Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jenelle Glasbrenner
Citation: 2005 WI 50
Docket Number: 2003AP002647-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: April 22, 2005

2005 WI 50 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2003AP2647-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jenelle Glasbrenner, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Jenelle Glasbrenner, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GLASBRENNER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 22, 2005   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: CROOKS, J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2005 WI 50
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2003AP2647-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jenelle Glasbrenner, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Jenelle Glasbrenner, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 22, 2005 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the stipulation filed by 
Attorney Jenelle Glasbrenner and the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) concerning Attorney Glasbrenner's professional misconduct 
consisting of over billing the Office of the Wisconsin State 
Public Defender (SPD) for work she had performed for them.  The 
parties' stipulation was reached after a two-day hearing before 
Referee John R. Decker.  Referee Decker reviewed the stipulation 
and issued a report recommending the level of discipline to 
No. 
2003AP2647-D   
 
2 
 
which the parties stipulated, a six-month suspension of Attorney 
Glasbrenner's license to practice law in Wisconsin.  In 
addition, the referee recommended that Attorney Glasbrenner be 
ordered to pay the costs of this disciplinary proceeding. 
¶2 
We conclude that the referee's findings of fact are 
supported by satisfactory and convincing evidence.  We also 
agree with the referee's conclusions of law that Attorney 
Glasbrenner engaged in professional misconduct and further agree 
that the seriousness of that misconduct warrants a six-month 
suspension of Attorney Glasbrenner's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin. 
¶3 
Attorney Glasbrenner was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1999.  She has not previously been disciplined.  
Her first employment as an attorney was working as an associate 
in a law firm that focused on criminal defense matters.  
Attorney Glasbrenner was paid a salary by the law firm and was 
not involved in billing clients.  In May 2000, Attorney 
Glasbrenner was hired by a law firm that later became known as 
Johnson, Danz & Lettenberger (JD&L).  A large portion of 
Attorney 
Glasbrenner's 
caseload 
at 
JD&L 
consisted 
of 
appointments by the SPD.  Attorney Glasbrenner immediately had a 
large caseload and was confronted with many deadlines.   
¶4 
Attorney Glasbrenner received minimal instruction in 
billing from more experienced attorneys at the law firm.  
Attorney Glasbrenner was advised by the firm's more experienced 
attorneys that she could bill as a unit for certain tasks that 
she performed as an SPD attorney.  In fact this advice was 
No. 
2003AP2647-D   
 
3 
 
erroneous. 
 Attorney Glasbrenner's 
billing 
practices 
were 
sloppy.  She did not always bill her time contemporaneously, and 
she would prepare her bills on a case-by-case basis after the 
cases had been concluded. 
¶5 
The OLR presented evidence that between May 2000 and 
December 2001, Attorney Glasbrenner over billed the SPD.  She 
submitted bills to the SPD for approximately 2789 hours in 2000 
and 4413 hours in 2001.  The bills did not always reflect the 
actual time she had spent on the matters for which she requested 
payment.  At times the bills were excessive and unreasonable.   
¶6 
In early 2002, the SPD advised Attorney Glasbrenner 
that it was auditing her billings and it removed her from the 
appointment list.  Attorney Glasbrenner cooperated with the SPD 
in its audit.  On May 30, 2002, Attorney Glasbrenner met with 
the head of the SPD's assigned counsel division, who advised her 
of the results of the audit.  The SPD official's impression was 
that Attorney Glasbrenner was quite surprised at the number of 
irregular claims that had been submitted, and she immediately 
apologized.  During that meeting, the SPD presented Attorney 
Glasbrenner with a proposed agreement.  She signed the agreement 
within four days without making changes or negotiating the 
amount.  Under the agreement Attorney Glasbrenner agreed to pay 
$40,000 to the SPD within one month of signing the agreement; 
she agreed not to submit any additional claims for SPD work, 
even though she had already completed the work; she agreed to 
relinquish those claims that she had already submitted to the 
SPD for which she had not yet been paid; and she agreed to 
No. 
2003AP2647-D   
 
