Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. James Eric Goldmann
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2018AP000474-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: July 13, 2018

2018 WI 89 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2018AP474-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against James Eric Goldmann, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
James Eric Goldmann, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GOLDMANN 
 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 13, 2018 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
      
 
 
2018 WI 89
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2018AP474-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against James Eric Goldmann, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
James Eric Goldmann, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 13, 2018 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a stipulation filed by the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney James Eric 
Goldmann pursuant to SCR 22.12.1  In the stipulation, Attorney 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.12 provides: 
(1) The director may file with the complaint a 
stipulation of the director and the respondent to the 
facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and 
discipline to be imposed.  The supreme court may 
consider the complaint and stipulation without the 
appointment of a referee, in which case the supreme 
(continued) 
No. 
2018AP474-D   
 
2 
 
Goldmann does not contest that he committed all 38 acts of 
professional misconduct alleged by the OLR.  He also does not 
contest that the revocation of his Wisconsin law license is 
appropriate 
discipline 
for 
his 
misconduct, 
along 
with 
a 
requirement that he comply with a monetary judgment obtained 
against him by a client regarding unearned advance fees.   
¶2 
After fully reviewing the matter, we approve the 
stipulation 
and 
revoke 
Attorney 
Goldmann's 
Wisconsin 
law 
license.  His transgressions leave us no choice:  Attorney 
                                                                                                                                                             
court 
may 
approve 
the 
stipulation, 
reject 
the 
stipulation, 
or 
direct 
the 
parties 
to 
consider 
specific modifications to the stipulation.  
(2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation, 
it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of 
law and impose the stipulated discipline.  
(3) If the supreme court rejects a stipulation, a 
referee shall be appointed and the matter shall 
proceed as a complaint filed without a stipulation.  
(3m) If the supreme court directs the parties to 
consider specific modifications to the stipulation, 
the parties may, within 20 days of the date of the 
order, file a revised stipulation, in which case the 
supreme court may approve the revised stipulation, 
adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law, and 
impose the stipulated discipline. If the parties do 
not file a revised stipulation within 20 days of the 
date of the order, a referee shall be appointed and 
the matter shall proceed as a complaint filed without 
a stipulation.  
(4) A stipulation rejected by the supreme court 
has no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to 
the respondent's defense of the proceeding or the 
prosecution of the complaint. 
No. 
2018AP474-D   
 
3 
 
Goldmann has shown himself to be unwilling or unable to conform 
his conduct to the standards that are required to practice law 
in this state.  We also adopt the stipulated requirement that he 
comply 
with 
his 
client's 
monetary 
judgment 
against 
him.  
Finally, because this matter is being resolved without the 
appointment of a referee, and because the OLR has not sought 
costs, we impose no costs.   
¶3 
Attorney Goldmann was admitted to the State Bar of 
Wisconsin in 2013.  His most recent address on file with the 
State Bar of Wisconsin is in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.   According 
to the parties' stipulation, Attorney Goldmann currently lives 
in Canada, but made use of a general delivery address in 
Milwaukee and an email account to receive the case documents in 
this matter.     
¶4 
Attorney 
Goldmann's 
license 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin is currently suspended.  On June 15, 2017, this court 
temporarily suspended his law license for his willful failure to 
cooperate with the OLR investigation of this matter.  In October 
2017, his law license was administratively suspended for failure 
to pay bar dues and assessments and failure to file the required 
trust account certification.  The parties report that Attorney 
Goldmann abandoned the practice of law in mid-2017. 
¶5 
Attorney Goldmann's work in ten client matters gave 
rise to all but one of the misconduct claims in this case.  It 
is not necessary to describe the particular factual allegations 
of Attorney Goldmann's misconduct in each client matter; a 
synopsis will suffice.  Beginning in 2015 and continuing into 
No. 
2018AP474-D   
 
