Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Andrew J. Bryant

2015 WI 7

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2013AP312-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against
Andrew J. Bryant, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Andrew J. Bryant,
Respondent.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BRYANT

OPINION FILED: January 28, 2015
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:

JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:

ATTORNEYS:
 2015 WI 7
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2013AP312-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Andrew J. Bryant, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant,
JAN 28, 2015
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Andrew J. Bryant,

Respondent.

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license

suspended.

¶1 PER CURIAM. This case is before us pursuant to

SCR 22.14(2)1 and SCR 22.17(2)2 on a stipulation between the

1
SCR 22.14(2) states:

The respondent may by answer plead no contest to
allegations of misconduct in the complaint. The
referee shall make a determination of misconduct in
respect to each allegation to which no contest is
pleaded and for which the referee finds an adequate
factual basis in the record. In a subsequent
disciplinary or reinstatement proceeding, it shall be
(continued)
 No. 2013AP312-D

parties, Attorney Andrew J. Bryant and the Office of Lawyer

Regulation (OLR). In the stipulation, Attorney Bryant pled no

contest to 37 of 38 counts of misconduct alleged in the OLR's

third amended complaint. The referee issued a report

recommending that the court suspend Attorney Bryant's license to

practice law for three years, order Attorney Bryant to pay

restitution to two clients as set forth herein, and order

Attorney Bryant to pay the full costs of this proceeding, which

total $9,175.05 as of September 2, 2014.

¶2 We approve the recommendations stated in the

stipulation and adopt the stipulated findings of fact and

conclusions of law. We agree that Attorney Bryant's

professional misconduct warrants a three-year suspension of his

Wisconsin law license. We further order that Attorney Bryant

make restitution to M.W. and M.C. as outlined below, and that he

pay the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding.

conclusively presumed that the respondent engaged in
the misconduct determined on the basis of a no contest
plea.
2
SCR 22.17(2) states:

If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or
remand the matter to the referee for additional
findings; and determine and impose appropriate
discipline. The court, on its own motion, may order
the parties to file briefs in the matter.

2
 No. 2013AP312-D

¶3 Attorney Bryant was admitted to practice law in

Wisconsin in 1992. He most recently practiced as a solo

attorney in Verona.

¶4 In January of 2012, Attorney Bryant received a

consensual private reprimand for misconduct that included lack

of competence, lack of diligence, failure to consult with his

client regarding the means by which the objectives of the

representation were to be pursued, and failure to keep his

client adequately informed. Private Reprimand No. 2012-01.

¶5 On June 24, 2014, this court suspended Attorney

Bryant's license for a period of four months for 15 counts of

misconduct including: practice of law while his license was

administratively suspended; failure to obtain a written conflict

waiver; failure to utilize a written fee agreement; trust

account violations; lack of diligence; failure to provide a

client's file to successor counsel; lack of competence; failure

to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation; failure to

keep his client reasonably informed; failure to explain matters
sufficiently; knowingly disobeying circuit court scheduling and

sanction orders; conduct intended merely to harass or delay; and

misrepresentation. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against

Bryant, 2014 WI 43, 354 Wis. 2d 684, 847 N.W.2d 833. We imposed

certain conditions on Attorney Bryant's future reinstatement in

that matter. Id, ¶52. His license remains suspended.

¶6 On February 8, 2013, the OLR filed the disciplinary

complaint giving rise to this decision. The complaint was
amended several times; the third, and final, amended complaint
3
 No. 2013AP312-D

was filed January 24, 2014, and contained some 255 separately

numbered paragraphs describing 38 counts of misconduct in

connection with Attorney Bryant's representation of seven

clients.

¶7 Before an evidentiary hearing was conducted on the

complaint, Attorney Bryant withdrew his answers and entered into

the stipulation now before the court, in which the parties

agreed to dismiss Count 13 and Attorney Bryant pled no contest

to the remaining 37 counts.

¶8 The referee, James C. Boll, accepted all of the

factual allegations of the complaint as his findings of fact.

