Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. James Edward Hammis
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2014AP002244-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: May 23, 2019

2019 WI 55 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2014AP2244-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against James Edward Hammis, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
James Edward Hammis, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HAMMIS  
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 23, 2019 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
February 14, 2019 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
ZIEGLER, J. dissents, joined by R.G. BRADLEY, J. 
(opinion filed).  
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
For the respondent-appellant, there was a brief filed by 
James E. Hammis and Hammis Law Offices, LLC, Stoughton. There 
was an oral argument by James E. Hammis. 
 
For the complainant-respondent, there was a brief filed by 
Jonathan E. Hendrix and Office of Lawyer Regulation, Madison. 
There 
was 
an 
oral 
argument 
by 
Jonathan 
E. 
Hendrix.
 
 
2019 WI 55
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2014AP2244-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against James Edward Hammis, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
James Edward Hammis, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
FILED 
 
MAY 23, 2019 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   Attorney 
James 
Edward 
Hammis 
has 
appealed a report filed by Referee Lisa C. Goldman accepting 
concessions Attorney Hammis made in a stipulation with the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) that he committed 40 counts of 
professional misconduct and recommending that his license to 
practice to law in Wisconsin be revoked.  In his appeal, 
Attorney Hammis primarily challenges the sanction recommendation 
and asserts that an appropriate sanction would be a suspension 
of his license to practice law in the range of one year. 
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Upon careful review of this matter, we uphold all of 
the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law.  We 
conclude, however, that the facts of this case do not warrant 
revocation.  Instead, we conclude that a three-year suspension 
of Attorney Hammis' law license is an appropriate sanction for 
the misconduct at issue.  We also deem it appropriate to impose 
certain conditions upon the reinstatement of his law license.  
We also order him to pay $400 in restitution to one former 
client and, as is our usual custom, we impose the full costs of 
this proceeding, which are $13,160.22 as of March 4, 2019 on 
Attorney Hammis. 
¶3 
Attorney Hammis was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1988.  The State Bar of Wisconsin shows that he has 
a Stoughton address. 
¶4 
In 2011, Attorney Hammis was suspended for four months 
for ten counts of misconduct involving two clients.  The 
misconduct 
included 
practicing 
law 
while 
administratively 
suspended and failing to cooperate with the OLR's investigation.  
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hammis, 2011 WI 3, 331 
Wis. 2d 19, 793 N.W.2d 884.  In 2015, Attorney Hammis' license 
was suspended for 90 days for nine counts of misconduct, 
including 
failure 
to 
timely 
report 
an 
Ohio 
misdemeanor 
conviction to the OLR or the clerk of this court; failing to 
communicate with an incarcerated client; retaining an advance 
fee despite taking little or no action in the matter; failing to 
hold the advance fee in trust; and failing to cooperate with the 
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
3 
 
OLR's investigation.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Hammis, 2015 WI 14, 361 Wis. 2d 1, 859 N.W.2d 108. 
¶5 
On September 25, 2014, the OLR filed a complaint 
alleging 46 counts of misconduct against Attorney Hammis.  
Attorney Hammis filed an answer on January 5, 2015.  On August 
27, 2015, the OLR filed an amended complaint alleging 49 counts 
of misconduct.  Attorney Hammis filed an answer on January 19, 
2016.  
¶6 
On 
September 
29, 
2016, 
the 
parties 
filed 
a 
stipulation, and Attorney Hammis entered a no contest plea to 40 
counts of misconduct.  Attorney Hammis agreed that the referee 
could use the allegations of the amended complaint as an 
adequate factual basis to support findings of misconduct as to 
each of the counts to which Attorney Hammis was pleading no 
contest.  The OLR withdrew nine counts of misconduct.  Attorney 
Hammis agreed that the referee's report should recommend that 
the court order him to make restitution to one client, R.G., in 
the amount of $400.  The parties further agreed that the issue 
of the appropriate level of discipline to be imposed for 
Attorney Hammis' misconduct would be addressed on briefs.   
¶7 
On January 6, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation of 
facts specifying that the referee may use specific allegations 
in the amended complaint as an adequate factual basis to support 
findings of misconduct as to each of the misconduct counts to 
which Attorney Hammis pled no contest.  The referee issued her 
report and recommendation on September 14, 2017. 
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
4 
 
¶8 
The counts to which Attorney Hammis pled no contest 
involved nine separate client matters as well as numerous trust 
account and other violations.   
G.L. 
¶9 
According to the amended complaint, in 2006 Attorney 
Hammis represented G.L. in several criminal cases.  The 
representation ended sometime in 2006 or 2007.  In early 2008, 
the Department of Corrections revoked G.L.'s probation and G.L. 
was resentenced.  G.L. hired Attorney Hammis to appeal his post-
revocation sentences.  In October 2008, Attorney Hammis wrote to 
G.L. saying he had mailed a copy of the original sentencing 
transcript to G.L. "a month ago" and the letter had been 
returned.  Actually Attorney Hammis had just obtained a 
transcript within the prior two weeks and had not mailed 
anything to G.L. since June 2008.  Attorney Hammis did not file 
a notice of appearance in the case until January 2009.  That 
same month G.L. asked Attorney Hammis for information about the 
cost of representation but Attorney Hammis never responded.   
¶10 By virtue of the stipulation, Attorney Hammis pled no 
contest to the following counts of misconduct with respect to 
his representation of G.L.: 
Count Four: By failing to respond to his client's 
request 
for 
information 
on 
the 
costs 
of 
his 
representation, 
Attorney 
Hammis 
violated 
SCR 20:1.5(b)(3).1 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.5(b)(3) provides:  "A lawyer shall promptly 
respond to a client's request for information concerning fees 
and expenses." 
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
5 
 
Count Five:  By making misrepresentations to his 
client by letter dated October 31, 2008, Attorney 
Hammis violated SCR 20:8.4(c).2 
B.D. 
¶11 In 2010, B.D. was employed as a recreation director 
for the City of Janesville (City).  On November 5, 2010, 
Janesville sent B.D. a "Pre-determination Notice of Discharge."  
B.D. met with Attorney Hammis regarding her employment and paid 
him an advance fee of $2,000.  B.D. signed a written fee 
agreement which allowed Attorney Hammis to deposit the fee into 
his business account.  The agreement required Attorney Hammis to 
send B.D. a written accounting of his fees at the end of his 
representation.  Attorney Hammis told B.D. he would attend any 
meetings with the City. 
¶12 On December 6, 2010, the City terminated B.D.'s 
employment.  That same day, B.D. instructed Attorney Hammis to 
file a discrimination complaint against the City.  Attorney 
Hammis prepared a complaint but never filed it.   
¶13 On February 23, 2011, Attorney Hammis believed he 
ceased representing B.D.  He never provided her with an 
accounting.  In March of 2011, B.D. filed a grievance against 
Attorney Hammis with the OLR.  Attorney Hammis failed to respond 
to numerous OLR requests for a response to the grievance.  
Attorney Hammis eventually responded to the OLR in July 2011 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
6 
 
indicating he had time sheets and phone records for his 
representation of B.D.  The OLR requested Attorney Hammis to 
provide that information, but Attorney Hammis failed to provide 
it.   
¶14 By virtue of the stipulation, Attorney Hammis pled no 
contest to the following counts regarding his representation of 
B.D.   
Count Six: For failing to account to B.D. for her 
$2,000 advance fee deposited into his operating 
account, as required by the alternative fee placement 
measures of former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m), Attorney Hammis 
violated former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4).3 
Counts Eight and Nine:  By failing to pursue his 
client's interest in negotiating considerations in 
exchange for termination of her employment and by 
failing at any time from December 6, 2010, to February 
23, 2011, to file the discrimination complaint he had 
                                                 
3 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. 
 
