Public Reprimand of Warren L. Brandt
2013-OLR 14
|
Warren Lee Brandt, age 61, is a Wisconsin-
licensed attorney, currently of St. Croix
Falls, Wisconsin and formerly of Prescott,
Wisconsin.
On June 6, 2011, Brandt became ineligible to
practice law in Wisconsin for noncompliance
with 2009-2010 continuing legal education
(CLE) requirements. Brandt was reinstated
from that suspension on June 28, 2011.
On June 15, 2011, while his law license was
suspended, Brandt attempted to file a Notice
of Motion and Motion to Change Venue and for
Judicial Transfer on behalf of his client in
a child support case pending in circuit
court.
In a letter dated June 16, 2011, the
presiding circuit court judge notified
Brandt that records from the State Bar
indicated that Brandt was not licensed to
practice law in Wisconsin, and was therefore
not authorized to act on behalf of a party
in the pending action. The judge further
informed Brandt that the notice of motion
and motion were being returned to Brandt,
with notice to the parties so that they
would understand that the documents had not
yet been received for filing.
On June 23, 2011, an attorney involved in
the child support case provided the Office
of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) with copies of
the documents Brandt attempted to file in
circuit court on June 15, 2011. On July 11,
2011, acting pursuant to SCR 60.04(3)(d),
the presiding judge likewise informed OLR of
Brandt’s attempt to file a notice of motion
and motion while suspended.
On August 15, 2011, OLR received a letter
from Brandt in another matter, and in his
letter Brandt referred in part to his
representation of his client in the child
support matter. Brandt asserted that
his “client’s confidence” required that he
request a change of venue. Brandt indicated
that due to his suspension, he engaged
another law firm to prepare a motion and
notice of motion (left blank) which were
then given to the court commissioner in the
matter. Brandt represented to OLR that the
court commissioner called to inform him that
there was not a date and time available
before trial, and since Brandt was
suspended, the papers were being returned to
him unfiled. Brandt asserted that he,
therefore, presented the jurisdictional
question orally when he was reinstated. The
notice of motion and motion in question,
however, was dated June 15, 2011, was signed
by Brandt, and began, “The Petitioner…by and
through her attorney, Warren L. Brandt, will
move the above-named Court for the
following . . .”
In responding to the allegation that he
practiced law when his license was subject
to a CLE suspension, Brandt denied to OLR
that the reporting attorney and judge had
even alleged misconduct, and asserted that
they had done a mandatory report of Brandt’s
attempt to obtain a date for a notice of
motion. Brandt added, “I am guilty of
trying to get a date for a notice of motion
to be prepared and couldn’t. That was
something a secretary or anyone could do.”
On June 27, 2011, Brandt petitioned the
Board of Bar Examiners for reinstatement
from his CLE suspension, and his license was
reinstated on June 28, 2011.
|
|
|
In the child support matter, by attempting
to file a Notice of Motion and Motion for
Change in Venue and for Judicial Transfer,
bearing his signature and dated June 15,
2011, when his law license was suspended
pursuant to SCR 31.10(1) for non-compliance
with mandatory continuing legal education
requirements, Attorney Warren L. Brandt
violated SCR 31.10(1), which states in
part, “A lawyer shall not engage in the
practice of law in Wisconsin while his or
her state bar membership is suspended under
this rule.” SCR 31.10(1) is enforced under
the Rules of Professional Conduct via SCR
20:8.4(f), which states, “It is professional
misconduct for a lawyer to . . . violate a
statute, supreme court rule, supreme court
order or supreme court decision regulating
the conduct of lawyers.”
|
|
|
By asserting to OLR that he had engaged
another law firm to prepare a blank notice
of motion and motion for change in venue, to
be left blank and submitted to the court
commissioner so as to avoid practice during
suspension while abiding by client
objectives, when the notice of motion and
motion in question referred to Brandt as the
petitioner’s attorney, and was signed and
dated in Brandt’s own hand at a time when he
was suspended from practice, Brandt violated
SCR 22.03(6), which states, “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.” SCR
22.03(6) is enforced under the Rules of
Professional Conduct via SCR 20:8.4(h),
which states in part, “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
22.03(6) . . .”
On July 1, 2011, the Office of Lawyer
Regulation (OLR) received information from a
circuit court judge indicating that Brandt,
while his law license was suspended for
noncompliance with CLE requirements, had
appeared in court on June 27, 2011 on behalf
of a client at a plea hearing in a criminal
traffic matter.
During the June 27, 2011 hearing, Brandt
informed the court that his client was
prepared to enter a plea. The judge informed
Brandt that he had received a notice dated
June 7, 2011, indicating that Brandt’s law
license had been suspended. Brandt then
stated to the judge that he was not
intending to appear of record in the
proceeding but that he had engaged in plea
negotiations with the prosecutor and had
gone through the plea questionnaire with his
client prior to his CLE suspension, and that
he was providing a copy of the completed
questionnaire to the court. Brandt also
informed the court that he had completed the
necessary courses to be in CLE compliance,
but he had not yet received notice of his
reinstatement, and he was aware that he
could not appear as his client’s attorney.
The judge indicated that because Brandt had
not yet met the requirements for
reinstatement, he was not going to allow
Brandt to proceed, nor was he going to
allow Brandt’s client to proceed on her own
at that time. The plea hearing was then
rescheduled for a later date.
In a submission to OLR, Brandt asserted that
he had apologized to the judge in the
matter, and he further indicated that a plea
hearing been scheduled when he received
notice of his suspension for CLE
noncompliance. According to Brandt, in
order to meet his responsibilities of
zealous representation, he sought immediate
compliance with SCR 31.03(1), and paid his
fee and reported his credits as required to
the Board of Bar Examiners (BBE). According
to Brandt, he called BBE before the court
proceeding scheduled for June 27, 2011 and
was informed that the requirements were not
posted in time for his appearance in court
that day. Brandt indicated that the plea
had been negotiated prior to his suspension
and his client wished to enter her plea.
Brandt asserted that his intent was for the
client to speak on her own behalf at
sentencing to conclude the matter.
|
|
|
By making a court appearance at a plea
hearing on June 27, 2011, when his law
license was suspended pursuant to SCR 31.10
(1), for noncompliance with mandatory
continuing legal education requirements,
Attorney Warren L. Brandt violated SCR 31.10
(1), which states in part, “A lawyer shall
not engage in the practice of law in
Wisconsin while his or her state bar
membership is suspended under this rule.”
SCR 31.10(1) is enforced under the Rules of
Professional Conduct via SCR 20:8.4(f),
which states, “It is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to . . . violate a statute,
supreme court rule, supreme court order or
supreme court decision regulating the
conduct of lawyers.”
|
|
|
Brandt’s prior discipline consists of a 1994
private reprimand, a 2003 public reprimand,
a 2004 private reprimand, a 2009 public
reprimand, and a four-month suspension
imposed in 2012.
In accordance with SCR 22.09(3), Attorney
Warren Lee Brandt is hereby publicly
reprimanded.
Dated this 20th day of November, 2013.
|
|
|
![[Image of Lady Justice]](images/header_1.gif)
![[Image of columns]](images/header_3.jpg)