Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Andrew J. Bryant
Citation: 2014 WI 43
Docket Number: 2012AP000484-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: June 24, 2014

2014 WI 43 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2012AP484-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Andrew J. Bryant, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Andrew J. Bryant, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BRYANT 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 24, 2014 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
         
 
COUNTY: 
       
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
ROGGENSACK, J., concurs. (Opinion filed.)   
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
2014 WI 43
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2012AP484-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Andrew J. Bryant, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Andrew J. Bryant, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 24, 2014 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of the referee, Attorney Lisa C. Goldman, which was based in 
part upon the stipulation of the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) and Attorney Andrew J. Bryant.  As jointly requested by 
the parties, the referee recommends that Attorney Bryant's 
license be suspended for a period of four months.  The referee, 
however, adds to the parties' stipulation and recommends that 
the court impose a number of conditions upon Attorney Bryant's 
No. 
2012AP484-D   
 
2 
 
reinstatement to the practice of law and upon his practice of 
law following his reinstatement.  
¶2 
After thoroughly reviewing the parties' stipulation, 
the referee's recommendation, and the record in this matter, we 
conclude that the stipulated facts demonstrate that Attorney 
Bryant committed all of the 15 counts of misconduct alleged in 
the OLR's complaint.  We determine that the requested level of 
discipline, a four-month suspension, is an appropriate level of 
discipline 
to 
impose 
for 
Attorney 
Bryant's 
professional 
misconduct.  While we agree with the referee that Attorney 
Bryant should be required to pay restitution to two former 
clients, we do not follow the referee's recommendation regarding 
the imposition of a monitoring program.  We impose other 
conditions on Attorney Bryant's reinstatement that we believe 
will adequately ensure Attorney Bryant's ability to practice law 
and conform his conduct to the Rules of Professional Conduct for 
Attorneys. 
Attorney Bryant's Practice and Disciplinary History 
¶3 
According to the referee's report, Attorney Bryant was 
admitted to the practice of law in Wisconsin in 1992.  He most 
recently practiced as a solo attorney in Verona. 
¶4 
Attorney Bryant has received professional discipline 
on one prior occasion.  In January 2012 Attorney Bryant received 
a consensual private reprimand arising out of his representation 
of 
a 
client 
in 
a 
post-divorce 
proceeding 
regarding 
the 
modification of child support.  Private Reprimand, No. 2012-01.  
His misconduct in that matter included a lack of competence, a 
No. 
2012AP484-D   
 
3 
 
lack of diligence, a failure to consult with his client 
regarding 
the 
means 
by 
which 
the 
objectives 
of 
the 
representation were to be pursued, and a failure to keep his 
client adequately informed. 
¶5 
In addition, although it does not qualify as the 
imposition of professional discipline, it should be noted that 
in 2012 this court issued two separate orders temporarily 
suspending Attorney Bryant's license due to his willful failure 
to cooperate with OLR grievance investigations.  Both of those 
temporary suspensions have remained in effect up to the date of 
this opinion. 
Allegations of the Complaint 
¶6 
The OLR's complaint in this matter alleged 15 separate 
counts of misconduct arising out of three client representations 
and the practice of law during a period of suspension.   
¶7 
The first count of the OLR's complaint alleged that 
Attorney Bryant had failed to pay his bar dues and supreme court 
assessments and to provide a signed trust account certification, 
all of which were due on July 1, 2010.  In September 2010 the 
State Bar of Wisconsin sent Attorney Bryant a letter advising 
him that if he did not pay his bar dues and assessments and 
provide his trust account certification by 5:00 p.m. on 
November 1, 2010, his license to practice law in this state 
would be automatically suspended.  Attorney Bryant failed to 
comply with his obligations, and his law license was suspended 
on November 1, 2010.  On November 4, 2010, Attorney Bryant 
appeared at circuit court proceedings on behalf of clients in 
No. 
2012AP484-D   
 
4 
 
two separate actions—one in Dane County circuit court and one in 
Columbia County circuit court.  In addition, in the Columbia 
County case Attorney Bryant also filed a motion and affidavit on 
behalf of his clients.  Attorney Bryant's law license was 
subsequently reinstated on November 9, 2010.  The complaint 
alleged that Attorney Bryant's practice of law while his license 
was administratively suspended constituted a violation of 
No. 
2012AP484-D   
 
5 
 
SCRs 10.03(6),1 20:1.15(i)(4),2 and 22.26(2),3 which are enforced 
via SCR 20:8.4(f).4 
¶8 
Counts two through six of the complaint related to 
Attorney Bryant's representation of V.F. and J.R., who were 
husband and wife.  In September 2009 the couple retained 
                                                 
1 SCR 10.03(6) states:  Penalty for nonpayment of dues. 
If the annual dues or assessments of any member remain 
unpaid 120 days after the payment is due, the 
membership of the member may be suspended in the 
manner provided in the bylaws; and no person whose 
membership is so suspended for nonpayment of dues or 
assessments may practice law during the period of the 
suspension. 
2 SCR 20:1.15(i)(4) states:  Suspension for non-compliance. 
The failure of a state bar member to file the 
certificate is grounds for automatic suspension of the 
member's membership in the state bar in the same 
manner provided in SCR 10.03(6) for nonpayment of 
dues. 
 
