Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. J.E. Nugent
Citation: 2006 WI 114
Docket Number: 2005AP000572-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: October 10, 2006

2006 WI 114 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2005AP572-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against J.E. Nugent, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
J.E. Nugent, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST NUGENT 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 10, 2006   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2006 WI 114
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2005AP572-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against J.E. Nugent, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
J.E. Nugent, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 10, 2006 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee, John R. Decker, that the license of Attorney J.E. 
Nugent to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for 60 days for 
professional misconduct, and that he be required to pay the 
costs of this proceeding, which are $4911.70 as of September 12, 
2006.  Attorney Nugent did not appeal the referee's report and 
recommendation.   
No. 
2005AP572-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and agree that the seriousness of Attorney 
Nugent's misconduct warrants the suspension of his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin for a period of 60 days.  We further 
agree that he should pay the costs of this proceeding.  
¶3 
Attorney Nugent was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1970 and practices in Waupun.  In 1986 he was 
privately reprimanded for engaging in conduct involving deceit 
and misrepresentation.  In 2003 he received a public reprimand 
for failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing a client; failing to respond to a client's 
telephone calls and failing to keep the client reasonably 
informed about the status of a matter and comply with reasonable 
requests 
for 
information; 
failing 
to 
withdraw 
from 
representation 
after 
being 
discharged; 
and 
making 
misrepresentations to the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
staff in the course of its investigation.   
¶4 
On March 1, 2005, the OLR filed a complaint alleging 
that Attorney Nugent had engaged in six counts of misconduct.  
The first two counts arose out of Attorney Nugent's failure to 
timely file his personal state income tax returns for the tax 
years 1996 through 2001.  The Wisconsin Department of Revenue 
(DOR) issued estimated assessments for those years in the amount 
of 
$171,121.07. 
 
On 
February 
28, 
2003, 
Attorney 
Nugent 
transmitted to the DOR his personal income tax returns for the 
years 1996 through 2001.  In March 2003 the DOR notified 
No. 
2005AP572-D   
 
3 
 
Attorney Nugent that no corporate income tax returns for his law 
firm had been filed for those years. 
¶5 
By letters dated June 6, and June 26, 2003, the OLR 
staff asked Attorney Nugent whether he had responded to the 
DOR's March 2003 letter and whether he had filed the corporate 
tax returns for his law firm.  Attorney Nugent responded that 
the corporate tax returns had not yet been filed.  Attorney 
Nugent transmitted his 1996 through 2001 corporate law firm tax 
returns to the DOR on July 21, 2003.  After receiving the 
corporate returns, the DOR adjusted Attorney Nugent's delinquent 
account and determined that he owed a balance of $8286.84.   
¶6 
By November 2003 Attorney Nugent had satisfied his 
outstanding tax obligations except that $251.23 remained to be 
paid on an outstanding tax warrant for withholding taxes.  The 
DOR reported to the OLR that Attorney Nugent promised to pay 
that amount by the end of November 2003.   
¶7 
The OLR staff sent letters to Attorney Nugent on 
November 14, 2003, and January 6, 2004, asking whether he had 
satisfied the tax warrant and requesting that he respond by 
specific dates.  Attorney Nugent failed to respond to either 
letter.  In an April 7, 2004, letter that was sent by certified 
mail, the OLR's investigator again requested a response to the 
OLR's November 14, 2003, and January 6, 2004, letters and 
reminded Attorney Nugent of his duty to cooperate and of the 
consequences for not cooperating.  Attorney Nugent failed to 
respond. 
No. 
2005AP572-D   
 
4 
 
¶8 
In a July 5, 2004, letter to the OLR, Attorney Nugent 
said none of his discussions with the DOR had touched on the 
outstanding $251.23 balance that remained to be paid for 
withholding taxes.  On July 21, 2004, the DOR confirmed to the 
OLR that Attorney Nugent knew of the outstanding $251.23 
liability and had promised to pay it by the end of November 2003 
but that he had still not satisfied that obligation.  Attorney 
Nugent satisfied the tax warrant on January 3, 2005.  
¶9 
The OLR's complaint alleged that by failing to file 
his personal state income tax returns and corporate tax returns 
for his law firm for 1996 through 2001, Attorney Nugent violated 
a statute, supreme court rule, supreme court order or supreme 
court decision regulating the conduct of lawyers, in violation 
of SCR 20:8.4(f).1  The complaint also alleged that by failing to 
respond to the OLR's investigative letters, Attorney Nugent 
willfully failed to provide relevant information, to answer 
questions fully, or to furnish documents, in violation of SCR 
22.03(6).2   
                                                 
1 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme 
court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers."  See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Owens, 172 Wis. 2d 54, 56-57, 492 N.W.2d 157 (1992) (failure to 
file income tax returns constitutes professional misconduct). 
2 SCR 22.03(6) states 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. 
2005AP572-D   
 
