Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michael M. Rajek
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2018AP001418-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: October 20, 2020

2020 WI 81 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2018AP1418-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Michael M. Rajek, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Petitioner, 
     v. 
Michael M. Rajek, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST RAJEK  
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 20, 2020   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam.  
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2020 WI 81 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2018AP1418-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Michael M. Rajek, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Petitioner, 
 
     v. 
 
Michael M. Rajek, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
OCT 20, 2020 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review Referee Allan Beatty's report 
recommending we publicly reprimand Attorney Michael M. Rajek for 
professional misconduct and require him to pay the full costs of 
this proceeding, which are $8,151.08 as of February 20, 2020.  
Attorney Rajek has filed an objection to the recommended costs. 
¶2 
We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law.  We agree that Attorney Rajek's professional 
misconduct warrants a public reprimand and we deny Attorney 
No. 
2018AP1418-D   
 
2 
 
Rajek's objection to costs and order him to pay the full costs 
of this proceeding. The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) did 
not seek restitution in this matter and none is ordered. 
¶3 
Attorney Rajek was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1974.  He has previously been disciplined for 
professional misconduct.  In 1986, he received a private 
reprimand for engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation.  Private Reprimand 1986-5.  In 
2006, he received a public reprimand for committing a criminal 
act that reflected adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness or 
fitness as a lawyer in other respects, and engaging in conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation.  
Public Reprimand of Michael J. Rajek, No. 2006-4 (electronic 
copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/ 
001848.html).  In 2015, he was found to have committed five 
counts of professional conduct, but we imposed no discipline 
because of the technical nature of the violations.  In re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Rajek, 
2015 
WI 
18, 
361 
Wis. 2d 60, 859 N.W.2d 439. 
¶4 
On July 30, 2018, the OLR filed a disciplinary 
complaint alleging four counts of professional misconduct 
stemming from Attorney Rajek's representation of D.W. in a 
criminal proceeding.  D.W. was charged in August 2011 with three 
felonies and a misdemeanor in Sawyer County.  In September 2011, 
D.W. hired Attorney Rajek to represent him.  There was an oral 
agreement that D.W. would pay Attorney Rajek a retainer fee of 
$30,000.  No fee agreement was signed at that time.  On 
No. 
2018AP1418-D   
 
3 
 
September 22, 2011, D.W.'s wife paid Attorney Rajek a $5,000 
advanced fee for D.W.'s representation.  D.W.'s cash bond of 
$25,000 was pledged as payment of the balance of Attorney 
Rajek's fee.1  At some point, a fee agreement was signed, dated 
September 25, 2012.  
¶5 
On September 24, 2012, D.W. pled no-contest to one 
felony count and the misdemeanor and the State dismissed the 
other two felony counts.  D.W. was convicted and sentenced to 
two 
years 
of 
incarceration 
and 
four 
years 
of 
extended 
supervision on the felony, and to nine months of jail time for 
the misdemeanor.  
¶6 
On January 28, 2013, Attorney Rajek filed a notice of 
intent to pursue postconviction relief on D.W.'s behalf.  On May 
13, 2013, Attorney Rajek filed a notice of appeal.  In mid-July 
of 2013, a friend of D.W.'s family who is an Illinois attorney, 
contacted Attorney Rajek at the family's behest to ask about the 
status of D.W.'s appeal.  
¶7 
On July 22, 2013, Attorney Rajek filed a motion in the 
court of appeals seeking a briefing extension.  The motion 
mentions the Illinois lawyer's request to review D.W.'s file.  
The court extended the deadline until September 24, 2013.  
Attorney Rajek then failed to timely file an appellate brief.  
On October 10, 2013, the court of appeals issued an order 
                                                 
1 Subsequently the Sawyer County Clerk of Court issued a 
check dated March 14, 2013, in the amount of $19,859.11 to 
Attorney Rajek, after D.W. was sentenced and released from his 
bond.  The amount of this check was the balance from D.W.'s 
$25,000 cash bail after fees and costs were subtracted. 
No. 
2018AP1418-D   
 
