2015 WI 113
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2015AP1422-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against
Zachary T. Krogman, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Zachary T. Krogman,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KROGMAN
OPINION FILED: December 23, 2015
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED: ABRAHAMSON, A.W. BRADLEY, J.J., dissent.
(Opinion Filed)
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2015 WI 113
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2015AP1422-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Zachary T. Krogman, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant,
DEC 23, 2015
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Zachary T. Krogman,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a stipulation pursuant to
Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12 between the Office of Lawyer
Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Zachary T. Krogman. In the
stipulation, Attorney Krogman agrees with the OLR's position
that his misconduct warrants the imposition of a four-month
suspension of his license to practice law in Wisconsin.
Attorney Krogman also agrees with the OLR's position that
No. 2015AP1422-D
certain conditions should be imposed upon the reinstatement of
his license to practice law in Wisconsin.
¶2 After fully reviewing the stipulation and the facts of
this matter, we accept the stipulation and impose the four-month
suspension jointly requested by the parties. We also find it
appropriate to impose the recommended conditions upon the
reinstatement of Attorney Krogman's license to practice law.
Finally, in light of the parties' stipulation and the fact that
no referee needed to be appointed, we do not impose any costs
upon Attorney Krogman.
¶3 Attorney Krogman was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 2011 and practices in Stevens Point. He has no
prior disciplinary history.
¶4 On July 16, 2015, the OLR filed a complaint alleging
22 counts of professional misconduct. On September 18, 2015,
Attorney Krogman entered into a stipulation whereby he agrees
that the factual allegations in the OLR's complaint are accurate
and that he committed the professional misconduct charged in the
complaint. The stipulation states that Attorney Krogman fully
understands the nature of the misconduct allegations against
him, his right to contest those allegations, and the
ramifications that would follow from this court's imposition of
the stipulated level of discipline. The stipulation also
indicates that Attorney Krogman understands his right to
counsel. Attorney Krogman verifies that he is entering into the
2
No. 2015AP1422-D
stipulation knowingly and voluntarily and that his entry into
the stipulation represents his decision not to contest this
matter.
Matter of T.M. (Counts 1-5)
¶5 In July 2013, T.M. hired Attorney Krogman to represent
him in a divorce action. Attorney Krogman filed a summons and
petition in the case. The court scheduled a temporary hearing
for November 4, 2013, and a stipulated divorce hearing for
February 10, 2014. T.M.'s wife did not appear for the temporary
hearing, so the hearing could not proceed. On November 6, 2013,
Attorney James Kurth notified Attorney Krogman that Attorney
Kurth represented T.M.'s wife. Between December 2013 and
February 2014, T.M. left multiple telephone messages for
Attorney Krogman and sent him multiple emails asking that
Attorney Krogman communicate with him about the status of the
case. Attorney Krogman failed to respond. Attorney Krogman
also failed to respond to Attorney Kurth's requests for a copy
of T.M.'s financial disclosure statement.
¶6 On February 7, 2014, Attorney Krogman admitted himself
to a medical treatment facility for in-patient treatment. On
February 10, 2014, the day of the scheduled divorce hearing,
Attorney Krogman's mother-in-law and legal assistant told T.M.
by phone that Attorney Krogman would be unable to appear at the
hearing because he was having medical problems and would be out
of the office for four to six weeks. T.M. hired successor
3
No. 2015AP1422-D
counsel to represent him in the divorce action. While
representing T.M., Attorney Krogman disbursed advanced fees from
his trust account without providing T.M. with the required
written notice at least five days prior to removing the funds.
Attorney Krogman failed to file a timely response to the OLR's
requests for information regarding the grievance T.M. filed
against Attorney Krogman.
¶7 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of
misconduct with respect to Attorney Krogman's representation of
T.M.:
[Count 1] By failing to advance [T.M.'s]
interests in obtaining a timely divorce, including by:
(i) failing to timely effect service on the opposing
party; (ii) failing to provide a financial disclosure
statement to opposing counsel; and/or, (iii) failing
to timely take the steps necessary to engage in
settlement discussions with opposing counsel, Krogman
violated SCR 20:1.3.1
[Count 2] By failing to adequately communicate
with [T.M.] regarding the status of his case, Krogman
violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3).2
[Count 3] By failing to timely respond to
[T.M.'s] attempts to obtain information regarding his
case, Krogman violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(4).3
1
SCR 20:1.3 provides that "[a] lawyer shall act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client."
