In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against David A. Lemanski, Attorney at Law:
David A. Lemanski, Respondent. Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant,
disciplinary proceeding. Attorney publicly reprimanded.
We review the report of Referee John Nicholas Schweitzer,
which concluded that Attorney David A. Lemanski had committed
three counts of professional misconduct and recommended (1)
that the court publicly reprimand Attorney Lemanski, (2) that
Attorney Lemanski's continued practice of law be
conditioned on his payment of a sanction imposed by the Grant
County circuit court, and (3) that Attorney Lemanski be
ordered to pay the costs of this proceeding, which were $1,
192.03 as of September 19, 2016. Because no appeal of this
report has been filed, our review of this matter proceeds
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.17(2). Ultimately, we
conclude that a public reprimand and the imposition of a
condition on Attorney Lemanski's practice of law in this
state are appropriate forms of discipline in this matter. We
further determine that Attorney Lemanski should be required
to pay the full costs of this proceeding.
Attorney Lemanski was admitted to the practice of law in this
state in October 2002. He most recently practiced law in
Attorney Lemanski has been the subject of professional
discipline in this state on one prior occasion. In March 2015
this court suspended his license to practice law in Wisconsin
for a period of 60 days, as discipline reciprocal to that
imposed by the Supreme Court of Iowa. In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Lemanski, 2015 WI 10, 360 Wis.2d 643, 858
N.W.2d 696. It does not appear that Attorney Lemanski's
Wisconsin license was reinstated following that disciplinary
suspension. There is no evidence that Attorney Lemanski
complied with the applicable reinstatement requirements of
SCR 22.28(2), including the filing of an affidavit with the
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) showing full compliance
with all of the terms and conditions of this court's
suspension order. In addition, Attorney Lemanski's
license is also subject to two other suspensions. First, in
October 2015 Attorney Lemanski's license was
administratively suspended due to his failure to pay bar dues
and assessments and his failure to complete the trust account
certification. Second, on November 4, 2015, this court
temporarily suspended Attorney Lemanski's license due to
his willful failure to cooperate with a grievance
investigation conducted by the OLR. Office of Lawyer
Regulation v. Lemanski, No. 2015XX1279-D, unpublished order
(S.Ct. November 4, 2015).
The OLR commenced this action with the filing of a complaint
alleging three counts of professional misconduct. Attorney
Lemanski filed an answer admitting all of the allegations of
the complaint. Consequently, the referee granted the
OLR's motion for judgment on the pleadings. While
Attorney Lemanski admitted the allegations of misconduct, he
did not agree to the level of discipline sought by the OLR.
As it had requested in its complaint, the OLR urged the
referee to recommend the imposition of a public reprimand.
Attorney Lemanski, on the other hand, asked that the
reprimand be private in nature. As noted above, the referee
agreed with the OLR that a public reprimand was the
appropriate level of discipline.
Given Attorney Lemanski's admissions in his answer, the
referee used the allegations of the OLR's complaint as
his findings of fact. They are summarized below.
Counts 1 and 2 of the OLR's complaint relate to Attorney
Lemanski's representation of S.K. in a legal separation
proceeding. S.K. retained Attorney Lemanski in September
2014. In late November 2014 he informed Attorney Lemanski
that he was terminating his services.
Attorney Lemanski did not notify opposing counsel that his
representation of S.K. had been terminated. Accordingly, in
early January 2015 opposing counsel sent a notice of
deposition of S.K. to Attorney Lemanski, assuming that
Attorney Lemanski was still representing S.K. Because
Attorney Lemanski failed to forward the notice to him, S.K.
did not appear at the deposition.
On January 29, 2015, opposing counsel filed a motion to
compel S.K.'s deposition and for other relief. On
February 11, 2015, Attorney Lemanski formally withdrew as
On February 12, 2015, the judge in S.K.'s proceeding
ordered Attorney Lemanski to pay $1, 471.50 to the opposing
party as reimbursement for its fees and costs related to the
missed deposition and other missed discovery deadlines.
Attorney Lemanski failed to pay the fees and costs as
In June 2015 the OLR sent a written notice to Attorney
Lemanski advising him that it was investigating his conduct
in the representation of S.K. and directing him to provide a
response by July 27, 2015. On July 24, 2015, Attorney
Lemanski asked for and was orally granted an extension of
time until August 17, 2015, to submit his written response to
the grievance. He was told that he should call the OLR if he
needed more time to respond. Attorney Lemanski, however, did
not submit a response nor did he ask for a further extension
Consequently, on August 24, 2015, the OLR sent Attorney
Lemanski a second letter requesting a response by September
4, 2015. Attorney Lemanski received the OLR's letter, but
failed to respond.
In September 2015 the OLR moved the court for the temporary
suspension of Attorney Lemanski's license under SCR
22.03(4) due to his willful failure to cooperate with the
OLR's investigation. This court issued an order directing
Attorney Lemanski to show cause why his license should not be
temporarily suspended, but he did not respond to the order.
Ultimately, on November 4, 2015, this court ...