The 
filing 
of 
a 
false 
certificate 
is 
unprofessional conduct and is grounds for disciplinary 
action. 
3 SCR 22.26(2) provides as follows: 
 
An attorney whose license to practice law is 
suspended or revoked or who is suspended from the 
practice of law may not engage in this state in the 
practice 
of 
law 
or 
in 
any 
law 
work 
activity 
customarily done by law students, law clerks, or other 
paralegal personnel, except that the attorney may 
engage in law related work in this state for a 
commercial employer itself not engaged in the practice 
of law. 
4 SCR 20:8.4(f) states 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; . . . ." 
No. 
2012AP484-D   
 
6 
 
Attorney Bryant for the purpose of filing a joint petition for 
divorce.  Attorney Bryant did not obtain a written conflict 
waiver for the representation of both individuals.  He told V.F. 
that the entire representation could be completed for $1,500 so 
V.F. gave Attorney Bryant a check for that amount.  Attorney 
Bryant deposited the funds into his business account but did not 
follow any of the requirements for the advanced fee alternative 
procedure in SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m).  Although Attorney Bryant 
expected that the cost of the representation would exceed 
$1,000, he did not prepare a written fee agreement. 
¶9 
Shortly after his initial meeting with V.F. and J.R., 
Attorney Bryant prepared a joint petition for divorce, obtained 
the signatures of both spouses, and filed the petition in the 
Dane County circuit court.  In November 2009 Attorney Bryant 
spoke with V.F. about the need to obtain an expedited divorce 
hearing due to the deteriorating mental competence of J.R.  
Attorney Bryant promised to prepare and submit a proposed 
Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) to V.F. for his review.  In 
January 2010 Attorney Bryant met with both V.F. and J.R. to 
review their financial disclosure statements and to discuss the 
proposed MSA.  In April 2010 Attorney Bryant received an 
executed signature page for the MSA from V.F.  He did not 
receive a signature page from J.R. 
¶10 In May 2010 the circuit court issued a notice stating 
that due to inactivity in the matter, it would place the divorce 
action on the June 25, 2010 docket for possible dismissal.  
Neither Attorney Bryant nor either of the parties appeared 
No. 
2012AP484-D   
 
7 
 
before the circuit court on June 25, 2010, causing the court to 
dismiss the action.  The court issued a written order of 
dismissal in early July 2010. 
¶11 Attorney Bryant did not notify his clients of the 
dismissal.  Indeed, V.F. and J.R. did not receive any 
correspondence from Attorney Bryant from September 2009 through 
September 2010.  Around that time V.F. learned from his daughter 
that the divorce action had been dismissed.  On several 
occasions he asked Attorney Bryant to re-file the divorce 
petition, but Attorney Bryant did not do so.  In December 2010 
V.F.'s daughter sent multiple e-mails to Attorney Bryant again 
asking him to re-file the divorce petition and to seek an 
expedited hearing.  Finally, on December 16, 2010, Attorney 
Bryant re-filed the divorce petition, although he did not ask 
for an expedited hearing. 
¶12 On February 1, 2011, V.F. terminated Attorney Bryant's 
representation and retained Attorney Anthony Menting to proceed 
with the divorce action.  On that same date Attorney Menting 
sent a draft stipulation and order for substitution of counsel 
to Attorney Bryant and also requested that Attorney Bryant 
provide a complete copy of his file on the matter.  Attorney 
Bryant did not provide the file or otherwise respond to the 
letter.  Attorney Menting sent another letter to Attorney Bryant 
regarding these matters in mid-February.  On March 16, 2011, 
Attorney Bryant forwarded the file to Attorney Menting. 
¶13 On March 29, 2011, Attorney Bryant sent an invoice to 
V.F.  The invoice sought $800 for Attorney Bryant's fees and 
No. 
2012AP484-D   
 
8 
 
$369 for disbursed costs.  Attorney Bryant offered to return the 
remainder of the $1,500 advanced fee ($331) to V.F.  On June 24, 
2011, Attorney Bryant sent a check to V.F. in the amount of $331 
pursuant to his offer.  V.F. rejected the check. 
¶14 The 
complaint 
alleged 
that 
Attorney 
Bryant 
had 
committed five ethical violations in connection with his 
representation of V.F. and J.R.  By representing two individuals 
in a joint divorce petition without obtaining a written waiver 
of the conflict, Attorney Bryant violated SCR 20:1.7(a)5 (Count 
Two).  By failing to utilize a written fee agreement when he had 
agreed to represent V.F. and J.R. for a fee of $1,500, Attorney 
Bryant violated SCR 20:1.5(b)(2)6 (Count Three).  By accepting 
the $1,500 advanced fee and failing to deposit the advanced fee 
into his trust account in the absence of any intent to utilize 
                                                 