2
SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides that a lawyer shall "keep the
client reasonably informed about the status of the matter."
3
SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) provides that a lawyer shall "promptly
comply with reasonable requests by the client for information."
4
No. 2015AP1422-D
[Count 4] By disbursing advanced fees from trust
without first providing [T.M.] with timely written
notice of his intent to do so, Krogman violated
SCR 20:1.15(g)(1).4
[Count 5] By failing to timely provide the
information and records requested by OLR's March 13,
2014 and April 24, 2014, letters, Krogman violated
SCR 22.03(2)5 and SCR 22.03(6),6 enforceable via
7
SCR 20:8.4(h).
4
SCR 20:1.15(g)(1) provides:
At least 5 business days before the date on which
a disbursement is made from a trust account for the
purpose of paying fees, with the exception of
contingent fees or fees paid pursuant to court order,
the lawyer shall transmit to the client in writing all
of the following:
a. an itemized bill or other accounting showing
the services rendered;
b. notice of the amount owed and the anticipated
date of the withdrawal; and
c. a statement of the balance of the client's
funds in the lawyer trust account after the
withdrawal.
5
SCR 22.03(2) provides:
Upon commencing an investigation, the director
shall notify the respondent of the matter being
investigated unless in the opinion of the director the
investigation of the matter requires otherwise. The
respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts
and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct
within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail a
request for a written response. The director may allow
additional time to respond. Following receipt of the
response, the director may conduct further
investigation and may compel the respondent to answer
(continued)
5
No. 2015AP1422-D
Matter of B.Y. and B.Y. (Counts 6-9)
¶8 In January 2013, B.Y. and her husband, B.Y., hired
Attorney Krogman to represent them in facilitating Mr. Y.'s
adoption of Mrs. Y.'s minor daughter. The Y.s and Attorney
Krogman entered into a written advanced fee agreement. The
child's father signed the advanced fee agreement as guarantor
and paid Attorney Krogman an initial advanced fee of $500. The
parties agreed that Attorney Krogman would directly bill the
child's father related to Attorney Krogman's representation of
the Y.s. Attorney Krogman filed a petition for termination of
parental rights and a petition for adoptive placement in Wood
County Circuit Court.
¶9 The Y.s moved to Sauk County before a required home
study could be arranged. In April 2013, Attorney Krogman sent
the Y.s a petition for adoption, petition for termination of
questions, furnish documents, and present any
information deemed relevant to the investigation.
6
SCR 22.03(6) provides that "[i]n 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."
7
SCR 20:8.4(h) provides that 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 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6),
or SCR 22.04(1)."
6
No. 2015AP1422-D
parental rights, and related documents, to be filed in Sauk
County, for their review and signature. On April 30, 2013,
Attorney Krogman sent the child's father a letter, with a copy
sent to the Y.s, saying that since Attorney Krogman had not
received monthly payments on the outstanding balance, he would
need to terminate representation in the matter. Attorney
Krogman received $125 from the child's father on August 25,
2013. In September 2013, Attorney Krogman resumed
representation of the Y.s. Attorney Krogman failed to file the
petition for adoption and petition for termination of parental
rights with the Sauk County Circuit Court and took no further
action in the case. The Y.s hired successor counsel to
represent them.
¶10 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of
misconduct with respect to Attorney Krogman's representation of
the Y.s:
[Count 6] By failing after December 10, 2013 to
advance the [Y.s'] interests in securing [Mr. Y's]
adoption of the minor child, Krogman violated
SCR 20:1.3.
[Count 7] By failing to respond to the [Y.s']
requests for information after December 10, 2013,
Krogman violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(4).
[Count 8] By disbursing advanced fees from trust
without first timely providing the [Y.s] and/or [the
child's father] with written notice of his intent to
do so, Krogman violated SCR 20:1.15(g)(1).
