Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Allen E. Schatz
Citation: 2005 WI 10
Docket Number: 2004AP000654-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: February 10, 2005

2005 WI 10 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
04-0654-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Allen E. Schatz, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Allen E. Schatz,  
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SCHATZ 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 10, 2005 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2005 WI 10 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This order is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The 
final version will appear in the 
bound volume of the official 
reports.   
 
 
 
No.  04-0654-D 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Allen E. Schatz, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Allen E. Schatz,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 10, 2005 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Court entered the following order on this date: 
 
Attorney 
Allen 
E. 
Schatz 
has 
filed 
a 
petition 
for 
consensual license revocation under SCR 22.19(4).  The Office of 
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) has filed a response, and the referee, 
Dennis Flynn, has filed a report and recommendation, both of 
which submit that consensual revocation is appropriate.  The 
parties and referee also submit revocation should be retroactive 
to August 13, 2003 when this court suspended his license 
pursuant to SCR 22.21 on a finding that his continued practice 
of law constituted a threat to the interest of the public and 
the administration of justice.   
 
Attorney Schatz was licensed to practice law in Wisconsin 
in 1984 and had no disciplinary history prior to the August 13, 
2003 suspension.  The pending complaint against him alleges 32 
counts of misconduct.  He is also the subject of four additional 
pending OLR grievance investigations.  His petition states that 
No. 04-0654-D   
 
 
he cannot successfully defend against either the allegations in 
the complaint or the matters being investigated, he is freely 
filing this petition, he gives up his right to a public hearing 
and to contest to the allegations of misconduct, and he agrees 
to a revocation.  The 11 matters from which the counts arise 
consist of the following. 
 
Cheryl K.--Counts 1-4 involve personal injury and real 
estate 
matters 
with 
trust 
account 
violations 
under 
SCR 
20:1.15(a) and the failure to protect the client's interest upon 
termination 
of 
the 
representation 
under 
SCR 
20:1.16(d).  
Attorney Schatz was to have placed a $5,000 payment from the 
client into his trust account but converted it instead.  The 
$5,000 has been repaid.  However, he also failed to return 
unearned fees in the amount of $1,000 as well as a file to the  
client. 
 
Kim M.--Counts 5-7 arise out of a property damage matter 
and concern a failure to promptly deliver client funds to the 
client in violation of SCR 20:1.15(b), failure to hold client 
property/funds in the trust account in violation of SCR 
20:1.15(a), and forgery and dishonesty in violation of SCR 
20:8.4(c).  Attorney Schatz failed to deliver settlement 
proceeds to the client and forged her name on the settlement 
check.  She has since been repaid. 
 
 
Jason M.--Count 8 concerns a failure to provide competent 
representation in a criminal matter in violation of SCR 20:1.1.  
Attorney Schatz failed to file a motion for postconviction 
relief and a no-merit report in the court of appeals. 
 
Antoine 
H.--Counts 
9-11 
arise 
out 
of 
postconviction 
representation of a client and involve a failure to act with 
reasonable 
diligence 
and 
promptness 
in 
representing 
the 
individual in violation of SCR 20:1.3, failing to keep the 
client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and to 
promptly comply with reasonable requests for information in 
violation of SCR 20:1.4(a), and failing to withdraw upon that 
representation upon discharge by the client in violation of SCR 
20:1.16(a)3.  Attorney Schatz failed to process an appeal for 
the client. 
 
Julie B.--Counts 12-15 relate to a bankruptcy matter and 
involve a failure to file the petition in violation of SCR 
20:1.3, failing to keep the client reasonably informed as to the 
status of the case in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a), failing to 
hold property/funds of the client in trust and separate from the 
No. 04-0654-D   
 
 
attorney’s own property in violation of SCR 20:1.15(a), and 
failing to surrender papers to the client upon termination of 
the client as well as $500 in fees that were not earned in 
violation of SCR 20:1.16(d).   
 
Roger and Connie H.--Counts 16-20 relate to a bankruptcy 
matter and involve a failure to act with reasonable diligence 
and promptness in violation of SCR 20:1.3, failing to keep the 
clients reasonably informed about the case status in violation 
of SCR 20:1.14(a), failing to hold property of the clients in 
trust and separate from the attorney’s own property in violation 
of SCR 20:1.15(a), failing to take steps to protect the clients’ 
interest when the representation ended including failing to 
refund unearned fees of $700 in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d), and 
also a misrepresentation to the OLR during the investigation in 
violation of SCR 22.03(6) and SCR 20:8.4(f).   
 
Pamela H.--Counts 21-24 involve a bankruptcy matter where 
Attorney Schatz failed to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in the case in violation of SCR 20:1.3, failed to 
keep his client reasonably informed about the status of the 
matter or to comply with reasonable requests for information in 
violation of SCR 20:1.4(a), failed to keep the client’s property 
in trust and separate from his own property, in violation of SCR 
20:1.15(a) and when the representation ended failed to take 
reasonable steps to protect his clients interests including the 
refund of $600 of unearned fees in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d).   
 
Victoria S.--Counts 25 and 26 involve a bankruptcy matter 
where there was a failure to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representation in violation of SCR 20:1.3 and when 
the representation ended a failure to take reasonable steps to 
protect the client’s interest including the refund of $700 of 
unearned fees in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d).   
 
Kim R.--Counts 27 and 28 relate to an operating while 
intoxicated charge where Attorney Schatz failed to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in his representation in 
violation of SCR 20:1.3 and failed upon termination of the 
representation to reasonably protect his client’s interest 
including the refund of $750 of unearned fees in violation of 
SCR 20:1.16(d).   
 
Valerie L.--Counts 29 and 30 involve a bankruptcy matter 
and failure to hold the client’s property in trust and separate 
from the attorney’s own property in violation of SCR 20:1.15(a).  
Further, when the representation ended Attorney Schatz failed to 
No. 04-0654-D   
 
 
take reasonable steps to protect his client including the return 
of $600 of unearned fees in violation of SCR 20:1.16(a).   
 
Dora L.--Counts 31 and 32 involve a divorce matter where 
Attorney Schatz failed to take reasonable steps to protect his 
client’s interest including the return of $300 of unearned fees 
when the representation ended in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d).  
In addition, he failed to notify his client by certified mail of 
the fact he was suspended and unable to continue to act as her 
attorney in violation of SCR 22.26(1)(a) and SCR 20:8.4(f).   
 
The four pending grievances involve:  (1) Failure to take 
necessary steps to allow an appeal to occur in a first degree 
intentional homicide conviction; (2) failure to appear at 
scheduled court hearings for a client who was charged with 
possession of marijuana; (3) failure to do anything in a 
sentence modification matter after receiving a $500 retainer; 
and, (4) failure to do anything on a family court case after 
payment of a $750 retainer. 
 
We determine that the petition for consensual license 
revocation should be granted with the date of revocation 
retroactive to August 13, 2003.  Further, we determine that 
Attorney Schatz shall pay the cost of this matter and shall 
repay his former clients (all those mentioned above except for 
Kim M., Jason M. and Antoine H.) the amounts indicated with 
statutory interest from the date of revocation.  
 
 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Allen E. Schatz 
to practice law in the State of Wisconsin be revoked effective 
August 13, 2003.   
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Allen E. Schatz shall comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an 
attorney whose license to practice law has been revoked, to the 
extent he has not already done so. 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of 
this order Allen E. Schatz shall repay to his former clients the 
unpaid amounts indicated in this order with interest at 5% from 
August 13, 2003.   
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of 
this order Allen E. Schatz shall pay $1,996.90 to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation representing the costs of this proceeding.   
 
 
No. 04-0654-D