Title: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. William D. Whitnall
Citation: 2000 WI 131
Docket Number: 2000AP001378-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: December 20, 2000

2000 WI 131 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
00-1378-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against William D. Whitnall, Attorney at Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
William D. Whitnall,  
 
Respondent.  
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST WHITNALL 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
December 20, 2000 
Submitted on Briefs: 
      
Oral Argument: 
      
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
      
 
Dissented: 
      
 
Not Participating:       
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
      
 
2000 WI 131 
 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 00-1378-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against William D. Whitnall, Attorney at  
Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional  
Responsibility,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
William D. Whitnall,  
 
          Respondent.  
 
 
FILED 
 
DEC 20, 2000 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.  
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM   We 
review 
the 
findings 
of 
fact, 
conclusions of law, and recommendation for sanctions of the 
No. 
00-1378-D 
 
2 
referee, Rose Marie Baron1 pursuant to SCR 21.09(5).2  Attorney 
Whitnall was found to have engaged in unprofessional conduct in 
the course of his practice of law and to have failed to 
cooperate with an investigation of grievances filed by his 
clients with the Board, all in violation of the rules of 
professional conduct.  The referee recommended a two-year 
suspension of Attorney Whitnall's license to practice law, 
payment to a former client of $250 with interest, and the 
payment of the costs of these proceedings.   
                     
1  Effective 
October 
1, 
2000, 
Wisconsin's 
attorney 
disciplinary process underwent a substantial restructuring.  The 
name of the body responsible for investigating and prosecuting 
cases involving attorney misconduct was changed from the Board 
of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board) to the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation, and the Supreme Court rules applicable to 
the lawyer regulation system were also revised.  Since the 
conduct underlying this case arose prior to October 1, 2000, all 
references will be to the Board and to the Supreme Court rules 
in effect prior to October 1, 2000.   
2  Former SCR 21.09(5) provided, in pertinent part: 
(5)  The referee shall, within 30 days of the conclusion of 
the hearing, file with the clerk of the supreme court a report 
stating his or her findings and disposition of the complaint or 
petition by recommendation of dismissal or imposition of 
discipline as provided in SCR 21.06 or suspension or conditions 
upon the continued practice of law for medical incapacity.  The 
board or the attorney may file an appeal of the referee's report 
with the supreme court within 20 days of the filing of the 
report.  If no appeal is timely filed, the supreme court shall 
review the referee's report and determine appropriate discipline 
in cases of misconduct and appropriate action in cases of 
medical incapacity and may, on its own motion, within 30 days of 
the expiration of the time for appeal, order the parties to file 
briefs in the matter or extend the time in which it may order 
briefs.  (Emphasis added.)   
 
No. 
00-1378-D 
 
3 
¶2 
We 
approve 
the 
findings, 
conclusions, 
and 
recommendations and determine that the seriousness of Attorney 
Whitnall's 
misconduct 
warrants 
the 
imposition 
of 
these 
sanctions.   
¶3 
Attorney Whitnall was admitted to the practice of law 
in Wisconsin in 1968 and practices in the Racine area.  His 
prior disciplinary history consists of a private reprimand in 
1986, an 18-month suspension in 1992, a 60-day suspension in 
1994, and a 60-day suspension in 1999.3   
¶4 
On April 4, 2000, the Board issued a complaint against 
Attorney Whitnall ordering him to answer within 20 days.  He did 
not answer and on May 22, 2000, the Board filed the complaint 
with this court which, on May 23, 2000, appointed Rose Marie 
Baron as referee.  On June 14, 2000, the Board moved the referee 
for an order determining that Attorney Whitnall was in default 
for failing to answer the complaint and for an order requesting 
that the referee accept as true and correct and uncontested the 
allegations found within the Board's complaint.  On July 17, 
2000, Attorney Whitnall informed the referee that while he 
challenged the allegations, he was in "no position" to formally 
challenge 
the 
matter 
and 
that 
he 
would 
"avoid 
further 
participation so that it may not be said I condoned or 
                     
