Eau Claire lawyer responds to public reprimand, says he’s considering rebuttal action (UPDATE)

Listen to this article

The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision to publicly reprimand an Eau Claire lawyer includes a warning about the consequences of future misconduct, should he face professional discipline again.

The high court reprimanded Michael Rajek, a criminal-defense attorney at Michael M. Rajek Law Office in Eau Claire, on Tuesday for violating three attorney-ethics rules.

The Office of Lawyer Regulation filed a complaint against Rajek in 2018 accusing Rajek of failing to enter a proper fee agreement with a client, failing to act promptly and diligently in representing the client, failing to properly terminate his representation of the client and not cooperating with the OLR’s investigation of the client’s grievance.

However, Rajek told the Wisconsin Law Journal on Thursday that the OLR alleged that he allowed an appeal to be dismissed when, in reality, the client didn’t want to appeal.

Rajek said he had a hearing with the OLR in front of an “extremely biased retired attorney” who refused to allow Rajek’s paralegal and partner to testify in his defense. Rajek said both had heard the call in which the client’s wife asked to withdraw the appeal.

Rajek said the OLR also failed examined the client’s original trial file, refused to appear for a deposition and never told him that the client had died before the hearing in Rajek’s case.

“Does that sound fair to you?” Rajek asked. “The OLR refused to appear and nothing happened – no sanctions, not a goddamn thing.”

A referee in the case ultimately concluded Rajek had committed three of the alleged four misconduct violations but said there was not enough evidence to prove that Rajek had failed to properly terminate his representation of the client. The state Supreme Court accepted the referee’s findings.

In recommending punishment, the referee wrote that the client was a “difficult and troubled person who committed a very serious and dangerous offense,” and it was understandable that Rajek was frustrated.

However, the referee said Rajek had a pattern of not completing tasks on time, warranting a public reprimand.

The high court accepted the referee’s recommendation, but the justices noted that it was Rajek’s fourth time committing professional misconduct.

“We warn him that our policy of progressive discipline suggests that if he faces professional discipline again, the court is unlikely to consider a reprimand sufficient,” the opinion said.

Rajek has been privately reprimanded and publicly reprimanded before. The state Supreme Court also found him guilty of five counts of misconduct in 2015, but the court didn’t impose discipline because of the “technical nature of the violations.”

Rajek must also pay the full costs of the proceeding, which totaled $8,151.08. Rajek had objected to the costs and said the OLR counsel’s failure to attend a deposition cost his office $2,325.

The OLR said it never received his objection but agreed Rajek shouldn’t be held responsible for the costs of the deposition in question. Those costs were not included in the itemization.

The state Supreme Court opinion said Rajek then belatedly objected to the OLR counsel’s fees and expenses. Rajek questioned the cost of a witness, disputed other charges and asked for reimbursement for a retainer he said he had to refuse to attend the disputed deposition.

The state Supreme Court rejected all three of Rajek’s claims and found the OLR’s costs to be reasonable.

Rajek said he’s very unhappy with the decision and is considering pursuing rebuttal action. He said he already met with a prominent civil rights attorney from the Twin Cities about the case. When asked why he thought the OLR was going after him, he thought it was due to the organization’s opinion of him.

“Because they think I’m an asshole, that’s why,” Rajek said. “I don’t back down from things, and I’m not about to in this matter. They’re not very nice people, and they’re not very ethical people.” Follow @WLJReporter