2014 WI 7
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2011AP2961-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Randy J. Netzer, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant-Respondent,
v.
Randy J. Netzer,
Respondent-Appellant.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST NETZER
OPINION FILED: January 29, 2014
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT: October 22, 2013
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED: ABRAHAMSON, C.J., BRADLEY, J., dissent. (Opinion
filed.)
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
For the respondent-appellant, there were briefs and an oral
argument by Randy J. Netzer, pro se.
For the Office of Lawyer Regulation, there was a brief by
Matthew F. Anich, Ashland, and an oral argument by Matthew F.
Anich.
2014 WI 7
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2011AP2961-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Randy J. Netzer, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant-Respondent,
JAN 29, 2014
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Randy J. Netzer,
Respondent-Appellant.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Attorney Randy J. Netzer has appealed a
referee's report finding that he violated SCRs 20:8.4(b) and
21.15(5). The referee recommends that Attorney Netzer's license
to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for 90 days, that
various conditions be imposed on his license to practice law,
and that he pay the full costs of the proceeding, which are
$9,222.21 as of November 5, 2013.
No. 2011AP2961-D
¶2 We conclude that the referee's findings of fact are
supported by satisfactory and convincing evidence. We further
determine that a 90-day suspension of Attorney Netzer's license
to practice law is an appropriate sanction for his misconduct,
and we conclude that conditions should be imposed on Attorney
Netzer's reinstatement and that he be required to pay the full
costs of the proceeding.
¶3 Attorney Netzer was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 1984. He says he has not practiced law to earn a
living since 1987, although his state bar membership remains
active.
¶4 In 2006, Attorney Netzer received a private reprimand
for violating SCR 20:8.4(b) by committing acts resulting in his
conviction for one count of misdemeanor stalking and one count
of violating a harassment injunction.
¶5 In March 2010 Attorney Netzer was charged with one
count of felony stalking—previous conviction, in violation of
Wis. Stat. § 940.32(2m)(a), and two misdemeanor counts of
violating a harassment injunction, in violation of Wis. Stat.
§ 813.125(4) and (7). The person allegedly involved in the
incidents was Attorney Netzer's former girlfriend, K.M.1
1
The stipulation of facts and referee's report refer to
Attorney Netzer's former girlfriend as "C.M." However, we note
the OLR's complaint, the underlying criminal complaint filed
against Attorney Netzer, and other documents of record state the
former girlfriend's name is "K.M." Therefore, "K.M." is used to
identify the former girlfriend throughout this opinion.
2
No. 2011AP2961-D
¶6 On September 4, 2009, after an approximately 14-month
relationship, K.M. sent Attorney Netzer an e-mail saying, "It is
over." K.M. told Attorney Netzer not to contact her in any way
and not to send gifts, flowers, or attempt to talk to her in
person.
¶7 On September 5, 2009, Attorney Netzer wrote K.M. an e-
mail saying he wanted to speak to her face-to-face one more
time. On September 11, 2009, Attorney Netzer sent K.M. a
postcard from New York. K.M. rejected Attorney Netzer's further
attempts at contact.
¶8 On October 4, 2009, K.M. went to the City of La Crosse
police department and filed a complaint in reference to Attorney
Netzer possibly stalking her. K.M. said she had advised her
employer about her concerns regarding Attorney Netzer, and the
employer set up surveillance cameras around her workplace. K.M.
told police she had made drastic lifestyle changes because of
Attorney Netzer not complying with her demand that he stay away
from her. A City of La Crosse police officer telephoned
Attorney Netzer, advised him about the complaint, and said if
his conduct continued, stalking charges would be filed.
Attorney Netzer acknowledged it was wrong to stalk someone and
he promised not to stalk K.M.
¶9 On October 10, 2009, Onalaska police responded to a
call about a suspicious dark blue Kia Sportage registered to
Attorney Netzer parked on a road in proximity to K.M.'s
condominium. Police located Attorney Netzer running in the
vicinity, and they arrested him.
3
No. 2011AP2961-D
¶10 On November 6, 2009, a harassment injunction was
issued against Attorney Netzer. The circuit court affirmed the
injunction following a de novo hearing on November 19, 2009.
