Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Thomas D. Baehr
Citation: 2002 WI 17
Docket Number: 2001AP001959-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: February 26, 2002

2002 WI 17 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
01-1959-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Thomas D. Baehr, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
Thomas D. Baehr,  
 
Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BAEHR 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 26, 2002   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2002 WI 17 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  01-1959-D  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Thomas D. Baehr, Attorney at  
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Thomas D. Baehr,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 26, 2002 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended. 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM   We 
review the 
stipulation 
filed by 
Attorney Thomas D. Baehr and the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) pursuant to SCR 22.121 setting forth findings of fact and 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.12 provides: Stipulation 
(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.  
(2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation, it shall 
adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law and impose the 
stipulated discipline. 
No. 
01-1959-D   
 
2 
 
conclusions of law regarding Attorney Baehr's professional 
misconduct in failing to keep a client reasonably informed about 
the status of a matter; willfully failing to cooperate with OLR 
grievance investigations; failing, upon termination of the 
representation, 
to 
take 
steps 
to 
the 
extent 
reasonably 
practicable to protect a client's interest; and failing to act 
with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a 
client.  The parties also stipulated to a six-month suspension 
of Attorney Baehr's license to practice law and the requirement 
that he make restitution of $500 to one client as discipline for 
his misconduct.  We also review the report and recommendation of 
the referee, Cheryl Rosen Weston, approving the stipulation and 
recommending that the discipline proposed by the parties be 
accepted by the court.  
¶2 
We approve the stipulation and adopt the stipulated 
facts and conclusions of law.  We also conclude that the 
seriousness 
of 
Attorney 
Baehr's 
misconduct 
warrants 
the 
suspension of his license to practice law for six months, and we 
order that he make restitution of $500 to one client.   
¶3 
Attorney Baehr was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1985 and resides in Stevens Point.  On February 9, 
2000, this court ordered a 90-day suspension of Attorney Baehr's 
                                                                                                                                                             
(3) If the supreme court rejects the stipulation, 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. 
01-1959-D   
 
3 
 
law license effective March 20, 2000, as discipline for 
misconduct consisting of failing to take any action on behalf of 
an incarcerated client he was appointed by the state public 
defender to represent on appeal and on a claim of ineffective 
assistance of previous counsel, failing to communicate in any 
way with that client, and failing to respond to numerous 
requests for information from the former Board of Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility 
and 
the 
Board's 
district 
investigative committee concerning his conduct in the client's 
matter.  See Disciplinary Proceedings Against Baehr, 2000 WI 8, 
232 Wis. 2d 606, 605 N.W.2d 523.   
¶4 
On February 22, 2001, this court temporarily suspended 
Attorney Baehr's license to practice law after he failed to 
respond to the court's order to show cause for his non-
cooperation with OLR's grievance investigations.  Attorney Baehr 
has not sought reinstatement from either of the suspensions.  
¶5 
The current disciplinary proceedings against Attorney 
Baehr involve three separate legal matters.  The first involves 
a couple who hired Attorney Baehr in the spring of 1999 to 
represent them in a bankruptcy.  The couple paid Attorney Baehr 
$1125, which was to cover the filing fee as well as the handling 
of the bankruptcy case to conclusion, including drafting and 
filing documents relating to redemption and reaffirmation of 
both a first and second mortgage.  Attorney Baehr completed 
reaffirmation of only the second mortgage.  
¶6 
As noted above, on February 9, 2000, Attorney Baehr's 
license to practice law was suspended for 90 days effective 
No. 
01-1959-D   
 
4 
 
March 20, 2000, for professional misconduct in an unrelated 
matter.  During the month of May 2000 the couple left five or 
six messages for Attorney Baehr in which they requested his 
assistance in resolving the reaffirmation of their first 
mortgage.  Attorney Baehr failed to return any of those calls.  
On June 2, 2000, the couple sent a letter by certified mail to 
Attorney Baehr in which they described their disappointment in 
his failure to return their calls.  The letter said the legal 
matter was urgent in that it involved the couple being able to 
keep their home.  The couple stated if they did not hear from 
Attorney Baehr by June 9, 2000, they would obtain a new attorney 
and request that the filing fee of $175 be returned to them.  
Although Attorney Baehr personally signed the return receipt for 
the certified letter on June 5, 2000, he never responded.  
¶7 
The couple hired new counsel and incurred additional 
legal expenses that they would not have been charged if Attorney 
Baehr had resolved the matter for them.  The couple was unable 
to finalize the payment plan without a completed reaffirmation 
and as a result the property went into foreclosure.   
¶8 
On August 25, 2000, an OLR staff investigator sent the 
couple's grievance to Attorney Baehr and requested him to 
provide a written response within 20 days.  When he failed to 
respond, the OLR staff investigator sent a follow-up letter to 
Attorney Baehr on September 22, 2000, via certified mail with a 
request that he submit a written response to the couple's 
grievance no later than October 2, 2000.  The letter also 
advised Attorney Baehr of his duty to cooperate and the 
No. 
01-1959-D   
 
