Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Eric L. Crandall
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2014AP002487-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: December 23, 2015

2015 WI 111 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2014AP2487-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
Eric L. Crandall, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Eric L. Crandall, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CRANDALL 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 23, 2015 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
ABRAHAMSON, A.W. BRADLEY, J.J., dissent. 
(Opinion filed) 
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:     
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2015 WI 111
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2014AP2487-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Eric L. Crandall, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Eric L. Crandall, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
DEC 23, 2015 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report filed by Referee 
James G. Curtis, adopting two stipulations between the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Eric L. Crandall.  The 
referee agreed that Attorney Crandall committed five counts of 
misconduct, as alleged in the OLR's complaint.  The referee 
further agreed with the parties that a public reprimand was an 
appropriate 
level 
of 
discipline 
for 
Attorney 
Crandall's 
misconduct.  Finally, the referee recommended that Attorney 
No. 
2014AP2487-D   
 
2 
 
Crandall should be assessed the full costs of the proceeding, 
which are $4,182.17 as of September 17, 2015.  
¶2 
After careful review of the matter, we conclude that 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
are 
supported 
by 
clear, 
satisfactory, and convincing evidence.  We adopt the referee's 
conclusions of law.  We agree that the appropriate discipline 
for Attorney Crandall's misconduct is a public reprimand, and we 
agree that Attorney Crandall should bear the full costs of this 
proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney Crandall was admitted to the practice of law 
in Wisconsin on September 19, 1991.  He resides in New Richmond, 
Wisconsin.  He is also licensed to practice law in Minnesota. 
¶4 
Effective February 20, 2006, we suspended Attorney 
Crandall's Wisconsin law license for three months as reciprocal 
discipline to that imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court for 
neglecting client matters, failing to communicate with clients, 
failing to appear at court hearings, failing to comply with 
discovery rules, and failing to cooperate with the disciplinary 
investigation.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Crandall, 
2006 WI 6, 287 Wis. 2d 102, 708 N.W.2d 690.   
¶5 
On March 4, 2008, we publicly reprimanded Attorney 
Crandall for advancing a frivolous claim, failing to file a 
client's affidavit or a brief in opposition to a summary 
judgment motion, failing to keep clients reasonably informed, 
failing to return clients' files in a timely manner, and failing 
to cooperate with the OLR's investigation.  In re Disciplinary 
No. 
2014AP2487-D   
 
3 
 
Proceedings Against Crandall, 2008 WI 14, 307 Wis. 2d 536, 
745 N.W.2d 679.  
¶6 
Effective September 2, 2008, we suspended Attorney 
Crandall's Wisconsin law license for 30 days as reciprocal 
discipline to that imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court for 
failing to act with diligence and promptness, failing to 
communicate 
with 
clients, 
engaging 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty and misrepresentation, and failing to cooperate with 
the Minnesota disciplinary investigation.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Crandall, 2008 WI 112, 314 Wis. 2d 33, 
754 N.W.2d 501.  
¶7 
Effective 
May 
31, 
2011, 
we 
suspended 
Attorney 
Crandall's Wisconsin law license for five months for failing to 
hold advance fees in trust, failing to refund unearned fees, and 
failing to cooperate with the OLR's investigation.  In re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Crandall, 
2011 
WI 
21, 
332 Wis. 2d 698, 798 N.W.2d 183.  Attorney Crandall was 
reinstated to the practice of law on January 5, 2012.  
¶8 
On October 27, 2014, the OLR filed a five-count 
complaint against Attorney Crandall alleging (1) that Attorney 
Crandall had failed to comply with the requirements of Supreme 
Court Rule (SCR) 22.26 relating to the duties of an attorney 
whose license has been suspended and (2) that he had failed to 
cooperate with OLR's investigation into his alleged misconduct.  
¶9 
Attorney Crandall filed an answer and this court 
appointed Referee Curtis.  We subsequently denied Attorney 
Crandall's untimely motion to substitute a different referee.  
No. 
2014AP2487-D   
 
