2017 WI 107
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2017AP2036-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Jeffrey M. Blessinger, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Jeffrey M. Blessinger,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BLESSINGER
OPINION FILED: December 21, 2017
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED: A.W. Bradley, J., concurs (opinion filed).
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2017 WI 107
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2017AP2036-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Jeffrey M. Blessinger, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant,
DEC 21, 2017
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Jeffrey M. Blessinger,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
revoked.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Attorney Jeffrey M. Blessinger has filed
a petition for the consensual revocation of his license to
practice law in Wisconsin pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR)
22.19.1 Attorney Blessinger's petition states that he cannot
1
SCR 22.19 provides:
(1) An attorney who is the subject of an
investigation for possible misconduct or the
respondent in a proceeding may file with the supreme
(continued)
No. 2017AP2036-D
successfully defend against the allegations of professional
misconduct arising out of seven separate Office of Lawyer
Regulation (OLR) investigations concerning his conduct. An OLR
summary of those investigations and of the potential allegations
of professional misconduct is attached to Attorney Blessinger's
petition as Appendix A.
court a petition for the revocation by consent or his
or her license to practice law.
(2) The petition shall state that the petitioner
cannot successfully defend against the allegations of
misconduct.
(3) If a complaint has not been filed, the
petition shall be filed in the supreme court and shall
include the director's summary of the misconduct
allegations being investigated. Within 20 days after
the date of filing of the petition, the director shall
file in the supreme court a recommendation on the
petition. Upon a showing of good cause, the supreme
court may extend the time for filing a recommendation.
(4) If a complaint has been filed, the petition
shall be filed in the supreme court and served on the
director and on the referee to whom the proceeding has
been assigned. Within 20 days after the filing of the
petition, the director shall file in the supreme court
a response in support of or in opposition to the
petition and serve a copy on the referee. Upon a
showing of good cause, the supreme court may extend
the time for filing a response. The referee shall file
a report and recommendation on the petition in the
supreme court within 30 days after receipt of the
director's response.
(5) The supreme court shall grant the petition
and revoke the petitioner's license to practice law or
deny the petition and remand the matter to the
director or to the referee for further proceedings.
2
No. 2017AP2036-D
¶2 Attorney Blessinger was admitted to the practice of
law in Wisconsin in 1996. He practices family law in Baraboo,
Wisconsin. Attorney Blessinger has not previously been the
subject of professional discipline. However, his law license is
currently administratively suspended for failure to pay state
bar dues, failure to comply with mandatory continuing legal
education requirements, and failure to comply with trust account
certification requirements. In addition, on June 12, 2017, this
court temporarily suspended Attorney Blessinger for failure to
cooperate with an OLR disciplinary investigation into this
misconduct. His law license remains suspended.
¶3 The OLR summary attached to Attorney Blessinger's
petition for consensual revocation describes investigations into
potential ethical violations involving seven different client
matters from 2013 to 2017.
Matter of D.H.
¶4 On March 17, 2017, D.H. retained Attorney Blessinger
and paid him $2,000 in cash to represent D.H. in a family law
matter. Attorney Blessinger failed to enter an appearance in
D.H.'s case. D.H. has not heard from or been able to reach
Attorney Blessinger since March 17, 2017, and there is no
evidence that Attorney Blessinger performed any legal services
for D.H. Attorney Blessinger has not refunded any of the
advanced fee paid by D.H.
3
No. 2017AP2036-D
¶5 The OLR's summary indicates that Attorney Blessinger's
handling of D.H.'s matter involves potential violations of
SCR 20:1.3,2 SCR 20:1.4(a),3 SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2),4 and
2
SCR 20:1.3 provides a lawyer shall act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing a client.
