Title: John M. Langer v.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1996AP003389-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: October 21, 1997

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
96-3389-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against 
John M. Langer, 
Attorney at Law. 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST LANGER 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
October 21, 1997 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 96-3389-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against JOHN M. LANGER, Attorney at Law. 
FILED 
 
OCT 21, 1997 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that Attorney John M. Langer be publicly reprimanded as 
discipline for neglecting the probate of an estate and failing 
to complete that probate and for failing to respond timely to 
inquiries 
from 
the 
Board 
of 
Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility (Board) seeking information and materials in 
respect to the matter. In addition to the public reprimand, the 
referee recommended that Attorney Langer be ordered to pay 
personally and promptly any penalties, interest, fees, and tax 
due as a result of his delay in the matter.  
¶2 
We 
determine 
that 
the 
professional 
misconduct 
established in this proceeding warrants the imposition of a 
public reprimand. Also, we require that Attorney Langer make any 
payments incurred by the estate as a result of his delay.  
No. 17187.rtf 
 
2 
¶3 
Attorney Langer was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1960 and practices in Baraboo. In 1992, he 
consented to a private reprimand imposed by the Board for 
failing to provide a response to a client grievance under 
investigation by the Board and by the district professional 
responsibility committee. In the instant proceeding, Attorney 
Langer and the Board stipulated to and the referee, Attorney 
Cheryl Rosen Weston, granted the Board’s motion for default 
judgment, and the referee made findings of fact accordingly.  
¶4 
Attorney Langer was retained in April, 1991 to probate 
an estate. On his advice, the personal representative made 
distributions pursuant to the decedent’s will in August, 1993, 
and the following October, when a farm in which the estate had 
an interest was sold, Attorney Langer wrote the personal 
representative that he should be in a position to close the 
estate “shortly.” Notwithstanding the personal representative’s 
request for a status report and the closing of the estate, the 
estate was not concluded. The personal representative met with 
Attorney Langer in June, 1995 and asked him to prepare the final 
papers to close the estate, as the final distribution to the 
heirs had been made. Attorney Langer said the final papers would 
be ready and mailed within several days. When he did not close 
the estate thereafter, the personal representative filed a 
grievance with the Board.  
¶5 
In February, 1996, when the probate court ordered him 
to show cause why the estate remained open, Attorney Langer 
responded that it would be closed within a month, stating that 
No. 17187.rtf 
 
3 
there were possible income tax problems. The court issued a 
second order to show cause in June, 1996, to which Attorney 
Langer 
responded 
that 
he 
was 
having 
difficulty 
getting 
secretarial help and said that the final tax returns were 
partially completed. The court issued a third order to show 
cause in September, 1996, and again Attorney Langer asserted 
that there were income tax returns to complete, stating that the 
estate would be completed within four weeks. At the time the 
Board filed its complaint in this matter, November, 1996, more 
than five and one-half years after the decedent’s death, the 
estate remained open.  
¶6 
The Board wrote to Attorney Langer in August, 1995 
notifying him of the personal representative’s grievance and 
requested a response. When no response was made within the time 
specified, the Board sent a second letter certified mail in 
September, 
1995. Attorney 
Langer 
submitted 
a 
two-sentence 
response in which he admitted as “correct” the allegations of 
the grievance. He did not respond, however, to a subsequent 
request from the Board for information and materials regarding 
the probate or to a second certified letter. He also failed to 
respond to a February, 1996 letter from the district committee 
investigator assigned to the matter. He ultimately met with that 
investigator in March, 1996, at which time he agreed that he had 
failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in the 
estate and failed to respond to the Board.  
¶7 
On the basis of those facts, the referee concluded 
that Attorney Langer’s failure to complete the probate of the 
No. 17187.rtf 
 
4 
estate and his neglect of it from October, 1993 to the present 
constituted a failure to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.1 
Also, his failure to timely respond to Board inquiries and 
furnish any responsive information or materials and to respond 
to the district committee investigator constituted a failure to 
cooperate with the Board’s investigation, in violation of SCR 
21.03(4)2 and 22.07 (2) and(3).3  
                     
1 SCR 20:1.3 provides: Diligence 
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client.   
2 SCR 21.03 provides, in pertinent part: General principles. 
 . . .  
(4) Every attorney shall cooperate with the board and the 
administrator in the investigation, prosecution and disposition 
of grievances and complaints filed with or by the board or 
administrator.   
3 SCR 22.07 provides, in pertinent part: Investigation. 
 . . .  
(2) 
During 
the 
course 
of 
an 
investigation, 
the 
administrator or a committee may notify the respondent of the 
subject being investigated. The respondent shall fully and 
fairly disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct or medical incapacity within 20 days of being 
served by ordinary mail a request for response to a grievance. 
The administrator in his or her discretion may allow additional 
time 
to 
respond. 
Failure 
to 
provide 
information 
or 
misrepresentation 
in 
a 
disclosure 
is 
misconduct. 
The 
administrator or committee may make a further investigation 
before making a recommendation to the board.  
(3) 
The 
administrator 
or 
committee 
may 
compel 
the 
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents and present 
any information deemed relevant to the investigation. Failure of 
No. 17187.rtf 
 
5 
¶8 
As 
discipline 
for 
that 
misconduct, 
the 
referee 
recommended, as the Board had suggested, that the court publicly 
reprimand Attorney Langer. The referee rejected the Board’s 
position that the discipline be conditioned upon Attorney 
Langer’s completion of the estate within a time to be specified, 
stating that any additional delay by Attorney Langer in 
completing the estate would constitute grounds for a new 
disciplinary proceeding and, depending on the circumstances, 
more severe discipline.  
¶9 
We 
adopt 
the 
referee’s 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and determine that the recommended public 
reprimand is appropriate discipline to impose for Attorney 
Langer’s misconduct in this matter. It is also appropriate that 
Attorney Langer be personally responsible for payment of any 
liabilities incurred by the estate as a result of that 
misconduct.  
¶10 IT IS ORDERED that Attorney John M. Langer is publicly 
reprimanded as discipline for professional misconduct.  
¶11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that John M. Langer personally 
and promptly pay any liability incurred by the estate in this 
matter as a result of his professional misconduct.  
¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order John M. Langer pay to the Board of Attorneys 
                                                                  
the respondent to answer questions, furnish documents or present 
relevant information is misconduct. The administrator or a 
committee may compel any other person to produce pertinent 
books, papers and documents under SCR 22.22.   
No. 17187.rtf 
 
6 
Professional Responsibility 
the costs 
of this 
proceeding, 
provided that 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 John M. Langer to 
practice law in Wisconsin shall be suspended until further order 
of the court.