Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Donald A. Hahnfeld
Citation: 2007 WI 123
Docket Number: 2006AP001549-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: October 4, 2007

2007 WI 123 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2006AP1549-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Donald A. Hahnfeld, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Donald A. Hahnfeld, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HAHNFELD 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 4, 2007   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: ZIEGLER, J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2007 WI 123
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2006AP1549-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Donald A. Hahnfeld, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Donald A. Hahnfeld, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 4, 2007 
 
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 Donald A. Hahnfeld 
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 Hahnfeld 
undergo an alcohol and other drug abuse (AODA)/psychological 
evaluation and that the reinstatement of his license to practice 
No. 
2006AP1549-D   
 
2 
 
law should be conditioned upon a satisfactory AODA/psychological 
evaluation.  
¶2 
We conclude that the referee's findings of fact are 
supported by satisfactory and convincing evidence.  We further 
determine that the seriousness of Attorney Hahnfeld's misconduct 
warrants the suspension of his license to practice law for 60 
days.  We also agree with the referee's recommendation that 
Attorney Hahnfeld undergo an AODA/psychological evaluation and 
that reinstatement of his license should be conditioned upon a 
satisfactory evaluation.  We further conclude that the costs of 
the proceeding, which are $3,957.08 as of May 24, 2007, should 
be assessed against him. 
¶3 
Attorney Donald Hahnfeld was admitted to practice law 
in Wisconsin in 1987 and practices in Brookfield. 
¶4 
In 1993 Attorney Hahnfeld was publicly reprimanded for 
neglecting four divorce matters and a bankruptcy case.  In 2003 
he was again publicly reprimanded, this time for a conflict of 
interest and filing a retaliatory defamation lawsuit which 
served only to maliciously injure the attorney who brought 
Attorney Hahnfeld's conflict to the court's attention. 
¶5 
On June 28, 2006, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a complaint alleging 11 counts of misconduct with 
respect to Attorney Hahnfeld's handling of three client matters.  
The first four counts in the complaint concerned Attorney 
Hahnfeld's representation of K.C.  K.C. hired Attorney Margaret 
O'Connor, an associate in Attorney Hahnfeld's firm, to represent 
him in a dispute with his former business partner, a post-
No. 
2006AP1549-D   
 
3 
 
judgment divorce issue, and a small claims matter.  O'Connor 
filed a contempt motion on behalf of K.C. in the divorce case.  
Pending resolution of the motion, the parties stipulated to 
placing $20,000 from the sale of their homestead into the trust 
account of Hahnfeld & Schneck.  The funds were deposited on 
November 18, 2002.   
¶6 
On May 16, 2003, a contempt motion hearing was held in 
the family branch of Washington County circuit court.  The court 
ordered a $556.20 payout to K.C. from the homestead sale 
proceeds being held in trust and ordered O'Connor to prepare an 
order following the hearing.  On May 20, 2003, the law firm 
disbursed $2,500 from the trust fund as a payment of fees 
incurred by K.C. in the small claims case.  K.C. had not been 
billed for such services and the withdrawal from funds held in 
trust was without K.C.'s knowledge or permission.   
¶7 
O'Connor left the law firm around June 9, 2003, and 
performed no other work in the K.C. matter and had no further 
contact with Attorney Hahnfeld.  O'Connor's contract with the 
law firm was terminated effective July 1, 2003.  Attorney 
Hahnfeld 
took 
over 
O'Connor's 
cases, 
including 
the 
responsibility for drafting the K.C. order resulting from the 
May 16 hearing in family court.  In July 2003 Attorney Hahnfeld 
wrote to K.C. advising that preparation of the order was "in 
process" and also advising that $10,000 would be available to 
him in the next seven to ten days. 
¶8 
On July 16, 2003, Attorney Hahnfeld's firm disbursed 
$7,500 to K.C. and $9,000 to the opposing counsel's trust 
No. 
2006AP1549-D   
 
