2018 WI 31
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2017AP1910-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Richard W. Steffes, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Plaintiff,
v.
Richard W. Steffes,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST STEFFES
OPINION FILED: April 10, 2018
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED: ABRAHAMSON, J. dissents, joined by A.W. BRADLEY
J. (opinion filed).
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2018 WI 31
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2017AP1910-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Richard W. Steffes, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Plaintiff,
APR 10, 2018
v.
Sheila T. Reiff
Clerk of Supreme Court
Richard W. Steffes,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
revoked.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Attorney Richard W. Steffes has filed a
petition for consensual license revocation pursuant to
SCR 22.19.1 The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) has filed a
1
SCR 22.19 provides:
(1) An attorney who is the subject of an
investigation for possible misconduct or the
respondent in a proceeding may file with the supreme
court a petition for the revocation by consent or his
or her license to practice law.
(continued)
No. 2017AP1910-D
complaint against Attorney Steffes, alleging that he committed
professional misconduct. He is also the subject of a pending
OLR grievance that has not yet been fully investigated.
Attorney Steffes states in his petition that he cannot
successfully defend against the allegations of professional
misconduct.
¶2 Attorney Steffes was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 1970. He resides in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin. His
(2) The petition shall state that the petitioner
cannot successfully defend against the allegations of
misconduct.
(3) If a complaint has not been filed, the
petition shall be filed in the supreme court and shall
include the director's summary of the misconduct
allegations being investigated. Within 20 days after
the date of filing of the petition, the director shall
file in the supreme court a recommendation on the
petition. Upon a showing of good cause, the supreme
court may extend the time for filing a recommendation.
(4) If a complaint has been filed, the petition
shall be filed in the supreme court and served on the
director and on the referee to whom the proceeding has
been assigned. Within 20 days after the filing of the
petition, the director shall file in the supreme court
a response in support of or in opposition to the
petition and serve a copy on the referee. Upon a
showing of good cause, the supreme court may extend
the time for filing a response. The referee shall
file a report and recommendation on the petition in
the supreme court within 30 days after receipt of the
director's response.
(5) The supreme court shall grant the petition
and revoke the petitioner's license to practice law or
deny the petition and remand the matter to the
director or to the referee for further proceedings.
2
No. 2017AP1910-D
law license has been temporarily suspended since March 2017 for
failure to cooperate with the OLR in these investigations.
Attorney Steffes' law license is also administratively suspended
for failure to pay bar dues and failure to comply with trust
account certification requirements.
¶3 Attorney Steffes' disciplinary history consists of a
single public reprimand issued in 2014 for allowing his non-
lawyer son to use his trust account. See In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Steffes, 2014 WI 128, 359 Wis. 2d 299, 856
N.W.2d 824.
¶4 The matter giving rise to this petition stems from
Attorney Steffes' misconduct as guardian for R.S. R.S. was born
in 1927 and has been adjudicated incompetent. He has had a
court appointed guardian for decades.
¶5 Attorney Steffes was appointed R.S.' successor
guardian in 1975. In 2015, it was determined that Attorney
Steffes had not filed required accountings or annual reports
pertaining to the guardianship from 2010 to 2013. He was
directed to do so. Attorney Steffes requested and received a
one-month extension, but then failed to file the documents.
¶6 In September 2015, the Dodge County Department of
Human Services filed a petition asking the circuit court to
remove Attorney Steffes as R.S.' guardian because of his failure
to file these accountings and condition reports.
¶7 On September 21, 2015, the court appointed a guardian
ad litem for R.S. The guardian subpoenaed Attorney Steffes in
an attempt to obtain information about the matter, but Attorney
3
No. 2017AP1910-D
Steffes failed to respond to the subpoena. The guardian then
filed a motion to compel discovery to obtain records necessary
to review R.S.' accounts.
¶8 On October 21, 2015, the circuit court removed
Attorney Steffes as guardian and ordered him to file an
accounting by November 23, 2015. The court appointed G&L
Advocacy of Portage as successor guardian for R.S.
¶9 On November 23, 2015, Attorney Steffes filed a final
accounting, but failed to provide bank records. On December 3,
2015, Attorney Steffes appeared at a scheduled review hearing,
but failed to bring the financial records. The court ordered
Attorney Steffes to turn over all of the financial records by
December 11, 2015. Meanwhile, the acting guardian ad litem
subpoenaed financial records directly from the bank.
