OLR, defense argue appropriate punishment in Wausau lawyer’s mishandling of clients’ money

Listen to this article

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is weighing the appropriate punishment for a Wausau lawyer accused of mishandling his clients’ money.

The high court heard oral arguments on Oct. 26 in the Office of Lawyer Regulation’s case against Jeffery J. Drach of Drach Elder Law Center.

In 2018, the OLR charged Drach with three counts of misconduct for allegedly double-billing a Marathon County couple. The agency asked the state Supreme Court to publicly reprimand Drach and order him to pay $11,452.40 in restitution to the couple’s estate.

Drach denied the allegations at the time and hired the attorney Dean Dietrich of Dietrich VanderWaal in Wausau to represent him. Dietrich appeared before the state Supreme Court in October to argue for a lesser punishment for Drach.

Drach stipulated to the misconduct, but Dietrich said he disputed the level of discipline and the costs of the proceeding.

The OLR had asked for a public reprimand as progressive discipline, but Dietrich argued Drach’s previous discipline doesn’t relate to the counts in the latest complaint. He said a public reprimand from 2002 involved conduct that occurred in 1995, and a private reprimand in 2008 related to a “disgruntled employee” making a complaint.

“Progressive discipline, at some stage in a life, becomes stale,” Dietrich said. “It no longer carries the weight, the importance, of moving on that progressive-steps process.”

Instead, Dietrich said a fair punishment would be the issuance of a private reprimand and a reduction in costs. Chief Justice Patience Roggensack asked if there had been a request for an itemized statement about the $24,209 in costs. Dietrich said “yes,” and because of that, a 50% reduction would be appropriate.

Dietrich said the OLR brought forward many more counts of misconduct originally, more than half of which were not pursued after investigation. He said the referee in the case came up with the fee amount, and Drach didn’t have an opportunity to argue it.

Attorney Bill Weigel, who appeared for the OLR, said the level of discipline was central to the appeal. He said the OLR agreed that Drach’s prior discipline was “somewhat remote in time,” but that was only one part of the agency’s decision.

“OLR did not hang its hat on progressive discipline,” Weigel said. “I argued to this court six, seven, eight factors, I think, all of which weigh in favor of public discipline. (The progressive discipline) is just another factor in another handful of aggravating factors.”

Weigel said the OLR investigated nine counts related to four matters, and the referee only recommended dismissing one count, not 50% like Dietrich said.

Roggensack said the costs were very high for a small complaint.

“Costs are seldom correlative to the severity of the misconduct,” Weigel said. “I would point out that the referee’s time is more than OLR’s time, and contrary to what Attorney Dietrich wants to argue here, the OLR charges zero for investigative costs.

Drach stipulated that his conduct had violated attorney-ethics rules, and the court’s general policy and rule is to impose costs, Weigel argued.

In his rebuttal, Dietrich said Drach shouldn’t be punished more extensively for entering into a stipulation and took issue with the OLR’s characterization of Drach’s violations.

“In today’s world of social media, to be accused of ‘double billing’ by the briefing and the arguments to this court are inappropriate and not based on fact,” Dietrich said.

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley did not participate. The court met in closed conference following the hearing.