2015 WI 18
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2011AP387-D
COMPLETE TITLE: Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant-Respondent,
v.
Michael M. Rajek,
Respondent-Appellant.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST RAJEK
OPINION FILED: February 20, 2015
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
For the respondent-appellant, there were briefs by Michael
M. Rajek, Eau Claire, and oral argument by Michael M. Rajek.
For the complainant-respondent, there was a brief by Wayne
A. Arnold, Rice Lake, and oral argument by Wayne A. Arnold.
2015 WI 18
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2011AP387-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Michael M. Rajek, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant-Respondent,
FEB 20, 2015
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Michael M. Rajek,
Respondent-Appellant.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Violations found; no
discipline imposed.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Attorney Michael M. Rajek appeals from
the report of the referee, James G. Curtis, who determined that
the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) had proven violations of
the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys on five of the
six counts alleged in the OLR’s amended complaint and
recommended that this court publicly reprimand Attorney Rajek
and require him to pay the full costs of this disciplinary
proceeding, which were $18,760.87 as of November 22, 2013.
No. 2011AP387-D
¶2 When reviewing a referee’s report and recommendation,
we affirm the referee's findings of fact unless they are clearly
erroneous, but we review the referee's conclusions of law on a
de novo basis. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo,
2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125. We determine
the appropriate level of discipline to impose given the
particular facts of each case, independent of the referee's
recommendation, but benefiting from it. In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660
N.W.2d 686.
¶3 Having considered the referee’s report and the
parties’ briefs and oral argument on appeal, we conclude that
Attorney Rajek committed the rule violations on five counts as
found by the referee. The violations, however, involved
relatively minor failures of communication, including failures
in some instances to provide certain notices or pieces of
information to clients under Supreme Court Rule (SCR)
20:1.15(b)(4m), which sets forth the alternative procedure for
handling advanced fees. They did not involve the sufficiency or
quality of the legal representation provided by Attorney Rajek
to his clients. Given the particular facts of this case and the
nature of the violations, we determine that it is not necessary
to impose any discipline on Attorney Rajek and that there is no
basis for a restitution award. We do require Attorney Rajek to
pay costs, but we reduce the amount of costs he must pay to
$8,500.
2
No. 2011AP387-D
¶4 IT IS ORDERED that Michael M. Rajek is found to have
committed violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct for
Attorneys as alleged in Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 of the amended
complaint, but no discipline shall be imposed upon Michael M.
Rajek.
¶5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order, Michael M. Rajek shall pay to the Office of
Lawyer Regulation costs in the amount of $8,500.
3
No. 2011AP387-D
1