Court Opinion

ID: 9365885
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-25 15:14:19.813805+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:48.088614
License: Public Domain

2023 WI 4

                  SUPREME COURT           OF   WISCONSIN
CASE NO.:              2022AP1124-D

COMPLETE TITLE:        In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
                       Against William E. Fenger, Attorney at Law:

                       Office of Lawyer Regulation,
                                 Complainant,
                            v.
                       William E. Fenger,
                                 Respondent.

                           DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST FENGER

OPINION FILED:         January 25, 2023
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL:
   COURT:
   COUNTY:
   JUDGE:

JUSTICES:
Per curiam. ZIEGLER, C.J., filed a concurring opinion in which
REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY and HAGEDORN, J., joined.
NOT PARTICIPATING:

ATTORNEYS:
                                                                         2023 WI 4
                                                               NOTICE
                                                 This opinion is subject to further
                                                 editing and modification.   The final
                                                 version will appear in the bound
                                                 volume of the official reports.
No.   2022AP1124-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN                           :              IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against William E. Fenger, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,                                        FILED
             Complainant,
                                                               JAN 25, 2023
      v.
                                                                  Sheila T. Reiff
                                                               Clerk of Supreme Court
William E. Fenger,

             Respondent.

      ATTORNEY     disciplinary   proceeding.            Attorney's        license

revoked.

      ¶1     PER   CURIAM.   Attorney     William     E.     Fenger      filed      a

petition     for   the   consensual     revocation     of    his     license       to

practice law in Wisconsin pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR)

22.19.1     In his petition, Attorney Fenger states that he cannot

      1   SCR 22.19 provides:

           (1) An attorney who is the subject of an
      investigation  for   possible   misconduct   or   the
      respondent in a proceeding may file with the supreme
      court a
                                               (continued)
                                                                 No.   2022AP1124-D

successfully defend against multiple allegations of misconduct

in connection with a grievance investigated by the Office of

Lawyer Regulation (OLR).          The referee appointed in this matter,

the Honorable Jean A. DiMotto, recommends that this court grant

Attorney Fenger's petition for consensual license revocation.

    ¶2      Attorney     Fenger    was       admitted   to   practice     law    in

Wisconsin   in   1974.     His     license      is   currently    suspended     for

    petition for the revocation by consent [of] his or her
    license to practice law.

         (2) The petition shall state that the petitioner
    cannot successfully defend against the allegations of
    misconduct.

         (3) If a complaint has not been filed, the
    petition shall be filed in the supreme court and shall
    include the director's summary of the misconduct
    allegations being investigated.   Within 20 days after
    the date of filing of the petition, the director shall
    file in the supreme court a recommendation on the
    petition. Upon a showing of good cause, the supreme
    court may extend the time for filing a recommendation.

         (4) If a complaint has been filed, the petition
    shall be filed in the supreme court and served on the
    director and on the referee to whom the proceeding has
    been assigned. Within 20 days after the filing of the
    petition, the director shall file in the supreme court
    a response in support of or in opposition to the
    petition and serve a copy on the referee.       Upon a
    showing of good cause, the supreme court may extend
    the time for filing a response.     The referee shall
    file a report and recommendation on the petition in
    the supreme court within 30 days after receipt of the
    director's response.

         (5) The supreme court shall grant the petition
    and revoke the petitioner's license to practice law or
    deny the petition and remand the matter to the
    director or to the referee for further proceedings.

                                         2
                                                                                No.        2022AP1124-D

failure to pay state bar dues and failure to comply with trust

account certification.              His disciplinary history consists of two

private reprimands, one issued in 1994, Private Reprimand 1994-

21, and one issued in 1995, Private Reprimand 1995-34.

     ¶3        On    July     6,    2022,        OLR     filed      a     complaint           against

Attorney Fenger alleging seven counts of misconduct arising out

of his representation of J.K.                        In December 2010, H.W., J.K.'s

brother,       passed       away.          J.K       agreed    to       serve         as     personal

representative for H.W.'s estate.                       J.K. filed an application for

informal probate and served as personal representative without

legal representation for about two years.

