Title: OLR v. Thomas E. Warmington
Citation: 2011 WI 87
Docket Number: 1997AP000457-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: September 20, 2011

2011 WI 87 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
1997AP457-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Thomas E. Warmington, Attorney at Law. 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Thomas E. Warmington, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
REINSTATEMENT PETITION OF WARMINGTON 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
September 20, 2011   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2011 WI 87
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   1997AP457-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Thomas E. Warmington, Attorney at Law. 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Thomas E. Warmington, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
SEP 20, 2011 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
reinstatement 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
reinstated. 
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   We 
review 
a 
referee's 
report 
recommending that Thomas E. Warmington's license to practice law 
in Wisconsin be reinstated.   
¶2 
We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and conclude that Attorney Warmington's 
license to practice law should be reinstated.  We further direct 
Attorney Warmington to pay the costs of the reinstatement 
proceedings, which total $3,436.90 as of March 11, 2011.   
No. 
1997AP457-D   
 
2 
 
¶3 
Attorney Warmington was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1977 and practiced in Brookfield until he closed 
his practice in November, 1996.  On October 1, 1997, his license 
to practice law was revoked based on five grievance complaints 
of numerous counts of misconduct including transferring client 
funds to his own use; failing to properly deliver funds to a 
client entitled to them; failing to respond to a client's calls 
and messages regarding her settlement proceeds; failing to hold 
client funds in a trust account; making misrepresentations to a 
client concerning receipt of funds belonging to the client; 
failing to keep a complete record of trust account funds and 
other trust property; failing to provide competent, diligent, 
and prompt representation to a client; and failing to respond to 
numerous letters and telephone calls from the Board of Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility (BAPR), the predecessor to the 
Office 
of 
Lawyer 
Regulation 
(OLR). 
 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Warmington, 212 Wis. 2d 657, 568 N.W.2d 641 
(1997).   
¶4 
Prior to his revocation, Attorney Warmington had been 
disciplined for professional misconduct on two other occasions.  
In 1991 he consented to a public reprimand for failing to 
communicate with clients who had retained him to pursue a 
medical malpractice action; misrepresenting that he had filed an 
action; and failing to cooperate in BAPR's investigation of the 
matter.  In 1995 Attorney Warmington consented to a public 
reprimand for failing to notify a client of his receipt of the 
client's funds he had collected on the client's behalf; failing 
No. 
1997AP457-D   
 
3 
 
to deliver the funds to the client for more than two years; 
failing to keep the client informed about the status of 
collection matters and failing to respond to reasonable requests 
for information from the client; and failing to respond to 
inquiries from BAPR. 
¶5 
On April 29, 2010, Attorney Warmington filed a 
petition for reinstatement.  The OLR filed a response to the 
petition on November 10, 2010, and did not oppose the petition 
for reinstatement.  Hannah C. Dugan was appointed referee in the 
matter.  A hearing was held before the referee on January 12, 
2011.  On February 21, 2011, the referee issued a report 
recommending that Attorney Warmington's license to practice law 
in Wisconsin should be reinstated.  The referee also recommends 
that Attorney Warmington be required to pay the full costs of 
the proceeding.  
¶6 
In her report, the referee noted that during the 
initial 
phases 
of 
the 
reinstatement 
process, 
Attorney 
Warmington's 
cooperation 
and 
timeliness 
in 
submitting 
documentation supporting his position seemed somewhat reluctant. 
The referee said Attorney Warmington eventually did present 
comprehensive written statements, documents, and testimony which 
assuaged the referee's concerns about Attorney Warmington's 
remorse about his misconduct and his attitude towards meeting 
the professional standards imposed on a member of the Wisconsin 
bar.   
¶7 
The 
referee 
said 
the 
testimony 
of 
Attorney 
Warmington's wife, 
herself a non-practicing attorney, was 
No. 
1997AP457-D   
 
4 
 
convincing 
with 
respect 
to 
Attorney 
Warmington's 
current 
appreciation of meeting professional standards.  Mrs. Warmington 
referenced the difference between her husband's current state 
regarding meeting responsibilities and his state 14 years ago, 
and she commented on the diligence with which he has pursued and 
complied with the medical assistance for health conditions that 
was asserted as a mitigating factor with respect to his previous 
failure 
to 
perform 
according 
to 
Wisconsin 
law 
licensure 
standards and which resulted in the determination that his 
license to practice law be revoked.  
¶8 
The referee also noted that during his testimony at 
the 
evidentiary 
hearing, 
Attorney 
Warmington 
adequately 
explained 
his 
failure 
initially 
to 
cooperate 
with 
the 
reinstatement 
investigation. 
 
