These summaries are 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 OLR has offices at 110 E. Main St., Suite 315, Madison, WI 53703; toll-free (877) 315-6941. The full text of items summarized is at www.wicourts.gov/olr.
Public Reprimand of Michael Dale Lawrynk
The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Michael Dale Lawrynk, Appleton, entered into an agreement for the imposition of a public reprimand, pursuant to SCR 22.09(1), regarding two separate matters. A Wisconsin Supreme Court-appointed referee approved the agreement and issued the public reprimand on June 14, 2022, in accordance with SCR 22.09(3).
In the first matter, Lawrynk represented spouses who were defendants in a lawsuit involving a land contract dispute. Lawrynk failed to promptly inform the clients of email correspondence he received from opposing counsel regarding the clients having missed a payment on the land contract and failed to provide the clients with a copy of a partial summary judgment motion before or at the time it was filed, both in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a)(3). In addition, Lawrynk failed to timely file a summary judgment motion, despite the clients’ multiple email reminders of the court’s deadline, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. Lawrynk also failed to respond to emails from the clients expressing concern regarding fees, in violation of SCR 20:1.5(b)(3).
In addition, the clients sent Lawrynk an email inquiring if he was aware of a negative Google review from a former client and stating that they hoped the review was not true. Lawrynk responded by stating, “Of course its not [sic] true”, and then revealed disparaging information regarding the former client’s case and the conduct of the former client and her son, who was also a former client, without their consent, in violation of SCR 20:1.6(a).
The clients terminated Lawrynk’s representation on Sept. 29, 2021, and provided him with a termination of legal services that they filed with the court on that date. Despite the clients also sending additional emails on Sept. 30, 2021, making clear that they wished for Lawrynk to withdraw immediately, he did not file a proposed order for withdrawal until almost one month later, on Oct. 26, 2021, in violation of SCR 20:1.16(a)(3).
In the second matter, Lawrynk engaged in conduct that led to a misdemeanor conviction of second-offense operating while intoxicated (OWI), in violation of SCR 20:8.4(b). He consumed alcohol at a pub and then operated a motor vehicle, which resulted in a single-vehicle accident. Police officers arrived at the scene and, after Lawrynk cooperated in field sobriety tests, the officers arrested Lawrynk on suspicion of OWI. At the time of arrest, Lawrynk acknowledged he had too much to drink that night. An evidentiary chemical test of his blood revealed that Lawrynk had a blood-alcohol level of .218 g/100 mL. Lawrynk later pleaded no contest to a charge of misdemeanor second-offense OWI. Lawrynk also failed to report his conviction to the OLR and the clerk of the supreme court within five days, in violation of SCR 21.15(5).
In 2021, Lawrynk received a private reprimand for violations of SCR 20:1.1, SCR 1.3, and SCR 1.4(a) and (b).
Disciplinary Proceedings against Crystal L. Saltzwadel
On June 28, 2022, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued an order suspending the law license of Crystal L. Saltzwadel for 60 days, effective Aug. 9, 2022. Saltzwadel and the OLR entered into a stipulation pursuant to SCR 22.12. The court approved the stipulation, adopted the stipulated facts and conclusions of law, and imposed the stipulated discipline. Because the comprehensive stipulation avoided the need to litigate the matter and appoint a referee, no costs were imposed. Disciplinary Proc. against Saltzwadel, 2022 WI 48.
Saltzwadel’s suspension is the result of her misconduct in five matters. In each matter, she was appointed by the Office of the State Public Defender to represent a client in a criminal matter.
In four client matters, Saltzwadel failed to timely submit notices of intent to pursue postconviction relief on behalf of the client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.
In four client matters, Saltzwadel failed to respond to inquiries from clients, and others on their behalf, about the status of their appeals, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a)(4).