3
SCR 20:1.4(a) provides a lawyer shall:
(1) Promptly inform the client of any decision or
circumstance with respect to which the client's
informed consent, as defined in SCR 20:1.0(f), is
required by these rules;
(2) reasonably consult with the client about the
means by which the client's objectives are to be
accomplished;
(3) keep the client reasonably informed about the
status of the matter;
(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests by
the client for information; and
(5) consult with the client about any relevant
limitation on the lawyer's conduct when the lawyer
knows that the client expects assistance not permitted
by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.
4
SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2) provides:
(1) The scope of the representation and the basis
or rate of the fee and expenses for which the client
will be responsible shall be communicated to the
client in writing, before or within a reasonable time
after commencing the representation, except when the
lawyer will charge a regularly represented client on
the same basis or rate as in the past. If it is
reasonably foreseeable that the total cost of
representation to the client, including attorney's
fees, will be $1000 or less, the communication may be
oral or in writing. Any changes in the basis or rate
of the fee or expenses shall also be communicated in
writing to the client.
(continued)
4
No. 2017AP2036-D
SCR 20:1.16(d).5 Further, Attorney Blessinger has not cooperated
in the OLR's investigation, implicating SCR 22.03(2),6 SCR
22.03(6),7 and SCR 20:8.4(h).8
(2) If the total cost of representation to the
client, including attorney's fees, is more than $1000,
the purpose and effect of any retainer or advance fee
that is paid to the lawyer shall be communicated in
writing.
5
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.
6
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
questions, furnish documents, and present any
information deemed relevant to the investigation.
7
SCR 22.03(6) provides:
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
(continued)
5
No. 2017AP2036-D
¶6 With respect to restitution, Attorney Blessinger has
not refunded any of the advanced fee paid by D.H., and the OLR
recommends and Attorney Blessinger agrees that the court should
order Attorney Blessinger to pay $2,000 in restitution to D.H.
Matter of R.K.
¶7 In November 2016, R.K. retained Attorney Blessinger to
represent her in a family law matter. A third party, A.M., paid
Attorney Blessinger $2,000 to represent R.K. Attorney
Blessinger promptly cashed the check, but failed to enter an
appearance in R.K.'s case. A.M. has not heard from or been able
to reach Attorney Blessinger since November 2, 2016. R.K. has
not heard from or been able to reach Attorney Blessinger since
March 15, 2017. There is no evidence that Attorney Blessinger
performed any legal work for R.K. Attorney Blessinger has not
refunded any of the advanced fee paid on behalf of R.K.
¶8 The OLR's summary indicates that Attorney Blessinger's
handling of R.K.'s matter involves potential violations of
SCR 20:1.3, SCR 20:1.4(a), SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2), and
SCR 20:1.16(d). Further, Attorney Blessinger has not cooperated
disclosure are misconduct, regardless of the merits of
the matters asserted in the grievance.
8
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. 2017AP2036-D
in the investigation, implicating SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6) and
SCR 20:8.4(h).
¶9 With respect to restitution, Attorney Blessinger has
not refunded any of the advanced fee paid on behalf of R.K. and
the OLR recommends and Attorney Blessinger agrees that this
court should order Attorney Blessinger to pay $2,000 in
restitution to A.M.
Matter of T.L.
¶10 A.M. who paid Attorney Blessinger an advanced fee to
represent R.K., also paid him $3,000 on September 16, 2016 to
represent T.L. in a Sauk County matter. Attorney Blessinger
cashed the check but there is no evidence that he performed any
legal services for T.L. A.M. has not heard from or been able to
reach Attorney Blessinger since November 2, 2016. Attorney
Blessinger has not refunded any of the advanced fee paid by A.M.
for representation of T.L.
¶11 The OLR's summary indicates that Attorney Blessinger's
handling of A.M.'s matter involves potential violations of
SCR 20:1.15(b)(1)9 and SCR 20:1.15(e)(1).10 Further, Attorney
9
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.
10
SCR 20:1.15(e)(1) provides:
(continued)
7
No. 2017AP2036-D
Blessinger has not cooperated in the investigation, implicating
SC 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6) and SCR 20:8.4(h).