4 
 
stating that unless the brief was filed within five days, or an 
extension requested, the court would dismiss D.W.'s appeal.  On 
October 14, 2013, Attorney Rajek requested another briefing 
extension and also moved to withdraw as D.W.'s counsel, stating 
that D.W.'s family intended to retain the Illinois lawyer as 
appellate counsel.  However, the Illinois attorney had not 
agreed to represent D.W.  
¶8 
On October 17, 2013, the court of appeals denied 
Attorney Rajek's motion to withdraw, noting that the prospective 
lawyer was not licensed in Wisconsin.  The court granted another 
briefing extension until December 16, 2013.  On December 13, 
2013, Attorney Rajek requested and received yet another briefing 
extension.  
¶9 
On December 26, 2013, Attorney Rajek filed the 
appellate brief, in which he challenged an aspect of D.W.'s 
sentencing.  The State moved to dismiss the appeal because 
Attorney Rajek had not first filed a postconviction motion.  
Attorney Rajek did not respond and on February 6, 2014, the 
appeal was dismissed because a postconviction motion was a 
prerequisite to the sentencing challenge. 
¶10 Attorney Rajek then filed a motion for reconsideration 
which the court of appeals granted, extending the time for 
filing a postconviction motion until April 11, 2014.  On April 
11, 2014, Attorney Rajek filed a postconviction motion.  The 
circuit court conducted a hearing on that motion in July 2014.  
The court corrected an error relating to pre-sentence credit and 
adjusted the sentence structure in a manner favorable to D.W.   
No. 
2018AP1418-D   
 
5 
 
¶11 Two years later, D.W. filed a grievance against 
Attorney Rajek.  In August 2016, the OLR contacted Attorney 
Rajek, requiring a written response to D.W.'s grievance and a 
copy of the entire case file in the D.W. matter.  For 
essentially the next year, Attorney Rajek either failed to 
respond or submitted only partial responses to the OLR's 
repeated requests for information.   Attorney Rajek took the 
position 
that 
D.W. 
was 
making 
false 
representations.  
Eventually, the OLR filed a complaint and Referee Beatty was 
appointed. 
¶12 Litigation ensued.  On May 17, 2019, while the parties 
were preparing for an evidentiary hearing in this matter, 
Attorney Rajek notified the referee that he needed to take an 
immediate six-week medical leave.  The referee acceded to the 
request, 
canceled 
the 
scheduled 
evidentiary 
hearing, 
and 
suspended other deadlines.  At a July 2019 teleconference, 
Attorney Rajek requested another 30-day delay to address medical 
needs.  
¶13 The evidentiary hearing in this matter was conducted 
on October 28, 2019.  D.W. had died during the pendency of this 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
D.W.'s 
wife 
testified 
at 
the 
evidentiary hearing.  As relevant here, D.W.'s wife acknowledged 
that the signature on the fee agreement was D.W.'s, but she 
disputed that he had signed the fee agreement on September 25, 
2012.  D.W.'s wife also testified that she had drafted 
correspondence so D.W. could request his file from Attorney 
Rajek.  She testified that D.W. never received his file.  For 
No. 
2018AP1418-D   
 
6 
 
his part, Attorney Rajek flatly disputed the OLR's charges and 
denied receiving a written request for his file from D.W.  
D.W.'s successor counsel testified that he only received a 
"thin" quantity of documents regarding D.W.'s case from Attorney 
Rajek.   
¶14 After the evidentiary hearing, both parties filed 
post-hearing briefs.  On January 31, 2020, Referee Beatty filed 
a report.  After making certain factual findings, the referee 
concluded that Attorney Rajek had violated three of the four 
counts of misconduct alleged by the OLR.  Specifically, the 
referee concluded that: 
By failing to communicate to D.W., in writing, the 
scope of his representation and the basis or rate of 
his 
fee 
or 
expenses 
for 
which 
D.W. 
would 
be 
responsible, before or within a reasonable time after 
commencing the representation, Attorney Rajek violated 
SCR 20:1.5(b)(l)2 (Count One).  
By failing to make a timely filing of a motion for 
postconviction relief, resulting in the dismissal of 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) provides:  
The scope of the representation and the basis or 
rate of the fee and expenses for which the client will 
be responsible shall be communicated to the client in 
writing, before or within a reasonable time after 
commencing the representation, except when the lawyer 
will charge a regularly represented client on the same 
basis or rate as in the past.  If it is reasonably 
foreseeable that the total cost of representation to 
the client, including attorney's fees, will be $1000 
or less, the communication may be oral or in writing.  
Any changes in the basis or rate of the fee or 
expenses shall also be communicated in writing to the 
client.   
No. 
2018AP1418-D   
 