    ¶4         In    August      2013,     J.K.      filed     a    general       inventory         on

behalf of the estate listing a residential property in Milwaukee

as the only asset.                 In December 2014, J.K. retained Attorney

Fenger    to    assist      her     with      the      handling      and    closing           of   the

estate.             Attorney        Fenger        did     not       provide            a      written

representation         agreement         to   J.K.      regarding         the    scope        of   his

representation and did not intend to bill for his services due
to prior work he had performed for J.K.'s spouse.                                          J.K. told

Attorney       Fenger       that     she      wanted      to       sell    the         residential

property.

    ¶5         R.T. is a residential tenant at a property owned by

Attorney       Fenger    in      St.     Francis,        Wisconsin.              That        property

consists of Attorney Fenger's law office on the ground floor and

two residential units on the second floor.                                  In exchange for

discounted rent, R.T. performed maintenance and repair work at
properties       owned      by     Attorney         Fenger.         Attorney           Fenger      had
                                                 3
                                                                             No.     2022AP1124-D

previously represented R.T. in a criminal matter in 2004 and

2005.       In addition, in 2006, R.T. executed a general durable

power of attorney (general POA) naming Attorney Fenger as his

agent.      The general POA gave Attorney Fenger the authority to

buy and sell real estate on R.T.'s behalf.                          Attorney Fenger told

OLR that R.T.'s health concerns had prompted him to execute the

general POA.

       ¶6      After being retained by J.K., Attorney Fenger visited

the residential property.                  R.T. accompanied him on that visit.

During      the     visit,    a     neighbor       indicated        to      either      R.T.    or

Attorney Fenger a willingness to pay $30,000 for the property.

R.T. subsequently informed Attorney Fenger that he was willing

to pay $30,000 for the property.

       ¶7      J.K.'s      family    originally          told      Attorney        Fenger      that

they    were      willing     to     accept    $20,000          for    the     sale     of     the

residential property, which had been vacant for several years

and was in disrepair.              Attorney Fenger advised them how to value

the    property      and     how    to   dispose        of   it.       J.K.,       as   personal
representative, did not seek an independent appraisal for the

property prior to the sale, nor did Attorney Fenger advise her

to obtain one.             Although it is disputed whether J.K. ever met

R.T. in person, Attorney Fenger facilitated the agreement for

J.K. to sell the property to R.T.                            Attorney Fenger did not

disclose his relationship with R.T. to J.K. prior to the sale of

the property.

       ¶8      In   January        2015,    Attorney         Fenger        prepared     a   WB-11
Residential         Offer    to     Purchase       in    which        he    stated      that    he
                                               4
                                                                       No.     2022AP1124-D

represented         the       buyer,       R.T.,    even     though     the      personal

representative, J.K., was his client.                        The WB-11 reflected a

purchase price of $30,000.                   According to Attorney Fenger, R.T.

asked    that      the    WB-11      be    backdated    to   January    2014     for   tax

reasons.        Attorney       Fenger       knowingly   backdated      the     offer   and

acceptance dates to January 2, 2014, and he drafted a closing

statement which he backdated to January 3, 2014.                             The personal

representative's deed purports to have been signed by J.K. on

January 3, 2014.

       ¶9     The WB-11 contained a number of provisions that make

the buyer and seller's interests adverse, such as the fact that

the seller could continue to accept offers on the property even

after binding acceptance of R.T.'s offer; the selection of the

closing date which would impact the proration of real estate

taxes       imposed      on    the        seller   versus    the   buyer;       and    the

possibility of defects in the property being discovered between

the acceptance of the offer and the closing date which could

render the sale null and void if the seller failed to either
elect to cure the defects or elected to cure and then failed to

do so.

       ¶10    In      January        2015,     Attorney      Fenger     prepared       and

submitted paperwork to incorporate MILW8946 LLC on behalf of

R.T.        Wisconsin      Department         of   Financial   Institution        records

reflect that the LLC's registration date was January 5, 2015.

The sole purpose of the LLC was to purchase and then sell the

residential property.

                                               5
                                                                       No.      2022AP1124-D

    ¶11     Instead       of    paying    $30,000       of     purchase        money    into

Attorney Fenger's client trust account, Attorney Fenger decided

that the $30,000 would be credited to his trust account over

time in the form of work performed by R.T. on other real estate

in which Attorney Fenger had an ownership interest.                          The credits

toward    payment       for    the   property     were       made   in    the     form   of

deposits and checks by Attorney Fenger into his trust account.

The practical effect of the arrangement was an interest free

land contract purchase by R.T. from the estate.