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
7 
 
prepared for his client, Attorney Hammis violated 
SCR 20:1.3.4 
Count Ten:  By failing to timely respond to the OLR's 
request for a written response to B.D.'s grievance, 
Attorney Hammis violated SCR 22.03(2),5 enforced via 
SCR 20:8.4(h).6  
Count Eleven:  By failing to furnish documents 
requested by the OLR, which he previously admitted he 
possessed, Attorney Hammis violated SCR 22.03(6),7 
enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
 
                                                 
4 SCR 20:1.3 provides:  "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
5 SCR 22.03(2) provides: 
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 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)." 
7 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." 
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
8 
 
S.K. 
¶15 In 2002, M.K. filed for divorce from S.K.  Attorney 
Hammis agreed to represent S.K. in the matter in June of 2009.  
In November of 2010, the circuit court found S.K. in contempt 
and ordered him to spend 45 days in jail, commencing December 1, 
2010.   
¶16 Attorney Hammis moved to withdraw from representing 
S.K. on January 4, 2011.  S.K. filed a grievance with the OLR 
against Attorney Hammis on June 1, 2011.  Attorney Hammis failed 
to respond to numerous OLR requests for information regarding 
the grievance.  Attorney Hammis finally provided a partial 
response in September of 2011.  He provided additional documents 
in December of 2011.  By virtue of the stipulation, Attorney 
Hammis pled no contest to the following count of misconduct 
regarding his representation of S.K.  
Count Thirteen:  By not timely responding to the OLR's 
request for a written response to S.K.'s grievance, 
and then making only a partial and incomplete response 
that did not include the documents expressly requested 
and which was not supplemented until approximately 
four months after the original OLR request, Attorney 
Hammis 
violated 
SCR 22.03(2) 
and 
SCR 
22.03(6), 
enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
R.B. and Trust Account Violations 
¶17 In May 2010, R.B. hired Attorney Hammis to represent 
him in an automobile accident case.  The parties agreed that 
R.B. would receive the first $4,800 collected, while Attorney 
Hammis would advance all expenses and recover anything in excess 
of $4,800.  Attorney Hammis filed a complaint in the case in 
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
9 
 
June 2010.  He subsequently negotiated settlements for R.B. with 
two insurance companies.  One of the companies mailed Attorney 
Hammis a check in early August 2010 along with a release for 
R.B.'s signature.  Attorney Hammis asked R.B. to lower his share 
of the settlement to $4,500.  R.B. reluctantly agreed.  Attorney 
Hammis deposited the check in his trust account but never 
obtained R.B.'s signature on the release or sent a signed 
release to the insurance company. 
¶18 On or around August 13, 2010, Attorney Hammis gave 
R.B. a trust account check for $4,500.  Attorney Hammis failed 
to send a check to another insurance company for their 
subrogation interest.  By January 27, 2011, the trust account's 
balance was $1,000 less than the second insurance company was 
owed for their subrogation interest.  In February 2011, the 
circuit court dismissed the R.B. case with prejudice because 
although the parties had reported a settlement, no dismissal 
order was submitted. 
¶19 In the summer of 2011, both insurance companies filed 
grievances with the OLR against Attorney Hammis.  Attorney 
Hammis did not respond to the OLR's initial requests for 
information about the grievances.  He subsequently provided 
partial responses.  In December 2011, Attorney Hammis closed the 
trust account, which then had a balance of $9.07, having never 
disbursed the $1,489.82 due to the subrogated insurance carrier. 
¶20 On 
December 
14, 
2011, 
the 
OLR 
filed 
a 
motion 
requesting an order to show cause with this court due to 
Attorney Hammis' noncooperation with the OLR's investigation.  
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
10 
 
An order to show cause was issued.  On December 30, 2011, 
Attorney 
Hammis 
sent 
the 
subrogated 
insurance 
carrier 
a 
"replacement 
check" 
for 
$1,489.82 
with 
a 
cover 
letter 
representing that he had previously sent a check on August 13, 
2010.   
¶21 The OLR withdrew its motion for an order to show cause 
on January 9, 2012.  On January 20, 2012, the credit union on 
which the check was drawn refused to honor the check.  The 
account was closed four days later.  In May of 2012, Attorney 
Hammis sent the subrogated insurance carrier a check dated April 
17, 2012, for $1,489.82 drawn on a business account at a 
different bank. 
¶22 In July and August 2013, the OLR wrote and then 
personally served Attorney Hammis with requests for various 
documents.  Attorney Hammis did not timely respond.  In 
September 2013, the OLR filed another motion requesting an order 
to show cause.  An order to show cause was issued.  In November 
2013, 
this 
court 
temporarily 
suspended 
Attorney 
Hammis' 
Wisconsin law license due to his failure to cooperate with the 
OLR's investigation.  Attorney Hammis responded to several of 
the OLR's requests in December 2013.  On December 30, 2013, 
pursuant to the OLR's request, this court reinstated Attorney 
Hammis' law license. 
¶23 On October 7, 2010, Attorney Hammis transferred 
$15,000 from his trust account to his wife's checking account, 
leaving the trust account with a shortfall of $1,589.50.  On 
December 14, 2010, Attorney Hammis withdrew $45,000 from the 
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
11 
 
trust account and purchased a cashier's check in that amount.  
Between July 2010 and December 2011, Attorney Hammis deposited 
$15,400 of his or his law firm's funds into the trust account 
but his client ledgers did not reflect those deposits. 
¶24 Between July 2010 and February 2011, Attorney Hammis 
made 56 prohibited Internet or telephone transactions totaling 
over $250,000 with his trust account.  Attorney Hammis failed to 
identify the client or matter on deposit slips for 19 deposits 
totaling over $640,000 into the trust account between July 2010 
and February 2011.  Attorney Hammis' client ledgers indicate 
that he disbursed more funds then he received for four clients, 
creating negative balances for those clients in the trust 
account. 
¶25 By virtue of the stipulation, Attorney Hammis pled no 
contest to the following counts of misconduct: 
Count Fourteen:  By converting funds held in trust for 
a third party to other purposes sometime between 
August 
10, 
2010 
(the 
deposit 
of 
the 
insurance 
settlement check in the R.B. matter) and January 27, 
2011 (a date on which the trust account balance was 
less than the money owed to the subrogated insurance 
carrier in the R.B. matter), Attorney Hammis violated 
SCR 20:8.4(c). 
Count Fifteen:  By receiving funds in trust for a 
third party, the subrogated insurance carrier, and 
then failing to pay that party for over 20 months, 
Attorney 
Hammis 
violated 
former 
SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) 
through (3).8 
                                                 
