Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Willie J. Nunnery
Citation: 2009 WI 89
Docket Number: 2006AP001191-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: July 21, 2009

2009 WI 89 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Willie J. Nunnery, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Willie J. Nunnery, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Willie J. Nunnery, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Appellant-Cross-
Respondent, 
     v. 
Willie J. Nunnery, 
          Respondent-Respondent-Cross-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST NUNNERY 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 21, 2009   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
May 22, 2009   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the respondent-appellant there were briefs by Willie J. 
Nunnery, and oral argument by Willie J. Nunnery. 
 
For the complainant-respondent there were briefs by Julie 
M. Falk on behalf of the Office of Lawyer Regulation, Madison, 
and oral argument by Julie M. Falk. 
 
 
 
2009 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.  2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Willie J. Nunnery, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Willie J. Nunnery, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 21, 2009 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Willie J. Nunnery, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Appellant-Cross- 
          Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Willie J. Nunnery, 
 
          Respondent-Respondent-Cross- 
          Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
2 
 
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   We 
review 
the 
findings 
of 
fact, 
conclusions of law and recommendations for sanctions in two 
lawyer disciplinary proceedings which are consolidated for 
purposes of this appeal.  In both cases, Attorney Willie J. 
Nunnery was found to have engaged in unprofessional conduct in 
his practice of law.  In Case No. 2006AP1191-D, the referee, 
Rose Marie Baron, recommended Attorney Nunnery's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for six months and that 
he pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding.  In Case No. 
2007AP1908-D, the referee, Kevin Ferguson, recommended Attorney 
Nunnery's license be suspended for two years and that he pay the 
costs and restitution.  
¶2 
Attorney Nunnery appeals in Case No. 2006AP1191-D and 
cross-appeals in Case No. 2007AP1908-D.  With the exception of 
certain counts, he claims the evidence is insufficient to 
support both referees' findings and conclusions.  He also 
contends the referees' recommended sanctions are excessive.   
¶3 
In Case No. 2007AP1908-D, the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR) filed an appeal challenging the recommended 
sanction.  The OLR argues the appropriate discipline in Case No. 
2007AP1908-D should be revocation.   
¶4 
Because the record supports the referees' findings and 
conclusions in both cases, we adopt them.  We determine that 
Attorney Nunnery's professional misconduct warrants a three-year 
license suspension, comprised of a six-month suspension in Case 
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
3 
 
No. 2006AP1191-D and a two and one-half year suspension in Case 
No. 2007AP1908-D.  We impose full costs and restitution. 
¶5 
Attorney Nunnery was admitted to the practice of law 
in Wisconsin in 1976 and in Louisiana in 1985.  He practices in 
Madison.  A previous disciplinary proceeding resulted in a two-
month suspension of Attorney Nunnery's license.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Nunnery, 2007 WI 1, 298 
Wis. 2d 289, 725 N.W.2d 613. 
 
I. 
CASE NO. 2006AP1191-D 
¶6 
In Case No. 2006AP1191-D, the OLR filed a 21-count 
disciplinary complaint arising from three client matters.  
Following hearings on seven separate dates, Referee Baron made 
extensive findings in her 63-page report, concluding the record 
supported all 21 counts of professional misconduct. 
A. 
The Mr. and Mrs. D. Matter (Counts 1 through 8). 
¶7 
Eight 
counts 
of 
professional 
misconduct 
involve 
Attorney Nunnery's representation of Mr. and Mrs. D.  Attorney 
Nunnery 
represented 
Mr. 
and 
Mrs. 
D. 
in 
their 
alleged 
discrimination claims relating to the purchase of a home and a 
bank's subsequent denial of credit.  Attorney Nunnery also 
represented Mr. and Mrs. D. with respect to their claims due to 
personal injuries they both suffered in an automobile collision 
with an uninsured driver.  Mrs. D. was the driver and Mr. D. was 
a passenger.   
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
4 
 
¶8 
In his appellate brief, Attorney Nunnery does not 
contest the referee's findings supporting count 5, which charged 
a conflict of interest by representing both Mr. and Mrs. D. on 
their individual personal injury claims.  Attorney Nunnery also 
does not contest the referee's findings supporting counts 7 and 
8, which charged trust account violations.  With respect to the 
Mr. and Mrs. D. matter, Attorney Nunnery challenges the 
following counts:    
Count 1: Former SCR 20:1.5(b);1 Fees.  
¶9 
Mrs. D. testified to the effect that she and her 
husband paid Attorney Nunnery a $1,500 retainer to represent 
them on their real estate discrimination claim, and that he did 
not explain the basis of his fee nor provide an itemization of 
the retainer.  The referee found Mrs. D. was a difficult and 
demanding client but for the most part credible.  While she may 
have been inconsistent at times, the referee did not find her 
                                                 
1 Effective July 1, 2007, substantial changes were made to 
the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct for 
Attorneys, SCR Chapter 20.  See S. Ct. Order 04-07, 2007 WI 4, 
293 Wis. 2d xv, 726 N.W.2d Ct.R-45 (eff. July 1, 2007); and 
S. Ct. 
Order 
06-04, 
2007 
WI 
48, 
297 
Wis. 2d xv, 
730 
N.W.2d Ct.R.-29 (eff. July 1, 2007).  Because the conduct 
underlying this case arose prior to July 1, 2007, unless 
otherwise indicated, all references to Chapter 20 of the 
Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules will be to those in effect prior 
to July 1, 2007. 
Former SCR 20:1.5(b) provided, "When the lawyer has not 
regularly represented the client, the basis or rate of the fee 
shall be communicated to the client, preferably in writing, 
before or within a reasonable time after commencing the 
representation." 
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
5 
 
untruthful.  Mrs. D.'s testimony satisfied the referee that 
Attorney Nunnery failed to explain the basis of his fees in the 
real estate discrimination claim. 
Count 2: Former SCR 20:1.4(a);2 Communication. 
¶10 The referee found Attorney Nunnery had no contact with 
Mr. and Mrs. D. between mid-2002 and February 2005 on their real 
estate 
discrimination/denial 
of 
credit 
claims. 
 
