Office of Lawyer Regulation v. James Eric Goldmann

2018 WI 89
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2018AP474-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against James Eric Goldmann, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
James Eric Goldmann,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GOLDMANN
OPINION FILED: July 13, 2018
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2018 WI 89
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2018AP474-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against James Eric Goldmann, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant,
JUL 13, 2018
v.
Sheila T. Reiff
Clerk of Supreme Court
James Eric Goldmann,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
revoked.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a stipulation filed by the
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney James Eric
Goldmann pursuant to SCR 22.12.1 In the stipulation, Attorney
1
SCR 22.12 provides:
(1) The director may file with the complaint a
stipulation of the director and the respondent to the
facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and
discipline to be imposed. The supreme court may
consider the complaint and stipulation without the
appointment of a referee, in which case the supreme
(continued)
No. 2018AP474-D
Goldmann does not contest that he committed all 38 acts of
professional misconduct alleged by the OLR. He also does not
contest that the revocation of his Wisconsin law license is
appropriate discipline for his misconduct, along with a
requirement that he comply with a monetary judgment obtained
against him by a client regarding unearned advance fees.
¶2 After fully reviewing the matter, we approve the
stipulation and revoke Attorney Goldmann's Wisconsin law
license. His transgressions leave us no choice: Attorney
court may approve the stipulation, reject the
stipulation, or direct the parties to consider
specific modifications to the stipulation.
(2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation,
it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of
law and impose the stipulated discipline.
(3) If the supreme court rejects a stipulation, a
referee shall be appointed and the matter shall
proceed as a complaint filed without a stipulation.
(3m) If the supreme court directs the parties to
consider specific modifications to the stipulation,
the parties may, within 20 days of the date of the
order, file a revised stipulation, in which case the
supreme court may approve the revised stipulation,
adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law, and
impose the stipulated discipline. If the parties do
not file a revised stipulation within 20 days of the
date of the order, a referee shall be appointed and
the matter shall proceed as a complaint filed without
a stipulation.
(4) A stipulation rejected by the supreme court
has no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to
the respondent's defense of the proceeding or the
prosecution of the complaint.
2
No. 2018AP474-D
Goldmann has shown himself to be unwilling or unable to conform
his conduct to the standards that are required to practice law
in this state. We also adopt the stipulated requirement that he
comply with his client's monetary judgment against him.
Finally, because this matter is being resolved without the
appointment of a referee, and because the OLR has not sought
costs, we impose no costs.
¶3 Attorney Goldmann was admitted to the State Bar of
Wisconsin in 2013. His most recent address on file with the
State Bar of Wisconsin is in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. According
to the parties' stipulation, Attorney Goldmann currently lives
in Canada, but made use of a general delivery address in
Milwaukee and an email account to receive the case documents in
this matter.
¶4 Attorney Goldmann's license to practice law in
Wisconsin is currently suspended. On June 15, 2017, this court
temporarily suspended his law license for his willful failure to
cooperate with the OLR investigation of this matter. In October
2017, his law license was administratively suspended for failure
to pay bar dues and assessments and failure to file the required
trust account certification. The parties report that Attorney
Goldmann abandoned the practice of law in mid-2017.
¶5 Attorney Goldmann's work in ten client matters gave
rise to all but one of the misconduct claims in this case. It
is not necessary to describe the particular factual allegations
of Attorney Goldmann's misconduct in each client matter; a
synopsis will suffice. Beginning in 2015 and continuing into
3
No. 2018AP474-D
2017, Attorney Goldmann effectively abandoned the ten clients
identified in the OLR's complaint: M.G. (Counts 1-4); S.M.C.
(Counts 5-7); A.L.R. (Counts 8-11); E.G.H. (Counts 12-16); C.H.
