Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. John R. Loew
Citation: 2010 WI 23
Docket Number: 2008AP001416-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: March 30, 2010

2010 WI 23 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2008AP1416-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against John R. Loew,  Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
John R. Loew, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST LOEW 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 30, 2010   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2010 WI 23
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2008AP1416-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against John R. Loew, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
John R. Loew, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 30, 2010 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   We 
review 
a 
referee's 
report 
and 
recommendation concluding that Attorney John R. Loew engaged in 
professional misconduct and recommending that his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for a period of 60 days.  
The referee also recommended that Attorney Loew pay the costs of 
the proceeding and that various conditions be imposed upon his 
resumption of the practice of law following his suspension. 
No. 
2008AP1416-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
We conclude the referee's findings of fact are 
supported by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence.  We 
also concur with the referee's conclusions of law.  We further 
determine that the seriousness of Attorney Loew's misconduct 
warrants the suspension of his license to practice law for 60 
days.  We also agree with the referee's recommendation that 
conditions should be imposed upon Attorney Loew's resumption of 
the practice of law following his suspension, and we conclude 
that the full costs of the proceeding, which are $9,206.67 as of 
December 3, 2009, should be assessed against him. 
¶3 
Attorney Loew was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in 1994 and last practiced in Brookfield.  On 
October 11, 2007, this court suspended Attorney Loew's license 
to practice law for failure to cooperate regarding an Office of 
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) investigation.  On October 31, 2007, the 
State Bar of Wisconsin suspended Attorney Loew's license to 
practice law for nonpayment of State Bar dues.  Attorney Loew's 
license remains suspended.   
¶4 
On June 6, 2008, the OLR filed a complaint alleging 
seven counts of misconduct arising out of Attorney Loew's 
handling of two probate matters.  The first probate matter 
involved Attorney Loew's representation of J.K., who hired 
Attorney Loew in late 2005 to assist her with the probate of her 
husband's estate.  J.K. and her adult son provided Attorney Loew 
with various original documents, including auto titles, property 
deeds, and tax documents.  Attorney Loew testified that the last 
time he had a meeting with J.K. and the last time he performed 
No. 
2008AP1416-D   
 
3 
 
legal services for her was in mid-May 2006.  J.K. made no 
payments to Attorney Loew for legal services. 
¶5 
Between 
late 
2006 
and 
early 
2007 
J.K. 
became 
dissatisfied with the representation provided by Attorney Loew.  
In early 2007 J.K. and her son made repeated telephone calls to 
Attorney Loew requesting that Attorney Loew return their 
original documents.  Attorney Loew failed to respond.   
¶6 
On August 1, 2007, J.K.'s son filed a grievance with 
the OLR.  J.K. was later added as a grievant in the matter.  On 
August 7, 2007, the OLR sent Attorney Loew a letter regarding 
the basis for the grievance and requested that Attorney Loew 
respond to the OLR.  Attorney Loew failed to respond.  On 
August 22, 2007, the OLR sent Attorney Loew another letter 
regarding its investigation.  Attorney Loew failed to respond.  
On September 5, 2007, the OLR filed with this court a notice of 
motion and motion requesting an order to show cause why Attorney 
Loew's license should not be suspended for his willful failure 
to respond or cooperate in an OLR investigation concerning his 
conduct.  The OLR sent Attorney Loew another letter on 
September 20, 2007.  Attorney Loew failed to respond.  As noted 
above, on October 11, 2007, this court granted the OLR's motion 
and ordered that Attorney Loew's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin be temporarily suspended until further order of the 
court. 
¶7 
The OLR's complaint alleged four counts of misconduct 
with respect to Attorney Loew's representation of J.K.: 
No. 
2008AP1416-D   
 
