Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. James E. Hammis
Citation: 2015 WI 14
Docket Number: 2012AP000818-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: February 17, 2015

2015 WI 14 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2012AP818-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against James E. Hammis, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
James E. Hammis, 
          Respondent-Appellant.   
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HAMMIS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 17, 2015 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the respondent-appellant, there were briefs by James E. 
Hammis and Hammis Law Offices, LLC, Stoughton, and oral argument 
by James E. Hammis. 
 
 
For the Office of Lawyer Regulation, there was a brief and 
oral argument by Robert G. Krohn and Roethe Pope Roethe LLP, 
Edgerton.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 
 
 
 
2015 WI 14
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2012AP818-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against James E. Hammis, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
James E. Hammis, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 17, 2015 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney James E. Hammis appeals a 
report filed by referee James C. Boll Jr. on August 5, 2013, 
concluding that Attorney Hammis committed nine counts of 
professional misconduct and recommending that this court suspend 
his license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of four 
months, that Attorney Hammis make restitution to a client in the 
amount of $995, and that he be required to pay the full costs of 
this proceeding, which are $12,022.38 as of December 2, 2014.  
No. 
2012AP818-D   
 
2 
 
Attorney Hammis asserts that many of the referee's findings of 
fact are clearly erroneous.  In the alternative, Attorney Hammis 
argues that, even assuming this court finds that he committed 
some or all of the counts of misconduct found by the referee, a 
public reprimand would be an appropriate level of discipline. 
¶2 
Upon careful review of this matter, we conclude that a 
90-day suspension of Attorney Hammis's license to practice law 
is an appropriate sanction for his misconduct.  We agree with 
the referee that Attorney Hammis should make restitution to his 
former client in the amount of $995, and that he be required to 
pay the full costs of this proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney Hammis was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1988.  He most recently practiced in Stoughton but 
indicates that his primary occupation now is in the construction 
trade.   
¶4 
In 2011 this court suspended Attorney Hammis's license 
for four months based on a finding that he had engaged in ten 
counts of misconduct with respect to two different clients, 
practiced law while administratively suspended, and failed to 
cooperate with the investigation of the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR).  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Hammis, 2011 WI 3, 331 Wis. 2d 19, 793 N.W.2d 884.   
¶5 
On April 18, 2012, the OLR filed a complaint alleging 
the nine counts of misconduct that underlie this appeal.  The 
complaint alleges that on July 20, 2005, Attorney Hammis was 
convicted in the Court of Common Pleas, Tuscarawas County, Ohio 
of the crime of reckless endangering, a first degree misdemeanor 
No. 
2012AP818-D   
 
3 
 
under Ohio law.  Attorney Hammis did not report his conviction 
to the OLR or to the clerk of this court as required by supreme 
court rules.  Attorney Hammis was to pay all court costs in the 
Ohio criminal matter.  The Tuscarawas County Clerk of Court 
prepared an itemized bill of costs and sent it to Attorney 
Hammis on August 24, 2005.  The itemized bill of costs was 
repeatedly mailed to Attorney Hammis—at least 26 times—but Ohio 
court records indicated he had not paid the costs, which totaled 
$232.16 as of September 13, 2010. 
¶6 
The Ohio criminal matter arose while Attorney Hammis 
was 
the 
president, 
operator, 
and 
sole 
member 
of 
ST&E 
Fabrication, LLC (ST&E).  The OLR's complaint alleged that ST&E 
was charged in a separate companion criminal case in which 
Attorney Hammis pled guilty on behalf of ST&E to two felony 
counts of illegal transportation of hazardous waste and illegal 
disposal of hazardous waste.   
¶7 
The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct 
with 
respect 
to 
Attorney 
Hammis's 
misdemeanor 
conviction: 
[COUNT ONE]  By engaging in the conduct leading 
to his personal misdemeanor conviction of criminal 
endangering 
in 
State 
of 
Ohio 
v. 
James 
Hammis, 
Tuscarawas County (Ohio) Case No. 2005 CR 06 0181, 
Hammis violated SCR 20:8.4(b).1 
                                                 
