Title: Larry J. Ratzel v.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1997AP000197-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: May 27, 1998

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
97-0197-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Larry J. Ratzel, Attorney at Law. 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST RATZEL 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
May 27, 1998 
Submitted on Briefs: 
May 5, 1998 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
For Larry J. Ratzel the cause was submitted on 
the briefs of Larry J. Ratzel, New Berlin. 
 
 
For the Board of Attorneys Professional 
Responsibility the cause was submitted on the brief by Robert G. 
Krohn and Roethe, Krohn & Pope, Edgerton. 
 
No.  97-0197-D 
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 97-0197-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against LARRY J. RATZEL, Attorney at Law. 
FILED 
 
MAY 27, 1998 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney’s 
license 
suspended.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM   Attorney Larry J. Ratzel appealed from 
the referee’s report concluding that he engaged in professional 
misconduct in the course of two matters and recommending that 
the court suspend Attorney Ratzel’s license for two years as 
discipline 
for 
that 
misconduct. 
The 
Board 
of 
Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility (Board) cross-appealed from the 
referee’s recommendation of discipline, taking the position that 
Attorney Ratzel’s disciplinary history and the seriousness of 
his misconduct established in this proceeding warrant the 
revocation of his license to practice law.  
¶2 
The referee concluded that Attorney Ratzel engaged in 
professional misconduct in an estate matter by representing 
several clients with interests adverse to each other and to a 
former 
client 
and 
using 
information 
related 
to 
the 
representation of that former client to his disadvantage, by 
No.  97-0197-D 
 
2 
disobeying 
a 
court 
order 
to 
refrain 
from 
any 
further 
representation in that estate matter, by failing to keep a 
client advised of the potential value of the client’s claim 
against the estate and notify the client that Attorney Ratzel 
had received funds in which the client had an interest, by 
participating in a court hearing while his license to practice 
law was suspended, by failing to notify two clients of the 
disciplinary license suspension and misrepresenting to the Board 
that 
he 
had 
complied 
with 
the 
notification 
requirements 
applicable to the suspension, and by misrepresenting to the 
Board that he had not been present at a court hearing and 
participated in negotiations and the preparation and filing of 
briefs. The referee also concluded that Attorney Ratzel engaged 
in professional misconduct in another matter by representing a 
client whose interests were materially adverse to those of a 
former client he had represented in the same matter.  
¶3 
We determine that the referee’s conclusions in respect 
to Attorney Ratzel’s professional misconduct were properly drawn 
from the evidence presented. We also determine that the two-year 
license suspension recommended by the referee is the appropriate 
disciplinary response to the seriousness of Attorney Ratzel’s 
professional misconduct in these matters, viewed in light of the 
fact that this is the fourth occasion we have had to discipline 
him for professional misconduct.  
¶4 
Attorney Ratzel is 77 years old and was licensed to 
practice law in 1950 and practices in New Berlin. He has been 
disciplined three times for professional misconduct. In 1982, 
No.  97-0197-D 
 
3 
the court publicly reprimanded him for failing to file an answer 
to a cross-claim, which resulted in a default judgment against 
his 
client, 
and 
failing 
to 
communicate 
with 
his 
client 
concerning his negotiations with an insurer in a personal injury 
matter. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ratzel, 108 Wis. 2d 
447, 321 N.W.2d 543. In 1983, the court suspended his license 
for two months for failure to file a motion to set aside a 
default judgment within a reasonable period of time and failure 
to inform his client of the decision of the appellate court, 
despite repeated requests for information from that client. 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ratzel, 112 Wis. 2d 646, 334 
N.W.2d 102. In 1992, the court suspended his license for five 
months, commencing September 1, 1992, as discipline for filing 
actions, asserting positions, and conducting defenses on behalf 
of a client when he knew that such actions would serve merely to 
harass or maliciously injure an adverse party, knowingly 
advancing claims unwarranted under law, and making false 
statements of law or fact to a court. Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Ratzel, 170 Wis. 2d 121, 487 N.W.2d 38.  
¶5 
On the basis of admitted facts and evidence presented 
at a disciplinary hearing, the referee in this proceeding, 
Attorney Charles Herro, made the following findings of fact and 
conclusions of law concerning Attorney Ratzel’s conduct. As 
asserted in Attorney Ratzel’s brief in this appeal, the material 
facts are not in dispute.  
¶6 
A client Attorney Ratzel had represented for several 
years died January 31, 1990. In May, 1974, Attorney Ratzel had 
No.  97-0197-D 
 