Based on those facts, the referee concluded that Attorney Bryant

had engaged in 37 separate acts of professional misconduct.

¶9 Given the volume of the factual findings and legal

conclusions made by the referee, we do not repeat them all here.

It is sufficient to provide the following brief summary of each

client matter followed by summary information concerning the

serious misconduct committed by Attorney Bryant.
Matter of J.N. (Counts 1-2)

¶10 On August 8, 2008, J.N. and her husband filed a joint

petition for divorce in Dane County circuit court. J.N.

retained Attorney Bryant, signed a fee agreement, and paid an

advanced fee. During the representation, Attorney Bryant

engaged in trust account violations by failing to provide J.N.

with an accounting, notice, or statement before disbursing trust

account funds, and failed to respond to the OLR's requests for
information concerning the ensuing grievance.
4
 No. 2013AP312-D

Matter of M.W. (Counts 3-11)

¶11 In April of 2010, M.W. retained Attorney Bryant to

represent her in a divorce proceeding. Attorney Bryant failed

to provide M.W. with any timely periodic invoices, and disbursed

attorney's fees and trust account funds to himself without

providing M.W. an itemized bill or accounting. He also failed

to communicate with his client, failed to act with diligence in

the representation, failed to provide M.W. with an accounting

after final distribution of the trust property, failed to comply

with a court commissioner's order, which resulted in his client

being held in contempt, and converted client funds to pay

himself attorney's fees. Attorney Bryant further failed to

respond to the OLR's requests for information about the ensuing

grievance, resulting in the temporary suspension of his law

license. Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Andrew J. Bryant,

Sup. Ct. Case No. 2012XX946-D.

Matter of M.C. (Counts 12-15)

¶12 In April of 2009, M.C. hired Attorney Bryant to pursue
claims against her former employer for termination based upon

gender and for denial of employer insurance benefits for long-

term disability benefits. Attorney Bryant failed to take

substantive action in M.C.'s case, and repeatedly failed to

respond to her requests for information about her case. He

further failed to respond to the OLR's requests for information

regarding the ensuing grievance, resulting in the temporary

suspension of his law license. Office of Lawyer Regulation v.
Andrew J. Bryant, Sup. Ct. Case No. 2012XX946-D.
5
 No. 2013AP312-D

Matter of G.G. (Counts 16-24)

¶13 In December of 2008, G.G., a City of Madison employee,

slipped and fell on an icy restaurant stoop, sustaining injury.

In 2009, G.G. hired Attorney Bryant to pursue a worker's

compensation claim and a third-party personal injury lawsuit on

his behalf. Attorney Bryant failed to prepare a written

contingent fee agreement and, other that purportedly hiring an

investigator to pursue evidence, failed to take any other

meaningful action on the matter. He failed to return his

client's calls or otherwise respond to requests for information.

Ultimately, the statute of limitations on both the worker's

compensation and the third-party claims expired.

¶14 In May of 2010, G.G. also hired Attorney Bryant to

represent him in divorce proceedings. Attorney Bryant failed to

prepare a written fee agreement, improperly paid himself $2,000

in attorney's fees from trust account funds, failed to

communicate with G.G. regarding the status of the divorce

proceedings, failed to respond to requests for information, and
engaged in trust account violations. He then failed to respond

to the OLR's requests for investigation relating to the ensuing

grievance, resulting in the temporary suspension of his license

to practice law. Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Andrew Bryant,

Sup. Ct. Case No. 2012XX493-D.

Matter of K.R. (Counts 25-30)

¶15 In March of 2010, K.R. hired Attorney Bryant to pursue

an employment discrimination claim against his former employer.
Attorney Bryant failed to prepare a written contingent fee
6
 No. 2013AP312-D

agreement, failed to pursue his client's claim, and repeatedly

failed to respond to his client's requests for information. He

further failed to respond to the OLR's requests for information

regarding the ensuing grievance, resulting in the temporary

suspension of his license to practice law. Office of Lawyer

Regulation v. Andrew J. Bryant, Sup. Ct. Case No. 2012XX946-D.