¶12 With respect to restitution, Attorney Blessinger has
not refunded any of the advanced fee paid by A.M. and the OLR
recommends and Attorney Blessinger agrees that this court should
order him to pay $3,000 in restitution to A.M.
Matter of A.N.
¶13 In May 2013, A.N. retained Attorney Blessinger to
represent her in a divorce. Attorney Blessinger entered an
appearance in May 2013 and A.N.'s judgment of divorce was
entered in February 2015.
¶14 After the divorce order issued, motions were filed
pertaining to a quit claim deed on the marital property in favor
of A.N. Attorney Blessinger was supposed to facilitate the
signing and filing of the quit claim deed. He faxed A.N a copy
of the quit claim deed, but did not file it. A.N. has been
unable to reach Attorney Blessinger by phone or email since July
of 2016 and ultimately handled this filing herself.
Upon receiving funds or other property in which a
client has an interest, or in which a lawyer has
received notice that a 3rd party has an interest
identified by a lien, court order, judgment, or
contract, the lawyer shall promptly notify the client
or 3rd party in writing. Except as stated in this rule
or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the
client, the lawyer shall promptly deliver to the
client or 3rd party any funds or other property that
the client or 3rd party is entitled to receive.
8
No. 2017AP2036-D
¶15 In September 2016, opposing counsel filed a series of
motions. Attorney Blessinger was still A.N.'s attorney of
record and A.N. sent him numerous emails and made numerous phone
calls with no response. Attorney Blessinger never responded to
the motions and again, A.N. was forced to represent herself. At
some point in September 2016, Attorney Blessinger contacted A.N.
claiming a family emergency meant that he would not be able to
continue to represent her; he told her to hire other counsel,
however, he did not timely file a motion to withdraw as counsel.
¶16 On October 28, 2016, after the OLR contacted him
regarding this grievance, Attorney Blessinger told the OLR that
A.N. had agreed to withdraw her grievance. This was not true.
Attorney Blessinger finally sent A.N. a stipulation and order
for withdrawal, and the court permitted him to withdraw on
December 1, 2016.
¶17 On December 29, 2016, A.N. asked Attorney Blessinger
for a copy of her file for a January 30, 2017 hearing. He did
not respond. A.N. eventually obtained her file from the
attorney representing Attorney Blessinger in the grievance
investigation.
¶18 The OLR's summary indicates that Attorney Blessinger's
handling of A.N.'s matter involves potential violations of
SCR 20:1.3, SCR 20:1.4(a), SCR 20:1.16(d), and SCR 20:8.4(c).11
11
SCR 20:8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit or misrepresentation.
9
No. 2017AP2036-D
Further, Attorney Blessinger has not cooperated in the
investigation, implicating SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6) and
SCR 20:8.4(h).
¶19 With respect to possible restitution, the OLR has
indicated that the only billing statement it has in this matter
appears to be for legal services that Attorney Blessinger
rendered to A.N. from early June through July 11, 2016. It
shows a total of $7,560 billed.
¶20 A.N. stated that she met with Attorney Blessinger
sometime after October 28, 2016 and paid her bill in full,
paying a total of $14,479.56. She says that Attorney Blessinger
stated that any future work would be pro bono.
¶21 The OLR's policy is to seek restitution only under the
following circumstances: (1) there is a reasonably ascertainable
amount; (2) the funds to be restored were in the lawyer's direct
control; (3) the funds to be restored do not constitute
incidental or consequential damages; and (4) the grievant's or
respondent's rights in a collateral proceeding will not likely
be prejudiced. In this matter the OLR was unable to determine
the full extent of Attorney Blessinger's work on A.N.'s behalf
and thus does not recommend restitution to A.N. in this matter.
Matter of T.S.