(Counts 17-21); R.C.M. (Counts 22-23); R.D.S. (Counts 24-26);
A.P. (Counts 27-30); S.D.Y. (Counts 31-33); and M.D.C. (Counts
34-37). Attorney Goldmann undertook to represent these clients
in a variety of matters——criminal cases, civil cases, parental
rights cases, etc.——but he failed to take necessary actions on
their behalf. Among other things, he failed to attend court
hearings; failed to file crucial documents; failed to comply
with court orders; failed to forward his clients' case files to
the clients or successor counsel; failed to refund unearned
advance fees; failed to be forthright about his actions; and
failed to respond to his clients' requests for information or
otherwise keep them updated on their cases. Once the aggrieved
clients contacted the OLR, he failed to cooperate with the OLR's
investigation.
¶6 The remaining misconduct claim in this case (Count 38)
concerns certain false and misleading information that Attorney
Goldmann gave his employing law firm about his level of
professional experience and success. The firm included this
information on its website, with Attorney Goldmann's knowledge
and understanding.
¶7 Based on the foregoing, the OLR complaint alleged, and
the parties later stipulated, as follows:
4
No. 2018AP474-D
 Contrary to SCR 20:1.3,2 Attorney Goldmann failed to
act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client in the following client
matters: M.G. (Count 1), A.L.R. (Count 8), E.G.H.
(Count 12), C.H. (Count 17), R.C.M. (Count 22), A.P.
(Count 27), S.D.Y. (Count 31), and M.D.C. (Count
34).
 Contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a)(3)3 and (4),4 Attorney
Goldmann failed to keep the following clients
reasonably informed about the status of their
matters and failed to promptly comply with the
clients' reasonable requests for information:
A.L.R. (Count 9), E.G.H. (Count 13), C.H. (Count
18), A.P. (Count 28), S.D.Y. (Count 32), and M.D.C.
(Count 35).
 Contrary to SCR 20:1.5(b)(1)5 and (2),6 Attorney
Goldmann failed to communicate to R.D.S. in writing
2
SCR 20:1.3 provides: "A lawyer shall act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing a client."
3
SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides: "A lawyer shall keep the
client reasonably informed about the status of the matter."
4
SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) provides: "A lawyer shall promptly
comply with reasonable requests by the client for information."
5
SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) provides:
The scope of the representation and the basis or
rate of the fee and expenses for which the client will
be responsible shall be communicated to the client in
writing, before or within a reasonable time after
commencing the representation, except when the lawyer
(continued)
5
No. 2018AP474-D
the scope of his representation, the basis or rate
of his fees and expenses, or the purpose and effect
of the advance fee paid to him (Count 24).
 Contrary to SCR 20:1.5(c),7 Attorney Goldmann failed
to enter into a written contingent fee agreement
with E.G.H. (Count 14).
will charge a regularly represented client on the same
basis or rate as in the past. If it is reasonably
foreseeable that the total cost of representation to
the client, including attorney's fees, will be $1000
or less, the communication may be oral or in writing.
Any changes in the basis or rate of the fee or
expenses shall also be communicated in writing to the
client.
6
SCR 20:1.5(b)(2) provides: "If the total cost of
representation to the client, including attorney's fees, is more
than $1000, the purpose and effect of any retainer or advance
fee that is paid to the lawyer shall be communicated in
writing."
7
SCR 20:1.5(c) provides:
A fee may be contingent on the outcome of the
matter for which the service is rendered, except in a
matter in which a contingent fee is prohibited by par.
(d) or other law. A contingent fee agreement shall be
in a writing signed by the client, and shall state the
method by which the fee is to be determined, including
the percentage or percentages that shall accrue to the
lawyer in the event of settlement, trial or appeal;
litigation and other expenses to be deducted from the
recovery; and whether such expenses are to be deducted
before or after the contingent fee is calculated. The
agreement must clearly notify the client of any
expenses for which the client will be liable whether
or not the client is the prevailing party. Upon
conclusion of a contingent fee matter, the lawyer
shall provide the client with a written statement
stating the outcome of the matter and if there is a
(continued)
6
No. 2018AP474-D
 Contrary to SCR 20:1.16(d),8 Attorney Goldmann
failed to timely return client files, or refund
unearned fees, or otherwise take steps to protect
client interests during his representation of M.G.