4 
drafted and witnessed the client’s assignment of his interest in 
certain Las Vegas properties to his daughter and his son. 
Attorney Ratzel also drafted and witnessed the client’s will 
designating the client’s daughter as sole beneficiary and 
personal representative of the estate.  
¶7 
Shortly after the client’s death, his daughter told 
Attorney Ratzel she was not retaining him to probate the estate. 
In early March, 1990, after the daughter filed a petition to 
admit her father’s will to probate, Attorney Ratzel met with the 
client’s mother and had her execute an agreement he had prepared 
retaining 
him 
to 
represent 
her 
in 
claims 
against 
her 
granddaughter, both in her individual capacity and as sole heir 
and personal representative of the estate. That agreement also 
mentioned a claim regarding the Las Vegas properties that were 
the subject of the 1974 assignment.  
¶8 
Toward the end of May, 1990, Attorney Ratzel filed 
four separate claims totaling almost $450,000 against the estate 
for advances and credits the client’s mother had given her son 
during his life. Attorney Ratzel also filed eight claims against 
the estate on behalf of six other claimants. In April, 1991, the 
personal representative asked the probate court to disqualify 
Attorney Ratzel from representing the claimants on the ground 
that his prior representation of the decedent created a 
conflict. The court took no action on the motion.  
¶9 
In January, 1992, the personal representative filed a 
general inventory showing the net value of the estate at 
approximately $146,000. Neither that inventory nor the interim 
No.  97-0197-D 
 
5 
final account filed in November, 1992 included the Las Vegas 
properties for the reason that the personal representative 
believed her father had assigned them to her and her brother 
prior to his death. Attorney Ratzel did not file an objection to 
the inventory and raised no question concerning the assignment 
of the Las Vegas properties, although he was aware of the 
assignment.  
¶10 The mother’s claims against the estate were tried in 
May, 1992 and the court, in September, 1992, held in favor of 
the mother on three claims and awarded her approximately 
$397,000. In late 1992, Attorney Ratzel suggested that the 
personal representative resign, as there were no longer any 
assets in the estate by virtue of the award to the decedent’s 
mother.  
¶11 While those claims were being litigated, Attorney 
Ratzel’s license to practice law was suspended for five months, 
commencing 
September 
1, 
1992, 
and 
another 
attorney 
was 
substituted as counsel for the mother. Notwithstanding the 
suspension, Attorney Ratzel was present in court during the 
hearing held September 25, 1992 and had discussions with the 
substituted attorney before and after that hearing. He also 
reviewed the judgment that was prepared following the court’s 
decision and was present when the personal representative’s 
attorney delivered a quitclaim deed for a portion of the 
decedent’s property to the mother’s attorney pursuant to that 
decision.  
No.  97-0197-D 
 
