Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. James G. Moldenhauer
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2015AP001966-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: May 24, 2016

2016 WI 43 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2015AP1966-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against James G. Moldenhauer, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
James G. Moldenhauer, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MOLDENHAUER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 24, 2016 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
 
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:    
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2016 WI 43
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2015AP1966-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against James G. Moldenhauer, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
James G. Moldenhauer, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 24, 2016 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.    Attorney's license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a stipulation filed pursuant 
to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12 by the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR) and Attorney James G. Moldenhauer.  In the 
stipulation, Attorney Moldenhauer agrees that he engaged in two 
counts of misconduct involving his clients, G.C. (now deceased), 
and G.C.'s wife, L.C. (collectively, the C.s.).  Attorney 
Moldenhauer also agrees that a 60-day suspension of his license 
No. 
2015AP1966-D   
 
2 
 
to practice law in Wisconsin is an appropriate sanction for his 
misconduct. The OLR does not request restitution, and it also 
does 
not 
seek 
the 
imposition 
of 
costs 
against 
Attorney 
Moldenhauer. 
¶2 
After careful review of the matter, we approve the 
stipulation and agree that a 60-day suspension of Attorney 
Moldenhauer's 
license 
to 
practice 
law 
is 
an 
appropriate 
sanction. Because this matter is being resolved without the 
appointment of a referee, we do not impose any costs on Attorney 
Moldenhauer.  No restitution was sought and none is ordered. 
¶3 
Attorney Moldenhauer was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1982.  The most recent address furnished by 
Attorney Moldenhauer to the State Bar of Wisconsin is in Eau 
Claire, Wisconsin. 
¶4 
Attorney Moldenhauer has a disciplinary history.  In 
1996, Attorney Moldenhauer consented to a private reprimand for  
misconduct 
consisting 
of 
failing 
to 
act 
with 
reasonable 
diligence, failing to communicate properly with a client, and 
failing to render a full accounting of estate funds in respose 
to a client's request.  Private Reprimand 96-28.  In 2006, 
Attorney Moldenhauer was publicly reprimanded for misconduct in 
two matters.  In the first matter, he failed to act with 
reasonable diligence, failed to return a client's file, and 
failed to cooperate with the OLR's investigation.  In the second 
matter, he failed to provide his client with an itemized billing 
statement, failed to refund the unearned portion of his advanced 
fee, and failed to cooperate in the OLR's investigation. Public 
No. 
2015AP1966-D   
 
3 
 
Reprimand of James G. Moldenhauer, 2006-11.  In 2008, Attorney 
Moldenhauer was publicly reprimanded for misconduct consisting 
of failing to communicate properly with a client, failing to act 
with reasonable diligence, and failing to obey a court order. 
Public Reprimand of James G. Moldenhauer, 2008-01.  In 2012, 
Attorney Moldenhauer was publicly reprimanded for misconduct  
consisting of failing to communicate properly with a client and 
failing to act with reasonable diligence.  Public Reprimand of 
James G. Moldenhauer, 2012-13. 
¶5 
In September 2015, the OLR filed a complaint alleging 
that Attorney Moldenhauer engaged in two counts of misconduct 
involving his clients, the C.s.  In March 2016, the OLR and 
Attorney Moldenhauer filed a stipulation pursuant to SCR 22.12.  
We take the following facts from the parties' stipulation. 
¶6 
In 2009, the C.s. hired Attorney Moldenhauer to 
represent them in a Wisconsin Department of Revenue (DOR) tax 
matter concerning the 2004 through 2007 tax years.  In July 
2011, Attorney Moldenhauer filed a petition with the Wisconsin 
Tax Appeals Commission (Commission) appealing a DOR decision 
that disposed of two cases involving the C.s.     
¶7 
On October 12, 2011, the Commission sent a Notice of 
Telephone Status Conference to Attorney Moldenhauer informing 
him that a telephone status conference would be held before a 
Commissioner on December 13, 2011 at 10:30 a.m.  The notice 
stated:  "If the Commission is unable to reach you or your 
representative by telephone, the conference will proceed, and 
the petitions for review will be subject to dismissal, pursuant 
No. 
2015AP1966-D   
 
