Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. William R. Lamb
Citation: 2006 WI 11, 2011 WI 101
Docket Number: 2011AP000049-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: December 16, 2011

2011 WI 101 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2011AP49-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against William R. Lamb, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
William R. Lamb, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST LAMB 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 16, 2011   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2011 WI 101
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2011AP49-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against William R. Lamb, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
William R. Lamb, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
DEC 16, 2011 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the stipulation filed by the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney William R. Lamb 
regarding 
Attorney 
Lamb's 
professional 
misconduct 
in 
the 
handling of four client matters.  The OLR and Attorney Lamb 
stipulate that Attorney Lamb committed professional misconduct 
in his handling of four client matters, and that Attorney Lamb's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin should be suspended for 60 
days for his misconduct.  In addition, the parties stipulate 
No. 
2011AP49-D   
 
2 
 
that Attorney Lamb shall pay restitution to one client, that he 
should be required to participate in continuing legal education 
(CLE) relating to trust account requirements and the ethical 
obligations of attorneys, and that he be required to pay the 
full costs of this proceeding, which are $2,261.99 as of 
August 3, 2011.  After careful consideration, we adopt the 
stipulated facts and discipline recommended by the referee. 
¶2 
Attorney 
Lamb 
was 
admitted 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin in 1989.  He is a sole practitioner practicing in 
Menomonie, Wisconsin.  In 1997 Attorney Lamb received a 
consensual private reprimand for failing to cooperate with the 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility's investigation 
into his misconduct and failing to appear at investigative 
interviews.  In 2003 he received a consensual private reprimand 
for mishandling fees and failing to return a case file to 
successor counsel. 
¶3 
On January 10, 2011, the OLR filed a complaint 
alleging Attorney Lamb engaged in 21 counts of misconduct with 
respect to four separate client matters.  The first client 
matter detailed in the complaint involved Attorney Lamb's 
representation of D.N.  D.N. was granted guardianship of her 
four step-great-grandchildren in January of 2006.  In the summer 
of 2006 the mother of some of the children filed motions in 
circuit court to terminate D.N.'s guardianship and obtain 
custody of the children.  D.N. hired Attorney Lamb to represent 
her in the guardianship matters.  He had previously represented 
No. 
2011AP49-D   
 
3 
 
her in other matters.  Attorney Lamb's representation of D.N. 
continued until July 2008.   
¶4 
The OLR's complaint alleged that D.N. sent Attorney 
Lamb numerous e-mails posing various questions about the case.  
Attorney Lamb failed to respond to the vast majority of D.N.'s 
e-mails. 
¶5 
In February of 2008 D.N. paid Attorney Lamb $1,000 in 
cash.  Attorney Lamb did not enter into a written fee agreement 
with D.N., nor did he place the $1,000 in his trust account.  A 
week later D.N. borrowed money and paid Attorney Lamb $2,500.  
Attorney Lamb did not put the $2,500 into his trust account, nor 
did he enter into a written fee agreement with D.N.   
¶6 
On May 27, 2008, Attorney Lamb's license to practice 
law in Wisconsin was suspended for failure to comply with CLE 
requirements.  A telephone conference in D.N.'s case was held in 
early June 2008.  Attorney Lamb did not participate in the 
telephone conference.  He also did not advise the court or D.N. 
that he would be unable to participate in the phone conference 
because his law license was still suspended.  D.N. believed that 
Attorney Lamb had participated in the telephone conference.  
Attorney Lamb's license was reinstated on June 24, 2008.   
¶7 
Between June 24 and July 3, 2008, D.N. made a number 
of visits to Attorney Lamb's office.  No one answered when she 
knocked on the door.  Attorney Lamb's vehicle was in the parking 
lot during those attempted visits, and the children who 
accompanied D.N. to Attorney Lamb's office looked under the door 
and could see someone was in the office.  On another occasion, 
No. 
2011AP49-D   
 
