Title: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. Thomas E. Zablocki
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1996AP003700-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: June 24, 1998

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
96-3700-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Thomas E. Zablocki, Attorney at Law. 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ZABLOCKI 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
June 24, 1998 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
May 28, 1998 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
For Thomas E. Zablocki there was a brief by 
Dennis P. Coffey and Coffey & Coffey, Ltd., Milwaukee and oral 
argument by Dennis P. Coffey. 
 
 
For the Board of Attorneys Professional 
Responsibility there was a brief and oral argument by William J. 
Weigel, counsel, Madison. 
 
No.  96-3700-D 
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 96-3700-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against THOMAS E. ZABLOCKI, Attorney at 
Law. 
FILED 
 
JUN 24, 1998 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney’s 
license 
suspended; restitution ordered.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM   Attorney Thomas E. Zablocki appealed from 
two of the five conclusions of the referee that he engaged in 
professional misconduct and from the referee’s recommendation 
that his license to practice law be suspended for six months as 
discipline for misconduct and that he be required to make 
restitution to a client. He did not appeal from the additional 
recommendation that for two years following reinstatement of his 
license he be required to make quarterly reports to the Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board) of his client 
trust account record keeping. The referee concluded that 
Attorney Zablocki failed to maintain a client trust account for 
several years and keep required records of his receipt and 
disbursement of client funds, deposited client funds into 
several personal checking accounts and commingled them with his 
own funds, and in one matter did not disburse to a client 
No.  96-3700-D 
 
2 
settlement proceeds he received on her behalf, misrepresented to 
her that she was not entitled to any of the settlement funds, 
used the balance of those funds for his own purposes, and did 
not deliver promptly a portion of the settlement funds in 
payment of a health care provider’s fee. The referee also 
concluded that Attorney Zablocki failed to respond to inquiries 
from the Board into his handling of the settlement proceeds and 
failed to produce timely or take reasonable steps to obtain and 
provide bank records the Board had requested.  
¶2 
We determine that the referee’s conclusions in respect 
to Attorney Zablocki’s violations of the Rules of Attorney 
Professional 
Conduct 
were 
properly 
drawn 
from 
the 
facts 
established in this proceeding. Further, the license suspension, 
restitution requirement, and trust account reporting condition 
recommended by the referee constitute the appropriate response 
to his misconduct. In addition to failing for several years to 
hold the funds of clients and others in trust and keep required 
records of his receipt and disbursement of those funds, Attorney 
Zablocki used a client’s funds for his own purposes while 
misrepresenting to the client that none of the money he had 
received in settlement of her personal injury claim remained for 
her.  
¶3 
Attorney Zablocki was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1968. His practice was a limited one until February 
of 1989, when he left the position of Milwaukee County Clerk. He 
practices in Franklin. He has been disciplined once previously 
for professional misconduct: on September 14, 1995, he consented 
No.  96-3700-D 
 
3 
to a private reprimand from the Board for failure to hold client 
funds in trust, fully disclose all facts and circumstances 
regarding his handling of client funds, and cooperate with the 
Board’s 
investigation 
into 
that 
matter. 
During 
that 
investigation, the Board became aware that Attorney Zablocki 
might have engaged in additional professional misconduct in 
respect to funds of other clients and client funds in general. 
Rather than hold the initial matter open until it could conduct 
further investigation, the Board elected to obtain Attorney 
Zablocki’s consent to a private reprimand for the initial matter 
and proceed with its investigation of other matters, which led 
to the complaint filed in the instant proceeding.  
¶4 
The referee, Attorney Rose Marie Baron, made findings 
of fact and conclusions of law based on a stipulation of the 
parties and evidence presented by the Board at a disciplinary 
hearing. At that hearing, Attorney Zablocki, who was represented 
by counsel, called no witnesses, presented no evidence, and did 
not testify.  
¶5 
On or about June 1, 1992, Attorney Zablocki deposited 
into his personal checking account a $5000 check representing 
settlement of a client’s personal injury claim. At the time of 
that deposit, the account had a balance of $1292.31, although 
Attorney Zablocki’s check register indicated that it was 
overdrawn by $1401.71 for the reason that a number of checks 
noted in his register had not yet cleared. Attorney Zablocki 
asserted that he had written but had not delivered those checks.  
No.  96-3700-D 
 