Mrs. 
D. 
testified at length of her frustration when leaving messages at 
Attorney Nunnery's office and he would not return her calls.  He 
did not advise Mr. and Mrs. D that one of the parties had been 
dismissed from the suit.  The referee found credible Mrs. D.'s 
testimony that Attorney Nunnery had never explained the reasons 
for his conclusion that no viable claim existed.  
¶11 In addition, Attorney Nunnery did not file a lawsuit 
against the bank.  Therefore, the referee concluded Attorney 
Nunnery made a misleading statement in his February 9, 2005, 
letter to his clients.  Attorney Nunnery indicated he had 
included the bank in the lawsuit he filed.3  The referee 
concluded the evidence disclosed Attorney Nunnery failed to keep 
Mr. and Mrs. D. reasonably informed, thus supporting Count 2.   
                                                 
2 Former SCR 20:1.4(a) provided a lawyer "shall keep a 
client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and 
promptly comply with reasonable requests for information." 
3 Attorney Nunnery's February 9, 2005, letter stated, 
"Regarding the [bank] matter and the [seller] matter, a 
[f]ederal lawsuit was filed in this matter under case no. 
01C0908."   
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
6 
 
Count 3: Former SCR 20:1.4(b); 4 Communication.  
¶12 The referee further concluded the same conduct gave 
rise to a violation of SCR 20:1.4(b), which required Attorney 
Nunnery to explain the discrimination suit to the extent 
reasonably necessary to permit Mr. and Mrs. D. to make informed 
decisions.  The referee found credible Mrs. D.'s testimony that 
she believed Attorney Nunnery was pursuing claims against the 
bank.  The referee stated:   
Her lengthy narratives about what she believed Mr. 
Nunnery should have done [reveal] her utter confusion 
with the legal procedures in which she was involved. 
Her lawyer had an obligation to explain the reality of 
the situation in a manner which could be understood by 
the [clients].  This did not happen. 
¶13 The referee said Attorney Nunnery did not explain why 
he did not name the bank as a defendant, nor did he keep Mr. and 
Mrs. D. informed of his strategy to determine whether a viable 
claim existed against the bank.  Also, the referee said, there 
was no evidence Attorney Nunnery ever explained the legal effect 
of the seller's bankruptcy. 
                                                 
4 Former SCR 20:1.4(b) provided a lawyer "shall explain a 
matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client 
to make informed decisions regarding the representation." 
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
7 
 
 
Count 4: SCR 22.03(6);5 former SCR 20:8.4(f);6 Misconduct 
during the OLR investigation. 
¶14 During the OLR investigation into Mr. and Mrs. D.'s 
grievance, 
Attorney 
Nunnery 
advised 
the 
OLR 
that 
an 
administrative investigation had not found probable cause with 
respect to the real estate discrimination claim when in fact the 
case had been closed due to the complainants' failure to 
cooperate.  Because the agency had never made any substantive 
findings, the referee determined Attorney Nunnery's response to 
the OLR constituted a misrepresentation.   
¶15 Also, the referee concluded, Attorney Nunnery advised 
the OLR that Mr. and Mrs. D. were fully aware of the impact of 
the seller's bankruptcy when in fact Attorney Nunnery had not 
fully explained this matter to them.  Further, the referee 
determined 
Attorney 
Nunnery misrepresented his actions by 
advising the OLR "an attempt was made to ascertain whether there 
was any involvement with [the bank] on July 15, 2002."  Attorney 
Nunnery's July 15, 2002, letter to the bank president had merely 
                                                 
5 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. 
6 Former SCR 20:8.4(f) stated 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; . . . ." 
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
8 
 
advised of Attorney Nunnery's intent to add the bank as a party 
to the discrimination lawsuit and did not raise the denial of 
credit issue.  Although records of the seller's properties had 
been researched, no evidence tied this research to the bank or 
to the denial of credit.  
Count 6: Former SCR 20:1.8(e);7 Prohibited transactions. 
¶16 The referee found that when representing Mr. and Mrs. 
D. on their personal injury claims, Attorney Nunnery advanced 
them $2,000 on July 21, 2004; $1,125 on March 3, 2005; and 
$1,000 
in 
December 
2005. 
 
The 
referee 
concluded 
these 
transactions were prohibited under former SCR 20:1.8(e). 
¶17 Each payment was made in advance of a settlement 
check.  The referee found that the $2,000 advance on July 21, 
2004, was made before the first settlement check was received on 
or about August 12, 2004.  The referee determined this advance 
was not within the exceptions found in former SCR 20:1.8(e) but 
rather for living expenses.8  The referee concluded the evidence 
                                                 
7 Former SCR 20:1.8(e) provided, in pertinent part, as 
follows: 
A lawyer shall not provide financial assistance 
to a client in connection with pending or contemplated 
litigation, except that: 
(1) a lawyer may advance court costs and expenses 
of 
litigation, 
the 
repayment 
of 
which 
may 
be 
contingent on the outcome of the matter; . . . . 
8 Mrs. D. testified on June 20, 2007 as follows:  
Mr. Nunnery told us we were going to get the 
money . . . .  We was supposed to get our money at a 
certain time and we had told our landlord that we was 
going to pay our rent and pay our bills at a certain 
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
9 
 
did not support Attorney Nunnery's contention that the matter 
had been settled before the advance to his clients.  
¶18 The referee found that the March 3, 2005, payment of 
$1,125 was also an advance against future settlement proceeds.  
The insurer offered to settle for policy limits of $25,000 on 
May 4, 2005.  Complications relating to a Medicare lien delayed 
the settlement until September 2005.  On October 11, 2005, 
Attorney Nunnery forwarded to his clients a check in the amount 
of $11,221.93 and a copy of the insurance company check to 
Medicare dated October 10, 2005.  The referee found it was clear 
that the advance was made well before the second settlement 
check had been received.  
¶19 The referee found Attorney Nunnery's payment of $1,000 
in December 2005 was an advance against the third settlement 
check.  In October 2005 Attorney Nunnery wrote to Mrs. D. 
indicating he was close to finalizing her settlement with the 
insurer and asked to meet with her so she could sign additional 
documents.  However, Mrs. D. did not receive her final 
settlement check until early in 2006.  The referee found the 
$1,000 advance occurred before Mrs. D.'s settlement with the 
                                                                                                                                                             
time, and we didn't have the money, and we was scared 
we was going to get put out, and we asked him are we 
going to have our money or we're going to have a world 
of trouble going on.   
And he ended up giving us the $2,000, and he said 
he'd take it out of your money when you get your 
money.  And it didn't matter right then just as long 
as we didn't get put out on the street because we was 
not no rich people. 
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
10 
 
insurer was finalized.  The referee noted Attorney Nunnery 
admitted this ethical violation during his testimony. 
B. 
The L.G. Matter (Counts 9 through 15). 
¶20 L.G. retained Attorney Nunnery to represent him on a 
number of claims arising from his employment.  The first 
lawsuit, 
in 
which 
L.G. 
alleged 
race 
discrimination, 
was 
voluntarily dismissed and does not provide any basis for 
discipline.  The second and third lawsuits alleged disability 
discrimination.  The second lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed, 
and the third was administratively closed.  Attorney Nunnery's 
representation of L.G. in the second and third lawsuits gives 
rise to counts 9 through 15. 
 
