Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Paul M. Kasprowicz
Citation: 2007 WI 67
Docket Number: 2006AP001017-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: June 1, 2007

2007 WI 67 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2006AP1017-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Paul M. Kasprowicz, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Paul M. Kasprowicz, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KASPROWICZ 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 1, 2007   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2007 WI 67
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2006AP1017-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Paul M. Kasprowicz, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Paul M. Kasprowicz, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
JUN 1, 2007 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the referee's recommendation 
that we suspend Attorney Paul M. Kasprowicz's license to 
practice law for a period of 60 days for professional misconduct 
committed in two client matters.  Neither the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR) nor Attorney Kasprowicz has appealed the 
referee's recommendation.  Therefore, the matter is submitted to 
the court for review pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1  In conducting 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) provides:  Review; appeal. 
No. 
2006AP1017-D   
 
2 
 
our review we will affirm the referee's findings of fact unless 
they are clearly erroneous.
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Sosnay, 209 Wis. 2d 241, 243, 562 N.W.2d 137 (1997).  We 
review the referee's conclusions of law de novo.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 
Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 718.  In accordance with our authority 
to supervise the practice of law in this state, we determine the 
level of discipline that is appropriate under the particular 
circumstances, independent of the referee's recommendation, but 
benefiting from it.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶2 
After independent review of the record, we adopt the 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law.  Further, we 
agree 
with 
the 
referee's 
recommendation 
that 
Attorney 
Kasprowicz's license to practice law in this state be suspended 
for a period of 60 days.  We also conclude that Attorney 
Kasprowicz should pay the full costs of this disciplinary 
proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney Kasprowicz was admitted to the practice of 
law in Wisconsin on May 19, 1986.  He received a public 
reprimand in December of 2004 for professional misconduct.   
                                                                                                                                                             
 
(2) 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 
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. 
2006AP1017-D   
 
3 
 
¶4 
The misconduct in the present case relates to Attorney 
Kasprowicz's representation of clients in two separate divorce 
proceedings.  On April 26, 2006, the OLR filed a complaint 
against Attorney Kasprowicz alleging eight counts of misconduct.  
The parties executed a stipulation regarding some of the factual 
allegations.  A hearing was conducted on the remaining issues 
and on the question of the appropriate discipline. 
¶5 
The record before us reflects that on June 9, 2004, 
C.R.K. (formerly known as C.R.B.) hired Attorney Kasprowicz to 
represent her in her divorce proceeding.  This client gave 
Attorney Kasprowicz an advance payment of $1800 pursuant to a 
fee agreement signed on that date.  The fee agreement provided 
that Attorney Kasprowicz would bill the client at the rate of 
$160 per hour for his time.   
¶6 
Attorney Kasprowicz did not deposit the client's $1800 
advance fee payment into his client trust account.  He filed the 
summons and petition in the divorce action on August 13, 2004.  
On October 7, 2004, Attorney Kasprowicz sent this client a 
letter asking her to call him to discuss the advisability of 
seeking a temporary order.  On or about October 10, 2004, the 
client called Attorney Kasprowicz to discuss the matter.  
However, Attorney Kasprowicz failed to follow up with this 
client, despite numerous phone messages and e-mails in which she 
requested an update.   
¶7 
In addition to failing to communicate with the client, 
Attorney Kasprowicz also failed to take certain actions in the 
divorce case that ultimately resulted in the dismissal of the 
No. 
2006AP1017-D   
 
4 
 
divorce petition.  Attorney Kasprowicz did not notify the client 
that her divorce petition had been dismissed. 
¶8 
C.R.K. 
eventually 
terminated 
the 
representation, 
requested a refund of her retainer, and filed a grievance with 
the OLR.  Attorney Kasprowicz did refund the client's $1800 
retainer. 
¶9 
However, Attorney Kasprowicz then failed to respond to 
three letters from the OLR requesting information regarding the 
grievance.  Indeed, Attorney Kasprowicz did not respond to the 
OLR until this court issued an order to show cause on June 6, 
2005, threatening him with temporary suspension of his license 
to practice law for failure to cooperate with the OLR.   
¶10 The 
OLR 
complaint 
also 
alleged 
that 
Attorney 
Kasprowicz committed misconduct in his representation of M.J.T.  
M.J.T. hired Attorney Kasprowicz in July 2003 to represent her 
in a divorce proceeding filed by her (then) husband.  She gave 
Attorney Kasprowicz an advance payment of $1250 pursuant to a 
fee agreement signed on that date.  Attorney Kasprowicz did not 
deposit the $1250 advance fee payment in his client trust 
account. 
¶11 The OLR complaint alleged that Attorney Kasprowicz was 
to prepare and file findings of fact, conclusions of law and 
judgment to finalize his client's divorce proceeding.  Attorney 
Kasprowicz failed to timely file these documents; he maintains 
that he did not know he was expected to do so.  
¶12 On January 7, 2004, the court issued an order to show 
cause regarding Attorney Kasprowicz's failure to file the 
No. 
2006AP1017-D   
 