[Count 9] By failing to timely provide the
information and records requested by OLR's March 13,
7
No. 2015AP1422-D
2014, and April 24, 2014, letters, Krogman violated
SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via
SCR 20:8.4(h).
Matter of J.L. (Count 10)
¶11 In April 2014, J.L. hired Attorney Krogman to
represent her in her pending divorce action. J.L. and Attorney
Krogman entered into a written advanced fee agreement. J.L.
paid Attorney Krogman an initial advanced fee of $1,000.
Attorney Krogman drafted and circulated a stipulation and
temporary order to be filed with the court, and he sent J.L.'s
husband discovery requests and a blank financial disclosure
statement. On June 2, 2014, the Board of Bar Examiners (BBE)
suspended Attorney Krogman's license to practice law in
Wisconsin due to his failure to comply with continuing legal
education (CLE) reporting requirements. Attorney Krogman failed
to notify J.L. of his suspension, and he failed to notify the
court of the suspension until December 22, 2014.
¶12 The OLR's complaint set forth the following count of
misconduct with respect to Attorney Krogman's representation of
J.L.: "[Count 10] By disbursing advance fees from trust
without first timely providing [J.L.] with written notice of his
intent to do so, Krogman violated SCR 20:1.15(g)(1)."
Matter of G.B. (Counts 11-13)
¶13 In April 2014, G.B. hired Attorney Krogman to
represent him in appealing an order modifying child support.
Attorney Krogman provided G.B. with a written advanced fee
8
No. 2015AP1422-D
agreement, which G.B. did not sign. G.B. paid Attorney Krogman
an advanced $500 fee by credit card. Attorney Krogman filed a
motion for and notice of new (de novo) hearing with the court on
G.B.'s behalf and contacted the court to schedule a hearing on
the motion. On May 1, 2014, Attorney Krogman sent G.B. a letter
requesting an additional $312.50 in advanced fees, which G.B.
paid by credit card on May 8, 2014. Attorney Krogman took no
further action on G.B.'s case. Attorney Krogman failed to
notify G.B. that his license to practice law in Wisconsin was
suspended on June 2, 2014, nor did he notify the court of his
suspension until November 24, 2014. Attorney Krogman failed to
respond to numerous phone calls from G.B. inquiring about the
status of the case. Attorney Krogman failed to appear at a
scheduling conference and did not advise G.B. that he could not
appear or that G.B. should be prepared to represent himself or
seek alternate legal representation. Attorney Krogman likewise
did not notify opposing counsel or the court that he did not
intend to appear at the scheduling conference.
¶14 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of
misconduct with respect to Attorney Krogman's representation of
G.B.:
[Count 11] By failing to advise [G.B.] that he
could not appear for the July 17, 2014, Scheduling
Conference and that [G.B.] should be prepared to
9
No. 2015AP1422-D
represent himself or seek alternative legal
8
representation, Krogman violated SCR 20:1.16(d).
[Count 12] By disbursing advanced fees from
trust without first timely providing [G.B.] with
written notice of his intent to do so, Krogman
violated SCR 20:1.15(g)(1).
[Count 13] By failing to timely provide the
information and records requested by OLR's August 15,
2014 and September 17, 2014 [letters], Krogman
violated SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6), enforceable
via SCR 20:8.4(h).
Matter of J.N. (Count 14)
¶15 On November 14, 2013, Attorney Krogman represented
J.N. at a final divorce hearing in Marathon County Circuit
Court. Following the hearing, Attorney Krogman was responsible
for submitting the divorce paperwork. He neglected to file most
of the documents.
¶16 The OLR's complaint alleged the following count of
misconduct with respect to Attorney Krogman's representation of
J.N.: "[Count 14] By failing between November 14, 2013 and
8
SCR 20:1.16(d) provides:
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.
10
No. 2015AP1422-D
June 2, 2014, to file the Findings of Fact, and related
documents [in J.N.'s divorce case], Krogman violated
SCR 20:1.3."
Misconduct Related to License Suspension (Counts 15-18)
¶17 Prior to June 2, 2014, Attorney Krogman received
written notice from the BBE that his license would be suspended
on June 2, 2014, if he failed to comply with CLE reporting
requirements for the 2012-13 reporting period. Attorney Krogman
failed to comply with the CLE reporting requirements and his
license to practice law in Wisconsin was suspended on June 2,
2014. Attorney Krogman failed to send written notice of his
suspension, by certified mail, to any of his clients in pending
matters. He also failed to timely send written notice of his
suspension and inability to act as an attorney to any opposing
counsel or courts in pending matters.
