Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jeremiah W. Meyer-O'Day

2026 WI 34

IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST

JEREMIAH W. MEYER-O'DAY, ATTORNEY AT LAW

OFFICE OF LAWYER REGULATION,

Complainant,

v.

JEREMIAH W. MEYER-O'DAY, Respondent.

Nos. 2024AP1795-D & 2025AP70-D Decided October 22, 2026

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

¶1 PER CURIAM. We review Referee Valerie Bailey-Rihn's report recommending that the court declare Attorney Jeremiah W. Meyer-O'Day in default and suspend his license to practice law in Wisconsin for sixty days as a sanction for six counts of professional misconduct. The referee also recommends that Attorney Meyer-O'Day pay the full costs associated with this proceeding, which total $4,144.60 as of August 29, 2025. ¶2 Neither party has appealed from the referee's report, so we review this matter pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.17(2).¹After

1

2

completing our review, we approve the referee's findings and conclusions. We also agree with the referee that a sixty-day suspension is in order for Attorney Meyer-O'Day's misconduct. We order Meyer-O'Day to pay the full costs of these proceedings. The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) does not seek restitution, so we impose none.

¶3 Attorney Meyer-O'Day was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 2013. He has a history of prior discipline. In 2018, Meyer- O'Day was publicly reprimanded for professional misconduct, including practicing law while suspended, failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a case, and failing to take steps to protect a client's interest. Public Reprimand of Jeremiah Meyer-O'Day, No. 2018-6. In 2021, Meyer-O'Day was privately reprimanded for failing to keep a client reasonably informed in a criminal appellate matter and for failing to timely refund $4,000 of an advanced fee. Private Reprimand, No. 2021-16. ¶4 On September 3, 2024, the OLR filed the first of two complaints underlying these proceedings. The four counts of misconduct alleged in the complaint arose out of Attorney Meyer-O'Day's handling of four criminal cases. The first OLR complaint alleged that Meyer-O'Day failed to timely pay a forensic expert hired to analyze evidence in a homicide case. Despite being reimbursed by the Office of the State Public Defender (SPD), Meyer-O'Day did not pay the expert witness fees for more than two years.

¶5 The first OLR complaint also alleged that, even after receiving numerous extensions of time from the court of appeals, Attorney Meyer- O'Day failed to file a postconviction motion in client N.I.'s criminal case. The SPD eventually removed Meyer-O'Day from the case and filed a habeas corpus petition asserting that Meyer-O'Day provided constitutionally deficient performance by permitting the appeal deadline to pass. ¶6 The first OLR complaint alleged that, following Attorney Meyer-O'Day's removal from N.I.'s case, he failed to respond to emails and telephone calls from successor counsel requesting the client file. Approximately one year after successor counsel was appointed, Meyer- referee's findings and conclusions or remand the matter to the referee for additional findings; and determine and impose appropriate discipline."

3

O'Day provided her with a portion of N.I.'s file and directed successor counsel to obtain the remaining materials from trial counsel. ¶7 The first OLR complaint also alleged that Attorney Meyer- O'Day took a $10,000 flat fee to represent client S.M. in postconviction proceedings in two matters. When Meyer-O'Day advised S.M.'s father that there were no arguments to support a request for a plea withdrawal or a sentencing claim, Meyer-O'Day was terminated. Meyer-O'Day did not respond to successor counsel's request for the client file or to S.M.'s father's request for a partial refund of $5,000.

¶8 The OLR's first complaint alleged the following counts of misconduct with respect to Attorney Meyer-O'Day's work on the above- mentioned cases:

COUNT ONE

By failing to disburse $700 for over two years after Meyer-O'Day had received from the SPD for payment of K.B.B.'s expert services, Meyer-O'Day violated SCR 20:1.15(e)(1).²

4

COUNT TWO

By failing to file a postconviction motion in N.I.'s case, thereby allowing N.I.'s direct appeal deadline to lapse and resulting in a denial of N.I.'s right to appeal, Meyer-O'Day violated SCR 20:1.3.³

COUNT THREE

Following his removal from N.I.'s case, by failing to provide the client file to N.I. or successor counsel, Meyer-O'Day violated SCR 20:1.16(d).⁴

COUNT FOUR

Following his termination on January 7, 2022, by failing to provide S.M.'s client file to successor counsel, thereby delaying and jeopardizing S.M.'s postconviction rights, Meyer-O'Day violated SCR 20:1.16(d).

¶9 On January 13, 2025, the OLR filed the second complaint underlying this matter. The additional counts of misconduct alleged in the second complaint arose out of Attorney Meyer-O'Day's work on I.D.'s postconviction case.

