Title: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. William D. Whitnall
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1998AP003408-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: October 22, 1999

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
98-3408-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against William D. Whitnall, Attorney at  
Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional  
Responsibility,  
 
Complainant, 
 
 
v. 
 
William D. Whitnall,  
 
Respondent.  
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST WHITNALL 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
October 22, 1999 
Submitted on Briefs: 
      
Oral Argument: 
      
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
      
 
Dissented: 
      
 
Not Participating:       
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
      
 
No. 
98-3408-D 
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 98-3408-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against William D. Whitnall, Attorney at  
Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional  
Responsibility,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
William D. Whitnall,  
 
          Respondent.  
FILED 
 
OCT 22, 1999  
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM   We review the report of the referee 
recommending that the license of William D. Whitnall to practice 
law in Wisconsin be suspended for 60 days as discipline for 
professional misconduct.  That misconduct consisted of his 
failure to file and serve an answer in a civil forfeiture 
proceeding timely and appear at scheduled motion hearings in 
that matter and for failure to respond timely to requests from 
the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board) in 
connection with its investigation of professional misconduct 
allegations in another matter.   
No. 
98-3408-D 
 
2 
¶2 
We determine that the appropriate discipline to impose 
for Attorney Whitnall's professional misconduct established in 
this proceeding is a 60-day license suspension.  Attorney 
Whitnall has been disciplined for professional misconduct three 
times previously, and a license suspension is needed to impress 
upon him the seriousness of his professional obligations to his 
clients 
and 
to 
the 
authority 
charged 
with 
investigating 
allegations of attorney professional misconduct.   
¶3 
Attorney Whitnall was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1968 and practices in Racine.  He has been 
disciplined 
for 
professional 
misconduct 
on 
three 
prior 
occasions.  In 1986, the Board privately reprimanded him for 
acting in the presence of a conflict of interest, neglect of a 
legal matter, and failure to communicate with a client.  In 
1992, the court suspended his license for 18 months as 
discipline for endorsing, without authorization, the name of an 
insurer on a settlement check and negotiating that check without 
making payment from the proceeds of the amount owing to that 
insurer, continuing to practice law while suspended from 
practice for failure to comply with continuing legal education 
requirements, refusing to promptly transfer a client's file to 
successor counsel upon the client's request, applying to his 
fees a portion of a client's retainer designated to be used for 
the client's bail, failing to promptly refund an unearned 
retainer to a client, and failing to respond to requests from 
the 
Board 
during 
its 
investigation 
into 
his 
conduct.  
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Whitnall, 167 Wis. 2d 702, 482 
No. 
98-3408-D 
 
3 
N.W.2d 648.  In 1994, the court suspended his license for 60 
days as discipline for failing to pursue diligently a client's 
personal injury action, to respond to requests for discovery in 
that action and appear at a hearing on a motion to dismiss, and 
to notify his client timely of the dismissal and take action to 
reopen the case.  Disciplinary Proceedings Against Whitnall, 181 
Wis. 2d 1, 511 N.W.2d 584. 
¶4 
The 
referee in 
the 
instant 
proceeding, Attorney 
Kathleen Callan Brady, held a disciplinary hearing and made 
findings of fact concerning Attorney Whitnall's conduct in his 
representation in the fall of 1996 of a client charged with 
marijuana possession and recklessly endangering safety.  That  
client also was named defendant in a civil forfeiture action 
seeking to seize the automobile he had been driving at the time 
of the crimes.  Attorney Whitnall prepared an answer to the 
forfeiture 
complaint 
but 
neither 
sought 
nor 
received 
an 
extension of time to file and serve it.  When the answer was 
filed and served beyond the statutory time, the prosecutor moved 
to strike it.   
¶5 
At about the same time, Attorney Whitnall filed 
motions for leave to withdraw as the client's counsel in the 
forfeiture 
action 
and 
to 
withdraw 
from 
the 
client's 
representation in the criminal action.  He did not appear at the 
hearing on those motions, and his motion to withdraw in the 
forfeiture action was denied.  He also failed to appear at the 
adjourned hearing on the motion to strike his answer, and the 
No. 
98-3408-D 
 
4 
court determined that the client was in default and ordered 
forfeiture of the automobile.   
¶6 
In a separate matter, the Board wrote to Attorney 
Whitnall in August 1997 requesting his response to a grievance 
that had been filed by a client in a sentence modification 
matter.  Attorney Whitnall did not respond to that inquiry or to 
a subsequent certified letter from the Board requesting a 
response.   
¶7 
On the basis of those facts, the referee concluded 
that Attorney Whitnall's failure to file and serve an answer in 
the forfeiture proceeding timely and appear at scheduled motion 
hearings constituted a failure to act with reasonable diligence 
and promptness in representing a client, in violation of SCR 
20:1.3.1  The referee concluded further that Attorney Whitnall 
failed to cooperate with the Board's investigation into his 
conduct in the other matter, in violation of SCR 21.03(4) and 
22.07(2).2   
                     
1 SCR 20:1.3 provides:  Diligence 
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing a client.  
 
2 SCR 21.03(4) provides: 
Every attorney shall cooperate with the board and 
the administrator in the investigation, prosecution 
and disposition of grievances and complaints filed 
with or by the board or administrator. 
 
SCR 22.07(2) provides:  
During the course 
of an 
investigation, the 
administrator or a committee may notify the respondent 
No. 
98-3408-D 
 
5 
¶8 
As 
discipline 
for 
that 
misconduct, 
the 
referee 
recommended a 60-day license suspension.  The referee observed 
that the misconduct was of the same type for which Attorney 
Whitnall had been disciplined previously.  Concerning his 
failure to cooperate in the Board's investigation, the referee 
noted that Attorney Whitnall ultimately cooperated with the 
district professional responsibility committee and that his 
failure to respond timely to the Board's initial letters of 
inquiry 
was 
mitigated 
by 
health 
problems 
he 
had 
been 
experiencing.  Taking the mitigating and aggravating factors 
into account, the referee determined that it is necessary to 
impress upon Attorney Whitnall the seriousness of his misconduct 
in order to prevent similar misconduct on his part in the 
future.   
¶9 
We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions 
of 
law 
and 
determine 
that 
a 
60-day 
license 
suspension is the appropriate discipline to impose for Attorney 
Whitnall's 
professional 
misconduct 
established 
in 
this 
                                                                  
of the subject being investigated. The respondent 
shall 
fully 
and 
fairly 
disclose 
all 
facts 
and 
circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct or 
medical incapacity within 20 days of being served by 
ordinary mail a request for response to a grievance. 
The administrator in his or her discretion may allow 
additional 
time 
to 
respond. 
Failure 
to 
provide 
information or misrepresentation in a disclosure is 
misconduct. The administrator or committee may make a 
further investigation before making a recommendation 
to the board.  
 
No. 
98-3408-D 
 
6 
proceeding.  We also require that he pay the costs of this 
disciplinary proceeding, as the referee recommended. 
¶10 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney William D. 
Whitnall to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for 60 days, 
commencing November 22, 1999.   
¶11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Attorney William D. Whitnall pay to the Board of 
Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility 
the 
costs 
of 
this 
proceeding, provided that in the event 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 
William D. Whitnall to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain 
suspended until further order of the court.  
¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney William D. 
Whitnall comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the 
duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin 
has been suspended.  
 
 
1