4 
 
2017, Attorney Goldmann effectively abandoned the ten clients 
identified in the OLR's complaint:  M.G. (Counts 1-4); S.M.C. 
(Counts 5-7); A.L.R. (Counts 8-11); E.G.H. (Counts 12-16); C.H. 
(Counts 17-21); R.C.M. (Counts 22-23); R.D.S. (Counts 24-26); 
A.P. (Counts 27-30); S.D.Y. (Counts 31-33); and M.D.C. (Counts 
34-37).  Attorney Goldmann undertook to represent these clients 
in a variety of matters——criminal cases, civil cases, parental 
rights cases, etc.——but he failed to take necessary actions on 
their behalf.  Among other things, he failed to attend court 
hearings; failed to file crucial documents; failed to comply 
with court orders; failed to forward his clients' case files to 
the clients or successor counsel; failed to refund unearned 
advance fees; failed to be forthright about his actions; and 
failed to respond to his clients' requests for information or 
otherwise keep them updated on their cases.  Once the aggrieved 
clients contacted the OLR, he failed to cooperate with the OLR's 
investigation.  
¶6 
The remaining misconduct claim in this case (Count 38) 
concerns certain false and misleading information that Attorney 
Goldmann gave his employing law firm about his level of 
professional experience and success.  The firm included this 
information on its website, with Attorney Goldmann's knowledge 
and understanding.    
¶7 
Based on the foregoing, the OLR complaint alleged, and 
the parties later stipulated, as follows:  
No. 
2018AP474-D   
 
5 
 
 Contrary to SCR 20:1.3,2 Attorney Goldmann failed to 
act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing a client in the following client 
matters:  M.G. (Count 1), A.L.R. (Count 8), E.G.H. 
(Count 12), C.H. (Count 17), R.C.M. (Count 22), A.P. 
(Count 27), S.D.Y. (Count 31), and M.D.C. (Count 
34). 
 Contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a)(3)3 and (4),4 Attorney 
Goldmann failed to keep the following clients 
reasonably informed about the status of their 
matters and failed to promptly comply with the 
clients' 
reasonable 
requests 
for 
information:  
A.L.R. (Count 9), E.G.H. (Count 13), C.H. (Count 
18), A.P. (Count 28), S.D.Y. (Count 32), and M.D.C. 
(Count 35). 
 Contrary to SCR 20:1.5(b)(1)5 and (2),6 Attorney 
Goldmann failed to communicate to R.D.S. in writing 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.3 provides:  "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
3 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides:  "A lawyer shall keep the 
client reasonably informed about the status of the matter." 
4 SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) provides:  "A lawyer shall promptly 
comply with reasonable requests by the client for information." 
5 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 
(continued) 
No. 
2018AP474-D   
 
6 
 
the scope of his representation, the basis or rate 
of his fees and expenses, or the purpose and effect 
of the advance fee paid to him (Count 24). 
 Contrary to SCR 20:1.5(c),7 Attorney Goldmann failed 
to enter into a written contingent fee agreement 
with E.G.H. (Count 14).   
                                                                                                                                                             
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.   
6 SCR 20:1.5(b)(2) provides:  "If the total cost of 
representation to the client, including attorney's fees, is more 
than $1000, the purpose and effect of any retainer or advance 
fee that is paid to the lawyer shall be communicated in 
writing." 
7 SCR 20:1.5(c) provides: 
A fee may be contingent on the outcome of the 
matter for which the service is rendered, except in a 
matter in which a contingent fee is prohibited by par. 
(d) or other law.  A contingent fee agreement shall be 
in a writing signed by the client, and shall state the 
method by which the fee is to be determined, including 
the percentage or percentages that shall accrue to the 
lawyer in the event of settlement, trial or appeal; 
litigation and other expenses to be deducted from the 
recovery; and whether such expenses are to be deducted 
before or after the contingent fee is calculated. The 
agreement must clearly notify the client of any 
expenses for which the client will be liable whether 
or not the client is the prevailing party. Upon 
conclusion of a contingent fee matter, the lawyer 
shall provide the client with a written statement 
stating the outcome of the matter and if there is a 
(continued) 
No. 
2018AP474-D   
 