4 
 
D.N. was waiting in her vehicle in the parking lot outside 
Attorney Lamb's office when she saw Attorney Lamb pull in behind 
her and observed in her rearview mirror that he was making a 
cell phone call.  The cell phone call came to her and Attorney 
Lamb reported he would be unable to make the meeting because he 
was "tied up in court."  On yet another occasion, Attorney Lamb 
gave notice of cancelling an appointment with D.N. by leaving a 
note on his office door that was visible to passersby in a 
common hallway. 
¶8 
D.N. hired a new attorney on July 10, 2008.  The 
following day D.N. e-mailed Attorney Lamb and raised the issue 
of obtaining a $2,800 refund from the $3,500 she had paid him.  
D.N. informed Attorney Lamb of the name of her new attorney and 
asked for a copy of everything in Attorney Lamb's file to give 
to the new attorney.  Attorney Lamb did not provide a copy of 
his file to D.N.  D.N. sent numerous additional e-mails asking 
for a $2,800 refund.  Attorney Lamb never provided an accounting 
of the fees he claimed to have earned, nor did he return any of 
the advance fee paid by D.N.   
¶9 
On December 1, 2008, D.N. contacted the OLR to file a 
grievance against Attorney Lamb.  In January 2009 the OLR sent 
Attorney Lamb notice of its formal investigation and requested a 
complete response to D.N.'s grievance.  In May 2009 Attorney 
Lamb provided the OLR with his formal response to the grievance.  
The OLR assigned the matter to its District 8 committee to 
conduct a thorough investigation.  The lead investigator 
attempted to contact Attorney Lamb and left a number of 
No. 
2011AP49-D   
 
5 
 
voicemails asking to meet with Attorney Lamb to discuss D.N.'s 
grievance as well as another grievance filed by K.D.  Attorney 
Lamb left a voicemail message for the lead investigator saying 
he was out of the office and giving a date on which the 
investigator was to call him.  When the investigator's office 
staff attempted to contact Attorney Lamb and again left a 
voicemail message at Attorney Lamb's office phone, Attorney Lamb 
failed to respond.  The lead investigator then sent Attorney 
Lamb a letter by certified mail and regular first-class mail 
concerning D.N.'s grievance.  Attorney Lamb received the letter 
but failed to respond.  Attorney Lamb failed to attend an 
investigative 
meeting 
that 
was 
scheduled 
by 
the 
lead 
investigator, and he never provided his file in the D.N. 
grievance matter to the investigator.   
¶10 The OLR alleged eight counts of misconduct with 
respect to Attorney Lamb's representation of D.N.: 
Count 1:  By failing to reasonably consult with 
his client, [D.N.], regarding the means by which he 
intended to protect a guardianship, file a defamation 
action, 
seek 
to 
terminate 
parental 
rights, 
and 
establish visitation in connection with an adverse 
party's legal challenges, [Attorney] Lamb failed to 
reasonably consult with his client about the means by 
which the client's objectives are to be accomplished 
in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a)(2).1 
Count 2:  By failing on multiple occasions to 
inform [D.N.] regarding the status of critical events 
during the guardianship/visitation proceedings, such 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.4(a)(2) provides that a lawyer shall "reasonably 
consult with the client about the means by which the client's 
objectives are to be accomplished; . . . ." 
No. 
2011AP49-D   
 
6 
 
as the status of his efforts to file a CHIPS petition, 
the status of the hearing to terminate guardianship, 
the status of contempt motions filed against [D.N.] 
for failing to provide visitation (and any required 
responses to the motions), the status of subsequent 
negotiations regarding visitation and an anticipated 
hearing to set visitation, and the fact that his 
license to practice law had been suspended and he 
would be unable to attend the visitation hearing on 
[D.N.'s] behalf, [Attorney] Lamb failed to keep his 
client reasonably informed about the status of the 
matter in violation of former SCR 20:1.4(a)2 and 
current SCR 20:1.4(a)(3).3 
Count 3:  By failing to respond to [D.N.'s] 
multiple 
e-mails, 
telephone 
calls, 
and 
attempted 
office 
visits 
seeking 
information 
and 
guidance 
regarding 
the 
guardianship/visitation 
proceedings, 
and, in addition, in failing to respond to multiple 
requests to clarify provisions of the Court's Order 
entered following the January, 2007 adversary hearing 
regarding the payment of Guardian ad Litem fees, 
[Attorney] 
Lamb 
failed 
to 
promptly 
comply 
with 
reasonable requests by his client for information in 
violation of former SCR 20:1.4(a) [effective through 
June 30, 2007] and current SCR 20:1.4(a)(4).4 
Count 4:  By failing to reasonably consult with 
[D.N.] regarding his plan to file a CHIPS petition as 
well as defend against an adversary action seeking to 
terminate [D.N.'s] guardianship, including his plans 
for preparing [D.N.] and potential witnesses for a 
January 16, 2007 hearing, and, in addition, in failing 
to explain to [D.N.] the legal significance of the 
adversary guardianship proceedings, and, furthermore, 
by failing to explain to [D.N.] the legal significance 
                                                 
