Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. David A. Lemanski
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2016AP000684-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: February 1, 2017

2017 WI 5 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2016AP684-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against David A. Lemanski, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
David A. Lemanski, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST LEMANSKI 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 1, 2017 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
 
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2017 WI 5
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2016AP684-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against David A. Lemanski, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
David A. Lemanski, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 1, 2017 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report of Referee John 
Nicholas Schweitzer, which concluded that Attorney David A. 
Lemanski had committed three counts of professional misconduct 
and recommended (1) that the court publicly reprimand Attorney 
Lemanski, (2) that Attorney Lemanski's continued practice of law 
be conditioned on his payment of a sanction imposed by the Grant 
County circuit court, and (3) that Attorney Lemanski be ordered 
to pay the costs of this proceeding, which were $1,192.03 as of 
No. 
2016AP684-D   
 
2 
 
September 19, 2016.  Because no appeal of this report has been 
filed, our review of this matter proceeds pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule (SCR) 22.17(2).1  Ultimately, we conclude that a 
public reprimand and the imposition of a condition on Attorney 
Lemanski's practice of law in this state are appropriate forms 
of discipline in this matter.  We further determine that 
Attorney Lemanski should be required to pay the full costs of 
this proceeding. 
¶2 
Attorney Lemanski was admitted to the practice of law 
in this state in October 2002.  He most recently practiced law 
in Dubuque, Iowa. 
¶3 
Attorney Lemanski has been the subject of professional 
discipline in this state on one prior occasion.  In March 2015 
this court suspended his license to practice law in Wisconsin 
for a period of 60 days, as discipline reciprocal to that 
imposed by the Supreme Court of Iowa.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Lemanski, 2015 WI 10, 360 Wis. 2d 643, 858 
N.W.2d 696.  It does not appear that Attorney Lemanski's 
Wisconsin license was reinstated following that disciplinary 
suspension.  There is no evidence that Attorney Lemanski 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) provides: 
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court shall 
review the referee's report; adopt, reject or modify 
the referee's findings and conclusions or remand the 
matter to the referee for additional findings; and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline. 
The 
court, on its own motion, may order the parties to 
file briefs in the matter.   
No. 
2016AP684-D   
 
3 
 
complied with the applicable reinstatement requirements of 
SCR 22.28(2), including the filing of an affidavit with the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) showing full compliance with 
all of the terms and conditions of this court's suspension 
order.  In addition, Attorney Lemanski's license is also subject 
to two other suspensions.  First, in October 2015 Attorney 
Lemanski's license was administratively suspended due to his 
failure to pay bar dues and assessments and his failure to 
complete the trust account certification.  Second, on November 
4, 2015, this court temporarily suspended Attorney Lemanski's 
license due to his willful failure to cooperate with a grievance 
investigation conducted by the OLR.  Office of Lawyer Regulation 
v. Lemanski, No. 2015XX1279-D, unpublished order (S. Ct. 
November 4, 2015). 
¶4 
The OLR commenced this action with the filing of a 
complaint alleging three counts of professional misconduct.  
Attorney 
Lemanski 
filed 
an 
answer 
admitting 
all 
of 
the 
allegations of the complaint.  Consequently, the referee granted 
the OLR's motion for judgment on the pleadings.  While Attorney 
Lemanski admitted the allegations of misconduct, he did not 
agree to the level of discipline sought by the OLR.  As it had 
requested in its complaint, the OLR urged the referee to 
recommend the imposition of a public reprimand.  Attorney 
Lemanski, on the other hand, asked that the reprimand be private 
in nature.  As noted above, the referee agreed with the OLR that 
a public reprimand was the appropriate level of discipline. 
No. 
2016AP684-D   
 
4 
 
¶5 
Given Attorney Lemanski's admissions in his answer, 
the referee used the allegations of the OLR's complaint as his 
findings of fact.  They are summarized below. 
¶6 
Counts 1 and 2 of the OLR's complaint relate to 
Attorney Lemanski's representation of S.K. in a legal separation 
proceeding.  S.K. retained Attorney Lemanski in September 2014.  
In late November 2014 he informed Attorney Lemanski that he was 
terminating his services. 
¶7 
Attorney Lemanski did not notify opposing counsel that 
his representation of S.K. had been terminated.  Accordingly, in 
early January 2015 opposing counsel sent a notice of deposition 
of S.K. to Attorney Lemanski, assuming that Attorney Lemanski 
was still representing S.K.  Because Attorney Lemanski failed to 
forward the notice to him, S.K. did not appear at the 
deposition.   
¶8 
On January 29, 2015, opposing counsel filed a motion 
to compel S.K.'s deposition and for other relief.  On February 
11, 2015, Attorney Lemanski formally withdrew as S.K.'s counsel.   
¶9 
On February 12, 2015, the judge in S.K.'s proceeding 
ordered Attorney Lemanski to pay $1,471.50 to the opposing party 
as reimbursement for its fees and costs related to the missed 
deposition and other missed discovery deadlines.  Attorney 
Lemanski failed to pay the fees and costs as ordered. 
¶10 In June 2015 the OLR sent a written notice to Attorney 
Lemanski advising him that it was investigating his conduct in 
the representation of S.K. and directing him to provide a 
response by July 27, 2015.  On July 24, 2015, Attorney Lemanski 
No. 
2016AP684-D   
 