The 
referee 
said 
Attorney 
Warmington's testimony included a plan upon reinstatement that 
seemed to reflect a proper understanding of and attitude towards 
the standards that are imposed upon members of the bar and his 
intent to meet them.  The referee noted Attorney Warmington's 
stated intention, if his license to practice is reinstated, is 
to serve as in-house counsel of a corporation, in which position 
he would review and negotiate contracts.   
¶9 
The referee noted that Attorney Warmington's prior 
discipline involved significant misconduct and professional 
lapses 
in 
client 
communications 
and 
failures 
in 
meeting 
professional expectations, particularly in matters of ethical 
law office management.  The referee commented that in his plan 
for reinstatement of his law license, Attorney Warmington 
No. 
1997AP457-D   
 
5 
 
presented a realistic means by which he intends to meet the 
professional standards required of attorneys.  The referee noted 
that Attorney Warmington stated the work he intends to pursue 
does not necessarily require a law license but that having a 
license is an important credential for him, and it is also an 
important 
credential 
to 
potential 
employers. 
 
Attorney 
Warmington said he does not intend to engage in the private 
practice of law, and the referee said she would be hesitant to 
recommend reinstatement if Attorney Warmington intended to 
return to solo private practice.   
¶10 The referee concluded that Attorney Warmington met his 
burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that he has the 
character to practice law in Wisconsin, that he can act in 
conformity with the standards imposed by the members of the bar, 
can be safely recommended to the legal profession, and has 
complied 
with 
the 
conditions 
of 
his 
revocation 
and 
all 
applicable supreme court rules.   
¶11 The standard to be met for reinstatement of a law 
license is provided in SCR 22.31(1).1  The petitioner has the 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.31(1) states: 
The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating, 
by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence, all 
of the following: 
(a) That he or she has the moral character to 
practice law in Wisconsin. 
(b) That his or her resumption of the practice of 
law will not be detrimental to the administration of 
justice or subversive of the public interest. 
No. 
1997AP457-D   
 
6 
 
burden of demonstrating "by clear, satisfactory, and convincing 
evidence" that the lawyer has the moral character to practice 
law, that the lawyer's resumption of the practice of law will 
not 
be 
detrimental 
to 
the 
administration 
of 
justice 
or 
subversive of the public interest, and that the lawyer has 
complied with SCR 22.26 and the terms of the suspension.  In 
addition, SCR 22.29(4) sets forth related requirements that a 
petition for reinstatement must show.  All of these additional 
requirements are effectively incorporated into SCR 22.31(1).   
¶12 After careful review of the record, we agree with the 
referee that Attorney Warmington has established by clear, 
satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he has satisfied all 
the criteria necessary for reinstatement.  Accordingly, we adopt 
the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law, and we 
accept the referee's recommendation to reinstate Attorney 
Warmington's license to practice law in Wisconsin.  Because we 
share 
the 
referee's 
concern 
about 
Attorney 
Warmington's 
returning to solo private practice, we find it appropriate to 
impose conditions upon his resumption of the practice of law.  
We further direct Attorney Warmington to pay the costs of the 
reinstatement proceedings. 
                                                                                                                                                             
(c) That 
his or her representations in the 
petition, including the representations required by 
SCR 
22.29(4)(a) 
to 
[(4m)] 
and 
22.29(5), 
are 
substantiated. 
(d) That he or she has complied fully with the 
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and 
with the requirements of SCR 22.26. 
No. 
1997AP457-D   
 
7 
 
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement of 
the license of Thomas E. Warmington to practice law in Wisconsin 
is granted, effective the date of this order. 
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for a period of three years 
following his resumption of the practice of law, the following 
conditions shall be imposed upon Thomas E. Warmington's practice 
of law: 
A. 
Thomas E. Warmington shall not practice law in a solo 
private practice. 
B. 
In the event that Thomas E. Warmington practices law 
in a partnership or law firm setting, he shall engage in the 
practice under the direct supervision of a licensed attorney 
acceptable to and approved by the Office of Lawyer Regulation.  
The supervising attorney shall have all the duties generally 
held by a supervising attorney under SCR 20:5.1(b). 
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 180 days of the date 
of this order, Thomas E. Warmington shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If the costs 
are not paid within the time specified, and absent a showing to 
this court of his inability to pay those costs within that time, 
the license of Attorney Warmington to practice law in Wisconsin 
shall be suspended until further order of the court.   
 
 
No. 
1997AP457-D   
 
 
 
1