Count 9: Former SCR 20:1.2(a);9 Scope of representation. 
¶21 L.G. testified to the effect that he relied on 
Attorney Nunnery but was kept in the dark as to the ongoing 
progress of his lawsuits.  L.G. claimed not to have received 
copies of correspondence, and that his phone calls to Attorney 
                                                 
9 Former SCR 20:1.2(a) provided: 
 
A lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions 
concerning the objectives of representation, subject 
to paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), and shall consult with 
the client as to the means by which they are to be 
pursued.  A lawyer shall inform a client of all offers 
of settlement and abide by a client's decision whether 
to accept an offer of settlement of a matter.  In a 
criminal case or any proceeding that could result in 
deprivation of liberty, the lawyer shall abide by the 
client's decision, after consultation with the lawyer, 
as to a plea to be entered, whether to waive jury 
trial and whether the client will testify.    
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
11 
 
Nunnery were rarely returned.  Without informing L.G., Attorney 
Nunnery signed a stipulation for dismissal on January 11, 2005.  
The referee did not find credible Attorney Nunnery's assertions 
that from 2005 to 2006 he had various discussions with L.G. 
regarding his case.  The referee determined Attorney Nunnery did 
not communicate with his client regarding the dismissal of his 
second lawsuit and did not fully disclose to his client the 
significance of the administrative closing of the third lawsuit, 
contrary to SCR 20:1.2(a).   
Count 10: Former SCR 20:1.3;10 Diligence. 
¶22 The referee found that between February and October 
2004 Attorney Nunnery ignored five requests from opposing 
counsel to endorse a stipulation and order of dismissal.  The 
referee found no evidence that Attorney Nunnery's lengthy delays 
and failure to respond to opposing counsel's requests for 
dismissal were part of a strategic plan.  The referee determined 
Attorney Nunnery failed to act with reasonable diligence with 
respect to handling L.G.'s case. 
Count 11: Former SCR 20:1.4(a); Communication. 
¶23 The referee determined Attorney Nunnery violated his 
duty to keep L.G. reasonably informed about the status of his 
cases.  The referee stated: 
Although Mr. Nunnery went on to say that he had 
various discussions with [L.G.] from 2005 to the 
summer of 2006, however, the record does not support 
his assertion. The Stipulation for Dismissal was 
                                                 
10 Former SCR 20:1.3 provided a lawyer "shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
12 
 
signed by Mr. Nunnery on January 11, 2005; the Order 
for Dismissal was dated January 14, 2005, however, as 
he admitted, Mr. Nunnery did not inform [L.G.] of this 
action.  [L.G.] filed a complaint with OLR sometime in 
2005; Mr. Nunnery was advised of OLR's investigation 
on August 4, 2005.  Mr. Nunnery had a meeting with Mr. 
and Mrs. [L.G.] on November 3, 2005 at which time he 
refunded [L.G.'s] initial payment of $1,750.  He 
stated in a letter hand delivered at that meeting, "I 
regret the way this matter was handled."  There is no 
evidence of other contacts until after Mr. Nunnery 
received a letter from a law firm on behalf of [L.G.] 
on November 8, 2006.  The letter indicated that [L.G.] 
was unsure of the status of his case and of Mr. 
Nunnery's representation.   
The referee concluded this conduct demonstrated misconduct as 
charged in count 11.   
Count 12: Former SCR 20:1.4(b); Communication. 
¶24 Count 12 arises out of the same conduct.  The referee 
said the record is replete with examples of Attorney Nunnery's 
failure to explain the legal bases upon which he relied, thus 
demonstrating a failure to explain a matter to the extent 
reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed 
decisions, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(b).   
 
Count 13: Former 
SCR 
20:3.3(a)(1);11 
Candor 
toward 
a 
tribunal. 
¶25 In a March 24, 2004, letter to the judge in L.G.'s 
third lawsuit, Attorney Nunnery wrote he had been: 
[c]onferring with my client regarding this matter.  I 
have not been able to discuss the merits of the 
dismissal.  I think it may be appropriate simply just 
to put an indefinite stay on this matter.  I hope to 
                                                 
11 Former SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) provided a lawyer shall not 
"knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a 
tribunal; . . . ." 
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
13 
 
have a decision to the court in ten days on a 
dismissal. 
The referee stated L.G. testified credibly he had not conferred 
with Attorney Nunnery about a possible dismissal and, in fact, 
L.G. believed the case was still continuing.  The referee found 
that the March 24, 2004, letter violated the duty of candor 
toward a tribunal.   
 
Count 14: Former 
SCR 
20:8.4(c);12 
Conduct 
involving 
dishonesty. 
¶26 On the few occasions when L.G. reached Attorney 
Nunnery, he told L.G. "everything was fine" and "everything was 
rolling."  The referee concluded that by this conduct, Attorney 
Nunnery misrepresented to L.G. the status of his disability 
discrimination lawsuits.    
 
Count 15: SCR 
22.03(6) 
and 
former 
SCR 
20:8.4(f); 
Misrepresentation during the OLR investigation. 
¶27 During 
the 
OLR 
investigation, 
Attorney 
Nunnery 
responded to the investigator's questions as follows: 
• "I have indicated to [L.G.] that it was very 
unlikely that he was going to be able to succeed on 
the merits, and that the defendants will be able to 
prevail." 
• "The county had threatened to file a Motion for Rule 
11 in this case based upon [its] summary judgment 
motion and the expert opinion.  I indicated to 
[L.G.] in a meeting that this was the case." 
• "Rather than agree to a stipulated dismissal, the 
judge imposed an administrative dismissal which 
                                                 
12 Former SCR 20:8.4(c) stated it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation; . . . ." 
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
14 
 
permits either party to re-open this case at any 
time. 
 
[There] 
was 
no 
judgment 
of 
dismissal 
entered." 
¶28 The referee found that at no time did Attorney Nunnery 
advise L.G. that his case would not succeed but continued to 
assure him the case was continuing and everything was fine.  
Also, contrary to Attorney Nunnery's representation to the OLR, 
he did not provide L.G. with information regarding the defense 
motion for summary judgment or the meaning of Rule 11 sanctions.  
Further, the referee found the evidence contradicted Attorney 
Nunnery's assertion no judgment of dismissal had been entered.  
An 
order 
for 
a 
dismissal 
without 
prejudice 
was 
signed 
January 14, 2005.  This evidence persuaded the referee that 
during the course of the OLR investigation, Attorney Nunnery 
willfully 
failed 
to 
provide 
relevant 
information, 
answer 
questions fully, and made misrepresentations. 
C. 
The A.S. Matter (Counts 16 through 21). 
¶29 A.S. retained Attorney Nunnery in February 2003 to 
represent her on a claim against her former employer, the United 
States Postal Service (USPS).  This matter gave rise to counts 
16 through 21. 
Count 16: Former SCR 20:1.5(b); Fees.  
¶30 A.S. testified she understood the fee arrangement as 
an "initial deposit and you know, additional fees, his hours 
accrued."  Attorney Nunnery claimed he took the case on a flat-
fee basis and A.S. understood that the fee was a "flat fee."  
The referee concluded that if Attorney Nunnery had attempted to 
communicate a flat fee, there would be no reason for him to 
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
15 
 
