Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Lilah J. Zajac
Citation: 2008 WI 42
Docket Number: 2007AP000981-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: May 16, 2008

2008 WI 42 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2007AP981-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Lilah J. Zajac, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Lilah J. Zajac, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ZAJAC 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 16, 2008   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2008 WI 42
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2007AP981-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Lilah J. Zajac, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Lilah J. Zajac, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 16, 2008 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the stipulation filed by the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Lilah J. Zajac 
pursuant to SCR 22.12 wherein Attorney Zajac admits to the facts 
and professional misconduct as alleged by the OLR in its 
complaint.  Attorney Zajac also assents to the level of 
discipline sought by the OLR director, a 60-day suspension of 
her license to practice law in Wisconsin.   
No. 
2007AP981-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
We adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law.  
We 
agree 
that 
Attorney 
Zajac's 
misconduct 
warrants 
the 
suspension of her license to practice law in Wisconsin for a 
period of 60 days.  The OLR has stated that it does not seek to 
impose the costs of this proceeding upon Attorney Zajac, and we 
accede to that recommendation. 
¶3 
Attorney Zajac was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2001 and most recently practiced at Horizons Law 
Group, LLC, in Wauwatosa.  She has no prior disciplinary 
history. 
¶4 
On April 27, 2007, the OLR filed an order to answer 
and 
a 
complaint 
alleging 
eight 
counts 
of 
professional 
misconduct.  All arose out of Attorney Zajac's handling of two 
estate matters while she was an attorney at Legal Horizons. 
¶5 
C.V. died in 2002 survived by four daughters and a 
son, F.V.  C.V.'s will left her Milwaukee home to F.V.  F.V. 
filed an application for informal probate transferring his 
mother's house to his name.  F.V. died shortly thereafter.  His 
only heirs were his four sisters.  After F.V. died, one of the 
sisters, R.G., moved into her mother's home.  C.V.'s will had 
stated that the house should go to R.G. if F.V. predeceased her.   
¶6 
On July 29, 2002, R.G. met with an attorney at Legal 
Horizons about representing her with regard to her mother's and 
brother's estates so that she could have the house transferred 
to her own name.  R.G. was quoted a $1,000 flat fee for the 
representation, to be paid in $250 installments.  R.G. signed a 
retainer agreement in October 2002 and subsequently made various 
No. 
2007AP981-D   
 
3 
 
fee payments.  Attorney Zajac told the OLR that all payments 
from R.G. were deposited into the main LLC account at Legal 
Horizons as flat fee payments. 
¶7 
On November 26, 2002, Attorney Zajac filed R.G.'s 
amended application for informal administration of C.V.'s estate 
and R.G. was appointed personal representative.  The same day 
Attorney 
Zajac 
also 
filed 
an 
application 
for 
informal 
administration of F.V.'s estate.   
¶8 
In F.V.'s estate, Milwaukee County filed a claim for 
$591.54.  In C.V.'s estate, Milwaukee County filed a claim for 
$7,987.37 to recover benefits C.V. had received between 1959 and 
1975.  Victor & Victor, Ltd. filed a $736.41 claim for C.V.'s 
J.C. Penney credit card.  The J.C. Penney claim was filed after 
the deadline for claims established after the filing of the 
initial application for informal administration of the estate 
that F.V. had filed before his death, but less than four months 
after Attorney Zajac filed R.G.'s amended application for 
informal administration.   
¶9 
Although Attorney Zajac raised the issue of whether 
the late filing of the J.C. Penney claim would invalidate it, 
there was no evidence she researched the issue further, nor did 
she take any action to challenge the claim in C.V.'s estate.  
Instead of attempting to dispute the validity of the J.C. Penney 
debt, Attorney Zajac tried to negotiate a settlement.  Attorney 
Zajac also sent a letter to Milwaukee County saying that C.V.'s 
family wanted to either dispute its claim as stale or settle it, 
and she negotiated with the county to have the house pass to 
No. 
2007AP981-D   
 
4 
 
F.V.'s estate subject to the county's lien.  In April 2003 the 
county provided a draft lien to be executed and filed by R.G., 
as personal representative of C.V.'s estate.   
¶10 In December 2003 the circuit court issued an order to 
show cause why C.V.'s estate had not been closed.  In January 
2004 R.G. and Attorney Zajac attended a hearing on the order to 
show cause, and the hearing was adjourned until March 9, 2004.   
¶11 On March 8, 2004, Attorney Zajac met with R.G. at 
R.G.'s home.  R.G. executed the lien documents to allow the 
house to pass from C.V.'s estate to F.V.'s estate, subject to 
the county's lien.  The lien documents were filed in probate 
court the next day.  During the March 8, 2004, meeting, R.G. 
gave Attorney Zajac $344 in cash, representing the final 
installment of the flat fee owed to Legal Horizons.   
¶12 Attorney Zajac told the OLR that when R.G. accompanied 
her to an order to show cause hearing in probate court on March 
9, 2004, Attorney Zajac asked R.G. if Attorney Zajac could apply 
the $344 payment toward the J.C. Penney bill.  Attorney Zajac 
also said she offered to personally cover the rest of the bill, 
without a realistic expectation of repayment.  Attorney Zajac 
also told the OLR she had mailed the J.C. Penney payment to 
Victor & Victor on March 8, 2004, using her personal funds.  
Attorney Zajac did not provide the OLR with any written 
documentation to support her claim that she had loaned money to 
R.G. or the estate by paying the J.C. Penney bill from her 
personal funds. 
No. 
2007AP981-D   
 
