Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Donald Hahnfeld
Citation: 2012 WI 17
Docket Number: 2010AP002538-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: March 1, 2012

2012 WI 17 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2010AP2538-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Donald Hahnfeld, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Donald Hahnfeld, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HAHNFELD 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 1, 2012   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2012 WI 17
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2010AP2538-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Donald Hahnfeld, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Donald Hahnfeld, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 1, 2012 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review, pursuant to SCR 22.17(2),1 the 
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations of 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) states:   
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
No. 
2010AP2538-D   
 
2 
 
Referee Jonathan V. Goodman concluding that Attorney Donald 
Hahnfeld engaged in unprofessional conduct in the course of his 
practice of law in violation of the Rules of Professional 
Conduct.  The referee recommended a one-year suspension of 
Attorney 
Hahnfeld's 
license, 
restitution 
of 
$6,000, 
and 
imposition of costs, which total $7,109.37 as of August 8, 2011. 
¶2 
We 
approve 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and agree that Attorney Hahnfeld's misconduct 
warrants the suspension of his license for a period of one year.  
We also order Attorney Hahnfeld to make restitution of $6,000 to 
the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection, and we order 
him to pay the full costs of this proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney Hahnfeld was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1987 and practices in West Allis.  He was publicly 
reprimanded in 1993 for neglecting five client matters.  He was 
publicly reprimanded again in 2003 for continuing in a divorce 
representation despite a conflict of interest and for filing a 
frivolous defamation lawsuit.  In 2007 his license was suspended 
for 60 days for misconduct that included a lack of diligence, 
failure to communicate, failure to explain the basis or rate of 
his fee, failure to return a client's file, and failure to 
cooperate with the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) in three 
                                                                                                                                                             
Attorney 
Hahnfeld 
filed 
an 
untimely 
appeal. 
 
On 
September 13, 2011, this court dismissed the appeal as untimely 
and established a briefing schedule.  Attorney Hahnfeld failed 
to file a brief.  Consequently, the court considered the matter 
without briefs. 
No. 
2010AP2538-D   
 
3 
 
separate matters.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Hahnfeld, 2007 WI 123, 305 Wis. 2d 48, 739 N.W.2d 280.   
¶4 
On October 18, 2010, the OLR filed a complaint 
alleging nine counts of misconduct in connection with his 
representation of A.H., who retained him to represent her in a 
post-judgment paternity matter relating to modification of 
placement/visitation.  At the time A.H. retained Attorney 
Hahnfeld, he was the subject of a disciplinary proceeding in 
which the OLR sought a 60-day suspension of his law license.  On 
October 4, 2007, this court issued an order suspending Attorney 
Hahnfeld's license to practice law for 60 days, effective 
November 8, 2007. 
¶5 
Between the time A.H. retained Attorney Hahnfeld in 
July of 2007 and the effective date of the eventual suspension, 
A.H. and Attorney Hahnfeld corresponded regularly by e-mail and 
telephone.  In September 2007, following resolution of a support 
issue, Attorney Hahnfeld raised the issue of the costs and fees 
that would be associated with pursuing the custody/placement 
issue.  On October 3, 2007, A.H. paid Attorney Hahnfeld $6,000, 
$1,000 of which was to be applied to costs.  Attorney Hahnfeld 
did not deposit the funds in his trust account and did not 
inform A.H. in writing of a lawyer's obligation upon termination 
of the representation to refund any unearned portion of the fee 
and to provide an accounting.  The parties did not enter into a 
written attorney fee agreement. 
¶6 
From the time he received the attorney fees until the 
time of his suspension, Attorney Hahnfeld had regular contact 
No. 
2010AP2538-D   
 
4 
 
with A.H., during which he discussed a proposed motion for 
change of child placement.  He never expressly discussed his 
suspension or how it might affect his representation of A.H.   
¶7 
On October 15, 2007, the OLR sent Attorney Hahnfeld a 
letter informing him of his responsibilities upon suspension 
with respect to terminating his practice.  This included 
notification to clients and the need to file an affidavit with 
the OLR showing compliance with the suspension responsibilities.  
Attorney Hahnfeld filed an affidavit of compliance with the OLR 
dated November 30, 2007.  In the affidavit he falsely claimed he 
had one open file and that he retained no client funds in trust.  
A.H. was not listed as a client, and Attorney Hahnfeld never 
sent A.H. the required certified mail notice of his suspension.   
¶8 
On November 9, 2007, the day after his suspension took 
effect, Attorney Hahnfeld suggested to A.H. in an e-mail a 
tentative January 2008 court date.  In order to hold the court 
date, Attorney Hahnfeld would have had to file a motion in the 
case, and he was prohibited from doing this because of his 
suspension.   
¶9 
The earliest date that Attorney Hahnfeld's license 
could have been reinstated was January 7, 2008.  In fact, his 
license was not reinstated until February 12, 2008. 
¶10 In December 2007 and January 2008, A.H. and Attorney 
Hahnfeld exchanged e-mails about his representation.  Attorney 
Hahnfeld said he had another attorney assisting him with certain 
client matters.  A.H. declined Attorney Hahnfeld's offer to 
bring in another attorney, saying she was not comfortable with 
No. 
2010AP2538-D   
 