include a statement as to his $250 hourly rate.  Thus, the 
referee found, Attorney Nunnery left open the possibility of 
additional billing.  The referee determined Attorney Nunnery 
failed to provide A.S., who was a client not previously 
represented, with a clear statement of the basis or rate of his 
fee.   
Count 17: Former SCR 20:1.1;13 Competence. 
¶31 The referee found that due to Attorney Nunnery's 
failure to reduce to writing the USPS's agreement with respect 
to A.S.'s return to work, he was unable to enter the agreement 
on the record, thus depriving her of the ability to enforce the 
settlement reached with the USPS.  Also, the referee determined 
the decision to withdraw A.S.'s appeal in the matter was not a 
joint decision on the part of Attorney Nunnery and his client.  
Rather, A.S. learned that her appeal had been dismissed only 
when she received notice sent by the Merit Systems Protection 
Board on June 12, 2003.  Due to Attorney Nunnery's dismissal of 
her appeal and his failure to place the settlement on the 
record, A.S. was deprived of her ability to reopen her appeal.  
The referee concluded this conduct violated the duty to provide 
competent representation. 
                                                 
13 Former SCR 20:1.1 provided, "A lawyer shall provide 
competent representation to a client.  Competent representation 
requires 
the 
legal 
knowledge, 
skill, 
thoroughness 
and 
preparation reasonably necessary for the representation." 
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
16 
 
 
Count 18: Former SCR 20:1.2(a); Scope of representation. 
¶32 The referee said Attorney Nunnery did not place any 
weight on his client's concerns, which were based on her years 
of experience and knowledge of procedures at the USPS.  He did 
not follow her warning that it would be necessary to have more 
than the notice that her removal from service had been 
rescinded.  A.S. desired details about when and where she should 
return to work, whether she would need to serve a probationary 
period, and whether she would receive back pay for an 
administrative leave.  The referee rejected Attorney Nunnery's 
contention that he acted reasonably in securing his client's 
back pay.  Although Attorney Nunnery did represent A.S. at a 
meeting and was instrumental in filing an appeal, he was not 
instrumental in obtaining compensation for her administrative 
leave beginning April 26, 2003, which she did not receive until 
after she complained to Senator Russ Feingold's office.  
Count 19: Former SCR 20:1.3; Diligence. 
¶33 The referee said that at the time Attorney Nunnery 
initiated the dismissal of her appeal, A.S. was not back to 
work, had not been notified of the time or place to return to 
work, and had not received her administrative leave pay.  Even 
Attorney Nunnery believed the issue of her compensation had not 
yet been resolved.  Thus, the referee rejected Attorney 
Nunnery's contention he had fulfilled his obligation to his 
client when USPS's oral commitment had not been fully carried 
out.  The referee noted A.S.'s testimony regarding the numerous 
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
17 
 
occasions when she telephoned and left messages at Attorney 
Nunnery's office but he failed to promptly respond.  The referee 
said these actions supported a finding of lack of diligence.   
Count 20: Former SCR 20:1.4(a); Communication.  
¶34 The referee concluded Attorney Nunnery did not keep 
A.S. apprised of what was happening in her appeal or with 
respect to his futile attempts to assist her in resolving her 
administrative leave compensation and job assignment.  The 
referee determined 
Attorney Nunnery offered no reasonable 
explanation for his failure to inform A.S. he was withdrawing 
her appeal. 
 
Count 21: Former 
SCR 
20:1.16(d);14 
Terminating 
representation. 
¶35 The referee found that in a September 22, 2003, 
letter, 
A.S. 
wrote 
to 
Attorney 
Nunnery 
expressing 
dissatisfaction with the way her case had been handled and 
asking him to contact her.  A.S. testified Attorney Nunnery 
never communicated with her after she sent this letter, and she 
never received any word from him indicating whether his 
representation would continue.  The referee said "[o]ther than 
                                                 
14 Former SCR 20:1.16(d) provided as follows: 
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 that has not been earned or 
incurred.  The lawyer may retain papers relating to 
the client to the extent permitted by other law. 
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
18 
 
telling [his client] to return to work after she received an 
AWOL [absent without official leave] notice, he took no 
effective action on her behalf."  The referee found no evidence 
that Attorney Nunnery told A.S. if she would not follow his 
advice and report to work, he would no longer represent her.  
The referee concluded the evidence supported the client's 
version of the matter.  
¶36 In his appeal of Case No. 2006AP1191-D, Attorney 
Nunnery challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support 
the referee's fact findings with respect to all counts except 
counts 5, 7, and 8.  While admitting violations charged in 
counts 5, 7, and 8, Attorney Nunnery asserts no harm resulted 
due to these violations, as well as the other violations. 
¶37 Attorney Nunnery contends the OLR and the referee 
failed to appreciate the environment of handling a civil rights 
case and failed to analyze the complexities of discrimination 
claims.15  Attorney Nunnery cites his years of experience in the 
area of civil rights litigation.  He argues that all the client 
matters here involved complicated fact scenarios.  He submits 
that Mr. and Mrs. D. had no prima facie case of discrimination. 
¶38 Attorney Nunnery also argues the referee and the OLR 
have not performed a complete analysis of his communications 
with his clients.  He says the record establishes Mr. and Mrs. 
                                                 
15 During oral argument, Attorney Nunnery cited a number of 
federal cases in which he has been involved, including, for 
example, Blise v. Antaramian, 409 F.3d 861 (7th Cir. 2005), and 
Hardin v. S.C. Johnson, 167 F.3d 340 (7th Cir. 1999). 
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
19 
 
D. were fully informed.  He argues Mrs. D.'s credibility is 
lacking, 
citing 
examples 
of 
her 
inconsistent 
testimony.  
Attorney Nunnery also denies he misled the OLR staff. 
¶39 Regarding his representation of L.G., Attorney Nunnery 
asserts that L.G. acknowledged discussions of various matters 
and had received information about the discrimination suits.  
With respect to client A.S., Attorney Nunnery contends he had 
achieved all that had been required within the scope of his 
representation, and that he acted reasonably in securing her 
reinstatement and back pay.    
¶40 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless they 
are clearly erroneous.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Polich, 2005 WI 36, ¶25, 279 Wis. 2d 266, 694 N.W.2d 367.  The 
referee is best situated to judge the credibility of witnesses.  
Id.  No deference is granted to the referee's conclusions of 
law, which we review de novo.  Id., ¶4.  We determine de novo 
the appropriate level of discipline, giving no conclusive weight 
to the referee's recommendation.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶41 We are satisfied the record supports the referee's 
findings and conclusions with respect to all 21 counts.  
Attorney Nunnery was not alleged to have provided an inadequate 
analysis of the merits of his clients' respective discrimination 
suits. 
 
