Preview:

2005  WI  138
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.:                                        2003AP2131-D
COMPLETE TITLE:
In  the  Matter  of  Disciplinary  Proceedings
Against  Ralph  A.  Kalal,  Attorney  at  Law:
Office  of  Lawyer  Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Ralph  A.  Kalal,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY  PROCEEDINGS  AGAINST  KALAL
OPINION FILED:                                   October  14,  2005
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:




2005  WI  138
NOTICE
This  opinion  is  subject  to  further
editing  and  modification.    The  final
version   will   appear   in   the   bound
volume of the official reports.
No.                                                                          2003AP2131-D
STATE  OF  WISCONSIN                                                         :                                IN  SUPREME  COURT
In  the  Matter  of  Disciplinary  Proceedings
Against  Ralph  A.  Kalal,  Attorney  at  Law:
Office  of  Lawyer  Regulation,                                              FILED
Complainant,
OCT  14,  2005
v.
Cornelia G. Clark
Clerk of Supreme Court
Ralph  A.  Kalal,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY     disciplinary     proceeding.    Attorney's     license
suspended.
¶1    PER  CURIAM.                                                           We  review,  pursuant  to  SCR   22.17(2),  a
report   and   recommendation   filed   by   referee   Judith   Sperling-
Newton  in  this  disciplinary  proceeding  involving  Attorney  Ralph
A.  Kalal  ("Kalal").    Kalal  entered  pleas  of  "no  contest"  to  the
charges  against  him.     The  matter  was  submitted  to  the  referee,
who  issued  a  report  incorporating  the  stipulation  and  adopting
the  recommended  six-month  suspension.




No.                                                                             2003AP2131-D
¶2    The   referee's   findings   of   fact   are   to   be   affirmed
unless    they    are    clearly    erroneous.    In    re    Disciplinary
Proceedings  Against  Sosnay,  209  Wis.  2d  241,  243,  562  N.W.2d  137
(1997).  We  review  the  referee's  conclusions  of  law  de  novo.  In
re  Disciplinary  Proceedings  Against  Carroll,                                2001  WI                                    130,                                                                    ¶29,
248  Wis.  2d  662,  636  N.W.2d  718.    After  our  review  of  the  record
in  this  matter,  we  conclude  that  the  referee's  findings  of  fact
are  not  clearly  erroneous;  accordingly  we  affirm  and  adopt  them.
We  also  agree  with  the  referee's  legal  conclusion  that  Kalal's
conduct  violated  the  rules  of  professional  conduct  for  lawyers,
as   set   forth   herein.                                                      Therefore,   we   adopt   the   referee's
conclusions  of  law.     We  agree  that  a  six-month  suspension  of
Kalal's  license  to  practice  law  is  an  appropriate  sanction  for
his   misconduct,   and   we   further   hold   that   Kalal   should   be
required  to  pay  the  costs  of  these  disciplinary  proceedings,
which  totaled  $10,884.10  as  of  April  19,  2005.
¶3    Kalal  was  admitted  to  practice  law  in  Wisconsin  in
1973.                                                                           In                                                                                                                  2002   he   was   publicly   reprimanded   for   making   a
                                                                                                                            misrepresentation  of  fact  in  an  oral  argument  to  the  supreme
                                                                                court   in   violation   of   SCR                                                                                   20:3.3.                                                                       In   re   Disciplinary
                                                                                Proceedings  Against  Kalal,                2002  WI                                                                45,                                                           252  Wis.  2d   261,                     643
N.W.2d  466.
¶4    Kalal   is   the   owner   of   Kalal   &   Associates,   a   sole
proprietorship    engaged    in    the    practice    of    law.                This
disciplinary  matter  derives  from  a  grievance  filed  by  a  former
associate  in  Kalal's  law  firm  who  charged  that  Kalal  had  failed
2