6 
¶12 Attorney Ratzel did not notify in writing two of the 
other claimants he was representing that his license had been 
suspended and did not notify one of those claimants, who was the 
decedent’s brother, that he would have to obtain other counsel 
to represent him. Yet, in the affidavit of compliance he 
submitted to the Board September 14, 1992, Attorney Ratzel 
stated that he had notified all clients whose matters were 
pending that his license had been suspended and that he had 
executed and filed substitutions of counsel in all matters 
pending before a court. In fact, substitutions had not been 
submitted in respect to the six persons on whose behalf he had 
filed claims against the estate.  
¶13 In late 1992, the decedent’s daughter resigned as 
personal representative, and in February of 1993, at the 
suggestion of Attorney Ratzel, the decedent’s brother was named 
successor personal representative. The brother then retained 
Attorney Ratzel to represent him. At the same time, Attorney 
Ratzel continued to represent all of the claimants who had filed 
in the estate, including the decedent’s mother and the successor 
personal representative. He did not obtain written consents from 
any of them for such multiple representations.  
¶14 When the successor personal representative filed a 
supplemental general inventory, it included the Las Vegas 
properties as assets of the estate. The personal representative 
claimed that the decedent never had conveyed or intended to 
convey the Las Vegas properties to his daughter, and litigation 
commenced the following year. In that litigation, the daughter 
No.  97-0197-D 
 
7 
requested that Attorney Ratzel be disqualified as counsel for 
the personal representative because of the adverse interests he 
represented by virtue of having drafted and witnessed the 
assignment of the Las Vegas properties to her. Attorney Ratzel 
opposed that motion, contending that his representations of the 
estate and of the various claimants were not adverse to his 
prior representation of the decedent and were not adverse to 
each other. On July 11, 1994, the probate court disqualified 
Attorney Ratzel as counsel for the personal representative and 
prohibited him from having further representation in any matter 
subsequently 
involving 
the 
probate 
proceedings, 
having 
determined that Attorney Ratzel's various representations in the 
estate “flew squarely in the face” of the rule of professional 
conduct prohibiting an attorney from acting in the presence of 
conflicting interests.  
¶15 Notwithstanding that court order, Attorney Ratzel 
continued to represent the various claimants in the estate. In 
1995 and 1996, he negotiated a settlement of the claims of two 
of those persons and secured the release of those claims on 
behalf of the estate. Also, while the decedent’s mother had 
retained new counsel to represent her, Attorney Ratzel remained 
closely involved in her representation by, among other things, 
attending meetings and drafting pleadings and briefs that the 
new 
attorney 
signed 
and 
submitted. 
Attorney 
Ratzel 
also 
continued to give legal advice to and perform legal services for 
the personal representative and the successor attorney retained 
to represent him: he continued to meet with the personal 
No.  97-0197-D 
 
8 
representative regarding estate matters and sent the successor 
attorney numerous memoranda between November 1995 and February 
1996 concerning the claims against the estate, settlement 
strategies, and how to close the estate.  
¶16 Although 
he 
knew 
in 
1995 
that 
the 
personal 
representative 
was 
attempting 
to 
include 
the 
Las 
Vegas 
properties in the estate and that, if successful, the value of 
the estate would increase by almost $200,000, Attorney Ratzel 
continued to tell two of the claimants he represented that the 
estate was virtually worthless. In July, 1995, he negotiated the 
release of one of those claims for $3500, which he deposited 
into his trust account. That client agreed to take back a $2000 
loan and to have the $3500 applied to fees for prior legal 
services Attorney Ratzel had provided him. Some time thereafter, 
Attorney Ratzel disbursed the $3500 to himself.  
¶17 Also in July, 1995, Attorney Ratzel negotiated the 
release of the claim of another of his clients. The client 
testified that Attorney Ratzel told him he might be paid later 
and that a portion of his claim would remain open. On July 24, 
1995, the personal representative gave Attorney Ratzel an estate 
check for $5000 payable to Attorney Ratzel’s client trust 
account in exchange for the release of that client’s claim. The 
client did not learn that Attorney Ratzel had received those 
funds until April, 1996, when he telephoned Attorney Ratzel 
after being interviewed by the investigator to whom the Board 
had assigned the grievance against Attorney Ratzel. Attorney 
Ratzel did not disburse the $5000 to the client.  
No.  97-0197-D 
 