7 
 
D.W.'s appeal, Attorney Rajek violated SCR 20:1.33 
(Count Two). 
By failing to timely provide the OLR with a written 
response to D.W.'s grievance and by willfully failing 
to 
furnish 
requested 
documents, 
Attorney 
Rajek 
violated SCR 22.03(2)4 and SCR 22.03(6)5, enforced via 
SCR 20:8.4(h)6 (Count Four).   
¶15 However, the referee concluded that the OLR failed to 
prove Count Three, which alleged that Attorney Rajek violated 
SCR 20:1.16(d).7  The referee determined there was not sufficient 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:1.3 provides: "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
4 SCR 22.03(2) provides:   
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 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 
22.03(6) 
provides: 
 
"In 
the 
course 
of 
the 
investigation, the respondent's willful 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." 
6 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides:  "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)." 
7 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides:  
No. 
2018AP1418-D   
 
8 
 
evidence that D.W. had sent Attorney Rajek the letter demanding 
his file.   
¶16 The referee then considered the appropriate discipline 
for Attorney Rajek's misconduct.  Determining appropriate 
discipline for professional misconduct requires an assessment 
of: (1) the seriousness, nature, and extent of the misconduct; 
(2) the level of discipline needed to protect the public, the 
courts, and the legal system from repetition of the attorney's 
misconduct; (3) the need to impress upon the attorney the 
seriousness of the misconduct; and (4) the need to deter other 
attorneys 
from 
committing 
similar 
misconduct. 
 
In 
re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hammis, 2011 WI 3, ¶39, 331 
Wis. 2d 19, 793 N.W.2d 884.  On balance the referee agreed that 
a public reprimand was appropriate, together with the imposition 
of costs. 
¶17 No appeal was filed so our review proceeds pursuant to 
SCR 22.17(2).8  In conducting our review, we affirm the referee's 
                                                                                                                                                             
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. 
8 SCR 22.17(2) provides: 
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
No. 
2018AP1418-D   
 
9 
 
findings of fact unless they are found to be clearly erroneous, 
and we review the referee's conclusions of law on a de novo 
basis.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 
WI 126, ¶5, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125.  We may impose 
whatever sanction we see 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.  
¶18 Based upon our review, we accept the referee's 
findings of fact and conclusions of law in this matter and agree 
that Attorney Rajek committed the three counts of professional 
misconduct, as determined by the referee.  We dismiss Count 
Three. 
¶19 In recommending a public reprimand, the referee stated 
that it was "understandable that Attorney Rajek was frustrated 
by the [D.W.] grievance and the subsequent investigation."  The 
referee acknowledged that D.W. "was a difficult and troubled 
person who committed a very serious and dangerous offense."  
However, the referee also observed that Attorney Rajek has 
demonstrated a pattern of difficulty completing tasks on time.   
¶20 On balance, we agree that a public reprimand is 
sufficient to address this misconduct and is consistent with 
case law.  See, e.g., Public Reprimand of Joseph E. Schubert, 
No. 
2017-7 
(electronic 
copy 
available 
at 
                                                                                                                                                             
