Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jolie M. Semancik
Citation: 2005 WI 139
Docket Number: 2004AP001885-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: October 14, 2005

2005 WI 139 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2004AP1885-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jolie M. Semancik, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Jolie M. Semancik, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SEMANCIK 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 14, 2005   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2005 WI 139
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2004AP1885-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jolie M. Semancik, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Jolie M. Semancik, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 14, 2005 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a report and recommendation 
filed by referee Rose Marie Baron recommending that Attorney 
Jolie M. Semancik's license to practice law in Wisconsin be 
suspended for a period of six months for professional misconduct 
committed in connection with her failure to pay for professional 
investigative services, that she be directed to pay a small 
claims judgment entered against her in the amount of $1855.92, 
plus interest, and that she be directed to pay the costs of this 
No. 
2004AP1885-D   
 
2 
 
disciplinary proceeding which total $3613.14 as of April 20, 
2005.  We adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions 
of law and agree with the referee's recommendations in all 
respects. 
¶2 
Attorney Semancik was admitted to the practice of law 
in Wisconsin in 1994.  Her license to practice law has been 
temporarily suspended since April 6, 2005, for her failure to 
cooperate in this disciplinary investigation.  She has not 
previously been subjected to formal discipline. 
¶3 
The misconduct alleged in this proceeding relates to 
Attorney Semancik's failure to pay for services she received 
from private investigator Scott Bretl, whom she retained in 
connection with criminal law matters she received through 
appointments with the Office of the State Public Defender.   
¶4 
The complaint filed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) on July 16, 2004, alleged that Attorney Semancik retained 
Bretl to investigate a case involving her client, M.W.  On March 
13, 2002, Bretl submitted an invoice to Attorney Semancik in the 
amount of $473.92, reflecting his fees in the M.W. matter.  On 
April 19, 2002, Attorney Semancik in turn, sent an invoice to 
the Office of the State Public Defender that included both her 
attorney fees and Bretl's investigative fees relating to the 
M.W. matter.  On May 24, 2002, the Office of the State Public 
Defender issued a check to Attorney Semancik in the amount of 
$1549.92, reflecting payment for the claimed attorney fees and 
investigative fees.  Bretl was entitled to receive $473.92 of 
that amount. 
No. 
2004AP1885-D   
 
3 
 
¶5 
Attorney Semancik neither deposited the funds into her 
trust account nor notified Bretl that she had received funds to 
which he was entitled.  When she endorsed and cashed the check 
on May 28, 2002, Attorney Semancik did not pay Bretl for his 
work. 
¶6 
Attorney Semancik also retained Bretl to investigate 
the case of her client, W.A., and, on August 13, 2002, Bretl 
submitted an invoice in the amount of $242.64 reflecting his 
fees in the W.A. matter. 
¶7 
On August 15, 2002, Attorney Semancik submitted an 
invoice to the Office of the State Public Defender seeking 
payment for her attorney fees and for Bretl's investigative 
fees.  On August 26, 2002, the Office of the State Public 
Defender issued Attorney Semancik a check in the amount of 
$508.64 reflecting payment of both Attorney Semancik's fee and 
Bretl's fee of $242.64.  Again, Attorney Semancik failed to 
notify Bretl that she had received the funds and failed to pay 
Bretl for his services. 
¶8 
Attorney Semancik also retained Bretl to investigate 
the case of her client, I.M., and, on November 2, 2002, Bretl 
submitted an invoice in the amount of $231.04 reflecting his 
fees in the I.M. matter.  On November 8, 2002, Attorney Semancik 
submitted an invoice to the Office of the State Public Defender 
seeking payment for her attorney fees and Bretl's investigative 
fees.  On November 22, 2002, the Office of the State Public 
Defender issued Attorney Semancik a check in the amount of 
$823.44 as payment in the I.M. matter and another client matter.  
No. 
2004AP1885-D   
 
4 
 
The check included payment of $231.04 reflecting Bretl's fee.  
Again, Attorney Semancik neither deposited the funds into her 
trust account nor notified Bretl that she had received funds to 
which he was entitled.  When she endorsed and cashed the check 
on November 25, 2002, Attorney Semancik did not pay Bretl. 
¶9 
Attorney Semancik also retained Bretl to investigate 
client, D.G.'s case, and, on August 13, 2002, Bretl submitted to 
Attorney Semancik an invoice for the D.G. matter in the amount 
of 
$214.24. 
 