3  The proceedings in the last three matters are reported at 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Whitnall, 167 Wis. 2d 702, 482 
N.W.2d 648 (1992); Disciplinary Proceedings Against Whitnall, 
181 Wis. 2d 1, 511 N.W.2d 584 (1994); and Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Whitnall, 230 Wis. 2d 194, 600 N.W.2d 910 
(1999).  
No. 
00-1378-D 
 
4 
implicitly agreed to this process or this opinion."  The Board 
moved for a default judgment and the referee granted the motion. 
 The 
referee 
then 
issued 
her 
findings, 
conclusions, 
and 
recommendation for sanctions on August 11, 2000.  
¶5 
With respect to the first of Attorney Whitnall's 
clients involved in this disciplinary proceeding, Attorney 
Whitnall's conduct was found by the referee to have been 
improper in several respects.   
¶6 
First, in 1989 he represented the client and her then 
husband in a divorce without obtaining written consent from 
either regarding the joint representation.  By representing both 
in a proceeding, Attorney Whitnall was found to have represented 
a client when the representation of that client would be 
directly adverse to another client, in violation of SCR 
20:1.7(a).4  
¶7 
Second, in 1998 the client retained Attorney Whitnall 
to pursue a post-divorce motion to revise child support payments 
and income tax exemptions, paying him $250 as a retainer.  Once 
again Attorney Whitnall did not obtain written consent from 
either the client or her former husband regarding representing 
                     
4  SCR 20:1.7(a) provides:  
 
(a)   A lawyer shall not represent a client if the 
representation of that client will be directly adverse to 
another client, unless:  
 
(1)  the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will 
not adversely affect the relationship with the other client; and  
 
(2)  each client consents in writing after consultation.  
 
No. 
00-1378-D 
 
5 
the client in this post-divorce motion.  By representing the 
client at this time, Attorney Whitnall was found to have 
represented a person in a matter after formerly representing 
another person in the same or substantially related matter when 
the interests of the current client were materially adverse to 
the interests of the former client and the former client had not 
been consulted and had not provided consent in writing, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.9(a).5 
¶8 
Third, also in 1998, Attorney Whitnall filed a motion, 
and appeared in court, on behalf of the client.  The matter was 
adjourned to a later date and when Attorney Whitnall failed to 
appear at that time, the matter was dismissed.  By failing to 
appear, Attorney Whitnall was found to have failed to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.3.6 
¶9 
Fourth, following dismissal of the matter, Attorney 
Whitnall did not notify the client when he would refile the 
motion.  Having not been informed of what was occurring, and 
                     
5  SCR 20:1.9(a) provides: 
A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter 
shall not:  
(a)  represent 
another 
person 
in 
the 
same 
or 
a 
substantially related matter in which that person's interests 
are materially adverse to the interests of the former client 
unless the former client consents in writing after consultation.  
6  SCR 20:1.3 provides:  Diligence 
 
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client.  
 
No. 
00-1378-D 
 
6 
concerned that nothing was being done on her case, she retained 
another attorney to represent her.  Attorney Whitnall eventually 
refiled the motion approximately seven months later.  Again, 
Attorney Whitnall was found to have failed to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his client, 
in violation of SCR 20:1.3. 
¶10 Fifth, Attorney Whitnall informed the client that he 
would return her $250 retainer if she would not file a grievance 
against him.  The retainer has not been returned.  Attorney 
Whitnall was found to have failed to take steps to the extent 
reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests upon the 
termination of her representation, such as refunding any advance 
payment of fee that had not been earned, in violation of SCR 
20:1.16(d).7   
¶11 Also, by offering to refund the fee if the client 
would not file a grievance, Attorney Whitnall was found to have 
failed to cooperate with the Board in the investigation of a 
grievance and violated SCR 21.03(4),8 SCR 22.07(3),9 and SCR 
                     
7  SCR 20:1.16(d) provides: 
(d)  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 that has not been 
earned. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to 
the extent permitted by other law.  
 
