Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Cole J. White
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2017AP001882-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: August 23, 2019

2019 WI 86 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2017AP1882-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Cole J. White, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Cole J. White, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST WHITE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
August 23, 2019 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
      
 
 
2019 WI 86
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2017AP1882-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Cole J. White, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Cole J. White, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
AUG 23, 2019 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   We 
review 
a 
supplemental 
referee's 
report and recommendation concluding that Attorney Cole J. White 
committed 27 counts of professional misconduct in his handling 
of four client matters.  The referee recommended that this court 
impose a 15-month suspension of Attorney White's law license.  
We adopt the referee's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 
recommendation regarding discipline.  We also agree with the 
referee's recommendation that Attorney White be required to make 
restitution to two clients.  Finally, we impose the full costs 
No. 
2017AP1882-D   
 
2 
 
of this proceeding, which total $17,105.44 as of January 23, 
2019, on Attorney White. 
¶2 
Attorney White was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2013 and practices in Green Bay.  He has no prior 
disciplinary history. 
¶3 
On September 26, 2017, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a complaint against Attorney White alleging 28 
counts of professional misconduct.  Attorney White filed an 
answer on November 24, 2017.  James R. Erickson was appointed 
referee on December 12, 2017. 
¶4 
An evidentiary hearing was held on September 12, 2018.  
Attorney White chose not to appear in person at the hearing.  
His counsel, Attorney Jevon J. Jaconi, appeared on his behalf.  
Pursuant to an agreement between Attorney Jaconi and counsel for 
the OLR, with the approval of the referee, the deposition 
transcript of Attorney White, including exhibits, was offered 
and received into evidence.  Two of Attorney White's former 
clients testified in person at the hearing, and two testified 
telephonically.  Testimony was also taken from other witnesses, 
both in person and telephonically. 
¶5 
The 
referee 
issued 
his 
initial 
report 
and 
recommendation on January 3, 2019.  On April 9, 2019, this court 
remanded the matter to the referee for further proceedings.  The 
referee issued a supplemental report on June 10, 2019.   
¶6 
In his supplemental report, the referee noted that the 
parties agreed to dismiss one of the counts in the complaint.  
The referee further noted that Attorney White stipulated to 17 
No. 
2017AP1882-D   
 
3 
 
counts in the complaint.  The referee found that the OLR had met 
its burden of proof with respect to the 10 remaining disputed 
counts.   
¶7 
The OLR's complaint alleged eight counts of misconduct 
with respect to Attorney White's representation of S.E.  In 
September 2012, the Neenah Police Department and the Lake 
Winnebago Area Metropolitan Enforcement Group conducted a raid 
of S.E.'s business pursuant to a "no-knock" search warrant 
issued by Winnebago County Circuit Court Judge Scott Woldt, 
based upon suspicious illegal drug activities.  S.E. was charged 
with several felonies following the raid.  In December 2013, he 
pled no contest to a signal misdemeanor possession charge.  All 
other charges were dropped.   
¶8 
During the criminal proceeding against S.E., S.E.'s 
attorney brought a motion to suppress evidence on the basis that 
the warrant was not valid because Judge Woldt was not "neutral 
and detached" and should have disqualified himself from issuing 
the warrant.  The motion was denied.  
¶9 
In June of 2014, S.E. hired Attorney White to file a 
federal civil rights lawsuit against the City of Neenah and 
others as a result of the raid.  Attorney White provided S.E. 
with a fee agreement charging a flat fee of $4,500 plus a 30 
percent contingent fee on any settlement.  S.E. was to be 
responsible for any costs.  The fee agreement did not state 
Attorney White's intention to use the alterative fee placement 
measures allowed under former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m).  S.E. paid 
No. 
2017AP1882-D   
 
4 
 
Attorney White the $4,500 flat fee in installments.  Attorney 
White did not place any of the money in his trust account.   
¶10 On December 2, 2014, Attorney White filed a lawsuit in 
United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
Wisconsin.  The plaintiffs included S.E. and his business, as 
well as adjoining business owners.  The defendants included the 
City of Neenah, the Neenah Police Department, Judge Woldt, the 
Neenah Police Chief, a captain of the Neenah Police Department, 
and Winnebago County.  Attorney White's complaint against Judge 
Woldt was based on the judge's signing of the search warrant, 
which the plaintiffs asserted was "overly broad and invalid."  
The complaint also alleged the judge was not neutral because of 
a prior dispute between him and S.E. 
¶11 Judge 
Woldt 
was 
represented 
in 
the 
lawsuit 
by 
Assistant Attorney General David C. Rice.  On December 9, 2014, 
AAG Rice filed a motion to dismiss on numerous grounds including 
judicial immunity, Eleventh Amendment immunity, failure to state 
a claim upon which relief can be granted, issue preclusion, and 
lack of jurisdiction.  Attorney White did not respond to the 
motion to dismiss, and the court granted it on February 5, 2015.  
Attorney White told the OLR he did not respond to the motion 
because he believed it would be granted.  Attorney White 
admitted to the OLR that the complaint he filed was "bloviated 
and histrionic," but he said he filed it anyway because it was 
what his client wanted "in terms of sending a message." 
¶12 Attorney White failed to respond to requests that he 
provide dates that his clients would be available for a 
No. 
2017AP1882-D   
 
