Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Thad M. Gegner
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2015AP001971-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: February 17, 2017

2017 WI 11 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2015AP1971-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Thad M. Gegner, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Thad M. Gegner, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GEGNER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 17, 2017 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2017 WI 11
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2015AP1971-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Thad M. Gegner, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Thad M. Gegner, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 17, 2017 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   The court has before it a report and 
recommendation filed on October 12, 2016, by Referee James G. 
Curtis.  The report recommends that this court accept Attorney 
Thad M. Gegner's petition for consensual license revocation, 
revoke his license to practice law in Wisconsin, and order him 
to pay restitution to certain aggrieved parties, including the 
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (the Fund).  
Attorney Gegner is the subject of a disciplinary proceeding 
No. 
2015AP1971-D   
 
2 
 
alleging that he committed 47 counts of misconduct in 11 
different client matters, as well as an allegation of practicing 
law after suspension.  He is also the subject of four additional 
pending Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) grievance matters that 
have not yet been fully investigated by the OLR. 
¶2 
We agree with the referee that both revocation and 
restitution are appropriate.  We also agree with the referee's 
recommendation that Attorney Gegner should pay the full costs of 
this proceeding, which are $2,019.58 as of October 31, 2016. 
¶3 
Attorney Gegner was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in 2003.  He does not have a disciplinary history.  
His Wisconsin law license has been suspended since April 17, 
2015, for non-cooperation with the OLR in certain of the matters 
at issue in this case. 
¶4 
On September 28, 2015, the OLR filed a complaint 
against Attorney Gegner, setting forth 24 counts of misconduct 
over six client matters and an allegation of practicing law 
after 
suspension. 
 
The 
complaint 
requested 
a 
two-year 
suspension, plus payment of restitution and costs.  On January 
6, 2016, the OLR filed an amended complaint against Attorney 
Gegner, setting forth 47 counts of misconduct over 11 client 
matters and an allegation of practicing law after suspension.  
The amended complaint requested revocation, plus payment of 
restitution and costs.  Attorney Gegner retained counsel.  At 
the parties' request, the referee stayed the proceedings while 
the parties discussed the possibility of Attorney Gegner filing 
a petition for consensual license revocation pursuant to Supreme 
No. 
2015AP1971-D   
 
3 
 
Court Rule (SCR) 22.19.  On September 22, 2016, Attorney Gegner 
filed such a petition. 
¶5 
In his petition, Attorney Gegner acknowledges that he 
cannot successfully defend himself against the allegations in 
the amended complaint, which is attached to his petition as 
Appendix A.  He also acknowledges that he cannot successfully 
defend himself against four pending investigative matters that 
have not been publicly charged, a summary of which is attached 
to his petition as Appendix B. 
¶6 
On September 29, 2016, the OLR filed a recommendation 
supporting Attorney Gegner's SCR 22.19 petition.  The referee 
filed a report on October 12, 2016, recommending revocation and 
restitution. 
On 
November 
30, 
2016, 
the 
referee 
filed 
a 
recommendation on costs, in which he advised the court to impose 
full costs on Attorney Gegner.  On October 26, 2016, the OLR 
filed a restitution statement, which it later supplemented in a 
December 29, 2016 filing.  In those filings, the OLR states that 
Attorney Gegner should pay restitution as recommended by the 
referee.1 
                                                 
1 The 
referee 
determined 
that 
Attorney 
Gegner 
owes 
restitution to his former clients Dianna C., Kristin L., and 
Diane J., as well as to a subrogated party (American Family 
Mutual Insurance Company) in the Diane J. matter.  The referee 
further determined that Attorney Gegner owes restitution to the 
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection for amounts it 
paid to former clients Dianna C., Diane J., Cody W., Donald C., 
and Jose O. 
No. 
2015AP1971-D   
 
4 
 
¶7 
No appeal has been filed in this matter, so our review 
proceeds pursuant to SCR 22.17(2). 
¶8 
We revoke Attorney Gegner's Wisconsin law license 
effective the date of this order.  The scope of his misconduct 
is vast and troubling.  It is not necessary to set forth the 
particular factual allegations of every instance of misconduct 
in every client matter involved in this case.  Doing so would be 
overly cumbersome, given that the amended complaint alone 
alleges almost four dozen misconduct counts, described in some 
231 
separately 
numbered 
paragraphs. 
 
A 
synopsis 
of 
the 
information contained in the attachments to Attorney Gegner's 
petition for revocation will provide a sufficient description of 
the nature and scope of his professional misconduct. 
¶9 
As stated above, the OLR's amended complaint in this 
disciplinary 
proceeding, 
attached 
as 
Appendix 
A 
to 
the 
revocation 
petition, 
sets 
forth 
47 
counts 
of 
misconduct 
involving 11 different clients and an allegation of practicing 
law 
after 
suspension. 
 
