearing from 
Attorney Fadner, G.T. began calling Attorney Fadner's office 
twice a week to inquire about the status of her case.  Attorney 
Fadner never responded to these telephone messages.  Although 
G.T.'s judgment of divorce stated that the guardian ad litem 
(GAL) had the power to determine which preschool the child would 
attend, Attorney Fadner never contacted the GAL or the child's 
father to discuss the matter.  G.T. ultimately terminated 
Attorney Fadner's representation on May 21, 2004. 
¶13 Attorney Fadner's billing records indicate that he 
charged G.T. $961.90 for work he claims to have done.  The 
referee concluded that Attorney Fadner's fees were unreasonable 
in many respects, including the fact that approximately half of 
the fees were allegedly incurred after G.T. had terminated the 
representation.  In addition, in the documents that Attorney 
Fadner did prepare, but never filed, he made numerous obvious 
errors, including referring to the proceeding as a paternity 
matter and failing to provide notice as to what issue the motion 
addressed.  In other words, the documents that had been drafted 
were of no benefit to G.T.  Nonetheless, when G.T. requested a 
refund of the $1000 retainer, Attorney Fadner failed to respond. 
No. 
2005AP3005-D   
 
8 
 
¶14 Attorney Fadner failed to respond to the OLR's 
requests for a written supplemental response to G.T.'s grievance 
and for specific additional information. 
¶15 The referee concluded that Attorney Fadner had failed 
to provide competent representation to G.T., in violation of SCR 
20:1.1.5  In addition, by failing to contact the GAL or the 
father and by failing to prepare and file the motion and 
supporting affidavit as promised, Attorney Fadner violated SCR 
20:1.3.6  The referee further ruled that Attorney Fadner had 
failed to keep G.T. reasonably informed about the status of her 
case and to respond promptly to her requests for information, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).7  By claiming that he had earned 
almost all the $1000 retainer when many of his claimed charges 
were 
clearly 
unreasonable, 
Attorney 
Fadner 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.5(a).8  The referee further determined that Attorney 
                                                 
5 SCR 20:1.1 provides that "[a] lawyer shall provide 
competent representation to a client.  Competent representation 
requires 
the 
legal 
knowledge, 
skill, 
thoroughness 
and 
preparation reasonably necessary for the representation." 
6 SCR 20:1.3 provides that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
7 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides that "[a] lawyer shall keep a 
client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and 
promptly comply with reasonable requests for information." 
8 SCR 20:1.5(a) states:  Fees 
 
(a) A lawyer's fee shall be reasonable.  The 
factors 
to 
be 
considered 
in 
determining 
the 
reasonableness of a fee include the following: 
No. 
2005AP3005-D   
 
9 
 
Fadner's failure to deposit G.T.'s retainer into his trust 
account had violated former SCR 20:1.15(a).9  The referee also 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
(1) the time and labor required, the novelty 
and difficulty of the questions involved, and the 
skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; 
 
(2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, 
that the acceptance of the particular employment will 
preclude other employment by the lawyer; 
 
(3) the fee customarily charged in the locality 
for similar legal services; 
 
(4) 
the 
amount 
involved 
and 
the 
results 
obtained; 
 
(5) the time limitations imposed by the client 
or by the circumstances; 
 
(6) the nature and length of the professional 
relationship with the client; 
 
(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of 
the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and 
 
(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent. 
9 Former SCR 20:1.15 applies to misconduct committed prior 
to July 1, 2004.  Former SCR 20:1.15(a) provided: 
 
(a) A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from 
the lawyer's own property, that property of clients 
and third persons that is in the lawyer's possession 
in connection with a representation or when acting in 
a fiduciary capacity.  Funds held in connection with a 
representation or in a fiduciary capacity include 
funds held as trustee, agent, guardian, personal 
representative of an estate, or otherwise.  All funds 
of clients and third persons paid to a lawyer or law 
firm shall be deposited in one or more identifiable 
trust funds . . . . The trust account shall be 
maintained in a bank, savings bank, trust company, 
credit union, savings and loan association or other 
investment institution authorized to do business and 
located in Wisconsin.  The trust account shall be 
clearly designated as "Client's Account" or "Trust 
No. 
2005AP3005-D   
 