5 
 
¶13 By April 2004 Milwaukee County's deputy register in 
probate had frequently told Attorney Zajac to get C.V.'s estate 
closed.  Attorney Zajac did not specifically discuss with R.G. 
any deadline to close the estate.  There is no evidence to 
support a finding that Attorney Zajac provided notice to R.G. 
that there was a court appearance scheduled for May 11, 2004.  
Neither R.G. nor Attorney Zajac appeared for the May 11, 2004, 
hearing.  At the hearing, R.G. was removed as personal 
representative and Attorney Zajac was removed as counsel for 
C.V.'s estate. On May 17, 2004, the probate court issued 
domiciliary letters with general powers and duties of a personal 
representative of C.V.'s estate to Attorney Janet Resnick.   
¶14 R.G. was surprised and upset when she received the 
order removing her as personal representative.  She called 
Attorney Zajac, who told R.G. she would "fix it."  Weeks later, 
Attorney Zajac still had not filed any documents with the court 
to have herself and R.G. reinstated.  R.G. subsequently hired 
another attorney to assist her in objecting to Attorney 
Resnick's actions on behalf of the estates.   
¶15 The 
OLR's 
investigation 
revealed 
that 
R.G.'s 
perception was that Attorney Zajac frequently did not discuss 
matters regarding the estates with R.G. in a way she could 
understand what was happening or what needed to be done.   
¶16 The eight counts of misconduct set forth in the OLR's 
complaint were as follows: 
Count One:  By failing to adequately pursue 
whether the late filing of the J.C. Penney claim filed 
No. 
2007AP981-D   
 
6 
 
by Victor and Victor, Ltd., could serve as a defense 
to its enforcement against C.V.'s estate; failing to 
properly calendar and attend the May 11, 2004, order 
to 
show 
cause 
hearing; 
and 
failing 
to 
request 
direction from the probate court or explain to the 
court difficulties she was having in closing C.V.'s 
estate; Attorney Zajac violated former SCR 20:1.3.1 
Count 
Two: 
By 
failing 
to 
sufficiently 
and 
adequately communicate to R.G.:  the necessity to 
close C.V.'s estate within a certain time and the 
consequences for not doing so; whether a title report 
should be obtained regarding C.V.'s house and the 
consequences for not doing so; and whether the date of 
the filing of the J.C. Penney claim filed by Victor 
and Victor, Ltd., could serve as a defense to its 
enforcement against C.V.'s estate, so as, in each such 
instance, to allow R.G. and her family to make 
informed decisions regarding these matters; Attorney 
Zajac violated SCR 20:1.4(a).2 
Count Three:   By paying from her personal funds 
a claim filed against C.V.'s estate by Victor and 
Victor, Ltd., Attorney Zajac loaned funds to R.G. or 
C.V.'s estate, when (1) the transaction and terms on 
which Attorney Zajac acted were not fully disclosed 
and transmitted in writing to the client in a manner 
which could be reasonably understood by the client; 
(2) the client was not given a reasonable opportunity 
to seek the advice of independent counsel in the 
                                                 
1 Effective July 1, 2007, substantial changes were made to 
the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct for 
Attorneys, SCR Chapter 20.  See S. Ct. Order 04-07, 2007 WI 4, 
293 Wis. 2d xv, 726 N.W.2d Ct.R-45 (eff. July 1, 2007); and 
S. Ct. 
Order 
06-04, 
2007 
WI 
48, 
297 
Wis. 2d xv, 
730 
N.W.2d Ct.R.-29 (eff. July 1, 2007).  Because the conduct 
underlying this case arose prior to July 1, 2007, unless 
otherwise indicated, all references to the supreme court rules 
will be to those in effect prior to July 1, 2007. 
Former SCR 20:1.3 provides that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
2 Former 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. 
2007AP981-D   
 
7 
 
transaction; and (3) the client did not consent in 
writing thereto; and therefore Attorney Zajac violated 
SCR 20:1.8(a).3 
Count Four:  By providing financial assistance to 
R.G. or C.V.'s estate in the form of paying from her 
personal funds a claim filed against the estate by 
Victor and Victor, Ltd., Attorney Zajac violated SCR 
20:1.8(e).4 
Count Five:  By failing to promptly advise R.G. 
that she had decided not to file a motion seeking to 
reinstate R.G. as personal representative of C.V.'s 
estate after having previously advised R.G. that she 
                                                 