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter.  
No. 
2018AP1418-D   
 
10 
 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/002971.html) 
(publicly 
reprimanding attorney with previous private reprimand for 
failing to file a timely postconviction motion or notice of 
appeal 
and 
failure 
to 
communicate 
with 
his 
client);  
Public Reprimand of John R. Dade, No. 2012-1 (electronic copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/ 
002427.html) 
(publicly 
reprimanding 
attorney 
with 
prior 
discipline for failing to perform work for a criminal defendant, 
failing to communicate, and failing to timely deliver the 
client's file).  This is, however, the fourth time Attorney 
Rajek has committed professional misconduct.  We warn him that 
our policy of progressive discipline suggests that if he faces 
professional discipline again, the court is unlikely to consider 
a reprimand sufficient.   
¶21 Finally, we address the question of costs.  It is this 
court's general practice to assess the full costs of a 
disciplinary proceeding against the attorney being disciplined.  
SCR 22.24(1m).  After the OLR filed its statement on costs, 
which were $8,151.08 as of February 20, 2020, Attorney Rajek 
filed a timely objection noting that OLR counsel had failed to 
attend a deposition on August 27, 2019, which he claims "cost my 
office $2,325.00" although he does not explain how these 
"damages" were incurred.  On June 18, 2020, this court issued an 
order directing the OLR to provide a status update regarding the 
pending objection and afforded Attorney Rajek an opportunity to 
respond. 
No. 
2018AP1418-D   
 
11 
 
¶22 On June 25, 2020, the OLR filed a response advising 
the court that it had not received Attorney Rajek's objection.  
The OLR provided the requested itemization of costs and agreed 
that Attorney Rajek should not be held responsible for the costs 
of the deposition in question, but explained those costs were 
not included in the statement of costs.   
¶23 On July 30, 2020, Attorney Rajek faxed a letter 
belatedly objecting to being ordered to pay the fees and 
expenses attributable to the OLR counsel Attorney Hendrix; 
questioning the cost of a witness the OLR called at the 
evidentiary hearing; and disputing certain charges recorded by 
the referee.  He also seeks reimbursement from the OLR for a 
retainer he claims he had to refuse because he was scheduled to 
attend the deposition at which the OLR failed to appear.9  
¶24 In its reply, the OLR declined to produce verified 
time stamps and original documents from OLR's file noting that 
our rules do not contemplate discovery in matters involving cost 
objections.  SCR 22.24(2).  Moreover, our rules explicitly 
define "costs" as including "fees and expenses of counsel for 
the office of lawyer regulation."  SCR 22.001(3).  To the extent 
Attorney Rajek implies counsel for the OLR stands to benefit 
financially by handling this case, the OLR notes that the OLR 
counsel derive no personal monetary benefit from handling lawyer 
                                                 
9 On July 31, 2010, Attorney Rajek faxed a nearly identical 
document entitled Second Objection to Statement of Costs. 
No. 
2018AP1418-D   
 
12 
 
regulation cases; cost collections inure to the OLR and the 
Wisconsin court system. 
¶25 We reject Attorney Rajek's objection to the witness 
fees of J.W.  He claims that "no proof of [J.W.'s] expense has 
been shown or that she was a necessary witness."  The record 
belies this claim.  The itemization of costs the OLR filed 
included the witness' expense voucher and hotel receipt.  At the 
time of the evidentiary hearing, the grievant, D.W., was 
deceased.  J.W. is his widow and she had personal knowledge of 
some facts and circumstances relevant to this proceeding.  We 
accept the OLR's determination that her testimony would be 
necessary and helpful to the referee and we reject Attorney 
Rajek's objection to costs attributable to this witness.  
Similarly, 
we 
flatly 
reject 
Attorney 
Rajek's 
unsupported 
objection to two of the referee's cost entries.  Finally, we 
decline to "reimburse" Attorney Rajek for his unsupported claim 
that he incurred "damages" and "lost income" of $8,040 in 
connection with defending himself in this matter.  
¶26 After 
reviewing 
the 
record 
and 
the 
OLR's 
documentation, we conclude that the costs submitted by the OLR 
are reasonable under the circumstances of this case.  Given the 
nature of the proceedings before the referee and the fact that 
there was a full evidentiary hearing, we conclude that the OLR's 
counsel fees, witness fees, and disbursements are justified.  We 
deny Attorney Rajek's objection and conclude that he should bear 
the full costs of this proceeding. 
No. 
2018AP1418-D   
 
13 
 
¶27 IT IS ORDERED that Attorney Michael M. Rajek is 
publicly reprimanded.   
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Michael M. Rajek shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$8,151.08 as of February 20, 2020. 
No. 
2018AP1418-D   
 
 
 
1