The injunction was to remain in effect until November 6, 2013.
Attorney Netzer was required to have no contact of any kind with
K.M.
¶11 On December 31, 2009, Attorney Netzer placed a
"Happy/Sunshine" ad in the La Crosse Tribune, saying, "Dear
Muffinz, Thanks for a great 2008. Please forgive me for 2009.
Happy New Year 2010. Love Forever, Koala." K.M. and Attorney
Netzer had exchanged these nicknames during their relationship.
¶12 On January 24, 2010, Attorney Netzer placed an ad in
the La Crosse Tribune wishing K.M.'s mother a happy birthday.
The ad was signed with the names of K.M.'s cats.
¶13 On February 14, 2010, Attorney Netzer placed another
"Happy/Sunshine" advertisement in the La Crosse Tribune telling
K.M., "I may no longer be in your heart, but you will always be
forever the only one in mine. For you to be happy is all I ever
have wanted and that is what I wish for you now. HAPPY
VALENTINES DAY. Love, Randy and Kitties. . . ."
¶14 Attorney Netzer placed each of the newspaper ads by
calling a telephone number for the Coulee News. He claimed he
thought he was placing the ads in the Coulee News newspaper but
the ads were published in the La Crosse Tribune by mistake. He
said he did not realize the mistake until after the ads had been
published in the La Crosse newspaper.
4
No. 2011AP2961-D
¶15 On March 8, 2010, Attorney Netzer was arrested for
violating the November 6, 2009 harassment injunction. The
following day he was criminally charged. As a condition of a
$3,000 cash bond, he was required to have no contact with K.M.,
her residence, or her workplace. He was fitted with a Global
Positioning System (GPS) to ensure he did not travel to any
exclusion zones. He was purportedly told he was excluded from
the Valley View Mall.
¶16 On April 2, 2010, the OLR sent Attorney Netzer a
notice of formal investigation requesting a response to
allegations that his conduct regarding K.M. that resulted in
criminal charges may have violated the rules of professional
conduct.
¶17 A GPS report showed Attorney Netzer had entered the
Valley View Mall exclusion zone on four occasions on April 19,
2010. When Attorney Netzer was arrested for having entered the
Valley View Mall exclusion zone, he reported he did not know how
extensive the exclusion zone was.
¶18 On April 22, 2010, a second criminal complaint was
filed against Attorney Netzer alleging one count of felony bail
jumping, in violation of Wis. Stat. §§ 946.49(1)(b) and
939.50(3)(h), for violating the terms of his release.
¶19 Attorney Netzer responded to the OLR's notice of
formal investigation on April 24, 2010, and indicated he was
asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-
incrimination. Because the criminal cases were ongoing, the OLR
placed its investigation on hold.
5
No. 2011AP2961-D
¶20 On April 20, 2011, Attorney Netzer pled guilty to two
misdemeanor counts of violating a harassment injunction. The
convictions were based on the two newspaper advertisements taken
out on December 31, 2009, and February 14, 2010, which violated
the no-contact injunction issued on November 6, 2009. The
felony counts of stalking and the felony count of bail jumping
in the companion case were dismissed but read-in for sentencing
purposes. The circuit court withheld sentence and placed
Attorney Netzer on two years' probation, with 100 hours of
community service, a psychological evaluation, and an order that
he have no contact with K.M.
¶21 On April 27, 2011, Attorney Netzer wrote to the OLR
and indicated he had pled guilty to two misdemeanor counts of
violating an injunction order and that the felony counts of
stalking and bail jumping had been dismissed. Attorney Netzer's
letter notifying the OLR of his convictions was sent two days
past the deadline established in the supreme court rules.
Attorney Netzer also did not provide timely written notice to
the clerk of this court regarding his convictions, although he
did notify the clerk about two weeks late.
¶22 The OLR reopened its investigative matter and sent
Attorney Netzer a supplemental request for information about his
conviction. In his response, Attorney Netzer claimed he did not
intend to violate the harassment injunction. He admitted he
sent the "Happy/Sunshine" ads to K.M., and he acknowledged he
did not send timely notice of his convictions to the OLR and the
clerk of this court. He also said his convictions were on
6
No. 2011AP2961-D
appeal. He claimed he never agreed to have the stalking and
felony bail jumping charges read-in at sentencing.