Attorney 
Semancik 
also 
retained 
Bretl 
to 
investigate client, R.T.'s case, and, on November 2, 2002, Bretl 
sent Attorney Semancik an invoice for the R.T. matter in the 
amount of $526.08. 
¶10 On November 13, 2002, Attorney Semancik submitted to 
the Office of the State Public Defender an invoice seeking 
payment for her attorney fees and Bretl's investigative fees in 
the R.T. matter.  On November 15, 2002, Attorney Semancik 
submitted an invoice to the Office of the State Public Defender 
seeking payment for her attorney fees and Bretl's investigative 
fees in the D.G. matter.  
¶11 On November 22, 2002, the Office of the State Public 
Defender issued Attorney Semancik a check in the amount of 
$1558.32 reflecting payments for the D.G. matter, the R.T. 
matter, and another client matter.  The check also included 
payments for Bretl's fees submitted in the D.G. matter and the 
R.T. matter.  Again, Attorney Semancik neither deposited the 
funds in her trust account nor notified Bretl that she had 
received funds to which he was entitled.  When she endorsed and 
No. 
2004AP1885-D   
 
5 
 
cashed the check on November 25, 2002, she did not pay Bretl for 
his work on either the D.G. or the R.T. matter. 
¶12 Indeed, Bretl only learned that the Office of the 
State Public Defender had made payments for his services to 
Attorney Semancik when he telephoned them to inquire about his 
fees.  When Bretl asked Attorney Semancik about her receipt of 
these payments, Attorney Semancik's response was "I guess I 
spent it." 
¶13 On February 21, 2003, Bretl filed a small claims 
action against Attorney Semancik in an attempt to collect his 
earned fees.  On March 20, 2003, the Milwaukee County Circuit 
Court entered a judgment in the small claims action in the 
amount of $1855.92 in favor of Bretl and against Semancik.  See 
North Shore Investigations v. Semancik, Milwaukee County Case 
No. 2003SC005090. 
¶14 On August 27, 2003, Attorney Semancik stated to OLR 
staff that she believed she had only received one check from the 
Office of the State Public Defender that had contained funds 
belonging to Bretl, and that those funds were deposited into her 
business account.  She stated further that she might not have 
known that she had received the check since the secretary at her 
former law firm might have deposited the check without her 
knowledge.  She also claimed that her failure to pay Bretl was 
due to an accounting error, and that once she learned of the 
error, she tried to make payment arrangements with Bretl, but 
that Bretl refused to accept payments. 
No. 
2004AP1885-D   
 
6 
 
¶15 On September 19, 2003, the OLR sent correspondence to 
Attorney Semancik questioning her statement that she had been 
unaware that her firm had received the four checks from the 
Office of the State Public Defender, even though Attorney 
Semancik had personally endorsed three of the checks.  Attorney 
Semancik explained that, at the time of her prior conversation 
with OLR intake staff, she did not have her file. 
¶16 The complaint in this matter was filed on July 16, 
2004.  No timely answer was filed and the OLR moved for default 
judgment.  Attorney Semancik then filed a tardy answer and the 
matter proceeded.  However, Attorney Semancik failed to appear 
for her own deposition and the OLR filed a motion for sanctions 
and default judgment.  The motion was ultimately granted.   
¶17 The referee noted that Attorney Semancik had denied 
some of the findings of fact and counts alleged against her and 
that these disputed matters were intended to be the subject of a 
hearing scheduled for February 4, 2005.  However, that hearing 
was cancelled because Attorney Semancik claimed that she had 
retained counsel to represent her at the hearing and that 
additional time was required for the attorney to properly 
prepare 
the 
case. 
 
The 
legal 
representation 
was 
never 
formalized, however, and after many delays, a final telephonic 
status conference was scheduled on March 3, 2005.  Attorney 
Semancik failed to appear at that conference.  She neither 
contacted the referee nor made herself available for a second 
conference scheduled for March 4, 2005.  Only counsel for the 
OLR appeared at that conference. 
No. 
2004AP1885-D   
 
7 
 
¶18 Following that conference the OLR submitted a pre-
report submission on judgment and sanctions to the referee.  A 
copy was provided to Attorney Semancik.   
¶19 On March 11, 2005, the referee sent a letter to 
Attorney Semancik informing her that unless she responded to the 
OLR arguments regarding her failure to cooperate, as well as to 
the allegations in the disciplinary complaint by March 23, 2005, 
the referee would proceed to prepare the report for the supreme 
court.  Attorney Semancik did not respond.1   
¶20 The referee also noted that Attorney Semancik had 
failed to meet various other deadlines including the late filing 
of her answer, failure to appear at her own deposition, failing 
to provide a witness list, and failing to appear at scheduled 
conferences and hearings.  The referee described Attorney 
Semancik's 
conduct 
as 
"egregious." 
 