10 
 
found that by failing to refund any portion of the $1000 
retainer, Attorney Fadner had violated SCR 20:1.16(d).10  The 
referee further concluded that Attorney Fadner had violated SCR 
22.03(6), thereby also violating SCR 20:8.4(f), by failing to 
file a written supplemental response to the grievance even after 
this court had issued an order to show cause, and had 
temporarily suspended his license to practice law.  Finally with 
respect to G.T., the referee ruled that Attorney Fadner's 
failure to respond to the OLR's district committee investigator 
had violated SCR 22.04,11 thereby also violating SCR 20:8.4(f). 
¶16 Counts 
12—18 
relate 
to 
Attorney 
Fadner's 
representation of client M.C. concerning a pro se motion to 
                                                                                                                                                             
Account" or words of similar import.  No funds 
belonging to the lawyer or law firm, except funds 
reasonably sufficient to pay or avoid imposition of 
account service charges, may be deposited in such an 
account. . . . 
10 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides:  Declining or terminating 
representation 
 
(d) 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 that has not been earned.  
The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to 
the extent permitted by other law. 
11 SCR 22.04 provides in relevant part:  "(1) The director 
may refer a matter to a district committee for assistance in the 
investigation.  The respondent has the duty to cooperate 
specified in SCR 21.15(4) and 22.03(2) in respect to the 
district committee. . . ." 
No. 
2005AP3005-D   
 
11 
 
modify the placement of her child that she had filed in a 
pending paternity action.  M.C. retained Attorney Fadner to 
assist her with the motion, giving him a $100 retainer.  
Although Attorney Fadner told M.C. that he would charge by the 
hour, he failed to explain his rates or how she would be billed.  
Although Attorney Fadner appeared at hearings on January 30, 
2004, and February 19, 2004, he intentionally chose not to 
appear at a March 3, 2004 hearing, even though he had notice of 
that proceeding.  M.C. then terminated Attorney Fadner's 
representation. 
¶17 Although M.C. left telephone messages on multiple 
occasions and even personally went to Attorney Fadner's office 
to demand a refund of her retainer, he did not respond.  
Ultimately, in August 2004 M.C. received a letter from Attorney 
Fadner dated May 14, 2004, that contained an invoice dated July 
15, 2004.  The invoice contained a number of charges for 
services allegedly rendered after March 3, 2004, when M.C. had 
terminated the representation. In addition, his July 15, 2004 
invoice showed at least six different hourly rates. 
¶18 After M.C. filed a grievance with the OLR and the OLR 
contacted Attorney Fadner, he submitted a revised invoice, dated 
November 12, 2004, purportedly showing all of the work that he 
had performed on M.C.'s behalf.  The November 12, 2004 invoice 
was substantially different from the earlier July 15, 2004 
invoice, including the fact that the balance due was now over 
$230 higher.  The November 12, 2004 invoice was similar to the 
previous one in that it still included many charges allegedly 
No. 
2005AP3005-D   
 
12 
 
incurred after March 3, 2004.  The referee found that a 
substantial number of the charges were material misstatements 
and that Attorney Fadner had failed to properly supervise his 
staff or review the billing statements before they had been 
issued. 
¶19 The OLR sent multiple letters to Attorney Fadner 
requesting 
a 
response 
to 
the 
grievance 
and 
seeking 
the 
production of specific information.  Although Attorney Fadner 
did file one belated and insufficient response after this court 
issued an order to show cause why his license should not be 
temporarily suspended for failure to cooperate with the OLR's 
investigation, Attorney Fadner did not provide the information 
requested by the OLR and failed to fully and fairly disclose the 
facts and circumstances surrounding his alleged misconduct.  
Indeed, much of what he told the OLR's investigator during an 
in-person interview turned out to be not true. 
¶20 In light of these facts, the referee concluded that 
Attorney Fadner had violated SCR 20:1.3 when he failed to appear 
at a scheduled hearing before a family court commissioner.  The 
referee also found that Attorney Fadner had violated SCR 
20:1.4(a) by failing to keep M.C. apprised of the status of her 
case.  The referee further determined that Attorney Fadner's 
failure to inform M.C. of the rates that he and his assistants 
would charge and to explain how she would be billed, as well as 
his intentionally vague estimate of the total fees, had violated 
No. 
2005AP3005-D   
 
