Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Charles R. Koehn
Citation: 2006 WI 50
Docket Number: 2005AP002034-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: May 19, 2006

2006 WI 50 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2005AP2034-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Charles R. Koehn, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Charles R. Koehn, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KOEHN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 19, 2006   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2006 WI 50
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2005AP2034-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Charles R. Koehn, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Charles R. Koehn, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 19, 2006 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that Attorney Charles R. Koehn's license to practice law 
in Wisconsin be revoked for professional misconduct.  That 
misconduct involves multiple rules violations with respect to 19 
clients, as well as practicing law on at least ten occasions 
while his license was suspended for nonpayment of mandatory 
state bar dues.  The referee also recommended that Attorney 
Koehn be required to pay restitution and the costs of these 
No. 
2005AP2034-D   
 
2 
 
proceedings, which are $2959.58 as of February 6, 2006.  We 
determine that the seriousness of Attorney Koehn's professional 
misconduct warrants revocation of his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin. 
¶2 
Attorney Koehn was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1977 and practiced in Green Bay.  He has been 
subject to four previous instances of discipline.  In 1991 he 
was privately reprimanded for failing to adequately consult with 
and represent a client.  In 1997 his license was suspended for 
60 days as a result of his failure to represent and advise his 
client, his misrepresentation to the court, to a prosecutor and 
a client, his failure to act with reasonable diligence, and his 
failure to refund fees.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Koehn, 208 Wis. 2d 128, 559 N.W.2d 908 (1997).  In 2000 
Koehn was publicly reprimanded for failing to respond to a court 
order and file a jurisdictional statement and brief, failing to 
respond to client inquiries, and an incompetent handling of an 
appeal.  Koehn's license was temporarily suspended in 2005 for 
failing to cooperate with the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
investigations involving seven matters.  Due to his continuing 
failure 
to 
cooperate 
with 
the 
OLR, 
his 
license 
remains 
temporarily suspended.   
¶3 
In August 2005 the OLR filed a 61-count complaint 
against Attorney Koehn.  Personal service of the initial 
complaint was obtained on September 9, 2005.  In October 2005 an 
amended complaint alleging 30 more counts was filed.  Konrad 
Tuchscherer was appointed referee.  He determined that the OLR 
No. 
2005AP2034-D   
 
3 
 
had made diligent efforts to serve the amended complaint, and 
further 
determined 
that 
in 
November 
2005 
service 
was 
accomplished by mailing.  Attorney Koehn did not file an answer, 
or make any appearance despite adequate notice and multiple 
opportunities to respond. 
¶4 
In December 2005 a telephonic default motion hearing 
was held.  The OLR appeared and Attorney Koehn did not.  The OLR 
advised that three sets of motion papers were mailed to Attorney 
Koehn on December 9, 2005, and only the set addressed to his now 
vacated office was returned by the U.S. Postal Service.  The 
referee granted the OLR's motion for default judgment.  The 
referee issued his report containing findings of fact and 
conclusions of law with respect to 19 clients, as well as 
Attorney Koehn's practicing of law while his license was 
suspended for nonpayment of mandatory bar dues.   
¶5 
Many of the rules violations alleged in the OLR's 
complaint arose from Attorney Koehn accepting retainer fees from 
clients, having little or no contact with them, failing to 
provide the necessary legal services and then refusing to refund 
any part of the unearned retainer fees.  Because Attorney Koehn 
did not contest the complaint's allegations or challenge the 
referee's findings, we deem it unnecessary to belabor this 
opinion with the details regarding his numerous instances of 
misconduct.  Therefore, rather than reciting the extensive facts 
found in the referee's 357 paragraph report regarding the 19 
clients and 91 counts, this opinion limits its discussion to one 
client matter as an example of the misconduct described in the 
No. 
2005AP2034-D   
 