5 
 
that, and she wanted to get the proceedings moving.  At no time 
during these communications did Attorney Hahnfeld tell A.H. 
about his suspension or how his inability to practice law could 
affect her case.   
¶11 On January 24, 2008, A.H. learned from a third party 
that Attorney Hahnfeld's license had been suspended.  She e-
mailed 
Attorney 
Hahnfeld 
that 
same 
day 
terminating 
the 
representation and requesting a full refund.  Attorney Hahnfeld 
never refunded any money to A.H.  The State Bar of Wisconsin's 
Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection subsequently paid A.H. 
$6,000. 
¶12 A.H. filed a grievance with the OLR on April 3, 2008.  
Attorney Hahnfeld failed to timely respond to the OLR's requests 
for information about the grievance. 
¶13 On October 18, 2010, the OLR filed a complaint 
alleging the following counts of misconduct with respect to 
Attorney Hahnfeld's representation of A.H.: 
COUNT 1 
[COUNT 1]  By failing to deposit $5,000.00 in 
payment of legal fees in trust and/or failing to 
inform 
the 
client 
in 
writing 
of 
the 
lawyer's 
obligation upon termination of the representation to 
refund any unearned portion of the fee and to provide 
an 
accounting, 
[Attorney] 
Hahnfeld 
violated 
SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) and (4m).2 
                                                 
2 SCRs 20:1.15(b)(4) and (4m) state as follows: 
(4)  Unearned fees and cost advances.  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).  
No. 
2010AP2538-D   
 
6 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
Funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for payment of 
costs shall be held in trust until the costs are 
incurred. 
(4m)  Alternative protection for advanced fees.  
A lawyer who accepts advanced payments of fees may 
deposit the funds in the lawyer's business account, 
provided that review of the lawyer’s fee by a court of 
competent jurisdiction is available in the proceeding 
to which the fee relates, or provided that the lawyer 
complies with each of the following requirements: 
a. Upon accepting any advanced payment of fees 
pursuant to this subsection, the lawyer shall deliver 
to the client a notice in writing containing all of 
the following information: 
1. the amount of the advanced payment; 
2. the basis or rate of the lawyer's fee; 
3. any expenses for which the client will be 
responsible; 
4. that the lawyer has an obligation to refund 
any unearned advanced fee, along with an accounting, 
at the termination of the representation; 
5. that the lawyer is required to submit any 
unresolved 
dispute 
about 
the 
fee 
to 
binding 
arbitration within 30 days of receiving written notice 
of such a dispute; and 
6. the ability of the client to file a claim with 
the Wisconsin lawyers' fund for client protection if 
the lawyer fails to provide a refund of unearned 
advanced fees. 
b. Upon termination of the representation, the 
lawyer shall deliver to the client in writing all of 
the following: 
1. a final accounting, or an accounting from the 
date of the lawyer's most recent statement to the end 
of the representation, regarding the client's advanced 
fee payment with a refund of any unearned advanced 
fees; 
No. 
2010AP2538-D   
 
7 
 
[COUNT 2]  By failing to hold in trust the 
$1,000.00 [A.H.] paid to him for anticipated costs in 
connection 
with 
her 
representation, 
[Attorney] 
Hahnfeld violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(4). 
[COUNT 3]  By failing to refund advance fees and 
costs 
upon 
termination 
of 
the 
representation, 
[Attorney] Hahnfeld violated SCR 20:1.16(d).3 
                                                                                                                                                             
2. notice that, if the client disputes the amount 
of the fee and wants that dispute to be submitted to 
binding arbitration, the client must provide written 
notice of the dispute to the lawyer within 30 days of 
the mailing of the accounting; and 
3. notice that, if the lawyer is unable to 
resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of the client 
within 30 days after receiving notice of the dispute 
from the client, the lawyer shall submit the dispute 
to binding arbitration. 
c. Upon timely receipt of written notice of a 
dispute from the client, the lawyer shall attempt to 
resolve that dispute with the client, and if the 
dispute is not resolved, the lawyer shall submit the 
dispute to binding arbitration with the State Bar Fee 
Arbitration Program or a similar local bar association 
program within 30 days of the lawyer's receipt of the 
written notice of dispute from the client.  
d. Upon receipt of an arbitration award requiring 
the lawyer to make a payment to the client, the lawyer 
shall pay the arbitration award within 30 days, unless 
the client fails to agree to be bound by the award of 
the arbitrator. 
3 SCR 20:1.16(d) states: 
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. 
2010AP2538-D   
 