13 
 
SCR 20:1.5(b).12  Finally with respect to M.C., the referee found 
that by failing to supervise his staff and to review billing 
statements that contained misrepresentations regarding the work 
performed, Attorney Fadner had violated SCR 20:5.3(b) and 
(c)(1).13 
¶21 Counts 19—23 concern Attorney Fadner's representation 
of 
Darryl 
B. 
concerning 
a 
possible 
claim 
for 
wrongful 
termination of employment.  Darryl B. paid Attorney Fadner $75 
for an initial consultation in November 2004.  When Darryl B. 
called Attorney Fadner again in December 2004, they scheduled a 
meeting for January 10, 2005, although Attorney Fadner did not 
remember having met with Darryl B. or the substance of his legal 
issue. 
                                                 
12 SCR 20:1.5(b) states that "[w]hen the lawyer has not 
regularly represented the client, the basis or rate of the fee 
shall be communicated to the client, preferably in writing, 
before or within a reasonable time after commencing the 
representation." 
13 SCR 20:5.3 provides in relevant part:  Responsibilities 
regarding nonlawyer assistants 
 
(b) A lawyer having direct supervisory authority 
over the nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to 
ensure that the person's conduct is compatible with 
the professional obligations of the lawyer; and 
 
(c) A lawyer shall be responsible for conduct of 
such a person that would be a violation of the Rules 
of Professional Conduct if engaged in by a lawyer if: 
 
(1) the lawyer orders or, with the knowledge of 
the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved. 
No. 
2005AP3005-D   
 
14 
 
¶22 Pursuant to Attorney Fadner's request, Darryl B. paid 
a $1500 retainer fee to Attorney Fadner on January 10, 2005.  
Although Attorney Fadner promised Darryl B. that he would send a 
letter describing the services to be provided for that fee, 
Darryl B. never received any such letter.  Indeed, after the 
January 10, 2005 meeting, Darryl B. never heard from Attorney 
Fadner again, although he tried on numerous occasions to 
communicate with Attorney Fadner. 
¶23 Attorney 
Fadner negotiated Darryl B.'s check on 
January 11, 2005.  On that same day, this court temporarily 
suspended Attorney Fadner's license to practice law.  Attorney 
Fadner did not notify Darryl B. that his license had been 
suspended or take any action to assist Darryl B. in locating 
other counsel.  In addition, Attorney Fadner did not file an 
affidavit with the OLR showing that he had complied with his 
post-suspension obligations.  Attorney Fadner also did not 
respond to the OLR's letters seeking information about the 
grievance filed by Darryl B.  He also never refunded any part of 
Darryl B.'s $1500 retainer.  Instead, Darryl B. was forced to 
file 
a 
claim 
with 
the 
Fund, 
which 
paid 
him 
$1500 
as 
reimbursement for his loss. 
¶24 According 
to 
the 
referee's 
conclusions 
of 
law, 
Attorney Fadner's failure to refund Darryl B.'s $1500 payment, 
which Attorney Fadner never earned, violated SCR 20:1.16(d).  
The referee also found that by taking Darryl B.'s money when his 
law license was about to be suspended for non-cooperation with 
the OLR's investigations and by using that money for his own 
No. 
2005AP3005-D   
 
15 
 
purposes, Attorney Fadner had engaged in dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).14  
Attorney Fadner's failure to respond to the OLR's requests for 
information and documents constituted a violation of SCR 
22.03(2), which in turn violated SCR 20:8.4(f).  In addition, 
the referee concluded that Attorney Fadner had violated SCR 
22.26(1)(a) and (b),15 thereby also violating SCR 20:8.4(f), when 
he failed to notify Darryl B. of his suspension or advise him to 
seek legal representation from another attorney.  Finally, the 
referee found that Attorney Fadner's failure to file an 
affidavit 
showing 
compliance 
with 
his 
post-suspension 
obligations had violated SCR 22.26(1)(e),16 actionable through 
SCR 20:8.4(f). 
                                                 
14 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
15 SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b) provide:  Activities following 
suspension or revocation. 
 
(1) On or before the effective date of license 
suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 
suspended or revoked shall . . . : 
 
(a) Notify by certified mail all clients being 
represented in pending matters of the suspension or 
revocation and of the attorney's consequent inability 
to act as an attorney following the effective date of 
the suspension or revocation. 
 