¶10 The second OLR complaint alleged that Attorney Meyer- O'Day failed to timely file a postconviction motion for client I.D. The court of appeals granted Meyer-O'Day numerous extensions of time to file the motion. After I.D. filed a letter asking for help contacting his appellate attorney, and Meyer-O'Day ignored the court of appeals' order directing him to respond to I.D.'s letter, the court of appeals sanctioned Meyer-O'Day

5

$25 per day for each day a response was not filed. When Meyer-O'Day failed to respond to this order, the court of appeals sanctioned him $775. Meyer-O'Day again failed to respond to the sanction order, so the court of appeals sanctioned him an additional $275 and barred him from practicing in the court of appeals.

¶11 The OLR's second complaint alleged the following counts of misconduct with respect to Attorney Meyer-O'Day's representation of I.D.:

COUNT ONE

By failing to either withdraw from the representation of I.D. after consulting I.D. or to timely file a postconviction motion on behalf of I.D., and only doing so after the Wisconsin Court of Appeals suspended Attorney Meyer-O'Day from practice before that court until such time as he paid $1,050 in sanctions and filed the postconviction motion on behalf of I.D., Attorney Meyer-O'Day violated SCR 20:1.3.

COUNT TWO

By failing to respond to four orders of the court of appeals (dated February 9, March 11, April 2, and April 12, 2024), requiring him to file a response regarding the status of I.D.'s case, Attorney Meyer- O'Day violated SCR 20:3.4(c).⁵

¶12 Attorney Meyer-O'Day failed to timely file an answer to the OLR's first complaint. The referee held a telephonic hearing on the OLR's motion for default and allowed Meyer-O'Day until March 3, 2025 (approximately six months after the first complaint was filed) to file an answer. When Meyer-O'Day filed a late response on March 10, 2025, he admitted to most of the OLR's substantive allegations but denied the four

6

counts of misconduct.⁶On April 2, 2025, Meyer-O'Day filed a timely answer to the second OLR complaint, admitting to the factual allegations but again not acknowledging that that those facts constituted violations of the rules of professional conduct.

¶13 On April 11, 2025, the referee granted the OLR's motion for default judgment. The referee consolidated the two matters and directed the parties to submit briefs regarding the appropriate sanction. The OLR timely filed a brief but Attorney Meyer-O'Day failed to do so. ¶14 The referee issued a report recommending that this court grant the OLR's motion for default judgment. In so doing, the referee deemed the allegations in the complaints to be established. The referee also recommended a sixty-day suspension of Attorney Meyer-O'Day's law license. Regarding his failure to file postconviction motions, the referee explained that there was a need to protect the public, the courts, and the legal system because Meyer-O'Day negatively impacted the quality of justice received by criminal defendants and created additional work for others including the SPD, which had to remove him from the case and assert ineffective assistance of counsel to safeguard N.I.'s constitutional rights. With respect to his failure to abide by court orders, the referee reasoned that Meyer-O'Day's actions showed that he did not understand the importance of deadlines and observed that, even in this matter, he filed a late answer to the first complaint and he never responded to the OLR's sanction motion.

¶15 Attorney Meyer-O'Day did not appeal from the referee's report and recommendation. Thus, we proceed with our review of the matter pursuant to SCR 22.17(2). We review a referee's findings of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747. We review the referee's conclusions of law de novo. Id. We determine the appropriate level of discipline independent of the referee's recommendation. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.

7

¶16 We agree with the referee that Attorney Meyer-O'Day should be declared in default. Although Meyer-O'Day disputed the counts charged in the complaints, he admitted the large majority of the factual allegations. The contested allegations were limited to the first complaint and did not dispute the core facts underlying the charged counts. Thus, we agree that the referee properly relied on the allegations of the complaints and that they prove by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that Meyer-O'Day committed all of the counts of misconduct alleged in the complaints. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Coplien, 2010 WI 109, ¶¶10-11, 329 Wis. 2d 311, 788 N.W.2d 376.

¶17 We turn now to the appropriate level of discipline to impose. The relevant factors for imposing discipline are: the seriousness, nature, and extent of the misconduct; the level of discipline needed to protect the public; the need to impress upon the attorney the seriousness of the misconduct; and the need to deter other attorneys from similar misconduct. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Zenor, 2021 WI 77, ¶10, 399 Wis. 2d 326,

964 N.W.2d 775. Sources of guidance in determining appropriate sanctions include prior case law and the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (ABA Standards), including the aggravating and mitigating factors set forth therein. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Merry, 2024 WI 16, ¶¶29-36, 411 Wis. 2d 319, 5 N.W.2d 285.

¶18 Our caselaw supports a finding that a suspension is

appropriate. Even where a respondent-attorney has little to no disciplinary history, we have issued suspensions for the neglect of clients and their legal matters, including failure to file timely notices in criminal matters and ignoring court orders.⁷Recently, this court imposed a three-month suspension for an attorney with two prior private misconduct reprimands who failed to appear at multiple court appearances and then failed to comply with the court's order directing him to explain his failures to appear. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Rupich, 2026 WI 32, 421 Wis. 2d 706, 39 N.W.3d 126.