Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Krogman (In re Krogman)

• Decision Date: 23 December 2015
• Docket Number: No. 2015AP1422–D.,2015AP1422–D.
• Parties: In the Matter of DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS Against Zachary T. KROGMAN, Attorney at Law. Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Zachary T. Krogman, Respondent In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings against Zachary T. Krogman, Attorney at Law. Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Zachary T. Krogman, Respondent.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

365 Wis.2d 628

872 N.W.2d 657

In the Matter of DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS Against Zachary T. KROGMAN, Attorney at Law.

Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant,

v.Zachary T. Krogman, Respondent

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings against Zachary T. Krogman, Attorney at Law.

Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant,

v.Zachary T. Krogman, Respondent.

No. 2015AP1422–D.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Decided Dec. 23, 2015.

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license suspended.

PER CURIAM.

¶ 1 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 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 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 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

[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 SCR 20:8.4(h).⁷

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 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, 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 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...