Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kristin D. Lein

2024 WI 34

• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Decided: August 9, 2024
• Docket: 2024AP000244-D
• Status: Published

Opinion

2024 WI 34

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2024AP244-D

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kristin D. Lein, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Kristin D. Lein, Respondent.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST LEIN

OPINION FILED: August 9, 2024 SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE:

JUSTICES: Per curiam.

ATTORNEYS: 2024 WI 34 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2024AP244-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kristin D. Lein, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED Complainant, AUG 9, 2024 v. Samuel A. Christensen Clerk of Supreme Court Kristin D. Lein,

Respondent.

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license

revoked.

¶1 PER CURIAM. The court has before it a report and

recommendation filed on June 3, 2024, by Referee James D.

Friedman. The report recommends that this court revoke the

license of Attorney Kristin Debra Lein to practice law in

Wisconsin for conduct related to her recent federal criminal

conviction. The parties have stipulated that revocation is

appropriate. We agree that revocation is appropriate and direct

Attorney Lein to pay the costs of this proceeding, which total $659.17 as of July 25, 2024. In addition, consistent with the No. 2024AP244-D

parties' stipulation and the referee's report, we direct

Attorney Lein to satisfy a restitution obligation imposed in the

federal judgment of conviction.

¶2 Attorney Lein was licensed to practice law in

Wisconsin on December 17, 1998. This court summarily suspended

her Wisconsin law license on December 12, 2023, due to her

federal criminal conviction, described more fully below. Her

license remains suspended.

¶3 On May 23, 2023, the United States Attorney for the

Western District of Wisconsin filed an Information charging

Attorney Lein with three criminal counts related to her

misappropriation of funds from an estate. The Information

alleged that Attorney Lein had drafted estate planning documents

for an individual, J.S., and was the sole trustee of J.S.'s

estate upon J.S.'s death. The Information further alleged that

Attorney Lein received $1,643,818 in funds belonging to the

estate and used the vast majority of those funds for her own

purposes. The Information further alleged that Attorney Lein knowingly failed to report funds she transferred from J.S.'s

estate to her personal bank account on her federal income taxes.

The Information charged Attorney Lein with wire fraud, engaging

in a monetary transaction in property derived from a specified

unlawful activity, and tax fraud.

¶4 On the same day the Information was filed, Attorney

Lein and the United States filed a plea agreement in which

Attorney Lein pled guilty to all three counts and agreed that the factual basis of the Information was true. 2 No. 2024AP244-D

¶5 On September 7, 2023, the federal district court

accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Attorney Lein to 45

months in prison for two counts and 36 months on the third. The

court ordered Attorney Lein to pay $1,369,491 to J.S.'s wife,

B.T., or, in the event of B.T.'s death, to J.S.'s daughters,

D.G. and M.R., in equal amounts. The court also ordered

Attorney Lein to pay $239,641.56 in restitution to the Internal

Revenue Service (IRS).

¶6 Attorney Lein's criminal conviction formed the basis

for this court's December 12, 2023 order summarily suspending

her license to practice law, as well as for the Office of Lawyer

Regulation's (OLR) ensuing disciplinary complaint filed on

February 12, 2024, alleging one count of violating SCR 20:8.4(b)1

and one count of violating SCR 20:8.4(c).2 The OLR sought

revocation of Attorney Lein's law license and a restitution

award consistent with that ordered by the federal district court

related to her misconduct toward J.S.'s estate; i.e., $1,369,491

to J.S.'s wife, B.T., or, in the event of B.T.'s death, to J.S.'s daughters, D.G. and M.R., in equal amounts.3

SCR 1 20:8.4(b) provides that "[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: . . . (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects."

SCR 2 20:8.4(c) provides that "[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: . . . (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."

In the factual allegation section of its complaint, the 3

OLR stated that the federal district court ordered Attorney Lein to pay $1,609,132.56 in restitution related to her misconduct toward J.S.'s estate. This appears to have been a typographical 3 No. 2024AP244-D

¶7 On March 13, 2024, this court appointed James D.

Friedman as the referee in this matter.

¶8 On March 19, 2024, Attorney Lein filed an answer to

the OLR's complaint, admitting all essential allegations and

clarifying her understanding of the amount of restitution sought

by the OLR.

¶9 On May 30, 2024, the OLR and Attorney Lein filed a

stipulation. In the stipulation, Attorney Lein stipulated to

the two counts of misconduct alleged in the complaint and to the

revocation of her Wisconsin law license. Attorney Lein also

stipulated to this court requiring her to satisfy the

restitution obligation set forth in the federal judgment of

conviction with respect to her misconduct towards J.S.'s estate.

Attorney Lein also agreed that the referee could use the

allegations of the disciplinary complaint as an adequate factual

basis for a determination of misconduct as to both counts of the

complaint.

¶10 The referee filed a report on June 3, 2024. On the basis of the stipulation, the referee found as facts the

error; $1,609,132.56 is the total amount of restitution ordered by the federal court, encompassing both the restitution owed by Attorney Lein related to her misconduct toward J.S.'s estate ($1,369,491) and the restitution she owed to the IRS resulting from her failure to report misappropriated funds on her federal income taxes ($239,641.56). In the request for relief section of the complaint, the OLR accurately cited and requested the $1,369,491 in restitution ordered by the federal court related to Attorney Lein's misconduct toward J.S.'s estate.