(b) Advise the clients to seek legal advice of 
their choice elsewhere. 
16 SCR 22.26(1)(e) provides: 
No. 
2005AP3005-D   
 
16 
 
¶25 Count 24 of the OLR's complaint relates to the 
representation of client T.L.  At the time of Attorney Fadner's 
temporary suspension, he was representing T.L. in a divorce 
proceeding in Winnebago County Circuit Court.  Approximately one 
month after the suspension, the court received a draft document 
entitled "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment" in 
T.L.'s divorce.  The document had Attorney Fadner's name on an 
approval line and was accompanied by an unsigned cover letter 
purportedly from Attorney Fadner.  The court did not accept the 
documents because of Attorney Fadner's suspension, and T.L. 
completed the divorce on a pro se basis.  When the OLR sent 
letters to Attorney Fadner requesting his response to its 
investigation of this matter, Attorney Fadner failed to respond. 
¶26 The referee concluded that Attorney Fadner's failure 
to file a written response to the OLR's investigative letters 
                                                                                                                                                             
(e) Within 25 days after the effective date of 
suspension or revocation, file with the director an 
affidavit showing all of the following: 
 
(i) Full compliance with the provisions of the 
suspension or revocation order and with the rules and 
procedures regarding the closing of the attorney's 
practice. 
 
(ii) A list of all jurisdictions, including 
state, federal and administrative bodies, before which 
the attorney is admitted to practice. 
 
(iii) A list of clients in all pending matters 
and a list of all matters pending before any court or 
administrative agency, together with the case number 
of each matter. 
No. 
2005AP3005-D   
 
17 
 
had constituted a violation of SCR 22.03(2), thereby also 
violating SCR 20:8.4(f). 
¶27 Counts 25—29 relate to D.R., an out-of-state resident.  
D.R. retained Attorney Fadner in 2004 to represent her regarding 
a placement dispute concerning her two sons.  On November 12, 
2004, she paid a $1200 retainer to Attorney Fadner. 
¶28 A hearing on the placement dispute was scheduled for 
November 16, 2004, in Green Lake.  Although D.R. arrived at 
Attorney Fadner's office well in advance of the hearing, 
Attorney Fadner was not ready to leave for the hearing.  As a 
result of Attorney Fadner's delay, they did not arrive at the 
courthouse until 15 minutes after the scheduled time.  By that 
time, in light of D.R.'s failure to appear, the circuit court 
had already ruled in favor of the children's father, awarding 
him primary physical placement and requiring D.R. to pay child 
support.  The court's orders, one for each child, did state that 
D.R. could file a motion to modify the placement, but she would 
have to show cause why the court's orders were inappropriate. 
¶29 Attorney Fadner promised to order a transcript of the 
missed hearing and then to file a motion to reopen the 
placement.  Thereafter, D.R., who had now lost physical 
placement of her children, attempted to contact Attorney Fadner 
on numerous occasions.  Either Attorney Fadner did not respond 
or he failed to provide any information about the status of her 
case. 
¶30 On January 21, 2005, after the temporary suspension of 
Attorney Fadner's license, D.R. sent an e-mail to Attorney 
No. 
2005AP3005-D   
 
18 
 
Fadner again seeking a response to her previous messages.  
Attorney Fadner sent a reply message on January 26, 2005, 
stating that he had been under the weather, that the court was 
supposed to get in touch with his assistant regarding the 
hearing transcript, that his assistant had quit the preceding 
week and that the work in his office was piling up.  Attorney 
Fadner did not mention that his license to practice law had been 
temporarily suspended. 
¶31 Although the circuit court issued a notice of hearing 
for March 1, 2005, and D.R. inquired about the hearing on 
multiple occasions, Attorney Fadner never responded to D.R.'s 
inquiries.  Consequently, D.R. was forced to appear pro se at 
the hearing.  Despite requests to do so, Attorney Fadner never 
returned any of D.R.'s $1200 retainer. 
¶32 As with a number of other grievances, the OLR sent 
multiple letters to Attorney Fadner's last known address 
requesting a response to its grievance investigation.  Attorney 
Fadner never responded to the OLR's letters. 
¶33 The referee determined that in light of Attorney 
Fadner's failure to appear on a timely basis for the November 
16, 2004 hearing, which had caused D.R. to lose physical 
placement of her children, and his failure thereafter to advance 
her case, Attorney Fadner had not demonstrated reasonable 
diligence and promptness, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.  The 
referee also found that by failing (1) to respond to D.R.'s 
inquiries after his license suspension, (2) to assist her in 
obtaining other legal representation, and (3) to refund any part 
No. 
2005AP3005-D   
 