2 Former SCR 20:1.4(a) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
stated:  "A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about 
the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable 
requests for information." 
3 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) states a lawyer shall "keep the client 
reasonably informed about the status of the matter; . . . ." 
4 SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) states a lawyer shall "promptly comply 
with reasonable requests by the client for information; . . . ." 
No. 
2011AP49-D   
 
7 
 
of critical events in the visitation proceedings, such 
as the motions for contempt filed by the adversary 
parent and the Court's June, 2008 order regarding 
visitation, as well as the impact of his suspension 
from the practice of law on the ongoing matters, 
[Attorney] Lamb failed to explain matters to the 
extent reasonably necessary to permit his client to 
make informed decisions regarding the representation 
in violation of SCR 20:1.4(b).5 
Count 5:  By accepting a fee in the amount of 
$3,500 without a written fee agreement, [Attorney] 
Lamb failed to communicate in writing the purpose and 
effect of any retainer or advance fee paid to him in 
violation of SCR 20:1.5(b)(2).6 
Count 6:  By accepting $3,500 in advance fee 
payments from [D.N.] and failing to hold the advances 
in 
trust, 
without 
complying 
with 
the 
notice, 
accounting, 
and 
arbitration 
requirements 
of 
SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m), [Attorney] Lamb failed to hold in 
trust unearned fees and advance payments of fees in 
violation of SCR 20:1.15(b)(4).7 
Count 7:  By failing to surrender papers and 
property to which [D.N.] was entitled and by failing 
to either account for or refund advanced payments that 
                                                 
5 SCR 20:1.4(b) provides as follows:  "A lawyer shall 
explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit 
the 
client 
to 
make 
informed 
decisions 
regarding 
the 
representation." 
6 SCR 
20:1.5(b)(2) 
states: 
"If 
the 
total 
cost 
of 
representation to the client, including attorney's fees, is more 
than $1000, the purpose and effect of any retainer or advance 
fee that is paid to the lawyer shall be communicated in 
writing." 
7 SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) provides:   
Except as provided in par. (4m), unearned fees 
and advanced payments of fees shall be held in trust 
until earned by the lawyer, and withdrawn pursuant to 
sub. (g).  Funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for 
payment of costs shall be held in trust until the 
costs are incurred. 
No. 
2011AP49-D   
 
8 
 
had not been earned or incurred, [Attorney] Lamb 
failed to surrender papers and property to which his 
client was entitled or refund any advance payment of 
fee or expense that has not been earned or incurred, 
in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d).8 
Count 8:  By failing to cooperate [with] OLR's 
District Committee 8 investigation in the [D.N.] 
grievance matter, [Attorney] Lamb failed to cooperate 
with 
the 
office 
of 
lawyer 
regulation 
in 
the 
investigation, 
prosecution, 
and 
disposition 
of 
grievances 
in 
violation 
of 
SCR 
22.04(1)9 
and 
SCR 21.15(4),10 as enforced through SCR 20:8.4(h).11 
                                                 
8 SCR 20:1.16(d) states: 
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer 
shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable 
to protect a client's interests, such as giving 
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for 
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and 
property to which the client is entitled and refunding 
any advance payment of fee or expense that has not 
been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers 
relating to the client to the extent permitted by 
other law. 
9 SCR 22.04(1) states:   
The director may refer a matter to a district 
committee for assistance in the investigation.  A 
respondent has the duty to cooperate specified in 
SCR 21.15(4) and 22.03(2) in respect to the district 
committee.  The committee may subpoena and compel the 
production of documents specified in SCR 22.03(8) and 
22.42. 
10 SCR 21.15(4) provides as follows:  
Every attorney shall cooperate with the office of 
lawyer regulation in the investigation, prosecution 
and disposition of grievances, complaints filed with 
or by the director, and petitions for reinstatement.  
An attorney's wilful failure to cooperate with the 
office of lawyer regulation constitutes violation of 
the rules of professional conduct for attorneys. 
No. 
2011AP49-D   
 