4 
 
On or about April 29, 2014, the parties submitted a stipulation 
in which Attorney Crandall admitted the facts and misconduct 
alleged in the complaint and authorized the referee to make 
findings of fact and conclusions of law based on these 
allegations.  The parties requested an evidentiary hearing on 
the appropriate sanction.  
¶10 Before the scheduled hearing, the parties reached a 
second stipulation regarding the appropriate sanction.  On 
August 7, 2015, the parties stipulated to a public reprimand as 
an appropriate sanction.  
¶11 The referee filed his findings of fact, conclusions of 
law, and recommendation for discipline on August 18, 2015.  The 
referee determined that the OLR had met its burden of proof with 
respect to the five counts of misconduct alleged in the 
complaint, and recommended that we accept the stipulations.  We 
summarize those counts now. 
¶12 As previously stated, on April 26, 2011, Attorney 
Crandall's license to practice law in Wisconsin was suspended 
for a period of five months, effective May 31, 2011.  The order 
suspending Attorney Crandall mandated that he comply with the 
requirements of SCR 22.26 pertaining to the duties of an 
attorney whose license has been suspended.  
¶13 In April and May of 2011, Attorney Crandall was listed 
as attorney of record for J.M., a party to an appeal then-
pending before the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.  On June 30, 
2011, the Court of Appeals certified the appeal to this court.  
No. 
2014AP2487-D   
 
5 
 
¶14 On September 27, 2011, this court issued an order in 
response to a motion filed by J.M. in which she advised the 
court 
that 
she 
had 
only 
recently 
learned 
that 
Attorney 
Crandall's law license had been suspended.  We granted J.M.'s 
motion for a briefing extension and permitted substitution of 
new counsel.  
¶15 The OLR complaint alleged and the referee determined 
that, by failing to send, on or before the effective date of his 
suspension, written notice of his suspension by certified mail 
to his client, J.M., Attorney Crandall violated SCR 22.26(1)(a) 
and (b)1 (Count One). 
¶16 The OLR complaint alleged and the referee determined 
that, by failing to send, on or before the effective date of his 
suspension, written notice of his suspension to the Court of 
Appeals, Attorney Crandall also violated SCR 22.26(1)(c)2 (Count 
Two).   
                                                 
1 SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b) provide that, on or before the 
effective date of license suspension, an attorney whose license 
is suspended shall:  
(a) Notify by certified mail all clients being 
represented in pending matters of the suspension or 
revocation and of the attorney's consequent inability 
to act as an attorney following the effective date of 
the suspension or revocation.  
(b) Advise the clients to seek legal advice of 
their choice elsewhere. 
2 SCR 22.26(1)(c) provides that, on or before the effective 
date of license suspension, an attorney whose license is 
suspended shall: 
(continued) 
No. 
2014AP2487-D   
 
6 
 
¶17 In January of 2012, Attorney Crandall continued to be 
identified, during his period of suspension, as the attorney of 
record in three separate appellate cases.  The OLR alleged that 
Attorney Crandall did not properly provide either his clients or 
the Court of Appeals with the notices required by SCR 22.26 in 
those three cases.  Accordingly, the referee determined that, by 
failing to send, on or before the effective date of his 
suspension, written notice of his suspension by certified mail 
to the three clients in the three separate appeals, Attorney 
Crandall violated SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b) (Count Three).   
¶18 In addition, the referee determined that, by failing 
to send, on or before the effective date of his suspension, 
written notice of his suspension to the Court of Appeals in the 
three 
appellate 
cases, 
Attorney 
Crandall 
violated 
SCR 22.26(1)(c) (Count Four).  
¶19 Finally, the referee determined that Attorney Crandall 
violated SCR 22.03(2) and (6),3 enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h),4 by 
                                                                                                                                                             
