Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Ronald L. Brandt
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2017AP000539-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: December 15, 2017

2017 WI 103 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2017AP539-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Ronald L. Brandt, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Ronald L. Brandt, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BRANDT 
 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 15, 2017 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
ABRAHAMSON, J. concurs (opinion filed). 
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
      
 
 
2017 WI 103
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2017AP539-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Ronald L. Brandt, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Ronald L. Brandt, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
DEC 15, 2017 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   In this disciplinary proceeding, we are 
asked to determine whether Attorney Ronald L. Brandt's license 
to practice law in Wisconsin should be revoked, as discipline 
reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme Judicial Court of 
Massachusetts. 
¶2 
After considering this matter and in view of Attorney 
Brandt's failure to respond to our order to show cause, we 
conclude that Attorney Brandt's license to practice law in 
No. 
2017AP539-D   
 
2 
 
Wisconsin should be revoked.  Given that this matter has been 
resolved without a contest or the appointment of a referee, we 
do not impose any costs on Attorney Brandt. 
¶3 
Attorney Brandt was admitted to the practice of law in 
this state in June 1972 and in the state of Massachusetts in 
January 1982.  According to information provided to the State 
Bar of Wisconsin, Attorney Brandt most recently practiced law in 
Massachusetts. 
¶4 
Attorney Brandt has been the subject of professional 
discipline in this state on one prior occasion.  In 2011 this 
court 
publicly 
reprimanded 
Attorney 
Brandt 
as 
discipline 
reciprocal to that also imposed by the Supreme Judicial Court of 
Massachusetts.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Brandt, 2011 WI 92, 337 Wis. 2d 43, 803 N.W.2d 845. 
¶5 
Attorney Brandt's license to practice law in Wisconsin 
has been administratively suspended since October 2013 due to 
his failure to pay bar dues and to file a required annual trust 
account certificate. 
¶6 
The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) initiated this 
disciplinary proceeding by filing a complaint, order to answer, 
and a motion requesting this court to issue an order directing 
Attorney Brandt to show cause, in writing, under Supreme Court 
Rule (SCR) 22.22(3),1 why the imposition of discipline identical 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.22(3) provides: 
(3) The supreme court shall impose the identical 
discipline or license suspension unless one or more of 
the following is present: 
(continued) 
No. 
2017AP539-D   
 
3 
 
to that imposed in Massachusetts would be unwarranted.  After 
Attorney Brandt was served with these documents, this court 
issued such an order to show cause on June 15, 2017.  Our order 
directed Attorney Brandt to file his response by July 5, 2017.  
Attorney Brandt has not filed a response to the order to show 
cause, nor has he filed any answer or motion in response to the 
OLR's complaint. 
¶7 
The OLR's complaint alleges that on January 30, 2017, 
the 
Supreme 
Judicial 
Court 
of 
Massachusetts 
indefinitely 
suspended Attorney Brandt's license to practice law in that 
state.  The OLR's complaint also alleges that Attorney Brandt 
failed to notify the OLR of this indefinite suspension, as 
required under SCR 22.22(1).2 
                                                                                                                                                             
(a) The procedure in the other jurisdiction was 
so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to 
constitute a deprivation of due process.  
(b) There 
was 
such 
an 
infirmity 
of 
proof 
establishing the misconduct or medical incapacity that 
the supreme court could not accept as final the 
conclusion in respect to the misconduct or medical 
incapacity.   
(c) The 
misconduct 
justifies 
substantially 
different discipline in this state. 
2 SCR 22.22(1) provides: 
An 
attorney 
on 
whom 
public 
discipline 
for 
misconduct 
or 
a 
license 
suspension 
for 
medical 
incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction 
shall promptly notify the director of the matter.  
Failure to furnish the notice within 20 days of the 
effective date of the order or judgment of the other 
jurisdiction constitutes misconduct. 
No. 
2017AP539-D   
 