¶23 On July 18, 2011, Attorney Netzer filed a motion to
modify his sentence or, in the alternative, withdraw his plea.
Attorney Netzer claimed that while he knew the felony charges of
stalking and bail jumping were dismissed, he did not know they
were being read-in and considered by the court at the sentencing
hearing. By order dated February 12, 2012, the circuit court
dismissed the felony stalking and bail jumping charges without
prejudice.
¶24 The OLR filed a complaint against Attorney Netzer on
December 27, 2011, alleging two counts of misconduct:
[COUNT ONE] By engaging in the conduct leading to
and by pleading guilty to two misdemeanor counts of
violating a harassment injunction . . . and also with
the felony charges of stalking . . . and felony bail
jumping . . . being read-in whereby they were
dismissed but were considered by the Court for
purposes of sentencing, Netzer violated SCR 20:8.4(b).2
[COUNT TWO] By failing to notify the Office of
Lawyer Regulation and the Clerk of the Supreme Court
in writing within five (5) days after being found
guilty or convicted of crimes, Netzer violated
SCR 21.15(5),3 actionable via SCR 20:8.4(f).4
2
SCR 20:8.4(b) states it is professional misconduct for a
lawyer to "commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the
lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in
other respects; . . . ."
3
SCR 21.15(5) provides:
An attorney found guilty or convicted of any
crime on or after July 1, 2002, shall notify in
writing the office of lawyer regulation and the clerk
of the [s]upreme [c]ourt within 5 days after the
7
No. 2011AP2961-D
¶25 Allan Beatty was appointed referee. In August 2012
the OLR and Attorney Netzer entered into a stipulation of facts.
The parties agreed that the referee, without hearing or notice,
could adopt various paragraphs in the stipulation as his
findings of fact and conclusions of law. The parties filed
briefs with the referee regarding the appropriate sanction.
¶26 The referee issued his report and recommendation on
November 1, 2012. The referee adopted verbatim the content in
the factual paragraphs of the parties' stipulation. The referee
concluded that the allegations in the OLR's complaint had been
proven by the requisite burden of proof. Specifically, the
referee found that Attorney Netzer violated SCRs 20:8.4(b) and
21.15(5).
¶27 The referee recommended that Attorney Netzer's license
be suspended for 90 days and that he pay the full costs of the
proceeding within one year. In addition, the referee
recommended that the following conditions be placed on Attorney
Netzer's license to practice law:
finding or conviction, whichever first occurs. The
notice shall include the identity of the attorney, the
date of finding or conviction, the offenses, and the
jurisdiction. An attorney’s failure to notify the
office of lawyer regulation and clerk of the supreme
court of being found guilty or his or her conviction
is misconduct.
4
SCR 20:8.4(f) provides that it is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to "violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme
court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of
lawyers; . . . ."
8
No. 2011AP2961-D
1. Cooperate with an OLR SCR 21.03(9)(b)
referral to the State of Wisconsin Lawyer Assistance
Program (WisLAP);
2. Undergo a psychological evaluation by a
professional selected by the WisLAP Coordinator;
3. Sign reciprocal releases of confidentiality
complying with the federal Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act and all other
applicable federal and state laws for each treatment
provider who is providing or has provided mental
health related treatment or services during and since
2009, so that such treatment providers may share
pertinent information with the WisLAP Coordinator. In
addition, the releases shall also authorize disclosure
to the professional selected to conduct the
psychological evaluation and to the Office of Lawyer
Regulation;
4. Comply with all treatment recommendations in
the report of the psychological evaluation ordered
above;
5. Submit to monitoring by a person selected by
the WisLAP Coordinator; to cooperate with the
monitoring conditions and reporting requirements
determined to be appropriate by the WisLAP
Coordinator; and to comply with all obligations under
the WisLAP Monitoring Program Policies; all for a
period not to exceed five years from the date of the
Court's order of discipline;
6. Pay the costs associated with his compliance
with these conditions. Neither OLR nor WisLAP will be
responsible for any such costs.