4 
¶6 
After the deposit of the $5000 settlement and the 
clearing of some unrelated checks, the account balance on June 
1, 1992 was $5907.31. By June 10, 1992, there were no funds in 
that account; indeed, it was overdrawn by $259.13. Attorney 
Zablocki took his $1600 fee from those settlement funds and on 
June 10, 1992, wrote a check to himself in the amount of $2000. 
None of the checks written on the account between June 1 and 
June 10, 1992 and none of the checks that cleared between those 
dates was payable either to the client or to the client’s 
doctor; a number of them were to Attorney Zablocki or for his 
personal purposes.  
¶7 
When the client asked Attorney Zablocki about her 
portion of the settlement, he first told her that not all the 
bills relating to her case had been paid and that he was still 
working on it. He responded to her subsequent inquiry that there 
would not be any money left for her because he had to pay her 
doctor, whose bill was $2012.20. At no time did Attorney 
Zablocki give the client a written account of his disbursement 
of the settlement funds, and the client received nothing.  
¶8 
The referee concluded that by failing to deliver to 
the client her portion of the settlement, by telling her she was 
not entitled to any settlement funds, and by using the balance 
of those funds for his own purposes, Attorney Zablocki engaged 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).  
¶9 
Attorney Zablocki and his client had executed a 
doctor’s lien January 10, 1991 authorizing him to pay out of any 
No.  96-3700-D 
 
5 
settlement proceeds the fee of the chiropractor who, at Attorney 
Zablocki’s suggestion, was treating the client. Sometime in 
September, 1992, Attorney Zablocki asked the client’s doctor to 
reduce his fee to $1800, and the doctor agreed. On September 21, 
1992, Attorney Zablocki deposited the $2000 check he had written 
on June 10, 1992, back into his checking account, noting in his 
check register that it represented money from the client’s 
settlement to pay her doctor’s bill. The following day he wrote 
a check to the client’s doctor in the amount of $1800.  
¶10 Attorney Zablocki delivered the $1800 check to the 
doctor in late September, 1992, more than 100 days after he had 
deposited the $5000 settlement check into his personal checking 
account. The $1800 check was presented for payment on September 
29 and again on October 2, 1992 and on both occasions was 
dishonored because there were insufficient funds in the account 
to pay it. The cause of the dishonor was a September 29, 1992 
Internal 
Revenue Service 
levy against 
Attorney 
Zablocki’s 
checking account, then having a balance of $3900. The doctor 
testified that he ultimately was paid $1800 but by means other 
than a personal check from Attorney Zablocki.   
¶11 During 
the 
investigation 
of 
his 
trust 
account 
practices, when the Board’s investigator questioned the $3900 
debit to his checking account, Attorney Zablocki responded that 
he did not know and had no recollection of it. During that 
meeting, the investigator warned Attorney Zablocki of the danger 
of keeping client funds in personal accounts, making reference 
to a disciplinary case involving an attorney’s failure to hold 
No.  96-3700-D 
 
6 
funds in trust, as a result of which a client’s funds were 
seized by a tax levy. Attorney Zablocki denied that anything 
like that ever had happened to him.  
¶12 The referee concluded that Attorney Zablocki’s failure 
to deliver promptly the fee the doctor was entitled to receive 
from 
the 
settlement 
pursuant 
to 
the 
lien 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.15(b).1  
¶13 From the time he was admitted to the practice of law 
and commenced a limited private practice in 1968, Attorney 
Zablocki maintained various personal checking accounts. After 
leaving his position as Milwaukee County Clerk in early 1989 to 
practice law full time, Attorney Zablocki deposited client funds 
into at least five personal checking accounts, none of which was 
designated a client trust account. Attorney Zablocki used those 
accounts to deposit and withdraw his personal funds, to deposit 
clients’ settlement proceeds and his fees, to pay expenses on 
behalf of clients, and to pay his personal and business 
expenses. He used two of those accounts for the deposit of 
                     
1 SCR 20:1.15 provides, in pertinent part: Safekeeping 
property 
 . . .  
(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.   
No.  96-3700-D 
 