We 
appreciate 
the 
complexities 
of 
civil 
rights 
litigation.  For the most part, the disciplinary charges involve 
violations of rules requiring reasonable communication with 
clients, as well as truthful communication with the court and 
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
20 
 
the OLR.  We conclude the complexities of litigation should not 
relieve an attorney of the duty to keep a client reasonably 
informed about the status of a matter, to provide a client with 
explanations reasonably necessary to permit informed decisions, 
and to provide truthful information to a court as well as during 
an OLR investigation.  
¶42 To the extent a witness's testimony may have revealed 
inconsistencies and disputes regarding the nature and extent of 
communications with Attorney Nunnery, it is the referee's 
function to resolve them.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against 
Arthur, 
2005 
WI 
40, 
¶53, 
279 
Wis. 2d 583, 
694 
N.W.2d 910.  Here, the referee specifically expressed her belief 
in the clients' versions of the events in question.  She was 
entitled to do so.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Pump, 120 Wis. 2d 422, 426, 355 N.W.2d 248 (1984).  The 
referee's findings supporting her conclusions of law have not 
been shown to be clearly erroneous.  
¶43 Next, Attorney Nunnery argues that the referee's 
recommendation for a six-month license suspension is excessive.  
He contends a public reprimand would be sufficient discipline.  
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Theobald, 2004 WI 59, 
271 Wis. 2d 690, 679 N.W.2d 804; see also In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Kasprowicz, 2004 WI 151, 277 Wis. 2d 96, 690 
N.W.2d 13.  He says no client suffered any harm.  Also, although 
Attorney Nunnery does not specifically argue mitigating factors 
here, the record discloses the referee's consideration of 
Attorney Nunnery's significant personal and physical problems 
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
21 
 
during the relevant time periods, including his hospitalization, 
as well as the illness and death of a member of his family.  The 
referee noted Attorney Nunnery admitted that, as a sole 
practitioner, he had taken on more work than he could handle 
effectively.   
¶44 As to the appropriate sanction, the court must first 
consider the seriousness of the misconduct.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Charlton, 174 Wis. 2d 844, 875-
76, 498 N.W.2d 380 (1993).  The court must also consider the 
need to protect the public, the courts, and the legal system 
from the attorney's repetition of misconduct, to impress upon 
the attorney the seriousness of the misconduct, and to deter 
other attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct.  In the 
case of In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Brandt, 184 
Wis. 2d 611, 516 N.W.2d 418 (1994), a 6-month suspension was 
imposed for 19 rules violations with respect to diligence, 
communication, 
competency, 
failing 
to 
protect 
a 
client's 
interest on termination of representation, and failing to 
cooperate with the OLR. 
¶45 Here, the referee found 21 counts of misconduct, a 
number greater than found in the Theobald (13 counts) and 
Kasprowicz (16 counts) cases upon which Attorney Nunnery relies.  
Also, unlike Attorney Nunnery's history, the attorneys in 
Theobald and Kasprowicz had never been previously disciplined.  
In addition, we find unpersuasive Attorney Nunnery's contention 
that no harm was done.  The referee found and the record 
discloses the frustration and stress suffered when clients did 
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
22 
 
not receive reasonable information and explanations from their 
attorney.  Also, misleading communications or misrepresentations 
to clients, the OLR or a court impair the functioning of the 
legal system as a whole.  Given the number and nature of the 
violations, 
Attorney 
Nunnery's 
prior 
disciplinary 
history, 
together with the mitigating factors referenced by the referee, 
we conclude a six-month suspension and costs should be imposed.   
II. 
CASE NO. 2007AP1908-D 
¶46 In Case No. 2007AP1908-D, the OLR filed a 15-count 
disciplinary complaint against Attorney Nunnery arising from 
four client matters.  Following hearings conducted April 28, 
2008, to May 1, 2008, Referee Ferguson concluded the record 
supported the 15 counts of professional misconduct as charged. 
A. 
The J.D. Estate Matter (Counts 1 through 7). 
¶47 A Dane County circuit court commissioner filed a 
grievance with the OLR in May 2006 regarding Attorney Nunnery's 
handling of a probate matter involving the estate of J.D.  The 
referee found Attorney Nunnery committed seven counts of 
professional misconduct with respect to J.D.'s estate:   
Count 1: Former SCR 20:1.3; Diligence. 
Count 2: Former SCRs 20:1.15(e)16 and 20:1.15(f)b.;17 
Trust account and client records. 
                                                 
16 Former SCR 20:1.15(e) (effective prior to July 1, 2004) 
provided: 
Complete records of trust account funds and other 
trust property shall be kept by the lawyer and shall 
be preserved for a period of at least six years after 
termination of the representation.  Complete records 
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
23 
 
Count 3: Former SCR 20:3.3(a)(1); Candor toward a 
tribunal. 
Count 4: Former SCR 20:3.4(c);18 Fairness. 
                                                                                                                                                             
shall include: (i) a cash receipts journal, listing 
the 
sources 
and 
date 
of 
each 
receipt, 
(ii) 
a 
disbursements journal, listing the date and payee of 
each disbursement, with all disbursements being paid 
by check, (iii) a subsidiary ledger containing a 
separate page for each person or company for whom 
funds have been received in trust, showing the date 
and amount of each receipt, the date and amount of 
each disbursement, and any unexpended balance, (iv) a 
monthly schedule of the subsidiary ledger, indicating 
the balance of each client's account at the end of 
each month, (v) a determination of the cash balance 
(checkbook balance) at the end of each month, taken 
from the cash receipts and cash disbursement journals 
and a reconciliation of the cash balance (checkbook 
balance) with the balance indicated in the bank 
statement, and (vi) monthly statements, including 
canceled 
checks, 
vouchers 
or 
share 
drafts, 
and 
duplicate deposit slips.  A record of all property 
other than cash which is held in trust for clients or 
third persons, as required as paragraph (a) hereof, 
shall also be maintained.  All trust account records 
shall be deemed to have public aspects as related to 
the lawyer's fitness to practice. 
17 Former SCR 20:1.15(f)b. (effective July 1, 2004, through 
June 30, 2007) stated: 
 
Individual client ledgers.  A subsidiary ledger 
shall be maintained for each client or matter for 
which the lawyer receives trust funds, and the lawyer 
shall record each receipt and disbursement of that 
client's 
funds 
and 
the 
balance 
following 
each 
transaction.  A lawyer shall not disburse funds from 
the trust account that would create a negative balance 
with respect to any individual client or matter. 
18 Former SCR 20:3.4(c) stated 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; . . . ." 
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
24 
 
Count 5: Former SCR 20:8.4(c); Dishonesty. 
Count 6: SCR 
22.03(6) 
and 
former 
SCR 
20:8.4(f); 
Misrepresentation to the OLR.  
Count 7: SCR 22.03(2)19 and former SCR 20:8.4(f); 
Disclosure to the OLR. 
¶48 In 1984 J.D. executed a will naming Attorney Nunnery 
as successor personal representative of his estate should his 
wife predecease him.  In 1991 J.D. signed two durable powers of 
attorney naming Attorney Nunnery as his agent for financial 
management and healthcare.20 
¶49 After J.D. was admitted to a nursing home in 1997, 
Attorney Nunnery assumed responsibility for J.D.'s health care 
and financial decisions.  J.D.'s wife died in 1997 and J.D. died 
                                                 