5 
 
deposition.  He also failed to respond to interrogatories and 
requests for production of documents.   
¶13 S.E. periodically contacted Attorney White to find out 
the status of the case.  Attorney White would respond by saying 
that everything was taken care of, things were going well, and 
he hoped to set up a settlement conference.  On November 13, 
2015, counsel for the City of Neenah and the Neenah Police 
Department filed a motion to dismiss based on the plaintiffs' 
failure to prosecute the action.  Attorney White failed to 
provide his clients with a copy of the motion to dismiss.  On 
November 30, 2015, Attorney White responded to the motion 
claiming he had moved his office and did not receive deposition 
notices until the day after they were scheduled to take place 
because the defendants had mailed the notices to his former 
office address.  Attorney White also claimed he had notified the 
defendants of his new office address in June 2015 and that the 
plaintiffs had all the evidence they needed to proceed to trial.  
Attorney White did not copy his clients with his response to the 
motion to dismiss.  After filing the response, Attorney White 
mentioned the motion to dismiss in a text message he sent to 
S.E. that included the statement "we filed a response calling 
out their game." 
¶14 On December 1, 2015, counsel for Winnebago County also 
filed a motion to dismiss due to the plaintiffs' failure to 
state a claim against the County and the plaintiffs' failure to 
prosecute the case.  On December 14, 2015, counsel for the 
Neenah Police Department and the City of Neenah filed a reply to 
No. 
2017AP1882-D   
 
6 
 
Attorney White's response to their motion to dismiss alleging 
that the response contained flagrant misrepresentations. 
¶15 On January 2, 2016, Attorney White filed a response to 
Winnebago County's motion to dismiss that was identical to his 
response to the City of Neenah's and Neenah Police Department's 
motion.  Attorney White included no supporting affidavits or 
memorandum, and he did not copy his clients on his response.   
¶16 On January 20, 2016, the court issued a decision 
granting the remaining defendants' motions to dismiss and 
ordering Attorney White to personally pay a sanction of $1,500 
to the defendants.  Attorney White failed to inform S.E. and the 
other plaintiffs of the dismissal order.  S.E. learned about the 
dismissal when reporters asked him for comment. 
¶17 On January 26, 2016, S.E. wrote to Attorney White 
directing him to file an appeal.  Attorney White falsely 
informed S.E. that he "never received a goddamned email from 
them about dates" and that the defendants had filed a motion to 
dismiss because Attorney White did not timely receive notice of 
the deposition.  Attorney White agreed to file a notice of 
appeal and said the judge's decision was "filled with so many 
lies, misstatements and misconstructions it verges on the 
absurd." 
¶18 S.E. subsequently hired new counsel.  On February 17, 
2016, S.E.'s new counsel filed a motion to alter or amend the 
judgment dismissing the case.  The motion was denied, with the 
court commenting that "the merits of the complaint, which had 
named a judge, were not particularly strong." 
No. 
2017AP1882-D   
 
7 
 
¶19 In April 2016, S.E. filed a grievance against Attorney 
White with the OLR.  In Attorney White's response to the 
grievance, he falsely said that he had had several conversations 
with S.E. about the depositions and that S.E. had expressed 
exasperation and annoyance about having to answer questions.  
Attorney White also falsely stated that he had a telephone 
conversation with counsel for the defendants telling them the 
location of the depositions was problematic.  Attorney White 
also falsely told the OLR that he had informed the defendants' 
counsel of his new address in a telephone call. 
¶20 Attorney White also provided an email to the OLR, 
purportedly written on September 14, 2015, in which he requested 
a call to discuss scheduling depositions.  The email was 
fabricated.   
¶21 Attorney White has not paid the $1,500 in costs and 
attorney's fees as ordered in the court's January 20, 2016 
decision.   
¶22 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney White's representation of 
S.E.: 
No. 
2017AP1882-D   
 
8 
 
Count 1:  By failing to hold the advanced fees that 
S.E. paid to him in trust, Attorney White violated 
former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4).1 
Count 2:  By naming Judge Woldt as a defendant despite 
his immunity as a judge from civil suits for his 
judicial acts and the existence of multiple other 
grounds precluding a civil action against Judge Woldt, 
Attorney White violated SCR 20:3.1(a)(1).2 
Count 3:  By failing to respond to requests from 
opposing counsel and by failing to otherwise take 
action to prosecute his clients' case, Attorney White 
violated SCR 20:1.3.3  
                                                 