7 
personal injury settlement proceeds and for the distribution of 
those proceeds to clients, health care providers, and others. He 
also deposited into those two accounts advances from clients to 
pay costs and fines, funds collected on behalf of a client, and 
funds that were to be paid to a third party.  
¶14 The referee concluded, as the parties had stipulated, 
that by depositing client funds into several personal checking 
accounts and commingling his own funds with those belonging to 
clients and others, Attorney Zablocki violated SCR 20:1.15(a).2   
¶15 In August of 1995, the Board opened an investigative 
file concerning Attorney Zablocki’s possible commingling of 
client funds, based upon information it had obtained in the 
course of its investigation of a separate matter that led to the 
imposition of a private reprimand. When asked by the Board what 
records he kept of client funds coming into his possession, 
Attorney Zablocki stated that he did not maintain a ledger of 
                     
2 SCR 20:1.15 provides, in pertinent part: Safekeeping 
property 
(a) A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the 
lawyer’s own property, property of clients or third persons that 
is 
in 
the 
lawyer’s 
possession 
in 
connection 
with 
a 
representation. All funds of clients paid to a lawyer or law 
firm shall be deposited in one or more identifiable trust 
accounts as provided in paragraph (c) maintained in a bank, 
trust company, credit union or savings and loan association 
authorized to do business and located in Wisconsin, which 
account shall be clearly designated as “client’s Account” or 
“Trust Account” or words of similar import, and no funds 
belonging to the lawyer or law firm except funds reasonably 
sufficient to pay account service charges may be deposited in 
such an account.  . . .   
No.  96-3700-D 
 
8 
deposits and disbursements on behalf of each client and third 
party and did not have any specific records that would show 
monies belonging to any client or third party for the reason 
that he never maintained any client funds but acted only as an 
“immediate depository and distributee of any funds.” When asked 
whether he believed funds belonging to clients or third parties 
did not have to be held in trust if they were held for only a 
short period of time, Attorney Zablocki responded that he did 
not hold any client monies in trust but was using his checking 
account only as a distribution account. The referee concluded 
that from at least 1991 through September, 1995, Attorney 
Zablocki failed to keep required trust account records, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.15(e).3  
                     
3 SCR 20:1.15 provides, in pertinent part: Safekeeping 
property  
 . . .  
No.  96-3700-D 
 
9 
¶16 In the course of the investigation, when asked to 
respond to specific questions and produce bank statements and 
canceled checks for any account into which he had deposited 
client funds, Attorney Zablocki did not respond within the time 
specified in the request. He gave no reason for his lack of 
response and did not request additional time to respond or 
provide the requested records. The Board sent him a second 
request on September 22, 1995, to which he responded by 
addressing the questions set forth in the Board’s initial 
letter, but he did not produce the requested bank statements and 
canceled checks, as he said he was continuing to look for them.  
¶17 The Board repeated its request for the records October 
6, 1995, asking specifically that he produce those records 
relating to three specified checking accounts within 10 days. 
                                                                  
(e) Complete records of trust account funds and other trust 
property shall be kept by the lawyer and shall be preserved for 
a period of at least six years after termination of the 
representation. Complete records shall include: (i) a cash 
receipts journal, listing the sources and date of each receipt, 
(ii) a disbursements journal, listing the date and payee of each 
disbursement, with all disbursements being paid by check, (iii) 
a subsidiary ledger containing a separate page for each person 
or company for whom funds have been received in trust showing 
the date and amount of each receipt, the date and amount of each 
disbursement, and any unexpended balance, (iv) a monthly 
schedule of the subsidiary ledger, indicating the balance of 
each client’s account at the end of each month, (v) a 
determination of the cash balance (checkbook balance) with the 
balance indicated in the bank statement, and (vi) monthly 
statements, including canceled checks, vouchers or share drafts, 
and duplicate deposit slips. A record of all property other than 
cash which is held in trust for clients or third persons, as 
required by paragraph (a) hereof, shall also be maintained. All 
trust account records shall be deemed to have public aspects as 
related to the lawyer’s fitness to practice.    
No.  96-3700-D 
 
