Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Patrick A. Callahan
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2015AP001984-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: February 10, 2016

2016 WI 8 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2015AP1984-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
Patrick A. Callahan, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Patrick A. Callahan, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CALLAHAN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 10, 2016 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2016 WI 8
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2015AP1984-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Patrick A. Callahan, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Patrick A. Callahan, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 10, 2016 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a stipulation filed pursuant 
to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.121 by the Office of Lawyer 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.12 (Stipulation) provides: 
(1) The director may file with the complaint a 
stipulation of the director and the respondent to the 
facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and 
discipline to be imposed. The supreme court may 
consider the complaint and stipulation without the 
appointment of a referee, in which case the supreme 
court 
may 
approve 
the 
stipulation, 
reject 
the 
(continued) 
No. 
2015AP1984-D   
 
2 
 
Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Patrick A. Callahan.  In the 
stipulation, Attorney Callahan admits the misconduct alleged by 
the OLR and agrees to a 60-day suspension of his Wisconsin law 
license. 
¶2 
We adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law. 
We agree that Attorney Callahan's misconduct warrants the 
suspension of his Wisconsin law license for a period of 60 days.  
The OLR advises that this court should not impose either 
restitution or the costs of this proceeding upon Attorney 
Callahan, and we accept that recommendation. 
                                                                                                                                                             
stipulation, 
or 
direct 
the 
parties 
to 
consider 
specific modifications to the stipulation.  
(2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation, 
it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of 
law and impose the stipulated discipline.  
(3) If the supreme court rejects a stipulation, a 
referee shall be appointed and the matter shall 
proceed as a complaint filed without a stipulation.  
(3m) If the supreme court directs the parties to 
consider specific modifications to the stipulation, 
the parties may, within 20 days of the date of the 
order, file a revised stipulation, in which case the 
supreme court may approve the revised stipulation, 
adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law, and 
impose the stipulated discipline. If the parties do 
not file a revised stipulation within 20 days of the 
date of the order, a referee shall be appointed and 
the matter shall proceed as a complaint filed without 
a stipulation.  
(4) A stipulation rejected by the supreme court 
has no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to 
the respondent's defense of the proceeding or the 
prosecution of the complaint.   
No. 
2015AP1984-D   
 
3 
 
¶3 
Attorney Callahan was admitted to the practice of law 
in Wisconsin in 1998.  Although Attorney Callahan has not been 
the subject of prior disciplinary proceedings, his law license 
is currently suspended due to his failure to pay mandatory bar 
dues, failure to file a trust account certification, and failure 
to comply with continuing legal education requirements.  In 
addition, Attorney Callahan's law license has been suspended 
since November 26, 2013, for noncooperation with the OLR's 
investigation into the matter that is the subject of the 
complaint and stipulation now before this court. 
¶4 
The complaint and stipulation concern five misconduct 
counts and involve one client, C.R.  According to the complaint 
and the stipulation, C.R. met with Attorney Callahan in April 
2011 to discuss her recent and allegedly wrongful termination 
from her job.  In July 2012, Attorney Callahan filed on C.R.'s 
behalf a discrimination complaint against C.R.'s former employer 
with the Equal Rights Division (ERD) of the Wisconsin Department 
of Workforce Development (DWD).  This discrimination complaint 
was time-barred, however, because the statutorily imposed 
deadline to file the complaint expired several months earlier, 
in February 2012.  The DWD-ERD dismissed the complaint as 
untimely filed.   
¶5 
Attorney Callahan appealed the dismissal.  Shortly 
thereafter, Attorney Callahan made an offer to C.R.'s former 
employer to settle C.R.'s case for $10,000——even though he had 
no authority from C.R. to settle the case on those terms.  The 
attorney 
for 
C.R.'s 
former 
employer 
accepted 
the 
offer.  
No. 
2015AP1984-D   
 
4 
 
Attorney Callahan then represented to the ERD administrative law 
judge that the parties had settled the case and that settlement 
paperwork would be forthcoming.  After 19 months passed, the ERD 
administrative law judge affirmed the decision to dismiss C.R.'s 
discrimination complaint as untimely filed.  The administrative 
law judge noted that, although C.R. appeared blameless for the 
untimely filing, Attorney Callahan had presented no valid excuse 
for the delay. 
¶6 
In July 2012, on the same day that Attorney Callahan 
filed the untimely discrimination complaint against C.R.'s 
former employer with the DWD-ERD, Attorney Callahan also filed a 
civil suit against C.R.'s former employer.  In February 2013, 
about six weeks before the discovery cutoff date set by the 
circuit court, Attorney Callahan sent a letter to the circuit 
court in which he admitted that he had:  (1) failed to perform 
necessary discovery activities to prepare the case adequately; 
(2) failed to communicate with C.R. about the status of her 
claim; (3) failed to inform C.R. of the scheduling of her 
deposition; (4) advised opposing counsel that C.R. would accept 
$10,000 to settle the case even though he did not have C.R.'s 
authority to do so; and (5) failed to timely file C.R.'s 
discrimination complaint with the DWD-ERD and to report this 
fact to C.R.  Attorney Callahan also mailed a copy of this 
letter to the OLR. 
¶7 
At Attorney Callahan's request, the circuit court 
permitted Attorney Callahan to withdraw from the representation 
No. 
2015AP1984-D   
 