¶18 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of
misconduct related to Attorney Krogman's June 2, 2014 license
suspension:
[Count 15] By failing to advise his clients with
hearings scheduled for after June 2, 2014, that he
could not appear with them or on their behalf, and
that they should be prepared to represent themselves
or seek alternative legal representation, Krogman
violated SCR 20:1.16(d).
[Count 16] By failing to provide written notice
to all of his clients with pending matters that his
license to practice law had been suspended on June 2,
11
No. 2015AP1422-D
2014, and that they should seek legal advice
elsewhere, Krogman violated SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b).9
[Count 17] By failing to promptly provide
written notice to all opposing counsel and courts in
which he was representing clients in pending matters
that his license to practice law had been suspended on
June 2, 2014, Krogman violated SCR 22.26(1)(c).10
[Count 18] By practicing law in Wisconsin at a
time when his license to practice law was suspended,
Krogman violated SCR 22.26(2).11
9
SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b) provide that, on or before the
effective date of license suspension or revocation, an attorney
whose license is suspended or revoked shall "[n]otify by
certified mail all clients being represented in pending matters
of the suspension or revocation and of the attorney's consequent
inability to act as an attorney following the effective date of
the suspension or revocation," and shall "[a]dvise the clients
to seek legal advice of their choice elsewhere."
10
SCR 22.26(1)(c) provides that, on or before the effective
date of license suspension or revocation, an attorney whose
license is suspended or revoked shall:
Promptly provide written notification to the
court or administrative agency and the attorney for
each party in a matter pending before a court or
administrative agency of the suspension or revocation
and of the attorney's consequent inability to act as
an attorney following the effective date of the
suspension or revocation. The notice shall identify
the successor attorney of the attorney's client or, if
there is none at the time notice is given, shall state
the client's place of residence.
11
SCR 22.26(2) provides:
An attorney whose license to practice law is
suspended or revoked or who is suspended from the
practice of law may not engage in this state in the
practice of law or in any law work activity
customarily done by law students, law clerks, or other
(continued)
12
No. 2015AP1422-D
Misconduct Related to Failure to Hold Funds in Trust and
Conversion (Counts 19-22)
¶19 Between October 31, 2013, and July 10, 2014, Attorney
Krogman improperly took over $2,500 from his clients' trust
accounts, funds to which he was not entitled, including by
paying bank fees with client funds. He began accepting credit
card payments for legal fees in November 2012 but never
established a separate trust account for receiving legal fees
and costs by credit card, debit card, or other electronic
deposit. Attorney Krogman failed to keep transaction registers
required by the Rules of Professional Conduct, failed to keep
individual client ledgers, failed to keep required deposit
records, failed to complete the memo line on checks, and failed
to prepare regular and periodic reconciliation reports. The
OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of misconduct:
[Count 19] By converting to his personal use
$2,137.50 of client funds held in trust on February 6,
2014, Krogman violated SCR 20:8.4(c).12
[Count 20] By failing to hold funds [of] clients
in trust, separate from his own property, including
converting to his personal use $2,137.50 of client
paralegal personnel, except that the attorney may
engage in law related work in this state for a
commercial employer itself not engaged in the practice
of law.
12
SCR 20:8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit or misrepresentation."
13
No. 2015AP1422-D
funds held in trust on February 6, 2014, Krogman
violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).13
[Count 21] By depositing $6,463.52 into his
Trust Account via 12 credit card deposits between
September 5, 2013, and December 4, 2014, Krogman
violated SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)e.14
[Count 22] By failing to comply with trust
account record-keeping requirements as follows:
(a) By failing from January 1, 2014, through
July 22, 2014, to keep a transaction register that
contained a chronological record of all account
transactions and included the date, source and amount
of all deposits, the check number of all
disbursements, the identity of the client for whom
funds were deposited or disbursed, the date and amount
of every deduction of whatever nature, and the balance
in the account after each transaction;
(b) by failing to record each receipt and
disbursement of client funds for his IOLTA checking
account in individual client ledgers;
(c) by failing to identify the client or client
matter associated with each deposit item on 26 of 28
deposit slips between September 5, 2013, and
13
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.