¶28 The referee said he has serious concerns about
Attorney Netzer's fitness to practice law and that the nature of
the offenses for which he was convicted, arising out of his
relationships with two separate women, raise questions about his
mental health. The referee noted that when Attorney Netzer
entered his pleas to the two misdemeanor counts of violating a
9
No. 2011AP2961-D
harassment injunction, he participated in a thorough plea
colloquy which covered the two read-in offenses for stalking and
bail jumping. The referee noted that Attorney Netzer
subsequently was successful in getting both read-in counts
dismissed so no admission to the facts forming the bases for
those counts may be considered by a court. The referee said
that as an attorney, Attorney Netzer should have had the
knowledge necessary to understand what a read-in was at his plea
and sentencing hearing.
¶29 The referee noted that in his sanctions brief Attorney
Netzer said that he wants to take full responsibility for his
actions, but there appears to be a pattern to the contrary given
that Attorney Netzer is now trying to distance himself from the
stipulation of facts that he signed. The referee said:
As his submissions in this disciplinary matter
demonstrate, Attorney Netzer has gone to great length
to minimize his criminal convictions and his Supreme
Court Rule violations. There is a delusional
dimension to Attorney Netzer's explanations and
statements in this matter that underscore the need for
a psychological evaluation and subsequent progress in
treatment before Attorney Netzer will have the
psychological fitness to practice law.
¶30 Attorney Netzer appealed, raising the following
issues:
1. Was it premature for the Office of Lawyer
Regulation (OLR) to prosecute this case before the
case was resolved at the trial court level?
2. Was the stipulation of facts drafted by OLR
in this case appropriate?
10
No. 2011AP2961-D
3. Was the Report and Recommendation of Referee
in this case faulty or defective?
4. If the stipulation of facts filed in this
case is deemed acceptable and if the Report and
Recommendation of Referee is not deemed faulty or
defective, is the recommended sanction
disproportionate or excessive?
¶31 Attorney Netzer asserts it was premature for the OLR
to prosecute this case before his criminal case was fully
resolved at the trial court level, which he says did not occur
until February 2012 when the circuit court dismissed without
prejudice the stalking and bail jumping offenses.
¶32 Attorney Netzer also argues that the stipulation of
facts, which he says was drafted by the OLR, was not
"appropriate." He acknowledges that at least some of the
paragraphs in the stipulation of facts do "have an element of
truth," but he says the paragraphs "fail to tell the rest of the
story."
¶33 Attorney Netzer argues that the referee's report and
recommendation was "faulty or defective." He complains about
the representation provided by the attorney he hired to
represent him in his criminal case.
¶34 Attorney Netzer says if the stipulation of facts filed
in this case is deemed acceptable and if the referee's report
and recommendation is not deemed faulty or defective, the
recommended 90-day sanction is still disproportionate or
excessive. Attorney Netzer says he is remorseful for his
actions and wishes they could be undone. He says he has been
11
No. 2011AP2961-D
undergoing counseling and feels that is a satisfactory way to
deal with the issues underlying this case.
¶35 Attorney Netzer also requests that the court either
waive the costs of this action or at least reduce them.
¶36 The OLR argues it did not prematurely file its
complaint given that the complaint was filed approximately eight
months after Attorney Netzer had informed the OLR about his
criminal convictions. The OLR says Attorney Netzer cites no
authority for the proposition that the OLR is prohibited from
commencing a disciplinary proceeding against an attorney when a
criminal case has not been fully resolved, and it says
prohibiting it from proceeding with a disciplinary case as
Attorney Netzer suggests would be contrary to the public
interest and the good of the profession.
¶37 The OLR goes on to say an attorney does not have to be
convicted of a crime before being found to have violated a
supreme court rule. The OLR also says that having failed to
make a motion or objection to the referee as to the date the
disciplinary proceeding was commenced, Attorney Netzer should be
found to have forfeited or waived his right to raise that issue
on appeal.
¶38 The OLR argues that the language in the stipulation of
facts is binding on Attorney Netzer. The OLR says as an
experienced attorney, Attorney Netzer knew he was not required
to enter into a stipulation of facts and that he had the right
to a full hearing before a referee. The OLR says when Attorney
Netzer's sanctions brief backed away from the stipulation of
12
No. 2011AP2961-D
facts he had previously signed, the OLR responded by saying that
if Attorney Netzer was having second thoughts about the
stipulation, his remedy was to move the referee to relieve him
from the stipulation of facts and to schedule a hearing on the
contested issues. The OLR points out that Attorney Netzer never
did that.