5 
 
¶10 The OLR's complaint also alleged four counts of 
misconduct arising out of Attorney Nugent's representation of 
G.A. on a number of different matters over the course of a 
number of years.  In one matter, Attorney Nugent represented 
G.A. and his wife in claims arising out of a 1992 automobile 
accident and served as attorney of record in two cases filed in 
Dodge County, one on behalf of G.A. and one on behalf of G.A.'s 
wife.  Attorney Nugent did not have a written contingent fee 
agreement with G.A. or his wife.  Attorney Nugent told the OLR 
that he had a policy for many years not to have a contingent fee 
agreement with longstanding clients.   
¶11 In 1996 G.A. and his wife settled with the tortfeasor 
and his insurance company.  G.A.'s lawsuit was dismissed.  The 
tortfeasor and his insurance company were also dismissed from 
G.A.'s wife's case, but that case remained open with respect to 
an underinsured motorist claim that G.A.'s wife maintained 
against her own insurance company. 
¶12 On January 21, 1998, the circuit court noticed a 
status hearing for June 1, 1998, in G.A.'s wife's case for the 
purpose of determining the status of arbitration.  Attorney 
Nugent failed to appear on June 1, 1998, and was unavailable by 
telephone.  On July 7, 1998, the circuit court issued an order 
to Attorney Nugent requiring him to appear on August 4, 1998, to 
show cause why the matter should not be dismissed for failure to 
prosecute.  On August 18, 1998, G.A.'s wife's suit was dismissed 
for failure to prosecute. 
No. 
2005AP572-D   
 
6 
 
¶13 G.A. did not receive a written settlement statement; 
was not informed by Attorney Nugent of the full terms of the 
settlement and distributions in his case; did not receive a copy 
of the release from Attorney Nugent until 2003, when the OLR 
sent him a copy of Attorney Nugent's response to G.A.'s 
grievance; and was never told what happened with his now 
deceased 
wife's 
underinsured 
motorist 
claim, 
despite 
his 
repeated requests to Attorney Nugent for information in the 
matter. 
¶14 The OLR's complaint alleged that by failing to have a 
written contingent fee agreement with G.A. and his wife and by 
failing to provide G.A. with a written statement upon the 
outcome of the matter showing a remittance to the client and the 
method of its determination, Attorney Nugent violated SCR 
20:1.5(c).3  The OLR's complaint also alleged that by failing to 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:1.5(c) provides:  Fees. 
 
(c)  A fee may be contingent on the outcome of 
the matter for which the service is rendered, except 
in a matter in which a contingent fee is prohibited by 
paragraph (d) or other law.  A contingent fee 
agreement shall be in writing and shall state the 
method by which the fee is to be determined, including 
the percentage or percentages that shall accrue to the 
lawyer in the event of settlement, trial or appeal, 
litigation and other expenses to be deducted from the 
recovery, and whether such expenses are to be deducted 
before or after the contingent fee is calculated.  
Upon conclusion of a contingent fee matter, the lawyer 
shall provide the client with a written statement 
stating the outcome of the matter and if there is a 
recovery, showing the remittance to the client and the 
method of its determination. 
No. 
2005AP572-D   
 
7 
 
provide copies of important documents to his clients, failing to 
respond to G.A.'s status inquiries, and failing to provide any 
written correspondence to his clients, Attorney Nugent failed to 
keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter 
and promptly comply with requests for information, in violation 
of SCR 20:1.4(a).4   
¶15 In a separate matter, G.A. obtained a small claims 
judgment against M.D. and S.P. in the amount of $1405.65.  G.A. 
gave the judgment to Attorney Nugent in late February 2003 to 
commence collection proceedings and told Attorney Nugent where 
S.P. was employed. 
¶16 Attorney Nugent filed an earnings garnishment against 
S.P. and his employer on July 29, 2003.  Attorney Nugent 
received two payments from S.P.'s employer in response to the 
garnishment.  The employer then notified Attorney Nugent that 
S.P. was no longer employed there.  Attorney Nugent did not 
notify G.A. of the receipt of the garnishment payments, nor did 
he promptly remit the payments to G.A.  In November of 2003 
Attorney Nugent indicated to the OLR that he was holding the 
garnishment payments in his trust account.  Attorney Nugent 
finally sent the payments, less expenses, to G.A.'s successor 
counsel on September 1, 2004. 
¶17 The OLR's complaint alleged that by failing on two 
different occasions to promptly notify G.A. of his receipt of 
                                                 
4 SCR 20:1.4(a) states that "[a] lawyer shall keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly 
comply with reasonable requests for information." 
No. 
2005AP572-D   
 
8 
 
garnishment funds and by failing to promptly deliver the funds 
to G.A., Attorney Nugent violated former SCR 20:1.15(b).5   
¶18 The OLR's complaint also alleged that during its 
investigation into the matters about which G.A. had filed a 
grievance against Attorney Nugent, the OLR's investigator mailed 
a letter to Attorney Nugent on April 7, 2004, asking him to 
submit a supplemental response addressing specific issues, such 
letter to be received by the OLR no later than April 21, 2004.  
Attorney Nugent failed to respond. 
¶19 On April 29, 2004, the OLR sent another letter to 
Attorney 
Nugent 
by 
both 
certified 
and 
first-class 
mail, 
reminding him of his duty to cooperate and advising him that SCR 
22.03(4)6 authorized the director of the OLR to file a motion 
                                                 
5 Former SCR 20:1.15 applied to misconduct committed prior 
to July 1, 2004.  It provided in pertinent part:   
 
(b)  Upon receiving funds or other property in 
which a client or third person has an interest, a 
lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third 
person in writing.  Except as stated in this rule or 
otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the 
client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client 
or third person any funds or other property that the 
client or third person is entitled to receive and, 
upon request by the client or third person, shall 
render a full accounting regarding such property. 
6 SCR 22.03(4) provides:  Investigation. 
 