4 
 
referee's report.  It is sufficient to note that the referee's 
findings demonstrate Attorney Koehn's flagrant and widespread 
infractions of rules of professional conduct. 
¶6 
Consistent 
with 
the 
complaint's 
allegations, 
the 
referee found that in March 2004 D.R. hired Attorney Koehn to 
represent his son, E.R., who resided out of state and was under 
police investigation for a possible homicide-related charge.  
Attorney Koehn had previously told D.R., in a different matter, 
that because the assistant district attorney was Attorney 
Koehn's brother-in-law, Attorney Koehn could obtain a favorable 
result.  D.R. obtained a favorable result in the previous matter 
and believed it was due to Attorney Koehn's claimed familial 
connections.  Therefore, D.R.'s belief that Attorney Koehn had 
"pull" with the authorities led him to hire Attorney Koehn to 
represent his son.   
¶7 
D.R. paid Attorney Koehn a retainer of $8000 in the 
form 
of 
a 
cashier's 
check 
that 
Attorney 
Koehn 
cashed 
approximately two weeks later.  Attorney Koehn did not deposit 
any of the funds into his client trust account.  There was no 
retainer agreement and Attorney Koehn did not explain the basis 
or rate of the fee, nor did he state whether E.R. would be 
charged at an hourly rate for his representation.   
¶8 
D.R. and his wife had two brief meetings with Attorney 
Koehn about E.R.'s legal matters.  During the first meeting in 
March 2004 Attorney Koehn called the district attorney's office 
to advise that he was representing E.R.  Attorney Koehn then 
told D.R. that he would go to the out-of-state location to speak 
No. 
2005AP2034-D   
 
5 
 
with E.R. and to have E.R. sign representation papers.  Attorney 
Koehn told D.R. that it was good that E.R. had left the state 
and that he should not come back.  Other than having one other 
brief meeting with D.R. and his wife, Attorney Koehn performed 
no work on E.R.'s matter and never contacted him. 
¶9 
D.R. called Attorney Koehn's office several times to 
learn what was happening in his son's case but never received a 
response.  In July 2004 D.R. finally got through to Attorney 
Koehn and asked him to return the retainer fee because Attorney 
Koehn had not done what he said he would do.  Attorney Koehn 
responded 
that 
E.R. 
still 
needed 
Attorney 
Koehn's 
representation.  When D.R. said that he would ask the district 
attorney about the matter himself, Attorney Koehn threatened to 
tell the authorities exactly where his son was.   
¶10 Thereafter, D.R. called Attorney Koehn's office many 
more times to request a refund but never received a response.  
In February 2005 D.R. asked the sheriff about the investigation 
concerning his son and was told that no charges were going to be 
brought due to lack of evidence.   
¶11 Previously, in October 2004 D.R. had learned that his 
other son, A.R., who was on probation, was facing a possible 
one-year probation extension.  D.R. had decided to ask Attorney 
Koehn to earn some of the $8000 already paid by representing 
A.R. concerning the probation matter.  Attorney Koehn said that 
he would represent A.R. for $2000 and subtract that amount from 
the $8000 already paid for E.R.'s matters.   
No. 
2005AP2034-D   
 
6 
 
¶12 In December 2004 a petition to extend A.R.'s probation 
was filed and D.R. delivered a copy of the petition to Attorney 
Koehn's office.  When Attorney Koehn read the petition and saw 
who the prosecutor was, he told D.R., "[a]t least they put it in 
the right hands, I'm having Christmas dinner with [him]."  
Additionally, Attorney Koehn told D.R. that the prosecutor's 
brother, a judge, was also his brother-in-law, and that Attorney 
Koehn was "connected."  However, neither the prosecutor nor the 
judge was Attorney Koehn's brother-in-law. 
¶13 Attorney Koehn never met with A.R. after their initial 
conference 
in 
October 
2004 
despite 
repeated 
unsuccessful 
attempts by D.R. to contact Attorney Koehn to discuss the case.  
The motion to extend A.R.'s probation was scheduled for a 
hearing in February 2005.  D.R. took letters of recommendation 
and other supporting documents for A.R. to Attorney Koehn's 
office prior to the scheduled hearing date.  Attorney Koehn did 
not appear at the February 4 hearing.  When the district 
attorney called Attorney Koehn, Attorney Koehn stated he was in 
court on another matter.  The court allowed Attorney Koehn to 
appear by telephone.  Attorney Koehn, however, never told A.R. 
that he would be unable to attend the hearing personally. 
¶14 The 
court 
granted 
the 
motion 
to 
extend 
A.R.'s 
probation for one year.  A.R. did not get a chance to testify as 
he had hoped, nor have the court review the supporting 
documents, which were in Attorney Koehn's possession.   
¶15 Subsequently, 
A.R. 
terminated 
Attorney 
Koehn's 
representation and requested the court reconsider his probation 
No. 
2005AP2034-D   
 