7 
 
 Contrary 
to 
SCR 
20:1.16(d),8 
Attorney 
Goldmann 
failed to timely return client files, or refund 
unearned fees, or otherwise take steps to protect 
client interests during his representation of M.G. 
(Count 2), A.L.R. (Count 10), C.H. (Count 19), A.P. 
(Count 29), and M.D.C. (Count 36). 
 Contrary to SCR 20:3.3(a)(1),9 Attorney Goldmann 
knowingly made a false statement of fact to a 
tribunal during his representation of S.M.C. (Count 
5). 
                                                                                                                                                             
recovery, showing the remittance to the client and the 
method of its determination.  
8 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. 
9 SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) provides:  "A lawyer shall not knowingly 
make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to 
correct a false statement of material fact or law previously 
made to the tribunal by the lawyer." 
No. 
2018AP474-D   
 
8 
 
 Contrary 
to 
SCR 
20:3.4(c),10 
Attorney 
Goldmann 
knowingly and without justification disobeyed a 
court's order during his work on the E.G.H. matter 
(Count 15). 
 Contrary to SCR 20:3.4(d),11 Attorney Goldmann failed 
to make a reasonably diligent effort to comply with 
a legally proper discovery request during his work 
on the C.H. matter (Count 20). 
 Contrary 
to 
SCR 
20:7.1(a) 
and 
(b),12 
Attorney 
Goldmann made false or misleading communications 
                                                 
10 SCR 20:3.4(c) provides:  "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." 
11 SCR 20:3.4(d) provides:  "A lawyer shall not in pretrial 
procedure, make a frivolous discovery request or fail to make 
reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper 
discovery request by an opposing party." 
12 SCR 20:7.1 provides: 
A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading 
communication 
about 
the 
lawyer 
or 
the 
lawyer's 
services.  A communication is false or misleading if 
it: 
(a) contains a material misrepresentation of fact 
or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the 
statement 
considered 
as 
a 
whole 
not 
materially 
misleading;  
(b) 
is 
likely 
to 
create 
an 
unjustified 
expectation about results the lawyer can achieve, or 
states or implies that the lawyer can achieve results 
by means that violate the Rules of Professional 
Conduct or other law. 
No. 
2018AP474-D   
 
9 
 
about himself and his legal services to R.D.S. 
(Count 25). 
 Contrary to SCR 20:7.1(a), (b), and (c),13 Attorney 
Goldmann made false or misleading communications 
about 
himself 
and 
his 
legal 
services 
to 
his 
employing 
law 
firm, 
which 
then 
included 
the 
information that Attorney Goldmann provided on its 
website (Count 38). 
 Contrary 
to 
SCR 
20:8.4(c),14 
Attorney 
Goldmann 
engaged 
in 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit, 
or 
misrepresentation during his work on the M.G. matter 
(Count 3) and the S.M.C. matter (Count 6). 
 Contrary to SCR 22.03(2)15 and SCR 22.03(6),16 
enforced 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(h),17 
Attorney 
Goldmann 
                                                 
13 SCR 20:7.1(c) provides:  "A lawyer shall not make a false 
or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's 
services.  A communication is false or misleading if it compares 
the lawyer's services with other lawyers' services, unless the 
comparison can be factually substantiated." 
14 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
15 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 
request for a written response.  The director may 
allow additional time to respond.  Following receipt 
(continued) 
No. 
2018AP474-D   
 
10 
 
willfully failed to provide relevant information to 
the OLR in the following matters:  M.G. (Count 4), 
S.M.C. (Count 7), A.L.R. (Count 11), E.G.H. (Count 
16), C.H. (Count 21), R.C.M. (Count 23), R.D.S. 
(Count 26), A.P. (Count 30), S.D.Y. (Count 33), and 
M.D.C. (Count 37). 
¶8 
In the stipulation, Attorney Goldmann states that the 
stipulation did not result from plea bargaining, and that he 
does not contest the facts and misconduct alleged by the OLR or 
the discipline sought by the OLR.  Attorney Goldmann further 
states that he fully understands the misconduct allegations; 
fully understands the ramifications should this court impose the 
stipulated level of discipline; fully understands his right to 
contest this matter; and fully understands his right to consult 
with counsel.  Attorney Goldmann represents that his entry into 
                                                                                                                                                             