8  Former SCR 21.03(4) provided: 
(4)  Every attorney shall cooperate with the board and the 
administrator 
in 
the 
investigation, 
prosecution 
and 
No. 
00-1378-D 
 
7 
20:8.4(f).10  See also Disciplinary Proceedings against Arrieh, 
174 Wis. 2d 331, 496 N.W.2d 601 (1993). 
¶12 Attorney Whitnall's conduct was also found to have 
been improper with respect to a second client.   
¶13 In 1998 the client retained Attorney Whitnall to 
handle two traffic tickets.  The client contacted him numerous 
times over a five-month period but he did not respond to the 
calls.  When the client was finally able to speak with Attorney 
Whitnall, he promised he would send the client a letter but 
never did so.  In the meantime two default judgments had been 
entered against the client in both matters, resulting  in the 
suspension of his driver's license.  Attorney Whitnall did not 
take action to reopen the cases until five months after the 
client informed him of the defaults.  By failing to reopen the 
                                                                  
disposition of grievances and complaints filed with or by the 
board or administrator. 
 
9  Former SCR 22.07(3) provided: 
(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.  
 
10  SCR 20:8.4(f) provides: 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:  
 
(f)  violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme court 
order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers.  
 
No. 
00-1378-D 
 
8 
default judgments in a timely manner, Attorney Whitnall was 
found to have failed to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing the client, in violation of SCR 
20:1.3.  By failing to appropriately advise the client regarding 
reopening the default judgment so that the client could 
determine whether to retain other counsel, Attorney Whitnall was 
found to have failed to explain the matter to the extent 
reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed 
decisions regarding the representation, in violation of SCR 
20:1.4(b).11 
¶14 Finally, in 1999 at a time when Attorney Whitnall's 
license was suspended for his noncompliance with continuing 
legal education requirements, he appeared at a circuit court 
status conference on behalf of a client.  He was thereby found 
to have practiced law in a jurisdiction where so doing violated 
the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction, in 
violation of SCR 20:5.5(a).12 
¶15 The referee has recommended to this court that the 
following sanctions be imposed:  (1) That the license of 
                     
11  SCR 20:1.4(b) provides: 
(b)  A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent 
reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed 
decisions regarding the representation.  
 
12  SCR 20:5.5(a) provides: 
A lawyer shall not: 
(a)  practice law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates 
the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction. 
 
No. 
00-1378-D 
 
9 
Attorney Whitnall to practice law in this state be suspended for 
a period of two years pursuant to SCR 21.06(2);13 (2) that within 
60 days Attorney Whitnall pay to the Board the costs of these 
proceedings in the amount of $888.64; (3) that within 60 days 
Attorney Whitnall repay to the former client the sum of $250 
with interest at 5% from June 1, 1999; and, (4) that as a 
condition of reinstatement Attorney Whitnall comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in the state of Wisconsin has been 
suspended.   
¶16 We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law 
of the referee.  Attorney Whitnall's misconduct with his clients 
and with respect to his Board obligations are serious failings 
warranting 
a 
suspension 
of 
his 
license. 
 
The 
referee's 
recommendation of sanctions is appropriate discipline for his 
professional misconduct. 
¶17 IT IS ORDERED that the license of William D. Whitnall 
to practice law in the state of Wisconsin is suspended for a 
period of two years, effective January 24, 2001.   
                     
13  Former SCR 21.06(2) provided: 
Misconduct is grounds for one or more of the following 
types of discipline: 
(2)  Suspension of license to practice law, including the 
imposition of conditions upon seeking reinstatement of the 
license. 
No. 
00-1378-D 
 
10
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that William D. Whitnall comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an 
attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended. 
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order William D. Whitnall shall pay to his former client 
the sum of $250 with interest at 5% from June 1, 1999. 
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order William D. Whitnall shall pay $888.64 to the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation representing the costs of this 
proceedings.  If these costs, and the refund to the client, are 
not paid within the time specified, and absent a showing to this 
court of his inability to pay the costs within that time, the 
license of William D. Whitnall to practice law shall remain 
suspended indefinitely until further order of the court.  
 
 
1