Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kate A. Christnot
Citation: 2004 WI 120
Docket Number: 2004AP000481-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: August 27, 2004

2004 WI 120 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
04-0481-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Kate A. Christnot, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Kate A. Christnot,  
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CHRISTNOT 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
August 27, 2004   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: BUTLER, J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2004 WI 120 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  04-0481-D  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Kate A. Christnot, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Kate A. Christnot,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
AUG 27, 2004 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the referee's recommendation 
that Attorney Kate Christnot's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin 
be 
suspended 
for 
a period 
of 
six 
months for 
professional misconduct.  The referee also recommended that the 
suspension be imposed retroactive to March 13, 2003, to coincide 
with the date she was temporarily suspended, that she be 
required to pay restitution to an injured client, and that she 
pay the costs of this proceeding.  Attorney Christnot did not 
appeal the report and recommendation.   
No. 
04-0481-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and agree that the seriousness of Attorney 
Christnot's professional misconduct warrants the suspension of 
her license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of six 
months.  We further agree that the suspension should be imposed 
retroactive to the date of her temporary suspension.  We further 
agree that restitution and payment of costs is an appropriate 
part of the sanction to be imposed in this case.  
¶3 
Attorney 
Christnot 
was 
admitted 
to 
practice 
in 
Wisconsin in 1993.  She currently practices in the Washington, 
D.C. area.  Her license to practice law in Wisconsin was 
suspended on March 13, 2003, for failure to respond to or 
otherwise cooperate with this disciplinary investigation. 
¶4 
On February 16, 2004, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a complaint against her alleging several counts of 
misconduct committed in connection with two client matters.  She 
failed to answer the complaint and was served with a Notice of 
Default on April 5, 2004.  She did not appear at the ensuing 
hearing; the default motion was granted on April 15, 2004. 
¶5 
The complaint alleged that in 1999 Attorney Christnot 
was retained to represent L.K. in a divorce proceeding.  L.K. 
paid a $1500 retainer.  At the final divorce hearing in May 1999 
L.K. was awarded a one-half interest in his former wife's 
retirement/pension plan.  Attorney Christnot was directed to 
prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).  She never 
prepared the QDRO and never refunded the unused portion of the 
retainer.  L.K. attempted to contact Attorney Christnot by 
No. 
04-0481-D   
 
3 
 
telephone some 20 times between September 1999 and September 
2001.  He tried to visit her at her office approximately four 
times, and also sent correspondence to her office, asking about 
the status of the matter.  Attorney Christnot never responded to 
any of his efforts to communicate with her.   
¶6 
L.K. eventually filed a grievance in March 2002.  It 
is undisputed that Attorney Christnot received notice of the 
grievance from the OLR, because she signed the certified mail 
receipt personally, but she failed to respond to the OLR's 
requests for information about the matter.   
¶7 
On March 13, 2003, this court temporarily suspended 
Attorney Christnot's license to practice law for her failure to 
cooperate with the OLR.  Subsequent efforts by the OLR to 
contact her about the matter followed the same pattern. 
¶8 
The 
complaint 
eventually 
filed 
against 
Attorney 
Christnot alleged that by failing to timely prepare a QDRO on 
behalf of her client, Attorney Christnot failed to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.3.1  In addition, by failing to respond to 
L.K.'s numerous efforts to contact her, Attorney Christnot 
failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of 
a matter and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests 
for information, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).2  By failing to 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.3 provides: "Diligence. A lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
2 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides: "(a) A lawyer shall keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly 
comply with reasonable requests for information." 
No. 
04-0481-D   
 
4 
 
refund the unused portion of the retainer, she failed to take 
steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's 
interest, in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d).3  And, by failing to 
respond to multiple requests for information from OLR staff and 
an OLR district committee investigator, Attorney Christnot 
failed to cooperate with an OLR investigation and with a 
district committee, in violation of SCR 21.15(4),4 22.03(2)5 and 
22.04(1).6 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides: 
(d) Upon termination of representation, a lawyer 
shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable 
to protect a client's interests, such as giving 
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for 
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and 
property to which the client is entitled and refunding 
any advance payment of fee that has not been earned. 
The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to 
the extent permitted by other law. 
4 SCR 21.15(4) provides: 
(4) 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. 
5 SCR 22.03(2) provides: 
(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 
No. 
04-0481-D   
 
5 
 
¶9 
In addition, the complaint alleged that Attorney 
Christnot committed misconduct in her representation of another 
client, R.M.  Attorney Christnot did not adequately respond to 
communications 
or 
requests 
for 
information 
from 
the 
OLR 
regarding the grievance filed by R.M.  As such, the OLR charged 
that Attorney Christnot failed to cooperate with an OLR 
investigation and with the district committee, in violation of 
SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.04(1). 
¶10 The matter was submitted to a referee and, on April 5, 
2004, the OLR moved for a default judgment, attaching an e-mail 
message received from Attorney Christnot that indicated she did 
not intend to oppose the proceeding.  Based on Attorney 
Christnot's nonappearance the referee granted the motion for 
default judgment and found that Attorney Christnot had committed 
each of the violations alleged in the complaint and described 
herein.  
                                                                                                                                                             
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 SCR 22.04(1) provides: 
(1) 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. 
No. 
04-0481-D   
 
6 
 
¶11 The referee recommended that Attorney Christnot's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for a period 
of six months, retroactive to March 13, 2003, the date of her 
temporary suspension.  The referee recommended further that she 
be required to pay restitution to L.K. in the amount of $699.75, 
plus interest at 5 percent per annum from June 1999 until paid, 
and that she be ordered to pay the costs of the disciplinary 
proceeding, which total $736.02. 
¶12 We adopt the referee's report and recommendations.  We 
agree that the seriousness of Attorney Christnot's misconduct 
with respect to her mishandling of these client matters warrants 
the retroactive suspension of her license to practice law in 
Wisconsin for a period of six months.  We further agree that 
restitution to the client, L.K., is warranted, and that Attorney 
Christnot should pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding. 
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Kate 
Christnot to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period 
of six months, effective March 13, 2003, and until further order 
of this court; 
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Kate Christnot 
shall comply, if she has not already done so, with the 
requirements of SCR 22.26 pertaining to activities following 
suspension; 
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Christnot shall refund to the client 
involved in this matter the unearned retainer of $699.75, plus 
No. 
04-0481-D   
 
7 
 
interest at a rate of 5 percent per annum from June 1999 until 
paid;  
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Kate Christnot shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding; and  
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the restitution and 
costs are not paid within the time specified, and absent a 
showing to the court of an inability to pay the restitution and 
costs within this time, the license of Attorney Christnot to 
practice law shall remain suspended until further order of the 
court.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gilbert 
(holding that client shall be paid first), 2002 WI 102, ¶11, 255 
Wis. 2d 311, 647 N.W.2d 845.  
¶18 LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., J., did not participate. 
 
No. 
04-0481-D   
 
 
 
1