1 Effective July 1, 2016, substantial changes were made to 
Supreme Court Rule 20:1.15, the "trust account rule."  See S. 
Ct. Order 14-07, 2016 WI 21 (issued Apr. 4, 2016, eff. July 1, 
2016).  Because the conduct underlying this case arose prior to 
July 1, 2016, unless otherwise indicated, all references to the 
supreme court rules will be to those in effect prior to July 1, 
2016. 
Former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) provided:   
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.     
2 SCR 20:3.1(a)(1) provides:  "In representing a client, a 
lawyer shall not knowingly advance a claim or defense that is 
unwarranted under existing law, except that the lawyer may 
advance such claim or defense if it can be supported by good 
faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of 
existing law." 
3 SCR 20:1.3 provides:  "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
No. 
2017AP1882-D   
 
9 
 
Count 4:  By failing to respond to the defendants' 
discovery 
requests, 
Attorney 
White 
violated 
SCR 20:3.4(d).4 
Count 5:  By failing to inform S.E. and the other 
plaintiffs of the defendants' discovery requests, 
including interrogatories and deposition notices and 
by failing to inform them of the dismissal of the 
lawsuit, Attorney White violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3).5 
Count 6:  In the course of the federal lawsuit filed 
on behalf of S.E., by making false statements in 
documents 
filed 
with 
the 
court, 
Attorney 
White 
violated SCR 20:3.3(a)(1).6 
Count 7:  By making false statements to his client 
about the status of the case and the conduct of the 
opposing 
parties, 
Attorney 
White 
violated 
SCR 20:8.4(c).7 
Count 8:  In the course of the OLR's investigation, by 
fabricating an email in an effort to show that he had 
responded to opposing counsel's request to schedule 
depositions and inform them of his new office address, 
by falsely asserting that he and/or his intern had 
telephone conversations with opposing counsel, and 
telling the OLR "the court records were updated" in 
response to the OLR's request for evidence that he had 
informed opposing counsel of his new address, and that 
                                                 
4 SCR 20:3.4(d) provides:  "A lawyer shall not in pretrial 
procedure, make a frivolous discovery request or fail to make 
reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper 
discovery request by an opposing party." 
5 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides:  "A lawyer shall keep the 
client reasonably informed about the status of the matter." 
6 SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) provides:  "A lawyer shall not make a 
false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct 
a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the 
tribunal by the lawyer." 
7 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
No. 
2017AP1882-D   
 
10 
 
he had several conversations with his clients about 
scheduling 
depositions, 
Attorney 
White 
violated 
SCR 22.03(6),8 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h).9 
¶23 The second client matter detailed in the OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney White's representation of R.R., who 
hired Attorney White to represent him in modifying a custody and 
placement order that granted R.R.'s ex-wife sole custody and 
granted R.R. supervised visits and telephone contact with his 
daughter.  At the time he undertook this representation, 
Attorney White had little or no experience in custody and 
placement cases. 
¶24 On September 23, 2014, Attorney White provided R.R. 
with a written agreement to represent him "in connection with 
the alteration of custody and placement order currently in 
effect with K.K.," which would "include counseling, advocacy and 
representation in all hearings, motions, mediations and any 
other proceedings arising in or related to this action."  
Attorney White charged R.R. a flat fee of $11,000 and described 
the fee as being non-refundable.  The fee agreement did not 
                                                 
8 SCR 
22.03(6) 
provides: 
 
"In 
the 
course 
of 
the 
investigation, the respondent's wilful failure to provide 
relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 
documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure 
are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted 
in the grievance." 
9 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to fail to cooperate in the investigation of a 
grievance filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required 
by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), 
or SCR 22.04(1)." 
No. 
2017AP1882-D   
 
11 
 
state Attorney White's intention to use the alterative fee 
placement measures allowed under former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m).  
R.R.'s mother and step-father paid the $11,000 advanced fee to 
Attorney White.  Attorney White did not place the money in his 
trust account. 
¶25 On June 26, 2015, Attorney White filed a three-page 
standard "fill in the blank" motion to modify form available on 
the court's website.  The motion requested that physical 
placement of R.R.'s daughter be modified from primary placement 
to shared placement and legal custody be modified to joint legal 
custody.  The factual basis alleged in support of the motion was 
that the mother regularly withheld visitation and contact and 
had made baseless criminal allegations against Attorney White's 
client. 
¶26 A motion hearing was held before a court commissioner 
on September 23, 2015.  The court commissioner denied the 
motions since no substantial change had been alleged since the 
September 
26, 
2013 
custody 
and 
placement 
order; 
the 
psychological issues that served as the basis for supervised 
visitation had not been addressed; and the allegations of 
interference with visitation were more properly the subject of 
an enforcement motion. 
¶27 Despite 
R.R. 
providing 
Attorney 
White 
with 
a 
substantial amount of documentation about the placement case, 
including police reports, court records, and other documents, 
Attorney White did not provide any of those documents to the 
court commissioner.   
No. 
2017AP1882-D   
 