10
Attorney Zablocki did not respond timely, give a reason for not 
doing so, or request additional time to provide the records. 
After the Board again requested those records on October 26, 
1995, Attorney Zablocki delivered some but not all of them. By 
letter of March 22, 1996, he was notified that numerous bank 
statements for the three accounts were missing and was asked to 
produce them within 20 days. He did not respond timely, give a 
reason for not doing so, or ask for more time.  
¶18 In May, 1996, the Board served Attorney Zablocki with 
a request for production of records, together with an admission 
of service form that he was asked to return. He was notified 
that if he did not return the admission of service, he would be 
liable for the cost of having the request served on him 
personally. When Attorney Zablocki did not return the admission 
of service form, the Board then had him served personally on May 
20, 1996. Following that service, some additional records were 
delivered to the Board by Attorney Zablocki’s secretary, who 
stated 
that 
Attorney 
Zablocki 
was 
unable 
to 
locate 
any 
additional records in his office.  
¶19 On June 3, 1996, the Board sent Attorney Zablocki a 
summary of the items, including bank statements and deposit 
slips, that had not been produced and asked that he obtain them 
from his banks by June 14, 1996. He did not respond timely to 
that request or give any reason for not doing so; he did not 
request additional time to provide the records. On June 24, 
1996, Attorney Zablocki’s secretary told the Board that Attorney 
Zablocki had requested the records from the banks on June 20, 
No.  96-3700-D 
 
11
1996. On July 24, 1996, the Board received the bank statements 
it had requested but no deposit slips were provided. Attorney 
Zablocki gave no explanation for their absence.  
¶20 The referee concluded that by failing to respond 
timely or at all to the Board’s correspondence and by failing to 
produce timely or take reasonable steps for more than 10 months 
to obtain some of the requested bank records, Attorney Zablocki 
failed to cooperate with the Board’s investigation, in violation 
of SCR 21.03(4)4 and 22.07(2) and (3).5  
                     
4 SCR 21.03 provides, in pertinent part: General principles.  
 . . .  
(4) Every attorney shall cooperate with the board and the 
administrator in the investigation, prosecution and disposition 
of grievances and complaints filed with or by the board or 
administrator.   
5 SCR 22.07 provides, in pertinent part: Investigation. 
 . . .  
(2) 
During 
the 
course 
of 
an 
investigation, 
the 
administrator or a committee may notify the respondent of the 
subject being investigated. The respondent shall fully and 
fairly disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct or medical incapacity within 20 days of being 
served by ordinary mail a request for response to a grievance. 
The administrator in his or her discretion may allow additional 
time 
to 
respond. 
Failure 
to 
provide 
information 
or 
misrepresentation 
in 
a 
disclosure 
is 
misconduct. 
The 
administrator or committee may make a further investigation 
before making a recommendation to the board.  
No.  96-3700-D 
 
12
¶21 As discipline for his misconduct established in this 
proceeding, the referee recommended that the court suspend 
Attorney Zablocki’s license for six months, as the Board had 
proposed. In determining appropriate discipline to recommend, 
the referee considered as aggravating factors that, unlike his 
misconduct that resulted in the private reprimand, Attorney 
Zablocki’s handling of settlement proceeds here caused a client 
financial harm and that he showed a “reckless disregard” of his 
obligation to cooperate with the Board in its investigation, in 
particular by his “dissembling” about the IRS tax levy that 
caused his checking account to be overdrawn. The referee also 
noted as an aggravating factor that Attorney Zablocki’s refusal 
to retrieve from his bank records the Board had requested 
required the Board to obtain them by subpoena.  
¶22 The referee rejected Attorney Zablocki’s contention 
that if his misconduct for which he consented to the reprimand 
had been considered with that established in this proceeding at 
the same time rather than serially, appropriate discipline would 
be no more than the private reprimand. The referee also rejected 
his argument that client funds were not misappropriated but 
merely were mishandled. The referee stated that this is not the 
                                                                  
(3) 
The 
administrator 
or 
committee 
may 
compel 
the 
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents and present 
any information deemed relevant to the investigation. Failure of 
the respondent to answer questions, furnish documents or present 
relevant information is misconduct. The administrator or a 
committee may compel any other person to produce pertinent 
books, papers and documents under SCR 22.22.   
No.  96-3700-D 
 