9 
¶18 In the course of the Board’s investigation into his 
conduct in the estate matter, Attorney Ratzel stated in a letter 
to the Board that he was not “present” during the September 25, 
1992 probate court hearing. He also told the district committee 
investigator that it was “totally inaccurate” that he had 
negotiated the release of two claims against the estate with the 
estate’s attorney. Contrary to that assertion, the two clients 
confirmed his participation in the negotiations, and Attorney 
Ratzel admitted having received the two settlement checks and 
depositing them into his trust account. Attorney Ratzel also 
told the committee investigator that it was “totally inaccurate” 
that he had written briefs that were signed by the attorney for 
the decedent’s mother.  
¶19 On the basis of those facts, the referee concluded 
that Attorney Ratzel engaged in the following professional 
misconduct. His simultaneous representation of the personal 
representative and various claimants against the estate, knowing 
the estate’s assets were less than the amount claimed by the 
various parties he represented and having been involved in the 
decedent’s business and personal affairs, including the drafting 
of the will that was being probated and the assignment of 
properties that he later attacked as a fraudulent conveyance, 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.7(a)1 
and 
1.9(a) 
and 
(b),2 
as 
the 
                     
1 SCR 20:1.7 provides, in pertinent part: Conflict of 
interest: general rule 
(a) 
A lawyer 
shall 
not 
represent a 
client if the 
representation of that client will be directly adverse to 
another client, unless:  
No.  97-0197-D 
 
10
representation of several clients with adverse interests to each 
other and to a former client in a substantially related matter 
and the use of information related to the representation of a 
former client to his disadvantage. By disobeying the court’s 
order to refrain from any further representations in the 
litigation surrounding the estate, Attorney Ratzel violated SCR 
20:3.4(c).3 His failure to keep one of the claimants advised of 
the potential collection value of his claim and notify that 
client of his receipt of funds in which the client had an 
                                                                  
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will 
not adversely affect the relationship with the other client; and 
(2) each client consents in writing after consultation.   
2 SCR 20:1.9 provides: Conflict of interest: former client 
A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter 
shall not:  
(a) represent another person in the same or a substantially 
related matter in which that person’s interests are materially 
adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former 
client consents in writing after consultation; or 
(b) use information relating to the representation to the 
disadvantage of the former client except as Rule 1.6 would 
permit with respect to a client or when the information has 
become generally known.   
3 SCR 20:3.4 provides, in pertinent part: Fairness to 
opposing party and counsel 
A lawyer shall not:  
 . . .  
(c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a 
tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that 
no valid obligation exists;  
No.  97-0197-D 
 
11
interest violated SCR 20:1.4(b).4 Attorney Ratzel engaged in the 
practice of law while his license was suspended, in violation of 
SCR 20:5.5(a)5 and 22.26(2),6 by participating in a court 
hearing, reviewing the judgment, and being present when the 
quitclaim deed was delivered. His failure to send written notice 
to two of his clients regarding his disciplinary suspension, 
file the requisite substitution of attorney documents on behalf 
of the claimants he was representing, and file a truthful 
affidavit with the Board concerning his compliance with the 
notification 
requirements 
violated 
SCR 
22.26(1).7 
His 
                     
4 SCR 20:1.4 provides, in pertinent part: Communication 
 . . .  
(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent 
reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed 
decisions regarding the representation.  
5 SCR 20:5.5 provides, in pertinent part: Unauthorized 
practice of law 
A lawyer shall not:  
(a) practice law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates 
the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction;  
6 SCR 22.26 provides, in pertinent part: Activities on 
revocation or suspension of license.  
 . . .  
(2) A suspended or disbarred attorney may not engage in the 
practice of law or in any law work activity customarily done by 
law students, law clerks or other paralegal personnel, except 
that he or she may engage in law related work for a commercial 
employer not itself engaged in the practice of law.  
7 SCR 22.26 provides, in pertinent part: Activities on 
revocation or suspension of license.  
No.  97-0197-D 
 