4 
 
to Wis. Stat. §§ 802.10(7) and 805.03."  In a subsequent letter 
to the C.s., Attorney Moldenhauer stated that he had received 
the Notice of Telephone Status Conference, and that it was not 
necessary for them to attend the status conference. 
¶8 
Attorney Moldenhauer failed to appear for the December 
13, 2011 telephone status conference, despite the fact that the 
Commission called Attorney Moldenhauer's office four times at or 
about the scheduled conference time.   
¶9 
On December 14, 2011, the Commission sent a Status 
Conference Memorandum and Order to Attorney Moldenhauer.  This 
document confirmed that Attorney Moldenhauer did not appear at 
the December 13, 2011 telephone status conference; scheduled a 
telephone status conference for December 21, 2011 at 2:30 p.m.; 
and warned:  "The cases will be dismissed if Petitioners' 
attorney is not present for the status conference." 
¶10 Attorney Moldenhauer failed to appear for the December 
21, 2011 telephone status conference, despite the fact that the 
Commission called Attorney Moldenhauer's office four times at or 
about the scheduled conference time.   
¶11 During 
the 
December 
21, 
2011 
telephone 
status 
conference, DOR's attorney appeared and made a motion to dismiss 
based on Attorney Moldenhauer's failure to appear and failure to 
prosecute.  In a December 22, 2011 Order of Dismissal, the 
Commission dismissed the petition for review in the cases 
involving the C.s.   
¶12 A Notice of Appeal Information was attached to the 
December 22, 2011 Order of Dismissal.  The Notice of Appeal 
No. 
2015AP1966-D   
 
5 
 
Information had a notice of rights for rehearing or judicial 
review, the times allowed for each, and filing instructions for 
each option. 
¶13 Attorney Moldenhauer did not inform the C.s. of the 
December 22, 2011 Order of Dismissal, nor did he respond to the 
C.s.' telephone calls requesting information regarding the 
status of the cases, nor did he file a petition for a rehearing 
before the Commission or a petition for judicial review. 
¶14 In approximately March 2012, the C.s. contacted the 
Commission to inquire about the status of the cases.  Also in 
approximately 
March 
2012, 
the 
C.s. 
terminated 
Attorney 
Moldenhauer's representation. 
¶15 On March 27, 2012, the Commission sent the C.s., 
Attorney Moldenhauer, and DOR's attorney a notice that a 
telephone status conference would be held on April 5, 2012 at 
11:30 a.m.  The C.s., Attorney Moldenhauer, and DOR's attorney 
appeared for this telephone status conference. During this 
conference, the Commission informed the C.s. that the petition 
to 
review 
their 
cases 
was 
dismissed 
due 
to 
Attorney 
Moldenhauer's failure to appear at the December 13 and 21, 2011 
telephone status conferences and that the period of time in 
which to file an appeal had expired. 
¶16 In August 2012, the C.s. filed a malpractice and 
breach of contract action against Attorney Moldenhauer for his 
mishandling of their tax matters. The case eventually settled 
for $50,000. 
No. 
2015AP1966-D   
 
6 
 
¶17 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Moldenhauer's representation 
of the C.s.: 
 Count One:  By failing to appear for telephone status 
conferences on December 13 and 21, 2011, resulting in 
dismissal of [the C.s.'] cases, and thereafter by failing 
to file a petition for rehearing or a petition for judicial 
review, and by otherwise failing to act in furtherance of 
[the C.s.'] interests, [Attorney] Moldenhauer violated SCR 
20:1.3.1 
 Count Two:  By failing to keep [the C.s.] reasonably 
informed regarding the status of the cases, and by failing 
to inform [the C.s.] of the December 22, 2011 Order of 
Dismissal, and by failing to respond to [the C.s.'] 
telephone 
calls 
requesting 
information, 
[Attorney] 
Moldenhauer violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4).2 
¶18 In the stipulation, Attorney Moldenhauer agrees that 
the factual allegations in the OLR's complaint are accurate and 
that he committed the professional misconduct charged in the 
complaint. The stipulation states that Attorney Moldenhauer 
fully understands the misconduct allegations against him, his 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.3 provides:  "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
2 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4) provides:  "A lawyer shall: 
. . . .(3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status 
of the matter; (4) promptly comply with reasonable requests by 
the client for information."   
No. 
2015AP1966-D   
 
