Public Discipline

These summaries are based on information provided by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), an agency of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The OLR assists the court in supervising the practice of law and protecting the public from misconduct by lawyers. The full text of matters summarized can be located at https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/search.

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ronald E. Langford

Ronald E. Langford consented to the imposition of a public reprimand, as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by Iowa. A Wisconsin Supreme Court-appointed referee issued the public reprimand on March 21, 2026, pursuant to SCR 22.09(3). Reprimand with Consent 2026-OLR-01.

Langford’s Iowa disciplinary proceeding commenced after an audit of his Iowa trust account revealed several shortcomings. Langford failed to safeguard client funds, in violation of Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct 32:1.15 (equivalent to SCR 20:1.15(b)(1)). Langford also violated several of Iowa’s court rules regulating lawyers’ responsibilities regarding their trust account. Namely, Langford failed to reconcile his trust account monthly, failed to promptly return funds, and improperly handled fees and expenses.

Langford has two prior public reprimands, one in 2015 and one in 2023. The 2023 public reprimand was for substantially similar trust account violations.

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Guy K. Fish

On March 20, 2026, the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted Guy K. Fish’s petition for consensual revocation of his Wisconsin law license, effective immediately. Disciplinary Proc. Against Fish, 2026 WI 8.

On June 25, 2025, Fish’s license to practice law in Wisconsin was temporarily suspended following the Office of Lawyer Regulation’s (OLR) filing of a motion pursuant to SCR 22.21, which alleged that Fish’s continued practice of law “pose[d] a threat to the interests of the public and the administration of justice” due to Fish’s conversion of client funds amounting to nearly $300,000 in two separate client matters.

Subsequent investigation revealed that, in total, Fish had converted more than $671,545 in three separate client matters. Fish was found to have converted large sums of client money and to have made numerous misrepresentations to clients, tribunals, and the OLR concerning the converted funds. Fish also failed to comply with a court order relating to certain converted funds. Fish’s conduct violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) and (e)(1), SCR 20:8.4(c), SCR 20:3.3(a)(1), and SCR 20:3.4(c).

Fish reimbursed all the clients for the sums he converted. No costs were assessed because the matter came to the court before a referee was appointed. Fish has no prior discipline.