5 SCR 20:1.7(a) states: 
 
Except as provided in par. (b), a lawyer shall 
not represent a client if the representation involves 
a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent 
conflict of interest exists if: 
 
(1) the representation of one client will be 
directly adverse to another client; or 
(2) there 
is 
a 
significant 
risk 
that 
the 
representation 
of 
one 
or 
more 
clients 
will 
be 
materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to 
another client, a former client or a third person or 
by a personal interest of the lawyer. 
6 SCR 20:1.5(b)(2) states that "[i]f the total cost of 
representation to the client, including attorney's fees, is more 
than $1000, the purpose and effect of any retainer or advance 
fee that is paid to the lawyer shall be communicated in 
writing." 
No. 
2012AP484-D   
 
9 
 
the alternative advanced fee procedure, Attorney Bryant violated 
SCR 20:1.15(b)(4)7 (Count Four).  The complaint further alleged 
that Attorney Bryant had demonstrated a lack of reasonable 
diligence, in violation of SCR 20:1.3,8 by failing to advance the 
interests of his clients for more than a year after the clients 
informed him of their need to expedite the matter due to J.R.'s 
failing health (Count Five).  Finally, Attorney Bryant's failure 
to provide the clients' file to successor counsel in a timely 
manner, despite requests to do so, constituted a violation of 
SCR 20:1.16(d)9 (Count Six). 
¶15 Counts seven through twelve of the complaint related 
to Attorney Bryant's representation of client M.C.  Attorney 
                                                 
7 SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) states:  
Unearned fees and cost 
advances.  
Except as provided in par. (4m), unearned fees and 
advanced payments of fees shall be held in trust until 
earned by the lawyer, and withdrawn pursuant to sub. 
(g).  Funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for 
payment of costs shall be held in trust until the 
costs are incurred. 
8 SCR 20:1.3 states, "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
9 SCR 20:1.16(d) states as follows: 
 
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 or expense that has not 
been earned or incurred.  The lawyer may retain papers 
relating to the client to the extent permitted by 
other law. 
No. 
2012AP484-D   
 
10 
 
Bryant was retained by M.C. as successor counsel in a personal 
injury lawsuit that M.C. had filed arising out of injuries he 
had suffered in a motor vehicle collision.  Attorney Bryant 
first appeared on M.C.'s behalf at a scheduling conference held 
on January 6, 2010.  The resulting scheduling order required 
M.C. to provide the defendants with a preliminary list of lay 
and expert witnesses and a written summary report by February 5, 
2010.  The order contained the following statement in bold 
capital letters:  "FAILURE TO ABIDE BY THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN 
SANCTIONS."  Attorney Bryant did not provide either the 
preliminary witness list or the summary report as mandated by 
the scheduling order, nor did he request an extension to do so. 
¶16 Due to Attorney Bryant's noncompliance, the circuit 
court held a second scheduling conference on May 14, 2010.  At 
that time, three months after the initial deadline, Attorney 
Bryant filed M.C.'s list of expected lay and expert witnesses.  
Attorney Bryant named all of M.C.'s treating physicians and a 
vocational expert.  At the second scheduling conference, the 
circuit court required M.C. to provide all expert witness 
reports by July 16, 2010.  The resulting scheduling order 
contained 
the 
same 
warning 
about 
possible 
sanctions 
for 
noncompliance as had been in the first scheduling order.  
Despite the warning, Attorney Bryant failed to provide the 
expert witness reports by the scheduled date and did not seek an 
extension of the deadline. 
¶17 Attorney Bryant's noncompliance caused the defendants 
to file a motion for sanctions.  Attorney Bryant did not file a 
No. 
2012AP484-D   
 
