Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Ronald K. Niesen
Citation: 2011 WI 97
Docket Number: 2011AP000047-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: November 4, 2011

2011 WI 97 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2011AP47-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Ronald K. Niesen, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Ronald K. Niesen, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST NIESEN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 4, 2011   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2011 WI 97
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2011AP47-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Ronald K. Niesen, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Ronald K. Niesen, 
 
          Respondent. 
   
FILED 
 
NOV 4, 2011 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.    We review, pursuant to SCR 22.17(2),1 a 
referee's report and recommendation concluding that Attorney 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) states: 
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. 
2011AP47-D   
 
2 
 
Ronald 
K. 
Niesen 
engaged 
in 
professional 
misconduct 
and 
recommending that his license to practice law in Wisconsin be 
suspended, that he pay restitution to an injured client, and 
that he pay the costs of this proceeding.2  We conclude Attorney 
Niesen's ethical violations warrant a nine-month suspension of 
his license to practice law in this state.  In addition, we 
order Attorney Niesen to pay restitution and costs as set forth 
herein. 
¶2 
Attorney Niesen was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1992.  He previously received a private reprimand 
for violating a domestic harassment injunction.  Attorney 
Niesen's Wisconsin law license has been suspended since June 17, 
2009, 
for 
noncompliance 
with 
continuing 
legal 
education 
reporting requirements.  His law license was also temporarily 
suspended by this court on November 12, 2009, for failing to 
cooperate 
with 
an 
Office 
of 
Lawyer 
Regulation 
(OLR) 
investigation that culminated in this proceeding.  
¶3 
The misconduct giving rise to this proceeding involved 
Attorney Niesen's representation of a client, J.S., and his 
general abandonment of the practice of law.  J.S. hired Attorney 
Niesen in January of 2009 for specific estate planning services 
that included transferring property titles in the wake of her 
husband's death.  She paid Attorney Niesen $900 for this 
service.  Attorney Niesen wholly failed to perform this work for 
                                                 
2 As of July 11, 2011, the total costs for this proceeding 
are $1,406.08. 
No. 
2011AP47-D   
 
3 
 
J.S.  Attorney Niesen ignored J.S.'s phone calls and other 
requests for information and he never returned her $900 fee.  
Moreover, during the time that Attorney Niesen was supposed to 
be representing J.S., he failed to advise her that his law 
license was suspended for noncompliance with continuing legal 
education reporting requirements.  
¶4 
Indeed, Attorney Niesen had abandoned his practice of 
law.  On July 28, 2009, Dane County Circuit Court Judge C. 
William Foust entered an order appointing an attorney to enter 
Attorney Niesen's former law office "for the purpose of 
protecting [clients'] rights, files and property and delivering 
the files and property to the clients or to their successor 
counsel."  The appointed attorney found files abandoned and in 
disarray, no computers, and piles of unanswered mail and trust 
account information.  OLR contacted Attorney Niesen regarding 
his apparent abandonment of his law practice.  In response, 
Attorney Niesen sent an e-mail to the OLR in August 2009, 
explaining he was "undergoing intense alcohol rehab" and that he 
was basically destitute.   
¶5 
Attorney Niesen subsequently failed to respond to 
several OLR notices regarding the J.S. matter and was eventually 
suspended for his failure to respond to and cooperate with the 
OLR.  Upon abandonment of his practice, Attorney Niesen never 
notified the State Bar of his new address and failed to take any 
action to contact existing clients or protect client files.  
No. 
2011AP47-D   
 
4 
 
¶6 
On January 7, 2011, the OLR filed a disciplinary 
complaint against Attorney Niesen alleging nine counts of 
professional misconduct: 
• Count One alleged Attorney Niesen failed to complete the 
deed preparation and property transfer work for J.S. from 
February 2009 until abandoning his practice in violation 
of SCR 20:1.3.3  
• Count Two alleged Attorney Niesen failed to respond to 
J.S.'s requests for information concerning the status of 
her matters in violation of SCRs 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4).4  
• Count Three alleged Attorney Niesen failed to notify J.S. 
of the suspension of his law license and his abandonment 
of his law office, and failed to return J.S.'s $900 in 
violation of SCR 20:1.16(d).5  
                                                 
