Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kimberly A. Theobald
Citation: 2004 WI 59
Docket Number: 2003AP001722-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: May 27, 2004

2004 WI 59 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
03-1722-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Kimberly A. Theobald, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Kimberly A. Theobald,  
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEOBALD 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 27, 2004   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2004 WI 59 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  03-1722-D  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Kimberly A. Theobald, Attorney  
at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Kimberly A. Theobald,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 27, 2004 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   We 
review 
the 
findings 
of 
fact, 
conclusions of law, and recommendations of Referee Charles J. 
Herro for sanctions, pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1  Attorney 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) provides: 
(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 
discipline. The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
No. 
03-1722-D   
 
2 
 
Kimberly A. Theobald was found to have engaged in unprofessional 
conduct in the course of her practice of law in violation of the 
Rules of Professional Conduct.  The referee recommended a public 
reprimand and payment of $3289.51 in costs. 
¶2 
We approve the findings and conclusions and determine 
that Attorney Theobald's misconduct warrants the imposition of 
these sanctions. 
¶3 
Attorney Theobald was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1992.  She has no prior disciplinary history.   
¶4 
The complaint of the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
alleges thirteen counts against Attorney Theobald involving four 
clients.  
¶5 
Counts one through three involve Attorney Theobald's 
representation of a client in a divorce matter.  
¶6 
Count one alleges that Attorney Theobald failed to 
file a bankruptcy petition for the client for over four months 
and failed to contact her regarding information needed to 
complete the bankruptcy.  The OLR submits this is a violation of 
SCR 20:1.32 (failing to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing a client).   
¶7 
Count two arises out of the same conduct and alleges a 
violation of SCR 20:1.4(a)3 (failing to keep the client 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.3 provides:  "Diligence. A lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client."  
3 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides: "(a) A lawyer shall keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly 
comply with reasonable requests for information." 
No. 
03-1722-D   
 
3 
 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and failing to 
promptly comply with reasonable requests for information).   
¶8 
Count three alleges that Attorney Theobald failed on 
several occasions to timely respond to inquiries by the OLR's 
predecessor, the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, 
in violation of what is now SCR 22.03(2)4 (failing to respond to 
an investigation).  
¶9 
The referee found that Attorney Theobald did not 
contest the substance of the testimony of any of these three 
counts, except in minor and inconsequential ways.  The referee 
further found that Attorney Theobald admitted that she "didn't 
get the work done and I didn't respond to them."  
¶10 Accordingly, the referee found the existence of the 
facts necessary to support the allegations of these three counts 
and concluded as a matter of law that Attorney Theobald was in 
violation of the cited rules. 
                                                 
4 SCR 22.03(2) provides:  
(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. 
No. 
03-1722-D   
 
4 
 
¶11 Counts four through six involve Attorney Theobald's 
representation of a client on a tax matter. 
¶12 Count four alleges that by failing to complete the 
client's tax returns for over 11 months, missing a deadline in 
the process which caused interest and penalty charges to be 
imposed on the client, and by failing to contact the client 
regarding information needed to complete the tax returns, 
Attorney Theobald again violated SCR 20:1.3. 
¶13 Count five alleges another violation of SCR 20:1.4(a) 
arising out of Attorney Theobald's failure to respond to the 
client's telephone request for information.  
¶14 Count six alleges yet another violation of SCR 
22.03(2) involving a failure to respond to the OLR's inquiries.  
¶15 The referee again found that Attorney Theobald did not 
substantially contest these counts and admitted that she did not 
do the work for, and respond to, this client. 
¶16 Accordingly, the referee concluded as a matter of law 
that the rules in question had been violated.  
¶17 Counts seven through nine involve Attorney Theobald's 
representation of a client who sought to protect her son's 
interest in her ex-spouse's estate.   
¶18 Count seven alleges another violation of SCR 20:1.3 
arising out Attorney Theobald's failure to take timely action to 
represent the interests of her client and the client's son.  
No. 
03-1722-D   
 
5 
 
¶19 Count eight alleges a violation of SCR 20:1.16(d)5 
(failing to timely surrender papers and property to which the 
client is entitled) arising out of Attorney Theobald's failure 
to send the client her file for over two months after being 
terminated from representation.  
¶20 Count nine alleges another violation of SCR 22.03(2) 
arising out of Attorney Theobald's failure to timely respond to 
the OLR's request for information.  
¶21 Once again, based on Attorney Theobald's admissions, 
the referee found and concluded that the stated rules had been 
violated.  
¶22 Counts 
ten 
through 
thirteen 
involve 
Attorney 
Theobald's representation of a client in a matter involving a 
failure to pay child support. 
¶23 Count ten alleges another violation of SCR 20:1.4(a) 
involving Attorney Theobald's failure to send the client copies 
of 
pertinent 
documents 
and 
thereby 
failing 
to 
keep 
him 
reasonably informed of what was occurring in the matter.  
                                                 
5 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides: 
(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.  
 
No. 
03-1722-D   
 
6 
 
¶24 Count 
eleven 
involves 
another 
violation 
of 
SCR 
20:1.4(a) arising out of Attorney Theobald's failure to respond 
to the client's repeated telephone calls.  
¶25 Count 
twelve 
alleges 
another 
violation 
of 
SCR 
20:1.16(d) arising out of Attorney Theobald's failure to give 
the client adequate notice of when a motion was going to be 
heard such that the client could consider retaining other 
counsel. 
¶26 Count thirteen involves yet another assertion of a 
failure to cooperate with the OLR, in violation of SCR 22.03(2). 
¶27 This was the only set of counts which Attorney 
Theobald substantially disputed.  The referee found only a 
violation of the count involving failure to cooperate with the 
OLR, stating: "Animosity arose between attorney and client, and 
the respondent withdrew as attorney . . . but in the absence of 
further testimony, no finding is made by the Referee except 
[regarding the OLR count]." 
¶28 The standard of review before this court is that the 
referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless clearly erroneous 
but conclusions of law are reviewed on a de novo basis.  See In 
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kalal, 2002 WI 45, 252 
Wis. 2d 261, 643 N.W.2d 466. 
¶29 We adopt the findings of fact of the referee.  There 
is no allegation by the parties, or other indication, that any 
of these findings are clearly erroneous.  
¶30 Similarly, after a de novo review we adopt the 
conclusions of law of the referee that the facts as found 
No. 
03-1722-D   
 
7 
 
constitute a violation of the rules specified in the eleven 
counts.  
¶31 The OLR asked the referee to recommend a public 
reprimand and that was his recommendation, without comment.  The 
OLR also asked for costs which the referee further recommended.   
¶32 Attorney Theobald's misconduct represents a repeated 
failure involving several clients to comply with the Rules of 
Professional Conduct.  We agree that the imposition of a public 
reprimand, 
particularly 
given 
the 
absence 
of 
a 
prior 
disciplinary history, is appropriate for this misconduct.  
¶33 IT IS ORDERED that Attorney Kimberly A. Theobald is 
publicly reprimanded for her misconduct. 
¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Theobald shall pay $3289.51 to the OLR 
representing the costs of this proceeding.  If these costs are 
not paid within the time specified, and absent a showing to this 
court of an inability to pay the costs within this time, the 
license of Attorney Theobald to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
be summarily suspended for an indefinite period until further 
order of the court.  
 
No. 
03-1722-D   
 
 
 
1