Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Warren L. Brandt
Citation: 2012 WI 8
Docket Number: 2011AP001700-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: February 9, 2012

2012 WI 8 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2011AP1700-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Warren L. Brandt, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Warren L. Brandt, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BRANDT 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 9, 2012   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2012 WI 8
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2011AP1700-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Warren L. Brandt, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Warren L. Brandt, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 9, 2012 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   On July 26, 2011, the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR) filed a complaint alleging that Attorney 
Warren L. Brandt violated SCR 20:8.4(b)1 by engaging in conduct 
resulting in the felony conviction in Minnesota of first-degree 
driving while intoxicated within ten years of the first of three 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:8.4(b) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the 
lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in 
other respects; . . . ." 
No. 
2011AP1700-D   
 
2 
 
or more qualified prior impaired driving incidents, contrary to 
Minnesota Statutes § 169A.24.1(1).   
¶2 
On October 3, 2011, the parties executed a joint 
stipulation, so we consider the OLR's complaint and the 
stipulation without the appointment of a referee pursuant to 
SCR 22.12(1).2 
 Upon careful consideration, we adopt the 
stipulation.  We agree that the seriousness of Attorney Brandt's 
misconduct warrants the suspension of his license to practice 
law in Wisconsin for a period of four months.  We also find it 
appropriate to impose various conditions on the resumption of 
Attorney 
Brandt's 
license 
to 
practice 
law 
following 
the 
suspension.  The OLR is not seeking costs in this proceeding, 
and we agree that Attorney Brandt should not be required to pay 
costs. 
¶3 
Attorney Brandt was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1978.  He states his current address as being in 
St. Croix Falls.   
¶4 
In 1994 Attorney Brandt consented to the imposition of 
a private reprimand for using information relating to one client 
to the disadvantage of that client in a later divorce action, 
and failing to obtain the consent of his former clients prior to 
                                                 
2 SCR 22.12(1) states:  
The director may file with the complaint a 
stipulation of the director and the respondent to the 
facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and 
discipline to be imposed.  The supreme court may 
consider the complaint and stipulation without the 
appointment of a referee. 
No. 
2011AP1700-D   
 
3 
 
questioning one of them in open court during a subsequent 
divorce case. 
¶5 
In 2003 Attorney Brandt received a public reprimand 
for failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the 
status of a matter and failing to promptly comply with 
reasonable requests for information; failing to cooperate with 
the investigation; making false or misleading communications 
about himself and his services; and failing to identify on his 
office letterhead the jurisdictional limitation of an attorney 
not licensed to practice law in Wisconsin who was listed as 
being "of counsel."  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Brandt, 2003 WI 138, 266 Wis. 2d 47, 670 N.W.2d 552. 
¶6 
In 2004 a referee imposed a consensual private 
reprimand upon Attorney Brandt for failing to provide competent 
representation of clients in a civil dispute relating to 
property damage and failing to return the clients' file after 
the clients requested he do so.   
¶7 
In 2009 
Attorney Brandt received another public 
reprimand for failing to periodically review his trust account 
bank 
statements, 
cancelled 
checks, 
and 
other 
records 
in 
connection with a non-lawyer employee's management of his trust 
account, thereby enabling the non-lawyer employee to convert 
funds belonging to clients and third parties, and for engaging 
in conduct that resulted in his criminal convictions in 
Wisconsin 
for 
third 
and 
fourth 
offense 
operating 
while 
intoxicated and his previous conviction in Minnesota of first-
degree driving while intoxicated within ten years of the first 
No. 
2011AP1700-D   
 
