|
Attorney Chad M. Fahrenkrug was admitted to
the practice of law in Wisconsin on October
16, 2015, State Bar No. 1099256.
On July 30, 2024, Fahrenkrug was appointed to
represent a client for a felony drug charge
(the first case).
On August 27, 2024, Fahrenkrug was appointed
to represent the same client for a felony
drug charge and two misdemeanor charges in
another case (the second case).
When appointed, Fahrenkrug filed a discovery
demand in the first case, but did not file a
discovery demand in the second case.
At a hearing held February 19, 2025, in both
cases, the client pied no contest to both
felony counts. The remaining misdemeanor
counts were dismissed but read in. The client
received a bifurcated sentence totaling 16
years, consecutive to sentences in any other
cases.
Prior to the February 19, 2025 hearing,
Fahrenkrug reviewed the criminal complaint
and discovery in the first case, but, because
he failed to file a discovery demand,
reviewed only the criminal complaint and not
the discovery in the second case.
In response to Fahrenkrug's closing letter,
the client requested a copy of his client
file,
including all discovery materials in the
first case. In the letter dated February 24,
2025, the client also requested that
Fahrenkrug file a "certificate of appeal" in
the first case only. (The client made no
specific requests pertaining to the second
case.)
Fahrenkrug sent a letter dated April 10, 2025
to the client with which he enclosed some but
not all of the client's file. Fahrenkrug
indicated he had more to send. The client
sent Fahrenkrug additional requests for his
client file dated April 17, 2025 and March
20, 2025.
Fahrenkrug sent a letter dated May 30, 2025
to the client stating the client had been
provided with all discovery materials
previously and that he still needs to provide
emails.
The client sent Fahrenkrug another request
for his client file dated July 30, 2025. On
September 30, 2025, the client filed a
grievance against Fahrenkrug.
Approximately ten months after termination of
representation, Fahrenkrug sent a letter
dated January 5, 2026 to the client with
which he enclosed one thumb drive containing
the discovery in the first case and another
thumb drive containing "documents from your
files." In the letter, Fahrenkrug states, in
part:
As for [the second case], I checked my
file, computer and thumbdrives and do not
believe I received discovery from prior
counsel in the matter. CCAP indicates that it
was sent to you and I have emails from your
prior attorney that you had received it. It
appears I did not have a discovery demand
that was entered in that file. Thus, I
reviewed only the criminal complaint in that
file and did not have access to the state's
discovery. Thus, you may have a ripe case for
appeal on those grounds.
By representing his client through plea and
sentencing in two felony cases without
obtaining and reviewing the discovery in one
of the cases, Fahrenkrug violated $CR 20:
1.3, which states, "A lawyer shall act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client."
Upon termination of representation, by
failing to promptly provide his client with a
copy of the client file as requested,
Fahrenkrug violated SCR 20: 1.16(d), which
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.
In 2023, Fahrenkrug received a private
reprimand for violating SCR 20:1.3 and SCR
20:1.4(b).
In accordance with SCR 22.09(3), Attorney
Chad M. Fahrenkrug is hereby publicly
reprimanded.
Dated this 16th day of September, 2026.
|