4 
 
account.  Attorney Hahnfeld advised K.C. that the firm had 
disbursed $9,000 to opposing counsel and that the balance of 
$1,000 would be disbursed within ten days of the entry of the 
order that Attorney Hahnfeld was drafting. 
¶9 
Throughout the summer and fall of 2003, K.C. made 
repeated attempts to contact Attorney Hahnfeld on numerous 
occasions, but received no response.  In September 2003 opposing 
counsel in the divorce, Kristen Halliden, wrote to Attorney 
Hahnfeld indicating she had not received information she had 
requested about bills or debts paid by K.C. and demanding that 
Attorney Hahnfeld release the remaining funds held in his trust 
account.  Attorney Halliden contacted Attorney Hahnfeld on 
October 29, 2003, and the two discussed the contents of the 
family court commissioner's order.  Attorney Hahnfeld indicated 
that he would submit the order for Attorney Halliden's review by 
November 5, 2003.   
¶10 In April 2004 Attorney Halliden filed a contempt 
motion on behalf of K.C.'s ex-wife.  K.C. hired another attorney 
to represent him.  On May 21, 2004, the Washington County family 
court commissioner ruled that he had already addressed the 
issues brought before him on May 16, 2003, and he advised 
counsel he would not render another order.  On June 23, 2005, 
Attorney Hahnfeld forwarded a letter to the new attorneys for 
the parties in the divorce matter advising that he would deposit 
trust funds with the clerk of court.  Both counsel advised 
Attorney Hahnfeld to cut checks to them in specific amounts, 
which Attorney Hahnfeld did on or about June 29, 2005.  
No. 
2006AP1549-D   
 
5 
 
¶11 As of August 12, 2005, Attorney Hahnfeld had not 
drafted the family court commissioner's order and took the 
position he would draft the order only if K.C. paid for the 
transcript of the May 16, 2003, hearing. 
¶12 K.C. filed a grievance with the OLR.  The OLR 
forwarded the grievance to Attorney Hahnfeld to obtain his 
response.  Attorney Hahnfeld failed to respond by the required 
response deadline, and did not contact the OLR to request 
additional time to respond.  Attorney Hahnfeld also failed to 
respond in any way to the OLR's second notice that a written 
response was required, and he did not respond to the K.C. 
grievance until after he was personally served with a third 
notice. 
¶13 The second client matter set forth in the OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney Hahnfeld's representation of S.E., 
who hired Attorney Hahnfeld on March 20, 2003, to file a divorce 
action on her behalf.  S.E. paid Attorney Hahnfeld a retainer of 
$2,500.  Attorney Hahnfeld did not advise S.E. on what basis she 
would be charged for legal services, and he did not establish 
with S.E. an agreement as to his hourly rate or how much the 
divorce would cost. 
¶14 Attorney Hahnfeld filed a summons and petition with 
child support award in Waukesha County circuit court on 
March 20, 2003.  A trial was held on May 11, 2004.  On May 12, 
2004, Attorney Hahnfeld wrote to S.E. regarding some of the 
divorce issues.  Attorney Hahnfeld estimated S.E.'s fees to be 
$6,500 more than the original retainer S.E. had paid.  He 
No. 
2006AP1549-D   
 