13
case of an attorney who was simply a sloppy bookkeeper; Attorney 
Zablocki specifically told his client there was no money left 
for her since he had used all of it to pay her bills –- a 
demonstrably false statement made with the intent to mislead the 
client.  
¶23 In addition to the six-month license suspension, the 
referee recommended that Attorney Zablocki be required to make 
restitution to his client of the $1600 to which the record shows 
she was entitled. In making that recommendation, the referee 
rejected Attorney Zablocki’s contention, which he also made in 
this appeal, that the client owed money to another doctor and to 
a clinic for services that arose out of her personal injury, as 
the record does not show that Attorney Zablocki paid either of 
those two bills on behalf of his client. The referee also 
rejected Attorney Zablocki’s assertion, reasserted in this 
appeal, that restitution should not be ordered because the 
client can establish her right to payment by litigation.   
¶24 Finally, the referee recommended that as a condition 
of reinstatement of his license to practice law and for a period 
of two years thereafter, Attorney Zablocki be required to 
provide the Board with quarterly reports of his trust account 
record keeping. Attorney Zablocki did not object to that 
condition.  
¶25 In this appeal, Attorney Zablocki contended that there 
was no clear and satisfactory evidence supporting the referee’s 
conclusions that his statement to the client that there was no 
settlement money left for her was a misrepresentation and that 
No.  96-3700-D 
 
14
he did not pay the chiropractor’s fee promptly. It is his 
position that the evidence showed only that out of the $5000 
settlement he took his $1600 fee and paid the doctor $1800; 
there was no proof that he converted any of the settlement money 
to his own benefit or “intended” to engage in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. Consequently, he 
asserted, he should not be ordered to make restitution to the 
client, as the client has recourse outside this disciplinary 
proceeding to establish her entitlement to any portion of the 
settlement proceeds.  
¶26 Attorney Zablocki also argued that the testimony of 
the chiropractor was insufficiently conclusive in respect to the 
date he spoke briefly to Attorney Zablocki and agreed to reduce 
his fee to $1800 and the date he ultimately was paid. The doctor 
estimated that the payment was made some two weeks following the 
conversation. Even then, the check he received was dishonored 
twice when presented for payment. Attorney Zablocki contended 
further that there was nothing in the record to establish that 
the delay from late May, 1992, when he received the settlement 
proceeds, to late September, 1992 for payment of the doctor’s 
bill was “unreasonable.”   
¶27 We find no merit to any of Attorney Zablocki’s 
arguments. The client testified that Attorney Zablocki told her 
there was no money remaining from the $5000 settlement he 
deposited into his personal checking account, as he had used the 
entire amount to pay her bills and his fee. That testimony was 
unrebutted; Attorney Zablocki did not testify or introduce any 
No.  96-3700-D 
 
15
evidence to the contrary. Further, it was undisputed that 
between the deposit of the $5000 settlement check on June 1, 
1992 and June 10, 1992, the checks Attorney Zablocki had written 
were to himself or for his personal purposes, resulting in a 
$260 overdraft in his personal checking account; none of those 
checks related to disbursements on behalf of the client. It was 
also undisputed that Attorney Zablocki never gave the client any 
portion of the settlement proceeds, not even the $161 deposition 
fee he had her pay. Finally, Attorney Zablocki never gave the 
client an accounting of his distribution of the settlement 
proceeds. Based on those facts, the referee properly concluded 
that Attorney Zablocki used the portion of the personal injury 
settlement proceeds belonging to the client for his own purposes 
and misrepresented to her what he had done with those proceeds.  
¶28 Also proper is the referee’s conclusion that Attorney 
Zablocki failed to make prompt payment of the doctor’s bill. He 
had the settlement funds available to do so June 1, 1992 and in 
fact took $2000, the anticipated amount of those fees, from the 
settlement proceeds ten days later. He did not return that 
amount to the account for more than three months. While not 
specific as to the date, the doctor testified that it was not 
until two weeks or so following the brief conversation he had 
with Attorney Zablocki about reducing his fee that the doctor 
received a check from Attorney Zablocki, one that subsequently 
was dishonored on the two occasions he attempted to negotiate 
it.  
No.  96-3700-D 
 