8 Former SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) through (3) provided: 
(1) Upon receiving funds or other property in 
which a client has an interest, or in which the lawyer 
(continued) 
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
12 
 
Count Sixteen:  By failing to hold in trust the funds 
he received for the purpose of paying the subrogation 
claim of R.B.'s insurer, Attorney Hammis violated 
SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).9 
Count Eighteen:  By falsely representing to the 
subrogated insurance carrier that he had sent a check 
for $1,489.82 to it on August 13, 2010, Attorney 
Hammis violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
                                                                                                                                                             
has received notice that a 3rd party has an interest 
identified by a lien, court order, judgment, or 
contract, the lawyer shall promptly notify the client 
or 3rd party in writing.  Except as stated in this 
rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement 
with the client, the lawyer shall promptly deliver to 
the client or 3rd party any funds or other property 
that the client or 3rd party is entitled to receive. 
(2) Upon final distribution of any trust property 
or upon request by the client or a 3rd party having an 
ownership interest in the property, the lawyer shall 
promptly render a full written accounting regarding 
the property. 
(3) When the lawyer and another person or the 
client and another person claim ownership interest in 
trust property identified by a lien, court order, 
judgment, or contract, the lawyer shall hold that 
property in trust until there is an accounting and 
severance of the interests.  If a dispute arises 
regarding the division of the property, the lawyer 
shall hold the disputed portion in trust until the 
dispute is resolved.  Disputes between the lawyer and 
a client are subject to the provisions of sub. (g)(2). 
9 SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) provides: 
A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the 
lawyer's own property, that property of clients and 
3rd parties that is in the lawyer's possession in 
connection with a representation.  All funds of 
clients and 3rd parties paid to a lawyer or law firm 
in connection with a representation shall be deposited 
in one or more identifiable trust accounts.  
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
13 
 
Count Twenty:  By failing to timely answer the OLR's 
request for a response and his subsequent failure to 
fully 
and 
fairly 
disclose 
all 
the 
facts 
and 
circumstances 
including 
those 
concerning 
the 
subrogated insurance carrier's claim, by his wilful 
failure to fully answer questions, by failing to 
furnish requested documents, by repeatedly responding 
to requests for information by referencing non-
existent attachments and by generally failing to 
provide relevant information, Attorney Hammis violated 
SCR 22.03(2) and (6), and SCR 20:8.4(h). 
Count Twenty-One:  By withdrawing $45,000 from his 
trust account on December 14, 2010, in order to obtain 
a cashier's check, Attorney Hammis violated former 
SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)a.10 
County Twenty-Two:  By engaging from July 2010 through 
February 2011 in 56 prohibited Internet and telephone 
transactions 
with 
a 
combined 
dollar 
value 
of 
$259,281.22 to and from his trust account, Attorney 
Hammis violated former SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)b. and c.11  
                                                 
10 Former SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)a. provided:  "No disbursement of 
cash shall be made from a trust account or from a deposit to a 
trust account, and no check shall be made payable to 'Cash.'" 
11 Former SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)b. and c. provided: 
b. No deposits or disbursements shall be made to 
or from a pooled trust account by a telephone transfer 
of funds.  This section does not prohibit any of the 
following: 
1. wire transfers. 
2. telephone transfers between non-pooled draft 
and non-pooled non-draft trust accounts that a lawyer 
mains for a particular client. 
c.  A lawyer shall not make deposits to or 
disbursements from a trust account by way of an 
Internet transaction. 
 
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
14 
 
Count Twenty-Three:  By failing to identify the client 
or matter on every deposit slip for all of the 19 
deposits totaling $640,745.79 made to the trust 
account between July 9, 2010, and February 24, 2011, 
Attorney Hammis violated former SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)d.12 
Count Twenty-Four:  By converting funds held in trust 
for clients to other purposes sometime between July 
21, 2010, and December 9, 2011, Attorney Hammis 
violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
Count Twenty-Six:  By depositing at least $15,400 of 
lawyer or law firm funds into the trust account 
between July 2, 2010, and February 24, 2011, which 
funds far exceeded any amounts reasonably necessary to 
pay monthly account service charges, and none of which 
was allocated to any client or matter for which funds 
were held in trust, Attorney Hammis violated former 
SCR 20:1.15(b)(3).13   
Count Twenty-Seven:  By disbursing funds from the 
trust account on at least four occasions that resulted 
in negative balances on the individual client ledgers 
recording funds held in trust with respect to four 
different clients or matters, Attorney Hammis violated 
former SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)b.14  
                                                 
12 Former SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)d. provided:   
Deposit slips shall identify the name of the 
lawyer or law firm, and the name of the account.  The 
deposit slip shall identify the amount of each deposit 
item, the client or matter associated with each 
deposit item, and the date of the deposit.  The lawyer 
shall maintain a copy or duplicate of each deposit 
slip.  All deposits shall be made intact.  No cash, or 
other form of disbursement, shall be deducted from a 
deposit.  Deposits of wired funds shall be documented 
in the account's monthly statement. 
13 Former SCR 20:1.15(b)(3) provided:  "No funds belonging 
to the lawyer or law firm, except funds reasonably sufficient to 
pay monthly account service charges, may be deposited or 
retained in a trust account." 
14 Former SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)b. provided: 
(continued) 
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
15 
 
M.V. 
¶26 On May 28, 2010, M.V. hired Attorney Hammis to 
represent her in her role as the personal representative of an 
estate.  M.V. paid Attorney Hammis $2,000 in advanced fees and 
signed a written fee agreement.  The fee agreement did not 
authorize Attorney Hammis to use the estate's funds to pay his 
billings without court approval.   
¶27 On August 30, 2010, a Dane County Circuit Court judge 
named R.B. as special administrator of the estate.  On October 
4, 2010, Attorney Hammis deposited $150,000 of estate funds into 
his trust account.  On October 5, 2010, Attorney Hammis 
transferred $1,000 of estate funds out of his trust account for 
legal fees.  On October 8, 2010, Attorney Hammis sent the 
special 
administrator's 
attorney 
a 
check 
for 
$145,000 
representing the estate's funds.  An invoice for Attorney 
Hammis' 
representation 
of 
M.V. 
dated 
February 
28, 
2011, 
indicated that Attorney Hammis used the $5,000 as a "reserve 
fee."  Attorney Hammis' client ledger indicates that on February 
                                                                                                                                                             
A subsidiary ledger shall be maintained for each 
client or 3rd party for whom the lawyer receives trust 
funds that are deposited in an IOLTA account or any 
other pooled trust account.  The lawyer shall record 
each receipt and disbursement of a client's or 3rd 
party's 
funds 
and 
the 
balance 
following 
each 
transaction.  A lawyer shall not disburse funds from 
an IOLTA account or any pooled trust account that 
would create a negative balance with respect to any 
individual client or matter. 
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
16 
 