1 Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 20:8.4(b) provides that it is 
professional misconduct for a lawyer to "commit a criminal act 
that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness 
or fitness as a lawyer in other respects." 
No. 
2012AP818-D   
 
4 
 
[COUNT TWO]  By failing to timely notify OLR and 
the Clerk of the Wisconsin Supreme Court of his 2005 
Ohio criminal conviction, Hammis violated SCR 21.15(5)2 
which is enforced under the Rules of Professional 
Conduct via SCR 20:8.4(f).3 
[COUNT THREE]  By failing to pay the court costs, 
as ordered in the judgment in State of Ohio v. James 
Hammis, 
Tuscarawas 
County 
(Ohio) 
Case 
No. 
2005 CR 06 0181, Hammis violated SCR 20:3.4(c).4 
¶8 
The other six counts of misconduct alleged in the 
OLR's complaint arose out of Attorney Hammis's representation of 
I.B.  On September 7, 2007, I.B. was found guilty of two counts 
of homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle and one count of 
causing injury while operating under the influence.  He was 
subsequently sentenced to six years in prison and seven years 
                                                 
2 SCR 21.15(5) provides: 
An attorney found guilty or convicted of any 
crime on or after July 1, 2002, shall notify in 
writing the office of lawyer regulation and the clerk 
of the Supreme Court within 5 days after the finding 
or conviction, whichever first occurs.  The notice 
shall include the identity of the attorney, the date 
of finding or conviction, the offenses, and the 
jurisdiction.  An attorney’s failure to notify the 
office of lawyer regulation and clerk of the supreme 
court of being found guilty or his or her conviction 
is misconduct. 
3 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." 
4 SCR 20:3.4(c) provides that a lawyer shall not "knowingly 
disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except for 
an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation 
exists." 
No. 
2012AP818-D   
 
5 
 
and six months of extended supervision for each of the homicide 
counts, plus an additional year in prison on the causing injury 
conviction.   
¶9 
In May of 2010, I.B. contacted Attorney Hammis 
regarding legal representation for the purpose of pursuing a 
sentence modification.  On May 24, 2010, Attorney Hammis sent 
I.B. a letter enclosing a contract for legal services.  I.B. 
signed the contract and returned it to Attorney Hammis.  The 
contract required a $2,000 advance fee.  The contract expressly 
contemplated that at least a portion of the required advanced 
fee would be paid by I.B.'s mother, L.B.  The contract also 
provided that at the conclusion of the representation, a refund 
of any unearned advanced fee would be made to I.B.   
¶10 On June 1, 2010, in response to Attorney Hammis's 
letter of May 24, I.B. sent Attorney Hammis a cover letter and 
copies 
of 
the 
sentencing 
transcript 
and 
pre-sentence 
investigation report.  On June 9, 2010, I.B. paid Attorney 
Hammis $995 from his inmate account.  I.B.'s mother paid another 
$400 toward the advanced fee by personal check dated June 26, 
2010.   
¶11 Attorney Hammis did not deposit any portion of the 
$1,395 fee payments into his client trust account and instead 
deposited the funds into his business account.   
¶12 Attorney Hammis and I.B. spoke on June 18, 2010, and 
discussed an outline of issues and actions that needed to be 
taken on the file.  I.B. wrote another letter to Attorney Hammis 
on July 14, 2010, in which he mentioned the prior payments, 
No. 
2012AP818-D   
 
6 
 
asked why he had not received a plan of action for his case, and 
asked to be updated on the financial and legal status.  Attorney 
Hammis failed to respond. 
¶13 On August 6, 2010, I.B. wrote to Attorney Hammis for 
the last time, saying he was unable to pay the $2,000 advanced 
fee and that he wanted a refund of the $1,395 previously paid.  
He also asked that Attorney Hammis return the sentencing 
transcript and pre-sentence investigation report.  Attorney 
Hammis failed to respond to the letter and failed to return 
I.B.'s transcript and pre-sentence report in a timely manner. 
¶14 On September 14, 2010, L.B. passed away.  Attorney 
Hammis paid $400 from his business account toward L.B.'s funeral 
expenses.  The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Hammis's representation of 
I.B.: 
[COUNT 
FOUR] 
 
