Wisconsin Lawyer
Vol. 82, No. 9, September 2009

• Disciplinary proceeding against Warren Lee Brandt
• Public reprimand of Holly Bunch
• Public reprimand of Andrew Salentine

Disciplinary proceeding against Warren Lee Brandt

In a June 9, 2009, decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court publicly reprimanded Warren Lee Brandt, Prescott, for being convicted multiple times of operating while intoxicated (OWI) and for failing to adequately supervise an employee. The court also ordered Brandt to refrain from consuming alcohol and other nonprescription drugs; to undergo an alcohol/drug assessment within 120 days; to hire an accountant to review his trust and business accounts on a quarterly basis and report the results to the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) for three years; and to attend an OLR program on trust account management. Further, the court ordered Brandt to pay the $13,690.90 cost of the disciplinary proceeding. Disciplinary Proceedings against Brandt, 2009 WI 43.

Brandt’s multiple OWI convictions provided evidence of a violation of SCR 20:8.4(b), which states, “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.” With respect to the second misconduct count, by failing to periodically review his trust-account bank statements, canceled checks, and other records in connection with his nonlawyer employee’s management of that account, thereby enabling that employee to convert or continue to convert funds belonging to clients and third parties, Brandt failed to make a reasonable effort to ensure that his assistant’s conduct was compatible with the professional obligations of a lawyer, as required by SCR 20:5.3(b). The referee also found that Brandt should not have allowed the employee to sign checks. Although Brandt was the victim of a dishonest employee and none of his clients were harmed, the referee concluded that “… he’s a licensed attorney, and, therefore, much like a captain of a ship, he is responsible for what goes on on his watch.” Brandt had been privately reprimanded in 1994 and 2004 and was publicly reprimanded by the court in 2003.

In imposing a public reprimand with conditions in this case, the court concluded that Brandt’s misconduct was mitigated by his loss of more than $100,000 due to the employee’s embezzlement; his acceptance of responsibility for failing to supervise that employee; the fact that he incurred substantial fines, lost his driver’s license, and served jail time in connection with the OWI convictions; and the fact that he took steps to address his drinking problem, so as to “turn his life around and atone for his bad behavior.”

Justice Bradley dissented, indicating that because the OLR had asked the court to impose a 60-day suspension and because of Brandt’s misconduct and the concept of progressive discipline, she felt the appropriate sanction would be a suspension in the range of 60 days to six months, conditioned on Brandt’s cooperation with any conditions or treatment the OLR deemed necessary.

Top of Page

Public reprimand of Holly Bunch

The OLR and Holly Bunch, Milwaukee, entered into an agreement for imposition of a public reprimand, pursuant to SCR 22.09(1). A referee appointed by the supreme court thereafter approved the agreement and issued the public reprimand on June 30, 2009, in accordance with SCR 22.09(3).

Bunch represented the state of Wisconsin in prosecuting a defendant charged with sexual assault of a child. During her closing and rebuttal arguments at trial, Bunch made several statements designed to attack the defendant’s credibility, a key issue in the case. Bunch stated that the defendant never denied committing the alleged offense until he took the witness stand, when in fact Bunch had possession of two police reports showing that the defendant had denied committing the alleged crime. Bunch thereby violated SCR 20:3.3(a)(1), which prohibits an attorney from making a false statement of fact to a tribunal, and SCR 20:8.4(c), which prohibits an attorney from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

Bunch had no prior discipline.

Top of Page

Public reprimand of Andrew Salentine

The OLR and Andrew Salentine, San Francisco, Calif., agreed to the imposition of a public reprimand pursuant to SCR 22.09(1). A referee appointed by the supreme court thereafter approved the agreement and issued the public reprimand on June 30, 2009, in accordance with SCR 22.09(3).

Salentine graduated from law school in Wisconsin and was admitted to practice in this state in 1992. Salentine then moved to California and has lived there ever since. Although living and working in California, Salentine maintained his status as a member of the Wisconsin bar.

Salentine’s mother and sisters owned a limited liability corporation (LLC) in Wisconsin. Salentine acted as the LLC’s business and legal advisor, although he was not paid for his services. Salentine loaned the LLC money and also signed a mortgage note with his parents, secured by a mortgage on his parents’ Wisconsin home. At the time the mortgage note was signed, a quit claim deed from his parents (as grantors) to his parents and him (as grantees) was executed.

Subsequently, a dispute arose between the LLC and some of its former employees, and the LLC commenced a lawsuit against them. In support of the LLC’s complaint, Salentine signed an affidavit that stated, in part, that he was the LLC’s “Business and Legal Advisor.” Some of the defendants in the lawsuit filed a third-party complaint against Salentine, his mother, and his sisters. Salentine, through his attorney, filed a motion to dismiss the third-party complaint against him for lack of personal jurisdiction. In support of the motion, Salentine signed an affidavit that stated, among other things, that he had no “connection which would affiliate me with [the LLC]…” and that “I do not personally own or control any property within the State of Wisconsin….” At a hearing on Salentine’s motion to dismiss, Salentine testified falsely about his connections to Wisconsin and the LLC, and he later provided inaccurate information during the OLR’s investigation.

The judge denied Salentine’s motion to dismiss and stated that the motion was frivolous. The judge found that Salentine had substantial contacts with the state, including numerous connections to the LLC as an advisor and negotiator, ownership of real property, a mortgage obligation, and ownership of a note on which he was owed interest.

By stating in an affidavit filed with the court that he had no “connection which would affiliate me with [the LLC]” and that he did not “personally own or control any property” in Wisconsin, when he had stated in a previous affidavit filed with the court that “I am the Business & Legal Advisor to [LLC]…;” when he was intimately involved in advising the LLC on business and legal matters; when the LLC owed him money; and when his name was on a quit claim deed that indicated that he was a coowner of his parents’ home in Wisconsin, Salentine made false statements to a court, in violation of former SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) (effective before July 1, 2007).

By testifying at a hearing that he did not pay any bills on his parents’ home; that he cosigned on his parents’ mortgage “but I’m not paying on it”; and that he had not known his name was on the deed to his parents’ home when he signed the affidavit in support of his motion, when he claimed itemized deductions on his federal tax returns for three previous years for interest he paid on his parent’s mortgage, Salentine made false statements to a court, in violation of SCR 20:3.3(a)(1).

By stating to an OLR intake investigator that his parents “make all decisions and payments regarding the home” and that he had not known he was on the deed to his parents’ home when he signed the affidavit in support of his motion to dismiss, and by reiterating to the OLR during the subsequent OLR investigation that he had not known he was on the deed to his parents’ home, although, for three years, he claimed a substantial amount in tax deductions for interest paid on the mortgage for the property listed on the deed, Salentine made misrepresentations to the OLR, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c) and (h), which incorporates SCR 22.03(6). 

Top of Page

Wisconsin Lawyer