28, 2011, he transferred the remaining $4,000 of estate funds 
out of his trust account. 
¶28 M.V. died on November 16, 2011.  On December 7, 2011, 
D.E. was appointed as special administrator of M.V.'s estate.  
D.E. hired Attorney Michael Rumpf to represent her.  On December 
7, 2011, Attorney Rumpf wrote to Attorney Hammis requesting, 
among other things, that he transfer to Attorney Rumpf any 
estate funds held in trust, and provide an accounting of those 
funds.  On December 22, 2011, Attorney Hammis transferred his 
M.V. 
file 
to 
Attorney 
Rumpf 
and 
signed 
an 
order 
for 
substitution.  He did not provide Attorney Rumpf with any 
billing information, work product, or an accounting of funds.   
¶29 Over the next few months, Attorney Rumpf sent Attorney 
Hammis several requests for the entire M.V. file.  Attorney 
Hammis often did not substantively respond, and he did not give 
Attorney Rumpf any additional documents. 
¶30 On February 28, 2012, D.E. filed a grievance against 
Attorney Hammis with the OLR.  From August through November of 
2012, the OLR wrote Attorney Hammis several letters asking him 
to respond to the grievance, but Attorney Hammis provided no 
substantive responses. 
¶31 On March 13, 2013, the OLR moved this court for an 
order to show cause why Attorney Hammis' license should not be 
suspended for failing to cooperate with its investigation of the 
D.E. grievance and other matters.  This court issued an order to 
show cause on March 15, 2013.  On April 2, 2013, Attorney Hammis 
responded to the OLR's information requests.  As a result, the 
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
17 
 
OLR moved to withdraw its motion for a license suspension, and 
this court dismissed the order to show cause.  In April and June 
2013, the OLR wrote and personally served Attorney Hammis with 
requests 
for 
more 
information 
about 
the 
$5,000 
estate 
disbursements, but Attorney Hammis failed to respond. 
¶32 By virtue of entering into the stipulation, Attorney 
Hammis pled no contest to the following counts of misconduct 
concerning the estate: 
Count Twenty-Eight:  By withdrawing estate funds from 
his trust account as "reserve fees" to apply to his 
legal bill, without notice to and consent from his 
client or other parties with a potential interest in 
the 
funds, 
Attorney 
Hammis 
violated 
former 
SCR 20:1.15(b)(1). 
Count Twenty-Nine:  By withdrawing estate funds from 
his trust account as a "reserve fee" to apply to his 
legal bill, without notice to and consent from his 
client or other parties with a potential interest in 
the 
funds, 
Attorney 
Hammis 
violated 
former 
SCR 20:1.15(g)(1).15 
                                                 
15 Former SCR 20:1.15(g)(1) provided: 
At least 5 business days before the date on which 
a disbursement is made form a trust account for the 
purpose 
of 
paying 
fees, 
with 
the 
exception 
of 
contingent fees or fees paid pursuant to a court 
order, the lawyer shall transmit to the client in 
writing all of the following:  
a. an itemized bill or other accounting showing 
the services rendered;  
b. notice of the amount owed and the anticipated 
date of the withdrawal; and  
c. a statement of the balance of the client's 
funds 
in 
the 
lawyer 
trust 
account 
after 
the 
withdrawal. 
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
18 
 
Count Thirty:  By failing to provide a copy of the 
entire 
M.V. 
file, 
including 
billing 
statements, 
accountings 
and 
work 
product, 
to 
the 
successor 
representative of his client in the estate matter and 
her counsel, Attorney Hammis violated SCR 20:1.16(d).16 
Count Thirty-One:  By failing to timely respond to the 
OLR's 
initial 
grievance 
investigation 
of 
D.E.'s 
grievance and submitting a response to the OLR only 
after the Supreme Court of Wisconsin issued an Order 
to 
Show 
Cause 
why 
his 
license 
should 
not 
be 
temporarily 
suspended 
for 
failing 
to 
cooperate, 
Attorney Hammis violated SCR 22.03(2). 
Count Thirty-Two:  By failing to respond to the OLR's 
request 
for 
additional 
information 
in 
its 
investigation of D.E.'s grievance, Attorney Hammis 
violated SCR 22.03(6). 
R.W. 
¶33 On November 3, 2011, R.W. hired Attorney Hammis to 
draft a deed and a will.  In May of 2012, Attorney Hammis 
drafted the deed and R.W. signed it.  In the following months, 
Attorney Hammis was unresponsive to R.W.'s messages.  R.W. filed 
a grievance against Attorney Hammis in September 2012.  Attorney 
Hammis failed to respond to the OLR's requests to provide 
information about the grievance.  Attorney Hammis did fax a 
                                                 
16 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. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
19 
 
response to the OLR on December 27, 2012.  That same day, 
Attorney Hammis emailed R.W. asking for his and his late wife's 
social security numbers for a real estate transfer form.  This 
was Attorney Hammis' first communication to R.W. in several 
months.  R.W. sent Attorney Hammis the information.   
¶34 As of April of 2013, Attorney Hammis had not filed 
R.W.'s deed.  In May and June of 2013, the OLR wrote to Attorney 
Hammis asking him to provide additional information about his 
representation of R.W.  Attorney Hammis failed to respond. 
¶35 By entering into the stipulation, Attorney Hammis pled 
no contest to the following counts of misconduct with respect to 
his representation of R.W.: 
Count Thirty-Three:  By failing to timely file the 
quit claim deed on his client's behalf, after the deed 
had been executed and all necessary information had 
been received, Attorney Hammis violated SCR 20:1.3. 
Count Thirty-Four:  By failing to respond to his 
client's inquiries regarding the status of his matter, 
and by failing to initiate status updates to his 
client, including his purported need for additional 
information from the client before being able to 
complete the representation, Attorney Hammis violated 
SCR 20:1.4(a)(3)17 and (4).18 
Count Thirty-Five:  By failing to respond to the OLR's 
request 
for 
additional 
information 
in 
its 
R.W. 
grievance 
investigation, 
Attorney 
Hammis 
violated 
SCR 22.03(6). 
                                                 
17 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides:  "A lawyer shall keep the 
client reasonably informed about the status of the matter." 
18 SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) provides:  "A lawyer shall promptly 
comply with reasonable requests by the client for information." 
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
20 
 
R.G. 
¶36 On November 4, 2011, R.G. spoke with Attorney Hammis 
about setting up a limited liability company (LLC) and drafting 
related documents.  Attorney Hammis said he could do this work 
within a week.  On November 7, 2011, R.G. hired Attorney Hammis, 
signed a fee agreement, and paid him $400 to set up the LLC.  In 
November and December of 2011, R.G. sent Attorney Hammis several 
emails asking for updates on drafting the LLC documents.  
Attorney Hammis responded occasionally to the communications, 
but never provided an update. 
¶37 On December 22, 2011, R.G. emailed Attorney Hammis, 
terminating his representation and requesting that he refund her 
fees.  Attorney Hammis failed to respond.  In March of 2012, 
R.G. filed a grievance against Attorney Hammis with the OLR.  In 
April 2012 she sued him in small claims court, seeking damages 
based on his failure to return her fees. 
¶38 On April 30, 2012, Attorney Hammis represented that 
his notary commission was valid when he notarized a document 
submitted in R.G.'s lawsuit.  In fact, Attorney Hammis had not 
been a licensed notary since January 20, 2011, when the 
Secretary of State revoked his notary commission. 
¶39 On July 13, 2012, Attorney Hammis sent the OLR a 
response to R.G.'s grievance.  As part of the response he sent 
an "Operating Agreement" and "Contribution Agreement" for the 
LLC and submitted a case log representing he had drafted the 
agreements on December 1, 2011.  In fact, Attorney Hammis did 
not draft the agreements until after R.G. had filed her 
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
21 
 
