Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Warren L. Brandt
Citation: 2003 WI 138
Docket Number: 2002AP001525-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: October 30, 2003

2003 WI 138 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
02-1525-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Warren L. Brandt, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Warren L. Brandt,  
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BRANDT 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 30, 2003   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2003 WI 138 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  02-1525-D  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Warren L. Brandt, Attorney at  
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Warren L. Brandt,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 30, 2003 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that Attorney Warren L. Brandt be publicly reprimanded 
for professional misconduct.  That misconduct consisted of 
failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of 
a matter and failing to promptly comply with reasonable requests 
for information; failing to cooperate with the investigation 
into a grievance filed by his client; making false or misleading 
communications about himself and his services; and failing to 
No. 
02-1525-D   
 
2 
 
identify on his office letterhead the jurisdictional limitation 
of an attorney not licensed to practice law in Wisconsin, who is 
listed as being "of counsel."  Neither Attorney Brandt nor the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) has appealed from the 
referee's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended 
discipline.  
¶2 
We 
conclude 
that 
Attorney 
Brandt's 
professional 
misconduct warrants a public reprimand for his violation of 
various supreme court rules.  We also determine that Attorney 
Brandt shall pay the costs and fees for these disciplinary 
proceedings totaling $9694.19.  
¶3 
Attorney Brandt was admitted to practice law in this 
state in 1978 and currently practices in Prescott, Wisconsin.  
He has not previously been the subject of a disciplinary 
proceeding.   
¶4 
The 
amended 
disciplinary 
complaint 
filed 
against 
Attorney Brandt alleged four counts of misconduct.  The first 
involved the grievance filed by Attorney Brandt's former client, 
T.K., who had retained him in December of 1998 to recover money 
her credit union had confiscated from her account as consequence 
of an alleged forgery.  T.K. made an appointment to meet with 
Attorney Brandt after seeing his advertisement in the yellow 
pages of a local telephone directory.  She paid him a $1500 
retainer fee and signed a legal representation agreement.   
¶5 
After being rebuffed in his initial contact with the 
credit union that T.K. believed had wrongly retained her money, 
Attorney Brandt did nothing else on her behalf.  
No. 
02-1525-D   
 
3 
 
¶6 
Beginning in March of 1999 T.K. repeatedly called 
Attorney Brandt to ask about the status of her case; he never 
returned her calls.  According to T.K. she never spoke with 
Attorney Brandt at all from March 1999 through January of 2000.  
Ultimately, she spoke with Attorney Brandt by telephone in April 
of 2000 at which time he told her that he had done some research 
and that she did not have a claim against the credit union.   
¶7 
In June 2000 T.K. filed a grievance against Attorney 
Brandt with the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility 
(BAPR).1  A staff investigator subsequently wrote two letters to 
Attorney Brandt requesting his written response to T.K.'s 
grievance.  Attorney Brandt did not respond to the two letters.  
In November of 2000, while the Office of Lawyer Regulation's 
(OLR) investigation into the grievance was pending, Attorney 
Brandt returned to T.K. the $1500 retainer fee she had paid and 
the documents she had given him.   
¶8 
During the OLR's investigation, it was discovered that 
Attorney Brandt had placed advertisements in the local telephone 
directories for the years 1996-97, 1997-98, and 1998-99.  Those 
advertisements were entitled "Brandt & Associates" with the name 
                                                 
1 Effective 
October 
1, 
2000, 
Wisconsin's 
attorney 
disciplinary process underwent a substantial restructuring.  The 
name of the body responsible for investigating and prosecuting 
cases involving attorney misconduct was changed to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation and the supreme court rules applicable to the 
lawyer regulation system were also revised.  All of the events 
alleged in the OLR's 
four 
counts 
of 
misconduct in its 
disciplinary complaint occurred before the lawyer regulation 
system was restructured.  
No. 
02-1525-D   
 
4 
 
"Warren Lee Brandt, Esquire" appearing in italics beneath the 
name of the firm.  The advertisements also contained the phrases 
"Former District Attorneys Pierce & St. Croix Counties," 
"Aggressive Trial Lawyers," and "Experienced Criminal Defense 
Attorneys."  (Emphasis added.)  These advertisements used 
plurals even though Attorney Brandt had been a sole practitioner 
since July 1996.   
¶9 
The OLR investigation further revealed that the office 
stationery letterhead used by Attorney Brandt in his practice 
during this period until May of 2000, identified one Joseph B. 
Marshall as being "of counsel" to Attorney Brandt's firm.  
During the time Attorney Brandt used this letterhead, Joseph 
Marshall was licensed to practice law in Minnesota but not in 
Wisconsin.  Attorney Brandt's stationery letterhead did not note 
that fact.  
¶10 The OLR misconduct complaint alleged the following 
four counts of misconduct by Attorney Brandt in violation of 
several rules of professional responsibility.  
• By making only four calls to his client, T.K., during 
the one and one-half years he represented her, and by 
failing to respond to her inquiries and communicate 
with her, Attorney Brandt violated SCR 20:1.4(a) which 
requires a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed 
No. 
02-1525-D   
 