7 
 
request.  The court granted A.R.'s request and after a new 
hearing in March 2005, at which A.R. represented himself, the 
court approved a proposal to change A.R.'s probation extension 
from one year to six months.   
¶16 In January 2005 D.R. had been served with a petition 
for a temporary restraining order and an injunction.  D.R. 
decided to ask Attorney Koehn to earn some of the $8000 already 
paid by having Attorney Koehn represent him in the restraining 
order matter.  Attorney Koehn entered an appearance in the 
matter but did not consult with D.R. or prepare D.R. for the 
hearing.  Attorney Koehn went to the hearing unprepared and with 
none of the relevant paperwork.  The court granted the 
injunction. 
¶17 In February 2005 D.R. send Attorney Koehn a letter 
stating that Attorney Koehn was discharged as the attorney for 
all matters concerning his family and requesting a refund of the 
$8000.  Attorney Koehn did not respond to the request and has 
not refunded any portion of the $8000 paid. 
¶18 In March 2005 the OLR mailed a letter regarding D.R.'s 
grievance to Attorney Koehn's office and informed him that he 
was required to provide a written response by April 22, 2005.  
Attorney Koehn failed to respond.  On April 22, 2005, the OLR 
staff mailed a letter by both certified and first-class mail to 
Attorney Koehn reminding him of his duty to cooperate with the 
grievance investigation and of the consequences for failing to 
do so.  Attorney Koehn did not respond.  
No. 
2005AP2034-D   
 
8 
 
¶19 Based on these facts, the referee determined that 
Attorney Koehn was in violation of numerous rules as alleged in 
the complaint.  The referee determined that Attorney Koehn 
failed to act with reasonable diligence, failed to respond to 
reasonable 
requests 
for 
information, 
failed 
to 
adequately 
communicate the basis or rate of a fee, failed to hold the 
property of his clients in trust, and represented a client when 
the representation may have been materially limited by his own 
pecuniary interest.   
¶20 In addition, the referee found that by telling his 
client that he was the brother-in-law of an assistant district 
attorney and a judge, Attorney Koehn engaged in dishonesty, 
fraud or deceit.  By stating that he had the ability to receive 
favorable treatment for his clients as a result of his claimed 
familial relationship, he stated or implied an ability to 
improperly influence a government official.  In addition, 
Attorney Koehn failed to take steps to protect his client's 
interest upon termination of representation, including the 
refunding of an unearned fee.  Also, by failing to respond to 
the OLR, Attorney Koehn failed to fully and fairly disclose all 
facts pertaining to the alleged misconduct.   
¶21 In 
numerous 
other 
client 
matters, 
the 
referee 
determined that Attorney Koehn engaged in similar acts of 
misconduct.  Consistent with the allegations of the 91-count 
amended complaint, the referee found violations with respect to 
the 19 clients as follows: 
No. 
2005AP2034-D   
 
9 
 
• 
Practicing law while suspended; contrary to SCR 
10:03(6)1 (2 counts); SCR 20:8.4(f)2 (34 counts). 
• 
Failing to fully 
and fairly disclose 
facts 
regarding misconduct; contrary to SCR 22.03(2)3 (12 
counts); SCR 20:8.4(f). 
• 
Failing to take steps to protect client interests 
upon 
termination 
of 
representation, 
including 
refunding unearned fees; contrary to SCR 20:1.16(d)4 
(15 counts). 
                                                 
1 SCR 10:03(6) provides:  Membership. 
 
(6) Penalty for nonpayment of dues.  If the 
annual dues or assessments of any member remain unpaid 
120 days after the payment is due, the membership of 
the member may be suspended in the manner provided in 
the bylaws; and no person whose membership is so 
suspended for nonpayment of dues or assessments may 
practice law during the period of the suspension. 
2 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides that 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." 
3 SCR 22.03(2) provides:  Investigation. 
 