8 
 
[COUNT 4]  By failing to timely notify [A.H.] by 
certified 
mail 
of his suspension and consequent 
inability 
to 
act 
as 
an 
attorney 
following 
the 
effective date of his suspension, [Attorney] Hahnfeld 
violated SCR 22.26(1)(a).4 
[COUNT 5]  By failing to list [A.H.] as a client 
in the affidavit he filed with OLR showing compliance 
with the requirements following suspension, [Attorney] 
Hahnfeld violated SCR 22.26[(1)](e)(iii),5 enforced via 
SCR 20:8.4(f).6 
[COUNT 6]  By continuing to represent [A.H.] 
throughout the period of his suspension, [Attorney] 
Hahnfeld engaged in the practice of law, in violation 
of SCR 22.26(2),7 enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f).  
                                                 
4 SCR 22.26(1)(a) provides as follows: 
On or before the effective date of license 
suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 
suspended or revoked shall do all of the following: 
(a) Notify by certified mail all clients being 
represented in pending matters of the suspension or 
revocation and of the attorney's consequent inability 
to act as an attorney following the effective date of 
the suspension or revocation. 
5 SCR 22.26(1)(e)(iii) states: 
Within 25 days after the effective date of 
suspension or revocation, file with the director an 
affidavit showing all of the following:  . . .  
(iii) A list of clients in all pending matters 
and a list of all matters pending before any court or 
administrative agency, together with the case number 
of each matter. 
6 SCR 20:8.4(f) states 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; . . . ." 
7 SCR 22.26(2) states: 
No. 
2010AP2538-D   
 
9 
 
[COUNT 7]  By stating in this affidavit dated 
November 30, 2007, filed pursuant to SCR 22.26(e), he 
only had one open file and that he retained no client 
funds in trust when, in fact, he was representing 
[A.H.] and [A.H.'s] funds remained in his possession, 
[Attorney] 
Hahnfeld 
engaged 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, in 
violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).8 
[COUNT 8]  By failing to timely respond to OLR 
requests for additional information in connection with 
the 
investigation, 
[Attorney] 
Hahnfeld 
failed 
to 
cooperate in the investigation of the grievance, in 
violation 
of 
SCR 
22.03(6),9 
enforced 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(h).10 
[COUNT 9]  By informing OLR in response to the 
[A.H.] grievance he had fully discussed his impending 
                                                                                                                                                             
An attorney whose license to practice law is 
suspended or revoked or who is suspended from the 
practice of law may not engage in this state in the 
practice 
of 
law 
or 
in 
any 
law 
work 
activity 
customarily done by law students, law clerks, or other 
paralegal personnel, except that the attorney may 
engage in law related work in this state for a 
commercial employer itself not engaged in the practice 
of law.   
8 SCR 20:8.4(c) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation; . . . ." 
9 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. 
10 SCR 20:8.4(h) states 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); . . . ." 
No. 
2010AP2538-D   
 
10 
 
suspension with his client and made arrangements for 
the handling of her case by other lawyers while he was 
suspended, 
[Attorney] 
Hahnfeld 
made 
a 
misrepresentation 
in 
a 
disclosure 
during 
an 
investigation, in violation of SCR 22.03(6), enforced 
via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶14 Attorney Hahnfeld filed an answer to the complaint on 
December 3, 2010.  Jonathan V. Goodman was appointed referee in 
the matter.  A hearing was held before the referee on May 26, 
2011.  On July 19, 2011, the referee issued his report and 
recommendation.  The referee found that the OLR had met its 
burden of proof with respect to all nine counts of misconduct 
alleged in the complaint.  The referee recommended that Attorney 
Hahnfeld's license be suspended for one year.  The referee also 
recommended that as conditions for the eventual reinstatement of 
his license, Attorney Hahnfeld be required to reimburse the 
Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection in the amount of $6,000 and 
that he pay the full costs of the proceeding. 
¶15 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless 
clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.  
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 
14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  The court may impose 
whatever sanction it sees fit regardless of the referee's 
recommendation.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.   
¶16 There is no showing that any of the referee's findings 
of fact are clearly erroneous.  Accordingly, we adopt them.  We 
also agree with the referee's conclusions of law that the OLR 
met its burden of proof with respect to all of the counts of 
No. 
2010AP2538-D   
 
11 
 
misconduct alleged in its complaint.  We further agree that a 
one-year suspension of Attorney Hahnfeld's license to practice 
law is an appropriate level of discipline for his misconduct.  
Although 
the 
referee 
recommended 
that 
Attorney 
Hahnfeld 
reimburse the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection and pay the 
full costs of the proceeding as conditions of his subsequent 
potential reinstatement, we deem it appropriate to order 
restitution and payment of costs regardless of whether Attorney 
Hahnfeld ever seeks reinstatement. 
¶17 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Donald Hahnfeld to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for one year, effective 
April 2, 2012. 
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Donald Hahnfeld reimburse the Wisconsin Lawyers' 
Fund for Client Protection in the amount of $6,000.  
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Donald Hahnfeld shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If the costs are not 
paid within the time specified and Donald Hahnfeld has not 
entered into a payment plan approved by the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation, then the Office of Lawyer Regulation is authorized 
to move this court for a further suspension of the license of 
Donald Hahnfeld to practice law in Wisconsin. 
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Donald Hahnfeld shall 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
an attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended.  
 
No. 
2010AP2538-D   
 
 
 
1