No.                                                                            2003AP2131-D
to  properly  manage  contributions  to  the  firm's  401(k)  plan.1    As
noted,  Kalal  eventually  executed  a  stipulation  and  no-contest
plea  to  the  charges  and,  on  March  29,  2005,  the  referee  filed  a
report  and  recommendation  concluding  that  Kalal  had  committed
professional  misconduct  in  his  handling  of  the  employee                 401(k)
retirement  plan  and  client  trust  accounts.
¶5    The  complaint  filed  by  the  Office  of  Lawyer  Regulation
(OLR)  alleged,  and  the  referee  found,  that  from  approximately
October  15,  1997  to  August  15,  2001,  Michele  Tjader  was  employed
as  an  associate  attorney  in  Kalal's  firm.     From  September            29,
1997   to  August                                                              15,                                    2001,   Sarah  Schmeiser  was  employed  as  a
receptionist,   and   subsequently   as   a   paralegal,   at   the   firm.
Jackie   Bennett,   Kalal's   wife,   worked   as   the   firm's   office
manager  during  the  time  of  Tjader's  and  Schmeiser's  employment.
Among   other   tasks,   Bennett   did   the   firm's   bookkeeping   work.
Bennett  is  not  a  lawyer  and  was  under  Kalal's  direct  supervisory
authority.
¶6    In   January                                                             1998,   the   firm   implemented   a   401(k)
retirement  plan,  which  permitted  employees  to  designate  up  to
10%  of  their  salary  to  be  contributed  to  the  plan  from  pre-tax
dollars.    The  plan  provided  that  the  firm  would  match  50%  of  the
employees'  contributions  of  up  to  6%  of  their  earnings.
1  One  of  the  grievants,  Attorney  Tjader  also  independently
pursued  an  action  based  on  these  facts  in  Dane  County  Circuit
Court,  see  State  v.  Circuit  Court  for  Dane  County,                     2004  WI                               58,
271  Wis.  2d  633,  681  N.W.2d  110.
3




No.                                                                            2003AP2131-D
¶7    Employees  were  required  to  work  for  the  firm  for  one
year  before  they  became  eligible  to  participate  in  the                 401(k)
plan.     Tjader  and  Schmeiser  became  eligible  to  participate  in
the   retirement   plan   in   January                                         1999.                                                      Both   completed   an
enrollment   form   and   provided   it   to   Bennett,   indicating   they
wished  to  contribute  6%  of  their  earnings  to  the  plan.    The  firm
was  therefore  obligated  to  make  matching  contributions  of  50%  of
each  employee's  personal  contributions.
¶8    Bennett  never  forwarded  Tjader's  or  Schmeiser's  forms
to  the  plan  administrator,  Firstar  Bank.     Beginning  in  January
1999   however,                                                                6%   of   Tjader's   and   Schmeiser's   earnings   were
withheld   from   each   of   their   paychecks.                               The   firm   kept   the
withheld  earnings  and  did  not  turn  them  over  to  Firstar  Bank.
The   firm   also   failed   to   pay   the   employer's   matching            50%
contributions  to  the  plan.
¶9    Despite  the  fact  that  none  of  Tjader's  contributions
had  been  paid  into  the                                                     401(k)  plan  for                                          1999,  Tjader's            1999  W-2
tax  form  from  the  firm  reported  that  $4225  of  Tjader's  wages  had
been   paid   into   the   plan.                                               Similarly,   although   none   of
Schmeiser's  contributions  had  been  paid  into  the  401(k)  plan  for
1999,  Schmeiser's  1999  W-2  tax  form  from  the  firm  reported  that
$1765  had  been  paid  into  the  plan.
¶10   Similarly,   for   the   year                                            2000,   none   of   Tjader's   or
Schmeiser's   withheld   earnings   were   paid   into   the   plan,   but
Tjader's                                                                       2000  W-2  tax  form  reflected  a                         $4875  contribution  and
Schmeiser's  2000  W-2  tax  form  reflected  a  $2175  contribution.
4