    ¶12     In a letter dated November 30, 2021 to OLR, Attorney

Fenger represented that he considered the arrangement to be a

loan between himself and R.T. and saw nothing wrong with the

arrangement.          However, the estate and J.K.'s family were the

parties    to    whom    the    money    was   owed.         Attorney     Fenger       never

discussed       the   loan     arrangement       with    the    Ks;      the     Ks    never

consented to the loan agreement; the terms of the purported loan

were never reduced to writing; and the Ks were not advised to

seek the advice of independent legal counsel on the transaction.
    ¶13     Attorney Fenger acquired a pecuniary interest adverse

to the Ks in that he made the arrangement with R.T. to barter

R.T.'s handyman services as payment for the property.                             Attorney

Fenger determined the value of services provided by R.T. to

Attorney Fenger for work on Attorney Fenger's other real estate.

Attorney    Fenger       determined       when     the       credits     resulting       in

payments by Attorney Fenger to his trust account would occur,

and the $30,000 in actual funds for the sale of the property

                                           6
                                                                  No.     2022AP1124-D

were not deposited into Attorney Fenger's trust account in full

until April 2017.

    ¶14     Attorney      Fenger     failed      to     hold     the     funds,    or

"credits," in trust on behalf of the estate and the Ks.                            The

"credits" paid by Attorney Fenger into the trust account should

have resulted in certain minimum balances in the trust account

between the January 2015 sale of the property and July 2017, the

termination of his representation of the Ks.                   In fact, the trust

account    balance     fell     below    those    expected       minimum     balance

amounts during various periods of time.

    ¶15     In a letter dated February 3, 2020, Attorney Fenger

represented    to    OLR's      investigator     that    the     funds     from   the

January 2015 sale of the property were received by the estate

and placed into Attorney Fenger's client trust account.                           The

statement was false because, in fact, no funds were received

from anyone.

    ¶16     In an April 9, 2021 email to OLR, Attorney Fenger

represented that "[t]here were two cash payments from [Mr. T.].
One was in the amount of $5,000 and then there was a later

second    payment    in   the   amount   of    $3,000.         Those    monies    were

placed in Mr. Fenger's trust account."

    ¶17     Those    statements      were     also    false     because     no    cash

payments had been made by R.T.

    ¶18     In a November 30, 2021 letter to OLR, Attorney Fenger

disclosed that in fact, "[t]he $5,000 and $3,000 were not cash

payments made by [Mr. T.], but rather credit."                     This statement

                                         7
                                                                     No.        2022AP1124-D

directly contradicted Attorney Fenger's April 9, 2021 statement

that they were cash payments.

      ¶19    Attorney Fenger prepared a Statement For Closing Real

Estate      Transaction      dated    January        3,     2014,     in        which     he

represented that the buyer, R.T., was credited $30,000 toward

the purchase of the property and that there was no balance due

to the seller.        R.T. signed the statement; the Ks did not sign

the document.

      ¶20    On February 15, 2016, Attorney Fenger filed a petition

for extension of time in the probate case requesting additional

time to close the estate.            Although the residential property was

the only real estate that had been owned by the estate and it

had already been sold, Attorney Fenger stated as one basis for

needing     an     extension,    "[r]eal       estate      needs    to     be     sold    or

problems with the sale/distribution of the land."                          An addendum

to the petition for extension of time stated, "[a]n Offer to

Purchase Real Estate has been accepted – a closing is expected

in early June . . . ."           At the time the petition for extension
of   time    was    filed,     the   court     had    no    information           on    file

regarding the already completed sale of the real estate.

      ¶21    On or about July 11, 2017, J.K. terminated Attorney

Fenger's representation of the estate.                      Attorney Fenger then

transferred funds belonging to the estate from his client trust

account     to     successor     counsel.            Attorney       Fenger        provided

successor counsel with a check for $36,603.28 representing the

estate's funds, which included funds received from the sale of
the real estate.         A few weeks after the first check, Attorney
                                           8
                                                         No.   2022AP1124-D

Fenger    provided   successor   counsel   with   a   second   check   for

$2,985.67 for the 2014 property taxes on the real estate.

    ¶22     In November 2017, after R.T. had performed renovations

on the property, Attorney Fenger helped R.T. sell the property

for $91,000.