¶39 The OLR says the findings of fact in the referee's
report adopt verbatim the contents of the stipulation of facts
signed by the parties. It says Attorney Netzer fails to explain
how any of the referee's findings of fact could possibly be
erroneous.
¶40 The OLR also asserts that the referee's recommended
sanction is appropriate. It points out that in 2006, Attorney
Netzer was privately reprimanded for misconduct that is
"disturbingly similar to the facts in the current disciplinary
proceeding." The OLR says while Attorney Netzer may feel the
counseling he has been undergoing is satisfactory, the
conditions on his license recommended by the referee are more
likely to achieve the desired result.
¶41 As to the issue of costs, the OLR points out that this
court customarily assesses full costs against the respondent
attorney, and unsupported statements that an attorney cannot
afford to pay costs are not a sufficient basis on which to
excuse the attorney from payment. The OLR also notes that if an
attorney cannot pay the full costs immediately, an agreement may
be reached to enable the attorney to pay the costs over time.
13
No. 2011AP2961-D
¶42 This court will adopt a referee's findings of fact
unless they are clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are
reviewed de novo. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747. The
court may impose whatever sanction it sees fit regardless 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.
¶43 The referee's findings of fact have not been shown to
be clearly erroneous, and we adopt them. We also adopt the
conclusions of law that flow from those findings of fact. We
specifically reject Attorney Netzer's claim that the OLR filed
its complaint prematurely before the criminal case was resolved
in the trial court.
¶44 Attorney Netzer pled guilty to the two misdemeanor
counts in April of 2011. The OLR's complaint was not filed
until eight months later. At that time the only proceeding
pending in the circuit court was Attorney Netzer's motion to
modify his sentence or, in the alternative, withdraw his plea.
In February of 2012, approximately six weeks after the filing of
the OLR's complaint, the circuit court dismissed the felony
stalking and bail jumping charges——which had been dismissed at
the time the plea was entered.
¶45 Attorney Netzer has failed to cite any authority for
his claim that the OLR should have been required to wait until
after the circuit court had ruled on his postconviction motion
before filing its complaint, nor has he explained how the result
of this proceeding would have been different if the OLR's
14
No. 2011AP2961-D
complaint had been filed in February of 2012 rather than
December of 2011. In addition, as the OLR points out, Attorney
Netzer never raised this issue before the referee and could be
deemed to have forfeited or waived his right to raise the issue
on appeal.
¶46 We also reject Attorney Netzer's criticisms about and
attempt to repudiate the stipulation of facts which he signed in
August of 2012. Attorney Netzer was not required to enter into
a stipulation of facts but chose, presumably at least in part,
to simplify the proceeding and reduce the ultimate costs. As
the OLR points out, if Attorney Netzer later had second thoughts
about the stipulation of facts, he could have moved the referee
to relieve him from the stipulation of facts and could have
asked for a full evidentiary hearing on the contested issues.
Since he chose not to do so, he should be bound by the
stipulation of facts. Having accepted the findings of fact and
conclusions of law set forth in the referee's report, we reject
Attorney Netzer's claim that the referee's report was "faulty or
defective."
¶47 Turning to the appropriate sanction, we note that the
conduct at issue here is strikingly similar to the conduct that
resulted in Attorney Netzer's 2006 private reprimand. As in the
previous case, Attorney Netzer tries to minimize his conduct,
claiming he never intended his actions to cause K.M. any
distress, and that in fact all he cared about was K.M.'s
happiness and well-being. As in the 2006 case, Attorney Netzer
again argues that his criminal attorney forced him into entering
15
No. 2011AP2961-D
pleas, that he is very sorry for his actions, and that he is
entitled to this court's leniency.
¶48 We deem the SCR 21.15(5) violation is de minimus since
Attorney Netzer did notify the OLR and the clerk of this court
about his conviction, albeit the notification was slightly
tardy.
