2015 WI 8
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2013AP746-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against
Ryan D. Lister, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant-Respondent,
v.
Ryan D Lister,
Respondent-Appellant.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST LISTER
OPINION FILED: January 28, 2015
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
For the respondent-appellant, there was a brief by Ryan
Lister, Wausau.
For the complainant-respondent, there was a brief by Robert
G. Krohn and Roethe Pope Roethe LLP, Edgerton.
2015 WI 8
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2013AP746-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Ryan D. Lister, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant-Respondent,
JAN 28, 2015
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Ryan D Lister,
Respondent-Appellant.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
revoked.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Attorney Ryan D. Lister appeals a report
rendered by the Honorable Robert E. Kinney, referee,
recommending revocation of Attorney Lister's license to practice
law in Wisconsin, imposition of costs, and restitution to the
following: Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection in the
amount of $8,548.89; D.W. in the amount of $3,151.11; and A.B.
in the amount of $100.00. The referee found that Attorney
Lister committed 34 of the 39 charged counts of misconduct.
No. 2013AP746-D
¶2 We have considered Attorney Lister's arguments on
appeal and find them unavailing. We approve the referee's
findings of fact and conclusions of law. The referee's
reasoning with respect to discipline and restitution is
persuasive and we conclude that revocation of Attorney Lister's
license to practice law in Wisconsin is appropriate in view of
his extensive pattern of misconduct. We further agree with the
referee that Attorney Lister shall bear the costs of this
disciplinary proceeding, which are $28,200.86 as of December 18,
2014, and shall pay the restitution recommended herein.
¶3 Attorney Lister was licensed to practice law in
Wisconsin in 1976 and has practiced in the Wausau area. In
1986, Attorney Lister was publicly reprimanded for
unprofessional conduct which consisted of: neglect of a
client's legal matters, in violation of former Supreme Court
Rule (SCR) 20.32(3); failure to carry out a contract of
employment with a client, in violation of former
SCR 20.35(1)(b); and conduct constituting misrepresentation, in
violation of former SCR 20.04(4). In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Lister, 127 Wis. 2d 453, 380 N.W.2d 370
(1986).
¶4 Effective June 15, 2007, Attorney Lister's law license
was suspended for five months for 17 counts of misconduct
involving seven separate grievance investigations. The rules he
violated relate to competence (SCR 20:1.1), diligence
(SCR 20:1.3), keeping a client informed (SCR 20:1.4(a)), failure
to cooperate with an investigation (SCR 22.03(2) and (6)), false
2
No. 2013AP746-D
statements to a tribunal (SCR 20:3.3(a)(l)), failure to refund
advance fee payments (SCR 20:1.16(d)), and dishonesty and/or
misrepresentation (SCR 20:8.4(c)). In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Lister, 2007 WI 55, 300 Wis. 2d 326,
731 N.W.2d 254.
¶5 Effective October 4, 2010, Attorney Lister's law
license was suspended for 60 days for four counts of misconduct
involving one grievant. The rules he violated relate to
diligence (SCR 20:1.3), keeping a client informed
(SCR 20:1.4(a)), failure to forward the client's file to
successor counsel and refund advance fee payments
(SCR 20:1.16(d)), and failure to cooperate with an investigation
(SCRs 21.15(4), 22.03(2), and 22.04(1)). In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Lister, 2010 WI 108, 329 Wis. 2d 289,
787 N.W.2d 820.
¶6 In 2012, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) was
required to seek enforcement of this court's previous orders
based on Attorney Lister's knowing and intentional failure to
obey orders to make restitution payments to an injured client.
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Lister, 2012 WI 102,
343 Wis. 2d 532, 817 N.W.2d 867.
¶7 That brings us to the matter now before this court.
On April 2, 2013, the OLR filed a complaint against Attorney
Lister, as amended September 19, 2013, alleging 39 ethical
violations related to multiple client matters. This court
appointed Referee Kinney, who presided over the disciplinary
proceeding and conducted an evidentiary hearing on January 20
3
No. 2013AP746-D
and 21, 2014. Following the hearing, the OLR moved for and the
referee granted dismissal of four of the alleged counts (Counts
1, 3, 12, and 29), so they are not discussed in this opinion.