5 
 
documents.  Attorney Kasprowicz filed the documents on January 
23, 2004.   
¶13 On August 11, 2004, the court issued another order to 
show cause regarding Attorney Kasprowicz's failure to file a 
certificate of divorce.  Attorney Kasprowicz then failed to 
appear at the October 2004 hearing on the matter.  He sent a 
completed certificate of divorce to the Kenosha County Family 
Court Commissioner's Office via facsimile.  He asserted that he 
mailed the original certificate of divorce that same day, but 
court records indicate that an original certificate of divorce 
was never received.  Indeed, the referee found that the clerk of 
the Kenosha County Family Court Commissioner telephoned Attorney 
Kasprowicz on some ten different occasions and sent him two 
facsimiles regarding the requirement that he file an original 
certificate.  Finally, on December 9, 2004, the Kenosha County 
Family Court Commissioner's clerk prepared and filed the 
certificate herself.   
¶14 Attorney Kasprowicz apparently promised this client a 
$250 refund.  She left numerous messages for Attorney Kasprowicz 
regarding both the refund and her divorce documents, but 
Attorney 
Kasprowicz 
failed 
to 
respond 
to 
her 
messages.  
Eventually, the client filed a grievance with the OLR.  
¶15 On April 6, 2005, the OLR mailed Attorney Kasprowicz a 
letter regarding this grievance and informed him that he was 
required to provide a written response by April 29, 2005.  
Attorney Kasprowicz failed to respond.   
No. 
2006AP1017-D   
 
6 
 
¶16 Attorney Kasprowicz then failed to respond to another 
certified letter from the OLR dated May 4, 2005.  Attorney 
Kasprowicz did not respond to the OLR until this court issued an 
order to show cause dated June 6, 2005, threatening him with 
temporary suspension of his license to practice law for failure 
to cooperate with the OLR.  Attorney Kasprowicz did, eventually, 
provide the client with a refund in late 2005.  
¶17 On the basis of the facts as described above, the 
referee concluded that Attorney Kasprowicz had committed eight 
violations of the Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct 
for Attorneys.  The referee made the following conclusions of 
law with respect to the matter of C.R.K.: 
COUNT ONE: By failing to advance [the client's] 
interest in her divorce in a timely manner, causing 
the 
divorce 
to 
be 
administratively 
dismissed, 
Kasprowicz failed to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing a client, in violation of 
SCR 20:1.3.2 
COUNT TWO: By failing to keep [the client] informed 
about the status of her divorce, and by failing to 
notify her of the dismissal of her divorce action, 
Kasprowicz failed to keep a client reasonably informed 
about the status of a matter and promptly comply with 
reasonable request for information, in violation of 
SCR 20:1.4(a).3 
COUNT THREE: By failing to deposit [the client's] 
advance fee in his client trust account, Kasprowicz 
failed to hold property of clients in trust, separate 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.3 states that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
3 SCR 20:1.4(a) states that "[a] lawyer shall keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly 
comply with reasonable requests for information." 
No. 
2006AP1017-D   
 
7 
 
from his own property, in violation of former SCR 
20:1.15(a), effective through June 30, 2004.4   
COUNT FOUR: By failing to timely file a written 
response 
with 
OLR 
in 
its 
[C.R.K.] 
grievance 
investigation, until after the Court entered an Order 
to Show Cause why his license should not be suspended 
for failing to cooperate, Kasprowicz failed to fully 
and 
fairly disclose all facts and circumstances 
pertaining to the alleged misconduct within 20 days 
after being served by ordinary mail with OLR's request 
for a response, and failed thereafter to timely 
respond to OLR's investigative efforts, and thus 
failed to cooperate with an OLR investigation, in 
violation of SCR 22.03(2),5 actionable pursuant to SCR 
20:8.4(f).6   
                                                 
4 Former SCR 20:1.15 applies to misconduct committed prior 
to July 1, 2004.  It provided in pertinent part:  Safekeeping 
property. 
 