12 
 
¶28 Attorney White claimed that after the September 2015 
hearing he informed R.R. he would pursue a new application to 
the court to modify placement, but that R.R. never provided the 
necessary information.  As a result, Attorney White said he 
considered the case closed.  Attorney White had no documentation 
that he ever explained to R.R. the outcome of the motion, that 
he requested additional information from R.R. to pursue the 
matter, or that he considered the matter closed.  Attorney White 
provided no documentation that he earned the entire $11,000 
advanced fee. 
¶29 Attorney White subsequently led R.R. to believe that 
the custody matter was ongoing and advised R.R. to claim a Texas 
residence in order to establish a substantial change in 
circumstances. 
¶30 On September 23, 2015, R.R. hired Attorney White to 
pursue a second matter, a defamation claim against his ex-wife 
alleging she falsely accused him of molesting their daughter.  
Attorney White provided R.R. a second fee agreement which 
provided for a flat fee of $5,000 that was described as non-
refundable.  The agreement acknowledged receipt of an initial 
$200 payment and called for additional payments of $300 on 
September 24 and $4,500 by October 9.  The second fee agreement 
did not state Attorney White's intention to use the alterative 
fee placement measures allowed under former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m). 
¶31 R.R. paid Attorney White a total of $2,700 toward the 
defamation action.  Attorney White did not place the funds in 
his trust account. 
No. 
2017AP1882-D   
 
13 
 
¶32 In January 2016, R.R. sent Attorney White a text 
message inquiring about the status of both cases.  Attorney 
White offered to meet R.R. on January 15, 2016, and R.R. 
confirmed the meeting with a text message to Attorney White on 
January 15.  When R.R., along with his mother and step-father, 
arrived for the meeting, Attorney White was leaving and claimed 
the meeting had not been confirmed.  At the January 15, 2016 
meeting, R.R. provided Attorney White with a Texas address.  
Attorney White maintained the custody case was ongoing and he 
had scheduled 19 court dates but had to cancel them because R.R. 
was unavailable.   
¶33 On March 1, 2016, after not hearing from Attorney 
White, R.R. sent Attorney White a text message asking about a 
court date in the custody matter.  R.R. asked that Attorney 
White return the remaining funds paid to him in the defamation 
case.  Attorney White failed to respond. 
¶34 On April 27, 2016, R.R. filed a grievance against 
Attorney White with the OLR.  In response, Attorney White 
acknowledged a refund was due in the defamation case.  He said 
he had not provided R.R. with a refund because R.R. had not 
clarified that he wanted to terminate the representation, 
despite Attorney White's repeated efforts to reach him over the 
past 10 weeks.  Attorney White had no documentation of any 
attempts to contact R.R. 
¶35 On June 5, 2016, Attorney White sent R.R. a letter 
accounting for the fees in the defamation action.  Attorney 
White charged R.R. for 12.5 hours of legal work, for a total of 
No. 
2017AP1882-D   
 
14 
 
$3,125.  Although the accounting exceeded the advanced fees, 
Attorney White refunded R.R. $270. 
¶36 As to the reasonableness of the $11,000 advanced fee 
in the custody case, Attorney White acknowledged the "fee was 
higher than necessary."  However, Attorney White told the OLR 
that the fee was reasonable based upon his research in Nolo 
guides and on Google, as well as his expectation that there 
would be weekly calls and meetings and a large amount of 
documents to review. 
¶37 R.R. says he visited Attorney White's office at least 
ten times and left repeated phone messages asking that Attorney 
White return his file.  While Attorney White claims he returned 
the file to R.R. on June 5, 2016, R.R. denies receiving it. 
¶38 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney White's representation of 
R.R.: 
Count 9:  By charging R.R. $11,000 to represent him in 
bringing a standard motion to modify a custody order 
when Attorney White had no experience handling such 
matters, performed little work, and achieved no 
results, Attorney White violated SCR 20:1.5(a).10 
                                                 
10 SCR 20:1.5(a) provides:  
A lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, 
or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable 
amount for expenses. The factors to be considered in 
determining the reasonableness of a fee include the 
following: 
(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and 
difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill 
requisite to perform the legal service properly; 
(continued) 
No. 
2017AP1882-D   
 
15 
 
Count 10:  By failing to hold in trust the $11,000 and 
the $2,700 advanced fees paid to him for the two 
matters he agreed to handle on R.R.'s behalf, with no 
evidence of an intention to utilize the advanced fee 
alternative, Attorney White in each instance violated 
former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4). 
Count 11:  By failing to review file materials, obtain 
evidence, and develop a viable strategy for pursuing 
R.R.'s objective of modifying the placement order and 
addressing the specific issues that served as the 
basis 
for 
supervised 
placement, 
Attorney 
White 
violated SCR 20:1.1.11 
Count 12:  By failing to take sufficient action on 
behalf of R.R. to achieve his objective of returning 
to shared custody and unsupervised placement with his 
daughter, Attorney White violated SCR 20:1.3. 
                                                                                                                                                             