5 
 
asked for and was orally granted an extension of time until 
August 17, 2015, to submit his written response to the 
grievance.  He was told that he should call the OLR if he needed 
more time to respond.  Attorney Lemanski, however, did not 
submit a response nor did he ask for a further extension of 
time. 
¶11 Consequently, on August 24, 2015, the OLR sent 
Attorney Lemanski a second letter requesting a response by 
September 4, 2015.  Attorney Lemanski received the OLR's letter, 
but failed to respond. 
¶12 In September 2015 the OLR moved the court for the 
temporary suspension of Attorney Lemanski's license under 
SCR 22.03(4) due to his willful failure to cooperate with the 
OLR's investigation.  This court issued an order directing 
Attorney Lemanski to show cause why his license should not be 
temporarily suspended, but he did not respond to the order.  
Ultimately, on November 4, 2015, this court granted the OLR's 
motion and temporarily suspended Attorney Lemanski's license to 
practice law in this state. 
¶13 Based on these facts, the referee concluded that 
Attorney Lemanski had committed two counts of professional 
misconduct.  First, the referee determined that Attorney 
Lemanski's failure to pay the costs and fees of the opposing 
party as ordered by the circuit court had violated SCR 
No. 
2016AP684-D   
 
6 
 
20:3.4(c).2  Second, the referee concluded that Attorney 
Lemanski's failure to respond to the OLR's letters had violated 
SCR 22.03(2) and (6),3 which are enforced through SCR 20:8.4(h).4 
¶14 Count 3 of the OLR's complaint stems from Attorney 
Lemanski's representation of L.A. in a divorce proceeding.  
                                                 
2 SCR 20:3.4(c) provides:  "A lawyer shall not knowingly 
disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except for 
an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation 
exists." 
3 SCR 22.03 (2) and (6) provides: 
(2) Upon commencing an investigation, the director 
shall notify the respondent of the matter being 
investigated unless in the opinion of the director the 
investigation of the matter requires otherwise. The 
respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts 
and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct 
within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail a 
request for a written response.  The director may 
allow additional time to respond.  Following receipt 
of the response, the director may conduct further 
investigation and may compel the respondent to answer 
questions, 
furnish 
documents, 
and 
present 
any 
information deemed relevant to the investigation. 
. . . . 
(6) 
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. 
4 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides that 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. 
2016AP684-D   
 
7 
 
Attorney Lemanski formally appeared for L.A. on November 7, 
2008, a little less than one month after the divorce proceeding 
had been initiated.  The referee found that it was reasonably 
foreseeable 
at 
the 
time 
that 
the 
total 
cost 
of 
the 
representation would exceed $1,000.  Indeed, Attorney Lemanski 
accepted a $2,000 advanced payment from L.A. at the start of the 
representation.  Nonetheless, Attorney Lemanski never prepared a 
written fee agreement.   
¶15 Attorney Lemanski represented L.A. through a trial, 
through the entry of a judgment of divorce, and through the 
filing of a notice of appeal.  On August 9, 2010, Attorney 
Lemanski withdrew as L.A.'s counsel.  Attorney Lemanski billed 
for his services on an hourly basis.  By the time he withdrew as 
counsel, the entire $2,000 advanced fee had been applied toward 
Attorney Lemanski's fees and expenses.  Indeed, Attorney 
Lemanski later submitted an additional invoice to L.A. that 
exceeded $1,000. 
¶16 On the basis of these facts, the referee determined 
that Attorney Lemanski's failure to complete a written fee 
agreement, despite his acceptance and use of a $2,000 advance 
fee and his submission of an additional invoice in excess of 
$1,000, had violated SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2).5 
                                                 
5 SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2) provides: 
(1) The scope of the representation and the basis or 
rate of the fee and expenses for which the client will 
be responsible shall be communicated to the client in 
writing, before or within a reasonable time after 
(continued) 
No. 
2016AP684-D   
 