(a) 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.  Funds held in connection with a 
representation or in a fiduciary capacity include 
funds held as trustee, agent, guardian, personal 
representative of an estate, or otherwise.  All funds 
of clients and third persons paid to a lawyer or law 
firm shall be deposited in one or more identifiable 
trust accounts . . . . 
5 SCR 22.03(2) provides:  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 
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 
No. 
2006AP1017-D   
 
8 
 
¶18 The referee made the following conclusions of law with 
respect to the M.J.T. matter: 
COUNT FIVE: By failing to deposit [the client's] 
advance fee in his client trust account, Kasprowicz 
failed to hold property of clients in trust, separate 
from his own property, in violation of former SCR 
20:1.15(a), effective through June 30, 2004.   
COUNT SIX: By failing to respond to numerous court 
orders and directives requiring him to file the 
original Certificate of Divorce in [the client's] 
matter, Kasprowicz knowingly disobeyed an obligation 
under the rules of a tribunal, in violation of SCR 
20:3.4(c).7   
COUNT SEVEN: By failing to respond to numerous 
inquiries from [the client] about her final divorce 
documents and a refund, and by failing to timely 
refund any unearned advance fee payment, Kasprowicz 
failed to take steps reasonably practicable to protect 
a client's interests, including surrendering papers to 
which the client is entitled and refunding any advance 
payment of fee that has not been earned, in violation 
of SCR 20:1.16(d).8 
                                                                                                                                                             
present 
any 
information 
deemed 
relevant 
to 
the 
investigation. 
6 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." 
7 SCR 20:3.4(c) provides that 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." 
8 SCR 
20:1.16(d) 
provides: 
 
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 
No. 
2006AP1017-D   
 
9 
 
COUNT EIGHT: By failing to timely file a written 
response 
with 
OLR 
in 
its 
[M.J.T.] 
grievance 
investigation, until after the Court entered an Order 
to Show Cause why his license should not be suspended 
for failing to cooperate, Kasprowicz failed to fully 
and 
fairly disclose all facts and circumstances 
pertaining to the alleged misconduct within 20 days 
after being served by ordinary mail with OLR's request 
for a response, and failed thereafter to timely 
respond to OLR's investigate efforts, and thus failed 
to cooperate with an OLR investigation, in violation 
of SCR 22.03(2), actionable pursuant to SCR 20:8.4(f).  
¶19 With respect to the question of discipline, the 
referee detailed the misconduct committed by Attorney Kasprowicz 
in these matters and observed: "What is particularly troubling 
about this misconduct is that it is almost identical to the 
misconduct found in the prior disciplinary matter."  The referee 
also expressed concern that Attorney Kasprowicz suggested there 
was "little actual damage" caused by his misconduct.  The 
referee stated: 
What Mr. Kasprowicz fails to recognize, however, is 
that some of the most significant damage to a client 
is the emotional distress caused the [sic] by the 
unnecessary 
perpetuation 
of 
a 
difficult 
divorce 
matter.  As [C.R.K.] testified at the hearing, it was 
very difficult for her to remain married to her ex-
husband longer than was necessary.  Further, the 
administrative headaches and inconvenience caused by 
Mr. Kasprowicz's behavior in failing to cooperate with 
the OLR and the courts is significant as well. 
¶20 However, the referee acknowledged that "Mr. Kasprowicz 
seems 
sincerely 
remorseful." 
 
Ultimately, 
the 
referee 
                                                                                                                                                             
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. 
2006AP1017-D   
 
10 
 
recommended a 60-day suspension, explaining that a suspension of 
this duration is consistent with discipline imposed in similar 
cases.  In addition, the referee recommended that Attorney 
Kasprowicz be required to pay the costs of this disciplinary 
proceeding, which total $3830.03, as of January 9, 2007. 
¶21 We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law in these matters.  We agree that Attorney 
Kasprowicz's violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct 
warrant a 60-day suspension of his license to practice law in 
this state, and we conclude that Attorney Kasprowicz should be 
required to pay the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding. 
¶22 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Paul M. 
Kasprowicz to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a 
period of 60 days, effective July 13, 2007. 
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Attorney Paul M. Kasprowicz shall pay to the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If 
the costs are not paid within the time specified and absent a 
showing to this court of his inability to pay those costs within 
that time, the license of Attorney Paul M. Kasprowicz to 
practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further 
order of the court. 
¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if he has not already done 
so, Attorney Paul M. Kasprowicz shall comply with the provisions 
of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.  
 
No. 
2006AP1017-D   
 
 
 
1