19 
 
of her $1200 retainer, Attorney Fadner had violated SCR 
20:1.16(d).  In addition, when Attorney Fadner falsely implied 
in his January 26, 2005 e-mail, after his license was suspended, 
that he was still practicing law and representing her, he 
violated SCR 20:8.4(c).  The referee further concluded that 
Attorney Fadner's failure to advise D.R. that his law license 
had been suspended and that she should seek legal representation 
elsewhere had violated SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b), thereby also 
violating SCR 20:8.4(f).  Finally, Attorney Fadner's failure to 
respond to the OLR's letters violated SCR 22.03(2), actionable 
through SCR 20:8.4(f). 
¶34 With respect to Counts 30—32, on March 29, 2004, R.B. 
retained Attorney Fadner on an unemployment compensation matter.  
R.B. gave Attorney Fadner a retainer of $2500 to be applied 
toward future fees.  Although there was no written fee 
agreement, Attorney Fadner did inform R.B. that he would charge 
$179 per hour.  According to credit union records for Attorney 
Fadner's trust account, Attorney Fadner never deposited R.B.'s 
retainer into his trust account. 
¶35 After R.B. retained Attorney Fadner to represent him 
on the unemployment compensation matter, R.B. was charged with 
criminal drug violations.  R.B. hired Attorney Fadner to 
represent him on those charges.  The only act that Attorney 
Fadner undertook on either matter was to appear with R.B. at his 
initial appearance and bail hearing in the criminal matter on 
April 19, 2004. 
No. 
2005AP3005-D   
 
20 
 
¶36 In 
May 
2004 
R.B. 
terminated 
Attorney 
Fadner's 
representation, and Attorney Fadner then officially withdrew 
from the criminal case.  Thereafter, both R.B. and his new 
attorney made repeated requests for a refund of R.B.'s $2500 
retainer.  Attorney Fadner never responded.  Ultimately, the 
Fund reimbursed R.B. for the $2500 he had given to Attorney 
Fadner. 
¶37 The OLR sent letters in March and April 2005 to the 
last office address that Attorney Fadner had provided to the 
State Bar.  Attorney Fadner did not respond to those letters. 
¶38 With respect to the representation of R.B., the 
referee found that by ignoring the requests for a refund by R.B. 
and his successor counsel and by refusing to refund any of the 
$2500 retainer, Attorney Fadner had violated SCR 20:1.16(d).  
The referee also again determined that Attorney Fadner's failure 
to respond to the OLR's investigative letters had violated SCR 
22.03(2) and SCR 20:8.4(f). 
¶39 Counts 
33—37 
relate 
to 
Attorney 
Fadner's 
representation of K.F.  In April 2004 K.F. retained Attorney 
Fadner to represent her in a divorce proceeding.  Attorney 
Fadner agreed that he would complete her divorce for a total fee 
of $1800.  K.F. paid a total of $1500 during April, May and June 
2004. 
¶40 Three hearings occurred in the divorce proceeding 
before a temporary order was issued in September 2004.  At the 
first hearing, Attorney Fadner was nearly an hour late and 
failed to bring the correct financial statement for K.F., 
No. 
2005AP3005-D   
 