(2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, 
that the acceptance of the particular employment will 
preclude other employment by the lawyer; 
(3) the fee customarily charged in the locality 
for similar legal services; 
(4) the amount involved and the results obtained; 
(5) the time limitations imposed by the client or 
by the circumstances; 
(6) the nature and length of the professional 
relationship with the client; 
(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of 
the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and  
(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent.  
11 SCR 20:1.1 provides:  "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. 
2017AP1882-D   
 
16 
 
Count 13:  By failing to take any action on behalf of 
R.R. to pursue the defamation claim Attorney White 
agreed to handle, Attorney White violated SCR 20:1.3. 
Count 14:  By providing R.R. with false case status 
information in the post-divorce custody and placement 
case, including leading R.R. to believe the case was 
ongoing, Attorney White violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
Count 15:  By failing to return R.R.'s file to him 
upon termination of the representation; failing upon 
termination of the representation to refund to R.R. 
the fees paid to Attorney White in advance to pursue 
modification of a custody and placement order, which 
fees Attorney White could not establish were earned; 
and failing upon termination of the representation to 
refund to R.R. the fees paid to Attorney White in 
advance to pursue a defamation action, which fees 
Attorney White could not establish were earned, 
Attorney 
White, 
in 
each 
instance, 
violated 
SCR 20:1.16(d).12 
Count 16:  By misrepresenting to the OLR that he had 
returned 
R.R.'s 
file, 
Attorney 
White 
violated 
SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶39 The 
third 
client 
matter 
detailed 
in 
the 
OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney White's representation of K.G., who 
hired Attorney White to represent her in a dispute with her 
former landlord in January of 2016.  In November 2015, K.G., who 
                                                 
12 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides:  
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. 
2017AP1882-D   
 
17 
 
operated a dance studio, received a notice to quit or pay rent.  
The landlord asserted that K.G. owed over $38,000 in rent, 
maintenance, expenses, and property tax.  K.G. vacated the 
property in late December 2015. 
¶40 On January 9, 2016, K.G. paid Attorney White an 
advanced fee of $1,000.  Attorney White led K.G. to believe a 
resolution of the lease dispute was possible.  K.G. denies 
receiving a fee agreement from Attorney White.  Attorney White 
later gave the OLR an unsigned fee agreement that stated he 
agreed to provide "counseling, advocacy, and any negotiation 
conferences or settlement meetings should they occur," but not 
any "in court" activities.  The agreement provided that the fees 
would be charged on a flat fee basis for a period of one year.  
The agreement did not state Attorney White's intention to use 
the alterative fee placement measures allowed under former 
SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m). 
¶41 Attorney White told the OLR that after he was hired he 
made several attempts to communicate with counsel for K.G.'s 
landlord, but he provided no documentation to support that 
statement.  In May 2016, the landlord filed suit against K.G. 
and her business seeking a money judgment for amounts due under 
the lease agreement.  K.G. was served on May 20, 2016.  She 
notified Attorney White of the lawsuit by text message that day 
and informed him the answer was due in 20 days.  Attorney White 
informed K.G. he had been "calling the lawyer for two weeks 
daily with no returns" and asked that she fax a copy of the 
complaint to him. 
No. 
2017AP1882-D   
 
18 
 
¶42 K.G. did not have a fax machine and offered to drop 
off the complaint at Attorney White's office on May 21, 2016.  
Attorney White offered to meet K.G. elsewhere as his office 
would be closed.  The meeting never took place. 
¶43 Throughout May and June 2016, K.G. contacted Attorney 
White several more times via text message with questions about 
filing for bankruptcy and requesting that Attorney White contact 
opposing counsel to offer a lesser amount.  Attorney White told 
K.G. that the landlord's attorney stated on a couple occasions 
he would talk to his client, but that Attorney White had heard 
nothing back from him. 
¶44 On June 7, 2016, K.G. asked Attorney White if he could 
file an answer.  Attorney White did not respond.  K.G. sent 
another text message asking if Attorney White was able to file 
the answer.  Attorney White responded that K.G. never provided 
him with a copy of the complaint and that he would need that in 
order to do anything.  K.G. provided Attorney White with a copy 
of the complaint that same day via email and text message.  
Attorney White acknowledged receipt of the complaint and told 
K.G., "I'll file an answer at no additional charge.  But if this 
goes into further litigation without resolution then there will 
be additional fees." 
¶45 On June 9 and 10, 2016, K.G. asked Attorney White if 
there were any updates, and Attorney White failed to respond.  
Attorney White failed to file an answer on K.G.'s behalf.  On 
June 21, 2016, the landlord's attorney filed a motion for 
default judgment.  K.G. received notice of the default judgment 
No. 
2017AP1882-D   
 