¶8 On June 13, 2014, the referee filed a report and
recommendation, finding violations of all but one of the
remaining counts and recommending that this court revoke
Attorney Lister's license to practice law.
¶9 Shortly after the report was filed, Attorney Lister
filed a motion to supplement the record and for reconsideration,
citing incidents that occurred after the evidentiary hearing.
The referee denied Attorney Lister's motion on July 2, 2014.
This appeal followed.
¶10 We first consider Attorney Lister's appeal from the
referee's decision denying Attorney Lister's request to
supplement the record and for reconsideration. The pending
complaint contains allegations relating to Attorney Lister's
representation of J.T., alleging, inter alia, that Attorney
Lister and J.T. commenced a sexual relationship while J.T. was
his client. Attorney Lister acknowledges that he had a serious
relationship with J.T., but he disputes that it commenced when
she was a client. At the time of the January 2014 evidentiary
hearing, the relationship had ended and it is clear that
relations between the two had soured. J.T. testified
extensively against Attorney Lister. Attorney Lister strongly
challenged J.T.'s credibility, claiming that after the parties
separated, J.T. subjected him to harassing behavior.
4
No. 2013AP746-D
¶11 Shortly after the referee's report issued, Attorney
Lister filed the motion claiming an incident had occurred in
which J.T. "made serious, false criminal allegations against
[Lister]" eliciting a police call. Attorney Lister asserts that
the allegation was completely false and was intended only to
harass him. Attorney Lister sought to reopen the disciplinary
matter and supplement the record with this evidence on the
grounds that it bears on J.T.'s credibility. Attorney Lister
also sought reconsideration, advising the referee that another
former client, A.P., had, since the date of the evidentiary
hearing, entered a "no contest" plea in a criminal matter, a
fact Attorney Lister deemed relevant to A.P.'s credibility. The
referee denied the motion, citing the need for finality in this
litigation.
¶12 Attorney Lister appeals, contending that the referee's
decision was an erroneous exercise of discretion. We disagree.
The referee was well aware when he rendered his report that
Attorney Lister and J.T. had a contentious relationship
following their break-up. The referee was also well aware that
the cornerstone of Attorney Lister's defense to the allegations
involving J.T. was his challenge to J.T.'s credibility. The
alleged incident with J.T. occurred months after the evidentiary
hearing ended and after the referee filed his report and
recommendation. Moreover, Attorney Lister's affidavit was
unsupported by other documentation such as a police report,
criminal complaint, or conviction record. It was not a misuse
of discretion to reject this "new" information.
5
No. 2013AP746-D
¶13 Similarly, it is hard to imagine how A.P.'s criminal
conviction for drug trafficking, occurring after the evidentiary
hearing, would have made a difference in the referee's report.
The referee was well aware that A.P. had a criminal record at
the time of the evidentiary hearing. The referee was wholly
within his discretion to deny both Attorney Lister's request to
supplement the record and his request to reconsider the report.
¶14 We turn to Attorney Lister's appeal from the findings
and conclusions stated in the referee's report. Attorney
Lister's appellate brief1 focuses on the findings and
recommendations relating to three client matters: A.P., D.W.,
and J.T. This court will adopt a referee's findings of fact
unless they are "clearly erroneous." In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Charlton, 174 Wis. 2d 844, 874,
498 N.W.2d 380 (1993); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Swartwout, 116 Wis. 2d 380, 382, 342 N.W.2d 406 (1984). We
review the referee's conclusions of law de novo.
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hetzel, 118 Wis. 2d 257,
259, 346 N.W.2d 782 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 857,
105 S. Ct. 186 (1984); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Norlin, 104 Wis. 2d 117, 122, 310 N.W.2d 789 (1981).
1
Attorney Lister filed an appellate brief but did not file
a reply brief. After the court denied his request to postpone
oral argument, scheduled for December 4, 2014, Attorney Lister
opted to forego oral argument and rely solely on his brief.
6
No. 2013AP746-D
Matter of A.P. (Counts 1-8)2
¶15 Attorney Lister contends that the OLR failed to prove
he committed ethical violations in his representation of A.P.
In 2009, A.P., who was incarcerated, hired Attorney Lister to
explore possible sentence modification. Throughout 2009, A.P.
repeatedly wrote to Attorney Lister, asking about the status of
his case. Attorney Lister failed to respond to these letters.