4 
 
of three or more qualified prior impaired driving incidents.  
This court imposed various conditions upon Attorney Brandt, 
including undergoing alcohol and drug assessment and refraining 
from the consumption of alcohol and other nonprescription drugs.  
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Brandt, 2009 WI 43, 
317 Wis. 2d 266, 766 N.W.2d 194.  
¶8 
In a criminal complaint dated January 26, 2010, 
Attorney Brandt was charged in Washington County, Minnesota, 
with one felony count of first-degree driving while intoxicated 
within ten years of the first of three or more qualified prior 
impaired driving incidents, in violation of Minnesota Statute 
§ 169A.24.1(1).  He was also charged with a second felony count 
violation of the same statute for being in control of a motor 
vehicle with an alcohol concentration of .08 or more within ten 
years of the first of three or more qualified prior impaired 
driving incidents.  State of Minnesota v. Warren Lee Brandt, 
Washington County Case No. 82-CR10-349.  Both charges arose out 
of a traffic stop conducted in the early morning hours of 
January 26, 2010, by a Washington County sheriff's deputy.  The 
criminal complaint referred to Attorney Brandt's prior drunk 
driving conviction in Minnesota and his prior drunk driving 
convictions in Wisconsin, all of which occurred within ten years 
of January 26, 2010.  Attorney Brandt's blood alcohol level at 
the time of his January 26, 2010, operation of a motor vehicle 
was well over the legal limit. 
¶9 
On June 2, 2010, Attorney Brandt signed a Petition to 
Enter Plea of Guilty in Felony or Gross Misdemeanor in the 
No. 
2011AP1700-D   
 
5 
 
Minnesota case.  The plea agreement called for Attorney Brandt 
to enter a plea of guilty to the second felony charge, with the 
first charge being dismissed.   
¶10 On September 3, 2010, the Minnesota court sentenced 
Attorney Brandt for his felony conviction.  The sentencing order 
provided for 36 months commitment to the Commissioner of 
Corrections.  That term was stayed and Attorney Brandt was 
placed on seven years of probation with conditions of 180 days 
in jail, work release, and a $900 fine plus costs and various 
conditions relating to treatment and counseling. 
¶11 The OLR's complaint alleged that Attorney Brandt's 
conduct resulting in his felony drunk driving conviction in 
Minnesota was a serious criminal act that reflects adversely on 
his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other 
respects.   
¶12 The parties' stipulation states that the terms of the 
stipulation were not bargained for or negotiated between the 
parties. 
 
The 
stipulation 
consists 
of 
Attorney 
Brandt's 
admission of the facts and misconduct alleged by the OLR in its 
complaint and Attorney Brandt's agreement to the level of 
discipline that the OLR director is seeking in the matter.  
Attorney 
Brandt 
represents 
and 
verifies 
that 
he 
fully 
understands the misconduct allegations; he fully understands the 
ramifications should the court impose the stipulated level of 
discipline; he fully understands his right to contest the 
matter; he fully understands his right to consult with and 
retain counsel and waives the right to counsel; and he avers 
No. 
2011AP1700-D   
 
6 
 
that his entry into the stipulation is made knowingly and 
voluntarily. 
¶13 With respect to the appropriate level of discipline 
for Attorney Brandt's misconduct, the parties agreed that a 
four-month suspension of Attorney Brandt's license to practice 
law in Wisconsin is appropriate, along with the following 
conditions: 
A. 
Alcohol assessment conducted by a person of the OLR's 
choosing, with the costs for the same paid by Attorney Brandt; 
B. 
Attorney 
Brandt's 
compliance 
with 
all 
treatment 
recommendations;  
C. 
Attorney Brandt providing properly executed medical 
authorizations as requested by the OLR; and 
D. 
Cooperative participation by Attorney Brandt in a 
monitoring program approved by the OLR. 
¶14 The OLR's memorandum in support of the stipulation 
notes 
that 
Attorney 
Brandt 
completed 
a 
chemical 
health 
assessment with the Washington County (Minnesota) Human Services 
Department in September 2009.  During the assessment Attorney 
Brandt reported no alcohol use since September 2006, and the 
assessment 
gave 
Attorney 
Brandt's 
diagnosis 
as 
"alcohol 
dependency in remission."  Approximately four months later, 
Attorney Brandt was charged with felony drunk driving in 
Minnesota.  The OLR says given the concept of progressive 
discipline, combined with the fact that Attorney Brandt failed 
to comply with this court's condition that he refrain from the 
consumption of alcohol and the fact that protection of the 
No. 
2011AP1700-D   
 