No.                                                                           2003AP2131-D
¶11   Kalal  was  permitted  to  deduct,  as  a  business  expense,
salary  amounts  and  employee  expenses  actually  paid  on  his             1999
and                                                                           2000  personal  income  tax  returns.     Kalal  deducted  the  full
amount  of  the  salaries  that  were  reported  to  the  IRS  on  Tjader's
and  Schmeiser's  W-2  tax  forms,  although  6%  of  those  salaries  had
not   been   paid.                                                            Kalal   also   deducted   payments   in   purported
employer  contributions  to  pension  and  profit-sharing  plans  on
his                                                                           1999    personal   income   tax   return,   although   no   such
contributions  were  made  in  1999.
¶12   In                                                                      2000,  Schmeiser  worked  part-time  for  another  law
firm  and  contributed  to  that  firm's                                      401(k)  plan.  She  contacted
Bennett  requesting  information  needed  to  complete  a  transfer
form,   but   received   no   response.                                       The   transfer   was   never
completed  and  Schmeiser  was  required  to  take  a  cash  distribution
on  which  she  was  taxed.
¶13   After  receiving  that  cash  distribution  in  the  summer
of  2001,  Schmeiser  and  Tjader  realized  that  neither  of  them  had
received   a   report   for   the   previous   year   regarding   their
retirement   accounts.                                                        They   contacted   Firstar   Bank   and   were
informed  that  the  bank  had  no  retirement  accounts  for  them.
¶14   Tjader  and  Schmeiser  met  with  Kalal,  who  acknowledged
that  the  firm  had  been  unable  to  make  employer  contributions  for
some  time  due  to  financial  concerns.
¶15   The   referee   found   that   Firstar   Bank   made   numerous
telephone  calls  to  Kalal  at  both  his  office  and  at  his  home  for
a  period  of  approximately  two  weeks  in  an  effort  to  discuss  the
discrepancy  with  him.      Kalal  did  not  return  these  telephone
5




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               No.            2003AP2131-D
                                                                                                                            calls  until  he  was  advised  that  the  matter  was  being  referred  to
                                                                                                                            Firstar   Bank's   legal   department   and   to   appropriate   federal
authorities.
                                                                            ¶16   On   or   about   August                                                                                                9,                      2001,   Kalal   sent   various
                                                                            required   documents   and   funds   totaling                                                                                                                                          $26,448.75   to   Firstar
Bank.
¶17   During  the  OLR's  investigation  of  this  matter  it  was
also  determined,  and  the  referee  subsequently  found,  that  during
late                                                                        1998   and                                      1999,   the  firm  failed  to  timely  file  several
employment  tax  returns  which  require  employers  to  report  and  pay
the  taxes  they  withhold  from  employees'  paychecks,  as  well  as
the  employer's  share  of  social  security  and  Medicare  taxes.
¶18   Kalal  acknowledged  that  these  returns  were  not  filed
                                                                                                                            for  the  quarterly  tax  periods  ending  September                                                                                   30,                         1998,  March
31,                                                                         1999,  June                                     30,                                                                           1999,  and  September   30,                              1999,  although  tax
payments  were  withheld  from  the  employees'  paychecks  for  those
periods.     Kalal  explained  that  the  tax  returns  were  not  filed
because  funds  were  not  available  to  pay  the  taxes  due.
¶19   In  addition,  the  referee  determined  that  Kalal  had
continued  to  hold  money  in  his  client  trust  account  for  certain
clients  where  the  legal  representation  had  concluded.     Kalal
acknowledged  that,  upon  reviewing  his  trust  account  records,  he
had  identified  approximately  75  clients  whose  files  were  closed
but  who  still  had  funds  on  deposit  in  his  trust  account.     In
addition,   the   firm's   client   trust   account   contained   some
$3425.57  more  than  the  sum  of  the  individual  client  ledgers;
ownership  of  these  funds  could  not  be  immediately  identified.
6




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            No.   2003AP2131-D
                                                                                                                        ¶20   Kalal  then  began  submitting  to  the  OLR  monthly  lists
                                                                                                                        of   clients   who   had   funds   on   deposit   in   his   trust   account,
beginning  in  January                                                                                                  2001.                                                                           Of  the                                              148  clients  shown  on  the
January                                                                         2001  list,                                                                                                             97  were  clients  whose  files  had  been  closed
and  who  were  owed  refunds.    Of  those  97  clients,  74  were  clients
for   whom   the   office   had   active   client   ledgers   and               23   were
clients  for  whom  the  office  had  no  ledgers.     The                      23  clients
without  ledgers  had  files  that  dated  back  to                             1997  or  earlier.
The  amounts  owing  to  these  individual  clients  ranged  from  less
than  $1  to  amounts  in  excess  of  $500.    The  referee  found  that  31
clients  were  owed  funds  in  excess  of  $100.    Because  the  firm  did
not  prepare  a  monthly  schedule  of  subsidiary  client  ledgers,  it
was  not  possible  to  reconcile  the  bank  statement  balance  with
the  total  funds  that  should  have  been  available  for  clients.
¶21   As   noted,   Kalal   executed   a   stipulation   and   a   no-
contest  plea  in  response  to  the  OLR's  charges  regarding  these
matters.     The  matter  was  submitted  to  the  referee,  who  found
that  the  OLR  had  met  its  burden  of  proof  to  establish  Kalal's
violation  of  the  supreme  court  rules  by  clear,  satisfactory  and
convincing  evidence.
¶22   Supreme   Court   Rule                                                    20:8.4(c)   provides   that   it   is
professional   misconduct   for   a   lawyer   to   "engage   in   conduct
involving  dishonesty,  fraud,  deceit  or  misrepresentation."     The
referee  concluded  that:
By  failing  to  deposit  funds  that  had
been  deducted  from  employees'  paychecks  as
contributions   for   a                                                         401(k)   plan   into   the
plan  and  instead  putting  the  withheld  funds
to  personal  use,  by  failing  to  pay  matching
7