3 SCR 20:1.3 states "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
4 SCRs 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4) state a lawyer shall "(3) keep 
the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter;" 
and "(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests by the client 
for information; . . . ." 
5 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. 
2011AP47-D   
 
5 
 
• Count Four alleged Attorney Niesen abandoned his practice 
without taking steps to ensure continued confidentiality 
of the information in J.S.'s file in violation of 
SCR 20:1.6(a).6  
• Count Five alleged Attorney Niesen failed to inform J.S. 
that he would not be able to act as her attorney in her 
pending matter in violation of SCRs 22.26(1)(a) and (b).7 
• Count Six alleged Attorney Niesen failed to respond to 
OLR's investigation into J.S.'s complaint in violation of 
SCRs 
22.03(2)8 
and 
22.03(6),9 
both 
of 
which 
are 
enforceable through SCR 20:8.4(h).10  
                                                 
6 SCR 
20:1.6(a) 
states 
"A 
lawyer 
shall 
not 
reveal 
information relating to the representation of a client unless 
the client gives informed consent, except for disclosures that 
are 
impliedly 
authorized 
in 
order 
to 
carry 
out 
the 
representation, and except as stated in pars. (b) and (c)." 
7 SCRs 22.26(1)(a) and (b) state: 
(1) On or before the effective date of license 
suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 
suspended or revoked shall do all of the following: 
(a) Notify by certified mail all clients being 
represented in pending matters of the suspension or 
revocation and of the attorney's consequent inability 
to act as an attorney following the effective date of 
the suspension or revocation. 
(b) Advise the clients to seek legal advice of 
their choice elsewhere. 
8 SCR 22.03(2) states as follows: 
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 
No. 
2011AP47-D   
 
6 
 
• Count 
Seven 
alleged 
Attorney 
Niesen 
abandoned 
his 
practice without providing notice to the State Bar of 
Wisconsin of his change of address in violation of 
SCR 10.03(2),11 enforceable through SCR 20:8.4(f)12.  
                                                                                                                                                             
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. 
9 SCR 22.03(6) provides as follows: "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." 
10 SCR 20:8.4(h) states 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); . . . ." 
11 SCR 10.03(2) states as follows: 
Enrollment.  Every person who becomes licensed to 
practice law in this state shall enroll in the state 
bar by registering his or her name and social security 
number with the association within 10 days after 
admission to practice.  Every change after enrollment 
in any member's office address or social security 
number shall be reported promptly to the state bar.  
The social security number of a person enrolling in 
the state bar may not be disclosed to any person or 
entity except the supreme court and its agencies, or 
as otherwise provided by supreme court rules. 
No. 
2011AP47-D   
 
7 
 
• Count 
Eight 
alleged 
Attorney 
Niesen 
abandoned 
his 
clients' files in his former office space without 
contacting his clients and without taking steps to ensure 
confidentiality of his clients' files in violation of 
SCR 20:1.6(a).  
• Count Nine alleged Attorney Niesen failed to respond to 
the grievance investigation into the abandonment of his 
law practice as evidenced by the order of Judge Foust in 
violation of SCRs 22.03(2) and 22.03(6), enforceable 
through SCR 20:8.4(h).   
¶7 
Lisa C. Goldman was appointed referee on February 23, 
2011.  On March 9, 2011, the parties filed a joint stipulation 
wherein Attorney Niesen stipulated that he committed the 
misconduct alleged in the OLR's complaint and the parties 
jointly stipulated that the misconduct warranted a nine-month 
suspension, restitution to J.S. in the amount of $900, and 
payment of the costs of this proceeding.13 
                                                                                                                                                             
12 SCR 20:8.4(f) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme court 
order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers; . . . ." 
13 In the stipulation, Attorney Niesen verifies that he 
understands the allegations against him, that he understands and 
assents to the level of discipline sought by the OLR, that he 
understands the ramifications of that discipline, and that he 
understands his rights to consult with counsel and to contest 
the allegations in the complaint against him.  Attorney Niesen 
further states that he has entered the stipulation knowingly and 
voluntarily and admits that he engaged in the misconduct 
described above. 
No. 
2011AP47-D   
 