(Count 2), A.L.R. (Count 10), C.H. (Count 19), A.P.
(Count 29), and M.D.C. (Count 36).
 Contrary to SCR 20:3.3(a)(1),9 Attorney Goldmann
knowingly made a false statement of fact to a
tribunal during his representation of S.M.C. (Count
5).
recovery, showing the remittance to the client and the
method of its determination.
8
SCR 20:1.16(d) provides:
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer
shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable
to protect a client's interests, such as giving
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and
property to which the client is entitled and refunding
any advance payment of fee or expense that has not
been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers
relating to the client to the extent permitted by
other law.
9
SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) provides: "A lawyer shall not knowingly
make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to
correct a false statement of material fact or law previously
made to the tribunal by the lawyer."
7
No. 2018AP474-D
 Contrary to SCR 20:3.4(c),10 Attorney Goldmann
knowingly and without justification disobeyed a
court's order during his work on the E.G.H. matter
(Count 15).
 Contrary to SCR 20:3.4(d),11 Attorney Goldmann failed
to make a reasonably diligent effort to comply with
a legally proper discovery request during his work
on the C.H. matter (Count 20).
 Contrary to SCR 20:7.1(a) and (b),12 Attorney
Goldmann made false or misleading communications
10
SCR 20:3.4(c) provides: "A lawyer shall not knowingly
disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except for
an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation
exists."
11
SCR 20:3.4(d) provides: "A lawyer shall not in pretrial
procedure, make a frivolous discovery request or fail to make
reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper
discovery request by an opposing party."
12
SCR 20:7.1 provides:
A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading
communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's
services. A communication is false or misleading if
it:
(a) contains a material misrepresentation of fact
or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the
statement considered as a whole not materially
misleading;
(b) is likely to create an unjustified
expectation about results the lawyer can achieve, or
states or implies that the lawyer can achieve results
by means that violate the Rules of Professional
Conduct or other law.
8
No. 2018AP474-D
about himself and his legal services to R.D.S.
(Count 25).
 Contrary to SCR 20:7.1(a), (b), and (c),13 Attorney
Goldmann made false or misleading communications
about himself and his legal services to his
employing law firm, which then included the
information that Attorney Goldmann provided on its
website (Count 38).
 Contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c),14 Attorney Goldmann
engaged in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation during his work on the M.G. matter
(Count 3) and the S.M.C. matter (Count 6).
 Contrary to SCR 22.03(2)15 and SCR 22.03(6),16
enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h),17 Attorney Goldmann
13
SCR 20:7.1(c) provides: "A lawyer shall not make a false
or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's
services. A communication is false or misleading if it compares
the lawyer's services with other lawyers' services, unless the
comparison can be factually substantiated."
14
SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: "It is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit or misrepresentation."
15
SCR 22.03(2) provides:
Upon commencing an investigation, the director
shall notify the respondent of the matter being
investigated unless in the opinion of the director the
investigation of the matter requires otherwise. The
respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts
and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct
within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail
request for a written response. The director may
allow additional time to respond. Following receipt
(continued)
9
No. 2018AP474-D
willfully failed to provide relevant information to
the OLR in the following matters: M.G. (Count 4),
S.M.C. (Count 7), A.L.R. (Count 11), E.G.H. (Count
16), C.H. (Count 21), R.C.M. (Count 23), R.D.S.
(Count 26), A.P. (Count 30), S.D.Y. (Count 33), and
M.D.C. (Count 37).
¶8 In the stipulation, Attorney Goldmann states that the
stipulation did not result from plea bargaining, and that he
does not contest the facts and misconduct alleged by the OLR or
the discipline sought by the OLR. Attorney Goldmann further
states that he fully understands the misconduct allegations;
fully understands the ramifications should this court impose the
stipulated level of discipline; fully understands his right to
contest this matter; and fully understands his right to consult
with counsel. Attorney Goldmann represents that his entry into
of the response, the director may conduct further
investigation and may compel the respondent to answer
questions, furnish documents, and present any
information deemed relevant to the investigation.