4 
 
Count 1.  By failing to perform work on the estate 
matters on behalf of J.K., Attorney Loew violated SCR 
20:1.3.1 
Count 2.  By failing to respond to J.K.'s telephone 
calls, Attorney Loew violated former SCR 20:1.4(a)2 and 
current SCR 20:1.4(a).3 
Count 3.  By failing to respond to requests from J.K. 
and her son for the return of their original documents, 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.3 states, "[a] lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client."   
2 Former SCR 20:1.4(a) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
provided that "[a] lawyer shall keep a client reasonably 
informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with 
reasonable requests for information." 
3 SCR 20:1.4(a) (effective July 1, 2007) provides: 
A lawyer shall: 
(1) Promptly inform the client of any decision or 
circumstance with respect to which the client's 
informed consent, as defined in SCR 20:1.0(f), is 
required by these rules;  
(2) reasonably consult with the client about the 
means by which the client's objectives are to be 
accomplished; 
(3) keep the client reasonably informed about the 
status of the matter;  
(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests by 
the client for information; and 
(5) consult with the client about any relevant 
limitation on the lawyer's conduct when the lawyer 
knows that the client expects assistance not permitted 
by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law. 
No. 
2008AP1416-D   
 
5 
 
Attorney Loew violated former SCR 20:1.16(d)4 and current 
SCR 20:1.16(d).5 
Count 4.  By failing to comply with SCR 22.03(2)6 and 
by failing to comply with SCR 22.03(6),7 Attorney Loew 
violated SCR 20:8.4(h).8 
                                                 
4 Former SCR 20:1.16(d) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
provided: 
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 or 
incurred. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the 
client to the extent permitted by other law. 
5 SCR 20:1.16(d) (effective July 1, 2007) provides: 
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. 
6 SCR 22.03(2) provides: 
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 
No. 
2008AP1416-D   
 
6 
 
¶8 
The second probate matter detailed in the OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney Loew's representation of R.F., who 
retained Attorney Loew to probate her husband's estate.  R.F. 
and F.B. were named co-trustees of R.F.'s husband's trust.  R.F. 
and F.B. retained Attorney Loew on August 2, 2006, to complete 
estate work and deal with tax matters.  On August 6, 2006, R.F. 
mailed Attorney Loew tax returns, bank statements, and other 
relevant documents.  Attorney Loew performed some services.  On 
December 14, 2006, Attorney Loew sent R.F. an invoice for 
$4,130, which R.F. paid in February 2007. 
¶9 
In March 2007 R.F. received a letter from the Internal 
Revenue 
Service 
inquiring 
about 
her 
husband's 
employer 
identification number.  R.F. faxed Attorney Loew the letter and 
asked 
Attorney 
Loew 
for 
professional 
assistance. 
 
R.F. 
subsequently left multiple voicemail messages for Attorney Loew 
                                                                                                                                                             
investigation and may compel the respondent to answer 
questions, 
furnish 
documents, 
and 
present 
any 
information deemed relevant to the investigation. 
7 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. 
8 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. 
2008AP1416-D   
 
7 
 
with no response.  Attorney Loew's receptionist told R.F. that 
numerous clients were having trouble communicating with Attorney 
Loew.   
¶10 In early April 2007 R.F. terminated Attorney Loew's 
representation and hired Attorney Denasha Scott of the law firm 
of Cook & Franke.  Attorney Scott sent Attorney Loew various 
letters, e-mails, and certified letters in an attempt to 
retrieve R.F.'s file.  Attorney Scott did receive the file from 
Attorney Loew at some point in May 2007.   
¶11 In mid-May 2007 R.F. and F.B. filed a grievance with 
the OLR.  Attorney Loew failed to respond to multiple letters 
from the OLR seeking a response to the grievance.  Attorney 
Loew's failure to respond to the OLR's requests for information 
about 
the 
grievance 
formed 
the 
basis 
for 
this 
court's 
October 11, 2007, order temporarily suspending Attorney Loew's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin. 
¶12 The OLR's complaint alleged three counts of misconduct 
with respect to Attorney Loew's representation of R.F. and F.B.: 
Count 5.  By failing to respond to R.F.'s and F.B.'s 
telephone calls and letters, Attorney Loew violated former 
SCR 20:1.4(a) (effective through June 30, 2007). 
Count 6.  By failing to respond to R.F.'s, F.B.'s, and 
Denasha Scott's requests for an accounting, a refund of 
unearned fees, and the return of R.F.'s files, Attorney 
Loew violated former SCR 20:1.16(d) (effective through 
June 30, 2007). 
No. 
2008AP1416-D   
 