21 
 
causing the hearing to be continued.  The rescheduled hearing 
also did not go forward because Attorney Fadner had failed to 
properly serve K.F.'s husband with an order to appear.  When 
K.F. contacted Attorney Fadner regarding the third hearing, he 
told her that he was not sure when the hearing was scheduled, 
but thought it was in October.  The hearing was actually 
scheduled for September 28, 2004.  K.F. ultimately learned of 
the correct date for the hearing from her husband.  Once again, 
Attorney Fadner was substantially late for the hearing and 
arrived without K.F.'s most recent financial statement, which 
she had mailed to him just one week earlier.  Following this 
September 28, 2004 hearing, K.F. did not speak with Attorney 
Fadner again. 
¶41 Although 
Attorney 
Fadner's 
license 
had 
been 
temporarily suspended on January 11, 2005, Attorney Fadner 
failed to inform K.F. of that fact.  K.F. learned of the 
suspension when she received a scheduling notice from the court 
with a note that it was being sent directly to her because of 
Attorney Fadner's suspension.  Attorney Fadner did not respond 
to any of K.F.'s subsequent attempts to contact him or to her 
requests for a refund of at least a portion of her advance fee.  
K.F. indicated to the circuit court that she had no money to 
hire another attorney because she had used her money to pay 
Attorney Fadner's advance fee.  Ultimately, K.F. submitted a 
claim to the Fund, which reimbursed her for the $1500 she had 
paid to Attorney Fadner as an advance fee. 
No. 
2005AP3005-D   
 
22 
 
¶42 The OLR sent multiple letters to Attorney Fadner in 
March 2005 about K.F.'s grievance.  Attorney Fadner did not 
respond. 
¶43 The referee concluded that Attorney Fadner's errors 
with the three hearings, including his tardiness, his failure to 
serve K.F.'s husband and his failure to bring the correct 
documentation to the hearings, had demonstrated a lack of 
diligence in representing K.F., contrary to SCR 20:1.3.  The 
referee further found that Attorney Fadner had violated SCR 
20:1.4(a) by failing to respond to K.F.'s requests about the 
status of her case and by failing to provide her with the proper 
date for the rescheduled hearing.  In addition, the referee 
determined that Attorney Fadner's failure to respond to K.F.'s 
requests for information after the temporary suspension of his 
license and his failure to refund any part of the $1500 advance 
fee had constituted a violation of SCR 20:1.16(d).  Further, the 
referee concluded that Attorney Fadner's failure to notify K.F. 
of the temporary suspension of his license to practice law had 
violated SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b), thereby also violating SCR 
20:8.4(f).  Finally, the referee stated that Attorney Fadner's 
failure to respond to the OLR's letters about K.F.'s grievance 
had violated SCR 22.03(2), actionable through SCR 20:8.4(f). 
¶44 Counts 38—41 of the OLR's complaint allege that in 
July 2004 J.R. retained Attorney Fadner in connection with a 
claim for wrongful termination.  J.R. paid Attorney Fadner an 
advance fee of $2500.  Attorney Fadner told J.R. that he would 
No. 
2005AP3005-D   
 
23 
 
charge an hourly rate for his services.  Attorney Fadner also 
promised that he would return any unused funds to J.R. 
¶45 Based on information provided by J.R. and his wife, 
Attorney Fadner filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal 
Rights Division (ERD) of the Wisconsin Department of Workforce 
Development.  In response, the ERD submitted questions to 
Attorney Fadner and asked him to produce certain documents 
potentially relevant to J.R.'s claim.  When J.R. was unable to 
reach Attorney Fadner after multiple attempts, J.R. and his wife 
drafted the answers to the ERD's requests by themselves. 
¶46 The ERD later submitted another round of requests for 
information.  Attorney Fadner told J.R. that he would respond to 
the requests, but failed to do so.  Instead, after receiving no 
assistance from Attorney Fadner, J.R. and his wife again drafted 
the answers on their own. 
¶47 J.R. met with Attorney Fadner in late October 2004.  
Attorney Fadner then sent a letter to the ERD concerning the 
possible settlement of J.R.'s claim.  J.R. never heard from 
Attorney Fadner again. 
¶48 Although Attorney Fadner's license was temporarily 
suspended on January 11, 2005, he never communicated that fact 
to J.R.  He also never returned the file or refunded any portion 
of the $2500 advance fee that J.R. had paid. 
¶49 The ERD dismissed J.R.'s discrimination claim on 
February 23, 2005.  J.R. tried on multiple occasions and via 
multiple means to contact Attorney Fadner about appealing the 
ERD's dismissal, which had to be accomplished within 30 days of 
No. 
2005AP3005-D   
 
