The Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a public reprimand against attorney Bryant H. Klos on January 7, 2026, for violating professional conduct rules by failing to diligently represent an estate in a probate proceeding. The court accepted referee Edward E. Leinenweber's recommendation in the disciplinary case brought by the Office of Lawyer Regulation.
The disciplinary action stems from allegations that Klos violated Supreme Court Rule 20:1.3, which requires lawyers to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing clients. The Office of Lawyer Regulation filed a complaint on September 11, 2023, alleging that Klos failed to complete necessary work to conclude the administration of an estate in probate.
Klos, who was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 1984, is currently employed at Hale, Skemp, Hanson, Skemp & Sleik in La Crosse. The attorney has no prior history of public discipline in Wisconsin, according to court records.
The case centers on a probate proceeding titled *In re Inez C. Erickson*, filed in La Crosse County Circuit Court under Case Number 2010-PR-569. Inez C. Erickson was married to Phillip M. Erickson and died in 1990, though the court opinion provides limited details about the specific nature of Klos's alleged failures in handling the estate administration.
The disciplinary proceeding followed established procedures under Wisconsin's attorney regulation system. Neither party filed an appeal of the referee's initial recommendation, allowing the Wisconsin Supreme Court to review the matter under Supreme Court Rule 22.17(2). The court accepted the referee's recommendation to adopt the material factual assertions contained in two stipulations between the parties as true.
Based on these stipulated facts, the court found clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that Klos violated the diligence rule through his admitted conduct. The Supreme Court concluded that a public reprimand represents the appropriate disciplinary measure for the violation.
Supreme Court Rule 20:1.3, which governs attorney diligence, establishes fundamental obligations for lawyers in client representation. The rule requires attorneys to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, ensuring that client matters receive adequate attention and timely resolution. Violations of this rule can result in various disciplinary sanctions depending on the severity and circumstances of the misconduct.
Public reprimands represent a formal disciplinary sanction that becomes part of an attorney's permanent disciplinary record and is publicly accessible. While less severe than suspension or disbarment, public reprimands serve as official censure for professional misconduct and warn the legal community and public about the attorney's violation of professional standards.
In addition to the public reprimand, Klos was ordered to pay the full costs of the disciplinary proceeding. These costs typically include administrative expenses, referee fees, and other expenses incurred during the investigation and adjudication of the disciplinary complaint.
The Office of Lawyer Regulation serves as Wisconsin's attorney disciplinary agency, investigating complaints against attorneys and prosecuting disciplinary cases when violations of professional conduct rules are identified. The agency works to protect the public and maintain the integrity of the legal profession through enforcement of ethical standards.
Attorney disciplinary proceedings in Wisconsin follow a structured process that includes investigation, formal charges when warranted, hearings before appointed referees, and final review by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. This system provides due process protections for attorneys while ensuring accountability for professional misconduct.
The case highlights the ongoing importance of attorney diligence in estate and probate matters, where clients and beneficiaries depend on timely and competent legal representation. Estate administration involves complex legal and administrative requirements with specific deadlines and procedural obligations that attorneys must fulfill to properly serve their clients.
For practicing attorneys, the case serves as a reminder of the fundamental obligation to provide diligent representation and the potential consequences of failing to meet professional standards. The disciplinary action reinforces expectations that attorneys must devote adequate time and attention to client matters, regardless of complexity or duration.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision becomes effective immediately, and the public reprimand will remain part of Klos's disciplinary record. The case demonstrates the legal profession's commitment to self-regulation and accountability through the attorney disciplinary system.