8 
 
Count 7.  By failing to comply with SCR 22.03(2), and 
by failing to comply with SCR 22.03(6), Attorney Loew 
violated SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶13 Christine Harris Taylor was appointed referee in the 
matter.  Attorney Loew did not file an answer to the OLR's 
complaint, nor did he participate in a telephone scheduling 
conference.  The OLR filed a notice of motion and motion for 
default judgment.  Attorney Loew failed to respond.  On 
December 1, 2008, the referee granted the OLR's motion for 
default judgment, finding that the OLR had met its burden of 
proof with respect to the seven counts of misconduct alleged in 
the complaint.  The order stated that a hearing would be 
scheduled for purposes of determining the appropriate sanction.   
¶14 In April 2009 Attorney Loew retained counsel to 
represent him in the matter.  A hearing was held over the course 
of two days in April and August 2009.  Attorney Loew testified 
that after practicing as an associate with a large law firm for 
a number of years, he opened his own law practice in 2003.  His 
office was part of a suite of offices in a wealth management 
company.  This office sharing arrangement provided a stream of 
clients for Attorney Loew.  After several years Attorney Loew's 
practice mushroomed to the point where he had a client base of 
approximately 
300. 
 
Although 
Attorney 
Loew 
was 
offered 
assistance with office staff, he said he was too overwhelmed to 
take the time to train these individuals.  Due to his inability 
to turn down new clients, Attorney Loew began working virtually 
No. 
2008AP1416-D   
 
9 
 
around the clock, leading to a deterioration of his physical and 
mental health. 
¶15 Attorney Loew's office sharing arrangement with the 
wealth management company ended in the spring of 2007.  Attorney 
Loew took his files with him and began to practice law from his 
home.  By this time Attorney Loew said he was experiencing the 
onset of severe depression.  Attorney Loew admitted that he 
failed to properly attend to the two probate matters that formed 
the basis for the OLR's complaint.  Attorney Loew testified at 
the hearing that although he received the various letters from 
the OLR, he did not open them because he could not handle it and 
he imagined that he was being sued. 
¶16 Attorney Loew sought help from his primary physician 
in August 2007 and was diagnosed with anxiety and depression.  
He 
was 
given 
anti-depressant 
medication 
along 
with 
a 
recommendation 
for 
therapy. 
 
Attorney 
Loew 
consulted 
a 
psychiatrist in December 2007 and attended some therapy sessions 
beginning in early 2008.   
¶17 In August 2009 Dr. Gregory J. Van Rybroek, a licensed 
psychologist, conducted an independent psychological evaluation 
of Attorney Loew.  Dr. Van Rybroek concluded, to a reasonable 
degree of professional certainty, that during the time Attorney 
Loew was retained by J.K., R.F., and F.B., Attorney Loew was in 
the throes of a major depressive episode primarily brought on by 
a workload he ultimately became unable to manage.  Dr. Van 
Rybroek said it appeared the volume of Attorney Loew's workload, 
No. 
2008AP1416-D   
 