In one client matter, Saltzwadel failed to meaningfully engage with federal defense counsel for the client in federal defense counsel’s attempts to shorten the client’s incarceration, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. Saltzwadel also failed to timely provide the client with a copy of his probation revocation decision, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a)(3). In violation of SCR 20:8.4(c), Saltzwadel told federal defense counsel on Nov. 25, 2019, that she was still awaiting the revocation decision, and told him on Dec. 3, 2019, that the decision “just came,” when in fact she had received it on Nov. 20, 2019.
In 2020, Saltzwadel was publicly reprimanded for similar misconduct.
Public Reprimand of Robert C. Howard
The OLR and Robert C. Howard, Janesville, entered into an agreement for the imposition of a public reprimand, pursuant to SCR 22.09(1). A supreme court-appointed referee approved the agreement and imposed the public reprimand on June 28, 2022.
In December 2021, one of Howard’s clients asked if he would be willing to meet with a friend (the prospective client) to discuss potentially representing the prospective client in a family law case. Howard’s client told him that the prospective client was not able to pay a significant advanced fee and was interested in a payment plan or a barter of services, that the client and the prospective client worked as adult entertainers, and that the prospective client might be willing to barter adult entertainment services for legal representation.
Howard met with the prospective client in his office and discussed her case. She informed Howard that she could not afford to pay his $2,000 advanced fee. Howard suggested that the prospective client could make installment payments or perform delivery, errand, or cleaning services for his law office that he would credit toward the advanced fee at a rate of $15 per hour. Howard also presented another barter option, which, he informed the prospective client, would have to be kept “just between them.” Howard offered to accept sexually themed role play with the prospective client, including some physical intimate touching, for credit of $100 per half hour toward the advanced fee. No agreement was reached that day, and there was no physical contact between Howard and the prospective client. Howard confirmed the payment options in a text message sent to the prospective client the following day. The prospective client chose not to retain him.
Howard’s attempt to accept sexual contact with his client when no prior consensual relationship existed violated SCR 20:1.8(j) via SCR 20:8.4(a), and his improper barter offer also violated SCR 20:8.4(i) and SCR 40.15. A comment to SCR 20:1.8 provides that because of the unequal relationship between lawyer and client, the risk of unfair exploitation of the lawyer’s fiduciary role, and the significant danger of harm to client interests, a sexual relationship can violate a lawyer’s basic ethical obligations, regardless of whether the relationship is consensual and regardless of the absence of prejudice to the particular client.
Public Reprimand of Edward W. Harness
The OLR and Edward W. Harness entered into an agreement for the imposition of a public reprimand pursuant to SCR 22.09(1). A supreme court-appointed referee approved the agreement and imposed the public reprimand on June 17, 2022.
In 2013, a woman hired Harness to represent her in a bankruptcy with a five-year period. In 2015, she began to suspect monthly mortgage payments she had made were misapplied. She contacted Harness on numerous occasions and asked that he take steps to correct the error. Harness took no action regarding the misapplied payments for the entirety of the five-year bankruptcy period, despite acknowledging the problem in court; failed to sign an authorization allowing the client to attempt to remedy the misapplied payments on her own; and failed to take any action regarding the client’s assertion that she had been charged twice for an October 2016 payment. Harness’s conduct violated SCR 20:1.3.
Harness’s failure to raise either in court or with the creditor’s attorneys that the client was charged twice for an October 2016 payment violated SCR 20:1.1.
During the five-year bankruptcy period, Harness routinely failed to return the client’s calls, failed to answer questions about problems with the misapplied payments, and failed to communicate with the client about how the bankruptcy process could address her problems with the misapplied payments. Harness’s conduct violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(2) and SCR 20:1.4(a)(4).
In July 2020, Harness’s client retained new counsel. After the conclusion of his representation, Harness failed to respond to requests by the client’s new attorney for her file for more than one year and then provided an incomplete file. Harness’s conduct violated SCR 20:1.16(d).
» Cite this article: 95 Wis. Law. 67-68 (Sept. 2022).