19 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. 
20 The 
1991 
durable 
power 
of 
attorney 
provided 
"my 
healthcare agent . . . shall not be entitled to compensation for 
services rendered hereunder."  The power of attorney for 
financial management, however, provided J.D.'s agent would be 
entitled to compensation not to exceed the amount a Wisconsin 
corporate fiduciary would charge under the same or similar 
circumstances.  J.D. and Attorney Nunnery had no additional fee 
agreement allowing for compensation for any other pre-death 
legal services. 
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
25 
 
in 1999.  At the time of his death, J.D. owned a home, a set of 
silver flatware, an antique sofa and other miscellaneous 
personal property.  J.D. also owned a checking account titled, 
"[J.D.] Willie Nunnery POA" ("POA Account"), which Attorney 
Nunnery used before J.D.'s death to manage J.D.'s finances due 
to his failing health.   
¶50 Attorney Nunnery began developing a plan to sell 
J.D.'s house and use the proceeds for J.D.'s care.  On May 23, 
1999, Attorney Nunnery signed, as J.D.'s "POA," an acceptance of 
an offer to purchase J.D.'s house.  The referee found that 
Attorney Nunnery misrepresented to the OLR that he had included 
"POA" on sales documents in error.   
¶51 The referee found that between the date of J.D.'s 
death on April 30, 1999, and June 22, 1999, Attorney Nunnery did 
not obtain court authority to act on behalf of J.D.'s estate, 
including the authority to negotiate the sale of J.D.'s house, 
issue checks from the POA Account or sign any documents on 
J.D.'s or the estate's behalf.  After Attorney Nunnery's powers 
expired upon J.D.'s death, Attorney Nunnery continued to 
represent himself as J.D.'s agent and signed documents as J.D.'s 
"POA." 
¶52 On June 22, 1999, Attorney Nunnery filed a special 
administration petition in Dane County probate court, seeking to 
be appointed special administrator of J.D.'s estate to complete 
the closing on the sale of J.D.'s house.  The referee found 
Attorney Nunnery misrepresented on that petition the date of 
J.D.'s death as May 30, 1999, instead of April 30, 1999, to 
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
26 
 
conceal the fact that he continued to represent himself as 
J.D.'s POA by issuing checks from J.D.'s POA Account between 
April 30, 1999, and June 22, 1999.  Attorney Nunnery did not 
disclose to the probate court that he had already signed 
documents accepting the buyers' offer after J.D.'s death.  
¶53 On June 25, 1999, Attorney Nunnery deposited into his 
pooled client trust account the proceeds from the sale of J.D.'s 
house totaling $84,684.91.  Attorney Nunnery disbursed a number 
of checks to beneficiaries and to himself from the proceeds of 
the house sale.   
¶54 The referee found that from June 1999 through April 
2006, Attorney Nunnery did not bill the estate and did not 
maintain checking account records or any records of the services 
he provided or compensation due for his services to the estate.  
Also, Attorney Nunnery did not make any claims against the 
estate for fees beyond his legal fees.  Attorney Nunnery did not 
maintain trust account records, including a cash receipts 
journal, a disbursements journal, a subsidiary client ledger for 
each client matter, a checkbook register, or journal entries for 
the assets belonging to J.D.'s estate.   
¶55 In August 2000 Attorney Nunnery filed an application 
for an informal administration, which misrepresented J.D.'s date 
of death as May 30, 1999.  Attorney Nunnery did not petition the 
court to name himself or anyone else as personal representative.  
Between May 21, 2001, and December 20, 2005, the probate court 
issued a series of orders requiring Attorney Nunnery to explain 
why the estate had not yet been closed.  In June and December 
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
27 
 
2005 Attorney Nunnery failed to appear at hearings to show why 
the estate had not been closed.  On December 20, 2005, the court 
ordered Attorney Nunnery removed as personal representative and 
attorney for the estate. 
¶56 On March 2, 2006, the court ordered Attorney Nunnery 
to appear at the Dane County probate office and bring all 
records in his possession regarding the estate.  Attorney 
Nunnery, along with another attorney whom Attorney Nunnery had 
retained, appeared in person before the commissioner.  After 
receiving an extension to file estate documents, Attorney 
Nunnery provided an interim report of disbursements, showing a 
deposit of $84,684.91 into Attorney Nunnery's pooled client 
trust account.   
¶57 The 
interim 
report 
identified 
nine 
disbursements 
between 
June 
25, 
1999, 
and 
December 
28, 
1999, 
totaling 
$55,925.81.  The report did not, however, inform the court of 
certain disbursements totaling $18,000 by checks that contained 
notations they were for estate fees.  The referee found Attorney 
Nunnery's business account would have been overdrawn if one of 
the checks for estate fees had not been deposited.  
¶58 Also, Attorney Nunnery did not list the antique sofa 
or flatware set on the interim report, but informed the 
commissioner that these items were "in storage" at his office.  
The referee found, however, that the sofa was "stored" in a 
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
28 
 
place where people could sit on it.21  The referee found that 
Attorney Nunnery misrepresented to the probate court and to the 
OLR that he had "stored" J.D.'s sofa and flatware at his office. 
¶59 The referee also determined that Attorney Nunnery 
misrepresented to the OLR he had not intended to pay himself 
substantially $28,749 of estate assets remaining in trust as of 
December 28, 1999.  Attorney Nunnery did not disburse the 
estate's remaining assets after that day and, through his 
attorney, admitted that he had misused the funds.  The referee 
found that Attorney Nunnery did not have the authority to make 
any of the disbursements that appeared on the interim report.   
¶60 The referee found that in an April 10, 2006, report to 
the court commissioner, Attorney Nunnery stated he held the 
balance of the estate and assets and stood prepared to deliver 
those to the court as ordered.  At the time he made this 
statement, however, he held none of the estate funds in his 
trust account.  Attorney Nunnery had certified to the OLR that 
the information contained in the report was true and complete. 
¶61 On April 21, 2006, Attorney Nunnery deposited estate 
funds with the circuit court via a cashier's check for 
$29,149.92.  The money had not been disbursed from Attorney 
                                                 
21 Referee Ferguson found Attorney Nunnery retained and 
still retains J.D.'s silver flatware and antique sofa, which 
Attorney Nunnery had reupholstered using $1,691.38 of the 
estate's funds.  Attorney Nunnery stated to the OLR that he had 
reupholstered and used the sofa because he considered it 
compensation for his services acting as power of attorney for 
financial management. 
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
29 
 