6 
 
described additional work that would need to be done and advised 
S.E. to expect a bill between $11,000 and $12,000. 
¶15 That same day Attorney Hahnfeld wrote to S.E.'s bank 
about refinancing her home.  Attorney Hahnfeld indicated he had 
ordered a transcript of the proceeding and would be preparing 
the judgment of divorce based on that transcript.  On May 13, 
2004, Attorney Hahnfeld wrote to opposing counsel in the divorce 
matter and said he had begun drafting the findings of fact, 
conclusions of law and judgment.  He also said he was awaiting a 
transcript. 
¶16 During the pendency of the divorce case, Attorney 
Hahnfeld did not bill S.E. on a periodic basis because he felt 
S.E. was sensitive about the costs that were being incurred.  
During a meeting between Attorney Hahnfeld and S.E., Attorney 
Hahnfeld estimated that the likely fees for the divorce would be 
$3,000 to $3,500 above the $2,500 S.E. had already paid, and 
that the cost of the trial would be $5,000 on top of that 
amount, resulting in expected total compensation between $8,000 
and $8,500 over the original $2,500 retainer.  Attorney Hahnfeld 
never advised S.E. as to his hourly rate. 
¶17 On or about June 18, 2004, S.E. terminated Attorney 
Hahnfeld's representation.  By letter dated June 24, 2004, S.E. 
requested that Attorney Hahnfeld forward her complete file to 
her.  Attorney Hahnfeld failed to comply with S.E.'s request for 
her file until November of 2004 when he responded to the OLR's 
grievance investigation.  Attorney Hahnfeld did not provide S.E. 
with a written, itemized bill until November 2004.  The total 
No. 
2006AP1549-D   
 
7 
 
amount charged was $25,822.50, far in excess of Attorney 
Hahnfeld's previous estimates. 
¶18 After 
S.E. 
filed 
a 
grievance 
against 
Attorney 
Hahnfeld, the OLR forwarded it to Attorney Hahnfeld requesting 
his formal written response by October 18, 2004.  Attorney 
Hahnfeld failed to respond by that deadline, and he did not 
contact the OLR to request additional time to respond.  Attorney 
Hahnfeld also failed to timely respond to the OLR's second 
notice that his written response to S.E.'s grievance was 
required, and he did not respond to the grievance until after he 
was personally served with a third notice that his response was 
required. 
¶19 The 
third 
client 
matter 
detailed 
in 
the 
OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney Hahnfeld's representation of R.T.  
R.T. hired Attorney Hahnfeld in July of 2004 to represent him in 
a paternity matter wherein R.T. sought a change in a visitation 
order.  R.T. paid Attorney Hahnfeld $750, which Attorney 
Hahnfeld deposited in his general operating account upon 
receipt.  The hearing on R.T.'s motion for a change in the 
visitation order was scheduled for August 2, 2004.  Because of a 
scheduling conflict, Attorney Hahnfeld rescheduled the hearing 
to September 30, 2004.  R.T. appeared at the September 30 
hearing date, but Attorney Hahnfeld did not appear.  R.T. called 
Attorney Hahnfeld's office prior to the hearing.  The phone was 
answered by an automated system, and R.T. left a message.  R.T. 
continued to call Attorney Hahnfeld's office until the start of 
No. 
2006AP1549-D   
 
8 
 
the hearing.  He never reached Attorney Hahnfeld and proceeded 
to the hearing without him. 
¶20 The day after the hearing, R.T. called Attorney 
Hahnfeld for an explanation of Attorney Hahnfeld's failure to 
appear at the hearing.  R.T. again was unable to reach Attorney 
Hahnfeld.  R.T. called Attorney Hahnfeld's office numerous times 
thereafter and left messages, either on the office answering 
machine or with Attorney Hahnfeld's secretary, requesting a full 
refund of the fees he had paid.  Attorney Hahnfeld did not 
return R.T.'s calls. 
¶21 On November 23, 2004, R.T. filed a grievance with the 
OLR.  The OLR contacted Attorney Hahnfeld and advised him about 
R.T.'s concerns.  Attorney Hahnfeld told the OLR staff that he 
had authorized his staff to send the refund but did not know 
whether it had been done.  Attorney Hahnfeld also said he would 
issue a refund that day and would furnish the OLR with proof via 
facsimile.  By letter dated December 9, 2004, the OLR informed 
Attorney Hahnfeld that his written response to the R.T. 
grievance was required by January 3, 2005.  By January 11, 2005, 
Attorney Hahnfeld had not submitted his written response nor had 
he contacted the OLR to ask for additional time to respond. 
¶22 The OLR called Attorney Hahnfeld's office and left a 
message on his voicemail reminding him that his response to the 
R.T. grievance was overdue and requesting that Attorney Hahnfeld 
contact the OLR to indicate when his response could be expected.  
Attorney Hahnfeld did not return the OLR's call. 
No. 
2006AP1549-D   
 
9 
 
¶23 On January 13, 2005, the OLR sent Attorney Hahnfeld, 
via facsimile and certified mail, its second request for 
Attorney 
Hahnfeld's 
response 
to 
R.T.'s 
grievance. 
 