4 
 
¶8 
According to the underlying Massachusetts disciplinary 
records 
attached 
to 
the 
OLR's 
complaint, 
the 
indefinite 
suspension was the result of Attorney Brandt's misconduct in 
three client representations, as well as his failure to 
cooperate with the Massachusetts bar counsel and to comply with 
an administrative suspension that was imposed due to his lack of 
cooperation.  Because Attorney Brandt did not file an answer or 
otherwise respond to the bar counsel's complaint, he was found 
to be in default with respect to the allegations of misconduct 
in the Massachusetts disciplinary complaint. 
¶9 
In the first client representation, a couple retained 
Attorney Brandt to represent them in clearing legal title to 
their residence.  Pursuant to a written fee agreement, the 
couple gave Attorney Brandt an advance fee of $7,500, which he 
deposited into his client trust account.  Attorney Brandt, 
however, failed to perform any substantial legal services and to 
respond to the couple's several requests for information about 
their matter over the course of approximately seven months.  In 
May 2015, Attorney Brandt closed his client trust account and 
had the remaining balance in the account ($6,764.16) disbursed 
to himself, even though he had not earned any of the remaining 
funds.  Prior to withdrawing the couple's funds, Attorney Brandt 
did not send them an itemized bill, written notice of the 
intended withdrawal, or a statement of the balance of their 
funds.  Attorney Brandt converted the couple's funds for his own 
personal 
purposes 
or 
for 
purposes 
in 
other 
unrelated 
representations.   
No. 
2017AP539-D   
 
5 
 
¶10 In June 2015 Attorney Brandt vacated his law office.  
He did not notify the couple.  In July 2015, due to their 
inability to contact Attorney Brandt, the couple terminated his 
representation and requested a return of their file and the 
advance fee.  Despite several additional attempts to obtain 
their file and the unearned advance fee, Attorney Brandt never 
responded to their requests.   
¶11 Based on these facts, Attorney Brandt was found to 
have violated the following Massachusetts Rules of Professional 
Conduct (Mass. R. Prof. C.) in existence at the time of his 
misconduct:  1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 1.15(b) and (d), 
1.16(d) and (e), and 8.4(c) and (h). 
¶12 In the second client representation, Attorney Brandt 
was retained in June 2013 to represent J.M. in an employment 
discrimination claim.  For the first six months Attorney Brandt 
failed to respond to at least nine emails sent by J.M., as well 
as her numerous telephone calls.  Attorney Brandt ultimately did 
file a civil action on J.M.'s behalf in February 2014, but he 
failed to respond to any of the defendants' discovery requests, 
to propound discovery requests to the defendants, or to depose 
the defendants.  He also failed to advise J.M. of her scheduled 
deposition until two days before it was to occur.  When she 
asked 
to 
postpone 
the 
deposition 
so 
she 
could 
prepare 
adequately, Attorney Brandt said that was not possible because 
the notice had been on his desk for over a week.  Attorney 
Brandt's continuing failure to respond to J.M.'s multiple 
attempts at communication over the next year ultimately led her 
No. 
2017AP539-D   
 
6 
 
to terminate Attorney Brandt's representation and to hire 
successor counsel, who then requested a copy of J.M.'s file.  
Attorney Brandt failed to provide the file.  Despite Attorney 
Brandt's lack of cooperation, successor counsel was able to 
resolve the matter in J.M.'s favor.   
¶13 In the J.M. matter, Attorney Brandt was found to have 
violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), and 
1.16(e). 
¶14 The third client matter involved Attorney Brandt's 
representation of a homeowner in a dispute regarding work 
performed at the homeowner's residence.  The fee agreement 
provided for a contingency in Attorney Brandt's favor, plus the 
payment of a "non-refundable retainer" in the amount of $2,500.  
The homeowner initially wished Attorney Brandt to pursue a claim 
against a subcontractor due to allegedly defective work.   
¶15 The general contractor sued the homeowner shortly 
after Attorney Brandt had been retained.  Attorney Brandt filed 
an answer and asserted certain counterclaims against the general 
contractor.  The trial court subsequently dismissed some of the 
homeowner's counterclaims and gave him thirty days to join the 
subcontractor as a necessary party to the litigation.  The 
general contractor subsequently propounded discovery requests to 
the homeowner, to which Attorney Brandt failed to respond, 
resulting in motions to compel.  Attorney Brandt failed to 
propound any discovery to the general contractor and failed to 
move to join the subcontractor within the time frame established 
by the court.  The general contractor then filed a second motion 
No. 
2017AP539-D   
 