¶22 On December 6, 2016, T.S. retained Attorney Blessinger
to represent her in a family law matter. T.S. paid Attorney
Blessinger $3,000 by check and Attorney Blessinger promptly
cashed the check. However, Attorney Blessinger did not enter an
appearance in T.S.'s case; T.S. has not heard from or been able
10
No. 2017AP2036-D
to reach Attorney Blessinger since December 21, 2016, and there
is no evidence that Attorney Blessinger performed any legal
services for T.S. The Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client
Protection eventually reimbursed T.S. for the $3,000 in legal
fees she paid Attorney Blessinger.
¶23 The OLR's summary indicates that Attorney Blessinger's
handling of T.S.'s matter involves potential violations of
SCR 20:1.3, SCR 20:1.4(a), SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2), and
SCR 20:1.16(d). Further, Attorney Blessinger has not cooperated
in the investigation, implicating SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6) and
SCR 20:8.4(h).
¶24 With respect to restitution, Attorney Blessinger has
not refunded any of the advanced fee that T.S. paid and the OLR
recommends and Attorney Blessinger agrees that we should order
Attorney Blessinger to pay $3,000 in restitution to the
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection, relating to the
matter of T.S.
Matter of L.W.
¶25 In July 2016, L.W. retained Attorney Blessinger to
represent her in a divorce. L.W. made advanced fee payments to
Attorney Blessinger in the amount of $2,000 on August 18, 2016
and $3,000 on January 6, 2017. Attorney Blessinger entered an
appearance on August 24, 2016. He appeared by telephone at a
December 15, 2016 status conference, but failed to file his
client's financial disclosure statement and did not otherwise
act to meaningfully advance his client's interests in the
divorce.
11
No. 2017AP2036-D
¶26 L.W. had trouble reaching Attorney Blessinger until
February 22, 2017, when Attorney Blessinger informed her that a
scheduling conference was to occur in her case the next day. On
February 22, 2017, Attorney Blessinger and L.W. signed a
stipulation allowing Attorney Blessinger's withdrawal from the
matter. The court granted the motion to withdraw on February
23, 2017. L.W. was thereafter unable to reach Attorney
Blessinger, despite numerous attempts, and was forced to retain
successor counsel to conclude the divorce.
¶27 The OLR's summary indicates that Attorney Blessinger's
handling of L.W.'s matter involves potential violations of
SCR 20:1.3, 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4), SCR 20:1.5(a), and
SCR 20:1.16(d).
¶28 With respect to restitution, Attorney Blessinger
billed L.W. at a rate of $175 per hour, and, as of January 12,
2017, he had billed her a total of $2,248.75. There is no
evidence that Attorney Blessinger did any work or billed any
additional time after January 12, 2017. Accordingly, the OLR
recommends and Attorney Blessinger agrees that this court should
order Attorney Blessinger to pay L.W. restitution in the amount
of $2,751.25.
Matter of J.W.
¶29 In June 2015, J.W. retained Attorney Blessinger to
represent her in a post judgment family law matter and paid
Attorney Blessinger $3,000. Attorney Blessinger entered an
appearance on June 30, 2015 and attended mediation with J.W.
that did not resolve the matter. J.W. states that Attorney
12
No. 2017AP2036-D
Blessinger left his firm in August 2015 and that she chose to
retain Attorney Blessinger as her attorney. J.W. has not heard
from or been able to reach Attorney Blessinger since at least
March 2017. Attorney Blessinger withdrew from J.W.'s case on
June 21, 2017.
¶30 The OLR's summary indicates that Attorney Blessinger's
handling of J.W.'s matter involves potential violations of
SCR 20:1.3, SCR 20:1.4(a), and SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2).
Further, Attorney Blessinger has not cooperated in the
investigation, implicating SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6) and
SCR 20:8.4(h).
¶31 With respect to restitution, Attorney Blessinger
performed some legal services in this matter and the OLR states
that its investigation has not revealed any reasonably
ascertainable restitution amount so it does not seek a
restitution order in this matter.