(2) 
Upon 
commencing 
an 
investigation, 
the 
director shall notify the respondent of the matter 
being investigated unless in the opinion of the 
director the investigation of the matter requires 
otherwise.  The respondent shall fully and fairly 
disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct within 20 days after being served 
by ordinary mail a request for a written response.  
The director may allow additional time to respond.  
Following receipt of the response, the director may 
conduct further investigation and may compel the 
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents, and 
present 
any 
information 
deemed 
relevant 
to 
the 
investigation. 
4 SCR 
20:1.16(d) 
provides: 
 
Declining 
or 
terminating 
representation. 
No. 
2005AP2034-D   
 
10 
 
• 
Misrepresentations to the OLR; contrary to SCR 
22.03(6)5 (8 counts); SCR 20:8.4(f). 
• 
Willful 
failure 
to 
cooperate 
with 
OLR 
investigation; contrary to SCR 22.03(2) and (6) (5 
counts); SCR 20:8.4(f).   
• 
Failure 
to 
act 
with 
reasonable 
diligence; 
contrary to SCR 20:1.36 (13 counts). 
• 
Failure to keep client reasonably informed and 
respond 
to 
reasonable 
requests 
for 
information; 
contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a)7 (13 counts). 
• 
Failure to consult with client and abide by 
client's decisions; contrary to SCR 20:1.2(a)8 (2 
counts). 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
(d) 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 that has not been earned. 
The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to 
the extent permitted by other law. 
5 SCR 22.03(6) provides that "[i]n 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." 
6 SCR 20:1.3 states that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
7 SCR 20:1.4(a) states that "[a] lawyer shall keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly 
comply with reasonable requests for information." 
8 SCR 20:1.2(a) provides:  Scope of representation. 
 
(a) A lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions 
concerning the objectives of representation . . . and 
shall consult with the client as to the means by which 
No. 
2005AP2034-D   
 
11 
 
• 
Failure to hold property of clients in trust; 
contrary to former SCR 20:1.15(a), effective through 
June 2004 and, contrary now to SCR 20:1.15(b)(4)9 (2 
counts). 
• 
False 
statement 
to 
a tribunal; contrary to 
SCR 20:3.3(a)(1)10 (2 counts). 
• 
Failure to explain to permit client to make 
informed decision; contrary to SCR 20.1.4(b)11 (1 
count). 
• 
Failure 
to 
provide 
competent 
representation; 
contrary to SCR 20:1.112 (1 count). 
• 
Failure to notify client, courts and parties' 
attorneys 
of 
suspension 
for 
nonpayment 
of 
dues; 
                                                                                                                                                             
they are to be pursued. A lawyer shall inform a client 
of all offers of settlement and abide by a client's 
decision whether to accept an offer of settlement of a 
matter. In a criminal case or any proceeding that 
could result in deprivation of liberty, the lawyer 
shall 
abide 
by 
the 
client's 
decision, 
after 
consultation with the lawyer, as to a plea to be 
entered, whether to waive jury trial and whether the 
client will testify. 
9 SCR 
20:1.15(b)(4) 
states 
that 
"[u]nearned 
fees 
and 
advanced payments of fees shall be held in trust until earned by 
the lawyer . . . . Funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for 
payment of costs shall be held in trust until the costs are 
incurred." 
10 SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) states that "[a] lawyer shall not 
knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal." 
11 SCR 20:1.4(b) provides that "[a] lawyer shall explain a 
matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client 
to make informed decisions regarding the representation." 
12 SCR 20:1.1 provides that "[a] lawyer shall provide 
competent representation to a client.  Competent representation 
requires 
the 
legal 
knowledge, 
skill, 
thoroughness 
and 
preparation reasonably necessary for the representation." 
No. 
2005AP2034-D   
 
12 
 
contrary to SCR 22.26(1)(a), (b), and (c)13 (3 counts); 
SCR 20:8.4(f).   
• 
Offensive personality; contrary to SCR 40.1514 (1 
count); SCR 20.8.4(g) (1 count). 
                                                 
13 SCR 22.26(1) provides in relevant part:  Activities 
following suspension or revocation. 
 
(1) 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. 
 