    ¶23     The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of

misconduct:

    Count 1:    By failing to disclose and describe his
    relationship to [R.T.] to the personal representative
    prior to the sale of the [residential property],
    Fenger violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(1).2

    Count 2: By arranging the sale of the [residential
    property] from his client personal representative to
    [R.T.], with whom he had personal and professional
    connections and whom he assisted in the transaction,
    Fenger violated SCR 20:1.7(a)(2).3

    Count 3: By knowingly backdating an offer to purchase
    and the Personal Representative's Deed conveying real
    property in order to make it appear that the real

    2   20:1.4(a)(1) provides: "A lawyer shall promptly inform
the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which
the client's informed consent, as defined in SCR 20:1.0(f), is
required by these rules."
    3    SCR 20:1.7(a)(2) provides:

         Except as provided in par. (b), a lawyer shall
    not represent a client if the representation involves
    a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent
    conflict of interest exists if: (2) there is a
    significant risk that the representation of one or
    more clients will be materially limited by the
    lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former
    client or a third person or by a personal interest of
    the lawyer.

                                    9
                                                   No.   2022AP1124-D

     property sale had occurred a year prior to the actual
     sale, Fenger violated SCR 20:8.4(c).4

     Count 4: By filing a petition for extension of time in
     the    matter   of    the    estate   that   contained
     misrepresentations of fact and material omissions
     concerning the status of the real estate owned by the
     decedent, Fenger violated SCR 20:3.3(a)(1).5

     Count 5: By failing to hold in trust the funds or
     proceeds from the sale of the [residential property]
     on behalf of the Estate and the [Ks], Fenger violated
     SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).6

     Count 6: By making false statements to OLR during its
     investigation regarding cash payments made by [R.T.]
     to Fenger for the purchase of the [residential
     property], Fenger violated SCR 22.03(6).7

     4 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: "It is professional misconduct for
a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit or misrepresentation."
     5 SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) provides: "A lawyer shall not knowingly
make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to
correct a false statement of material fact or law previously
made to the tribunal by the lawyer."
     6   SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) provides:

          A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the
     lawyer's own property, that property of clients and
     3rd parties that is in the lawyer's possession in
     connection with a representation. All funds of clients
     and 3rd parties paid to a lawyer or law firm in
     connection with a representation shall be deposited in
     one or more identifiable trust accounts.
     7 SCR   22.03(6)  provides:    "In    the   course   of    the
investigation, the respondent's willful failure to provide
relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish
documents   and   the  respondent's    misrepresentations    in   a
disclosure are misconduct regardless of the merits asserted in
the grievance."

                                 10
                                                               No.        2022AP1124-D

      Count 7: By acquiring a pecuniary interest adverse to
      the   Estate and   the  [Ks],   Fenger  violated  SCR
      20:1.8(a).8

      ¶24    Attorney Fenger filed his petition for revocation by

consent on October 17, 2022.                The petition states he cannot

successfully       defend    himself     against        the   allegations          of

professional      misconduct     set   forth   in   OLR's     complaint.          The

petition states that Attorney Fenger has closed his law office,

currently has no clients and has no intention of accepting any

new clients, and has no intention or plan to resume the practice
of   law    in   the   future.    Attorney     Fenger    states      he    has   been

represented by counsel in this matter, is freely, voluntarily,

and knowingly filing his petition and understands that by doing

      8   SCR 20:1.8(a) provides:

           A lawyer shall not enter into a business
      transaction with a client or knowingly acquire an
      ownership, possessory, security or other pecuniary
      interest adverse to a client unless:

      (1) the transaction and terms on which the lawyer
      acquires the interest are fair and reasonable to the
      client and are fully disclosed and transmitted in
      writing in a manner that can be reasonably understood
      by the client;

      (2) the client is advised in writing of the
      desirability of seeking and is given a reasonable
      opportunity to seek the advice of independent legal
      counsel on the transaction; and
      (3) the client gives informed consent, in a writing
      signed by the client, to the essential terms of the
      transaction and the lawyer's role in the transaction,
      including whether the lawyer is representing the
      client in the transaction.

                                       11
                                                                        No.    2022AP1124-D

so he is giving up his right to further contest each misconduct

allegation in OLR's complaint.

      ¶25    The OLR filed a memorandum recommending that Attorney

Fenger's petition for revocation by consent be granted and that

his Wisconsin law license be revoked.