The 
alleged 
misconduct 
involved 
violations of the following supreme court rules:  SCR 20:1.3 
(failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing a client); SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) (failing to keep a 
client reasonably informed about the status of a matter); SCR 
20:1.4(a)(4) 
(failing 
to 
promptly 
comply 
with 
reasonable 
requests by the client for information); SCR 20:1.5(b)(3) 
(failing 
to 
promptly 
respond 
to 
a 
client's 
request 
for 
No. 
2015AP1971-D   
 
5 
 
information concerning fees and expenses); SCR 20:1.15(b)(4)2 
(failing to deposit advanced payments of fees and costs into 
trust account); SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) (failing to notify a client 
promptly after receiving funds in which a client has an interest 
and promptly deliver the funds absent an agreement or legal 
requirement to do otherwise); SCR 20:1.16(d) (failing to take 
steps 
to 
protect 
client's 
interests 
upon 
termination 
of 
representation); SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) (knowingly making a false 
statement of fact to a tribunal); SCR 20:3.4(c) (knowingly 
disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal); SCR 
20:8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation); SCR 22.03(2) and (6), enforced via 
SCR 20:8.4(h) (failing to promptly and fully cooperate with an 
OLR investigation); and SCR 31.10(1) (engaging in the practice 
of law after a suspension for failing to satisfy continuing 
legal education requirements). 
¶10 The OLR's summary of misconduct allegations in the 
four pending investigative matters that have not been publicly 
charged, attached as Appendix B to the revocation petition, 
summarizes alleged violations or potential violations of the 
following supreme court rules:  SCR 20:1.3 (failing to act with 
                                                 
2 Effective July 1, 2016, substantial changes were made 
to Supreme Court Rule 20:1.15, the "trust account rule."  
See S. Ct. Order 14-07, (issued Apr. 4, 2016, eff. July 1, 
2016).  Because the conduct underlying this case arose 
prior to July 1, 2016, unless otherwise indicated, all 
references to the Supreme Court rules will be to those in 
effect prior to July 1, 2016. 
No. 
2015AP1971-D   
 
6 
 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client); 
SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) (failing to keep a client reasonably informed 
about the status of a matter); SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) (failing to 
promptly comply with reasonable requests by the client for 
information); SCR 20:1.5(a) (charging an unreasonable fee); 
SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) (failing to notify a client promptly after 
receiving funds in which a client has an interest and promptly 
deliver the funds absent an agreement or legal requirement to do 
otherwise); SCR 20:1.15(g)(1) (failing to notify clients of 
withdrawal 
of 
non-contingent 
fees 
from 
trust 
account); 
SCR 20:1.16(d) (failing to take steps to protect a client's 
interests upon termination of representation); SCR 20:3.4(c) 
(knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a 
tribunal); 
SCR 
20:8.4(c) 
(engaging 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation); SCR 21.15(4) 
(failing to cooperate with an OLR investigation); SCR 22.03(2) 
and (6), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h) (failing to promptly and 
fully cooperate with an OLR investigation); and SCR 22.26 
(failing to comply with the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended). 
¶11 We find instructive the referee's synopsis of Attorney 
Gegner's misconduct: 
The facts established by OLR portray a repeated 
pattern of serious misconduct from 2011 into 2015.  
The facts establish a law practice that was spiraling 
out of control.  Mr. Gegner would fail to communicate 
with his clients and would fail to perform the legal 
work and services that were necessary.  He would at 
times misrepresent the status of his work to both the 
No. 
2015AP1971-D   
 
7 
 
clients and court.  He misused and converted client 
funds and failed to provide any accounting.  The 
record establishes numerous aggravating factors in 
this case and based on the Petition for Revocation by 
Consent, no mitigating factors have been shown. 
"[T]o make matters worse," the referee noted, "there are at 
least 13 counts relating to Mr. Gegner's obstinate failure to 
cooperate with OLR's investigations, contrary to SCR 22.03(2) 
and (6)." 
¶12 Attorney Gegner's petition for consensual revocation 
states 
that 
he 
cannot 
successfully 
defend 
against 
the 
allegations of professional misconduct set forth above.  His 
petition asserts that he is seeking consensual revocation 
freely, voluntarily, and knowingly, and that restitution should 
be imposed.  He states that he understands he is giving up his 
right to contest the OLR's allegations.  He has counsel in this 
matter.  The OLR supports Attorney Gegner's petition.  
¶13 As stated above, Referee Curtis has filed a report in 
this matter.  The referee determined, based on Attorney Gegner's 
petition and the OLR's response, that there exists clear, 
satisfactory, and convincing evidence that Attorney Gegner has 
engaged in the misconduct alleged in the OLR's amended complaint 
in this disciplinary proceeding and in the OLR's summary of the 
matters still in the investigative process.  He recommends that 
we accept the petition, order restitution, and revoke Attorney 
Gegner's license to practice law. 
¶14 When reviewing a report and recommendation in an 
attorney disciplinary proceeding, we affirm a referee's findings 
of fact unless they are found to be clearly erroneous.  In re 
No. 
2015AP1971-D   
 