5 
 
consequences he could expect if he failed to comply.  Although 
Attorney Baehr personally signed the return receipt for the 
certified letter on October 11, 2000, he failed to submit a 
response or otherwise contact OLR staff.   
¶9 
On November 14, 2000, the OLR staff investigator sent 
Attorney Baehr a notice to appear via certified and first-class 
mail, informing him that he was required to appear at OLR's 
office in Madison on November 29, 2000, with his file.  Attorney 
Baehr personally signed the return receipt for the notice to 
appear but failed to appear at the appointed time.   
¶10 The second claim of misconduct involves Attorney 
Baehr's representation of a man whose ex-wife sued him in Wood 
county small claims court alleging that her employer was 
garnishing her wages for a past debt that her ex-husband had 
been ordered to pay in their divorce case.  The small claims 
case requested a money judgment against Attorney Baehr's client 
in excess of $3400.  The return date in the case was February 7, 
2000.  The client, who had been represented by Attorney Baehr in 
a past, unrelated matter, hired Attorney Baehr to represent him 
at the February 7, 2000, appearance.  The client said he also 
expected Attorney Baehr to represent him for the remainder of 
the case.  Attorney Baehr contended he was only hired for the 
February 7 court appearance. 
¶11 Attorney Baehr appeared in court on February 7, 2000, 
and asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit.  The court denied 
the request.  On February 15, 2000, the court issued a notice of 
hearing scheduling the small claims case for a court trial on 
No. 
01-1959-D   
 
6 
 
March 21, 2000.  The original notice was filed with the court 
and copies were sent to Attorney Baehr and to the plaintiff.   
¶12 Attorney Baehr did not inform his client of the trial 
date.  No one appeared on the client's behalf at the trial, and 
the court issued a default judgment against the client in the 
amount of $3511.18.  On March 23, 2000, the court issued a 
notice of entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiff and 
against Attorney Baehr's client.  The original notice was filed 
with the court and copies were mailed to Attorney Baehr and the 
plaintiff.  Attorney Baehr did not forward either the notice of 
hearing or the notice of entry of judgment to his client, nor 
did he inform the client of the trial date or of the entry of 
judgment in the matter.  The client learned the judgment had 
been entered against him when his employer began garnishing his 
wages.   
¶13 The client filed a grievance against Attorney Baehr, 
and Attorney Baehr provided an initial response.  By letter 
dated August 28, 2000, the OLR staff investigator asked Attorney 
Baehr to provide additional information.  Attorney Baehr was 
asked to reply by September 11, 2000, but failed to do so.  On 
October 9, 2000, the OLR staff investigator sent Attorney Baehr 
a follow-up letter by certified mail requesting his written 
response no later than October 30, 2000.  In the letter, the 
investigator reminded Attorney Baehr of his duty to cooperate 
and informed him of the consequences if he did not reply.  
Although Attorney Baehr personally signed the certified mail 
No. 
01-1959-D   
 
7 
 
return receipt on October 11, 2000, he did not respond or 
otherwise contact the OLR.   
¶14 On November 14, 2000, the OLR staff investigator sent 
Attorney Baehr a notice to appear via certified and first-class 
mail, informing him that he was required to appear at OLR's 
office on November 29, 2000, with his file regarding this 
grievance.  Attorney Baehr personally signed the return receipt 
for the notice to appear but did not appear at the appointed 
time.   
¶15 The 
third 
claim 
of 
misconduct involved Attorney 
Baehr's representation of a Green Bay resident who was arrested 
in Portage county for operating his vehicle after revocation or 
suspension as a second offense.  The man's initial appearance 
was scheduled for December 7, 1999, in Portage County Circuit 
Court in Stevens Point.  The man did not appear, and the court 
found probable cause and issued a bench warrant for his arrest.   
¶16 On December 10, 1999, the man contacted Attorney Baehr 
to represent him in the case.  Attorney Baehr told the man that 
a retainer of $500 was required.  The man mailed a $500 check to 
Attorney Baehr that same day.  Attorney Baehr cashed the check.   
¶17 Attorney Baehr was to contact the district attorney's 
office to discuss the ticket and was to make a court appearance 
for the man.  Attorney Baehr told the man he would be notified 
by mail of the result.  Attorney Baehr had the man's address and 
telephone numbers for both his residence in Green Bay and his 
home and work location in St. Cloud, Minnesota.  
No. 
01-1959-D   
 