19 
 
motion in the mail on June 22, 2016.  She contacted Attorney 
White, who responded that he had not known that half the time 
for a response had elapsed when he agreed to file an answer and 
said "an Answer isn't something that I can turn out overnight." 
¶46 On June 23, 2016, K.G. sent Attorney White a certified 
letter terminating his representation and requesting that 
Attorney White send her an itemization of his services.  
Attorney White responded on July 18, 2016, refusing to return 
any fees.  He claimed he had fulfilled the purpose of their 
agreement, and he failed to provide an accounting.   
¶47 Counsel for K.G.'s landlord said that to his knowledge 
he never had any contact with Attorney White either before or 
after filing the lawsuit against K.G. 
¶48 K.G. hired successor counsel, who moved to reopen the 
case.  The matter was settled before the action was reopened, 
with K.G. paying the full amount owed. 
¶49 K.G. filed a grievance against Attorney White with the 
OLR.  During the OLR's investigation, Attorney White falsely 
told the OLR he had made several attempts to contact the 
landlord's attorney and that after the lawsuit was filed he 
informed opposing counsel's office that he represented K.G. 
¶50 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct of with respect to Attorney White's representation of 
K.G.: 
Count 17:  By failing to hold in trust the advanced 
fees paid to him by K.G., Attorney White violated 
former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4). 
No. 
2017AP1882-D   
 
20 
 
Count 18:  By failing to take any action to attempt to 
resolve K.G.'s dispute with her landlord prior to the 
filing of the collection lawsuit; and by failing to 
file an answer on K.G.'s behalf to the collection 
lawsuit, Attorney White, in each instance, violated 
SCR 20:1.3. 
Count 19:  By providing K.G. with inaccurate case 
status information, including by representing to his 
client that he had contacted opposing counsel in an 
effort to negotiate resolution of her lease dispute, 
when he had taken no such action, Attorney White 
violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
Count 20:  By failing to provide K.G. a bill itemizing 
the services he provided in order to substantiate that 
he had earned the fee advanced to him, Attorney White 
violated SCR 20:1.5(b)(3).13 
Count 21:  By failing upon termination of the 
representation to refund to K.G. the $1,000 advanced 
fees she paid and which he had not earned, Attorney 
White violated SCR 20:1.16(d). 
Count 22:  In the course of the OLR's investigation of 
K.G.'s grievance, by willfully providing the OLR false 
information that he had made several attempts to 
contact counsel for the landlord and, once the lawsuit 
was filed, had informed opposing counsel's office that 
he 
represented 
K.G., 
Attorney 
White 
violated 
SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶51 The 
final 
client 
matter 
detailed 
in 
the 
OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney White's representation of W.B., who 
hired Attorney White to file a social security disability claim 
in September 2015.  On September 11, 2015, W.B. signed a fee 
agreement.  The agreement required a $1,500 flat fee and stated 
that Attorney White would charge an additional "10% of any back-
                                                 
13 SCR 20:1.5(b)(3) provides:  "A lawyer shall promptly 
respond to a client's request for information concerning fees 
and expenses." 
No. 
2017AP1882-D   
 
21 
 
pay settlement amount collected."  The fee agreement did not 
state Attorney White's intention to use the alterative fee 
placement measures allowed under former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m).  
Attorney White failed to place the $1,500 advanced fee in his 
trust account. 
¶52 In December 2015, W.B. moved to Florida and provided 
Attorney White with his new address.  Over the next few months, 
W.B. sent Attorney White periodic text messages inquiring about 
the status of the claim.  On March 1, 2016, W.B. texted Attorney 
White.  Attorney White failed to respond.  On April 25, 2016, 
Attorney White responded to W.B.'s request for an update saying, 
"Yes it's under review.  It's a painfully slow process."  On 
June 29, 2016, W.B. again requested an update, and Attorney 
White again failed to respond. 
¶53 On July 5, 2016, W.B. sent Attorney White a message 
saying he understood that Attorney White was experiencing some 
health issues but that W.B. needed to know what was happening.  
Attorney White responded the same day saying, "It takes 6-12 
months for even an initial review date." 
¶54 On August 18, 2016, W.B. went to a Social Security 
Administration office in Florida to check on his disability 
application and learned there was no application on file for 
him.  When W.B. texted Attorney White informing him that the 
Social Security Administration had no record of his claim, 
Attorney White responded that he uses a "sub atty for those 
cases" and he promised to follow up.  Attorney White said if no 
action had been taken he would refund W.B.'s fee.  W.B. was not 
No. 
2017AP1882-D   
 