grievance.  R.G. obtained a judgment against Attorney Hammis in 
April 18, 2013.   
¶40 Based on his entry into the stipulation, Attorney 
Hammis pled no contest to the following counts of misconduct 
with respect to his representation of R.G.: 
Count Thirty-Six:  Having been hired on November 7, 
2011 to prepare LLC documents for R.G., and at that 
time creating the expectation that the work could be 
completed in a matter of days or a week, by failing to 
produce the LLC documents and provide them to R.G. as 
of December 22 and 27, 2011, when R.G. provided email 
notice of the termination of representation and 
requested the return of her advanced fee in the 
matter, Attorney Hammis violated SCR 20:1.3. 
Count Thirty-Seven:  By failing to respond to multiple 
email inquiries from R.G. in December 2011, in which 
R.G. sought updates concerning the status of the LLC 
work, Attorney Hammis violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(4). 
Count Thirty-Eight:  Having failed to produce the LLC 
papers and provide them to R.G. as of the December 22 
and 27, 2011 termination emails, in which R.G. sought 
a refund, and having stated in a January 4, 2012 email 
to 
R.G., 
"I 
have 
submitted 
the 
file 
and 
the 
instruction to my bookkeeper to remit refund of your 
advance fee per your request," by thereafter failing 
to 
refund 
R.G., 
Attorney 
Hammis 
violated 
SCR 20:1.16(d). 
Count Thirty-Nine:  By notarizing an affidavit of 
mailing in a Dane County small claims action with the 
declaration that his notary commission was permanent, 
when his notary commission was in fact revoked, 
thereby violating Wis. Stat. § 137.01(2), Attorney 
Hammis violated SCR 20:8.4(c) and SCR 20:8.4(f).19 
                                                 
19 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides:  "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." 
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
22 
 
Count Forty:  Having made no mention of preparing any 
documents related to R.G.'s desired LLC in response to 
R.G.'s multiple emails, and likewise failing to 
mention any such purported document preparation when 
informing R.G. on January 4, 2012 that he had 
instructed his bookkeeper to refund R.G.'s advance fee 
payment, by then sending the OLR documents relating to 
an LLC, purportedly drafted on or about December 1, 
2011, offered to the OLR to support his claim of 
compensable drafting services, when Attorney Hammis 
had not prepared those documents prior to R.G.'s 
termination of representation or as of January 4, 2012 
when he promised R.G. a refund, Attorney Hammis 
violated SCR 22.03(6), via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
D.M. 
¶41 In 2008, D.M. hired Attorney Hammis to represent her 
in a criminal matter.  He subsequently represented her in other 
matters.  D.M. filed a grievance against Attorney Hammis in 
September 2012.  Attorney Hammis failed to respond to the OLR's 
requests for information about the grievance.  In March 2013, 
the OLR moved this court for an order to show cause why Attorney 
Hammis' license should not be suspended for failure to cooperate 
with its investigation of D.M.'s grievance and other matters.  
This court issued an order to show cause on March 15, 2013.  
Attorney Hammis responded to the OLR's information requests and 
on April 3, 2013, the OLR moved to withdraw its motion.  This 
court dismissed the motion and order to show cause the following 
day.  In October 2013, the OLR wrote to Attorney Hammis asking 
for additional information about his representation of D.M.  
Attorney Hammis never responded. 
¶42 By entering into the stipulation, Attorney Hammis pled 
no contest to the following counts of misconduct regarding his 
representation of D.M.: 
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
23 
 
Count Forty-One:  By initially failing to timely 
respond to the OLR's investigation of D.M.'s grievance 
and submitting a response only after the Supreme Court 
of Wisconsin issued an Order to Show Cause why his 
license should not be temporarily suspended for 
failing 
to 
cooperate, 
Attorney 
Hammis 
violated 
SCR 22.03(2), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
Count Forty-Two:  By failing to respond to the OLR 
letter dated October 23, 2013 requesting further 
investigative information, Attorney Hammis violated 
SCR 22.03(6), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
G.T. 
¶43 On August 9, 2012, G.T. hired Attorney Hammis to 
obtain title to an automobile and gave him several original 
documents.  G.T. paid Attorney Hammis $500 in fees.  Over the 
next several months, Attorney Hammis failed to respond to G.T.'s 
communications, except for sending G.T. one email on October 26, 
2012.  G.T. tried to visit Attorney Hammis' office in late 
October 2012 but found it locked and closed.  G.T. hired another 
attorney who was also unable to contact Attorney Hammis.   
¶44 G.T. filed a grievance against Attorney Hammis on 
November 7, 2012.  Attorney Hammis failed to respond to the 
OLR's request for information about the grievance.  On March 13, 
2013, the OLR moved this court for an order to show cause why 
Attorney Hammis' license should not be suspended for failure to 
cooperate with its investigation of G.T. and other matters.  
This court ordered Attorney Hammis to show cause.  Attorney 
Hammis responded to the OLR's information requests and in late 
March of 2013, he returned G.T.'s original documents and $500.  
This court dismissed the OLR's motion for an order to show cause 
based on the OLR's request. 
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
24 
 
¶45 By entering into the stipulation, Attorney Hammis pled 
no contest to the following counts of misconduct with respect to 
his representation of G.T.: 
Count Forty-Three:  By failing to return his client's 
original documents and return his unearned fee for 
approximately five months after the representation 
ended, Attorney Hammis violated SCR 20:1.16(d). 
Count Forty-Four:  By initially failing to timely 
respond 
to 
the 
OLR's 
investigation 
of 
G.T.'s 
grievance, submitting a response only after the 
Supreme Court of Wisconsin issued an Order to Show 
Cause why his license should not be temporarily 
suspended for failing to cooperate, Attorney Hammis 
violated SCR 22.03(2). 
Michigan Licensure 
¶46 Attorney Hammis was admitted to practice law in 
Michigan, but his Michigan law license has been suspended for 
non-payment of dues since 2001.  From 2008 through at least 
2012, Attorney Hammis represented himself in emails as an 
"experienced business and general practice attorney representing 
businesses and individuals in the State of Wisconsin and 
Michigan."   
¶47 By entering into the stipulation, Attorney Hammis pled 
no contest to the following count of misconduct with respect to 
this representation: 
Count 
Forty-Five: 
 
By 
representing 
himself 
as 
authorized to practice law and to represent clients in 
the 
State 
of 
Michigan 
in 
emails 
to 
A.W., 
representatives of an insurance company, B.D., R.G. 
and/or Attorney Michael Rumpf, although his Michigan 
law license has been continuously suspended since 
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
25 
 