Attorney Lister did inform A.P. that he had talked with a Forest
County District Attorney about an agreement regarding possible
sentence reduction. The amended complaint alleges that this was
misrepresentation because, in fact, the district attorney was
not willing to negotiate; indeed, he apparently told Attorney
Lister that if A.P. successfully withdrew his plea, other
criminal charges could ensue. In November 2009, A.P. asked
Attorney Lister to withdraw as A.P.'s attorney and to refund his
fee. Attorney Lister failed to either respond or return legal
fees. During the ensuing disciplinary investigation, the OLR
repeatedly requested written responses from Attorney Lister and
Attorney Lister failed to timely respond. When he did respond,
he misrepresented several facts to the OLR and to the OLR's
assisting District Committee.
¶16 The referee considered the evidence and determined
that Attorney Lister: failed to communicate with A.P.
(Count 2); failed to respond to the client's requests that
2
No party appealed the referee's dismissal of Counts 1
and 3, so they are not discussed further.
7
No. 2013AP746-D
Attorney Lister withdraw, return all legal fees paid, and send
the client's file to his new attorney, and also failed to submit
the fee dispute to binding arbitration with the Wisconsin State
Bar (Count 4); misrepresented to his client whether the district
attorney was willing to consider some sort of deal (Count 5);
failed to cooperate with the OLR (Count 6); and misrepresented
several facts to the OLR (Count 7) and to the District Committee
(Count 8).
¶17 Attorney Lister's appellate brief focuses primarily on
a factual dispute as to how often Attorney Lister met with the
district attorney concerning the A.P. matter. He contends that
his own testimony, coupled with that of other witnesses, proves
that when Attorney Lister told his client, A.P., that he was in
Forest County, Attorney Lister was, in fact, in Forest County.
He asserts that, to the extent the district attorney refutes
Attorney Lister's testimony, the district attorney is not
credible.
¶18 The record reflects that the referee carefully
considered Attorney Lister's proffered proof, including CCAP
records, correspondence, and emails, and determined that the
real issue was not the number of meetings Attorney Lister had
with the district attorney but whether Attorney Lister
misrepresented the district attorney's comments to A.P. The
referee determined, unequivocally, that Attorney Lister
misrepresented the district attorney's position on a possible
sentence reduction and concluded that the OLR had established
the other alleged violations as well.
8
No. 2013AP746-D
¶19 Although Attorney Lister argues that the referee
failed to give adequate weight to his evidence, the referee
clearly weighed the credibility of Attorney Lister's testimony
and found it wanting. We will not reassess Attorney Lister's
credibility. We conclude that the record supports the referee's
findings and conclusions pertaining to A.P. and we accept them.
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg,
2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.
Matter of D.W. (Counts 15-25)3
¶20 Attorney Lister also challenges the referee's findings
and conclusions pertaining to his representation of D.W. In
April 2008, D.W. retained Attorney Lister to represent him in an
ongoing property dispute pending in Marathon County. D.W. paid
Attorney Lister $2,000 or $2,500 in cash as advanced fees.
There was no written fee agreement and D.W. received no receipt.
Notably, Attorney Lister was aware that D.W had a history of
fairly severe depression and anxiety and had sustained a heart
attack and a stroke.
¶21 In June 2010, the Marathon County case settled. D.W.
was entitled to receive settlement money from the defendant's
title insurance company and from the defendant. Each party was
to pay $200 to the mediator, and D.W. also owed disbursements to
a court reporter and for certain other court services.
3
The referee dismissed Count 15 (alleging that Attorney
Lister failed to actively pursue collection of a due and owing
balance from the defendant). The OLR does not appeal the
dismissal of this count and it will not be discussed further.
9
No. 2013AP746-D
¶22 For more than a year and a half, Attorney Lister
failed to give D.W. his settlement funds, despite numerous
requests. Meanwhile, Attorney Lister issued a number of checks
to himself, in excess of attorney fees he was owed. Eventually,
D.W. was forced to hire another lawyer to try to help him
recover his settlement money.
¶23 Based on his findings, the referee concluded that
Attorney Lister: failed to prepare a written fee agreement
after receiving advanced fees (Count 16); failed to hold in
trust D.W.'s settlement funds, while issuing checks to himself
in amounts that exceeded the balance of any remaining legal fees
(Count 17); failed to deliver to D.W. the balance of the
settlement funds for a period of over one and a half years
(Count 18); failed to timely deliver the mediation fee to the
mediator (Count 19); failed to report a payment to the mediator
or show balances following each transaction in the client ledger
maintained for D.W. (Count 20); failed to respond to the OLR's
requests for information about the grievance filed by D.W.