22 
 
aware of and never consented to Attorney White referring his 
case to another attorney.   
¶55 On August 26, 2016, W.B. filed his own application for 
disability benefits with the Social Security Administration and 
instructed Attorney White to send him a refund by the end of the 
week.  Attorney White said he would send a refund.  He also said 
he spoke to and terminated the attorney to whom he had referred 
W.B.'s case.  However, on or about August 26, 2016 through 
September 29, 2016, the attorney to whom Attorney White claimed 
he referred the case was in jail.   
¶56 On September 7, 2016, W.B. sent Attorney White a text 
message asking about the refund.  Attorney White said it "went 
in the mail on Friday."  On September 14, 2016, W.B. texted 
Attorney White again saying he had not received the refund.  
Attorney White failed to respond.  On September 19, 2016, still 
not having received a refund, W.B. sent Attorney White another 
text message expressing his frustration with Attorney White's 
dishonesty and asking that he "do the right thing."  Attorney 
White responded by saying he was trying to track down the 
mailing and denied he was trying to deceive W.B.  W.B. replied 
with a request for a replacement check.  Attorney White promised 
to check on the issue the next morning. 
¶57 On October 10, 2016, W.B filed a grievance against 
Attorney White with the OLR.  Attorney White failed to respond 
to an initial request to respond to the grievance.  On December 
12, 2016, Attorney White emailed the OLR acknowledging that 
nothing had been done on W.B.'s case and claiming he had 
No. 
2017AP1882-D   
 
23 
 
contracted the filing out to another attorney and that attorney 
was having legal problems.  Attorney White said he planned to 
refund W.B.'s fee in two installments, but he held off because 
he did not want there to be an appearance of impropriety in 
sending W.B. money without the OLR's approval.   
¶58 On 
December 
19, 
2016, 
the 
OLR 
sent 
follow-up 
correspondence to Attorney White informing him that his email 
did not fully respond to all issues raised by W.B.'s grievance.  
The OLR also informed Attorney White he did not need the OLR's 
approval to refund fees. 
¶59 On January 24, 2017, the OLR received Attorney White's 
supplemental response to W.B.'s grievance.  Attorney White 
provided 
copies 
of 
forwarded 
email 
messages 
purportedly 
exchanged with the attorney he claimed he retained to handle 
W.B.'s case.  Attorney White claimed, without documentation, 
that he had paid the other attorney $1,200 to handle W.B.'s case 
via a money order from Kwik Trip.  The other attorney reviewed 
all of his emails, text messages, and personal calendar and was 
unable to place W.B. as a client.  The other attorney also could 
not locate any emails purportedly sent to him from Attorney 
White regarding W.B.; he denied ever receiving $1,200 from 
Attorney White to handle W.B.'s case; and he said he never 
handled or wanted to handle social security disability claims. 
¶60 Attorney White told the OLR he mailed a $750 refund 
check to W.B. on January 10, 2017 and that he would mail a 
second $750 refund check on February 19, 2017.  As of March 2, 
2017, W.B. had not received any refund check. 
No. 
2017AP1882-D   
 
24 
 
¶61 On March 2, 2017, the OLR sent Attorney White 
correspondence via email and regular mail inquiring about the 
refund.  Despite being copied with the OLR's correspondence to 
W.B. at his current address, Attorney White told the OLR, "I 
don't have a good address for him and no contact information for 
him anymore.  The address I had is not correct.  If you have it 
I'd love to get this to him."  The OLR responded by providing 
Attorney White with W.B.'s current address.  On March 9, 2017, 
W.B. confirmed receipt of two $750 refund checks from Attorney 
White.  Attorney White included a handwritten note claiming he 
had initially missed a "9" in W.B.'s address.  The note asked 
that W.B. only cash one of the checks and wait until the end of 
the month to cash the other one. 
¶62 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney White's representation of 
W.B.: 
Count 23:  By  failing to hold the advanced fee he 
received from W.B. in trust, Attorney White violated 
former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4). 
Count 24:  By failing to pursue W.B.'s social security 
disability claim, Attorney White violated SCR 20:1.3. 
Count 25:  By providing W.B. misleading information 
regarding the status of his social security claim, 
implying that the case was progressing and that he had 
hired another attorney to pursue the claim when 
neither 
was 
true, 
Attorney 
White 
violated 
SCR 20:8.4(c). 
Count 26:  By failing upon termination of the 
representation to promptly refund W.B.'s entire fee, 
none of which was earned, Attorney White violated 
SCR 20:1.16(d). 
No. 
2017AP1882-D   
 