11 
 
written response to the motion.  After holding a hearing on the 
motion on August 26, 2010, the court decided not to impose 
sanctions at that time.  It issued a third scheduling order, 
which extended the deadline for submitting expert witness 
reports until October 8, 2010.  This order again contained the 
warning about the possibility of sanctions in the event of 
noncompliance.  It also specifically provided that if the expert 
witness reports were not submitted by the new deadline, M.C. 
would be barred from introducing the experts' testimony at 
trial.  Attorney Bryant again failed either to comply with the 
new scheduling order or to seek a further extension of time. 
¶18 The defendants renewed their motion for sanctions, 
seeking an order prohibiting M.C. from introducing any expert 
testimony.  Attorney Bryant did not file a written response to 
the motion or advise M.C. that the motion had been filed.  On 
October 25, 2010, the court entered an order in which it 
required M.C. within 10 days to pay to the defendants' counsel 
the $1,087.50 in attorney fees that had been incurred in 
connection with the August 26, 2010 hearing on the defendants' 
original motion to compel.  Attorney Bryant did not pay the 
sanction himself or notify M.C. that he had been ordered to pay 
the defendants' attorney fees. 
¶19 In November 2010 the defendants filed a motion to 
dismiss due to M.C.'s failure to prosecute and the noncompliance 
with the various court orders.  Attorney Bryant again did not 
file a response or notify M.C. that such a motion had been 
filed.  Finding that the plaintiff's failure to comply with its 
No. 
2012AP484-D   
 
12 
 
orders had been egregious, the circuit court granted the motion 
to dismiss.  It issued a formal order of dismissal with 
prejudice on January 6, 2011.  Attorney Bryant did not inform 
M.C. that his complaint had been dismissed and could not be re-
filed. 
¶20 On February 28, 2011, M.C. met with Attorney Bryant to 
discuss his case.  At that time Attorney Bryant admitted that he 
had acted improperly, that M.C.'s case had been dismissed with 
prejudice, and that M.C. would not be able to obtain any 
recovery for his injuries. 
¶21 According to Attorney Bryant's file, during the nearly 
one-year period in which he had represented M.C., he had not 
served any discovery requests on any of the defendants, had not 
interviewed any of M.C.'s treating physicians, and had not 
obtained any expert reports (even provisional ones) from the 
physicians or from a vocational expert.  He did not prepare or 
file any written responses to the sanction motions.  There also 
is no evidence that Attorney Bryant sent any written or 
electronic correspondence to M.C. regarding the case or the 
various sanction motions filed by the defendants. 
¶22 The complaint alleged six counts of misconduct related 
to Attorney Bryant's representation of M.C.  Count Seven of the 
complaint alleged that Attorney Bryant had violated SCR 20:1.110 
                                                 
10 SCR 20:1.1 states, "A lawyer shall provide competent 
representation to a client.  Competent representation requires 
the 
legal 
knowledge, 
skill, 
thoroughness 
and 
preparation 
reasonably necessary for the representation." 
No. 
2012AP484-D   
 
13 
 
by failing to provide the requisite skill, thoroughness, and 
preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.  The 
complaint also alleged that Attorney Bryant had failed to act 
with reasonable diligence, in violation of SCR 20:1.3 (Count 
Eight), and had failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite 
M.C.'s litigation, in violation of SCR 20:3.211 (Count Nine).  In 
addition, by failing to advise M.C. about his failures to comply 
with the various scheduling orders, about the two sanction 
motions, and ultimately about the dismissal of his complaint, 
Attorney Bryant failed to keep his client reasonably informed 
about the status of the representation, in violation of SCR 
20:1.4(a)(3)12 (Count Ten).  Those same failures of communication 
also formed the basis for Count Eleven of the complaint, which 
alleged a violation of SCR 20:1.4(b)13 for failing to explain 
matters sufficiently to allow M.C. to make informed decisions 
regarding the representation.  Count Twelve of the complaint 
alleged that Attorney Bryant had knowingly disobeyed the circuit 
                                                 
11 SCR 20:3.2 states, "A lawyer shall make reasonable 
efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of 
the client." 
12 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) states that a lawyer shall "keep the 
client 
reasonably 
informed 
about 
the 
status 
of 
the 
matter; . . . ." 
13 SCR 20:1.4(b) states, "A lawyer shall explain a matter to 
the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make 
informed decisions regarding the representation." 
No. 
2012AP484-D   
 
14 
 
court's various scheduling and sanction orders, leading to the 
dismissal of M.C.'s complaint, in violation of SCR 20:3.4(c).14 
¶23 The last set of counts in the complaint related to 
Attorney Bryant's representation of C.H., a respondent in a 
divorce 
action. 
 
Attorney 
Bryant 
apparently 
entered 
an 
appearance in the divorce action after it had been pending for a 
substantial amount of time.  On September 5, 2007, approximately 
six months after he entered his appearance on C.H.'s behalf, 
opposing counsel sent proposed findings of fact, conclusions of 
law, and a judgment of divorce (the judgment) to Attorney Bryant 
for his review pursuant to a directive from the court.  On 
October 24, 2007, opposing counsel sent a letter to the circuit 
court stating that Attorney Bryant had not responded to the 
proposed judgment.  On October 30, 2007, opposing counsel filed 
a motion for contempt, which was noticed for hearing on 
November 28, 2007.  On that same date the court signed the 
proposed judgment without receiving any comments on the document 
from Attorney Bryant.  One provision of the judgment was that 
D.H., C.H.'s spouse, was to receive ownership of some individual 
retirement accounts (IRAs) and an annuity that were titled in 
C.H.'s name and were being administered by Northwestern Mutual 
Life Insurance Company (NML). 
                                                 
14 SCR 20:3.4(c) states that a lawyer shall not "knowingly 
disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except for 
an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation 
exists; . . . ." 
No. 
2012AP484-D   
 
15 
 
¶24   On November 28, 2007, Attorney Bryant filed a notice 
of appeal from the judgment of divorce signed by the circuit 
court.  On that same date, the circuit court conducted a hearing 
on D.H.'s motion for contempt.  The court found C.H. in contempt 
and ordered her to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order 
(QDRO) that would transfer specified assets to D.H. 
¶25 Attorney Bryant subsequently contacted Jewel Goodwin 
at NML regarding the transfer of the specified assets to D.H.  
Goodwin informed Attorney Bryant that NML required a copy of the 
court's judgment before it would transfer the assets.  On 
December 28, 2007, Attorney Bryant sent NML a copy of the notice 
of appeal he had filed rather than a copy of the judgment.  His 
communication informed NML that C.H. had "appealed the entire 
decision."  On the basis of this representation and document, 
NML did not transfer the assets to D.H. 
¶26 When D.H.'s counsel had not received a draft QDRO by 
January 10, 2008, he requested a status conference with the 
circuit court.  The court subsequently issued an order directing 
Attorney Bryant to draft the QDRO consistent with the court's 
judgment.  On February 18, 2008, D.H.'s counsel sent a letter to 
Attorney Bryant inquiring about the status of the QDRO.  On 
April 1, 2008, D.H.'s counsel sent a letter to the circuit court 
complaining that he had still not received a completed QDRO from 
Attorney Bryant.  In late May 2008, the court ordered Attorney 
Bryant to pay $500 to opposing counsel for his fees connected 
with the delay in the preparation of the QDRO.  The court also 
ordered Attorney Bryant to turn over all materials relating to 
No. 
2012AP484-D   
 
16 
 
the QDRO to a neutral attorney selected by the court, who would 
prepare the QDRO.  The court further ordered that the neutral 
attorney's fees would be paid by Attorney Bryant and his client. 
¶27 In October 2009 the court of appeals affirmed the 
circuit court's judgment of divorce.  Shortly thereafter, D.H. 
sent a copy of the court of appeals' decision to Goodwin at NML, 
who forwarded the information to Connie Piskula, who handled IRA 
matters.  Although the circuit court's judgment had now been 
affirmed on appeal, on October 29, 2009, Attorney Bryant sent a 
facsimile transmission to Piskula, which stated that "the status 
of the case is pending, issues remain unresolved and no 
distributions or changes to accounts or policies should be made 
at this time."  On November 3, 2009, Attorney Bryant telephoned 
Piskula and told her to wait on the transfer of the assets to 
D.H. because Attorney Bryant had filed a motion for rehearing.  
This was a false statement because he had not filed any such 
motion. 
¶28 On November 17, 2009, Piskula sent a facsimile 
transmission to Attorney Bryant, which recited the statements he 
had made during the telephone call on November 3, 2009, and 
asked for a copy of the motion for rehearing.  The communication 
further advised Attorney Bryant that if Piskula did not receive 
a copy of the motion by November 20, 2009, she would lift all 
transfer restrictions on C.H.'s accounts.  Attorney Bryant did 
not respond.  Consequently, NML transferred ownership of the 
IRAs and the annuity to D.H. on December 1, 2009, more than two 
years after the entry of the divorce judgment. 
No. 
2012AP484-D   
 
17 
 
¶29 In a hearing held shortly after the transfer of the 
accounts to D.H., the circuit court described Attorney Bryant's 
statements in the matter as "misleading," "not truthful" and 
"undertaken for the purpose of delay." 
¶30 The complaint alleged three counts arising out of 
Attorney Bryant's representation of C.H. and his interactions 
with NML.  By taking steps to delay the transfer of ownership of 
the IRA and annuity accounts, when Attorney Bryant knew that 
such actions would serve merely to harass or injure D.H., 
Attorney Bryant violated SCR 20:3.1(a)(3)15 (Count Thirteen).  
Further, Attorney Bryant's false statements to NML in which he 
had misrepresented the status of the appeal and had claimed that 
a motion for rehearing had been filed constituted violations of 
SCR 20:4.1(a)(1)16 (Count Fourteen).  Finally, the complaint 
alleged that those same misrepresentations had also constituted 
violations of SCR 20:8.4(c)17 (Count Fifteen). 
Procedural History before the Referee 
                                                 
15 SCR 20:3.1(a)(3) states that in representing a client, a 
lawyer shall not "file a suit, assert a position, conduct a 
defense, delay a trial or take other action on behalf of the 
client when the lawyer knows or when it is obvious that such an 
action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure 
another." 
16 SCR 
20:4.1(a)(1) 
states 
that 
in 
the 
course 
of 
representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly "make a false 
statement of a material fact or law to a 3rd person; . . . ." 
17 SCR 20:8.4(c) states that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation; . . . ." 
No. 
2012AP484-D   
 
18 
 
¶31 Attorney Bryant did not file an answer to the 
complaint.  After the referee was appointed, Attorney Bryant 
reached a stipulation with the OLR.  The stipulation was not set 
forth in a written document signed by the parties.  Rather, at a 
May 17, 2012 hearing the parties orally put the stipulation on 
the record through the OLR's examination of Attorney Bryant.  
Through his answers to the OLR's questions, Attorney Bryant 
stipulated that the factual allegations in the complaint were 
accurate and that he had committed all of the 15 counts of 
misconduct alleged in the complaint.  With respect to the 
requested sanction, Attorney Bryant acknowledged that the OLR 
was seeking a four-month suspension of his license to practice 
law in Wisconsin, and he agreed to jointly request that level of 
discipline.  Attorney Bryant also stipulated that he owed 
restitution in the amount of $1,500 to his former client V.F. 
¶32 During the examination, the OLR's counsel obtained 
statements 
from 
Attorney 
Bryant 
that 
he 
understood 
the 
allegations of the complaint, that he was not being coerced into 
entering into the stipulation, that no one had promised him 
anything to enter into the stipulation, that he understood that 
he had a right to consult with and be represented by counsel, 
that he was waiving his right to counsel, and that he was 
entering the stipulation freely and voluntarily. 
¶33 Following the examination conducted by counsel for the 
OLR, the referee also asked a series of questions of Attorney 
Bryant.  One of the questions the referee asked was whether 
there was anything Attorney Bryant wished the referee to know 
No. 
2012AP484-D   
 
19 
 
before she prepared her report.  Attorney Bryant spoke in 
response about having a sense of remorse and about accepting 
responsibility for his misconduct.  During this part of the 
hearing, Attorney Bryant also agreed to repay the entire $1,500 
advanced fee to V.F. and J.R.  He did not mention any specific 
factors that had caused him to engage in the misconduct. 
¶34 Over the next several months following this hearing, 
the referee asked the parties to provide information regarding 
Attorney Bryant's employment history so she could consider that 
in 
the 
context 
of 
preparing 
her 
report 
and 
sanction 
recommendation.  She was interested in particular whether there 
was a reason why Attorney Bryant's conduct had changed after 
having practiced approximately 13 years without any misconduct.  
The referee specifically asked whether Attorney Bryant had 
experienced any mental health or substance abuse problems. 
¶35 Attorney Bryant did not respond to the referee's 
repeated requests for information.  The OLR on multiple 
occasions advised the referee that it was unaware of any issues 
related to mental health or substance abuse and that there was 
no evidence regarding those matters in the record of the 
proceeding.  It stated that its file in the matter did not 
"indicate the need to explore such issues." 
¶36 On September 13, 2012, the OLR's counsel sent a letter 
to the referee, stating that an OLR investigator had received a 
letter indicating that Attorney Bryant was receiving treatment 
for mental health issues.  It again asserted that it had not 
No. 
2012AP484-D   
 
20 
 
possessed any information regarding this issue prior to this 
letter. 
¶37 On September 18, 2012, the referee filed her report 
and recommendation.  Based on Attorney Bryant's stipulation, the 
referee found that the allegations of the complaint had been 
admitted and that Attorney Bryant had violated each of the rules 
as alleged in the 15 counts of the complaint. 
¶38 Turning to the issue of the appropriate level of 
discipline, the referee agreed with the parties that a four-
month suspension of Attorney Bryant's license to practice law in 
this state would be proper.  She added a recommendation that as 
a condition of reinstatement Attorney Bryant should be ordered 
"to contact WisLAP18 and agree to all evaluations WisLAP demands 
at Mr. Bryant's expense, to sign a monitoring contract with 
WisLAP if so recommended by WisLAP, to execute any documents and 
releases necessary to allow WisLAP to monitor Mr. Bryant's 
treatment, to follow all recommendations of WisLAP, pay all fees 
associated with a contract with WisLAP, and successfully 
complete his WisLAP contract . . . ."  In light of Attorney 
Bryant's agreement at the May 17, 2012 hearing, the referee 
further recommended that Attorney Bryant should be ordered to 
pay $1,500 in restitution to V.F. and J.R.19  Finally, the 
                                                 
18 WisLAP 
refers 
to 
the 
Wisconsin 
Lawyers 
Assistance 
Program, which is a member service of the State Bar of 
Wisconsin. 
19 The OLR's statement on restitution concurs with this 
recommendation for restitution. 
No. 
2012AP484-D   
 