8 
 
¶18 On July 7, 2000, the man was detained by Green Bay 
police, who informed him there was a warrant for his arrest in 
Portage county.  The man was transported to Portage county and 
spent the weekend in jail. 
¶19 On July 10, 2000, the man learned that Attorney Baehr 
no longer practiced law, that he never appeared in court for the 
man, and that he never contacted the district attorney's office 
in the matter.  The criminal case against the man was eventually 
resolved, without Attorney Baehr's participation, by means of a 
plea bargain whereby the man paid a fine.   
¶20 On August 25, 2000, an OLR staff investigator sent the 
man's grievance to Attorney Baehr and requested that he provide 
a written response within 20 days.  No response was received 
from 
Attorney 
Baehr. 
 
On 
September 
22, 
2000, 
the 
OLR 
investigator sent a follow-up letter to Attorney Baehr via 
certified mail with a request that he submit a written response 
to the grievance no later than October 2, 2000.  The letter also 
advised Attorney Baehr of his duty to cooperate and the 
consequences he could expect if he failed to comply.  Although 
Attorney Baehr personally signed the return receipt for the 
certified letter on October 11, 2000, he did not submit a 
response or otherwise contact the OLR. 
¶21 On November 14, 2000, the OLR investigator sent 
Attorney Baehr a notice to appear via certified and first-class 
mail, informing him that he was required to appear at OLR's 
office on November 29, 2000, with his file regarding the 
grievance.  Attorney Baehr personally signed the return receipt 
No. 
01-1959-D   
 
9 
 
for the notice to appear on November 24, 2000, but failed to 
appear at OLR's office on November 29, 2000.  
¶22 The parties stipulated, and the referee agreed, that 
Attorney Baehr's actions in the foregoing matters constituted 
the following professional misconduct: 
(a) His failure to respond to telephone messages left 
by the first clients regarding the bankruptcy 
matter and his failure to reply after receiving a 
certified 
letter 
from 
them 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.4(a).2 
(b) His failure to forward the circuit court's notice 
of hearing and notice of entry of judgment to the 
second client and his failure to return the $500 
retainer to the third client despite his failure 
to perform any legal services violated SCR 
20:1.16(d).3 
(c) His failure to take any action on the third 
client's behalf after being paid a $500 retainer 
violated SCR 20:1.3.4 
(d) His failure to respond to requests from OLR staff 
to provide written responses to the clients' 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides: "[a] lawyer shall keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly 
comply with reasonable requests for information." 
3 SCR 22:1.16(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. 
4 SCR 20:1.3 provides: "Diligence. A lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client."  
No. 
01-1959-D   
 
10 
 
grievances and his failure to appear or otherwise 
contact staff after he received a notice to 
appear violated SCR 21.15(4), 22:001(9)(b), and 
22:03(6).5 
¶23 We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law 
set forth in the parties' stipulation, as approved by the 
referee. 
 
Attorney 
Baehr's 
actions 
are 
serious 
matters 
warranting a suspension of his license to practice law.  A six-
month suspension of his license is appropriate discipline for 
his professional misconduct.  
                                                 
5 SCR 21.15(4) provides: 
(4) Every attorney shall cooperate with the office of 
lawyer 
regulation 
in 
the 
investigation, 
prosecution 
and 
disposition of grievances, complaints filed with or by the 
director, and petitions for reinstatement. An attorney's wilful 
failure to cooperate with the office of lawyer regulation 
constitutes violation of the rules of professional conduct for 
attorneys. 
SCR 22.001(9) provides: 
"Misconduct" means any of the following: 
 . . .  
(b) Failure 
to 
cooperate 
in 
the 
investigation 
of 
a 
grievance. 
 . . .  
SCR 22.03(6) provides that "[i]n 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. 
01-1959-D   
 
11 
 
¶24 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Thomas D. Baehr to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six 
months, effective April 2, 2002. 
¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Thomas D. Baehr make restitution of $500 to the 
client he was retained to represent on the operating a vehicle 
after revocation or suspension charge.  In the event restitution 
is not paid within the time specified and absent a showing to 
this court in writing of his inability to pay restitution within 
that time, the license of Thomas D. Baehr to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the 
court.  
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Thomas D. Baehr pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, provided that in the 
event the costs are not paid within the time specified and 
absent a showing to this court in writing of his inability to 
pay the costs within that time, the license of Thomas D. Baehr 
to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until 
further order of the court.   
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Thomas D. Baehr comply with 
the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person 
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.  
No. 
01-1959-D   
 
 
 
1