9 
 
¶11 The second client matter detailed in the OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney Lamb's representation of K.D. in a 
post-divorce proceeding.  K.D. retained Attorney Lamb on July 9, 
2008, and paid him a $750 retainer with funds her father had 
loaned to her.  A hearing was held on July 14, 2008, before a 
circuit court commissioner.  K.D. appeared in person and 
Attorney Lamb appeared by telephone.  K.D.'s former husband 
appeared 
in 
person 
and 
with 
his 
attorney. 
 
The 
court 
commissioner ordered mediation of child placement issues.  K.D. 
thereafter unsuccessfully tried to contact Attorney Lamb by 
telephone and by going to his office to seek information and 
guidance about the case.  K.D. and Attorney Lamb spoke by 
telephone once in mid-August 2008.  Because of her inability to 
contact 
Attorney 
Lamb 
and 
her 
dissatisfaction 
with 
his 
representation, K.D. retained new counsel in October of 2008. 
¶12 Both K.D. and her father repeatedly contacted Attorney 
Lamb asking for an itemization of fees and costs for a potential 
refund of amounts that had been paid to him.  Attorney Lamb 
never provided the requested itemization. 
¶13 K.D. filed a grievance against Attorney Lamb with the 
OLR.  In April 2009 an OLR investigator wrote to Attorney Lamb 
concerning the grievance and told him to provide a complete copy 
                                                                                                                                                             
11 SCR 20:8.4(h) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "fail to cooperate in the investigation of a grievance 
filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required by 
SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), or 
SCR 22.04(1); . . . ." 
No. 
2011AP49-D   
 
10 
 
of his file for K.D.  Attorney Lamb responded but failed to 
deliver the file to the OLR.   
¶14 The OLR alleged the following counts of misconduct 
with respect to Attorney Lamb's representation of K.D.: 
 
Count 9:  By failing to keep [K.D.] informed 
about the status of the child custody issues for which 
he had been retained, [Attorney] Lamb failed to keep 
his client reasonably informed about the status of the 
matter in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a)(3). 
 
Count 10:  By failing to respond to [K.D.'s] 
multiple telephone calls and attempted office visits 
seeking information and guidance regarding the child 
custody issues, [Attorney] Lamb failed to promptly 
comply with reasonable requests by his client for 
information in violation of former SCR 20:1.4(a) 
[effective 
through 
June 
30, 
2007] 
and 
current 
SCR 20:1.4(a)(4). 
 
Count 11:  By failing to respond to multiple 
telephone calls and attempted office visits seeking 
information regarding fees and expenses incurred in 
the 
matters, 
[Attorney] Lamb failed to promptly 
respond to his client's request for information 
concerning 
fees 
and 
expenses 
in 
violation 
of 
SCR 20:1.5(b)(3).12 
 
Count 12:  By failing to cooperate with OLR's 
District Committee 8 investigation in the [K.D.] 
grievance matter, [Attorney] Lamb failed to cooperate 
with 
the 
office 
of 
lawyer 
regulation 
in 
the 
investigation, 
prosecution, 
and 
disposition 
of 
grievances 
in 
violation 
of 
SCR 
22.04(1) 
and 
SCR 21.15(4), as enforced through SCR 20:8.4(h) 
¶15 The 
third 
client 
matter 
detailed 
in 
the 
OLR's 
complaint 
involved 
Attorney Lamb's representation of C.H. 
                                                 
12 SCR 20:1.5(b)(3) states: "A lawyer shall promptly respond 
to a client's request for information concerning fees and 
expenses." 
No. 
2011AP49-D   
 