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.   
16 SCR 
22.03(6) 
provides: 
 
"In 
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."  
17 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)." 
No. 
2018AP474-D   
 
11 
 
the stipulation is made knowingly and voluntarily, and that his 
entry into the stipulation represents his decision not to 
contest the misconduct alleged in the complaint or the level and 
type of discipline sought by the OLR. 
¶9 
Having 
considered 
this 
matter, 
we 
approve 
the 
stipulation and adopt the stipulated facts and legal conclusions 
of professional misconduct.  We agree that the revocation of 
Attorney Goldmann's Wisconsin law license is in order.  Attorney 
Goldmann has engaged in a widespread pattern of serious 
professional 
misconduct 
that 
has 
harmed 
his 
clients 
and 
tarnished the profession.  A sanction of revocation is clearly 
supported by our precedent.  See, e.g., In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Gegner, 2017 WI 11, 373 Wis. 2d 192, 890 
N.W.2d 581 (consensual license revocation based on 47 counts of 
misconduct and other pending OLR investigative matters); In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Cannaday, 2015 WI 11, 360 
Wis. 2d 647, 
859 
N.W.2d 75 
(revocation 
for 
76 
counts 
of 
misconduct after attorney abandoned a significant portion of law 
practice); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kelly, 2012 WI 
55, 341 Wis. 2d 104, 814 N.W.2d 844 (revocation for 51 counts of 
misconduct); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Fisher, 2010 
WI 45, 324 Wis. 2d 745, 785 N.W.2d 321 (revocation for 55 counts 
of misconduct after attorney abandoned law practice); In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Abbott, 2005 WI 172, 286 
Wis. 2d 616, 707 N.W.2d 851 (consensual license revocation for 
20 allegations of misconduct). 
No. 
2018AP474-D   
 
12 
 
¶10 We turn next to the issue of restitution.  According 
to the parties' stipulation, one of Attorney Goldmann's clients, 
A.P., sued Attorney Goldmann in small claims court regarding 
unearned advance fees that he had failed to return to her.  A.P. 
obtained a judgment in the amount of $1,653 against Attorney 
Goldmann.  The parties stipulated, and we agree, that Attorney 
Goldmann should be ordered to pay restitution to A.P. in the 
amount of this judgment.    
¶11 The parties' stipulation says nothing further on the 
topic of restitution.  We note that, prior to any reinstatement 
of Attorney Goldmann's Wisconsin law license, we will revisit 
the issue of restitution.  See SCR 22.29(4m) (any attorney 
petitioning for reinstatement from a disciplinary suspension of 
six months or more is required to allege and demonstrate that 
the attorney "has made restitution to or settled all claims of 
persons injured or harmed by [the attorney's] misconduct 
. . . or, if not, the [attorney's] explanation of the failure or 
inability to do so"). 
¶12 Finally, because Attorney Goldmann entered into a 
comprehensive stipulation under SCR 22.12, thereby obviating the 
need for the appointment of a referee and a full disciplinary 
proceeding, we do not impose costs in this matter. 
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that the license of James Eric Goldmann 
to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of 
this order. 
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the June 15, 2017 temporary 
suspension of James Eric Goldmann's license to practice law in 
No. 
2018AP474-D   
 
13 
 
Wisconsin, due to his willful failure to cooperate with the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation's investigation in this matter, is 
lifted. 
¶15 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
administrative 
suspension of James Eric Goldmann's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin, due to his failure to pay bar dues and assessments 
and his failure to comply with trust account certification 
requirements, will remain in effect until each reason for the 
administrative 
suspension 
has 
been 
rectified 
pursuant 
to 
SCR 22.28(1). 
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that James Eric Goldmann shall 
pay restitution consistent with the $1,653 judgment issued 
against him and in A.P.'s favor in connection with the 
misconduct described herein. 
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that James Eric Goldmann 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. 
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(3). 
 
No. 
2018AP474-D   
 
 
 
1