No.                                                                           2003AP2131-D
employer  contributions  to  the  401(k)  plan  as
required    under    the    plan,    by    falsely
reporting  on  employees'  W-2  tax  forms  that
contributions  had  been  paid  in  to  the  401(k)
plan   when   they   had   not,   and   by   claiming
deductions    on    his    personal    income    tax
returns   for   payments   that   were   not   made,
Respondent   engaged   in   conduct   involving
dishonesty,                                                                   fraud,                                                        deceit,   and
misrepresentation,                                                            contrary                                                      to        SCR
20:8.4(c).
¶23   Supreme   Court   Rule                                                  20:5.3(b)   provides   that   with
respect  to  a  nonlawyer  employed  or  retained  by  or  associated
with  a  lawyer,  "[a]  lawyer  having  direct  supervisory  authority
over  the  nonlawyer  shall  make  reasonable  efforts  to  ensure  that
the   person's   conduct   is   compatible   with   the   professional
obligations  of  the  lawyer."   The  referee  found  that  by  failing  to
implement  measures  designed  to  monitor  bookkeeping  and  related
work   performed   by   Bennett,   a   nonlawyer,   Kalal   violated   SCR
20:5.3(b).
¶24   The  referee  also  concluded  that  by  failing  to  file
timely  employer  tax  returns  for  the  quarterly  tax  periods  ending
September  30,  1998,  March  31,  1999,  June  30,  1999,  and  September
30,  1999,  Kalal  violated  a  standard  of  conduct  for  attorneys  as
set  forth  in  State  v.  Roggensack,  19  Wis.  2d  38,  199  N.W.2d  412
(1963),  in  which  this  court  deemed  professional  misconduct  the
"intentional  violation  of  tax  laws,  even  though  without  intent
to  defraud  the  government,"  in  violation  of  SCR  20:8.4(f).2    Id.
at  46.
2  SCR                                                                        20:8.4(f)  provides  that  it  is  professional  misconduct
to  "violate  a  statute,  supreme  court  rule,  supreme  court  order
or  supreme  court  decision  regulating  the  conduct  of  lawyers."
8




No.                                                                            2003AP2131-D
¶25   The   referee   found   that   by   failing   to   timely   pay
refunds  to  some  97  clients  who  still  had  funds  on  deposit  in  his
trust  account  at  the  conclusion  of  their  representation,  Kalal
failed  to  deliver  promptly  to  the  client  any  trust  account  funds
or  other  property  which  the  client  is  entitled  to  receive,  in
violation  of  former  SCR  20:1.15(b).3
¶26   In  addition,  by  failing  to  maintain  subsidiary  ledgers
for  all  clients  for  whom  funds  were  held  in  his  firm's  client
trust  account,  and  by  failing  to  prepare  a  monthly  schedule  of
the  subsidiary  ledgers  which  could  then  be  reconciled  with  the
balances   actually   on   hand   in   the   account,   Kalal   failed   to
maintain  all  trust  account  records  required  under  former  SCR
20:1.15(e),4  which  governs  operational  requirements  for  trust
funds.
3  Former  SCR                                                                 20:1.15  applies  to  misconduct  committed  prior
to  July  1,  2004.    Former  SCR  20:1.15(b)  provides:
Upon  receiving  funds  or  other  property  in  which  a
client  or  third  person  has  an  interest,  a  lawyer  shall
promptly  notify  the  client  or  third  person  in  writing.
Except  as  stated  in  this  rule  or  otherwise  permitted
by  law  or  by  agreement  with  the  client,  a  lawyer  shall
promptly  deliver  to  the  client  or  third  person  any
funds   or   other   property   that   the   client   or   third
person  is  entitled  to  receive  and,  upon  request  by  the
client  or  third  person,  shall  render  a  full  accounting
regarding  such  property.
4  Former  SCR  20:1.15(e)  provides:
Complete  records  of  trust  account  funds  and  other
trust  property  shall  be  kept  by  the  lawyer  and  shall
be  preserved  for  a  period  of  at  least  six  years  after
termination  of  the  representation.     Complete  records
shall  include:                                                                (i)  a  cash  receipts  journal,  listing
the   sources   and   date   of   each   receipt,                              (ii)   a
9