8 
 
¶17 The referee noted that in light of Attorney Lemanski's 
admission of the OLR's factual allegations, the sole issue of 
dispute between the parties was the level of discipline to be 
imposed.  The OLR sought a public reprimand, the conditioning of 
Attorney Lemanski's practice of law in this state on his payment 
of the $1,471.50 in fees and costs, as ordered by the circuit 
court, and a requirement that Attorney Lemanski pay the full 
costs of this disciplinary proceeding.  Attorney Lemanski, on 
the other hand, argued that a private reprimand was the 
appropriate level of discipline. 
¶18 The referee agreed with the OLR's request for a public 
reprimand.  He noted that the purposes of imposing professional 
discipline include protecting the public from further misconduct 
by the respondent attorney, deterring other attorneys from 
engaging 
in 
similar 
misconduct, 
and 
rehabilitating 
the 
respondent attorney.  The referee determined that a private 
                                                                                                                                                             
commencing the representation, except when the lawyer 
will charge a regularly represented client on the same 
basis or rate as in the past. If it is reasonably 
foreseeable that the total cost of representation to 
the client, including attorney's fees, will be $1000 
or less, the communication may be oral or in writing. 
Any changes in the basis or rate of the fee or 
expenses shall also be communicated in writing to the 
client. 
(2) If the total cost of representation to the client, 
including attorney's fees, is more than $1000, the 
purpose and effect of any retainer or advance fee that 
is paid to the lawyer shall be communicated in 
writing. 
No. 
2016AP684-D   
 
9 
 
reprimand would not sufficiently impress upon Attorney Lemanski 
the need to practice law competently and in accordance with his 
ethical obligations.  The referee also believed that the 
imposition of a private reprimand on an attorney who had 
knowingly violated a court order and had knowingly chosen not to 
cooperate with an OLR investigation "would not adequately 
impress on other attorneys the need to follow the rules."  
Finally, the referee concluded that imposing a private reprimand 
would not have any rehabilitative effect on Attorney Lemanski. 
¶19 The referee further agreed with the OLR that Attorney 
Lemanski should be required, as a condition of his practice of 
law in this state, to make the $1,471.50 payment as ordered by 
the circuit court.  In its restitution statement, the OLR 
acknowledged that this amount is not really restitution because 
it is not the return of money held by the respondent attorney.  
Nonetheless, the OLR urged that payment of this award to the 
party opposing S.K. be included in the court's judgment as a way 
to reinforce the circuit court's order. 
¶20 With respect to the issue of costs, the referee 
determined that there was no basis to deviate from the court's 
usual practice of imposing full costs on an attorney who is 
found to have committed professional misconduct.  Although costs 
often are not imposed where a respondent attorney resolves the 
matter by stipulation prior to the filing of a complaint, in 
this case Attorney Lemanski chose not to enter into such a 
stipulation. 
No. 
2016AP684-D   
 
10 
 
¶21 The standard we employ to review a referee's report 
and recommendation in an attorney disciplinary case is well-
established.  We affirm a referee's findings of fact unless they 
are found to be clearly erroneous, but we review the referee's 
conclusions of law on a de novo basis.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 
740 N.W.2d 125. 
 
We 
determine 
the 
appropriate 
level 
of 
discipline to impose given the particular facts of each case, 
independent of the referee's recommendation, but benefiting from 
it.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, 
¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶22 In this instance, given Attorney Lemanski's admission 
of the allegations in the OLR's complaint, there is no dispute 
that the referee's factual findings are appropriate.  Moreover, 
we conclude that those factual findings adequately support legal 
conclusions that Attorney Lemanski engaged in the three counts 
of professional misconduct with which he was charged. 
¶23 The 
primary 
matter 
here 
that 
requires 
our 
consideration is the proper level of discipline to impose on 
Attorney Lemanski.  We agree with the OLR and the referee that a 
private 
reprimand 
would 
not 
be 
sufficient 
under 
these 
circumstances and that a public reprimand is the appropriate 
level of discipline.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Stobbe, 2015 WI 43, 362 Wis. 2d 69, 862 N.W.2d 152 (imposing 
public reprimand, based upon respondent attorney's stipulation 
of facts and misconduct, where attorney failed to proceed with 
diligence and failed to comply with court orders to file 
No. 
2016AP684-D   
 