5 
 
about the status of a matter and promptly comply with 
reasonable requests for information.2  
• By failing to respond to two requests from the Board 
of Attorneys Professional Responsibility staff to 
respond 
to 
the 
T.K. 
grievance, 
Attorney 
Brandt 
violated former SCR 21.03(4) and SCR 22.07(2).3 
• By placing advertisements in the 1996-97, 1997-98, and 
1998-99 telephone directories suggesting that his firm 
included attorneys who were former district attorneys 
in 
two 
counties, 
aggressive 
trial 
lawyers, 
and 
experienced criminal defense attorneys, when in fact 
Attorney Brandt was the only attorney in his firm, 
Attorney Brandt violated SCR 20:7.1(a) which provides 
that a lawyer shall not make a false or misleading 
communication 
about 
the 
lawyer 
or 
the 
lawyer's 
services.4 
• By listing a lawyer as being "of counsel" on Attorney 
Brandt's letterhead stationery without identifying the 
jurisdictional limitation on the lawyer, who is not 
                                                 
2 As noted all of the events alleged in the misconduct 
complaint occurred before the restructuring of the lawyer 
regulation system effective October 1, 2000.  Supreme Court Rule 
20:1.4(a) was not affected by that restructuring and currently 
remains the same as it was during the time Attorney Brandt 
represented T.K.   
3 Former SCR 21.03(4) has been recreated and as modified now 
is found as SCR 21.15(4).  Former SCR 22.07(2) now appears in 
substantially the same form as SCR 22.03(2). 
4 SCR 20:7.1(a) remains the same.  
No. 
02-1525-D   
 
6 
 
licensed to practice in Wisconsin, where Attorney 
Brandt's office is located, Attorney Brandt violated 
SCR 
20:7.5(a); 
by 
failing 
to 
identify 
on 
his 
letterhead 
the 
jurisdictional 
limitation 
of 
an 
attorney not licensed to practice law in Wisconsin, 
Attorney Brandt violated SCR 20:7.5(b); and by falsely 
stating or implying that he practices in a partnership 
or 
other 
type 
of 
organization, 
Attorney 
Brandt 
violated SCR 20:7.5(d).5 
¶11 After the OLR's complaint was filed and Attorney 
Brandt filed his answer, Attorney Janet Jenkins was appointed as 
referee in this matter.  Referee Jenkins subsequently granted 
summary judgment in favor of the OLR with respect to several 
counts of misconduct that had been alleged.  After hearing 
testimony on the remaining issues, the referee determined that 
Attorney Brandt had violated the various rules of professional 
conduct as alleged in the amended complaint.   
¶12 We have reviewed the referee's findings of fact, 
conclusions of law, and recommendation for discipline.  We 
conclude that the findings are supported by clear, satisfactory, 
and 
convincing 
evidence 
as 
required 
by 
SCR 
22.16(5).  
Accordingly, we adopt those findings of fact and conclusions set 
forth in the referee's report and we accept the referee's 
                                                 
5 All of the provisions in SCR 20:7.5(a), (b), and (d), 
currently remain the same.  
No. 
02-1525-D   
 
7 
 
recommendation that Attorney Brandt's professional misconduct 
warrants a public reprimand.   
¶13 In addition, we conclude pursuant to our authority in 
SCR 22.24, that all the costs and fees incurred in this 
disciplinary proceeding shall be assessed against Attorney 
Brandt.  We have reviewed the OLR's detailed itemization of its 
requested costs and fees and we conclude that under the 
circumstances of this case, those costs and fees totaling 
$9694.19 are reasonable.  We believe those reasonable costs and 
fees should be borne by the attorney whose misconduct prompted 
the BAPR/OLR investigation which ultimately resulted in the 
referee's 
adverse 
determinations 
following 
an 
evidentiary 
hearing.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Pangman, 
216 Wis. 2d 440, 574 N.W.2d 232 (1998).6  
¶14 We conclude that a public reprimand and requiring 
Attorney Brandt to bear the costs and fees of this disciplinary 
proceeding is an appropriate discipline for his professional 
misconduct.  
¶15 IT IS ORDERED that Attorney Warren L. Brandt is 
publicly reprimanded for his professional misconduct. 
                                                 
6 We reject Attorney Brandt's objection to the OLR's 
statement of costs and fees.  We also reject his suggestion that 
the issue of whether these are reasonable costs and fees should 
be submitted to mediation.  We find nothing in the supreme court 
rules indicating that mediation is available to resolve a 
dispute over the reasonableness of the costs and fees assessed 
against a respondent in a disciplinary proceeding.  
No. 
02-1525-D   
 
8 
 
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Attorney Warren L. Brandt pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs and fees incurred in this proceeding 
totaling $9694.19.   
No. 
02-1525-D   
 
 
 
1