No.                                                                             2003AP2131-D
¶27   After  our  review  of  the  record  in  this  matter,  we
adopt  the  referee's  findings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law  as
stipulated  to  by  the  parties.
¶28   Turning  to  the  question  of  the  appropriate  discipline,
the   referee   considered   several   factors   in   assessing   the
appropriate   discipline   for   Kalal's   misconduct,   including   the
seriousness  of  the  misconduct,  the  need  to  impress  upon  him  the
seriousness  of  the  misconduct,  the  need  to  protect  the  public,
the   courts,   and   the   legal   system   from   a   repetition   of   the
misconduct,  and  the  need  to  deter  other  attorneys  from  similar
misconduct.     See,  e.g.,  In  re  Disciplinary  Proceedings  Against
Carroll,  2001  WI  130,  ¶40,  248  Wis.  2d  662,  636  N.W.2d  718.    The
referee  specifically  noted  that  she  considered  Kalal's  prior
discipline  as  an  aggravating  factor.     She  considered  Kalal's
commitment  to  making  restitution  to  be  a  mitigating  factor,  and,
disbursements  journal,  listing  the  date  and  payee  of
each  disbursement,  with  all  disbursements  being  paid
by   check,                                                                     (iii)   a   subsidiary   ledger   containing   a
separate   page   for   each   person   or   company   for   whom
funds  have  been  received  in  trust,  showing  the  date
and  amount  of  each  receipt,  the  date  and  amount  of
each  disbursement,  and  any  unexpended  balance,                             (iv)  a
monthly  schedule  of  the  subsidiary  ledger,  indicating
the  balance  of  each  client's  account  at  the  end  of
each  month,                                                                    (v)  a  determination  of  the  cash  balance
(checkbook  balance)  at  the  end  of  each  month,  taken
from  the  cash  receipts  and  cash  disbursement  journals
and  a  reconciliation  of  the  cash  balance                                  (checkbook
balance)   with   the   balance   indicated   in   the   bank
statement,   and                                                                (vi)   monthly   statements,   including
canceled   checks,   vouchers   or   share   drafts,   and
duplicate   deposit   slips.  .  .                                              .   All   trust   account
records   shall   be   deemed   to   have   public   aspects   as
related  to  the  lawyer's  fitness  to  practice.
10




No.                                                                           2003AP2131-D
indeed,  the  court  has  been  advised  that  full  restitution  to  both
employees'                                                                    401(k)  accounts  has  been  made,  and  that  all  clients
that   Kalal   could   identify   and   locate   have   received   complete
refunds.    Based  on  our  own  review  we  agree  that  a  suspension  of
six  months  is  appropriate  discipline  for  Kalal's  professional
misconduct.
¶29   This  brings  us  to  a  related  question  on  which  Kalal
has  requested  the  court's  guidance.     As  noted,  Kalal's  trust
account  contains  funds  belonging  to  clients  that  he  has  been
unable  to  identify.     It  is  not  entirely  clear  from  the  record
precisely  how  much  money  remains  at  issue.    Initially,  estimates
indicated  an  amount  of  approximately  $3425.57.
¶30   On  July                                                                15,                                                           2005,  this  court  issued  an  order  to  the
parties    regarding    the    appropriate    resolution    of    these
unidentified  client  funds.    The  OLR  responded  on  July  20,  2005,
as  supplemented  on  August  5,                                              2005.     We  agree  with  the  OLR  that
pursuant  to  SCR                                                             22.26,  Kalal  has  a  duty  to  timely  disburse  all
remaining  funds  from  his  trust  account  and  to  close  the  same.
Based  on  the  OLR's  response,  we  direct  Attorney  Kalal  to  seek
direction  from  the  OLR  as  to  the  appropriate  course  of  conduct
for   resolving   the   issue   of   the   unidentified   client   funds.
Attorney  Kalal  shall  notify  this  court  within                           30  days  of  the
date  of  this  decision  as  to  how  the  remaining  unidentified  funds
will  be  managed.    The  OLR  shall  timely  advise  this  court  whether
it   considers   the   proposed   resolution   satisfactory   under   the
circumstances  of  this  matter.
11