11 
 
compliant briefs and to pay sanctions imposed for failing to do 
so).  Here, there was misconduct in connection with two separate 
representations.  Further, the misconduct involved the failure 
to obey a court order, which is a serious breach of an 
attorney's obligations as an officer of the court.  Moreover, 
this is not the first time that Attorney Lemanski is being 
disciplined for professional misconduct.  The earlier 60-day 
reciprocal suspension stemmed in part from failing to respond to 
a demand for information from the regulatory authorities in 
Iowa.  His failure here to respond to the OLR's request for a 
response 
to 
its 
grievance 
investigation 
is 
therefore 
a 
continuing pattern of disregard toward his obligations to 
cooperate with grievance investigations.  We conclude that a 
private reprimand in such circumstances would not sufficiently 
impress upon Attorney Lemanski the seriousness of his misconduct 
and the need for him to conform his conduct in the future to the 
Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys. 
¶24 We turn next to the referee's recommendation that we 
require Attorney Lemanski to pay the opposing party's costs and 
fees in the amount of $1,471.50, as ordered by the court in 
S.K.'s legal separation proceeding.  We agree with the OLR's 
observation that placing this condition on Attorney Lemanski's 
practice of law does not constitute a restitution award.  
Imposing such a condition would not require Attorney Lemanski to 
restore funds to the proper recipient of the funds, either a 
client or a third party.  Nonetheless, we may require Attorney 
Lemanski to make this payment as a form of discipline that is 
No. 
2016AP684-D   
 
12 
 
designed to promote his compliance with the law and ethical 
obligations as an officer of the court.  See SCR 21.16(1m)(d) 
and (e) (professional discipline may include the imposition of 
conditions on the attorney's continued practice of law and the 
imposition of monetary payments).  It is an obvious maxim that 
an officer of the court must obey the lawful orders of the 
court.  Accordingly, we direct Attorney Lemanski, as a condition 
of his practice of law in this state, to pay the opposing 
party's costs and fees in the S.K. matter in the amount of 
$1,471.50, as ordered by the circuit court.  We differ from the 
referee's recommendation with respect to the time for Attorney 
Lemanski to accomplish this payment.  Attorney Lemanski has 
already had almost two years to make this payment pursuant to 
the circuit court's order.  We therefore require him to make the 
payment within the next 60 days rather than the 120-day period 
recommended by the referee. 
¶25 We also require Attorney Lemanski to pay the full 
costs of this proceeding.  There is no reason here to depart 
from our general practice of imposing costs on an attorney found 
to have committed professional misconduct.  Although Attorney 
Lemanski did admit the factual allegations and charges of 
misconduct in the OLR's complaint, thereby avoiding the need for 
a disciplinary hearing, he chose not to enter a stipulation 
under SCR 22.12, which resulted in the OLR's drafting of a 
complaint and the appointment of a referee.  He should be 
responsible for the associated costs of this proceeding. 
No. 
2016AP684-D   
 
13 
 
¶26 Finally, we address the status of the temporary, 
disciplinary, and administrative suspensions that currently are 
imposed on Attorney Lemanski's license to practice law in this 
state.  Because this opinion resolves the matter for which we 
previously imposed the temporary suspension due to Attorney 
Lemanski's failure to cooperate, we now lift that temporary 
suspension under SCR 22.03(4).  Attorney Lemanski's license, 
however, remains subject to the previous disciplinary suspension 
and to the administrative suspension imposed due to his failure 
to pay bar dues and assessments and his failure to complete the 
trust account certification.  Attorney Lemanski must complete 
the 
necessary 
steps 
to 
lift 
all 
such 
disciplinary 
and 
administrative suspensions before he will be entitled to 
practice law in this state again. 
¶27 IT IS ORDERED that David A. Lemanski is publicly 
reprimanded for his professional misconduct. 
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the November 4, 2015 
temporary suspension of David A. Lemanski's license to practice 
law in Wisconsin, due to his willful failure to cooperate with 
the grievance investigation in this matter by the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation, is lifted. 
¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the 60-day disciplinary 
suspension OF David A. Lemanski's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin will remain in effect until he complies with all of 
the requirements for reinstatement following a disciplinary 
suspension of less than six months and an order of reinstatement 
is issued.  See SCR 22.28(2). 
No. 
2016AP684-D   
 
14 
 
¶30 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
administrative 
suspension of David A. Lemanski's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin, due to his failure to pay mandatory bar dues and his 
failure to file a trust account certification, will remain in 
effect until each reason for the administrative suspension has 
been rectified pursuant to SCR 22.28(1). 
¶31 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, as a condition of his practice of law in this 
state, Attorney Lemanski shall pay to the opposing party in the 
S.K. legal separation matter the amount of $1,471.50 in costs 
and fees, as ordered by the circuit court.  When the payment has 
been made, Attorney Lemanski shall file with the clerk of this 
court and serve on the Office of Lawyer Regulation an affidavit 
attesting to the completion of the payment. 
¶32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, David A. Lemanski shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$1,192.03. 
¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Director of the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation shall advise the court if there has not 
been full compliance with all conditions of this order. 
 
 
No. 
2016AP684-D   
 
 
 
1