8 
 
¶8 
The stipulation was submitted to Referee Goldman, who 
directed additional briefing on the question of sanctions.  On 
June 20, 2011, Referee Goldman filed a report accepting the 
parties' stipulation regarding the misconduct and discussing the 
appropriate sanction for Attorney Niesen's admitted misconduct.   
¶9 
The referee acknowledged that Attorney Niesen was 
receiving treatment for alcohol abuse and that his living 
situation was precarious.  However, the referee noted that there 
are many resources available to attorneys who seek assistance 
with substance abuse or who wish to end a law practice.  The 
referee observed that while the OLR cited over 15 separate 
disciplinary matters in support of the joint recommendation, the 
cases reflect a range of penalties, and many impose a six-month 
suspension.  See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Berlin, 2008 WI 4, 306 Wis. 2d 288, 743 N.W.2d 683.  The referee 
thus "leaves it to this court to determine the exact length of 
[Attorney] Niesen's suspension."  The referee did agree that 
restitution to J.S. is appropriate and further agreed that 
Attorney Niesen should pay the costs of the proceeding.   
¶10 No appeal has been filed from the referee's report and 
recommendation.  The parties stipulated to the relevant facts 
and we agree with the referee's conclusions of law.  We note 
that either the six-month suspension the referee apparently 
deemed more consistent with the case law or the nine-month 
suspension to which the parties stipulated will require Attorney 
Niesen to petition this court for reinstatement under the 
procedures set forth in SCRs 22.29 to 22.33.  The reinstatement 
No. 
2011AP47-D   
 
9 
 
procedure will provide assurance that Attorney Niesen can be 
safely recommended to the profession, the courts, and the public 
as a person who is fit and capable to practice law in this 
state.  As to the specific level of discipline we should impose, 
we consider the seriousness, nature and extent of misconduct, 
the level of discipline needed to protect the public, the 
courts, and the legal system from repetition of the misconduct, 
the need to impress upon the attorney the seriousness of the 
misconduct, 
and 
the 
need 
to 
deter 
other 
attorneys 
from 
committing similar acts.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Charlton, 174 Wis. 2d 844, 498 N.W.2d 380 (1993).  We 
also consider the attorney's prior disciplinary history.   
¶11 After fully reviewing the matter we conclude that a 
nine-month suspension, as stipulated to by the parties, is 
appropriate discipline in this matter.  We are mindful of the 
referee's observation that the applicable case law reflects a 
range of discipline that has been applied to similar misconduct.  
However, we conclude this level of discipline is supported by 
relevant authority.  See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Cavendish-Sosinski, 2004 WI 30, 270 Wis. 2d 200, 676 
N.W.2d 887. 
 
Attorney 
Niesen's 
misconduct, 
although 
not 
precisely 
the 
same 
as 
Attorney 
Cavendish-Sosinski's, 
is 
sufficiently similar to support the imposition of a nine-month 
license suspension on Attorney Niesen, as stipulated to by the 
parties. 
No. 
2011AP47-D   
 
10 
 
¶12 We accept the referee's recommendations regarding 
restitution and costs.14 
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Ronald K. Niesen to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of nine 
months, effective the date of this order. 
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Ronald K. Niesen make restitution to J.S. in the 
amount of $900.  If restitution to J.S. is not paid within the 
time specified and absent a showing to this court of his 
inability to pay the restitution amount within that time, the 
license of Ronald K. Niesen to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
remain suspended until further order of this court. 
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 180 days of the date 
of this order, Ronald K. Niesen pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If the costs 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 Ronald K. Niesen to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
remain suspended until further order of the court. 
                                                 
14 We note that the restitution ordered in this matter does 
not encompass the costs incurred by the attorney who was 
appointed by the circuit court "for the purpose of protecting 
[clients'] rights, files and property and delivering the files 
and property to the clients or to their successor counsel."  We 
do not address, here, whether a circuit court should direct the 
county to pay costs incurred by an attorney appointed to oversee 
and protect client interests as a result of an abandoned 
practice.  If Attorney Niesen seeks reinstatement of his license 
to practice law the court will inquire into the status of any 
related outstanding judgment. 
No. 
2011AP47-D   
 
11 
 
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that restitution to J.S. is to 
be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation. 
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent he has not 
already done so, Ronald K. Niesen comply with the provisions of 
SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended 
 
 
No. 
2011AP47-D   
 
 
 
1