14
SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)e. provides that "[a] lawyer shall not
authorize transactions by way of credit card to or from a trust
account. However, earned fees may be deposited by way of credit
card to a lawyer's business account."
14
No. 2015AP1422-D
December 4, 2014, and by failing to identify the name
of the account on 22 of those 28 deposit slips;
(d) by leaving the memo line blank on 28 of 34
checks written on his Trust Account during the same
period;
(e) by failing to prepare any Trust Account
reconciliation report for at least eight months from
October 2013 through June 2014,
Krogman violated SCR 20:1.15(f)(1).15
15
SCR 20:1.15(f)(1) provides:
Complete records of a trust account that is a
draft account shall include a transaction register;
individual client ledgers for IOLTA accounts and other
pooled trust accounts; a ledger for account fees and
charges, if law firm funds are held in the account
pursuant to sub. (b)(3); deposit records; disbursement
records; monthly statements; and reconciliation
reports, subject to all of the following:
a. Transaction register. The transaction register
shall contain a chronological record of all account
transactions, and shall include all of the following:
1. the date, source, and amount of all deposits;
2. the date, check or transaction number, payee
and amount of all disbursements, whether by check,
wire transfer, or other means;
3. the date and amount of every other deposit or
deduction of whatever nature;
4. the identity of the client for whom funds were
deposited or disbursed; and
5. the balance in the account after each
transaction.
b. Individual client ledgers. A subsidiary ledger
shall be maintained for each client or 3rd party for
(continued)
15
No. 2015AP1422-D
whom the lawyer receives trust funds that are
deposited in an IOLTA account or any other pooled
trust account. The lawyer shall record each receipt
and disbursement of a client's or 3rd party's funds
and the balance following each transaction. A lawyer
shall not disburse funds from an IOLTA account or any
pooled trust account that would create a negative
balance with respect to any individual client or
matter.
c. Ledger for account fees and charges. A
subsidiary ledger shall be maintained for funds of the
lawyer deposited in the trust account to accommodate
monthly service charges. Each deposit and expenditure
of the lawyer's funds in the account and the balance
following each transaction shall be identified in the
ledger.
d. Deposit records. Deposit slips shall identify
the name of the lawyer or law firm, and the name of
the account. The deposit slip shall identify the
amount of each deposit item, the client or matter
associated with each deposit item, and the date of the
deposit. The lawyer shall maintain a copy or duplicate
of each deposit slip. All deposits shall be made
intact. No cash, or other form of disbursement, shall
be deducted from a deposit. Deposits of wired funds
shall be documented in the account's monthly
statement.
e. Disbursement records.
1. Checks. Checks shall be pre-printed and
prenumbered. The name and address of the lawyer or law
firm, and the name of the account shall be printed in
the upper left corner of the check. Trust account
checks shall include the words "Client Account," or
"Trust Account," or words of similar import in the
account name. Each check disbursed from the trust
account shall identify the client matter and the
reason for the disbursement on the memo line.
(continued)
16
No. 2015AP1422-D
2. Canceled checks. Canceled checks shall be
obtained from the financial institution. Imaged checks
may be substituted for canceled checks.
3. Imaged checks. Imaged checks shall be
acceptable if they provide both the front and reverse
of the check and comply with the requirements of this
paragraph. The information contained on the reverse
side of the imaged checks shall include any
endorsement signatures or stamps, account numbers, and
transaction dates that appear on the original. Imaged
checks shall be of sufficient size to be readable
without magnification and as close as possible to the
size of the original check.