¶49 The SCR 20:8.4(b) violation is not de minimus. This
court found in 2006 that Attorney Netzer's two prior misdemeanor
convictions, which arose out his violating a harassment
injunction filed by a previous girlfriend, reflected adversely
upon his trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other
respects. The same analysis holds true in this case. This
court has long adhered to the concept of progressive discipline
in attorney regulatory cases. It does not appear that the 2006
private reprimand had the impact we intended on Attorney Netzer
since he repeated the same conduct here. For that reason, we
agree with the referee that a 90-day suspension of Attorney
Netzer's license to practice law in Wisconsin is appropriate.
¶50 We also agree with the referee that it is appropriate
to impose certain conditions in this case. While the referee
recommended various conditions be placed on Attorney Netzer's
license to practice law, we find it more appropriate to impose
conditions on the reinstatement of Attorney Netzer's license in
order to ensure that the conduct that occurred in this case, as
well as the conduct underlying the 2006 private reprimand, does
not recur.
16
No. 2011AP2961-D
¶51 We note that in the criminal case, the circuit court
ordered Attorney Netzer to undergo a psychological evaluation.
We find it appropriate to order that the reinstatement of
Attorney Netzer's license to practice law shall be conditioned
upon his obtaining a mental health evaluation in which the
evaluator states, to a reasonable degree of professional
certainty, that Attorney Netzer is capable of discharging the
duties of a person licensed to practice law in this state. We
further conclude that as a condition of reinstatement, Attorney
Netzer must be required to execute medical record releases
authorizing the OLR to review his medical records for a period
of three years. Once Attorney Netzer has complied with these
conditions and the other conditions generally required for
reinstatement after a suspension of less than six months, his
license can be reinstated.
¶52 Finally, we find it appropriate to impose the full
costs of the proceeding upon Attorney Netzer. It is the court's
general policy upon a finding of misconduct to impose all costs
on the respondent attorney. See SCR 22.24(1m). Since this case
presents no extraordinary circumstances, we conclude that
Attorney Netzer should be required to pay the full costs of this
proceeding.
¶53 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Randy J. Netzer to
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 90 days,
effective March 5, 2014.
¶54 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of the
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin,
17
No. 2011AP2961-D
Randy J. Netzer shall take the following actions: (1) obtain a
satisfactory mental health evaluation, at his own expense, in
which the evaluator states, to a reasonable degree of
professional certainty, that Randy J. Netzer is capable of
discharging the duties of a person licensed to practice law in
this state; (2) provide a copy of that evaluation to the Office
of Lawyer Regulation; and (3) execute medical record releases
authorizing the Office of Lawyer Regulation for a period of
three years to review his medical and mental health records and
to speak with medical or mental health providers.
¶55 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Randy J. Netzer shall
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been
suspended.
¶56 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order, Randy J. Netzer shall pay to the Office of Lawyer
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $9,222.21, as
of November 5, 2013.
¶57 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See
SCR 22.28(2).
18
No. 2011AP2961-D.ssa
¶58 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J. (dissenting). Supreme
court rule 21.16(1m)(f) authorizes this court to impose
conditions on an attorney seeking license reinstatement. The
conditions should be stated in such a way that they can be
easily understood by the respondent attorney and the OLR and
easily administered.
¶59 I conclude, however, that a six-month suspension with
conditions should be imposed in the present case. Such a
sanction is not only appropriate under the circumstances of the
present case but has the advantage that reinstatement must be by
order of this court after prescribed proceedings, not merely by
affidavit of the attorney of compliance and the director's
notification of compliance. See SCR 22.28(3), 22.29-22.33.
¶60 Before the court will reinstate an attorney after a
suspension of six months or more, the attorney must show the
court that he "can safely be recommended to the legal
profession, the courts and the public as a person fit to be
consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise act in
matters of trust and confidence and in general to aid in the
administration of justice as a member of the bar and as an
officer of the courts." SCR 22.29(4)(g). Court review of
reinstatement of the attorney under this standard is, in my
opinion, important in the present case.
¶61 For the reasons set forth, I dissent.
¶62 I am authorized to state that Justice ANN WALSH
BRADLEY joins this dissent.
1
No. 2011AP2961-D.ssa
1