11 
 
regarding a speeding ticket and operating while intoxicated 
(OWI) ticket issued in Eau Claire County.  C.H. lived in 
Illinois.  Attorney Lamb offered C.H. two representation 
options:  a flat fee of $2,000 or an advance payment of $1,000 
to be billed at $250 per hour.  C.H. said he accepted the second 
option and sent Attorney Lamb checks in the amounts of $600 and 
$400.  Attorney Lamb acknowledged receipt of the two checks by 
e-mail and promised to forward to C.H. copies of a "not guilty 
appearance and motion."  Attorney Lamb never deposited C.H.'s 
advance fee payments into a trust account.   
¶16 On February 3, 2009, Attorney Lamb submitted a letter 
to the court containing not guilty pleas to both charges.  On 
February 11, 2009, C.H. e-mailed Attorney Lamb and noted he had 
not yet received any of the promised paperwork.  As part of a 
plea agreement negotiated by Attorney Lamb, C.H. entered a plea 
of no contest to the speeding charge and agreed to pay a 
forfeiture in return for which the prosecutor agreed to dismiss 
the OWI charge.  The plea hearing took place on February 27, 
2009.  Despite requests, C.H. never received any paperwork or an 
itemized statement from Attorney Lamb.  Except for one phone 
call in March of 2009, Attorney Lamb failed to return any of 
C.H.'s phone calls. 
¶17 After almost a year of failed attempts to reach 
Attorney Lamb to discuss the matter, C.H. filed a grievance with 
the OLR.  An OLR investigator sent Attorney Lamb a notice of the 
investigation and requested his response to C.H.'s grievance.  
Attorney Lamb failed to respond.  Attorney Lamb also failed to 
No. 
2011AP49-D   
 
12 
 
respond to a second letter that OLR sent by both certified and 
first-class 
mail. 
 
The 
Dunn 
County 
Sheriff's 
Department 
personally served Attorney Lamb with another letter from the 
OLR.  Attorney Lamb finally responded to the OLR, but never 
provided a copy of his file in the C.H. matter and never 
provided a copy of a letter Attorney Lamb allegedly sent to C.H. 
regarding the fee arrangement. 
¶18 The OLR alleged the following counts of misconduct 
with respect to Attorney Lamb's representation of C.H.: 
Count 13:  By accepting a $1,000 advance fee 
payment from [C.H.] and failing to hold the advance in 
trust, (with no evidence that he intended to utilize 
the 
alternative 
fee 
placement 
permitted 
by 
SCR [20:1.15(b)(4m)]), 
[Attorney] 
Lamb 
failed 
to 
promptly comply with reasonable requests by his client 
for information in violation of former SCR 20:1.4(a) 
[effective 
through 
June 
30, 
2007] 
and 
current 
SCR 20:1.4(a)(4). 
Count 14:  By failing to respond to [C.H.'s] 
multiple telephone calls seeking information regarding 
his fee and a request for an itemized bill, and by 
failing to forward to [C.H.] copies of documents and 
pleadings after promising to do so, [Attorney] Lamb 
failed to promptly respond to his client's request for 
information concerning fees and expenses in violation 
of SCR 20:1.5(b)(3). 
Count 15:  By failing to respond to [C.H.'s] 
repeated attempts to obtain information concerning 
fees and expenses, and by failing to respond to 
[C.H.'s] April 15, 2009 email requesting an invoice in 
the matter, [Attorney] Lamb failed to hold in trust 
unearned 
fees 
and 
advance 
payments 
of 
fees 
in 
violation of SCR 20:1.15(b)(4). 
Count 
16:  By 
failing 
to 
provide 
relevant 
information to OLR in a timely fashion during OLR's 
investigation of the [C.H.] grievance matter, and by 
failing to answer questions fully or otherwise provide 
No. 
2011AP49-D   
 
13 
 
information 
upon 
request 
as 
part 
of 
an 
[OLR] 
investigation, [Attorney] Lamb failed to fully and 
fairly disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining 
to alleged misconduct and failed to answer questions, 
furnish documents, and failed to present information 
deemed relevant to the investigation in violation of 
SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6),13 which are enforceable 
under 
the 
Rules of Professional Conduct through 
SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶19 The 
final 
client 
matter 
detailed 
in 
the 
OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney Lamb's representation of G.B., who 
retained Attorney Lamb to represent him in a small claims 
lawsuit against his neighbors.  G.B. paid Attorney Lamb a $700 
flat fee.  Attorney Lamb sent G.B. a receipt for the payment but 
there was no written fee agreement.  G.B. did not hear from 
                                                 