Promptly provide written notification to the 
court or administrative agency and the attorney for 
each party in a matter pending before a court or 
administrative agency of the suspension or revocation 
and of the attorney's consequent inability to act as 
an attorney following the effective date of the 
suspension or revocation. The notice shall identify 
the successor attorney of the attorney's client 184 
or, if there is none at the time notice is given, 
shall state the client's place of residence. 
3 SCR 22.03(2) and (6) provide: 
(2) 
Upon 
commencing 
an 
investigation, 
the 
director shall notify the respondent of the matter 
(continued) 
No. 
2014AP2487-D   
 
7 
 
failing to timely respond to the OLR's requests for a response 
to a grievance investigation, doing so only after this court 
issued an order to show cause (Count Five). 
¶20 The referee then considered the stipulation for a 
public 
reprimand, 
mindful 
of 
his 
need 
to 
consider 
the 
seriousness, nature, and extent of misconduct, the level of 
discipline needed to protect the public and the legal system 
from repetition of the misconduct, the need to impress on the 
attorney the seriousness of the misconduct, and the need to 
deter others from committing similar acts. 
 See In re 
                                                                                                                                                             
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. 
4 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides that 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. 
2014AP2487-D   
 
8 
 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Scanlan, 2006 WI 38, ¶72, 
290 Wis. 2d 30, 712 N.W.2d 877, citing In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Charlton, 
174 
Wis. 
2d 
844, 
875-76, 
498 N.W.2d 380 (1993). The referee noted that he considered 
Attorney Crandall's prior disciplinary history and the concept 
of progressive discipline.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Nussberger, 2006 WI 111, ¶27, 296 Wis. 2d 47, 719 N.W.2d 
501.  
¶21 The referee noted that the OLR relied on three prior 
cases in support of the recommended discipline.  Public 
Reprimand of Arik J. Guenther, 2007-3 (imposing public reprimand 
where attorney failed to notify two clients of his suspension, 
failed to include the two clients on his affidavit of compliance 
filed with the OLR, and also failed to cooperate with the OLR); 
Public Reprimand of Michael G. Trewin, 2006-6 (imposing public 
reprimand where lawyer failed to notify the court and opposing 
counsel of his suspension in several cases, failed to include 
those cases on his affidavit of compliance filed with the OLR, 
and had a conflict of interest on a matter); Public Reprimand of 
Hazel J. Washington, 2007-10 (imposing public reprimand for 
lawyer's failure to inform a client, opposing counsel, and the 
court of her suspension; failure to list the client, court, and 
file number on the affidavit of compliance filed with the OLR; 
and failure to provide competent representation).  The referee 
observed that Attorney Crandall's ethical violations in this 
matter reflect a level of indifference to the requirements of 
the supreme court rules.  The referee concluded that public 
No. 
2014AP2487-D   
 
9 
 
discipline is appropriate and recommends that we publicly 
reprimand Attorney Crandall in this matter.  
¶22 The referee further recommends that the court follow 
its general policy and impose the full costs of the proceeding 
on Attorney Crandall.  
¶23 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless 
clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.  
See 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Eisenberg, 
2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  The court may 
impose whatever sanction it sees fit, regardless of the 
referee's recommendation.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.   
¶24 There is no showing that any of the referee's findings 
of fact are erroneous.  Accordingly, we adopt them.  We also 
agree with the referee's conclusions of law that Attorney 
Crandall violated the supreme court rules set forth above.  In 
view of Attorney Crandall's fairly extensive prior disciplinary 
history, we considered whether suspension is necessary to 
impress upon Attorney Crandall the seriousness of his misconduct 
and the importance of abiding by the rules of professional 
conduct.  On balance, we accept the referee's recommendation 
that a public reprimand is an appropriate sanction for Attorney 
Crandall's misconduct.  Although no two fact situations are 
identical, a public reprimand is generally consistent with the 
sanction imposed in somewhat analogous cases.  See Public 
Reprimand of Ronald J. Thompson, 2012-18 (imposing public 
reprimand for failure to comply with SCR 22.26 following license 
No. 
2014AP2487-D   
 
10 
 
suspension); see also In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Mulligan, 2009 WI 12, 315 Wis. 2d 605, 759 N.W.2d 766 (imposing 
public reprimand on lawyer with two prior reprimands). 
¶25 We also agree that Attorney Crandall should be 
required to pay the full costs of the proceeding, which are 
$4,182.17.  
¶26 IT IS ORDERED that Eric L. Crandall is publicly 
reprimanded for professional misconduct.  
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Eric L. Crandall shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the director of the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation shall advise the court if there has not 
been full compliance with all conditions of this order. 
 