24 
 
its decision.  Attorney Fadner never responded to J.R.  As a 
result, J.R. was not able to file an appeal of the dismissal of 
his claim within the 30-day deadline.  Indeed, it was only after 
J.R. contacted the OLR in April 2005 that he learned of Attorney 
Fadner's suspension.  J.R. ultimately submitted a claim to the 
Fund for the $2500 he had paid to Attorney Fadner and received 
reimbursement of that amount. 
¶50 The OLR sent certified and first-class letters to the 
most recent address that Attorney Fadner had provided to the 
State Bar.  The letters were forwarded to an Omro post office 
box and then to an address in Sioux City, Iowa.  Ultimately, the 
letters were returned to the OLR as undeliverable.  Attorney 
Fadner did not respond to J.R.'s grievance. 
¶51 With respect to this matter, the referee concluded 
that Attorney Fadner's failure to respond to J.R.'s pleas for 
assistance in answering the ERD's information requests and his 
general failure to respond to J.R.'s requests for information 
about the status of the case, had violated SCR 20:1.4(a).  The 
referee further found that by failing to assist J.R. with 
obtaining another attorney after Attorney Fadner's suspension, 
by failing to return J.R.'s file, and by failing to refund any 
portion of the $2500 advance fee, Attorney Fadner had violated 
SCR 20:1.16(d).  In addition, Attorney Fadner's failure to 
notify J.R. of the suspension of his license constituted a 
violation of SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b), which also violated SCR 
20:8.4(f).  Finally, the referee determined that Attorney 
No. 
2005AP3005-D   
 
25 
 
Fadner's failure to respond to the OLR's investigative requests 
had violated SCR 22.03(2), thereby also violating SCR 20:8.4(f). 
¶52 The final four counts of the complaint, Counts 42—45, 
relate to Attorney Fadner's representation of Donald B., who 
retained 
Attorney 
Fadner 
in 
March 
2002 
to 
prosecute 
an 
employment discrimination claim.  Donald B. paid $2500 as an 
advance fee to Attorney Fadner at that time. 
¶53 In May 2002 Attorney Fadner filed a discrimination 
complaint with the ERD.  In March 2003 Attorney Fadner requested 
a right to sue letter from the federal Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  In response, on June 9, 2003, 
the EEOC mailed to Donald B. and Attorney Fadner a notice of 
right to sue his former employer.  The notice specifically 
stated that any lawsuit by Donald B. under the federal Age 
Discrimination in Employment Act had to be filed within 90 days 
of Donald B.'s receipt of the notice. 
¶54 There was some delay in Donald B.'s receipt of this 
letter as it had to be forwarded to his current address.  
Attorney Fadner received his copy of the notice on June 19, 
No. 
2005AP3005-D   
 
26 
 
2003.  Around July 10, 2004,17 Donald B. notified Attorney Fadner 
about his receipt of the right to sue letter. 
¶55 According to Attorney Fadner's billing statements, his 
office did no work on the preparation of a summons and complaint 
on Donald B.'s behalf during the months of June, July and August 
2003.  The first work indicated in the billing statements 
occurred on September 15, 2003.  On September 17, 2003, Attorney 
Fadner filed a discrimination complaint in federal district 
court.  This was 100 days after the EEOC had mailed its right to 
sue letter. 
¶56 Donald B. paid Attorney Fadner an additional $2000 in 
advance fees in November 2003.  The merits of Donald B.'s claim, 
however, were never considered.  The former employer filed a 
summary judgment motion based on the untimeliness of Donald B.'s 
complaint.   
¶57 When 
Donald 
B. 
questioned 
the 
reason 
for 
the 
employer's motion, Attorney Fadner sent a January 28, 2004 
                                                 
17 This is the date stated in the referee's report, which 
adopted 
the 
factual 
allegations 
of 
the 
OLR's 
complaint, 
including the July 10, 2004 date, as its findings of fact.  This 
date appears to be a mistake or typographical error, with the 
correct date being July 10, 2003, based on the remainder of the 
report's discussion of this representation.  As noted in ¶57, 
Attorney Fadner sent a letter in January 2004 that acknowledged 
that he had by that time received notice of Donald B.'s receipt 
of the EEOC letter, but which falsely claimed that he had not 
learned of Donald B.'s receipt of the letter until after the 
filing of the complaint in federal district court.  In light of 
this January 2004 letter, Attorney Fadner could not have first 
learned of Donald B.'s receipt of the EEOC letter around July 
10, 2004. 
No. 
2005AP3005-D   
 