(4)  If the respondent fails to respond to the 
request for written response to an allegation of 
misconduct or fails to cooperate in other respects in 
an 
investigation, 
the 
director, 
or 
a 
special 
investigator acting under SCR 22.25, may file a motion 
with the supreme court requesting that the court order 
the respondent to show cause why his or her license to 
practice law should not be suspended for willful 
No. 
2005AP572-D   
 
9 
 
with this court seeking the suspension of his license to 
practice law for willful non-cooperation.  Attorney Nugent 
failed to respond.   
¶20 On May 18, 2004, the OLR received a voice mail message 
from Attorney Nugent saying he had just found the OLR's April 7, 
2004 letter; that he realized a response was due by May 10, 
2004; and that he would mail a response in the next couple of 
days.  Attorney Nugent did not send the response. 
¶21 On May 28, 2004, the OLR staff mailed Attorney Nugent 
a letter acknowledging receipt of his May 18, 2004, voice mail 
message and notifying him that no supplemental response had been 
received.  The May 28 letter required Attorney Nugent's written 
supplemental response to be postmarked by June 4, 2004, and 
again advised Attorney Nugent that SCR 22.03(4) authorized the 
director of the OLR to file a motion with this court seeking the 
suspension of Attorney Nugent's license for willful non-
cooperation.  Attorney Nugent failed to respond.   
                                                                                                                                                             
failure 
to 
respond 
or 
cooperate 
with 
the 
investigation. 
 
All 
papers, 
files, 
transcripts, 
communications, and proceedings on the motion shall be 
confidential and shall remain confidential until the 
supreme court has issued an order to show cause.  The 
license of an attorney suspended for willful failure 
to respond or cooperate with an investigation may be 
reinstated by the supreme court upon a showing of 
cooperation with the investigation and compliance with 
the terms of suspension.  The director or the special 
investigator shall file a response in support of or in 
opposition to the reinstatement within 20 days after 
the filing of an attorney's request for reinstatement.  
Upon a showing of good cause, the supreme court may 
extend the time for filing a response. 
No. 
2005AP572-D   
 
10 
 
¶22 On June 17, 2004, after the OLR filed a motion in the 
matter, this court issued an order requiring Attorney Nugent to 
show cause within 20 days why his license should not be 
suspended for his willful failure to cooperate with the OLR.  On 
July 12, 2004, the OLR finally received Attorney Nugent's 
supplemental written response and consequently withdrew its 
request 
to 
suspend 
Attorney 
Nugent's 
license 
for 
non-
cooperation.   
¶23 The OLR's complaint alleged that by failing to respond 
to multiple requests from the OLR for supplemental information 
in a grievance matter, Attorney Nugent violated SCR 22.03(6).7 
¶24 An evidentiary hearing was held before the referee on 
September 20, 2005.  The referee issued his report on July 27, 
2006.  In his report the referee concluded that the OLR had 
established 
all 
the 
counts 
in 
its 
complaint 
by 
clear, 
satisfactory, and convincing evidence.  The referee recommended 
that Attorney Nugent's license to practice law be suspended for 
a period of 60 days and that he be ordered to pay the full costs 
of the proceeding.  In making the recommendation for a 60-day 
suspension, the referee pointed to Attorney Nugent's history of 
professional discipline and the seriousness of the failure to 
timely file income tax returns.   
                                                 
7 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. 
2005AP572-D   
 
11 
 
¶25 This court will adopt a referee's findings of fact 
unless they are clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law are 
reviewed de novo.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  The 
court may impose whatever sanction it sees fit regardless of the 
referee's recommendation.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.  
After careful review of the record, we conclude that the 
referee's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous, and we 
adopt them.  We also agree with the conclusions of law that flow 
from the referee's findings of fact.  In addition, we agree with 
the referee that the seriousness of Attorney Nugent's misconduct 
warrants the suspension of his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin for a period of 60 days.   
¶26 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney J.E. Nugent 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 
days, effective November 21, 2006. 
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney J.E. Nugent shall 
comply with the requirements of SCR 22.26 pertaining to 
activities following suspension. 
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Attorney J.E. Nugent shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  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 Attorney J.E. Nugent to practice law in Wisconsin 
shall remain suspended until further order of the court. 
No. 
2005AP572-D   
 
12 
 
 
No. 
2005AP572-D   
 
 
 
1