16
¶29 On 
the 
issue 
of 
discipline, 
Attorney 
Zablocki 
contended that the six-month license suspension recommended by 
the referee is excessive in light of his position that two of 
the referee’s five conclusions in respect to his professional 
misconduct were not established by clear and satisfactory 
evidence. He argued further that the private reprimand to which 
he consented prior to the commencement of this proceeding should 
be acknowledged as mitigating the severity of discipline to be 
imposed here, as he responded to that reprimand by opening a 
client trust account for the first time, thereby demonstrating 
his effort to comply with the court’s rules. He also asserted 
that had the misconduct established in this proceeding been 
considered together with the misconduct in handling client funds 
that was the basis of the private reprimand, no more severe 
discipline 
than 
that 
private 
reprimand 
would 
have 
been 
warranted.   
¶30 Attorney Zablocki’s argument ignores the fact that the 
misrepresentation to his client regarding the portion of the 
settlement that remained after he took his fee and paid the 
chiropractor and his withdrawal of the entire amount of the 
settlement within 10 days of receipt constitute professional 
misconduct of a substantially more serious nature than that for 
which he consented to the private reprimand. Here, Attorney 
Zablocki repeated the same misconduct in respect to the deposit 
and disbursement of client funds and record keeping, and he also 
made misrepresentations to a client and to the Board, did not 
make prompt payment to a client and to a third person of funds 
No.  96-3700-D 
 
17
to which they were entitled, and did not provide a full 
accounting of property he received on behalf of the client. The 
referee noted that independent of the earlier misconduct in 
dealing with another client’s personal injury claim, Attorney 
Zablocki’s conduct in respect to the client matter in the 
instant proceeding “is of a magnitude to independently require 
serious discipline.” 
¶31 We agree. We also note that Attorney Zablocki’s 
failure to cooperate with the Board’s investigation in the 
instant proceeding and his continuing failure to properly 
account for client funds occurred after he had been privately 
reprimanded for the same kind of misconduct.  
¶32 In respect to his contention that the misconduct 
considered in the instant proceeding should be viewed together 
with the misconduct that resulted in the private reprimand and, 
taken together, deemed to warrant discipline less severe than 
the license suspension recommended by the referee, we determine 
that the six-month license suspension is appropriate discipline 
to impose for Attorney Zablocki’s misconduct established in this 
proceeding without regard to the fact that he had consented to a 
private reprimand for some of the same misconduct shortly before 
the commencement of this proceeding. We have not considered that 
private reprimand a factor in aggravation of either the 
seriousness of the misconduct established here or of the 
severity of discipline to impose for it.  
¶33 We also determine it appropriate to require Attorney 
Zablocki to make restitution to his personal injury client in 
No.  96-3700-D 
 
18
the amount of $1600 and to report his handling of client funds 
and his trust account dealings to the Board periodically for two 
years following reinstatement of his license, as the referee 
recommended. 
Attorney 
Zablocki’s 
position 
that 
restitution 
should not be ordered but that the client should be left to seek 
redress through litigation is untenable. As the referee stated 
in her report, “This is a case in which a trusting client was 
harmed by her attorney’s unprofessional conduct; she should not 
have to resort to litigation in order to retrieve her own money 
which was held by [Attorney Zablocki] for his own personal use.”  
¶34 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Thomas E. Zablocki 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six 
months, effective August 10, 1998.  
¶35 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Thomas E. Zablocki make restitution as specified 
in this opinion.  
¶36 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
as 
a 
condition 
of 
reinstatement of his license to practice law and for a period of 
two years thereafter, Thomas E. Zablocki provide the Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility with quarterly reports 
satisfactory to the Board concerning his trust account record 
keeping.  
¶37 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Thomas E. Zablocki pay to the Board of Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility 
the costs 
of this 
proceeding, 
provided that if the costs are not paid within the time 
specified and absent a showing to this court of his inability to 
No.  96-3700-D 
 
19
pay the costs within that time, the license of Thomas E. 
Zablocki to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended 
until further order of the court.  
¶38 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Thomas E. Zablocki comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended.   
 
 
1