Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

In re Ragatz

429 N.W.2d 488 (1988)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...

In re Ragatz

Wisconsin Supreme Court

429 N.W.2d 488 (1988)

Facts

Attorney Thomas Ragatz (defendant) represented an estate in a will contest filed by law firm Clifford and Relles (Clifford) on behalf of the decedent’s son. Ragatz filed an equitable-adjustment action to reduce the amount the son might receive if he won the will contest. The case was assigned to Judge John Aulik. Clifford moved to dismiss the action and have it declared frivolous. In an unplanned conversation, Judge Aulik told Ragatz that the judge’s law clerk had said the action might in fact be frivolous. Ragatz responded that the clerk was wrong. Clifford was neither present during, nor advised of, the conversation. Ragatz subsequently received in the mail an unsolicited proposed decision concluding that the action was frivolous. Ragatz had an attorney in his office prepare a letter response, making legal arguments on the frivolousness issue. Ragatz changed the salutation to address the judge by his first name, signed the letter using Ragatz’s first name, and marked the letter “confidential.” The letter sent to Judge Aulik was not shared with Clifford. In preparing for a hearing on the frivolousness issue, Clifford found the letter in the court file and requested a copy. Judge Aulik retained the letter and telephoned Ragatz to advise him that Clifford had found the letter. When Clifford telephoned Ragatz, Ragatz said he was unfamiliar with the letter and did not disclose that Judge Aulik had called him. Ragatz called the judge without Clifford’s participation and suggested that the court schedule a conference with counsel. At the conference, Judge Aulik claimed he no longer had the letter, and Ragatz said he could not locate a copy. Ragatz later provided a copy to Clifford. The Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (plaintiff) instituted disciplinary proceedings against Ragatz. The referee concluded that the letter was intended to influence the outcome of the equitable-adjustment action and was an ex parte communication that violated Rule of Professional Conduct (RPC) 3.5(b). Although Ragatz had never been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding and character testimony indicated that his alleged misconduct was anomalous, the referee recommended that Ragatz be suspended from the practice of law.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 605,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 605,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 605,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 33,800 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership