Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin M. Kelsay
Citation: 2003 WI 141
Docket Number: 2002AP002239-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: November 12, 2003

2003 WI 141 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
02-2239-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Kevin M. Kelsay, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Kevin M. Kelsay,  
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KELSAY 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 12, 2003   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2003 WI 141 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  02-2239-D  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Kevin M. Kelsay, Attorney at  
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Kevin M. Kelsay,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
NOV 12, 2003 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the referee's recommendation 
that Attorney Kevin Kelsay receive a public reprimand for 
professional misconduct.  We conclude that a public reprimand is 
insufficient to address the seriousness of Attorney Kelsay's 
professional misconduct, and we hereby suspend Attorney Kelsay's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of six months.  
We agree that Attorney Kelsay should be required to pay the 
costs of the proceeding.   
No. 
02-2239-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Attorney Kelsay was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1984.  His license to practice law in Wisconsin is 
presently under suspension.  In October 1991 Attorney Kelsay 
consented 
to 
the 
imposition 
of 
a 
private 
reprimand 
for 
misconduct consisting of requesting and receiving a loan from a 
client without fully advising the client of the differing 
interests of the client and Attorney Kelsay and without taking 
appropriate steps to protect the client's interests, and for 
neglecting to pursue the client's claims; failing to keep the 
client informed; failing to respond to the client's requests for 
information; and failing to promptly return the client's papers 
or file to her. 
¶3 
On June 4, 1990, this court suspended Attorney 
Kelsay's license for a period of three years for misconduct, 
including failure to deposit client funds into a trust account; 
neglect of numerous client 
matters; 
misrepresentations to 
clients regarding actions taken on their behalf; failure to 
return client files and unearned fees; failure to communicate 
with clients; failure to promptly pay funds as directed by a 
client; conversion of client funds to his own use; and repeated 
failure to respond to the Board of Attorneys Professional 
Responsibility 
in 
its 
investigation 
of 
client 
grievances, 
including the failure to produce trust account records, files 
and other requested material.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Kelsay, 155 Wis. 2d 480, 455 N.W.2d 871 (1990).  To date 
Attorney Kelsay's law license has not been reinstated.  He filed 
No. 
02-2239-D   
 
3 
 
a petition for reinstatement on June 3, 2002, which is being 
held in abeyance pending resolution of this matter. 
¶4 
On August 23, 2002, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a complaint against Attorney Kelsay alleging he had 
engaged in the practice of law while his license was under 
suspension, in violation of SCR 20:5.5(a)1 and SCR 22.26(2),2 by 
providing legal services to Andris Stradins (Stradins), an 
acquaintance of Attorney Kelsay.   
¶5 
The complaint alleged and the referee subsequently 
found that in October 1993, Stradins was injured in an 
automobile accident while driving a truck owned by his employer.  
After the accident Stradins contacted Attorney Kelsay to obtain 
his advice and a referral for an attorney.  Attorney Kelsay told 
Stradins that he could handle the matter for less than half the 
fee of an attorney.  Stradins agreed to allow Attorney Kelsay to 
represent him. 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:5.5(a) provides: "A lawyer shall not: (a) practice 
law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of 
the legal profession in that jurisdiction." 
2 SCR 22.26(2) provides:  
(2) 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.  
No. 
02-2239-D   
 
4 
 
¶6 
Attorney Kelsay told Stradins not to tell anyone he 
was working on Stradins' behalf because it was illegal for him 
to practice law.  He also advised Stradins to inform the 
insurance claims adjuster that Stradins would only communicate 
with the insurance adjuster in writing.  In this way, Attorney 
Kelsay was able to monitor and manage Stradins' claim without 
communicating with the insurance company directly. 
¶7 
Between December 1993 and December 1995 Attorney 
Kelsay drafted most, if not all, of the letters Stradins sent to 
the insurance company, which involved making and negotiating 
settlement offers.  In December 1995 the insurance company 
offered to settle Stradins' claim for $40,000.  On or about 
December 19, 1995, Stradins went to the insurance company's 
office 
accompanied 
by 
Attorney 
Kelsay, 
who 
reviewed 
the 
settlement documents before advising Stradins to sign them. 
¶8 
After receiving his settlement proceeds Stradins paid 
Attorney Kelsay approximately $5000 for the legal work he had 
performed. 
¶9 
Attorney Kelsay also assisted Stradins with the filing 
of a Worker's Compensation claim.  He drafted letters to the 
Worker's Compensation insurance carrier on Stradins' behalf.  In 
return for this assistance Stradins paid Attorney Kelsay 
10 percent of his Worker's Compensation payments, approximately 
$65 per month, except for a short period of time when Stadins 
only received a partial monthly payment. 
¶10 The complaint filed by the OLR alleged that by 
practicing law while his license was suspended Attorney Kelsay 
No. 
02-2239-D   
 
5 
 
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, in violation of SCR 
20:5.5(a) and that Attorney Kelsay practiced law or engaged in 
improper law work activity while his license was suspended, in 
violation of SCR 22.26(2). 
¶11 On September 12, 2002, the OLR and Attorney Kelsay 
requested this court approve the terms of a stipulation filed 
pursuant to SCR 22.12(1), whereby Attorney Kelsay would be 
publicly 
reprimanded 
for 
the 
misconduct 
alleged 
in 
the 
complaint.  However, the stipulation advised the court that  
Referee Daniel Stangle, who was appointed pursuant to SCR 22.09, 
had rejected the proposed discipline as inadequate.   
¶12 Referee Stangle opined that the proposed sanction fell 
outside the range of sanctions usually imposed for similar 
cases.  Citing to several published cases as well as the ABA 
STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS, § 8: PRIOR DISCIPLINE ORDERS (1991 
ed., as amended in Feb. 1992), the referee stated: 
[I]t seems inconceivable to me that a mere Public 
Reprimand 
would 
accomplish 
the 
Court's 
stated 
objectives 
in 
the lawyer 
disciplinary 
system of 
protecting the public, the courts or the legal 
profession from further misconduct by Attorney Kelsay, 
how it would aid in his rehabilitation, and certainly 
how this would possibly deter others.  Rather, the 
message sent seems to me to be more one of do whatever 
you want, the worst that happens is the system says 
"don't do it any more"——particularly where the system 
already had sent the same message previously.   
Attorney Kelsay filed a motion for reconsideration and the OLR 
sent a letter to the referee, defending its position.  Referee 
Stangle declined to alter his initial determination and the OLR 
No. 
02-2239-D   
 
6 
 
and Attorney Kelsay requested this court approve the stipulation 
notwithstanding the referee's position.   
¶13 The court issued an order to show cause, directing 
both the OLR and Attorney Kelsay to explain why this court 
should accept the terms of the proposed stipulation.  The 
parties 
responded 
to 
this 
court's 
order 
to 
show 
cause, 
maintaining that a public reprimand was appropriate discipline 
for Attorney Kelsay's misconduct.   
¶14 This court was not persuaded.  By order dated December 
12, 2002, we rejected the stipulation submitted by the parties 
and, consistent with SCR 22.12(3), directed the matter proceed 
before a referee. 
¶15 On May 22, 2003, Referee Charles Herro issued a report 
and recommendation concluding that Attorney Kelsay did violate 
SCR 20:5.5(a) and SCR 22.26(2) as set forth in the stipulation 
of the parties.   He agreed that a public reprimand was 
appropriate discipline for the misconduct at issue in this 
matter. 
¶16 We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
factual 
findings 
and 
conclusions of law but we are of the opinion that a public 
reprimand 
is 
inadequate 
discipline 
for 
Attorney 
Kelsay's 
misconduct.  We conclude that the seriousness of Attorney 
Kelsay's misconduct warrants the suspension of his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin for a period of six months.  We agree 
No. 
02-2239-D   
 
7 
 
that Attorney Kelsay should be ordered to pay the costs of the 
OLR proceeding.3 
¶17 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Kevin 
Kelsay to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 
six months, effective the date of this order. 
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this suspension does not 
affect the existing suspension. 
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Kevin Kelsay shall 
comply, if he has not already done so, with the requirements of 
SCR 22.26 pertaining to activities following suspension. 
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Kevin Kelsay pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
                                                 
3 The record reflects that on June 13, 2003, Attorney Kelsay 
filed an objection to the statement of costs filed by the OLR.  
The OLR provided an itemization of its costs on June 17, 2003.  
The record does not reflect any specific objections to the costs 
assessed by the OLR and Attorney Kelsay's objection to the 
statement of costs is rejected. 
No. 
02-2239-D   
 
 
 
1