13 SCRs 22.03(2) and (6) provide:   
(2) Upon 
commencing 
an 
investigation, 
the 
director shall notify the respondent of the matter 
being investigated unless in the opinion of the 
director the investigation of the matter requires 
otherwise.  The respondent shall fully and fairly 
disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct within 20 days after being served 
by ordinary mail a request for a written response.  
The director may allow additional time to respond.  
Following receipt of the response, the director may 
conduct further investigation and may compel the 
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents, and 
present 
any 
information 
deemed 
relevant 
to 
the 
investigation. 
 . . .  
(6) 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. 
No. 
2011AP49-D   
 
14 
 
Attorney Lamb again.  When he called Attorney Lamb in February 
of 2009 he was informed that Attorney Lamb was busy working on a 
high profile murder case.  Thereafter, G.B. called Attorney Lamb 
once a week for the next eight months and stopped by Attorney 
Lamb's law office several times but was unable to reach Attorney 
Lamb. 
¶20 G.B. filed a grievance with the OLR.  The OLR sent 
Attorney Lamb a notice of the investigation and requested his 
response to G.B.'s grievance.  Attorney Lamb did not respond.  
Attorney Lamb also failed to respond to a second letter the OLR 
sent by certified mail and regular first-class mail.  He also 
failed to respond to a third letter personally served on him by 
the Dunn County Sheriff's Department. 
¶21 On March 30, 2010, the OLR filed a notice of motion 
and motion with this court seeking an order to show cause why 
Attorney Lamb's license should not be temporarily suspended for 
failure to cooperate with an OLR investigation.  On April 1, 
2010, this court issued an order to show cause in the matter.  
On April 16, 2010, Attorney Lamb finally submitted a response to 
G.B.'s grievance.  Attorney Lamb's response claimed that he did 
some 
preliminary investigation and research, wrote G.B.'s 
neighbors a letter, obtained underlying police reports, and 
spoke to the Pepin County District Attorney.  Attorney Lamb 
claimed he spent three to four hours on the matter.  Attorney 
Lamb never filed a small claims action against G.B.'s neighbors, 
nor did he refund any money to G.B.   
No. 
2011AP49-D   
 
15 
 
¶22 The OLR alleged the following counts of misconduct 
regarding Attorney Lamb's representation of G.B.: 
 
Count 17:  By failing to file a small claims 
lawsuit on behalf of [G.B.], or otherwise advance 
[G.B.'s] 
interests 
in 
any 
meaningful 
manner, 
[Attorney] 
Lamb 
failed 
to 
act 
with 
reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client in 
violation of SCR 20:1.3.14 
 
Count 18:  By failing to keep [G.B.] reasonably 
informed regarding the status of his client matter, 
and by failing to respond to [G.B.'s] repeated 
requests 
for 
information 
regarding 
the 
lawsuit, 
[Attorney] Lamb failed to keep his client reasonably 
informed about the status of the matter in violation 
[of] SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and failed to promptly comply 
with reasonable requests by his client for information 
in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a)(4). 
 
Count 19:  By failing to provide any meaningful 
information to [G.B.] regarding his efforts to pursue 
a small claims lawsuit against [G.B.'s] neighbors over 
a [16] month time period, [Attorney] Lamb failed to 
explain matters to the extent reasonably necessary to 
permit his client to make informed decisions regarding 
the representation in violation of SCR 20:1.4(b). 
 
Count 20:  By accepting and keeping a $700 fee 
for 
representation 
that 
he 
did 
not 
complete, 
[Attorney] Lamb collected an unreasonable fee in 
violation of [] SCR 20:1.5(a).15 
                                                 
14 SCR 20:1.3 states that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
15 SCR 20:1.5(a) provides as follows: 
A lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, 
or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable 
amount for expenses. The factors to be considered in 
determining the reasonableness of a fee include the 
following:  
No. 
2011AP49-D   
 
16 
 
 
Count 
21:  By 
failing 
to 
provide 
relevant 
information to OLR in a timely fashion during OLR's 
investigation 
of 
the 
[G.B.] 
grievance 
matter, 
[Attorney] Lamb failed to fully and fairly disclose 
all facts and circumstances pertaining to alleged 
misconduct and failed to answer questions, furnish 
documents, and failed to present information deemed 
relevant 
to 
the 
investigation 
in 
violation 
of 
SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6), which are enforceable 
under 
the 
Rules of Professional Conduct through 
SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶23 James R. Erickson was appointed referee in the matter. 
Attorney Lamb did not file an answer to the OLR's complaint.  In 
April 2011, the OLR filed a notice of motion and motion for 
default 
judgment. 
 