21 
 
referee recommended that Attorney Bryant be required to pay the 
full costs of this proceeding.20 
¶39 In the discussion section of her report, the referee 
commented that Attorney Bryant had been "very remorseful" for 
his actions and had "exhibited genuine concern for his conduct."  
The referee also raised the issue of mental health or substance 
abuse problems.  She acknowledged that there was no evidence in 
the record regarding such issues.  Moreover, the referee stated 
that at the May 17, 2012 hearing Attorney Bryant had appeared 
coherent, had acknowledged the nature of his behavior, and had 
accepted responsibility for his misdeeds.  The referee explained 
that she had sought the information regarding Attorney Bryant's 
employment history in order to demonstrate in her report that 
his misconduct at issue in this proceeding had been a "blip on 
an otherwise healthy career."  The referee continued that 
Attorney Bryant's ongoing failure over several months to respond 
to any of her requests for the employment information had 
bewildered her and had led her to believe that whatever problems 
had precipitated the misconduct had not been resolved.  Thus, 
she had gone beyond the parties' stipulation to include the 
recommendation for monitoring by WisLAP. 
Post-report Proceedings in this Court 
                                                 
20 The 
OLR 
subsequently 
filed 
a 
statement 
of 
costs 
indicating that the costs of the proceeding until that time had 
been $2,343.82.  The referee then filed a supplemental report 
again recommending that Attorney Bryant be required to pay the 
full costs of the proceeding. 
No. 
2012AP484-D   
 
22 
 
¶40 Within a week after the referee filed her report in 
this matter, the OLR received a letter from one of Attorney 
Bryant's health care providers.  The provider stated that he was 
writing at the request of and with the permission of Attorney 
Bryant.  The letter described health issues which were then 
affecting Attorney Bryant and which had led to symptoms that 
included problems with memory, concentration, and the ability to 
make decisions.  The letter further stated that due to those 
health issues, Attorney Bryant was unable at that time to 
respond to complaints that had been filed with the OLR.  It 
requested that the OLR temporarily suspend all administrative 
proceedings involving Attorney Bryant. 
¶41 Although the referee had expressed concern about the 
reasons for Attorney Bryant's misconduct and whether any 
underlying problems had been resolved, there is no indication 
that the OLR provided a copy of the letter to the referee in 
this matter.  The OLR also did not file a copy of the letter in 
this proceeding.  It did file a copy of the letter in a 
miscellaneous court file in which the OLR was seeking a 
temporary suspension due to Attorney Bryant's failure to 
cooperate with other grievance investigations. 
¶42 As a result of the contents of this letter, this court 
subsequently issued an order on May 24, 2013, requiring 
responses from both Attorney Bryant and the OLR.  The court's 
order asked the parties to provide an update on the status of 
Attorney Bryant's health, to discuss whether he was currently 
able 
to 
participate 
in 
disciplinary 
investigations 
and 
No. 
2012AP484-D   
 
23 
 
proceedings, whether his health problems had any impact on his 
ability to make a knowing and voluntary decision to enter into 
the stipulation in this case, and whether he had a basis or a 
desire to assert in this case that the sanction for any 
misconduct found in this case should be mitigated because of 
health problems during the time of the misconduct. 
¶43 Attorney Bryant's substantive response to the court's 
order stated that his health had improved over the preceding 
several months and that he was now able to participate in all 
disciplinary investigations and proceedings.  The response 
further stated that while his health problems had affected the 
energy and commitment with which he had dealt with the 
proceedings before the referee, his decision to enter into the 
stipulation and waive certain rights had been made knowingly, 
intelligently and voluntarily.  Finally, the response asserted 
that while his health problems had been a contributing factor in 
his failures to perform diligently and competently in the cases 
at issue in this proceeding, he did not wish to argue in this 
proceeding that his misconduct had been caused by his health 
problems.  He stated that he continued to stand by the 
stipulated request for a four-month suspension of his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin. 
Discussion and Decision 
¶44 When we review a referee's report and recommendation 
in an attorney disciplinary proceeding, we affirm a referee's 
findings of fact unless they are found to be clearly erroneous, 
but we review the referee's conclusions of law on a de novo 
No. 
2012AP484-D   
 