Matter of A.C. (Counts 31-34)

¶16 On August 15, 2001, A.C. suffered a work-related

injury at his place of employment and was subsequently

terminated. Attorney Bryant agreed to represent A.C. in his

effort to pursue a discrimination claim with the Equal Rights

Division of the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development.

¶17 On March 25, 2011, A.C. signed a contingent fee

agreement. After Attorney Bryant filed his notice of

appearance, A.C. never heard from him again. Attorney Bryant

failed to respond to requests of successor counsel to relinquish

A.C.'s file, and then failed to respond to the OLR's requests

for information relating to the ensuing grievance, resulting in
the temporary suspension of Attorney Bryant's law license.

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Andrew J. Bryant, Sup. Ct. Case

No. 2012XX946-D.

Matter of J.F. (Counts 35-38)

¶18 In December of 2009, J.F. hired Attorney Bryant to

pursue a personal injury claim on J.F.'s behalf. J.F. signed a

contingent fee agreement. Attorney Bryant then repeatedly

failed to communicate with J.F. and took no action on the case.
He also failed to respond to the OLR's requests for information
7
 No. 2013AP312-D

relating to the ensuing grievance, resulting in the temporary

suspension of his license to practice law. Office of Lawyer

Regulation v. Andrew J. Bryant, Sup. Ct. Case No. 2012XX946-D.

¶19 The stipulation executed by the OLR and Attorney

Bryant provided and the referee concluded that, contrary to

SCR 20:1.1, Attorney Bryant failed to provide competent

representation during his work on the matters of G.G. (Count 16)

and K.R. (Count 25).

¶20 The stipulation provided and the referee concluded

that, contrary to SCR 20:1.3, Attorney Bryant failed to take

meaningful action or advance his client's interests in the

following client matters: M.W. (Count 3), M.C. (Count 12), G.G.

(Count 17), K.R. (Count 26), A.C. (Count 31), and J.F.

(Count 35).

¶21 The stipulation provided and the referee concluded

that, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a)(3), Attorney Bryant failed to

keep the following clients reasonably informed about the status

of their matter: M.W. (Count 4), G.G. (Count 18), K.R.
(Count 27), A.C. (Count 32), and J.F. (Count 36).

¶22 The stipulation provided and the referee concluded

that, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a)(4), Attorney Bryant failed to

promptly comply with reasonable requests by the client for

information in the following client matters: M.W. (Count 5),

G.G. (Count 19), K.R. (Count 28), A.C. (Count 32), and J.F.

(Count 37).

¶23 The stipulation provided and the referee concluded
that, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(b), Attorney Bryant failed to
8
 No. 2013AP312-D

explain matters to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the

client to make informed decisions regarding the representation

during his work on the matters of M.C. (Count 14) and G.G.

(Count 20).

¶24 The stipulation provided and the referee concluded

that, contrary to SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2), Attorney Bryant

improperly accepted advanced fees without communicating in

writing the basis or rate of the fee and expenses and failed to

communicate in writing the purpose and effect of the advanced

fees received in the matter of G.G. (Count 21).

¶25 The stipulation provided and the referee concluded

that, contrary to SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) and SCR 20:1.15(g)(1),

Attorney Bryant failed to properly hold unearned fees and

advanced payment of fees in trust in the matters of J.N.

(Count 1), M.W. (Count 6), and G.G. (Count 23).

¶26 The stipulation provided and the referee concluded

that, contrary to SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) and (2), Attorney Bryant

converted client funds to pay himself attorney's fees during his
work on the M.W. matter (Counts 7 and 8).

¶27 The stipulation provided and the referee concluded

that, contrary to SCR 20:1.16(d), Attorney Bryant failed to

respond to multiple written requests to relinquish a client file

during his representation of A.C. (Count 33).

¶28 The stipulation provided and the referee concluded

that, contrary to SCR 20:1.5(c), Attorney Bryant failed to enter

into a written contingent fee agreement during his work on the
matters of G.G. (Count 22) and K.R. (Count 29).
9
 No. 2013AP312-D

¶29 The stipulation provided and the referee concluded

that by knowingly and without justification disobeying a court's

order, resulting in the issuance of a court order finding his

client in contempt, Attorney Bryant violated SCR 20:3.4(c)

during his work on the M.W. matter (Count 9).