25 
 
County 27:  By misrepresenting to W.B. in September 
2016 that he had mailed his refund to him, Attorney 
White violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
Count 28:  In the course of the OLR's investigation of 
W.B.'s grievance, by willfully providing the OLR 
information that was not true, including falsified 
emails and assertions that he had referred W.B.'s case 
to another lawyer who neglected the case, that he had 
paid that lawyer $1,200 to handle the case, and that 
he had mailed W.B. a refund check on January 10, 2017, 
Attorney White violated SCR 22.03(6), enforced under 
the Rules of Professional Conduct via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶63 The referee noted in his supplemental report that the 
parties agreed to the dismissal of count 14 of the complaint.  
It also noted that by stipulation of the parties filed on 
September 20, 2018, Attorney White agreed he was not contesting 
counts 1, 10, 17, and 23 of the complaint.  The referee also 
noted that in his post-trial brief Attorney White stipulated to 
counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 
28.  The referee said that since Attorney White was essentially 
admitting the facts of the 16 stipulated counts, the facts 
alleged in the complaint as to each of those counts were found 
as true and correct and the referee further found that Attorney 
White committed each of those counts of misconduct.   
¶64 The referee went on to conclude that the OLR met its 
burden of proof as to the remaining ten counts of misconduct.  
As to the appropriate sanction, the referee said it was quite 
clear that Attorney White was obviously not sufficiently 
experienced or knowledgeable enough to take on responsibility 
for any of the legal matters he accepted for any of the four 
clients who filed grievances against him.  The referee noted 
No. 
2017AP1882-D   
 
26 
 
Attorney White apparently commenced his solo law practice 
shortly after graduating from law school.  The referee said 
Attorney White: 
[H]as 
shown 
an 
apparent 
disdain 
for 
doing 
the 
necessary research or other work required to become a 
capable advocate for his clients in each case.  
Apparently he never asked himself "what do I have to 
prove in order to win this case?"  Assistance that 
could have helped him has been readily available in 
Wisconsin if he had only been capable of recognizing 
his 
early 
limitations 
in 
complicated 
legal 
and 
practical matters of assisting his clients.  The sad 
result 
is 
that 
his 
clients 
each 
suffered 
the 
consequences of his deficiencies.  
¶65 The 
referee 
agreed 
with 
the 
OLR's 
recommended 
sanction, a 15-month suspension of Attorney White's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin.  While the referee said that, to 
Attorney White's credit, he has admitted to many of the counts 
of misconduct, he "has offered no regrets or ideas for needed 
restitution due to his lack of ability in handling the matters 
which he undertook." 
¶66 The referee recommended that Attorney White should be 
ordered to reimburse K.G. $1,000 and should be ordered to 
reimburse R.R. $13,430.  Finally, the referee recommended that 
Attorney White be required to pay the full costs of this 
proceeding. 
¶67 Neither party has appealed the referee's report, so 
this matter is submitted to the court for review pursuant to 
SCR 22.17(2).  We review a referee's findings of fact subject to 
the clearly erroneous standard.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 
No. 
2017AP1882-D   
 
27 
 
675 N.W.2d 747.  We review the referee's conclusions of law 
de novo.  We determine the appropriate level of discipline 
independent of the referee's recommendation.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 
Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶68 After careful review of the matter, we agree that a 
15-month suspension of Attorney White's license to practice law 
in Wisconsin is appropriate.  Although no two disciplinary 
matters are precisely alike, we find that the misconduct at 
issue here is somewhat similar to that presented in In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ruppelt, 2017 WI 80, 377 
Wis. 2d 441, 898 N.W.2d 473.  In that case, an attorney's 
license was suspended for 15 months for multiple counts of 
misconduct which included failure to hold client money in trust; 
dishonest billing practices; dishonesty to the OLR in its 
investigation; failure to properly communicate with a client; 
and false statements to a tribunal. 
¶69 There are many similarities between the misconduct at 
issue in Ruppelt and the misconduct at issue here.  In both 
cases, the attorneys repeatedly failed to follow the rules of 
professional conduct and engaged in a variety of misleading and 
deceptive behavior in an attempt to conceal their misconduct.  
Attorney White agreed to represent clients in areas of law in 
which he had little or no experience.  He took their money and, 
to the extent he performed any legal services for the clients, 
his representation was profoundly deficient.  He lied to his 
No. 
2017AP1882-D   
 
28 
 
clients and the OLR, and he has refused to refund fees.  His 
misconduct warrants a 15-month license suspension. 
¶70 We also agree with the referee's recommendation that 
Attorney White be required to make restitution in the amount of 
$1,000 to K.G. and $13,430 to R.R.  Finally, as is our normal 
practice, we find it appropriate to impose the full costs of 
this disciplinary proceeding, which are $17,105.44, on Attorney 
White. 
¶71 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Cole J. White to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 15 
months, effective October 4, 2019. 
¶72 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Cole J. White shall pay restitution to R.R. in 
the amount of $13,430 and to K.G. in the amount of $1,000. 
¶73 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Cole J. White shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $17,105.44. 
¶74 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that restitution is to be 
completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation.   
¶75 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Cole J. White shall comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 regarding the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
¶76 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.29(4)(c). 
No. 
2017AP1882-D   
 
 
 
1