7 
 
public is paramount, a four-month suspension is an appropriate 
sanction.  
¶15 Supreme court rule 22.12(2) provides that if this 
court approves a stipulation, it shall adopt the stipulated 
facts 
and 
conclusions 
of 
law 
and 
impose 
the 
stipulated 
discipline.  Supreme court rule 22.12(3) provides that if this 
court rejects the stipulation, a referee will be appointed and 
the matter shall proceed as a complaint filed without a 
stipulation. 
¶16 In the 2009 disciplinary proceeding that resulted in 
Attorney Brandt's most recent public reprimand, Attorney Brandt 
acknowledged that he is addicted to alcohol.  He made excuses 
for the drunk driving convictions at issue in that case by 
claiming 
they 
were 
related to the stress of the OLR's 
investigation and the fact that he had been a victim of criminal 
activity 
by 
a 
former 
non-lawyer 
employee 
who 
converted 
approximately $104,000 from his business and trust accounts to 
her own use.   
¶17 In the 2009 case this court noted the question of 
whether to impose a fourth reprimand or a suspension was a very 
close call.  We concluded, based on the circumstances of that 
case, that another public reprimand, coupled with conditions 
recommended by the referee, which included abstaining from 
alcohol consumption, was an appropriate sanction.  Justice 
Bradley dissented, expressing concern about the steps Attorney 
Brandt had taken in order to maintain sobriety.  She believed an 
appropriate sanction would have been in the range of a 60-day to 
No. 
2011AP1700-D   
 
8 
 
six-month suspension.  It appears that Justice Bradley's 
concerns were well-founded since Attorney Brandt was arrested 
for drunk driving in Minnesota less than eight months after this 
court imposed the public reprimand in June of 2009.   
¶18 One of the conditions imposed on Attorney Brandt's 
continued 
practice 
of law in the 2009 reprimand was a 
requirement that he refrain from the consumption of alcohol and 
other non-prescription drugs.  On December 7, 2011, the OLR and 
Attorney Brandt were directed to show cause to the court, in 
writing, why Attorney Brandt's resumed and continued practice of 
law should not be subject to a similar condition.  Attorney 
Brandt has not responded to the order to show cause. 
¶19 The OLR responded on December 20, 2011, by saying that 
in making his sanction recommendation, the OLR director assumed 
that abstinence would be a treatment recommendation of the 
alcohol assessor and that abstinence would also be a condition 
of Attorney Brandt's participation in the monitoring program.  
The OLR notes that Attorney Brandt is under a seven-year 
probationary term which contains a condition of absolute 
sobriety.  The OLR also notes that Minnesota statutes allow for 
conditions of probation to be changed or eliminated and for 
probation to be terminated early.  The OLR asks the court to 
include, as a condition of Attorney Brandt's resumed and 
continued practice of law, that he refrain from the consumption 
of 
alcohol 
and 
any 
mood-altering 
drugs 
without 
a 
valid 
prescription while subject to the treatment recommendation of 
No. 
2011AP1700-D   
 
9 
 
the assessor, or while subject to the monitoring program, or 
while on probation, whichever is longer. 
¶20 Upon careful consideration, we adopt the stipulated 
facts and conclusions.  We also agree that a four-month 
suspension of Attorney Brandt's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin is appropriate and we deem it appropriate to impose 
the conditions proposed in the parties' stipulation, as well as 
the added condition detailed in the OLR's December 20, 2011, 
response to the order to show cause.   
¶21 The level of discipline imposed in cases involving 
lawyer misconduct is generally progressive in nature.  See, 
e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Nussberger, 2006 WI 
111, ¶27, 296 Wis. 2d 47, 719 N.W.2d 501.  Having previously 
been the recipient of two private reprimands and two public 
reprimands, we deem it appropriate to impose a harsher level of 
discipline in this matter, particularly since the nature of the 
misconduct here is similar to the misconduct at issue in the 
2009 case.   
¶22 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Warren L. Brandt to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of four 
months, effective March 12, 2012. 
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that during the period of his 
suspension, Warren L. Brandt shall comply with the following 
conditions: 
A. 
Participate in an alcohol assessment conducted by a 
person of the Office of Lawyer Regulation's choosing, with the 
costs for the same paid by Warren L. Brandt; 
No. 
2011AP1700-D   
 
10 
 
B. 
Comply with all treatment recommendations;  
C. 
Provide properly executed medical authorizations as 
requested by the Office of Lawyer Regulation;  
D. 
Cooperatively participate in a monitoring program 
approved by the Office of Lawyer Regulation; and. 
E. 
Refrain from the consumption of alcohol and any mood-
altering drugs without a valid prescription while subject to the 
treatment recommendations of the assessor, or while subject to 
the monitoring program, or while on probation, whichever is 
longer. 
¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Warren L. Brandt shall 
comply with the requirements of SCR 22.26 pertaining to 
activities following suspension. 
 
 
 
No. 
2011AP1700-D   
 
 
 
1