February 
15, 
2001, 
Attorney 
Hammis 
violated 
SCR 20:7.1.20 
Practice in Bankruptcy Court While Suspended 
¶48 On August 26, 2011, Judge Robert D. Martin suspended 
Attorney Hammis from practicing before the Bankruptcy Court for 
the Western District of Wisconsin.  Attorney Hammis has not been 
reinstated from this suspension.  In 2012, D.A. contacted 
Attorney Hammis for help in filing bankruptcy.  D.A. did not 
know that Attorney Hammis had been suspended from bankruptcy 
practice in the Western District, where D.A. lived.  D.A. 
contacted and met with Attorney Hammis several times in 2012 and 
                                                 
20 SCR 20:7.1 provides: 
A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading 
communication 
about 
the 
lawyer 
or 
the 
lawyer's 
services. A communication is false or misleading if 
it:  
(a) contains a material misrepresentation of fact 
or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the 
statement 
considered 
as 
a 
whole 
not 
materially 
misleading;  
(b) 
is 
likely 
to 
create 
an 
unjustified 
expectation about results the lawyer can achieve, or 
states or implies that the lawyer can achieve results 
by means that violate the Rules of Professional 
Conduct or other law; or  
(c) compares the lawyer's services with other 
lawyers' services, unless the comparison can be 
factually substantiated; or  
(d) contains any paid testimonial about, or paid 
endorsement of, the lawyer without identifying the 
fact that payment has been made or, if the testimonial 
or endorsement is not made by an actual client, 
without identifying that fact.  
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
26 
 
2013 about the proposed bankruptcy.  Attorney Hammis completed 
the forms in a bankruptcy petition for D.A.'s signature. 
¶49 On December 3, 2013, Attorney Hammis personally filed 
D.A.'s bankruptcy petition with the Bankruptcy Court for the 
Western District of Wisconsin, but he informed the staff that 
D.A. was proceeding pro se.  Attorney Hammis paid the filing fee 
for D.A.'s bankruptcy with a check from his law firm bank 
account.  In January 2014, Attorney Hammis mailed D.A.'s pay 
advices to the bankruptcy court.  On January 21, 2014, the 
bankruptcy trustee held a meeting of creditors in D.A.'s 
bankruptcy. 
 
During 
the 
hearing, 
D.A. 
gave 
conflicting 
statements about the assistance he received from Attorney 
Hammis.  At that time, D.A. learned that Attorney Hammis had 
been suspended from practicing before the bankruptcy court.  
D.A. consulted another bankruptcy attorney and ultimately 
obtained a discharge of his debts. 
¶50 By virtue of entering into the stipulation, Attorney 
Hammis pled no contest to the following counts of misconduct 
with respect to his representation of D.A.: 
Count Forty-Six:  By failing to consult with D.A. on 
the unusual means he chose to attempt to pursue D.A.'s 
bankruptcy 
action 
in 
light 
of 
Attorney 
Hammis' 
suspension from Bankruptcy Court for the Western 
District of Wisconsin, including attempting to conceal 
Attorney Hammis' involvement with D.A.'s bankruptcy 
action from the Bankruptcy Court, Attorney Hammis 
violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(2).21 
                                                 
21 SCR 20:1.4(a)(2) provides:  "A lawyer shall reasonably 
consult with the client about the means by which the client's 
objectives are to be accomplished." 
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
27 
 
Count Forty-Seven:  By failing to reveal to D.A. that 
he was suspended from practicing before the Bankruptcy 
Court and could not represent D.A. in a bankruptcy 
proceeding, 
Attorney 
Hammis 
violated 
SCR 20:1.4(a)(5).22 
Count Forty-Eight:  
By filing D.A.'s bankruptcy 
petition and proceeding with the bankruptcy action 
while suspended from Bankruptcy Court for the Western 
District 
of 
Wisconsin, 
Attorney 
Hammis 
violated 
SCR 20:3.4(c).23 
Referee's Report 
¶51 In her report and recommendation, the referee found 
that the OLR had met its burden to prove by clear, satisfactory, 
and convincing evidence that Attorney Hammis committed all of 
the counts of misconduct to which he pled no contest.  The 
referee noted that virtually all of the conduct stipulated to by 
Attorney Hammis occurred after the OLR had filed its complaint 
in Attorney Hammis' first disciplinary matter.  The referee said 
that many of the violations alleged in this case are similar to 
violations that occurred in Attorney Hammis' two previous 
disciplinary matters.  The referee pointed out that Attorney 
Hammis 
stipulated 
to 
committing 
five 
violations 
of 
SCR 20:8.4(c), which would have required the OLR to prove that 
                                                 
22 SCR 20:1.4(a)(5) provides:  "A lawyer shall consult with 
the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer's conduct 
when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not 
permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law." 
23 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."   
 
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
28 
 
Attorney Hammis "engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation."  The referee said that by entering 
a no contest plea to each of those counts and the facts 
supporting the counts, Attorney Hammis waived his right to 
contest 
that 
those 
counts 
in 
fact 
involved 
fraud, 
misrepresentation, dishonesty, or deceit.  The referee said that 
Attorney Hammis' argument that those counts involved mere 
negligence must be ignored.   
¶52 The referee also noted that Attorney Hammis pled no 
contest to ten counts involving trust account violations under 
SCR 20:1.15, 
one 
count 
involving 
56 
separate 
prohibited 
transactions.  The referee said, "perhaps Hammis despises the 
rules of trust accounting, has not learned them, or finds them 
too difficult to comply with, and so chooses to ignore them 
entirely."  The referee also said "his subsequent untruthful 
explanations of what occurred . . . only highlight his inherent 
dishonesty. 
 
It 
is 
difficult 
to 
understand 
what 
lesser 
corrective discipline than revocation would prompt proper 
corrective action on his part to ensure compliance with what is 
required." 
¶53 The referee went on to say that in this matter, as in 
his past disciplinary cases, Attorney Hammis developed a pattern 
whereby he would avoid answering or responding to the OLR's 
requests for information about a grievance until an order to 
show cause had been issued and then would avoid a license 
suspension by minimally responding to the OLR.  The referee 
pointed out Attorney Hammis pled no contest to 11 counts 
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
29 
 
involving his failure to respond to the OLR's request for 
information.   The referee said Attorney Hammis dismisses all of 
his violations of the duty to respond to the OLR as justified or 
minimal and claims little or no sanction should be imposed for 
those violations. 
¶54 The referee said: 
It seems from the current violations that Hammis has 
not changed his practices or his conduct found in each 
of the prior discipline decisions.  Hammis seems to do 
what he wants without regard for the Supreme Court 
rules and when caught he asserts or implies that his 
violations are merely technical irregularities, a 
nuisance that he cannot possibly be expected to 
follow.  At no point in his response brief did he 
express remorse for his transgressions, or empathy for 
those clients who filed complaints against him.  And, 
he points out in his brief that many of the technical 
violations pled to were discovered by OLR's snooping 
around 
in 
his 
business, 
his 
files, 
his 
record 
keeping. . . . Hammis' argument misses the mark. 
¶55 The referee concluded by saying: 
Revocation should be imposed when there is little hope 
that an attorney will chose to modify his or her 
behavior to the standards required in Chapter 20.  
This is Hammis' third disciplinary action and involves 
the same rule violations, the same conduct as his 
other actions.  Some attorneys violate the same rules 
Hammis has but show a genuine desire to correct their 
behavior, to learn new practices to prevent mishaps, 
and commit themselves to better communications with 
their clients.  Hammis is not among them. 
¶56 The 
referee 
said 
Attorney 
Hammis' 
two 
prior 
suspensions apparently did nothing to provoke any change in his 
law business practices.  For that reason, the referee agreed 
with the OLR's recommendation that Attorney Hammis' license to 
practice law in Wisconsin should be revoked.  The referee also 
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
30 
 