      ¶26    On    November       9,    2022,     the    referee      issued    a   report

recommending that this court grant Attorney Fenger's petition

for revocation of his license to practice law in Wisconsin.                            The

referee noted that, "[t]he breadth and depth of the Respondent's

misconduct is noteworthy" and that Attorney Fenger concurrently

represented       an     individual       whose      interests        were     absolutely

adverse to his client's and that he engaged in a pattern of

deceit      and    fraud,        including        making      false     and    misleading

representations to his client, to a government agency, to a

court, and to OLR.          The referee also found that Attorney Fenger

engaged in blatant trust account violations and "[h]is pattern

of   fraud     and      deceit    was    self-serving,         and    compromised      his

client's interests."             The referee said that it was fitting that,
with the advice of counsel, Attorney Fenger has petitioned this

court for revocation by consent.                  The referee says, "[t]his is a

satisfactory conclusion of this matter because it protects the

public   and      the    legal    system     from       any   further    misconduct     by

Attorney Fenger."

      ¶27    Having       reviewed       Attorney          Fenger's      petition      for

consensual revocation, the OLR's recommendation on the petition,

and the referee's report, we grant Attorney Fenger's petition
for the revocation of his license to practice law in Wisconsin.
                                             12
                                                                                No.        2022AP1124-D

As the referee noted, Attorney Fenger engaged in multiple counts

of misconduct by representing a client in the face of a clear

conflict         of        interest.        He      engaged         in       conduct        involving

dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.                                     He knowingly

made false statements of fact or law to a tribunal.                                        He failed

to hold client funds in trust.                         He made misrepresentations to

OLR    in    the        course     of     its      investigation,             and     he     acquired

pecuniary interest adverse to his client.

       ¶28       The        seriousness      of        Attorney          Fenger's          misconduct

demonstrates the need to revoke his law license in order to

protect      the       public,      the     courts,      and       the    legal       system       from

repetition            of     his   misconduct;           to       impress       upon        him     the

seriousness of his misconduct; and to deter other attorneys from

engaging         in    similar      misconduct.              The     court      has        previously

revoked attorneys' licenses when they face multiple counts of

misconduct,            including       allegations           of     dishonest         conduct       and

failing to hold funds in trust.                         See, e.g., In re Disciplinary

Proceedings           Against      Knapp,    2021       WI    15,    395      Wis. 2d 833,          955
N.W.2d 152.

       ¶29       OLR states that it is not seeking to assess cost in

this matter because Attorney Fenger agreed to resolve the matter

soon   after          the    complaint      was     filed,        and     OLR   asked        for    the

appointment of a referee solely for the purpose of reviewing the

petition     for           consensual     revocation          and    OLR's      response.            We

accede      to    OLR's        request      that    no       costs      be    assessed        against

Attorney Fenger.

                                                  13
                                                  No.   2022AP1124-D

    ¶30    IT IS ORDERED that the petition for consensual license

revocation is granted.

    ¶31    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of William E.

Fenger to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the

date of this order.

    ¶32    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that William E. Fenger shall

comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of

a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been

revoked.

                                14
                                                              No.    2022AP1124-D.akz

      ¶33   ANNETTE    KINGSLAND       ZIEGLER,   C.J.        (concurring).         I

concur in the court's order revoking Attorney Fenger's license

to practice law in Wisconsin.            I write separately to point out

that in Wisconsin the "revocation" of an attorney's law license

is not truly revocation because the attorney may petition for

reinstatement after a period of five years.                   See SCR 22.29(2).

I believe that when it comes to lawyer discipline, courts should

say what they mean and mean what they say.                    We should not be

creating false perceptions to both the public and to the lawyer

seeking     to   practice   law    again.         See    In     re     Disciplinary

Proceedings Against Moodie, 2020 WI 39, 391 Wis. 2d 196, 942

N.W.2d 302 (Ziegler, J., dissenting).              And, as I stated in my

dissent to this court's order denying Rule Petition 19-10, In

the   Matter     of   Amending    Supreme    Court      Rules        Pertaining   to

Permanent Revocation of a License to Practice Law in Attorney

Disciplinary     Proceedings,      I    believe   there       may     be   rare   and

unusual cases that would warrant the permanent revocation of an
attorney's license to practice law.                See S. Ct. Order 19-10

(issued Dec. 18, 2019) (Ziegler, J., dissenting).

      ¶34   I am authorized to state that Justices REBECCA GRASSL

BRADLEY and BRIAN HAGEDORN join this concurrence.

                                         1
    No.   2022AP1124-D.akz

1