By 
initially 
depositing 
the 
unearned advance fee payments for [I.B.] in his 
business account rather than holding the fees in his 
client trust account until the fees were earned, and 
then by not providing required notices and accounting 
upon termination of representation, Hammis violated 
SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m)b.1. through 3.5 
                                                 
5 SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m)b. provides: 
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; 
(continued) 
No. 
2012AP818-D   
 
7 
 
[COUNT FIVE]  By failing to respond to his 
client's 
July 
14, 
2010 
inquiry 
about 
what 
was 
happening in his case and by failing to provide an 
action plan to [I.B.] despite stating he would do so, 
Hammis violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4).6 
[COUNT SIX]  By failing to respond to his 
client's letters of July 14 and August 6, 2010, 
concerning the advance fee receipts, a refund, and 
expenses, Hammis violated SCR 20:1.5(b)(3).7 
[COUNT SEVEN]  By retaining the entire amount of 
then 
[sic] 
fee 
paid 
by 
[I.B.] 
despite 
never 
accomplishing the service he had been hired to 
perform, Hammis violated SCR 20:1.5(a).8 
                                                                                                                                                             
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. 
6 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4) provide, respectively, that a 
lawyer shall "keep the client reasonably informed about the 
status of the matter" and "promptly comply with reasonable 
requests by the client for information." 
7 SCR 20:1.5(b)(3) provides that "[a] lawyer shall promptly 
respond to a client's request for information concerning fees 
and expenses." 
8 SCR 20:1.5(a) provides: 
A lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, 
or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable 
amount for expenses. The factors to be considered in 
determining the reasonableness of a fee include the 
following: 
(continued) 
No. 
2012AP818-D   
 
8 
 
[COUNT EIGHT]  By failing to refund the unearned 
advance 
fee 
when 
the 
client 
terminated 
the 
representation and by failing to return the client's 
transcripts and pre-sentence investigative report, 
Hammis violated SCR 20:1.16(d).9 
[COUNT NINE]  By failing to provide relevant 
information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 
documents and by making misrepresentations in response 
                                                                                                                                                             
(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and 
difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill 
requisite to perform the legal service properly;  
(2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, 
that the acceptance of the particular employment will 
preclude other employment by the lawyer; 
(3) the fee customarily charged in the locality 
for similar legal services; 
(4) the amount involved and the results obtained; 
(5) the time limitations imposed by the client or 
by the circumstances; 
(6) the nature and length of the professional 
relationship with the client;  
(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of 
the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and 
(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent. 
9 SCR 20:1.16(d) 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. 
No. 
2012AP818-D   
 
9 
 
to OLR's investigation of the grievance filed against 
him by [I.B.], Hammis violated SCR 22.03(6)10 enforced 
via SCR 20:8.4(h).11 
¶15 James C. Boll, Jr. was appointed as referee in the 
matter.  A hearing was held before the referee on May 14, 2013.  
The witnesses at the hearing were Attorney Hammis; Robert Weber, 
an OLR investigator; and G.G., L.B.'s mother.   
¶16 At the start of the hearing, Attorney Hammis objected 
to the introduction of any evidence pertaining to ST&E's 
conviction for illegally transporting and disposing of hazardous 
waste.  The referee said he would allow the admission of such 
evidence and would give it the appropriate weight.   
¶17 At the hearing, Attorney Hammis claimed that he had in 
fact paid the court costs associated with his Ohio misdemeanor 
conviction.  He claimed that the costs were collected by a 
collection agency.  He had no formal records from the clerk of 
court, no cancelled check, and no receipts or satisfaction of 
judgment to prove that he actually paid the amount. 
                                                 
10 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." 
11 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides that 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. 
2012AP818-D   
 