 
(b)  Advise the clients to seek legal advice 
of their choice elsewhere.  
 
 
(c)  Promptly provide written notification 
to the court or administrative agency and the attorney 
for each party in a matter pending before a court or 
administrative agency 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.  The notice shall identify 
the successor attorney of the attorney's client or, if 
there is none at the time notice is given, shall state 
the client's place of residence.  
14 SCR 40.15, the attorney's oath, states in relevant part 
that an attorney "will abstain from all offensive personality 
and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a 
party . . . ."  
No. 
2005AP2034-D   
 
13 
 
• 
Failure to communicate basis or rate of fee; 
contrary to SCR 20.1.5(b)15 (3 counts). 
• 
Representation of client when representation may 
have been materially limited by pecuniary interest; 
contrary to SCR 20:1.7(b)16 (1 count). 
• 
Dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit; 
contrary 
to 
SCR 
20:8.4(c)17 (2 counts). 
• 
Stated or implied ability to improperly influence 
government official; contrary to SCR 20:8.4(d)18 (1 
count). 
• 
Failure to cooperate with district committee 
investigation; contrary to SCR 22.04(1)19 (4 counts); 
SCR 20.8.4(f).   
¶22 The referee determined that the Wisconsin Lawyers' 
Fund for Client Protection (Fund) approved the applications and 
                                                 
15 SCR 20:1.5(b) states that "[w]hen the lawyer has not 
regularly represented the client, the basis or rate of the fee 
shall be communicated to the client, preferably in writing, 
before or within a reasonable time after commencing the 
representation." 
16 SCR 20:1.7(b) provides that "[a] lawyer shall not 
represent a client if the representation of that client may be 
materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another 
client or to a third person, or by the lawyer's own interests." 
17 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
18 SCR 20:8.4(d) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "state or imply an ability to influence 
improperly a government agency or official." 
19 SCR 22.04(1) states that "[t]he director may refer a 
matter 
to 
a 
district 
committee 
for 
assistance 
in 
the 
investigation.  A respondent has the duty to cooperate . . . in 
respect to the district committee.  The committee may subpoena 
and compel the production of documents . . . ." 
No. 
2005AP2034-D   
 
14 
 
issued payment for many clients whose matters were the basis of 
the amended complaint's allegations.  The Fund reported making 
numerous payments due to Attorney Koehn's dishonesty.  The total 
of sums paid related to client matters within this disciplinary 
proceeding came to $29,582.50.   
¶23 In addition, the OLR brought three client matters to 
the referee's attention because it appeared to the OLR that 
Attorney Koehn owed restitution.  These three client matters 
were included in the amended complaint but had not been included 
on the payment list provided by the Fund.  They included payment 
to three clients:  K.W. in the amount of $984, K.K. in the 
amount of $800, and R.A. in the amount of $1500.  The referee 
determined that Attorney Koehn's conduct in these client matters 
violated numerous supreme court rules.  The referee recommended 
that Attorney Koehn's license be revoked, that he pay the costs 
of these proceedings, and that he be ordered to pay restitution 
to the Fund and to the three clients.   
¶24 We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law 
set 
forth 
in 
the 
referee's 
report 
and 
the 
referee's 
recommendation.  Attorney Koehn's extensive and egregious rules 
violations, in 91 counts with respect to 19 client matters, 
along with his practicing law while his license was suspended 
for nonpayment of mandatory state bar dues, warrant the 
revocation of his license.  
¶25 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Charles R. Koehn to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this 
opinion. 
No. 
2005AP2034-D   
 
15 
 
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Koehn comply with 
the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person 
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked. 
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of 
this 
order, 
Attorney 
Koehn 
shall 
pay 
restitution 
of 
$29,582.50 to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection, 
$984 to K.W., $800 to K.K., and $1500 to R.A., the clients 
identified in the referee's report.   
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Koehn pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the cost of this proceeding.   
¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that restitution to the three 
clients identified above and the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for 
Client Protection shall be paid prior to paying costs to the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation. 
 
No. 
2005AP2034-D   
 
 
 
1