4. Wire transfers. Wire transfers shall be
documented by a written withdrawal authorization or
other documentation, such as a monthly statement of
the account that indicates the date of the transfer,
the payee, and the amount.
f. Monthly statement. The monthly statement
provided to the lawyer or law firm by the financial
institution shall identify the name and address of the
lawyer or law firm and the name of the account.
g. Reconciliation reports. For each trust
account, the lawyer shall prepare and retain a printed
reconciliation report on a regular and periodic basis
not less frequently than every 30 days. Each
reconciliation report shall show all of the following
balances and verify that they are identical:
1. the balance that appears in the transaction
register as of the reporting date;
2. the total of all subsidiary ledger balances
for IOLTA accounts and other pooled trust accounts,
determined by listing and totaling the balances in the
individual client ledgers and the ledger for account
fees and charges, as of the reporting date; and
(continued)
17
No. 2015AP1422-D
¶20 In the stipulation, Attorney Krogman agrees that it
would be appropriate for this court to impose a four-month
suspension of his license to practice law in Wisconsin. He
further agrees that it would be appropriate for this court to
impose the following conditions upon the reinstatement of his
license to practice law in Wisconsin:
Within 60 days of the Court's final order,
Attorney Krogman must provide to OLR signed
medical releases of confidentiality for each
treatment provider who has provided or is
providing alcohol-related or substance abuse-
related treatment, assessment or services to
Attorney Krogman during the past five years, so
that OLR and each provider can share pertinent
information related to Attorney Krogman, such
releases to remain in effect for two years from
the date Attorney Krogman signs the releases.
Within 60 days of the Court's final order,
Attorney Krogman must, at his own expense,
participate in an alcohol and other drug abuse
(AODA) and mental health assessment by a person
of OLR's choosing, which shall make specific
written recommendations, if appropriate, for
Attorney Krogman's treatment or maintenance. The
assessment must be provided to OLR.
Attorney Krogman must submit to monitoring within
30 days of the date of the assessment, as
directed by OLR; and for a period of two years
beginning on the date of his entry into a
3. the adjusted balance, determined by adding
outstanding deposits and other credits to the balance
in the financial institution's monthly statement and
subtracting outstanding checks and other deductions
from the balance in the monthly statement.
18
No. 2015AP1422-D
monitoring program must comply with all
monitoring requirements, including all
requirements determined to be appropriate by the
Wisconsin Lawyers' Assistance Program (WisLAP) or
OLR's designated monitor.
Attorney Krogman must refrain from the
consumption of alcohol and any mood-altering
drugs without a valid prescription while subject
to monitoring[.]
¶21 Having considered this matter, we approve the
stipulation and adopt the stipulated facts and legal conclusions
of professional misconduct. From our independent review of the
matter, we agree that a four-month suspension of Attorney
Krogman's license to practice law in Wisconsin is an appropriate
sanction. We note that the OLR's memorandum in support of the
stipulation identifies a number of aggravating and mitigating
factors. With respect to aggravating factors, the OLR points
out that Attorney Krogman engaged in dishonest conduct with
selfish motives, that he committed similar misconduct in several
different matters, and that he failed to cooperate in several
matters. As mitigating factors, the OLR director found that
Attorney Krogman had no prior disciplinary record. In addition,
Attorney Krogman's misconduct occurred during a period of time
immediately prior to checking himself into an in-patient
facility for treatment of alcohol abuse and depression, or in
the year after his in-patient treatment. The OLR says there
seems to be a potentially causal relationship between Attorney
Krogman's alcohol abuse and/or depression and some of the
19
No. 2015AP1422-D
misconduct outlined above; however, not all of the misconduct
can be causally linked to his mental health issues. The OLR
also points out that once he was served with the disciplinary
complaint, Attorney Krogman was fully cooperative, and he has
advised the OLR that he is no longer practicing law and is in
the process of closing down his law practice.
¶22 Although no two factual situations are precisely the
same, a four-month suspension is generally consistent with the
sanction imposed in somewhat similar cases, including In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Smead, 2010 WI 4, 322 Wis. 2d
100, 777 N.W.2d 644 (attorney's license suspended for 120 days
for 25 counts of misconduct); In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Tobin, 2007 WI 50, 300 Wis. 2d 250, 730 N.W.2d 896
(attorney's license suspended for four months for misconduct
including trust account violations, conversions, and false
statements to the OLR). We further find it appropriate to
impose the recommended conditions upon the reinstatement of
Attorney Krogman's license to practice law. Because Attorney
Krogman entered into a comprehensive stipulation under
SCR 22.12, thereby obviating the need for the appointment of a
referee and a full disciplinary proceeding, we do not impose any
costs in this matter.