27 
 
letter to Donald B. attempting to explain why the employer had 
challenged the timeliness of the complaint.  Attorney Fadner's 
letter stated that the complaint had been timely filed based on 
his receipt of the EEOC's right to sue letter, but the employer 
was basing its challenge on Donald B.'s receipt, which Attorney 
Fadner claimed was unknown to his office "until long after the 
complaint was filed."  This was a false statement.  Attorney 
Fadner's office received a copy of the right to sue notice sent 
to Donald B. months before the complaint was filed. 
¶58 Ultimately, the federal district court granted the 
employer's motion and dismissed Donald B.'s complaint as 
untimely.  Donald B. subsequently tried on numerous occasions to 
obtain a copy of his file from Attorney Fadner, but received no 
response from Attorney Fadner.  After the OLR mailed a letter to 
Attorney Fadner about Donald B.'s grievance, Attorney Fadner did 
advise Donald B. that he could retrieve a copy of his file at a 
Staples office supply store if he paid them a copying charge of 
$89.23. 
¶59 In March and April 2005 the OLR sent at least three 
letters to Attorney Fadner about the grievance filed by Donald 
B.  Attorney Fadner never responded to the OLR. 
¶60 Donald B. submitted a claim to the Fund, which 
reimbursed him for the $4500 he had advanced to Attorney Fadner. 
¶61 Based on these facts, the referee concluded that 
Attorney Fadner's failure to file Donald B.'s federal complaint 
on a timely basis, which led to the dismissal of his claim, had 
violated SCR 20:1.3.  In addition, Attorney Fadner's failure to 
No. 
2005AP3005-D   
 
28 
 
respond to Donald B.'s multiple requests for his file and his 
providing a copy of the file only after Donald B. paid copying 
charges violated SCR 20:1.16(d).  The referee further found that 
Attorney Fadner had violated SCR 20:8.4(c) when he falsely 
stated in his January 28, 2004 letter that his office had not 
known about Donald B.'s receipt of the right to sue letter until 
after the filing of the complaint.  Finally, the referee 
concluded that Attorney Fadner's failure to respond to the OLR's 
investigative letters had violated SCR 22.03(2), thereby also 
violating SCR 20:8.4(f). 
¶62 On the basis of these factual findings and legal 
conclusions of professional misconduct, which we adopt, we agree 
that the license of Attorney Fadner to practice law in this 
state must be revoked.  The findings disclose a pattern by 
Attorney Fadner of accepting advance fees from clients and then 
doing little or no work.  Attorney Fadner's lack of diligence 
has caused serious harm to a number of his clients.  Moreover, 
this is the third time that Attorney Fadner has been the subject 
of discipline for professional misconduct. 
¶63 In addition to the revocation of Attorney Fadner's 
license to practice law, the referee recommended that Attorney 
Fadner should be required to pay restitution in the total amount 
of $12,500 to the Fund for the reimbursement payments that it 
made to Darryl B., R.B., K.F., J.R. and Donald B. 
¶64 On October 13, 2006, the court issued an order 
directing the OLR and Attorney Fadner to show cause why the 
court should not also order Attorney Fadner to pay restitution 
No. 
2005AP3005-D   
 
29 
 
to G.T. and D.R.  The OLR responded that it believed restitution 
to those clients would be appropriate.  No response to the 
October 13, 2006 order was filed by Attorney Fadner.  In light 
of Attorney Fadner's failure to provide any meaningful services 
to those clients, we determine that he should pay restitution 
for the advance fees that he collected from them: $1000 from 
G.T. and $1200 from D.R. 
¶65 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Thomas A. Fadner, 
II, to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date 
of this order. 
¶66 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Thomas A. Fadner, II, 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
revoked. 
¶67 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Thomas A. Fadner, II, make restitution payments 
to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection in the 
amount of $12,500, to client G.T. in the amount of $1000, and to 
client D.R. in the amount of $1200. 
¶68 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Thomas A. Fadner, II, pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
¶69 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that restitution to clients 
G.T., D.R., and to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client 
Protection is to be completed prior to paying costs to the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation. 
 
No. 
2005AP3005-D   
 
 
 
1