¶32 Attorney Blessinger's petition for consensual
revocation asserts that he is seeking the consensual revocation
of his license freely, voluntarily, and knowingly. He states
that he cannot successfully defend himself against the
allegations of misconduct summarized above and more fully
described in the OLR's summary. He understands that he is
giving up his right to contest each misconduct allegation
referenced in Appendix A. Attorney Blessinger also acknowledges
that he understands that he has a right to counsel, and indeed,
he is represented by counsel. The petition acknowledges that if
the court grants the petition and revokes his license, Attorney
13
No. 2017AP2036-D
Blessinger will be subject to the requirements of SCR 22.26 and,
should he ever wish to seek the reinstatement of his license,
the reinstatement procedure set forth in SCRs 22.29-22.33.
¶33 Having reviewed Attorney Blessinger's petition, the
OLR's summary of possible misconduct, and the OLR's October 31,
2017 written recommendation in support of the petition and
restitution, we conclude that the petition for consensual
revocation should be granted and that Attorney Blessinger should
be required to pay restitution as set forth herein.
¶34 The facts here portray a repeated pattern of serious
misconduct dating from 2013 and continuing until quite recently.
The allegations of misconduct include dishonesty and multiple
instances of Attorney Blessinger failing to diligently represent
clients; failing to properly communicate with clients; failing
to abide by fee agreement and trust account rules; failing to
return upon termination of representation fees or property to
which clients were entitled; and, failing to cooperate with the
OLR's attempt to investigate his conduct. Attorney Blessinger's
misconduct is serious and egregious. He is either unwilling or
unable to conform his conduct to the standards that are required
to practice law in this state. Anything less than a revocation
of his law license would unduly depreciate the seriousness of
his misconduct, fail to protect the public and the court system
from further misconduct, and inadequately deter similar
misbehavior by other attorneys. Revocation is clearly deserved.
¶35 We accede to the OLR's request to award restitution
only in the matters identified herein. The OLR determined that
14
No. 2017AP2036-D
it could not be established that A.N. and J.W. are entitled to
restitution, and there may be other as yet unidentified clients
or third parties that may be entitled to restitution. We
emphasize that if Attorney Blessinger were ever to seek the
reinstatement of his license, he would be required to prove
affirmatively that he had made full restitution to all persons
injured or harmed by his misconduct. See SCR 22.29(4m).
¶36 Consistent with Attorney Blessinger's petition and the
OLR's recommendation, we order Attorney Blessinger to pay $2,000
to D.H.; $2,000 and $3,000 to A.M. for two different matters;
$2,751.25 to L.W., and $3,000 to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for
Client Protection.
¶37 Finally, because this matter is being resolved via a
petition for consensual revocation without the need to appoint a
referee or hold an extensive hearing, we do not impose costs on
Attorney Blessinger.
¶38 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for consensual license
revocation is granted.
¶39 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Jeffrey M.
Blessinger to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective
the date of this order.
¶40 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jeffrey M. Blessinger pay
restitution in the following amounts:
$2,000 to D.H.
$2,000 and $3,000 ($5,000 in total) to A.M.
$2,751.25 to L.W.
15
No. 2017AP2036-D
$3,000 to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client
Protection.
¶41 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not
already done so, Jeffrey M. Blessinger shall comply with the
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked.
¶42 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the administrative
suspension of Jeffrey M. Blessinger's license to practice law in
Wisconsin, due to his failure to pay state bar dues, failure to
comply with mandatory continuing legal education requirements,
and failure to comply with trust account certification
requirements, will remain in effect until each reason for the
administrative suspension has been rectified pursuant to
SCR 22.28(1).
16
No. 2017AP2036-D.awb
¶43 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J. (concurring). Although I join
the opinion of the court, I write separately because I would
order additional restitution to both clients A.N. and J.W.
Accordingly, I respectfully concur.
1
No. 2017AP2036-D.awb
1