Nunnery's trust account, however, and Attorney Nunnery failed to 
respond to the OLR's request for the immediate source of the 
funds.  The referee found Attorney Nunnery converted to his own 
use at least $30,450.48 from the estate's funds deposited in his 
trust account.  The referee found that Attorney Nunnery failed 
to disclose his disbursements from the POA Account after J.D.'s 
death, failed to disclose the actual balance in the POA Account 
as of J.D.'s death, and failed to inform the court that he 
continued to write checks as J.D.'s agent after his power of 
attorney expired upon J.D.'s death.   
¶62 The estate was eventually closed in 2007.  Attorney 
Nunnery admitted he was completely wrong in how he handled the 
estate, notwithstanding other stressors in his life.  Attorney 
Nunnery does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to 
support the referee's findings and conclusions with respect to 
counts 1 through 7 and makes no objection to restitution. 
B. 
The K.M. Matter (Counts 8 through 10). 
¶63 On July 31, 2003, K.M. retained Attorney Nunnery to 
represent her on appeal of claims she had filed with the Equal 
Rights Division (ERD) of the Department of Workforce Development 
alleging race discrimination and sexual harassment.  The referee 
concluded that Attorney Nunnery's representation of K.M. gave 
rise to three counts of professional misconduct: 
Count 8: Former 
SCR 
20:1.2(a); 
Scope 
of 
Representation. 
Count 9: Former SCR 20:1.4(a); Communication.  
Count 10: Former SCR 20:1.4(b); Communication  
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
30 
 
¶64 The referee found that in October 2003 K.M. attempted 
to contact Attorney Nunnery to find out when they would meet to 
prepare for an ERD hearing scheduled for November 5, 2003.  He 
did not return her calls.  On November 3, 2003, Attorney Nunnery 
filed a notice of withdrawal and dismissal of K.M.'s ERD cases.  
He did not copy K.M. on the notice of withdrawal and dismissal 
or discuss it with her and did not have her permission to 
dismiss her complaint.  After receiving a letter from ERD 
regarding dismissal of her cases, K.M. spoke with Attorney 
Nunnery, who advised that the ERD letter was an error and would 
need correction.  
¶65 In a January 2004 meeting, Attorney Nunnery did not 
mention to K.M. he had dismissed the ERD cases.  In February 
2004 K.M. contacted Attorney Nunnery because she had received a 
"right to sue" letter.  Attorney Nunnery responded that she need 
not worry about the letter and he would take care of it.  He did 
not advise K.M. of her rights and obligations related to the 
right to sue letter nor did he advise that he believed her case 
lacked merit. 
¶66 In May 2004 Attorney Nunnery informed K.M. that if she 
called him one more time or sent any other correspondence, he 
would drop her case and return her retainer.  In September 2004 
K.M. sent Attorney Nunnery a memo regarding communication gaps 
in her case.  He did not respond.   
¶67 In August 2005 Attorney Nunnery and K.M. met for a 
final time during which Attorney Nunnery told K.M. her case 
lacked merit.  A few days later, K.M. received her files from 
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
31 
 
Attorney Nunnery along with a $750 refund of her retainer.  K.M. 
was unaware until September 2005 that Attorney Nunnery had 
dismissed her ERD claims, and also learned then that the time 
limits to file a lawsuit had expired.  The referee concluded 
that these facts supported counts 8 through 10.  
C. 
The D.H. Matter (Counts 11 through 13). 
¶68 In July 2001 D.H. hired Attorney Nunnery to represent 
him in an employment discrimination claim against his employer, 
several supervisors and his union.  The referee determined 
Attorney Nunnery's representation of D.H. gave rise to three 
counts: 
Count 11: Former SCR 20:1.4(a); Communication. 
Count 12: Former SCR 20:1.4(b); Communication. 
Count 
13: Former 
SCR 
20:1.16(d); 
Terminating 
representation. 
¶69 Attorney Nunnery filed a complaint in federal court on 
behalf 
of 
D.H. 
and 
a 
co-worker, 
S.B., 
alleging 
race 
discrimination and retaliation contrary to 42 U.S.C. § 1981.  
The referee found that Attorney Nunnery did not review the 
complaint with D.H. or explain the claims he was pursuing on 
D.H.'s behalf.  The referee also found that Attorney Nunnery did 
not inform his client of (1) a  motion to dismiss filed by one 
of the supervisors; (2) Attorney Nunnery's failure to timely 
respond to the motion; (3) the court's decision denying the 
motion; and (4) that Attorney Nunnery missed the discovery 
deadline for taking depositions.  The referee said although 
Attorney Nunnery was subsequently granted an extension, he took 
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
32 
 
no action to notice depositions and did not inform D.H. that he 
did not intend to conduct further discovery.  
¶70 In addition, the referee determined Attorney Nunnery 
did not inform D.H. of summary judgment motions filed by the 
union and non-union defendants.  Although Attorney Nunnery filed 
a motion to strike the summary judgment motion filed by the non-
union defendants, D.H. was not sent a copy.  When a dismissal 
was granted on behalf of all defendants, other than sending D.H. 
a copy of the court's decision by mail, Attorney Nunnery did not 
discuss with D.H. the reasoning or ramifications of the 
dismissal.   
¶71 Attorney Nunnery filed an appeal of the dismissal with 
the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  The 
referee found that when Attorney Nunnery and D.H. participated 
in a court-mandated settlement conference on appeal, Attorney 
Nunnery informed the mediator the union was not required to 
participate.  Attorney Nunnery did not have D.H.'s permission to 
dismiss the union from settlement negotiations and did not 
discuss with D.H. whether to do so.  When D.H. inquired why the 
union had not been involved, Attorney Nunnery replied that he 
could not sue the union. 
¶72 The referee found that on June 25, 2003, five days 
before an appellate brief was due and without notice to D.H., 
Attorney Nunnery filed a motion to withdraw as D.H.'s counsel.  
Attorney Nunnery did not advise D.H. he was withdrawing.  On the 
basis of these findings, the referee concluded Attorney Nunnery 
committed misconduct as charged in counts 11 through 13.   
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
33 
 
D. 
The S.B. Matter (Counts 14 through 15). 
¶73 The 
final 
matter 
involves 
Attorney 
Nunnery's 
representation of S.B., who was D.H.'s co-worker.  S.B. retained 
Attorney Nunnery in an employment discrimination/retaliation 
claim against his employer and his union.  The referee concluded 
Attorney Nunnery's handling of S.B.'s suit supported two counts: 
Count 14: Former SCR 20:1.4(a); Communication.  
Count 15: Former SCR 20:1.4(b); Communication.   
¶74 On July 30, 2001, Attorney Nunnery filed a complaint 
on behalf of S.B. alleging race discrimination and retaliation.  
Attorney Nunnery did not discuss with S.B. the claims brought on 
his behalf.  When non-union defendants filed a motion to dismiss 
for failure to state a claim, Attorney Nunnery did not advise 
S.B. of the motion.  On October 30, 2001, the district court 
granted the dismissal of S.B.'s 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim.    
¶75 On December 13, 2002, Attorney Nunnery filed a notice 
of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Seventh Circuit.  Ultimately, the dismissal was affirmed.  
During 
a 
court-mandated 
settlement 
conference 
on 
appeal, 
Attorney Nunnery did not discuss with S.B. the reasons he had 
informed the mediator the union could be dismissed from 
participation. 
 