The 
referee 
issued 
a 
status 
report 
tentatively scheduling a hearing for June 30, 2011.  No hearing 
was held.  On July 15, 2011, the OLR and Attorney Lamb filed a 
stipulation whereby Attorney Lamb stipulated to the allegations 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and 
difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill 
requisite to perform the legal service properly;   
(2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, 
that the acceptance of the particular employment will 
preclude other employment by the lawyer;  
(3) the fee customarily charged in the locality 
for similar legal services;  
(4) the amount involved and the results obtained;  
(5) the time limitations imposed by the client or 
by the circumstances;  
(6) the nature and length of the professional 
relationship with the client;   
(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of 
the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and  
(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent.  
No. 
2011AP49-D   
 
17 
 
in the OLR's complaint.  The stipulation states the terms were 
not bargained for or negotiated between the parties, and that 
Attorney Lamb admits the facts and misconduct alleged by the OLR 
and agrees to the level of discipline sought by the OLR 
director.  Attorney Lamb represents that he fully understands 
the ramifications should the court impose the stipulated level 
of discipline, fully understands his right to contest the 
matter, fully understands his right to consult with and obtain 
counsel, and states that his entry into the stipulation is made 
knowingly and voluntarily.   
¶24 The stipulation also states that in recommending 
discipline, the OLR director took into consideration that the 
grievances against Attorney Lamb demonstrated a pattern of 
serious misconduct including repeated failure to account for 
fees properly and an unwillingness to cooperate with the OLR's 
investigations.  The parties stipulated that an appropriate 
level of discipline to impose in response to Attorney Lamb's 
misconduct is a 60-day suspension of his license to practice law 
in Wisconsin.  The parties also stipulated that Attorney Lamb 
should provide restitution to G.B. in the amount of $700.   
¶25 The stipulation was referred to Referee Erickson.  On 
July 15, 2011, the referee issued a report adopting and 
incorporating by reference all of the facts relating to the 21 
counts of misconduct set forth in the OLR's complaint and the 
stipulation.  The referee concluded that Attorney Lamb violated 
each supreme court rule as alleged in each of the 21 counts 
charged in the complaint and as agreed to in the stipulation.  
No. 
2011AP49-D   
 
18 
 
The referee recommended that Attorney Lamb's license to practice 
law in Wisconsin be suspended for no less than 60 days; that 
Attorney Lamb be ordered to make restitution to G.B. in the 
amount of $700; that Attorney Lamb be ordered to pay the full 
costs associated with the proceeding; and that Attorney Lamb be 
ordered to participate in remedial education, at his own 
expense, relating to trust account requirements and supreme 
court rules obligations.   
¶26 The referee said an argument could be made that a 60-
day suspension was less than adequate, considering the number of 
counts of misconduct and the egregious nature of the violations 
of supreme court rules.  The referee said the question presented 
was what level of discipline would be effective in protecting 
the public and in correcting Attorney Lamb's behavior.  While 
the referee said a 60-day suspension was, at first blush, 
relatively modest, the referee opined that with some adequate 
re-education, Attorney Lamb had the capacity to become a credit 
to his profession.  The referee expressed concern that a longer 
suspension "may very well contribute to the demise of Mr. Lamb's 
realistic ability to practice law and therefore is most likely 
not necessary."   
¶27 After reviewing the parties' stipulation and the 
referee's report and recommendation, on September 29, 2011, this 
court issued an order directing the parties to show cause why a 
60-day suspension was an appropriate level of discipline in 
light of Attorney Lamb's prior disciplinary history and the 
discipline imposed in other similar cases, and why orders for 
No. 
2011AP49-D   
 