No.  2014AP2487-D.ssa 
 
1 
 
¶29 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.   (dissenting).  I write in 
dissent in several attorney discipline cases because I have 
concerns about the discipline imposed. 
¶30 This is Attorney Crandall's fifth brush with the OLR 
in the seven years since 2008.  He has been disciplined four 
times previously:  a three-month suspension, a public reprimand, 
a 30-day suspension, and a five-month suspension.  It does not 
appear that the previous discipline had the impact the court 
intended.  Nevertheless, the court now imposes another public 
reprimand.  This sanction is too light.  The court professes 
that it has "long adhered to progressive discipline."  OLR v. 
Netzer, 2014 WI 7, ¶49, 352 Wis. 2d 310, 841 N.W.2d 820.  The 
principle of progressive discipline should be applied here.  It 
is not.         
¶31 Moreover, I write to state my difficulty reconciling 
the significantly different levels of discipline imposed in the 
instant case (public reprimand) and in OLR v. Boyle, 2015 WI 
110, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___.   
¶32 In OLR v. Boyle, the referee found (and the court 
agreed) that the respondent attorney committed all six charged 
offenses 
(including 
two 
trust 
account 
violations). 
 
The 
discipline: 
 
a 
60-day 
suspension 
plus 
conditions. 
 
The 
respondent attorney had received three private reprimands 
between 2002 and 2012.  How does the court justify imposing 
harsher discipline on Attorney Boyle than on Attorney Crandall?   
¶33 I also have difficulty reconciling the significantly 
different levels of discipline imposed in the following three 
No.  2014AP2487-D.ssa 
 
2 
 
cases.  The first two cases are based on a stipulation of the 
parties.  The third case is a default by the respondent 
attorney: 
• 
OLR v. Krogman, 2015 WI 113, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ 
N.W.2d ___:  Upon stipulation admitting the factual 
allegations, the court orders a four-month suspension 
of license and conditions upon reinstatement.  The 
complaint alleged 22 counts of professional misconduct 
involving four clients, misconduct relating to license 
suspension, and misconduct relating to trust accounts.  
The four-month suspension seems too light compared to 
the discipline imposed in the other cases. 
• 
OLR v. Aleman, 2015 WI 112, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ 
N.W.2d ___:  Illinois imposed a two-year suspension 
for two counts of misconduct stemming from co-founding 
and working with a national debt settlement firm.  
Upon stipulation of the parties, this court orders 
reciprocal discipline in Wisconsin.  The two-year 
suspension seems too harsh compared to the discipline 
imposed in other cases. 
• 
OLR v. Sayaovong, 2015 WI 100, 365 Wis. 2d 200, 871 
N.W.2d 217:  This per curiam was released November 18, 
2015, imposing suspension for a period of six months.  
Attorney Sayaovong defaulted in the discipline case.  
The complaint alleged six counts of misconduct, four 
counts involving two clients and two counts involving 
another client.  In 2014 Attorney Sayaovong was 
No.  2014AP2487-D.ssa 
 
3 
 
publicly reprimanded for misconduct in two separate 
client matters.  See OLR v. Sayaovong, 2014 WI 94, 357 
Wis. 2d 312, 850 N.W.2d 940.  The discipline does not 
seem consistent with the discipline imposed in other 
cases. 
¶34 For the reasons set forth, I write in each of these 
cases. 
¶35 I am authorized to state that Justice ANN WALSH 
BRADLEY joins this opinion. 
 
 
 
No.  2014AP2487-D.ssa 
 
 
 
1