recommended, consistent with the terms of the stipulation, that 
Attorney Hammis be required to pay restitution to R.G. in the 
amount of $400, if he has not already done so.   
The Appeal 
¶57 Attorney Hammis' appeal raises three issues:  (1) Did 
the referee err in the introduction and utilization of facts and 
subsequent conclusions that were not stipulated by the parties?  
(2) Is the use of the OLR of unknown and undisclosed subpoenas 
and discovery with financial institutions a violation of due 
process?  (3) Did the referee err in the recommendation that 
Attorney Hammis' license be revoked?   
¶58 Attorney Hammis says the parties' stipulation and his 
no contest plea and separate stipulation of facts "were a 
balanced and negotiated decision made by the parties to assure 
that the format of the briefing and arguments of the parties 
would follow a series of facts that were the result of the 
agreements of the parties."  He says the referee's report made 
reference to "multiple very specific incorrect or non-stipulated 
facts."  He accuses the referee of stepping outside the 
stipulation of facts reached by the parties.  He says "the 
degree and damage to such stepping out is not completely 
determinable."24  He says the referee's reliance on non-
stipulated facts should be considered the "fruit of the 
poisonous tree."   
                                                 
24 For example, Attorney Hammis complains that the referee 
referred to details of the misconduct underlying Attorney 
Hammis' earlier disciplinary proceedings. 
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
31 
 
¶59 Attorney Hammis notes that SCR 22.03(8) provides that 
the OLR director may subpoena the respondent and others and 
compel any person to produce pertinent books, papers and 
documents.  He argues this rule is contrary to Wis. Stat. 
§ 805.07 which outlines the process and procedure for the 
service and notification to parties of subpoenas.  He says, 
"once 
again 
the 
'fruit 
of 
this 
poisonous 
tree' 
are 
significant. . . ."  
¶60 Most significantly, Attorney Hammis argues that the 
referee erred in adopting the OLR's recommendation that Attorney 
Hammis' law license should be revoked.  He argues that his 
misconduct does not demonstrate a pattern of intentionally 
inflicted harm, malfeasance or financial malfeasance to any of 
his clients.  He says without question he did make mistakes that 
were in violation of supreme court rules, but he attempts to 
paint the misconduct as not being all that serious. 
¶61 Contrary to the referee's conclusion that there is 
little hope Attorney Hammis will modify his behavior and that he 
has shown little remorse for his actions, Attorney Hammis argues 
he has acknowledged his errors and mistakes.  Rather than 
revocation of his license, he says a one-year suspension would 
be an appropriate sanction.  In the alternative, he asks that 
the entire referee report be set aside and a new referee 
appointed "and that counts connected to the issued subpoenas, 
[R.B.] and the Trust account issues are duly dismissed." 
¶62 The OLR takes the position that this court should 
endorse the referee's report, revoke Attorney Hammis' license, 
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
32 
 
and order him to pay $400 restitution to R.G.  The OLR argues 
that the referee's findings of fact are supported by the record 
and are not clearly erroneous.  The OLR says none of the facts 
that Attorney Hammis argues were outside of the parties' 
stipulation are material to the misconduct.  The OLR says, "the 
facts which Hammis identifies on appeal as erroneous or 
problematic were either immaterial or properly cited in the 
referee's report." 
¶63 The OLR says this court should reject Attorney Hammis' 
theory that the documents subpoenaed by the OLR "poisoned" the 
case.  The OLR says while disciplinary proceedings generally 
follow the rules of civil procedure, OLR investigations do not, 
and the supreme court rules do not require the OLR to notify a 
respondent when it subpoenas documents during a confidential 
investigation.   
¶64 As 
to 
the 
appropriate 
sanction, 
the 
OLR 
says 
revocation is warranted.  It points out Attorney Hammis' 
misconduct involves multiple client matters and 40 counts of 
misconduct ranging from abandonment of clients, to misleading 
clients, to false notarization, to practicing bankruptcy law 
while suspended, to serious trust account malfeasance, and 
multiple willful failures to cooperate with OLR investigations 
into his conduct.  The OLR says Attorney Hammis' misconduct 
reaches almost every aspect of practicing law and shows a 
pervasive pattern of disregarding the Rules of Professional 
Conduct. 
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
33 
 
¶65 The OLR also notes that the misconduct at issue here 
encompass the time frame from 2008 to 2012.  The OLR notes that 
frequently Attorney Hammis would resume his obligations to his 
clients only after the OLR's involvement following the filing of 
a grievance.  The OLR says the referee correctly noted that the 
misconduct at issue here is similar to the misconduct for which 
Attorney Hammis has previously been disciplined. 
¶66 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless they 
are found to be clearly erroneous.  This court reviews de novo 
the 
referee's 
conclusions 
of 
law. 
 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 
740 N.W.2d 125.  This court determines the appropriate level of 
discipline given the particular facts of the case, independent 
of the referee's recommendation but benefitting from it.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 
Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶67 By entering into the stipulation and by pleading no 
contest, 
Attorney 
Hammis 
has 
admitted 
the 
factual 
basis 
underlying the 40 counts of misconduct.  The only legitimate 
challenge he can lodge to the referee's report is the 
recommended sanction of revocation.  It was appropriate for the 
referee to note similarities between the misconduct at issue 
here and the misconduct for which Attorney Hammis was previously 
disciplined, which led her to conclude he had learned nothing 
from his previous mistakes.  Similarly, Attorney Hammis' 
complaints about the OLR's subpoenaing his bank records is 
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
34 
 
unavailing since he has admitted the trust account and other 
banking violations.   
¶68 As to the appropriate level of discipline, the facts 
alleged in the amended complaint, to which Attorney Hammis pled 
no contest, show a clear pattern of neglect of his clients' 
needs and objectives and an utter disregard for his obligations 
as an attorney.  His misconduct was not an isolated occurrence 
but occurred in nine separate client representations over the 
course of years.   
¶69 We recognize, as the dissent points out, that the 
misconduct at issue here occurred prior to Attorney Hammis' 2015 
suspension.  The complaint in this matter was filed in 2014 and 
the amended complaint was filed in 2015.  Some of the delay in 
the completion of this case was caused by Attorney Hammis' 
failure to cooperate in the OLR's investigations as well as by 
his motion practice and multiple extension motions.  While it 
may have been preferable for this matter to have been brought to 
conclusion sooner, the passage of time since Attorney Hammis' 
most recent misconduct in no way excuses or mitigates the 
misconduct. 
¶70 While Attorney Hammis portrays himself as remorseful 
and says he has accepted responsibility for his transgressions, 
some of his statements at oral argument call those assertions 
into question.  Attorney Hammis' representation of R.G. is 
illustrative.  R.G. retained Attorney Hammis in November of 2011 
and paid him $400.  Attorney Hammis never did the work.  R.G. 
terminated his representation in December of 2011 and demanded a 
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
35 
 