(Count 21); stated to the OLR that he had paid the court
reporter and expert from the settlement proceeds, though his
account records did not reflect such payments (Count 22); made
numerous transactions from his client trust account between July
2010 and December 2011 (Count 23); made numerous deposits into
his client trust account without including the proper
identifying information on the deposit slips, and made numerous
withdrawals without including the proper identifying information
10
No. 2013AP746-D
in the memo line (Count 24); and issued a check from his client
trust account to one of his office employees (Count 25).
¶24 On appeal, Attorney Lister focuses on the allegation
that he failed to give D.W. his settlement funds. He claims
that D.W. told Attorney Lister not to disburse any funds because
D.W. disagreed with certain disbursements owed to a court
reporter and other court service providers. Attorney Lister
admits that he violated trust account rules, but suggests that
"said violation does not rise to the sanctions requested by the
Referee in this matter." The referee's thorough and careful
analysis of this issue belies Attorney Lister's claims. The
referee found that months and years passed before D.W. ever
received his settlement proceeds, and he received the proceeds
only after he was forced to retain the services of another
attorney to collect them. Moreover, Attorney Lister pocketed
money that should have otherwise gone for incurred expenses or
returned to the client. The record supports the referee's
findings and conclusions pertaining to Attorney Lister's
representation of D.W. and we adopt them.
Matter of J.T. (Counts 34-38)
¶25 Attorney Lister also challenges the allegations
concerning his representation of J.T. In 2005, J.T. retained
Attorney Lister to handle her divorce case and a pending
disorderly conduct charge. The two commenced a romantic
relationship that lasted several years. In February 2009, J.T.
was cited for a traffic violation in Kansas. She appealed,
requiring her to file briefs in the Kansas Court of Appeals.
11
No. 2013AP746-D
Attorney Lister was not admitted to the practice of law in
Kansas and was not admitted to practice in Kansas on a pro hac
vice basis. The amended complaint alleged and the referee found
that Attorney Lister helped J.T. write and file the briefs with
the Kansas court. The amended complaint further alleged and the
referee found that throughout his representation of J.T.,
Attorney Lister permitted her to be alone in his office, and
disclosed details of other client matters to her.
¶26 After the Kansas case ended, J.T. wrote to Attorney
Lister on numerous occasions asking for documents from her case
file. Attorney Lister failed to respond to her requests or
provide the documents requested. The OLR eventually referred
the matter to a District Committee. Attorney Lister repeatedly
failed to timely respond to inquiries from the District
Committee, and when he did finally respond, he failed to provide
the information and/or documents requested.
¶27 Based on these facts, the referee concluded that
Attorney Lister: revealed client confidences to J.T.
(Count 34); engaged in a sexual relationship with J.T. while she
was a client (Count 35); failed to provide the client's file in
the Kansas case upon termination of his representation for a
period of over two years and as repeatedly requested by the
client (Count 36); engaged in the unauthorized practice of law
by writing and submitting a brief on behalf of J.T. to a court
in Kansas without seeking admission pro hac vice (Count 37); and
failed to respond to seven inquiries from the OLR District
Committee investigator (Count 38).
12
No. 2013AP746-D
¶28 On appeal, Attorney Lister maintains that his
relationship with J.T. started after all the legal work ended.
He denies writing the Kansas briefs for J.T., claiming that J.T.
did the work herself. He reiterates claims he made at the
evidentiary hearing that after the relationship ended, J.T.
pursued Attorney Lister and engaged in harassing and
surveillance type behavior. His appeal from the findings and
conclusions related to J.T. is predicated on his assertion that
J.T. is not credible.