¶23 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Zachary T. Krogman
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for four months,
effective January 22, 2016.
20
No. 2015AP1422-D
¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the reinstatement of
Zachary T. Krogman's license to practice law in Wisconsin is
conditioned upon the following:
Within 60 days of the date of this order, Attorney
Krogman shall provide the Office of Lawyer
Regulation with signed medical releases of
confidentiality for each treatment provider who is
providing or has provided to Attorney Krogman within
the last five years treatment, assessment, or
services related to alcohol or substance abuse, such
releases to remain in effect for two years from the
date of signature.
Within 60 days of the date of this order, Attorney
Krogman shall, at his own expense, participate in an
alcohol and other drug abuse and mental health
assessment by a person of the Office of Lawyer
Regulation's choosing; the assessment shall make
specific written recommendations, if appropriate,
for Attorney Krogman's treatment or maintenance and
shall be provided to the Office of Lawyer
Regulation.
Within 30 days of the date of the assessment
specified above, Attorney Krogman shall submit to
monitoring as directed by the Office of Lawyer
Regulation, and he shall comply with all monitoring
21
No. 2015AP1422-D
requirements, including all requirements deemed
appropriate by the Wisconsin Lawyers' Assistance
Program or other monitor designated by the Office of
Lawyer Regulation, for a period of two years from
his entry into a monitoring program.
Attorney Krogman shall refrain from the consumption
of alcohol and any mood-altering drugs without a
valid prescription while subject to monitoring.
¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Zachary T. Krogman shall
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of
an attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended.
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See
SCR 22.28(2).
22
No. 2015AP1422-D.ssa
¶27 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J. (dissenting). I write in
dissent in several attorney discipline cases because I have
concerns about the discipline imposed.
¶28 In the instant case, upon stipulation admitting the
factual allegations, the court orders a four-month suspension of
Attorney Krogman's license and conditions upon reinstatement.
The complaint alleged 22 counts of professional misconduct
involving four clients, misconduct relating to license
suspension, and misconduct relating to trust accounts. The
four-month suspension seems too light.
¶29 I write in dissent because I also have difficulty
reconciling the significantly different levels of discipline
imposed in the following four cases.
• OLR v. Crandall, 2015 WI 111, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___
N.W.2d ___: Attorney Crandall has been disciplined
four times previously: a three-month suspension, a
public reprimand, a 30-day suspension, and a five-
month suspension. This court now imposes another
public reprimand in his fifth brush with the OLR. The
sanction is too light. The principle of progressive
discipline should have been applied. It was not.
• OLR v. Boyle, 2015 WI 110, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___
N.W.2d ___: Boyle committed six offenses, including
two trust account violations. The court imposes a 60-
day suspension plus conditions. Boyle had received
three private reprimands between 2002 and 2012. How
1
No. 2015AP1422-D.ssa
can this level of discipline be justified in light of
OLR v. Crandall and OLR v. Sayaovong (see below)?
• OLR v. Aleman, 2015 WI 112, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___
N.W.2d ___: Illinois imposed a two-year suspension
for two counts of misconduct stemming from co-founding
and working with a national debt settlement firm.
Upon stipulation of the parties, this court orders
reciprocal discipline in Wisconsin. The two-year
suspension seems too harsh compared to the discipline
imposed in other cases.
• OLR v. Sayaovong, 2015 WI 100, 365 Wis. 2d 200, 871
N.W.2d 217: This per curiam was released November 18,
2015, imposing suspension for a period of six months.
Attorney Sayaovong defaulted in the discipline case.
The complaint alleged six counts of misconduct, four
counts involving two clients and two counts involving
another client. In 2014 Attorney Sayaovong was
publicly reprimanded for misconduct in two separate
client matters. See OLR v. Sayaovong, 2014 WI 94, 357
Wis. 2d 312, 850 N.W.2d 940. The discipline does not
seem consistent with the discipline imposed in other
cases.
¶30 For the reasons set forth, I write about each of these
cases.
¶31 I am authorized to state that Justice ANN WALSH
BRADLEY joins this opinion.
2
No. 2015AP1422-D.ssa
1