¶30 The stipulation provided and the referee concluded

that, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c), Attorney Bryant engaged in

dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation during his work

on the M.W. matter (Count 10).

¶31 The stipulation provided and the referee concluded

that, contrary to SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), and SCR 20:8.4(h),

Attorney Bryant failed to provide relevant information to the

OLR in a timely fashion, and failed to answer questions fully or

otherwise provide information requested by the OLR, in the

following matters: J.N. (Count 2), M.W. (Count 11), M.C.

(Count 15), G.G. (Count 24), K.R. (Count 30), A.C. (Count 34),

and J.F. (Count 38).

¶32 Attorney Bryant pled no contest to the above counts of
misconduct. The parties' stipulation recited that Attorney

Bryant understands the allegations of the complaint, that he

enters the stipulation freely, knowingly, and voluntarily, and

that he understands that he had a right to contest the matters

and consult with and be represented by counsel. Attorney Bryant

also explicitly stated in the stipulation that his mental

health/medical issues are not a defense to the alleged

misconduct.

10
 No. 2013AP312-D

¶33 The parties stipulated that a three-year suspension

was appropriate discipline. The referee agreed, and also

recommended restitution as stipulated by the parties, noting

that Attorney Bryant did not dispute that he owed restitution to

these clients.3 The referee further recommended the imposition

of full costs, which total $9,175.05 as of September 2, 2014.

¶34 Because no appeal was filed from the referee's report

and recommendation, our review proceeds pursuant to

SCR 22.17(2). When reviewing a report and recommendation in an

attorney disciplinary proceeding, we affirm a referee's findings

of fact unless they are found to be clearly erroneous. In re

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5,

305 Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125. We review the referee's

conclusions of law, however, on a de novo basis. Id. Finally,

we determine the appropriate level of discipline given the

particular facts of each case, independent of the referee's

recommendation, but benefitting from it. In re Disciplinary

Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45,
660 N.W.2d 686.

3
In the OLR's restitution statement filed September 3,
2014, the OLR advises the court that it does not seek
restitution in the matters of J.N., K.R., A.C., and J.F. because
there was no fee dispute and/or reasonably ascertainable
restitution amount, explains the reasons for the reduced request
for restitution in the matter of M.W., and explains that it
withdraws its request for restitution to G.G. and to the
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection.

11
 No. 2013AP312-D

¶35 We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law

to which the parties have stipulated and as adopted by the

referee.

¶36 Turning to the sanction, we accept the parties'

stipulation that a three-year suspension is an appropriate level

of discipline in light of the facts of this case. Given the

presence of prior discipline, the number of counts of

misconduct, the number of clients affected by the misconduct,

and the seriousness of the misconduct, a lengthy suspension is

clearly required.

¶37 Because this case presents no extraordinary

circumstances and no objection to costs has been filed, we

further determine that Attorney Bryant should be required to pay

the full costs of this matter. See SCR 22.24(1m) (supreme

court's general policy upon a finding of misconduct is to impose

all costs upon the respondent attorney).

¶38 Finally, we agree that Attorney Bryant should be

ordered to pay restitution as stipulated by the parties:
$10,312.20 to M.W. and $5,000 to M.C.

¶39 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Andrew J. Bryant to

practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of three

years, effective the date of this order.

¶40 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date

of this order, Andrew J. Bryant shall pay to the Office of

Lawyer Regulation the imposed costs of this proceeding.

12
 No. 2013AP312-D

¶41 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date

of this order, Andrew J. Bryant shall pay $10,312.20 to M.W. and

$5,000 to M.C. as restitution.

¶42 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified

above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of

Lawyer Regulation.

¶43 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Andrew J. Bryant shall

comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of

a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been

suspended.

¶44 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all

conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See

SCR 22.28(2).

13
 No. 2013AP312-D

1