19 
 
restitution were not appropriate for the other former clients 
mentioned in the OLR's complaint. 
¶28 The OLR filed a response to the order to show cause on 
October 14, 2011.  With respect to the appropriate level of 
discipline the OLR notes that this court has frequently followed 
the concept of progressive discipline, and it notes that 
Attorney Lamb received two prior private reprimands.  The OLR 
says this is not a reprimand case.  It cites a number of cases 
it views as somewhat analogous in which the attorney received a 
60-day 
suspension. 
For 
example, 
in 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Artery, 2006 WI 11, 288 Wis. 2d 339, 709 
N.W.2d 54, the attorney received a 60-day suspension for 
multiple counts of misconduct involving six criminal defendant 
clients.  In In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Smead, 2010 
WI 4, 322 Wis. 2d 100, 777 N.W.2d 644, the attorney received a 
60-day suspension for 15 counts of misconduct involving four 
clients. 
¶29 The OLR says prior cases in which attorneys received a 
suspension exceeding 60 days appear to have involved conduct or 
circumstances more egregious than that at issue in the instant 
case or involved more extensive prior discipline and deception 
or misrepresentation either to clients or the OLR or both.  It 
is the OLR's position that a 60-day suspension is an appropriate 
sanction in this case and that a stronger sanction is not 
warranted. 
¶30 With respect to the issue of restitution, the OLR says 
a $700 restitution award to G.B. is appropriate because the 
No. 
2011AP49-D   
 
20 
 
amount is readily ascertainable and it is undisputed that 
Attorney Lamb did nothing to earn the fee.  The OLR says it 
appears the fees paid to Attorney Lamb by K.D. and C.H. were 
reasonable so the OLR director is not seeking restitution in 
those cases.  In the D.N. case the OLR says it appears that 
Attorney Lamb's efforts over a period of approximately two and 
one-half years were moderately successful, suggesting that he 
provided a reasonable amount of services to account for at least 
much of the $3,500 fee.  Consequently, the OLR is not seeking 
restitution in the D.N. matter.   
¶31 After careful review, and taking into account the 
OLR's response to the order to show cause, we adopt the 
stipulated facts and discipline recommended by the referee.  We 
agree with the referee that a 60-day suspension is relatively 
modest.  While the referee expressed concern that a longer 
suspension would have a detrimental impact on Attorney Lamb's 
ability to practice law and his livelihood, we do not view this 
as an appropriate factor in establishing a level of discipline.  
Any suspension of an attorney's license to practice law is 
likely 
to 
have 
a 
detrimental 
impact 
on 
the 
attorney's 
livelihood.  The sanction imposed in each case should be 
tailored to the misconduct at issue, should take into account 
the 
attorney's 
prior 
disciplinary 
record, 
and 
should 
be 
generally in accord with the sanction imposed in other somewhat 
analogous cases.  We conclude that a 60-day suspension is 
consistent with these considerations.   
No. 
2011AP49-D   
 
21 
 
¶32 We remind Attorney Lamb that the court may impose 
progressively severe sanctions when an attorney engages in a 
pattern of misconduct.  We impose the sanction recommended by 
the referee, incorporating the parties' stipulation, with the 
expectation that Attorney Lamb will not commit future misconduct 
subjecting him to additional discipline.  We also deem it 
appropriate to require Attorney Lamb to make restitution to 
G.B., to require him to participate in CLE relating to trust 
account requirements and ethical obligations of Wisconsin 
attorneys, and to require him to pay the full costs of this 
proceeding. 
¶33 IT IS ORDERED that the license of William R. Lamb to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective January 23, 2012. 
¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that William R. Lamb shall 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended.   
¶35 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 180 days of the date 
of this order, William R. Lamb make restitution to G.B. in the 
amount of $700. 
¶36 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 12 months of the 
date of this order William R. Lamb complete a minimum of 12 
hours of continuing legal education credits relating to trust 
account requirements and ethical obligations of Wisconsin 
attorneys. 
No. 
2011AP49-D   
 
22 
 
¶37 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, William R. Lamb pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If such costs are not 
paid within the time specified, and absent a showing to the 
court of his inability to pay the costs within that time, the 
license of William R. Lamb to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
remain suspended until further order of this court.   
 
 
No.  2011AP49-D.awb 
 
1 
 
 
¶38 ANN 
WALSH 
BRADLEY, 
J.   (concurring 
in 
part, 
dissenting in part).  I would order Attorney Lamb to pay 
restitution to D.N. in the amount of $2,800. 
¶39 For the foregoing reason, I concur in part and dissent 
in part. 
 
No.  2011AP49-D.awb 
 
 
 
1