24 
 
basis.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 
126, ¶5, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125.  We determine the 
appropriate level of discipline given the particular facts of 
each case, independent of the referee's recommendation, but 
benefiting from it.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶45 In light of Attorney Bryant's stipulation, we accept 
the referee's findings of fact based on the OLR's complaint.  We 
further agree with the referee that those findings support the 
legal conclusion that Attorney Bryant committed the ethical 
violations alleged in each of the 15 counts of the OLR's 
complaint.   
¶46 Turning to the issue of sanction, we determine that a 
four-month suspension is an appropriate level of discipline to 
impose in light of the facts of this case.  Given the presence 
of prior discipline, the number of counts of misconduct, the 
number 
of 
clients 
impacted 
by 
the 
misconduct, 
and 
the 
seriousness of the misconduct, a suspension is clearly required.  
Recognizing that each case is unique in its facts, a four-month 
suspension here is supported by the cases cited by the OLR in 
its sanction memorandum to the referee.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Hammis, 2011 WI 3, 331 Wis. 2d 19, 793 
N.W.2d 884; In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Goldstein, 
2004 WI 87, 273 Wis. 2d 517, 681 N.W.2d 891. 
¶47 We also agree with the referee that Attorney Bryant 
should be ordered to pay restitution to V.F. and J.R. in the 
No. 
2012AP484-D   
 
25 
 
amount of $1,500.  Attorney Bryant has explicitly agreed that 
restitution in this amount is "due and owing." 
¶48 We differ from the referee, however, with respect to 
her recommendation regarding the imposition of conditions on 
Attorney Bryant's reinstatement.  We share the referee's concern 
that something appears to have changed in Attorney Bryant's 
practice of law that led him into running afoul of the Rules of 
Professional Conduct after years of properly practicing law.  We 
were particularly concerned by the letter submitted by Attorney 
Bryant's health care provider which stated that in 2012 Attorney 
Bryant 
was 
incapable 
of 
participating 
in 
disciplinary 
proceedings or even responding to OLR's investigatory requests.  
Attorney Bryant through his counsel, however, has stated that 
his health has improved.  The OLR, which has been continuing to 
deal with Attorney Bryant in another pending proceeding, has not 
advised this court that his health problems are still rendering 
him unable to make reasoned decisions or otherwise act with the 
judgment required of an attorney.  Moreover, we note that 
Attorney Bryant has sought treatment for the problems that have 
afflicted him. 
¶49 For all of these reasons, we do not think it necessary 
to require Attorney Bryant to submit to an extended monitoring 
program administered by WisLAP.  In order to ensure that 
Attorney Bryant's health will be in a sufficient condition to 
allow him to resume the practice of law, however, we conclude 
that the reinstatement of his license to practice law in this 
state following his four-month suspension should be conditioned 
No. 
2012AP484-D   
 
26 
 
upon him obtaining a satisfactory mental health evaluation and 
providing that evaluation to the OLR.  In order to be 
satisfactory, the evaluator must render an opinion, to a 
reasonable degree of professional certainty, that Attorney 
Bryant is presently capable of discharging the duties of a 
person licensed to practice law in this state.  We further 
conclude that as an additional condition of reinstatement, 
Attorney Bryant must execute medical releases that authorize the 
OLR for a period of three years to review his medical and mental 
health records and to speak with his medical or mental health 
care providers.  Once Attorney Bryant has complied with these 
conditions and the other conditions that are always required for 
reinstatement after a disciplinary suspension of less than six 
months, his license to practice law in this state can be 
reinstated. 
¶50 Finally, we turn to the issue of the costs of this 
proceeding.  Attorney Bryant has not objected to the statement 
of costs submitted by the OLR.  Because there are no factors 
present in this case that would lead us to deviate from our 
general policy of imposing all costs on an attorney who has been 
found to have committed professional misconduct, we require 
Attorney Bryant to pay the full costs of this proceeding. 
¶51 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Andrew J. Bryant to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of four 
months, effective the date of this order. 
¶52 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of the 
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin, 
No. 
2012AP484-D   
 
27 
 
Andrew J. Bryant shall take the following actions:  (1) obtain a 
satisfactory mental health evaluation, at his own expense, in 
which 
the 
evaluator 
states, 
to 
a 
reasonable 
degree 
of 
professional certainty, that Andrew J. Bryant is presently 
capable of discharging the duties of a person licensed to 
practice law in this state; (2) provide a copy of that 
evaluation to the Office of Lawyer Regulation; and (3) execute 
medical record releases that authorize the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation for a period of three years to review his medical and 
mental health records and to speak with medical or mental health 
care providers. 
¶53 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Andrew J. Bryant shall pay restitution in the 
amount of $1,500 to V.F. and J.R. 
¶54 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Andrew J. Bryant shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
¶55 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified 
above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation. 
¶56 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Andrew J. Bryant shall 
continue compliance with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning 
the duties of a person whose license to practice law in 
Wisconsin has been suspended. 
¶57 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2). 
No. 
2012AP484-D   
 
28 
 
 
 
No.  2012AP484-D.pdr 
 
1 
 
 
¶58 PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, J.   (concurring).  While I 
concur in the court's decision, I write separately because 
I would not require as a condition of reinstatement that 
Attorney Bryant execute medical releases that authorize the OLR 
for a period of three years to review his medical, including 
mental health, records or to speak with his medical or mental 
health care providers. 
   
 
 
No.  2012AP484-D.pdr 
 
 
 
1