4 
 
complete her work on a number of SPD cases at no cost to the 
SPD.   
¶7 
SPD officials assigned to the matter testified at the 
hearing before the referee that Attorney Glasbrenner met all of 
the terms of the agreement.  SPD officials also testified that 
Attorney Glasbrenner fully repaid the SPD and, if anything, she 
overpaid them.  Two SPD officials assigned to the matter 
testified that they believed Attorney Glasbrenner did not intend 
to over bill the SPD.   
¶8 
Attorney Glasbrenner testified at the hearing before 
the referee that she did not intend to over bill the SPD.  She 
admitted she had sloppy billing habits and had received minimal 
instruction as a new attorney, but she said she took full 
responsibility for her acts.  Other attorneys testified that 
Attorney Glasbrenner was an outstanding attorney who worked long 
hours as a vigorous advocate for her clients.  There was also 
testimony that she had an excellent professional reputation and 
character. 
¶9 
Based on her over billing to the SPD, Attorney 
Glasbrenner was charged with one count of misdemeanor theft by 
fraud.  She entered an Alford1 plea to the charge and was ordered 
to pay a fine of $5000 plus costs, which she did. 
¶10 Since the time of the SPD audit Attorney Glasbrenner 
said she has changed her billing practices and consults with at 
least one more experienced mentor when billing issues are 
                                                 
1 North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). 
No. 
2003AP2647-D   
 
5 
 
presented.  There was no evidence that Attorney Glasbrenner's 
billing impacted the representation of her clients.  
¶11 Attorney Glasbrenner and the OLR stipulated that her 
conduct violated SCR 20:8.4(c)2 in that on multiple occasions, 
she engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or 
misrepresentation.  The parties also stipulated that Attorney 
Glasbrenner's conduct violated SCR 20:1.5(a)3 in that on multiple 
occasions she billed and sought payment for attorney's fees that 
were unreasonable.  The parties further stipulated that an 
appropriate 
level 
of 
discipline 
to 
impose 
upon 
Attorney 
Glasbrenner was a six-month suspension of her license to 
practice law in Wisconsin so that if she wishes to pursue 
reinstatement she will be required to prove her fitness to 
licensure in a formal reinstatement proceeding.  
¶12 The referee's report adopted the parties' findings of 
fact.  The referee also concluded, as a matter of law, that 
Attorney Glasbrenner's conduct violated SCR 20:8.4(c) and SCR 
20:1.5(a).  The referee also came to the independent conclusion 
that a six-month suspension of Attorney Glasbrenner's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin was an appropriate sanction for her 
misconduct.   
                                                 
2 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to: (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." 
3 SCR 20:1.5(a) provides:  "(a) A lawyer's fee shall be 
reasonable. . . ." 
No. 
2003AP2647-D   
 
6 
 
¶13 The referee noted that Attorney Glasbrenner had only 
limited experience in law practice at the times in question, and 
she received little guidance from more experienced attorneys 
with respect to timekeeping and billing.  The referee said to 
Attorney Glasbrenner's credit, she did not seek to excuse her 
misconduct on the basis of improper guidance from more senior 
attorneys.  The referee also commented there was no showing that 
Attorney Glasbrenner was afflicted by greed for money and it 
appeared "that a strong competitive drive urged her on to an 
excessive zeal in expenditure of time and the piling up of 
billable hours."   
¶14 The referee further noted that Attorney Glasbrenner 
immediately returned or forfeited to the SPD the entire amount 
the SPD contended had been over billed, using assumptions most 
favorable to the SPD.  The referee said:  
The 
evidence 
demonstrated 
that 
Attorney 
Glasbrenner was and is energetic, competent, driven, 
mature and extremely self-confident.  This self-
confidence proved her undoing when it crossed the line 
into hubris.  Hubris produced an evident attitude that 
the 
rules 
didn't 
apply 
to 
her, 
and 
thus 
an 
indifference to them.  This I view as a form of 
character flaw which the respondent can and must 
demonstrate she has corrected. 
¶15 A referee's findings of fact are to be affirmed unless 
they are clearly erroneous.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Sosnay, 209 Wis. 2d 241, 243, 562 N.W.2d 137 (1997).  We 
review 
conclusions 
of 
law 
de novo. 
 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 
636 N.W.2d 718.  The record supports the referee's findings of 
No. 
2003AP2647-D   
 
7 
 
fact and conclusions of law and we adopt them.  We determine 
that 
the 
seriousness of 
Attorney 
Glasbrenner's 
misconduct 
warrants the suspension of her license to practice law for a 
period of 
six months. 
 
We 
further 
agree 
that Attorney 
Glasbrenner should be required to pay the costs of the 
proceeding, which are $12,876.70 as of February 16, 2005. 
¶16 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Jenelle Glasbrenner 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six 
months, effective the date of this order. 
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Glasbrenner comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Jenelle Glasbrenner pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, provided that if 
the costs are not paid within the time specified and absent a 
showing to this court of her inability to pay those costs within 
that time, the license of Attorney Jenelle Glasbrenner to 
practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further 
order of the court. 
¶19 N. PATRICK CROOKS, J., did not participate. 
 
 
No. 
2003AP2647-D   
 
 
 
1