On 
January 26, 2005, Attorney Hahnfeld sent his response via 
facsimile to the OLR, and he issued a check to R.T. for $750 
from his firm's general operating account. 
¶24 By letter dated December 6, 2005, the OLR requested 
additional information from Attorney Hahnfeld in R.T.'s matter.  
Attorney Hahnfeld failed to respond by the date requested, and 
he did not request additional time to respond.  On January 3, 
2006, the OLR sent Attorney Hahnfeld a second request for the 
additional information.  He again failed to respond.  The OLR 
contacted Attorney Hahnfeld's office by telephone on January 17, 
2006, and was told that Attorney Hahnfeld was in his office but 
was on another call.  Attorney Hahnfeld did not return the call 
but finally did fax his response to the OLR's request for 
additional information later that day.   
¶25 Attorney Hahnfeld filed an answer to the OLR's 
complaint on August 3, 2006.  The OLR filed an amended complaint 
on October 19, 2006.  On September 25, 2006, James J. Winiarski 
was appointed referee.  A scheduling conference was held on 
December 5, 2006.   
¶26 On January 4, 2007, Attorney Hahnfeld filed a notice 
indicating that he was withdrawing all responsive pleadings and 
was entering a plea of no contest to all allegations in the 
OLR's complaint.  Attorney Hahnfeld also advised that he was 
accepting the OLR's offer to recommend a 60-day suspension of 
No. 
2006AP1549-D   
 
10 
 
his license to practice law in Wisconsin.  The referee gave the 
parties the opportunity to file a brief on the issue of the 
appropriate discipline.  The OLR filed a memorandum.  Attorney 
Hahnfeld did not file any additional documents discussing the 
appropriate discipline.   
¶27 The referee issued his report and recommendation on 
May 8, 2007.  The referee concluded that the OLR had met its 
burden of proving all counts of misconduct alleged in the 
complaint.  Those counts are as follows: 
COUNT 1 
 
1. 
By failing to prepare an order following the 
May 16, 2003, divorce hearing, Hahnfeld failed to act 
with 
reasonable 
diligence 
and 
promptness 
in 
representing 
[K.C.] 
in 
his 
post-judgment 
divorce 
matter, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.1 
COUNT 2 
 
2. 
By failing to keep his client advised as to 
the 
requests 
of opposing counsel for additional 
documentation or to otherwise keep his client advised 
as to the progress in the matter, other than to tell 
him he was preparing the order relating to the May 16, 
2003, hearing, and by further failing to respond to 
[K.C.]'s telephone calls regarding the status of his 
case, Hahnfeld failed to keep [K.C.] informed about 
                                                 
1 Effective July 1, 2007, substantial changes were made to 
the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct for 
Attorneys, SCR Chapter 20. See Supreme Court Order No. 04-07, 
2007 WI 4, 293 Wis. 2d xv; and Supreme Court Order No. 06-04, 
2007 WI 48, 297 Wis. 2d xlvii. Since the conduct underlying this 
case arose prior to July 1, 2007, unless otherwise indicated, 
all references to the supreme court rules will be to those in 
effect prior to July 1, 2007. 
Former SCR 20:1.3 provides that a lawyer "shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
No. 
2006AP1549-D   
 
11 
 
the status of his matter and respond to his reasonable 
requests for information, in violation of SCR:1.4(a).2 
COUNT 3 
 