¶29 Our review of the record and the referee's report
reflects the referee's careful and thorough analysis of the
evidence. In particular, the dispute as to the precise timing
of Attorney Lister's intimate relationship with J.T. was
scrutinized by the referee. The referee found that the
relationship began in January of 2006, as J.T. described, and
that Attorney Lister was representing her in her divorce at the
time the relationship started.4 The report is also replete with
commentary as to the referee's assessment of the credibility of
J.T. and that of Attorney Lister. The referee deemed J.T.
credible in her testimony. As to Attorney Lister, the referee
observed:
The Respondent would like to portray himself as a
person who helps the poor and downtrodden, who
oftentimes works on a pro bono basis, and who puts the
4
The referee found that the relationship lasted three to
three and a half years and encompassed the time period during
which Attorney Lister represented J.T. on more than one matter.
13
No. 2013AP746-D
interests of his clients before his own. To the
contrary, in the cases that are the subject of this
proceeding, the Respondent has shown himself to be a
dishonest manipulator of the weak, unsophisticated and
vulnerable, all of whom he willingly exploited for his
own advantage.
We defer to the referee's clearly stated and well supported
credibility determinations. We are not persuaded that the
referee's conclusions of law are clearly erroneous and we accept
the referee's findings and his conclusions pertaining to the
matter of J.T.
Other Misconduct
¶30 Attorney Lister's appellate brief focuses on the three
client matters discussed above, but the OLR's amended complaint
alleged and the referee concluded that Attorney Lister committed
some 13 additional ethical violations involving a number of
additional clients.
¶31 A number of the disciplinary charges filed against
Attorney Lister involve his failure to cooperate with the OLR.5
In his appellate brief, Attorney Lister peripherally challenges
these findings and conclusions. He attempts to deflect and
minimize responsibility for his noncooperation but ultimately
offers no meaningful defense to the multitude of noncooperation
5
The OLR alleged that Attorney Lister failed to cooperate
with the OLR in Counts 6-8, 11, 14, 21-22, 26, 28, 33, and 38-39
of the amended complaint. In some cases, the OLR alleged that
Attorney Lister committed ethical misconduct in addition to his
failure to cooperate with the OLR. In others, the OLR did not
find cause to proceed on certain grievances, but alleged that
Attorney Lister violated ethical rules by failing to cooperate
with the OLR investigation of those client grievances.
14
No. 2013AP746-D
charges, all deemed by the referee to have been proven. We
accept the referee's findings and conclusions pertaining to
these matters.
¶32 Attorney Lister has not appealed the referee's
conclusion that he committed misconduct in several other
matters, which are briefly summarized.
Matter of A.B. (Counts 9-10)
¶33 With respect to Attorney Lister's representation of
A.B., the amended complaint alleged and the referee agreed that
Attorney Lister failed to deposit a $100 check for filing and
service fees into his client trust account, instead depositing
it into his law firm's business account (Count 9), and then
failed to refund the $100 cost advance for filing and service
fees that were never incurred (Count 10).
Matter of P.T. (Count 11)
¶34 In May 2010, P.T. hired Attorney Lister to represent
him in a Marathon County misdemeanor case. P.T. subsequently
filed a grievance with the OLR against Attorney Lister. This
grievance did not result in misconduct charges. However, the
amended complaint alleged and the referee found that Attorney
Lister failed to respond to multiple requests for information
from the OLR as it sought to investigate this matter.
15
No. 2013AP746-D
Matter of T.A. (Counts 12-14)6
¶35 The amended complaint alleged and the referee
concluded that Attorney Lister failed to return a client file
upon request, and did so only after two requests were made by
the client's new attorney (Count 13), and also failed to respond
to repeated requests for information from the OLR (Count 14).
Matter of H.V.N. (Count 26)
¶36 A former client, H.V.N., filed a grievance with the
OLR against Attorney Lister. This grievance did not result in
misconduct charges. However, the amended complaint alleged and
the referee found that Attorney Lister failed to respond to
multiple requests for information from the OLR as it sought to
investigate this matter.
Overdraft Violations (Counts 27-28)
¶37 The amended complaint alleged and the referee
concluded that Attorney Lister failed to file an overdraft
notification agreement for his trust account with the OLR,
despite repeated requests from the OLR (Count 27), and then
failed to timely respond to the OLR's requests for information
pertaining to this issue (Count 28).
6
The referee dismissed Count 12 and no party appealed this
decision. It is not discussed further.
