Background
The Office of Lawyer Regulation charged Patrick J. Rupich with eight counts of misconduct arising from his representations of three criminal-defense clients. Two clients, A.G. and M.M., paid $3,000 and $10,000 advanced flat fees, respectively. After each fired Rupich before motions, a plea, sentencing, or dismissal, he did not promptly provide a final accounting, refund unearned fees, or give required notices about fee disputes and arbitration.
Rupich also represented J.J. in sentencing-after-revocation proceedings. He failed to opt in to electronic filing, missed three scheduled hearings, and did not comply with the circuit court’s order to submit a written explanation for one of his absences. The referee recommended a 60-day suspension and full restitution. Neither party appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Wisconsin Supreme Court dismissed the two charges alleging unreasonable fees under SCR 20:1.5(a). Although Rupich told the OLR that his work, calculated at an hourly rate, exceeded the clients’ flat fees, the record contained no evidence that he billed, demanded, or collected any amount above the agreed flat fees. An accounting supplied to the OLR was not, on this record, proof that he charged the clients more.
The court sustained the remaining six counts. It found that Rupich violated rules requiring final accountings and fee-arbitration notices upon termination, failed to return at least some unearned portions of the advanced flat fees, failed to act diligently for J.J., and disobeyed the court’s written-explanation order. Considering the seriousness and pattern of misconduct, as well as mitigation including his later full refunds and efforts to reduce his practice, the court imposed a 90-day suspension, restitution of $13,000 to A.G. and M.M., and $11,384.17 in costs.
Key Takeaways
- An attorney’s hourly valuation of work under a flat-fee agreement does not alone establish that the attorney charged the client an excessive fee.
- On termination, lawyers must provide the required final accounting, refund unearned advanced fees, and notify clients about fee-dispute and arbitration rights.
- Repeated missed hearings and failure to comply with a court order can support discipline even when no appeal is taken from the referee’s report.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes between an attorney’s internal or regulatory accounting of a flat-fee matter and an actual charge to a client. The court left unresolved the broader question of whether and how hourly calculations may be used to value work performed under a prematurely terminated flat-fee agreement.
For disciplinary purposes, the case underscores that flat-fee lawyers remain responsible for post-termination accounting and refunds, while missed court appearances and ignored judicial directives may warrant a suspension.