12
misrepresentation in the affidavit of compliance he filed with 
the Supreme Court’s Board violated SCR 20:3.3(a)(1).8 His 
misrepresentations to the Board that he had not been present at 
the court hearing and his denial of having participated in 
negotiations in the estate matters and in the preparation or 
filing of briefs violated SCR 20:8.1(a)9 and 8.4(c)10 and 
22.07(2).11  
                                                                  
(1) (a) A disbarred or suspended attorney on or before the 
effective date of disbarment or suspension shall:  
1. Notify, by certified mail, all clients being represented 
in 
pending 
matters 
of 
the 
disbarment 
or 
suspension 
and 
consequent inability to act as an attorney after the effective 
date of the disbarment or suspension.  
2. Advise the clients to seek legal advice of the client’s 
own choice elsewhere.  
(b) A disbarred or suspended attorney with a matter pending 
before a court or administrative agency shall promptly notify 
the court or administrative agency and the attorney for each 
party of the disbarment or suspension and consequent inability 
to act as an attorney after the effective date of the disbarment 
or suspension. The notice must identify the successor attorney 
or, if there is none at the time of the notice, state the place 
of residence of the client of the disbarred or suspended 
attorney.  
8 SCR 20:3.3 provides, in pertinent part: Candor toward the 
tribunal 
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:  
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal;  
9 SCR 20:8.1 provides, in pertinent part: Bar admission and 
disciplinary matters 
An applicant for admission to the bar, or a lawyer in 
connection with a bar admission application or in connection 
with a disciplinary matter, shall not:  
No.  97-0197-D 
 
13
¶20 In an unrelated matter, the referee concluded that 
Attorney Ratzel represented a client whose interests were 
materially adverse to those of a former client in the same 
matter, in violation of SCR 20:1.9(a). There, a representative 
of a real estate company discussed with Attorney Ratzel in early 
October, 1995 a problem the company was having with a former 
employee, who had taken files and other documents with him when 
he 
left 
employment. 
Attorney 
Ratzel 
first 
told 
the 
representative that he did not want to get involved but 
eventually agreed that he would contact the former employee. The 
                                                                  
(a) knowingly make a false statement of material fact;   
10 SCR 20:8.4 provides, in pertinent part: Misconduct 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:  
 . . .  
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation.   
11 SCR 22.07 provides, in pertinent part: Investigation. 
 . . .  
(2) 
During 
the 
course 
of 
an 
investigation, 
the 
administrator or a committee may notify the respondent of the 
subject being investigated. The respondent shall fully and 
fairly disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct or medical incapacity within 20 days of being 
served by ordinary mail a request for response to a grievance. 
The administrator in his or her discretion may allow additional 
time 
to 
respond. 
Failure 
to 
provide 
information 
or 
misrepresentation 
in 
a 
disclosure 
is 
misconduct. 
The 
administrator or committee may make a further investigation 
before making a recommendation to the board.  
No.  97-0197-D 
 
14
representative then gave him a list of the files the company was 
seeking to recover.  
¶21 On 
or 
about 
November 
1, 
1995, 
Attorney 
Ratzel 
telephoned the former employee, identified himself as “Attorney 
Larry Ratzel,” and said he was doing the company representative 
a favor by asking whether the former employee was going to keep 
the files or return them. The former employee replied that he 
would probably return the files by a specified date. Attorney 
Ratzel related that conversation to the company representative, 
who said he doubted the former employee would do as he said. 
When asked what else he intended to do, Attorney Ratzel said he 
would not render any additional assistance in the matter.  
¶22 Some time in early November, the realty company 
retained an attorney to recover the files from the former 
employee, and an action was filed requesting, among other 
things, that a receiver be appointed to take possession of the 
files in question and that an injunction issue against the 
former employee. Upon receiving the complaint in that action, 
the former employee called Attorney Ratzel and asked if he would 
represent him. After reviewing the complaint, Attorney Ratzel 
agreed to do so and then filed a memorandum in opposition to the 
appointment of a receiver and appeared on behalf of the former 
employee at a show cause hearing regarding the restraining order 
and injunction. On the day of that hearing, the realty company 
wrote 
Attorney 
Ratzel 
that 
it 
did 
not 
consent 
to 
his 
representation of the former employee and demanded that he 
withdraw.  
No.  97-0197-D 
 