10 
 
exacerbated by the death of a close friend, created overwhelming 
stress that led to serious depression.   
¶18 Dr. Van Rybroek opined that the situational stress led 
to the point where Attorney Loew became largely dysfunctional.  
Dr. Van Rybroek was of the opinion that Attorney Loew's 
depression symptoms were situational rather than driven by a 
genetic predisposition toward depression or anxiety.   
¶19 Dr. Van Rybroek also gave the opinion, to a reasonable 
degree of professional certainty, that Attorney Loew's current 
level of functioning was much improved.  Dr. Van Rybroek was of 
the opinion that Attorney Loew could return to the practice of 
law, subject to certain conditions, including entering into a 
therapy relationship to assist with better self-understanding, 
specifically in learning more about the internal triggers that 
make it difficult for him to limit his workload; remain under 
the care of a psychiatrist for purposes of monitoring his 
medication; and he should not work in the solo practice of law 
but rather should work in a structured legal environment where 
his work can be monitored. 
¶20 The referee issued her report and recommendation on 
November 16, 2009.  The referee concluded that a 60-day 
suspension of Attorney Loew's license was the appropriate 
sanction for his misconduct.  She also recommended that as a 
condition of the reinstatement of his license, Attorney Loew be 
required to pay restitution to R.F. in the amount of $923.  She 
also recommended that this court adopt the restrictions on 
No. 
2008AP1416-D   
 
11 
 
Attorney Loew's resumption of the practice of law proposed by 
Dr. Van Rybroek. 
¶21 While the referee said the fact that Attorney Loew was 
suffering from depression in late 2006 and early 2007 was well 
documented in the record, his testimony at the hearing made it 
clear that his difficulty in running a solo law practice began 
well before the onset of his depression.  The referee said at 
most Attorney Loew's depression was a contributing factor to the 
events outlined in the OLR's complaint, not a causal factor.  
The OLR had sought a six-month suspension of Attorney Loew's 
license.  Attorney Loew requested either a public reprimand or a 
60-day suspension.  In the event a suspension was recommended, 
Attorney 
Loew 
further 
requested 
the 
suspension 
apply 
retroactively to the date of his temporary suspension in October 
2007.  The referee rejected Attorney Loew's request for a 
retroactive suspension. 
¶22 No appeal has been filed from the referee's report and 
recommendation.  This court will adopt a referee's findings of 
fact unless they are 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. 
¶23 The referee's findings of fact have not been shown to 
be clearly erroneous, and we adopt them.  We also agree with the 
referee's conclusions of law.  We further agree with the 
No. 
2008AP1416-D   
 
12 
 
referee's recommendation for a 60-day prospective suspension of 
Attorney Loew's license to practice law in Wisconsin, and we 
agree with the referee's recommendation that the conditions 
suggested by Dr. Van Rybroek be imposed upon Attorney Loew's 
resumption of the practice of law following his suspension.  
Finally, we find it appropriate to require Attorney Loew to pay 
the full costs of this proceeding. 
¶24 IT IS ORDERED that the license of John R. Loew to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective the date of this order. 
¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, John R. Loew make restitution to R.F. in the 
amount of $923. 
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 180 days of the date 
of this order, John R. Loew 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 the costs within that time, the 
license of John R. Loew to practice law in Wisconsin shall be 
suspended until further order of the court.   
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for a period of five years 
following his resumption of the practice of law, the following 
conditions shall be imposed upon John R. Loew's practice of law: 
A. 
John R. Loew shall enter into a therapy relationship 
to 
assist 
with better self-understanding, specifically in 
learning more about the internal triggers that make it difficult 
for him to limit his workload. 
No. 
2008AP1416-D   
 
13 
 
B. 
John R. Loew shall remain under the care of a 
psychiatrist, particularly for monitoring of his medication 
needs. 
C. 
John R. Loew shall engage in the practice of law under 
the direct supervision of a licensed attorney acceptable to and 
approved by the Office of Lawyer Regulation.  Attorney Loew's 
supervising attorney shall have all the duties generally held by 
a supervising attorney under SCR 20:5.1(b). 
D. 
John R. Loew shall be required to submit to the OLR, 
on a semi-annual basis, a report from his treating psychiatrist 
outlining his ongoing treatment.  The reports should disclose 
any recurrences of the depression, and if any, whether such 
recurrences pose an unreasonable risk to the public if John R. 
Loew is permitted to continue the practice of law.   
E. 
John R. Loew shall be required to submit to the OLR, 
on a semi-annual basis, a report from his supervising attorney.  
 
No. 
2008AP1416-D   
 
 
 
1