3 Former SCR 20:1.8(a) provides:  
A 
lawyer 
shall 
not 
enter 
into 
a 
business 
transaction with a client or knowingly acquire an 
ownership, possessory, security or other pecuniary 
interest adverse to a client unless: 
(1) the transaction and terms on which the lawyer 
acquires the interest are fair and reasonable to the 
client and are fully disclosed and transmitted in 
writing to the client in a manner which can be 
reasonably understood by the client; 
(2) the client is given a reasonable opportunity 
to seek the advice of independent counsel in the 
transaction; and  
(3) the client consents in writing thereto. 
4 Former SCR 20:1.8(e) states:   
 
A lawyer shall not provide financial assistance 
to a client in connection with pending or contemplated 
litigation, except that: 
 
(1) a lawyer may advance court costs and expenses 
of 
litigation, 
the 
repayment 
of 
which 
may 
be 
contingent on the outcome of the matter; and  
 
(2) a lawyer representing an indigent client may 
pay court costs and expenses of litigation on behalf 
of the client. 
No. 
2007AP981-D   
 
8 
 
would file such a motion, when Attorney Zajac was 
aware that R.G. was relying on Attorney Zajac to file 
such a motion immediately after her agreement to do 
so, Attorney Zajac violated SCR 20:1.16(d).5 
Count Six:  By converting R.G.'s $344 payment and 
also by representing to R.G., her sister, Attorney 
Resnick, and the probate court that the J.C. Penney 
claim filed against C.V.'s estate by Victor and 
Victor, Ltd., had been paid in February or March 2004, 
Attorney Zajac violated SCR 20:8.4(c).6   
Count Seven:  By advising OLR (1) that she had 
mailed check #897 and the accompanying letter dated 
February 28, 2004, to Victor and Victor, Ltd.; (2) 
that on or about April 14, 2004, she had advised R.G. 
of the May 11, 2004, hearing scheduled in the probate 
of C.V.'s estate; and (3) by providing OLR with a 
photocopy of a handwritten note purporting to have 
been created on or about April 14, 2004, when the note 
was created after the issuance of the court's May 13, 
                                                 
5 Former SCR 20:1.16(d) states:   
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. 
6 Former 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. 
2007AP981-D   
 
9 
 
2004, order, Attorney Zajac violated SCR 22.03(6),7 
actionable via SCR 20:8.4(f).8 
Count Eight:  By failing to timely provide OLR 
with a written response containing all of the records 
and information requested in OLR's letters dated 
May 5, June 6, and June 28, 2005; by failing to timely 
provide OLR with a written response containing all of 
the records and information requested in OLR's letters 
dated June 13 and July 18, 2006; and by failing to 
provide any of the information and records requested 
in OLR's letter dated November 16, 2006; Attorney 
Zajac 
violated 
SCR 
22.03(2)9 
and 
SCR 
22.03(6), 
actionable via SCR 20:8.4(f). 
¶17 On March 12, 2008, the parties filed a stipulation 
with this court.  The stipulation states that Attorney Zajac 
                                                 
7 SCR 22.03(6) states, "In the course of the investigation, 
the [attorney's] wilful failure to provide relevant information, 
to answer questions fully, or to furnish documents and the 
[attorney's] misrepresentation in a disclosure are misconduct, 
regardless of the merits of the matters asserted in the 
grievance." 
8 Former 
SCR 
20.8.4(f) 
provides 
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; . . . ." 
9 SCR 22.03(2) states:  
Upon commencing an investigation, the director 
shall notify the [attorney] of the matter being 
investigated unless in the opinion of the director the 
investigation of the matter requires otherwise.  The 
[attorney] shall fully and fairly disclose all facts 
and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct 
within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail a 
request for a written response.  The director may 
allow additional time to respond.  Following receipt 
of the response, the director may conduct further 
investigation and may compel the [attorney] to answer 
questions, 
furnish 
documents, 
and 
present 
any 
information deemed relevant to the investigation. 
No. 
2007AP981-D   
 
10 
 
fully understands the misconduct allegations; fully understands 
the ramifications should this court impose the stipulated 
discipline; fully understands her right to contest the matter; 
and fully understands her right to consult with counsel and 
states that she has in fact consulted with counsel and is 
represented in this matter.  Attorney Zajac states that her 
entry into the stipulation is made knowingly and voluntarily and 
represents her admission of the misconduct recited in the OLR's 
complaint and her assent to the level of discipline sought by 
the OLR director. 
¶18 We approve the parties' stipulation and recommendation 
regarding discipline.  
¶19 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Lilah J. Zajac to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective May 23, 2008. 
 
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Lilah J. Zajac shall comply 
with the requirements of SCR 22.26 pertaining to activities 
following suspension. 
 
No. 
2007AP981-D   
 
 
 
1