¶10 Over the next several months, Attorney Steffes
requested and received several adjournments. In May 2016, the
guardian ad litem filed a report with the court identifying
several concerns with Attorney Steffes' handling of the R.S.
guardianship. The report stated that Attorney Steffes had: (1)
given R.S. monthly payments in cash, leaving no way for Attorney
Steffes to establish that R.S. received the entire amount to
which he was entitled or that R.S. used the funds to care for
himself; (2) taken money from R.S.' account that was not given
to R.S. or used for his benefit; (3) taken money from R.S.'
account that went directly to Attorney Steffes; (4) failed to
monitor R.S.' bank account, resulting in monthly maintenance
fees when the account balance fell below a certain level; (5)
4
No. 2017AP1910-D
failed to apply for a homestead credit on R.S.' behalf; and (6)
paid medical expenses from R.S.' account that should have been
covered by insurance.
¶11 Attorney Steffes requested and received time to
respond and then requested several extensions until the circuit
court ordered Attorney Steffes to file his written response no
later than July 21, 2016 or default judgment would be entered
against him.
¶12 On July 21, 2016, Attorney Steffes filed a response to
the report. Attorney Steffes said that he issued checks payable
to cash in order to purchase money orders that were mailed to
R.S. He said that R.S. required payment in the form of money
orders because they were accepted at his check cashing station.
He said that some of the payments to him were for his
guardianship fees. He said that two checks from R.S.' account
were inadvertently written to his firm by a new secretary, but
were immediately returned to R.S.' account when the error was
discovered. Attorney Steffes said he had no recollection of the
purpose of several of the checks written to his firm, but stated
that at no time did he benefit from R.S.' assets. He explained
that he did not think it was necessary for him to check on the
account because there was minimal activity, so he was unaware of
the fees being charged.
¶13 In September 2016, the Dodge County Circuit Court
conducted a final hearing on the R.S. guardianship matter and
ruled that Attorney Steffes had committed waste of his ward's
assets. The court found: (1) there were unexplained checks
5
No. 2017AP1910-D
written on R.S.' account totaling $9,000; (2) Attorney Steffes
failed to apply for the homestead credit resulting in a loss to
R.S. of $1,904.30; and (3) Attorney Steffes permitted
unnecessary bank account maintenance fees to accrue, totaling
$480.58. The court ordered Attorney Steffes to pay $11,384.88
to the guardianship estate as well as $9,000 for guardian ad
litem fees. Attorney Steffes failed to make the ordered
payments.
¶14 Attorney Steffes' conduct regarding this matter was
reported to the OLR. In October 2016, the OLR informed Attorney
Steffes he was required to provide a written response to the
OLR's inquiries into this matter. Despite repeated requests,
Attorney Steffes failed to respond, then requested additional
time or submitted correspondence that was not responsive to the
OLR's inquiries.
¶15 In January 2017, at the OLR's request, this court
issued an order directing Attorney Steffes to show cause as to
why his license should not be suspended for his willful failure
to cooperate in the OLR investigation. Attorney Steffes failed
to respond and, on March 13, 2017, this court issued an order
temporarily suspending Attorney Steffes' law license. His
license remains suspended.
¶16 On September 29, 2017, the OLR filed a complaint
against Attorney Steffes based on the foregoing alleging six
counts of professional misconduct. The complaint alleged that
by providing his ward with cash payments contrary to the purpose
of the guardianship, which was to ensure that R.S.' assets would
6
No. 2017AP1910-D
be used to meet his essential needs of health and safety,
Attorney Steffes violated SCR 20:1.12 (Count 1); by failing to
file annual accounts and annual reports of his ward's condition
from 2010 through 2014, and by failing to monitor his ward's
bank account resulting in the wasting of the ward's assets,
Attorney Steffes violated SCR 20:1.33 (Count 2); by failing to
respond to the Order to Show Cause issued by the court in
February of 2015 in the guardianship, Attorney Steffes violated
SCR 20:3.4(c)4 (Count 3); by failing to comply with the court's
September 20, 2016 order that he reimburse the guardianship
estate and pay the guardian ad litem fees, Attorney Steffes
violated SCR 20:3.4(c) (Count 4); by misappropriating funds from
his ward's account, Attorney Steffes violated SCR 20:8.4(c)5
(Count 5); and by willfully failing to respond to the OLR's
investigation, Attorney Steffes violated SCR 22.03(2)6 and SCR
2
SCR 20:1.1 provides: "A lawyer shall provide competent
representation to a client. Competent representation requires
the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation
reasonably necessary for the representation."
3
SCR 20:1.3 provides: "A lawyer shall act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing a client."
4
SCR 20:3.4(c) provides: "A lawyer shall not knowingly
disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except for
an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation
exists."
5
SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: "It is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit or misrepresentation."