7 
 
to dismiss the homeowner's counterclaims, which Attorney Brandt 
failed to oppose, resulting in the granting of the motion. 
¶16 In September 2015 counsel for the general contractor 
informed the court that he had not received answers to letters 
sent to Attorney Brandt for several months and that Attorney 
Brandt's telephone had been disconnected.  When Attorney Brandt 
failed to notify the client or to appear at a final pre-trial 
conference in December 2015, the court entered a default against 
the homeowner.   
¶17 Given the circumstances, the court directly notified 
the homeowner of the default.  The homeowner attempted multiple 
times to contact Attorney Brandt, but he did not respond.  
Consequently, 
the 
homeowner 
terminated 
Attorney 
Brandt's 
representation and retained successor counsel, who immediately 
requested a copy of the homeowner's client file.  Attorney 
Brandt failed to provide the file as requested.  The homeowner 
also requested a refund of the "non-refundable retainer," but 
Attorney Brandt did not provide any refund. 
¶18 Based on these facts, Attorney Brandt was found to 
have violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a) and 
(b), 1.16(d) and (e).  
¶19 Following receipt of grievances from the clients 
identified above, the Massachusetts bar counsel sent the 
grievances to Attorney Brandt and requested responses within 
specified time periods.  Bar counsel also requested Attorney 
Brandt to appear at bar counsel's office.  Attorney Brandt 
failed to respond to the grievances or to appear at bar 
No. 
2017AP539-D   
 
8 
 
counsel's office as requested.  As a result of his failure to 
cooperate, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts issued an 
order administratively suspending Attorney Brandt's license to 
practice law in that state.  The order further directed Attorney 
Brandt to take certain steps within 30 days, but Attorney Brandt 
failed to comply.  Attorney Brandt's lack of cooperation and his 
failure to comply with the Supreme Judicial Court's suspension 
order was found to have violated multiple rules of professional 
conduct. 
¶20 Under SCR 22.22(3), this court shall impose the 
identical discipline or license suspension imposed on an 
attorney in another jurisdiction, unless one or more of three 
exceptions apply.  Attorney Brandt has not responded to the 
order to show cause or alleged that any exception applies.  
After reviewing the matter, we conclude that none of the three 
exceptions applies.  We therefore revoke Attorney Brandt's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin, as the most similar form 
of discipline to the indefinite suspension imposed by the 
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.  Given the resolution 
of this matter without any substantial litigation, we do not 
impose costs on Attorney Brandt. 
¶21 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Ronald L. Brandt to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this 
order. 
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ronald L. Brandt shall 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
No. 
2017AP539-D   
 
9 
 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
revoked. 
 
No.  2017AP539-D.ssa 
 
1 
 
 
¶23 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.   (concurring).  This is a 
reciprocal discipline case governed by Supreme Court Rule 
(SCR) 22.22(3).  SCR 22.22(3) requires this court to impose 
"identical discipline" to that imposed by the other state.  The 
per curiam opinion does not adhere to the text of the rule.  
Rather, the per curiam opinion revokes the attorney's license to 
practice law "as the most similar form of discipline to the 
indefinite suspension imposed by the Supreme Judicial Court of 
Massachusetts." 
¶24 I write to point out that once again the instant case 
raises the question of what constitutes "identical discipline" 
under SCR 22.22(3).  I suggest, as I have suggested previously, 
that the OLR Procedure Review Committee (Professor Marsha 
Mansfield, University of Wisconsin Law School, Reporter), 
appointed by the court in June 2016, should consider proposing a 
revision of the Supreme Court reciprocal discipline rule to 
govern the many instances in which this court cannot impose 
discipline identical to that imposed by the other state.    
 
 
No.  2017AP539-D.ssa 
 
 
 
1