7 
 
right to contest those allegations, and the ramifications that 
would follow from this court's imposition of the stipulated 
level of discipline. The stipulation also indicates that 
Attorney Moldenhauer understands his right to counsel and is 
represented by counsel in this matter. Attorney Moldenhauer 
verifies that he is entering into the stipulation knowingly and 
voluntarily and that his entry into the stipulation represents 
his decision not to contest this matter.  Attorney Moldenhauer 
agrees in the stipulation that it would be appropriate for this 
court to impose a 60-day suspension of his license to practice 
law in Wisconsin.  
¶19 Having 
considered 
this 
matter, 
we 
approve 
the 
stipulation and adopt the stipulated facts and legal conclusions 
of professional misconduct.  From our independent review of the 
matter, 
we 
agree 
that 
a 
60-day 
suspension 
of 
Attorney 
Moldenhauer's license to practice law in Wisconsin is an 
appropriate sanction.  We agree with the OLR's observation in 
its memorandum in support of the stipulation that Attorney 
Moldenhauer's previous private and public reprimands for similar 
misconduct have not impressed upon him the importance of his 
ethical obligations.  We also note that in its memorandum, the 
OLR identifies a number of arguably similar cases in which we 
imposed a 60-day suspension, as is requested here.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ermert, 2007 WI 10, 298 Wis. 2d 
622, 726 N.W.2d 250 (attorney who had been disciplined on five 
prior occasions received a 60-day suspension for lack of 
diligence, 
failing 
to 
keep 
a 
client 
informed, 
and 
No. 
2015AP1966-D   
 
8 
 
misrepresentation); 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Lister, 2010 WI 108, 329 Wis. 2d 289, 787 N.W.2d 820 (attorney 
who had been disciplined on two prior occasions received a 60-
day suspension for lack of diligence, failing to keep a client 
informed, failing to forward the client's file to successor 
counsel and refund advanced fee payments, and failing to 
cooperate with an investigation); In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Anderson, 2010 WI 39, 324 Wis. 2d 627, 782 N.W.2d 100 
(attorney who had been disciplined on three prior occasions 
received a 60–day suspension for lack of diligence, failing to 
keep a client informed, and failing to explain matters to a 
client);  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Theobald, 2010 
WI 102, 329 Wis. 2d 1, 786 N.W.2d 834 (attorney who had been 
disciplined on two prior occasions received a 60–day suspension 
for lack of diligence and failing to keep a client informed).   
Although no two disciplinary matters are identical, we agree 
with the OLR's observation that a 60-day suspension of Attorney 
Moldenhauer's law license is consistent with the sanctions 
imposed in these arguably similar cases. 
¶20 Because 
Attorney 
Moldenhauer 
entered 
into 
a 
comprehensive stipulation under SCR 22.12, thereby obviating the 
need for the appointment of a referee and a full disciplinary 
proceeding, we do not impose any costs in this matter.   
¶21 Because Attorney Moldenhauer entered into a civil 
settlement with the C.s. related to his mishandling of their tax 
matters, we agree with the OLR that no restitution is warranted. 
No. 
2015AP1966-D   
 
9 
 
¶22 IT IS ORDERED that the license of James G. Moldenhauer 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 
days, effective June 27, 2016. 
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that James G. Moldenhauer shall 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
an attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended. 
¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this decision is required for reinstatement. See 
SCR 22.28(2). 
  
 
 
No. 
2015AP1966-D   
 
 
 
1