Indeed, 
the 
referee 
concluded that the sanctions sought by the OLR were authorized 
under Wis. Stat. §§ 802.10 and 805.03 and were warranted for 
Attorney Semancik's conduct in this proceeding.  Accordingly, 
the referee struck Attorney Semancik's answer and the matter was 
handled as a default proceeding. 
¶21 The referee then found that Attorney Semancik did not, 
in fact, make any offer to reimburse Bretl.  While she once 
                                                 
1 On February 4, 2005, this court issued an order directing 
Attorney Semancik to show cause why her license to practice law 
should not be temporarily suspended for failure to cooperate 
with this OLR proceeding.  Attorney Semancik failed to respond 
to that directive and, by order dated April 6, 2005, Attorney 
Semancik's license to practice law was temporarily suspended for 
failure to cooperate with this disciplinary proceeding. 
No. 
2004AP1885-D   
 
8 
 
indicated to Bretl's attorney that she would do so, the referee 
found that no action was taken on that comment. 
¶22 The referee concluded further that by failing to 
deposit into her trust account four checks from the State Public 
Defender's office that contained funds belonging to Bretl, 
Attorney Semancik failed to hold in trust, separate from her own 
property, that property of a third person that was in her 
possession in connection with a representation, in violation of 
former SCR 20:1.15(a).2 
¶23 The referee concluded further that by failing to 
notify Bretl of the receipt of funds in which Bretl had an 
interest, and by failing to deliver those funds to Bretl, 
Attorney Semancik failed to notify Bretl promptly in writing of 
her receipt of the funds and failed to promptly deliver to Bretl 
funds to which he was entitled, in violation of former SCR 
20:1.15(b).3 
                                                 
2 Former SCR 20:1.15(a) applies to misconduct committed 
prior to July 1, 2004.  It provides in pertinent part: 
 
A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the 
lawyer's own property, that property of clients and 
third persons that is in the lawyer's possession in 
connection with a representation or when acting in a 
fiduciary capacity. . . . All funds of clients and 
third persons paid to a lawyer or law firm shall be 
deposited in one or more identifiable trust accounts. 
3 Former SCR 20:1.15(b) provides: 
 
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 
No. 
2004AP1885-D   
 
9 
 
¶24 In addition, the referee found that by converting to 
her own use, funds received from the Office of the State Public 
Defender as payment for Bretl's work, Attorney Semancik engaged 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).4 
¶25 The referee agreed with the OLR's recommendation 
regarding discipline, concluding that a six-month suspension was 
appropriate discipline for Attorney Semancik's misconduct in 
this matter.  The referee also recommended this court direct 
Attorney Semancik to satisfy Bretl's small claims judgment in 
the amount of $1855.92, plus interest, and also assess costs in 
this matter. 
¶26 We agree that the referee's decision to strike 
Attorney Semancik's answer was an appropriate sanction for the 
egregious 
procedural 
violations 
and 
delays 
occasioned 
by 
Attorney Semancik.  See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Haberman, 128 Wis. 2d 390, 382 N.W.2d 439 (1986) 
(holding it was not an abuse of discretion to strike answer and 
proceed on default in response to procedural violations). 
¶27 Based on our independent review of this matter, we 
adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law.  We 
                                                                                                                                                             
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 20:8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
No. 
2004AP1885-D   
 
10 
 
also approve the referee's recommendation for a six-month 
suspension, the recommendation that we direct Attorney Semancik 
to satisfy the small claims judgment entered against her, and 
that we require Attorney Semancik to pay the costs of this 
proceeding.   
¶28 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Jolie M. Semancik to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six 
months, effective the date of this order. 
¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Attorney Jolie M. Semancik shall satisfy the 
judgment entered against her in favor of Scott Bretl, in the 
amount of $1855.92, plus post-judgment interest, in the matter 
of North Shore Investigations v. Semancik, Milwaukee County Case 
No. 2003SC005090 (judgment entered March 20, 2003).  If the 
judgment is not satisfied within the time specified and absent a 
showing to this court of her inability to make the restitution 
within that time, the license of Jolie M. Semancik to practice 
law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of 
the court. 
¶30 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Jolie M. Semancik shall pay to the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If those 
costs are not paid within the time specified, and absent a 
showing to this court of an inability to pay those costs within 
that time, the license of Attorney Semancik to practice law 
shall remain suspended until further order of the court. 
No. 
2004AP1885-D   
 
11 
 
¶31 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if she has not already done 
so, Attorney Jolie M. Semancik comply with the provisions of SCR 
22.26 concerning the duties of an attorney whose license to 
practice law has been suspended.   
 
No. 
2004AP1885-D   
 
 
 
1