6
SCR 20:03(2) provides:
(continued)
7
No. 2017AP1910-D
22.03(6),7 enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h)8 (Count 6). The complaint
requested this court suspend Attorney Steffes' law license for
three years and order Attorney Steffes to pay restitution to the
guardian estate of R.S.
¶17 On February 15, 2018, Attorney Steffes filed a
petition for revocation by consent. It attaches a copy of the
complaint as well as a summary of a pending OLR investigation
into additional potential ethical violations involving Attorney
Steffes' handling of a probate matter for J.R. The OLR summary
Upon commencing an investigation, the director
shall notify the respondent of the matter being
investigated unless in the opinion of the director the
investigation of the matter requires otherwise. The
respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts
and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct
within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail
request for a written response. The director may
allow additional time to respond. Following receipt
of the response, the director may conduct further
investigation and may compel the respondent to answer
questions, furnish documents, and present any
information deemed relevant to the investigation.
7
SCR 22.03(6) provides: "In the course of the
investigation, the respondent's wilful failure to provide
relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish
documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure
are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted
in the grievance."
8
SCR 20:8.4(h) provides: "It is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to fail to cooperate in the investigation of a
grievance filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required
by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6),
or SCR 22.04(1)."
8
No. 2017AP1910-D
indicates that its investigation involves Attorney Steffes'
potential violations of the following supreme court rules:
SCR 20:1.3, SCR 20:1.4(a), SCR 22.26 and SCR 22.03(2). The OLR
states that it does not seek restitution in the pending
investigation.
¶18 Attorney Steffes' petition for consensual revocation
asserts that he is seeking consensual revocation of his law
license freely, voluntarily, and knowingly. He states that he
cannot successfully defend himself against the allegations of
misconduct summarized above and more fully described in the
OLR's summary. Attorney Steffes acknowledges that he
understands he is giving up his right to contest any of the
OLR's allegations. He has the assistance of counsel in this
matter. The petition acknowledges that if the court grants the
petition and revokes his license, Attorney Steffes will be
subject to the requirements of SCR 22.26 and, should he ever
wish to seek the reinstatement of his license, the reinstatement
procedure set forth in SCRs 22.29-22.33.
¶19 The court has reviewed Attorney Steffes' petition, the
OLR's summary of possible misconduct, and its written
recommendation in favor of the petition, and we conclude that
the petition for consensual revocation should be granted.
¶20 Attorney Steffes misappropriated funds from a very
vulnerable person for whom he served as guardian. Although
Attorney Steffes does not have an extensive disciplinary
history, the allegations in the underlying complaint are very
serious and were committed over a period of several years. When
9
No. 2017AP1910-D
his misconduct was discovered, Attorney Steffes fostered delay,
ignored a subpoena, court orders, and failed to fully cooperate
with the ensuing disciplinary process. His actions reflect a
troubling and serious breach of his ethical obligations as a
lawyer in this state.
¶21 Consistent with the terms of the petition, we order
Attorney Steffes to pay restitution to the guardian estate of
R.S. c/o G&L Advocacy, in the amount of $11,384.88. Because
this matter is being resolved via a petition for consensual
revocation without the need to appoint a referee or hold an
extensive hearing, we will not impose costs on Attorney Steffes.
¶22 IT IS ORDERED that the petition of Richard W. Steffes
for the consensual revocation of his license to practice law in
Wisconsin is granted.
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of Richard W.
Steffes to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the
date of this order.
¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the March 13, 2017
temporary suspension of Richard W. Steffes' license to practice
law in Wisconsin, due to his willful failure to cooperate with
the Office of Lawyer Regulation's investigation in this matter,
is lifted.
¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Richard W. Steffes shall
pay restitution to the guardian estate of R.S. c/o G&L Advocacy,
in the amount of $11,384.88.
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Richard W. Steffes is
ordered to comply with any final monetary order or judgment
10
No. 2017AP1910-D
issued in In the Matter of the Guardianship and Protective
Placement of R.S., Dodge County case no. 1958GN37423.
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not
already done so, Richard W. Steffes 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.
11
No. 2017AP1910-D.ssa
¶28 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J. I agree that Attorney
Steffes violated the Code and should be disciplined. I would
not adopt the stipulation for consensual license revocation.
License revocation is too harsh a punishment for the offense and
the offender in the instant case. The OLR initially sought a
three-year suspension. Three years seems right to me on the
basis of past cases.
¶29 I am authorized to state that Justice ANN WALSH
BRADLEY joins this separate writing.
1
No. 2017AP1910-D.ssa
1