10 
 
¶18 Attorney Hammis said he paid $400 to Gunderson Funeral 
Home to repay the money L.B. had advanced for her son's case.  
I.B. testified in his deposition that he never authorized the 
payment of the $400 to the funeral home but he would have 
authorized it if he had been asked to do so.   
¶19 The referee issued his report on August 5, 2013.  The 
referee found that the OLR had met its burden of proof with 
respect to all nine counts alleged in the OLR's complaint.  
While the OLR had sought restitution in the amount of $1,395 in 
the I.B. matter, the referee noted that I.B. himself testified 
he would have approved Attorney Hammis's paying $400 to 
Gunderson Funeral Home if he had been asked.  The referee said, 
"The payment of the money was a good faith effort by Mr. Hammis 
to do the right thing and he should not be penalized for such an 
act."  Thus, the referee found that Attorney Hammis should make 
restitution to I.B. in the amount of $995. 
¶20 The referee said he was very troubled by the fact that 
Attorney Hammis had been previously suspended for ten counts of 
misconduct in five different matters, one of which was similar 
to the I.B. matter.  The referee also said he was very troubled 
by Attorney Hammis's failure to provide any credible evidence to 
challenge the OLR's charges, and he said Attorney Hammis has 
failed to acknowledge any wrongdoing.  Accordingly, although the 
OLR sought a 90-day suspension, the referee recommended a four-
month suspension.   
¶21 Attorney Hammis stipulated to the misconduct alleged 
in Counts One and Two of the OLR's complaint.  He argues that 
No. 
2012AP818-D   
 
11 
 
the referee erred in finding that the OLR met its burden of 
proof on the remaining seven counts.  He asserts that many of 
the referee's findings of fact are clearly erroneous, and he 
argues that the level of discipline recommended by the referee 
is far too harsh, even assuming all counts of misconduct were 
proven.  He argues that Counts Five and Six are multiplicitous.  
He accuses the OLR of inflating the number of counts of 
misconduct.  He asserts that the referee was confused, not 
objective, and excessively biased against him.  He claims that 
L.B.'s mother lied at the evidentiary hearing.  
¶22 The OLR asserts that none of the referee's findings of 
fact are clearly erroneous.12  
¶23 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.   
¶24 There is no showing that any of the referee's findings 
of fact are clearly erroneous.  Accordingly, we adopt them.  We 
                                                 
12 The OLR concedes that in determining a violation of Count 
Three, the referee inadvertently made a finding of fact that the 
count was based upon the referee's review of an exhibit which 
refers to a plea agreement in the ST&E case, i.e., Exhibit 1, 
when in fact the referee was describing Exhibit 5.  
No. 
2012AP818-D   
 
12 
 
also agree with the referee's conclusions of law that Attorney 
Hammis violated all of the supreme court rules set forth above.   
¶25 With respect to the appropriate level of discipline, 
after careful review of the matter, we conclude that a 90-day 
suspension is appropriate.  This is not the first time that 
Attorney Hammis has been found to have committed professional 
misconduct.  Some of the behavior in this case mirrors the 
misconduct that resulted in his four-month license suspension 
back in 2011.  Although Attorney Hammis argues that the referee 
was biased against him, the referee found Attorney Hammis's 
version of events to be incredible.  Credibility determinations 
are particularly within the province of the trier of fact, and 
we find no basis to second-guess them.   
¶26 In addition, as an inmate, I.B. was a particularly 
vulnerable client.  All of these factors weigh against imposing 
a public reprimand.  On the other hand, it is arguable that 
there may be some overlap between some of the counts alleged in 
the OLR's complaint.  On balance, we conclude that a 90-day 
suspension, which was the level of discipline originally sought 
by the OLR, rather than the four-month suspension recommended by 
the referee, will sufficiently protect the public from similar 
misconduct and impose upon Attorney Hammis the gravity of the 
misconduct.  We further agree with the referee's recommendation 
that Attorney Hammis be ordered to make restitution to I.B. in 
the amount of $995 and that he bear the full costs of this 
proceeding. 
No. 
2012AP818-D   
 
13 
 
¶27 IT IS ORDERED that the license of James E. Hammis to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 90 days, 
effective March 19, 2015. 
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, James E. Hammis shall pay restitution in the 
amount of $995 to I.B. 
¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, James E. Hammis shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  
¶30 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that restitution is to be 
completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation.  
¶31 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that James E. Hammis shall 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended.  
¶32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2). 
 
No. 
2012AP818-D   
 
 
 
1