No.                                                                            2003AP2131-D
¶31   Finally,  we  turn  to  Kalal's  request  that  this  court
postpone  his  suspension  so  that  it  will  commence  on  or  after
November  1,                                                                   2005.     As  his  counsel  has  explained  in  a  letter  to
the  court,  filed  May  3,  2005:
Understanding   that   he   will   lose   his
license  to  practice  for  a  period  of  time,
Mr.  Kalal  has  ceased  taking  in  new  clients.
He  does  have  seven  criminal  cases  that  will
get  resolved  during  the  course  of  the  Summer
and  into  the  early  Fall.     He  believes  that
the  last  will  be  resolved  in  October  of  this
year.     Mr.  Kalal  has  put  substantial  work
into  these  matters  and  would  like  to  see
them   through   to   completion,   rather   than
refer  them  to  new  counsel  who  will  have  to
start   from   scratch.                                                        We   ask   that   any
suspension  ordered  by  the  Court  not  start
until  November  1,  2005.
The  OLR  does  not  support  the  request.
¶32   Although  such  requests  are  not  generally  favored,  in
recognition   of   Kalal's   efforts   to   make   restitution   to   the
injured  employees  and  clients  in  this  matter,  his  cooperation
with   the   OLR   in   this   proceeding,   and   in   reliance   on   the
representation   of   his   counsel,   Attorney   Waring   Fincke,   that
Kalal   has   ceased   taking   new   clients,   we   will   delay   Kalal's
suspension   until   November                                                  1,                                                              2005,   solely   to   permit   him   to
complete  the  seven  client  matters  he  specifically  identified.
Representation  of  any  other  client  or  undertaking  representation
of  the  remaining  clients  on  any  new  matter  will  be  grounds  for
additional    discipline    and    may    adversely    affect    future
reinstatement  proceedings.
¶33   IT  IS  ORDERED  that  the  license  of  Attorney  Ralph  A.
Kalal  to  practice  law  in  Wisconsin  is  suspended  for  a  period  of
12




                                                                                    No.                                 2003AP2131-D
six  months,  effective  November                                              1,   2005,  on  the  terms  set  forth
in  this  decision.
¶34   IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  within  30  days  of  the  date
of  this  order  Attorney  Ralph  A.  Kalal  shall  seek  direction  from
the  Office  of  Lawyer  Regulation  regarding  the  appropriate  course
of  conduct  for  resolving  the  issue  of  unidentified  client  funds
remaining  in  his  custody  and  control,  and  shall  submit  a  written
statement  to  the  court  explaining  how  the  remaining  unidentified
funds  will  be  managed.    Upon  receipt  of  this  statement,  the  OLR
shall   timely   advise   this   court   whether   it   considers   the
resolution  satisfactory  under  the  circumstances  of  this  matter.
¶35   IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  within  60  days  of  the  date
of  this  order  Attorney  Ralph  A.  Kalal  shall  pay  to  the  Office  of
Lawyer  Regulation  the  costs  of  this  proceeding.    If  those  costs
are  not  paid  within  the  time  specified  and  absent  a  showing  to
this  court  of  an  inability  to  pay  those  costs  within  that  time,
the  license  of  Attorney  Ralph  A.  Kalal  to  practice  law  shall
remain  suspended  until  further  order  of  the  court.
¶36   IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  Attorney  Kalal  comply  with
the  provisions  of  SCR  22.26  concerning  the  duties  of  an  attorney
whose  license  to  practice  law  has  been  suspended.
13




No.   2003AP2131-D
1

Download 19954.pdf

Wisconsin Law