3. 
By failing to take the action necessary to 
give effect to the Court's decision regarding the 
distribution of funds held in trust from the sale of 
the homestead, thereby preventing the prompt release 
of those funds held in trust, Hahnfeld failed to 
promptly deliver, to his client or a third party, 
funds held in trust, in violation of SCR 20:1.15(b).3 
COUNT 4 
 
4. 
By failing to respond to the grievance of 
[K.C.] within 20 days after being served by ordinary 
mail with a request for response, Hahnfeld failed to 
cooperate with an OLR investigation, in violation of 
SCR 
22.03(2),4 
which 
is 
enforceable 
under 
SCR 
                                                 
2 Former SCR 20:1.4(a) provides that a lawyer "shall keep a 
client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and 
promptly comply with reasonable requests for information." 
3 Former SCR 20:1.15(b) (effective through June 30, 2004), 
states: 
 
Upon receiving funds or other property in which a 
client or third person has an interest, a lawyer shall 
promptly notify the client or third person in writing.  
Except as stated in this rule or otherwise permitted 
by law or by agreement with the client, a lawyer shall 
promptly deliver to the client or third person any 
funds or other property that the client or third 
person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the 
client or third person, shall render a full accounting 
regarding such property. 
4 SCR 22.03(2) states: 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 
No. 
2006AP1549-D   
 
12 
 
20:8.4(f),5 
which 
states 
in 
part 
that 
it 
is 
professional misconduct to violate a Supreme Court 
Rule regulating the conduct of lawyers. 
COUNT 5 
 
5. 
Upon conclusion of the [S.E.] divorce, by 
failing to draft and submit to the court the findings 
of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment of divorce 
within the 30-day time limit, Hahnfeld failed to act 
with 
reasonable 
diligence 
and 
promptness 
in 
representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. 
COUNT 6 
 
6. 
By failing to explain to his client the 
basis or rate of his fee at the outset of the 
representation, Hahnfeld violated SCR 20:1.5(b).6 
COUNT 7 
 
7. 
By failing to promptly turn over [S.E.]'s 
file materials to either her or her successor counsel, 
Hahnfeld failed to take steps to the extent reasonably 
practicable to protect the client's interest upon 
                                                                                                                                                             
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.  
5 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." 
6 Former 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." 
No. 
2006AP1549-D   
 
13 
 
termination of representation, in violation of SCR 
20:1.16(d).7 
COUNT 8 
 
8. 
By failing to respond to OLR regarding the 
grievance of [S.E.] within 20 days after being served 
by ordinary mail with a request for response, Hahnfeld 
failed to cooperate with an OLR investigation, in 
violation of SCR 22.03(2), which is enforceable under 
SCR 20:8.4(f), which states in part that it is 
professional misconduct to violate a Supreme Court 
Rule regarding the conduct of lawyers. 
COUNT 9 
 
9. 
By failing to return any of [R.T.]'s calls 
on the day of the motion hearing he did not attend and 
on subsequent occasions, Hahnfeld failed to keep a 
client reasonably informed about the status of a 
matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests 
for information, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a). 
COUNT 10 
 
10. By failing to refund the $750.00 fee within 
a reasonable time after his failure to appear at the 
September 20, 2004, motion hearing on behalf of his 
client, Hahnfeld failed to take steps to the extent 
reasonably practicable to protect a client's interest 
upon termination of representation, including a refund 
of any advance payment of a fee that had not been 
earned, in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d). 
                                                 
7 Former SCR 20:1.16(d) states:  Declining or terminating 
representation. 
 
(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. 
No. 
2006AP1549-D   
 
14 
 
COUNT 11 
 
11. By failing to respond within 20 days to 
[R.T.]'s grievance and, in addition, by failing to 
timely provide additional information requested during 
the investigation, Hahnfeld violated SCR 21.15(4)8 and 
SCR 22.03(6),9 which require cooperation with an OLR 
investigation, enforceable under SCR 20:8.4(f). 
¶28 With respect to the appropriate discipline to impose, 
the referee noted that Attorney Hahnfeld received two previous 
public reprimands, the first for misconduct similar to that 
found in this case.  The referee said Attorney Hahnfeld showed a 
pattern of failing to respond to client communications and often 
ignored his duty to keep his clients properly informed of the 
status of their cases.  The referee said, "[t]hese disturbing 
patterns collectively show either a disregard of professional 
responsibilities or 
the inability to perform professional 
responsibilities due to some outside cause." 
                                                 
8 SCR 21.15(4) provides: Duties of attorneys. 
 
(4)  Every attorney shall cooperate with the 
office of lawyer regulation in the investigation, 
prosecution and disposition of grievances, complaints 
filed with or by the director, and petitions for 
reinstatement. 
 An attorney's wilful failure to 
cooperate 
with 
the 
office 
of 
lawyer 
regulation 
constitutes violation of the rules of professional 
conduct for attorneys. 
9 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." 
No. 
2006AP1549-D   
 
15 
 
¶29 The referee also said he was concerned with Attorney 
Hahnfeld's lack of cooperation with the OLR, and he said this 
conduct showed a disregard of professional duties or the 
inability to perform those duties.  The referee said he was most 
concerned with the repetitious nature of Attorney Hahnfeld's 
neglect of files and his failure to communicate with his 
clients.  The referee noted the imposition of two prior public 
reprimands had not impressed upon Attorney Hahnfeld the need to 
change his practices.  The referee said given that Attorney 
Hahnfeld received two prior public reprimands and yet continued 
his pattern of neglecting client matters, the OLR's request for 
a 60-day license suspension was "generous and probably at the 
low end of the range of appropriate discipline in this matter." 
¶30 The referee commented that it would have been helpful 
to have some evidence from Attorney Hahnfeld as to why he 
continued his pattern of neglect in client matters and whether 
there was some other cause for the neglect.  The referee 
recommended that Attorney Hahnfeld's license be suspended for a 
period of 60 days.  In addition, he also recommended that 
Attorney Hahnfeld be required to obtain an AODA/psychological 
evaluation within 30 days of the date of suspension in order to 
determine whether he has any ailment which would interfere with 
his continued practice of law at the conclusion of the period of 
suspension.  The referee recommended that reinstatement should 
be 
conditioned 
upon 
a 
satisfactory 
AODA/psychological 
evaluation.  
No. 
2006AP1549-D   
 
16 
 
¶31 No appeal has been filed from the referee's report and 
recommendation.   
¶32 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.  
Attorney Hahnfeld has entered a no contest plea to all eleven 
counts of misconduct alleged in the OLR's complaint. 
¶33 The referee's findings of fact in this case 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 referee's recommendation for a 60-day suspension of 
Attorney Hahnfeld's license to practice law in Wisconsin, and we 
agree with the referee's recommendation that Attorney Hahnfeld 
undergo an AODA/psychological evaluation as a prerequisite to 
having his license reinstated.  Finally, we find it appropriate 
to require Attorney Hahnfeld to pay the full costs of this 
proceeding. 
¶34 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Donald A. Hahnfeld 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 
days, effective November 8, 2007. 
¶35 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Donald A. Hahnfeld pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If the costs are not 
No. 
2006AP1549-D   
 
17 
 
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 Donald A. Hahnfeld to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
remain suspended until further order of the court. 
¶36 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 30 days of the date 
of 
this 
order 
Donald 
A. 
Hahnfeld 
shall 
obtain 
an 
AODA/psychological evaluation.  The reinstatement of his license 
to practice law shall be conditioned upon Donald A. Hahnfeld 
obtaining a satisfactory AODA/psychological evaluation.   
¶37 ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, J., did not participate. 
 
No. 
2006AP1549-D   
 
 
 
1