15
¶23 As discipline for his misconduct in these matters, the 
referee recommended that Attorney Ratzel’s license to practice 
law be suspended for two years, not the license revocation the 
Board had sought. Noting that in his responsive pleadings and in 
his testimony Attorney Ratzel had admitted a substantial portion 
of the allegations of the complaint, the referee said:  
 
However, his acknowledgment and admissions are then 
subject to his interpretation and together with his 
definition of his activities, as supported by case law 
he cites, he arrives at a conclusion that he has in no 
way violated any Supreme Court Rule. The Referee finds 
the 
reasoning 
contorted. 
This 
argument 
by 
the 
Respondent is without substance; it is unsound and is 
a flimsy excuse for his actions. Notwithstanding, the 
Respondent did so testify under oath and has filed his 
memorandum brief in support of his position. He may 
well believe his argument for reasons not elicited; 
including his age, the many years of practice and 
location of his practice.  
 
¶24 In this appeal, Attorney Ratzel first argued that the 
referee’s 
conclusion 
that 
he 
acted 
in 
the 
presence 
of 
conflicting interests by representing the decedent’s mother and 
other claimants in the estate matter was improper for the reason 
that the assignment of the Las Vegas properties did not in fact 
transfer the decedent’s interest to his daughter and son and, 
consequently, that property was an asset of the estate and 
continued to serve as collateral for notes the decedent had 
outstanding at the time of his death. Attorney Ratzel asserted 
that what he termed the “purported assignment” was merely a 
device to place the Las Vegas properties beyond the reach of 
No.  97-0197-D 
 
16
creditors and, as such, amounted to a fraudulent conveyance. He 
insisted that he did not act in the presence of interests 
conflicting with either those of the daughter acting as personal 
representative or in her own capacity or with the decedent’s, as 
the daughter did not have a valid claim in the Las Vegas 
properties by virtue of the assignment. On the same basis, he 
contended that his representation of the decedent’s brother as 
successor personal representative in seeking to include those 
properties as an estate asset did not conflict with his 
representation of other claimants in the estate or with the 
interests of the decedent.  
¶25 We find no merit to that argument, as the validity of 
the assignment of the properties is immaterial to the issue of 
whether Attorney Ratzel’s representation of the decedent’s 
mother and of the other claimants was in conflict with the 
interests of a former client from whom he had obtained 
information not only concerning the properties and the basis for 
the mother’s claims against the estate but also in respect to 
his former client’s intentions regarding the disposition of his 
estate following his death.  
¶26 Moreover, as the referee repeatedly cautioned Attorney 
Ratzel in the course of the disciplinary hearing, the validity 
of the assignment of the properties was not at issue in this 
proceeding. The referee sustained each of the Board’s numerous 
No.  97-0197-D 
 
17
objections to his attempts to present evidence on and argue the 
merits of that issue.  
¶27 On the issue of whether the referee properly concluded 
that he engaged in the practice of law while his license was 
suspended, Attorney Ratzel contended that as he did not 
“represent” anyone in the matter at the time of the hearing on 
the mother’s claims, he was not “present” and, therefore, his 
statement 
to 
that 
effect 
to 
the 
Board 
was 
not 
a 
misrepresentation. Further, he argued that in order to have been 
engaged in the practice of law at the time of that hearing, he 
would have had to be “representing” a client, and that 
representation would be evidenced by an “appearance” in the 
matter. He made the same argument in support of his contention 
that he did not violate the probate court’s order that he 
refrain from further representation in the estate matter in any 
respect.  
¶28 Attorney Ratzel’s limited view of what constitutes 
engaging in the practice of law is unsupportable. The record 
demonstrates that he offered legal research, advice, and legal 
opinions to a party in respect to a number of issues in the 
estate litigation. Also, he prepared releases and obtained 
receipts on behalf of two claimants he represented in the 
estate, and the estate’s payments made to those claimants went 
to and were deposited in Attorney Ratzel’s client trust account.  
No.  97-0197-D 
 