Attorney 
Nunnery 
did 
not 
obtain 
S.B.'s 
permission to dismiss the union from the suit.  The referee 
found that Attorney Nunnery's failure to communicate significant 
case developments with S.B. and to explain why he had abandoned 
S.B.'s claim against the union and had released it from the 
settlement conference supported counts 14 and 15.  
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
34 
 
¶76 In Case No. 2007AP1908-D the OLR appeals the referee's 
recommendation of a two-year license suspension.  The OLR argues 
precedent supports revocation.  It relies on In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Leadholm, 
160 
Wis. 2d 190, 
200, 
465 
N.W.2d 650 (1991), in which Attorney Leadholm's license was 
revoked for misconduct including neglect, failure to keep 
clients informed, failure to return unearned retainers and 
client documents upon termination of representation; failure to 
promptly deliver funds; failure to deposit client funds in the 
trust account and account for those funds; conversion of client 
funds; and failure to respond to the OLR's requests for 
information.  The OLR cites additional cases with similar 
misconduct resulting in revocation.  See, for example, In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Krombach, 2005 WI 170, 286 
Wis. 2d 589, 707 N.W.2d 146; In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Sheehan, 224 Wis. 2d 44, 588 N.W.2d 624 (1999); In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hinnawi, 202 Wis. 2d 113, 549 
N.W.2d 245 (1996) (conversion of estate funds; failure to 
promptly 
perform 
duties; 
unreasonable 
fee; 
trust 
account 
violation; misrepresentation to OLR; failure to act diligently; 
and failure to respond to client's attempts to contact him, and 
failure to respond to OLR inquiries). 
¶77 The 
OLR 
argues Attorney Nunnery's misconduct is 
aggravated by his refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of 
his conduct and the vulnerability of the victims.  The OLR says 
Attorney Nunnery has not yet made the remaining $1,300.56 
payment 
he 
acknowledges 
is 
necessary 
to 
make 
whole 
the 
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
35 
 
beneficiaries of the J.D. estate and still retains the estate's 
antique sofa and the silver flatware.  The OLR contends the 
seriousness of the misconduct warrants revocation. 
¶78 Attorney Nunnery acknowledges his misconduct in the 
estate matter warrants discipline.  He says he accepted 
responsibility, made attempts to reimburse the estate, and never 
intentionally 
sought 
to 
deceive 
any 
of 
the 
estate's 
beneficiaries. 
¶79 Attorney 
Nunnery 
nonetheless 
cross-appeals 
and 
challenges the referee's findings in the remaining client 
matters.  He claims the referee failed to analyze D.H.'s 
testimony for credibility.  Attorney Nunnery asserts S.B.'s 
claim against the union was meritless because there was no proof 
of any racially motivated union conduct, which is why the claim 
was dismissed.  He further argues there is no showing his 
handling of the discrimination suits caused any financial loss.   
¶80 Attorney 
Nunnery 
claims 
the 
recommended 
two-year 
suspension is unnecessary to protect the public or to impress 
upon him the severity of his misconduct.  At oral argument, 
Attorney Nunnery indicated a shorter suspension would be 
appropriate.  In his appellate brief, he points to the stressors 
in his life at the pertinent times, including his own medical 
problems, a family member's death, being caught in Hurricane 
Katrina, 
as well 
as being subjected to a $2.5 million 
malpractice verdict which was ultimately reversed on appeal.  
Also, he was involved in handling complex litigation, including 
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
36 
 
prosecuting the death of a young black man by a police officer 
in 2002 and a prisoner death case in Louisiana. 
¶81 Because they have not been shown to be clearly 
erroneous, we approve and adopt the referee's findings.  It is 
evident the referee believed the clients' versions of the events 
in question.  Contrary to Attorney Nunnery's contentions, the 
merits of D.H.'s and S.B.'s civil rights claims are not relevant 
to a determination of the professional misconduct charged here.  
Also, Attorney Nunnery does not challenge the referee's findings 
with respect to the J.D. estate matter.  As a result, it is 
undisputed Attorney Nunnery converted estate funds and made a 
number of misrepresentations, constituting flagrant misconduct.  
See Krombach, 286 Wis. 2d 589, ¶62. 
¶82 While we recognize the gravity of Attorney Nunnery's 
misconduct, we are not persuaded it calls for the revocation of 
his license to practice law.  Each case must turn on its 
individual facts.  Id.  In Hinnawi and Krombach, for instance, 
significant restitution had not yet been made.  Here, Attorney 
Nunnery has indicated his remorse, accepted responsibility for 
the serious violations in his handling of the J.D. estate, and 
made significant restitution.  It is undisputed Attorney Nunnery 
was faced with significant stressors involving his health, his 
family, as well as his law practice.  While not excusing his 
misconduct, these factors indicate that Attorney Nunnery was not 
completely indifferent to restitution, as in Hinnawi, or engaged 
in a fraudulent scheme as indicated in Sheehan.  
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
37 
 
¶83 Attorney Nunnery is now facing a six-month suspension 
in Case No. 2006AP1191-D.  An additional two and one-half year 
suspension, resulting in a total suspension of three years, 
together with full costs and restitution, is sufficient under 
the circumstances to protect the public, achieve deterrence, and 
impress upon Attorney Nunnery the seriousness of his misconduct.  
¶84 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Willie J. Nunnery to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of three 
years, effective August 24, 2009. 
¶85 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Willie J. Nunnery shall 
comply with SCR 22.26 regarding the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.  
¶86 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Willie J. Nunnery pay 
restitution as determined in the referee's report in Case No. 
2007AP1908-D.22  If the restitution is not paid within 60 days of 
this order, Willie J. Nunnery's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the 
court. 
¶87 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
restitution 
as 
determined in the referee's report in Case No. 2007AP1908-D is 
to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation. 
¶88 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 90 days of the date 
of this order Willie J. Nunnery pay to the Office of Lawyer 
                                                 
22 The referee recommended that Attorney Nunnery make 
restitution in the amount of $1,300.56, along with the antique 
sofa and silver flatware, to the beneficiaries of J.D.'s estate. 
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
38 
 
Regulation the costs of these proceedings.23  If 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, Willie 
J. Nunnery's license to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain 
suspended until further order of the court.  
 
                                                 
23 On June 5, 2009, the OLR filed its supplemental statement 
of costs.  In Case No. 2006AP1191-D, the OLR seeks costs of 
$25,231.81.  In Case No. 2007AP1908-D, the OLR seeks costs of 
$17,591.67.  No objection to costs has been filed.  See SCR 
22.24(3). 
No. 
2006AP1191-D & 2007AP1908-D   
 
 
 
1