8 
 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 
Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125. We review the referee's conclusions 
of law on a de novo basis.  Id.  We determine the appropriate 
level of discipline given the particular facts of each case, 
independent of the referee's recommendation, but benefitting 
from it.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 
34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶15 We agree with the referee that Attorney Gegner's 
petition for consensual revocation should be granted.  Attorney 
Gegner 
has 
engaged 
in 
a 
widespread 
pattern 
of 
serious 
professional misconduct that has harmed his clients.  He is 
either unwilling or unable to conform his conduct to the 
standards that are required to practice law in this state.  
Anything less than a revocation of his law license would unduly 
depreciate the seriousness of his misconduct, fail to protect 
the public and the court system from further misconduct, and 
inadequately deter similar misbehavior by other attorneys.  
Revocation is clearly deserved.   
¶16 We 
now 
consider 
restitution. 
 
The 
referee's 
recommendations for restitution are consistent with Attorney 
Gegner's petition and the OLR's recommendation on that petition.3  
                                                 
3 The referee noted in his report that, according to the 
OLR's recommendation on Attorney Gegner's SCR 22.19 petition, 
the Fund authorized payments to some of Attorney Gegner's former 
clients after he agreed in his petition to pay restitution to 
them.  The referee recommended that Attorney Gegner make 
restitution to the Fund for these payments; Attorney Gegner has 
not objected.      
No. 
2015AP1971-D   
 
9 
 
We order Attorney Gegner to pay $652.88 to former client Dianna 
C.; $1,000 to former client Kristin L.; $2,638.90 to American 
Family Mutual Insurance Company; $3.10 to former client Diane 
J.; and $10,894 to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client 
Protection, attributable to the Fund's payments to the following 
former clients:  $3,100 to Dianna C., $2,694 to Diane J., $1,800 
to Cody W., $1,700 to Donald C., and $1,600 to Jose O. 
¶17 We make one further observation (and ruling) on the 
issue of restitution.  In the OLR's December 29, 2016 
supplemental restitution statement, the OLR stated that it would 
not seek restitution for a $1,000 payment to Attorney Gegner's 
former client, Michelle A., which the Fund approved on December 
14, 2016.  The OLR explained that, notwithstanding this payment 
by the Fund, the OLR's investigation did not identify a 
reasonably ascertainable amount of restitution to seek in the 
Michelle A. matter, and therefore it had not sought restitution 
in this matter, and would not do so now.  Mindful that the Fund 
is financed by State Bar of Wisconsin members' annual fees, we 
fail to see why the $1,000 payment by the Fund to Michelle A. 
should be financed by members of the bar who have not engaged in 
misconduct, as opposed to Attorney Gegner, who has conceded his 
misconduct in the Michelle A. matter.  We acknowledge that the 
Fund's $1,000 payment to Michelle A. was not addressed in the 
consensual revocation petition or in the referee's report, but 
we cannot envision any scenario in which Attorney Gegner could 
avoid reimbursing the Fund for this payment.  We therefore order 
Attorney Gegner to reimburse the Fund in this amount.  To the 
No. 
2015AP1971-D   
 
10 
 
extent that Attorney Gegner disagrees with this court's ruling 
on this point, he is free to move the court to reconsider its 
ruling.   
¶18 Finally, 
and 
consistent 
with 
the 
referee's 
recommendation, we determine that Attorney Gegner should be 
required to pay the full costs of this proceeding.  See SCR 
22.24(1m). 
¶19 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for consensual license 
revocation is granted. 
¶20 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Thad M. Gegner to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this 
order. 
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Thad M. Gegner pay 
restitution in the following amounts: 
 $652.88 to former client Dianna C.;  
 $1,000 to former client Kristin L.;  
 $2,638.90 
to 
American 
Family 
Mutual 
Insurance Company;  
 $3.10 to former client Diane J.; and  
 $11,894 to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for 
Client 
Protection, 
attributable 
to 
the 
Fund's payments to the following former 
clients:  $3,100 to Dianna C.; $2,694 to 
Diane J.; $1,800 to Cody W.; $1,700 to 
Donald C.;  $1,600 to Jose O; and $1,000 to 
Michelle A. 
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Thad M. Gegner shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
No. 
2015AP1971-D   
 
11 
 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $2,019.58 as 
of October 31, 2016. 
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified 
above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation. 
¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Thad M. Gegner shall comply with the provisions 
of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked. 
 
 
No. 
2015AP1971-D   
 
 
 
1