16
SCR 22.03(6) provides: "In the course of the
investigation, the respondent's wilful failure to provide
relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish
documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure
are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted
in the grievance."
17
SCR 20:8.4(h) provides: "It is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to fail to cooperate in the investigation of a
grievance filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required
by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6),
or SCR 22.04(1)."
10
No. 2018AP474-D
the stipulation is made knowingly and voluntarily, and that his
entry into the stipulation represents his decision not to
contest the misconduct alleged in the complaint or the level and
type of discipline sought by the OLR.
¶9 Having considered this matter, we approve the
stipulation and adopt the stipulated facts and legal conclusions
of professional misconduct. We agree that the revocation of
Attorney Goldmann's Wisconsin law license is in order. Attorney
Goldmann has engaged in a widespread pattern of serious
professional misconduct that has harmed his clients and
tarnished the profession. A sanction of revocation is clearly
supported by our precedent. See, e.g., In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Gegner, 2017 WI 11, 373 Wis. 2d 192, 890
N.W.2d 581 (consensual license revocation based on 47 counts of
misconduct and other pending OLR investigative matters); In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Cannaday, 2015 WI 11, 360
Wis. 2d 647, 859 N.W.2d 75 (revocation for 76 counts of
misconduct after attorney abandoned a significant portion of law
practice); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kelly, 2012 WI
55, 341 Wis. 2d 104, 814 N.W.2d 844 (revocation for 51 counts of
misconduct); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Fisher, 2010
WI 45, 324 Wis. 2d 745, 785 N.W.2d 321 (revocation for 55 counts
of misconduct after attorney abandoned law practice); In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Abbott, 2005 WI 172, 286
Wis. 2d 616, 707 N.W.2d 851 (consensual license revocation for
20 allegations of misconduct).
11
No. 2018AP474-D
¶10 We turn next to the issue of restitution. According
to the parties' stipulation, one of Attorney Goldmann's clients,
A.P., sued Attorney Goldmann in small claims court regarding
unearned advance fees that he had failed to return to her. A.P.
obtained a judgment in the amount of $1,653 against Attorney
Goldmann. The parties stipulated, and we agree, that Attorney
Goldmann should be ordered to pay restitution to A.P. in the
amount of this judgment.
¶11 The parties' stipulation says nothing further on the
topic of restitution. We note that, prior to any reinstatement
of Attorney Goldmann's Wisconsin law license, we will revisit
the issue of restitution. See SCR 22.29(4m) (any attorney
petitioning for reinstatement from a disciplinary suspension of
six months or more is required to allege and demonstrate that
the attorney "has made restitution to or settled all claims of
persons injured or harmed by [the attorney's] misconduct
. . . or, if not, the [attorney's] explanation of the failure or
inability to do so").
¶12 Finally, because Attorney Goldmann entered into a
comprehensive stipulation under SCR 22.12, thereby obviating the
need for the appointment of a referee and a full disciplinary
proceeding, we do not impose costs in this matter.
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that the license of James Eric Goldmann
to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of
this order.
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the June 15, 2017 temporary
suspension of James Eric Goldmann's license to practice law in
12
No. 2018AP474-D
Wisconsin, due to his willful failure to cooperate with the
Office of Lawyer Regulation's investigation in this matter, is
lifted.
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the administrative
suspension of James Eric Goldmann's license to practice law in
Wisconsin, due to his failure to pay bar dues and assessments
and his failure to comply with trust account certification
requirements, will remain in effect until each reason for the
administrative suspension has been rectified pursuant to
SCR 22.28(1).
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that James Eric Goldmann shall
pay restitution consistent with the $1,653 judgment issued
against him and in A.P.'s favor in connection with the
misconduct described herein.
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that James Eric Goldmann 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.
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See
SCR 22.28(3).
13
No. 2018AP474-D
1