4 No. 2024AP244-D

allegations of the complaint.4 The referee concluded that

Attorney Lein had violated SCR 20:8.4(b) and (c), as alleged.

The referee recommended the license revocation and the

restitution obligation agreed upon by the parties. Finally, the

referee recommended that the court order Attorney Lein to pay

the costs of the disciplinary proceeding.

¶11 The matter is now before this court to review the

referee's report and recommendation. No appeal has been filed.

¶12 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless

clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.

See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI

14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747. The court may impose

whatever sanction it sees fit, regardless of the referee's

recommendation. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against

Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.

¶13 Given the parties' stipulation to the facts described

above and the absence of any argument that the referee's factual

findings are clearly erroneous, we adopt them. We also agree with the referee's conclusions of law that Attorney Lein

violated the two supreme court rules set forth above. Attorney

Lein's million-dollar-plus embezzlement from J.S.'s estate and

related tax improprieties amount to an obvious SCR 20:8.4(b)

violation; i.e., her conduct "is so revealing of character

The referee noted a typographical error in the OLR's 4

complaint related to the amount of funds Attorney Lein misappropriated from J.S.'s estate, as determined by the federal district court. See n.3.

5 No. 2024AP244-D

defects, and so undermines public confidence in the legal

profession, that it necessarily reflects adversely on an

attorney's fitness as a lawyer." In re Disciplinary Proceedings

against Johns, 2014 WI 32, ¶38, 353 Wis. 2d 746, 847 N.W.2d 179.

So, too, is it dishonest conduct within the scope of SCR

20:8.4(c). In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Schaller,

2006 WI 40, 290 Wis.2d 65, 713 N.W.2d 105 (holding that attorney

violated SCR 20:8.4(c) by improperly converting payments made by

various clients and failing to report those funds as income on

his income tax returns).

¶14 With respect to discipline, we agree with the

referee's observation that revocation is appropriate. The

seriousness, scope, and sheer audacity of the misconduct at

issue evince an attorney who lost her way and was unable or

unwilling to adhere to her professional duties. Revocation is

the only sanction proportionate to Attorney Lein's wrongdoing;

anything else would unduly minimize its gravity, as the size of

her misappropriations dwarfs those that have earned revocation in the past. See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against

Friesler, 2013 WI 104, 351 Wis. 2d 733, 840 N.W.2d 692 (granting

consensual revocation petition involving allegations that

attorney misappropriated a total of approximately $180,000 from

two estates); Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against

Pigatti, 207 Wis. 2d 41, 558 N.W.2d 626 (1997)(granting

attorney misappropriated more than $80,000 belonging to an estate in which he was acting as attorney, disbursed $80,000 6 No. 2024AP244-D

from a testamentary trust contrary to the terms of the will

creating the trust, and failed to keep the personal

representative of the estate informed of actions taken with

probate and trust funds); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against

Wright, 180 Wis. 2d 492, 509 N.W.2d 290 (1994) (revoking license

of attorney who converted about $11,000 from an estate).

¶15 In addition, consistent with the parties' stipulation

and the referee's recommendation, we order Attorney Lein to

satisfy the restitution obligation set forth in the federal

judgment of conviction with respect to her misconduct toward

J.S.'s estate ($1,369,491 to J.S.'s wife or, in the event of her

death, to J.S.'s daughters, D.G. and M.R., in equal amounts).

¶16 Finally, we turn to the issue of costs. They total

$659.17 as of July 25, 2024. Attorney Lein does not dispute

them, and we see no reason on this record to shift them away

from her. We impose them in full. See SCR 22.24(1m).

¶17 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Kristin Debra Lein

to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this order.

¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Kristin Debra Lein shall

J.S.'s estate ($1,369,491 to J.S.'s wife, B.T., or, in the event

of her death, to J.S.'s daughters, D.G. and M.R., in equal

amounts).

¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within 60 days of the date of this order, Kristin Debra Lein shall pay to the Office of 7 No. 2024AP244-D

Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are

$659.17 as of July 25, 2024.

¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent she has not

already done so, Kristin Debra Lein shall comply with the

provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose

license to practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked.

8 No. 2024AP244-D.akz

¶21 ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, C.J. (concurring). I

concur in the court's order revoking Attorney Lein’s license to

practice law in Wisconsin. I write separately to point out that

in Wisconsin the "revocation" of an attorney's law license is

not truly revocation because the attorney may petition for

reinstatement after a period of five years. See SCR

22.29(2). I believe that when it comes to lawyer discipline,

courts should say what they mean and mean what they say. We

should not be creating false perceptions to both the public and

to the lawyer seeking to practice law again. See In re

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Moodie, 2020 WI 39, 391 Wis. 2d

196, 942 N.W.2d 302 (Ziegler, J., dissenting). And, as I stated

in my dissent to this court's order denying Rule Petition 19-10,

In the Matter of Amending Supreme Court Rules Pertaining to

Permanent Revocation of a License to Practice Law in Attorney

Disciplinary Proceedings, I believe there may be rare and

unusual cases that would warrant the permanent revocation of an

attorney's license to practice law. See S. Ct. Order 19-10 (issued Dec. 18, 2019) (Ziegler, J., dissenting).

¶22 For the foregoing reason, I concur.

¶23 I am authorized to state that Justices REBECCA GRASSL

BRADLEY, BRIAN HAGEDORN, and JILL J. KAROFSKY join this

concurrence.

1 No. 2024AP244-D.akz