16
No. 2013AP746-D
Matter of B.S. (Counts 29-33)7
¶38 With respect to his representation of B.S., the
amended complaint alleged and the referee concluded that
Attorney Lister: failed to accomplish service of a summons and
complaint on behalf of his client, resulting in the court's
dismissal of the lawsuit, reflecting a lack of competent
representation and a lack of diligence (Count 30); failed to
respond to his client's requests for information regarding the
status of his case (Count 31); failed to prepare a written fee
agreement when he began representation of B.S. on a contingent
fee basis (Count 32); and failed to timely respond to the OLR's
requests for information (Count 33).
Matter of Mr. and Mrs. E. (Count 39)
¶39 No formal charges resulted from a grievance filed
against Attorney Lister by Mr. and Mrs. E. However, the amended
complaint alleged and the referee found that Attorney Lister
failed to respond to multiple requests for information from the
OLR as it sought to investigate this matter.
¶40 The facts of record support the referee's findings and
demonstrate that Attorney Lister committed each of the 34 counts
of professional misconduct determined by the referee.
¶41 After making a determination that Attorney Lister
committed misconduct with respect to the 34 counts summarized
above, the referee evaluated the appropriate discipline for
7
Count 29 was dismissed by the referee and no party
appealed this decision. It will not be discussed further.
17
No. 2013AP746-D
Attorney Lister, recommending revocation. On appeal, Attorney
Lister argues that a public reprimand is sufficient. Attorney
Lister's opinion is apparently based on the notion that "none of
the alleged actions by Attorney Lister were criminal in nature."
¶42 We determine the appropriate level of discipline given
the particular facts of each case, independent of the referee's
recommendation, but benefitting from it. See In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45,
660 N.W.2d 686. After careful consideration of the report and
recommendation and the record in this matter, we accept the
referee's recommendation for revocation. The scope and severity
of the misconduct committed in this matter, Attorney Lister's
extensive disciplinary history, and the numerous aggravating
factors warrant revocation.
¶43 The 34 proven counts in the OLR's amended complaint
range from conversion of client funds to having engaged in an
impermissible sexual relationship with a client. Attorney
Lister habitually refused to cooperate with the OLR, failed to
keep clients reasonably informed, and has breached client
confidences. Moreover, as the referee observed, this proceeding
is the latest in "a disturbing pattern of misconduct that has
extended over many years."
¶44 Attorney Lister's significant disciplinary history
includes a 60-day suspension in 2010, a five-month suspension in
2007, and a court-ordered public reprimand in 1986. In
addition, in 2012 he was the subject of an enforcement
proceeding for intentionally failing to pay court-ordered
18
No. 2013AP746-D
restitution. Moreover, a number of aggravating factors are
present. In addition to the significant disciplinary history
noted, Attorney Lister's conduct reflects a dishonest or selfish
motive; multiple offenses; intentional violation of the rules;
submittal of false information to the OLR; refusal to
acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct; and vulnerable
clients.
¶45 As the referee observed, Attorney Lister "has shown
himself to be a dishonest manipulator of the weak,
unsophisticated and vulnerable, all of whom he willingly
exploited for his own advantage." The record wholly supports
the referee's recommendation for revocation.
¶46 Concerning monetary sanctions, we agree with the
referee's recommendation that Attorney Lister be ordered to pay
restitution as follows: Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client
Protection ($8,548.89), D.W. ($3,151.11), and A.B. ($100.00).
Attorney Lister does not dispute the referee's restitution
recommendation and we award restitution accordingly.
¶47 We further conclude that full costs in the amount of
$28,200.86 are to be imposed on Attorney Lister. Attorney
Lister does not argue that there are extraordinary circumstances
here that would justify a departure from the court's standard
practice of imposing full costs against the respondent attorney.
See SCR 22.24(1m).
¶48 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Ryan D. Lister to
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective February 27,
2015.
19
No. 2013AP746-D
¶49 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order, Ryan D. Lister shall pay to the Office of Lawyer
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $28,200.86 as
of December 18, 2014.
¶50 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order, Ryan D. Lister shall pay restitution as follows:
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection ($8,548.89),
D.W. ($3,151.11), and A.B. ($100.00).
¶51 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified
above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of
Lawyer Regulation.
¶52 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not
already done so, Ryan D. Lister shall comply with the provisions
of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to
practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked.
20
No. 2013AP746-D
1
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Ryan D Lister
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date filed: 2015-01-28
Citations: 360 Wis. 2d 330, 2015 WI 8
Copy CitationsCombined Opinion