refund of the $400.  R.G. filed a grievance in March of 2012.  
In April of 2013 she obtained a small claims judgment against 
him.  In September of 2016, Attorney Hammis stipulated that he 
owed R.G. $400 in restitution.  When asked at oral argument why 
he had not paid R.G. the $400, Attorney Hammis replied that he 
was "waiting for a court order."  The small claims court 
rendered a judgment in favor of R.G. six years ago, and Attorney 
Hammis stipulated two and a half years ago that he needed to pay 
R.G. the $400.  The fact that this modest sum remains unpaid in 
2019 belies Attorney Hammis' claim that he is remorseful and has 
fully accepted responsibility for his actions. 
¶71 Revocation is the most serious sanction that may be 
imposed under our attorney disciplinary system and it is 
reserved for the most egregious cases.  Although Attorney 
Hammis' misconduct was undeniably very serious, we are not 
convinced that it rises to the level of warranting revocation.  
We note that the misconduct at issue here occurred between 2008 
and 2012.  Attorney Hammis stated at oral argument that he 
stepped away from his general legal practice in 2011 or 2012.  
Since that time he has performed some legal work for a company 
with which he has a long-term relationship.  He says he 
currently is representing a defendant in one felony criminal 
case.   
¶72 While no two disciplinary matters are identical, we 
find this case to be somewhat similar to In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Bryant, 2015 WI 7, 360 Wis. 2d 625, 858 
N.W.2d 681. 
 
Attorney 
Bryant 
stipulated 
to 
a 
three-year 
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
36 
 
suspension for 37 counts of misconduct including one violation 
of SCR 20:8.4(c) and multiple counts of failing to take 
meaningful action or advance his clients' interests, failing to 
properly hold unearned fees and advanced payment of fees in 
trust, converting client funds to pay himself attorney's fees, 
and failing to cooperate in the OLR's investigations.  Attorney 
Bryant had a previous consensual private reprimand. 
¶73 In addition, this case is somewhat similar to In re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Dahle, 
2015 
WI 
29, 
361 
Wis. 2d 430, 862 N.W.2d 582.  Attorney Dahle committed 55 counts 
of misconduct, including borrowing or taking some $400,000 from 
clients without regard to conflict of interest restrictions and 
requirements.  Attorney Dahle had no prior disciplinary history.  
We suspended her law license for two years and six months.  
Although the amount of money converted or mishandled by Attorney 
Hammis is much less, he does have a prior disciplinary history 
and he repeatedly failed to respond to the OLR's request for 
information after his clients had filed grievances and only when 
served with an order to show cause and faced with the possible 
suspension of his law license did he finally respond to the 
OLR's inquiries.  Under the unique facts of this case, we 
conclude that a three-year suspension of Attorney Hammis' 
license to practice law in Wisconsin is an appropriate sanction 
for his misconduct. 
¶74 We 
also 
deem 
it 
appropriate 
to 
impose 
various 
conditions upon Attorney Hammis' resumption of the practice of 
law, in the event his law license is reinstated.  Those 
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
37 
 
conditions include practicing law under the supervision of a 
legal mentor approved by the OLR for a period of two years after 
his license is reinstated; a prohibition upon ever maintaining a 
trust account; and limiting his practice to performing legal 
work for his corporate client and assisting family and friends 
in legal matters.  We also order Attorney Hammis to make 
restitution in the amount of $400 to R.G., and we order him to 
pay the full costs of this proceeding. 
¶75 IT IS ORDERED that the license of James Edward Hammis 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of three 
years, effective July 3, 2019. 
¶76 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that James Edward Hammis shall 
pay restitution of $400 to R.G. 
¶77 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order James Edward Hammis shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$13,160.22 as of March 4, 2019. 
¶78 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution to R.G. 
specified above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation. 
¶79 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that, 
as 
conditions 
of 
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin, James 
Edward Hammis be subject to the following:  (1) practicing law 
under the supervision of a legal mentor approved by the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation for a period of two years; (2) a 
prohibition upon ever maintaining a trust account; and (3) 
No. 
2014AP2244-D   
 
38 
 
limiting his practice to performing legal work for his corporate 
client and assisting family and friends in legal matters. 
¶80 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that James Edward Hammis shall 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended.   
¶81 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2). 
 
No.  2014AP2244-D.akz 
 
1 
 
¶82 ANNETTE 
KINGSLAND 
ZIEGLER, 
J.   (dissenting).  
Attorney Hammis stated, both in his brief and at oral argument, 
that in 2012 he virtually discontinued his legal practice, with 
the exception of occasionally assisting family members and 
friends——usually without charge——and performing three to five 
hours of legal work per month for a longtime corporate client.  
He no longer has a trust account and does not make his living 
from practicing law.  He stated he has no intention of expanding 
his legal practice in the future.  He has expressed remorse for 
his admitted misconduct and questions what more he could have 
done in the past seven years to alleviate concerns that his 
extremely limited practice would be a threat to his clients or 
the legal profession.   
¶83 The majority acknowledges that all of the misconduct 
at issue here occurred prior to 2015, when Attorney Hammis' 
license was suspended for 90 days, and some of the misconduct 
occurred prior to the four-month suspension imposed in 2011.  
Indeed, the complaint in this matter was filed nearly five 
months before the court issued its order imposing the 2015 
suspension.  The serial nature of the OLR's complaints against 
Attorney Hammis appears to expose a flaw in Wisconsin's attorney 
regulatory system.  If the misconduct counts at issue in this 
case and the counts at issue in the case resulting in the 90-day 
suspension had been prosecuted at the same time, the resulting 
discipline may well have been less than the three years and 
three months that was imposed in the two separate cases.  In 
spite of the fact that Attorney Hammis has virtually not 
No.  2014AP2244-D.akz 
 
2 
 
practiced law since 2012 and has committed no misconduct since 
2015, he is nonetheless being suspended for an additional three 
years in 2019 for misconduct that occurred long ago.  While the 
passage of time should not excuse misconduct, the majority fails 
to adequately justify why a three-year suspension is warranted 
given that the previous suspensions were for four months and 90 
days and there has been no misconduct in the past four years. 
¶84 The Office of Lawyer Regulation Procedures Review 
Committee recently filed a series of administrative rule 
petitions dealing with various aspects of Wisconsin's attorney 
regulatory system.  The Committee was tasked with reporting to 
this 
court 
any 
recommendations 
that 
would 
increase 
the 
efficiency, effectiveness, and fairness of the OLR process.  In 
my view, this case raises issues that warrant the court's review 
when it takes up the rules petitions.  
¶85 Given the facts and procedural history of this case, I 
am unable to conclude that a three-year suspension is warranted.  
Therefore, I respectfully dissent. 
¶86 I am authorized to state that Justice REBECCA GRASSL 
BRADLEY joins this dissent. 
 
No.  2014AP2244-D.akz 
 
 
 
1