18
¶29 In respect to the real estate company matter, Attorney 
Ratzel argued that the telephone call he made to the employee at 
the request of the company’s representative was “gratuitous” and 
specifically limited to repeating the demands for the return of 
the files that already had been made. That, he asserted, did not 
constitute 
representation 
of 
the 
company 
with 
which 
his 
subsequent representation of the employee would conflict. In 
support of his position, Attorney Ratzel pointed out that there 
was no litigation pending between the company and its employee 
when he telephoned the employee. He asserted further that no 
substitution of attorneys was required or sought when the 
company hired other counsel to commence an action, no one 
complained to the court of any conflict of interests in his 
representation of the employee, and he withdrew as counsel prior 
to any hearing on the merits of the litigation.  
¶30 None 
of 
those 
arguments 
has 
merit. 
It 
was 
uncontroverted that following the telephone call he made to the 
employee to request the return of company files, Attorney Ratzel 
went to see the former employee to obtain his agreement for 
their 
return. 
Attorney 
Ratzel’s 
eventual 
withdrawal 
from 
representation of the employee in the litigation neither 
prevented nor excused his professional misconduct in accepting 
and pursuing that representation.  
No.  97-0197-D 
 
19
¶31 Having determined that there is no merit to any of 
Attorney Ratzel’s arguments in support of his contentions that 
the 
referee’s 
conclusions 
regarding 
Attorney 
Ratzel’s 
professional misconduct in these matters were improper, we adopt 
those conclusions and the findings of fact on which they are 
based. We turn then to the issue of what constitutes appropriate 
discipline to impose for that professional misconduct.  
¶32 Attorney Ratzel took no position on the issue of 
discipline, arguing that the referee’s conclusions should be 
reversed and the Board’s complaint dismissed on the merits. In 
its cross-appeal, the Board contended that the seriousness of 
Attorney Ratzel’s misconduct in the two matters considered in 
this proceeding, aggravated by the fact that he has been 
disciplined three times for other professional misconduct, 
warrants the revocation of his license. In support of that 
contention, the Board noted Attorney Ratzel’s continuous refusal 
to comply with the conflict of interests rules and with court 
orders --  that of the probate court and this court’s license 
suspension order. In addition, the Board asserted, Attorney 
Ratzel repeatedly has demonstrated an unwillingness to accept 
any responsibility for his conduct, as evidenced by his 
belabored arguments to justify his actions.  
¶33 We agree that by his disciplinary history Attorney 
Ratzel has established a marked willingness and disturbing 
No.  97-0197-D 
 
20
propensity to ignore the ethical constraints we impose on 
attorneys when it suits his purposes. Also of concern is his 
resort to tortured semantics to justify his misconduct and evade 
responsibility for it. Yet, taking into consideration his age 
and his assertion in the course of this proceeding that he no 
longer is actively practicing law, we determine that the license 
suspension recommended by the referee is adequate to protect the 
public, the legal profession, and the courts from his further 
misconduct and to serve as a deterrent to others who would act 
similarly.  
¶34 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Larry J. Ratzel to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of two 
years, effective July 7, 1998.  
¶35 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Larry J. Ratzel pay to the Board of Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility 
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 his inability to 
pay the costs within that time, the license of Larry J. Ratzel 
to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until 
further order of the court.  
¶36 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Larry J. Ratzel 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.  97-0197-D 
 
21
 
 
1