5 
 
of C.R.  The circuit court then dismissed C.R.'s case without 
prejudice. 
¶8 
In April and May 2013, the OLR sent letters to 
Attorney 
Callahan 
seeking 
information 
related 
to 
his 
representation of C.R.  Attorney Callahan did not respond to 
these letters, which ultimately led to this court's November 26, 
2013 order temporarily suspending Attorney Callahan's law 
license for failing to cooperate with the OLR's investigation. 
¶9 
In September 2015, the OLR filed a complaint against 
Attorney Callahan which alleged the following five counts of 
misconduct: 
 Count 1:  By failing to perform the necessary work to 
advance C.R.'s circuit court suit against C.R.'s 
former employer, and by failing to properly advance 
C.R.'s DWD-ERD discrimination claim, Attorney Callahan 
violated SCR 20:1.3.2 
 Count 2:  By advancing a settlement offer in C.R.'s 
case that C.R. had not authorized, Attorney Callahan 
violated SCR 20:1.2(a).3 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.3 provides that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
3 SCR 20:1.2(a) provides, in pertinent part, that: 
[A] lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions 
concerning the objectives of representation and, as 
required by SCR 20:1.4, shall consult with the client 
as to the means by which they are to be pursued. A 
lawyer may take such action on behalf of the client as 
is 
impliedly 
authorized 
to 
carry 
out 
the 
(continued) 
No. 
2015AP1984-D   
 
6 
 
 Count 3:  By representing to opposing counsel that 
C.R. would settle her claims for $10,000 when he knew 
that he had no authority from C.R. to do so, Attorney 
Callahan violated SCR 20:8.4(c).4 
 Count 4:  By failing to keep C.R. apprised of the 
status of her discrimination claim with the DWD-ERD, 
and by failing to keep C.R. apprised of the status of 
her circuit court case, Attorney Callahan violated 
SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4).5 
 Count 5:  By failing to provide timely written 
responses to the OLR's investigative letters regarding 
C.R.'s 
grievance, 
Attorney 
Callahan 
violated 
SCR 22.03(2) and (6).6   
                                                                                                                                                             
representation. A lawyer shall abide by a client's 
decision whether to settle a matter. 
4 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
5 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4) provide, respectively, that a 
lawyer shall "keep the client reasonably informed about the 
status of the matter" and "promptly comply with reasonable 
requests by the client for information." 
6 SCR 22.03(2) and (6) provide: 
(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. 
(continued) 
No. 
2015AP1984-D   
 
7 
 
¶10 In late December 2015, the OLR and Attorney Callahan 
executed the stipulation now before the court.  In addition to 
stipulating to the facts as set forth above, the parties 
stipulated to discipline in the form of a 60-day suspension of  
Attorney Callahan's Wisconsin law license. 
¶11 The stipulation provides that it is not the result of 
a plea bargain.  Attorney Callahan also verifies that he fully 
understands the misconduct allegations, the ramifications if 
this court should impose the stipulated level of discipline, his 
right to contest the matter, and his right to consult with 
counsel.  He further verifies that his entry into the 
stipulation was made knowingly and voluntarily, and that it 
represents his admission of all misconduct and his assent to the 
level and type of discipline sought by the OLR director.  
¶12 The OLR has filed a memorandum in support of the 
stipulation.  The memorandum discusses attorney disciplinary 
cases that resulted in 60- or 90-day suspensions for misconduct 
                                                                                                                                                             
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. 
No. 
2015AP1984-D   
 
8 
 
that generally involved the failure to perform timely work for a 
client, the failure to properly communicate with a client, and 
the failure to cooperate with an OLR investigation into 
misconduct.   
¶13 The OLR's memorandum states that the case most similar 
to the facts at issue here is In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Fitzgerald, 2006 WI 58, 290 Wis. 2d 713, 714 N.W.2d 925.  
In Fitzgerald, an attorney received a 90-day suspension for, 
among other things, failing to respond to an insurance company's 
inquiries concerning her client's case; falsely telling her 
client that the insurance company had made a settlement offer 
when the insurance company had not done so; fabricating a 
release document from the insurance company; and using her own 
money as the settlement funds allegedly offered by the insurance 
company.  The OLR states that, like Attorney Fitzgerald, 
Attorney Callahan failed to perform the necessary work to 
advance his client's case and then later tried to cover it up by 
advancing a ruse that the case had settled.  However, on the 
basis of Attorney Callahan's self-reporting of his misconduct to 
the circuit court and to the OLR, the OLR recommends that 
Attorney Callahan receive a 60-day suspension, rather than the 
90-day suspension imposed in Fitzgerald.  The OLR also considers 
as a mitigating factor the fact that Attorney Callahan has not 
been the subject of prior disciplinary proceedings. 
¶14 We adopt the stipulation and the stipulated facts and 
conclusions of law, and impose the stipulated discipline.  We 
agree that the seriousness of Attorney Callahan's misconduct 
No. 
2015AP1984-D   
 
9 
 
warrants the suspension of his Wisconsin law license for 60 
days.  The OLR does not seek restitution, so we impose none.  In 
light of the stipulation, the OLR does not seek costs, so we 
also do not impose costs.   
¶15 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Patrick A. Callahan 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 
days, effective the date of this order.   
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Patrick A. Callahan shall 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2). 
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the November 26, 2013 
temporary suspension of Patrick A. Callahan's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin, due to his willful failure to 
cooperate with the OLR's grievance investigation in this matter, 
is lifted.  
¶19 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
administrative 
suspension of Patrick A. Callahan's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin, due to his failure to pay mandatory bar dues, failure 
to file a trust account certification, and failure to comply 
with continuing legal education requirements, will remain in 
effect until each reason for the administrative suspension has 
been rectified, pursuant to SCR 22.28(1). 
 
No. 
2015AP1984-D   
 
 
 
1