2020 WI 87
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2020AP131-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Ann T. Bowe, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Ann T. Bowe,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BOWE
OPINION FILED: November 24, 2020
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
Per Curiam.
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2020 WI 87
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2020AP131-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Ann T. Bowe, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant, NOV 24, 2020
v. Sheila T. Reiff
Clerk of Supreme Court
Ann T. Bowe,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney publicly
reprimanded.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review the report of Referee Robert
E. Kinney which concluded that Attorney Ann T. Bowe's
professional misconduct warrants a public reprimand. The
referee further recommends that the full costs of this
proceeding, which are $6,482.86 as of September 1, 2020, be
assessed against Attorney Bowe.
¶2 No appeal has been filed from the referee's report and
recommendation, so we review the matter pursuant to Supreme
Court Rule (SCR) 22.17(2). Upon consideration of the referee's
No. 2020AP131-D
report, the parties' stipulation, and the record in this matter,
we agree that a public reprimand is an appropriate sanction for
Attorney Bowe's misconduct. We also require her to pay the full
costs of this proceeding.
¶3 Attorney Bowe was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 1980 and practices in Milwaukee. In 1993 she was
the subject of a consensual private reprimand. The misconduct
at issue in that case involved neglecting two matters for the
same client; failing to keep the client reasonably informed; and
making a misrepresentation to the Board of Attorneys
Professional Responsibility. Private Reprimand No. 1993-24
(electronic copy available at https://compendium.wicourts.
gov/app/raw/000110.html). In 2011, Attorney Bowe was publicly
reprimanded for misconduct consisting of failing to act with
reasonable diligence and promptness; failing to advise the court
of a jurisdictional defect; filing a certificate of compliance
with statutory requirements which contained false information;
having ex parte communications with the court; and making a
false statement to a tribunal. In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Bowe, 2011 WI 48, 334 Wis. 2d 360, 800 N.W.2d 367.
¶4 On January 22, 2020, the Office of Lawyer Regulation
(OLR) filed a complaint alleging two counts of misconduct.
Attorney Bowe filed an answer on February 25, 2020. On July 2,
2020, the OLR filed an amended complaint which also alleged two
counts of misconduct. On July 3, 2020, the OLR and Attorney
Bowe filed a stipulation whereby she agreed that the facts
alleged in the amended complaint formed a basis for the
2
No. 2020AP131-D
imposition of a public reprimand. The following facts are taken
from the stipulation and the amended complaint.
¶5 On December 6, 2016, L.W., Jr. was charged with hiding
a corpse in a Dodge County case. The charge arose from the
death of S.D., L.W.'s girlfriend and his first cousin. S.D.'s
body was found in L.W.'s vehicle, which was parked in the garage
of a house owned by L.W. in which M.J., L.W.'s biological
mother, resided.
¶6 On December 6, 2016, M.J. was charged with harboring
or aiding a felon which was related to L.W.'s case.
¶7 On December 8, 2016, the circuit court in L.W.'s
criminal case ordered conditions of his bond that included him
having no direct contact with M.J. or the immediate family of
the victim. In addition, L.W. was to have no third-party
contact with those persons except through an attorney or
investigator.
¶8 On December 14, 2016, S.J., S.D.'s biological father,
filed a wrongful death action against L.W. S.J. and M.J. are
biological siblings.
¶9 At the preliminary hearing in L.W.'s criminal case,
held on December 22, 2016, the court found probable cause and
bound L.W. over for trial. An arraignment was scheduled for
February 15, 2017.
¶10 On January 20, 2017, the Dodge County District
Attorney filed an Information in the L.W. case charging first-
degree intentional homicide-domestic abuse modifier; hiding a
3
No. 2020AP131-D
corpse; incest; and two counts of possession of a firearm by a
felon.
¶11 On February 14, 2017, Attorney Jason Richard on behalf
of S.J. and the estate of S.D., filed a motion for a temporary
restraining order in the wrongful death action restraining L.W.
and/or his agents from transferring or dissipating any of L.W.'s
assets, real or personal.
¶12 The arraignment in L.W.'s criminal case was
rescheduled several times and ultimately was set for June 8,
2017.
¶13 On February 17, 2017, in the wrongful death action,
the circuit court granted the temporary injunction restraining
L.W. and/or his agents from transferring or dissipating assets
for 90 days, with the exception of allowing the expenditure of
up to $150,000 for legal fees. The circuit court issued its
findings of fact and conclusions of law on February 24, 2017.
That meant the temporary injunction would expire on or about May
25, 2017. Attorney Richard did not request a hearing to renew
the temporary restraining order when it expired.
¶14 On May 26, 2017, Attorney Bowe met with L.W. at the
Dodge County jail, at which time L.W. and Attorney Bowe signed a
representation agreement. Attorneys Donna Kuchler and Aaron
Nelson had been representing L.W. in his criminal case up to
that point.
¶15 On May 29, 2017, L.W. sent a letter to Attorney Bowe
in which he stated that the statements by witnesses with respect
to the gun possession charges were "highly inconsistent" and
4
No. 2020AP131-D
that DNA evidence on the guns was "inconclusive." L.W. said the
charge of hiding a corpse was vague and there was "no prelim or
showing proof of any probably cause to restrain his liberty."
L.W. also wrote there was "no standing for a tenant or guest to
override sole owner's consent or challenge of a search" which
referred to M.J. and M.V., who were living at the house owned by
L.W., where M.J. resided and where the corpse was found. L.W.
concluded the letter by saying that "A good position we are in
Ann is I am a Pre-trial detainee held in violation of U.S.
Constitution. Pre-arraigned at that!"
¶16 On May 31, 2017, Attorney Bowe deposited $149,397.81
into her trust account. These were funds belonging to L.W.,
which were obtained from Attorney Kuchler.
¶17 On June 2, 2017, Attorney Bowe met with L.W. at the
Dodge County jail. During that meeting L.W. signed a motion for
substitution of counsel, which substituted Attorney Bowe and
Attorney Michael Steinle for Attorneys Kuchler and Nelson.
¶18 On June 3, 2017, at L.W.'s request, Attorney Bowe
wrote the following trust account checks from L.W.'s funds:
M.J. (L.W.'s mother) $ 3,000.00
M.J. (L.W.'s grandmother) $ 1,000.00
D.M. (L.W.'s cousin) $ 1,197.81
D.P. (D.M.'s daughter) $ 200.00
S.J. (S.D.'s father) $10,000.00
T.J. (S.D.'s mother) $ 7,500.00
G.C. (L.W.'s friend) $ 2,500.00
¶19 At the time Attorney Bowe wrote the checks, she knew
that S.J. and T.J. were S.D.'s parents. S.J. and T.J. were
potential State witnesses. Attorney Bowe also knew that M.J.
5
No. 2020AP131-D
was a co-defendant in a criminal case and was a potential
witness against L.W. in his criminal case.
¶20 On June 3, 2017, L.W. telephoned D.M. to ask him to
pick up checks from Attorney Bowe's law office. D.M. was out of
state at the time and instructed his daughter, D.P., to go to
Attorney Bowe's law office to retrieve the checks. D.P. went to
Attorney Bowe's law office that day and Attorney Bowe gave her
checks made out to D.P., D.M., S.J., and T.J. D.P. left the
check for T.J. at D.M.'s house and he subsequently gave that
check to T.J.
¶21 On June 3, 2017, L.W. also telephoned G.C. to ask her
to pick up checks from Attorney Bowe's law office. G.C. went to
Attorney Bowe's law office that day and Attorney Bowe gave her
checks made out to G.C., M.J., and M.J. (L.W.'s grandmother).
¶22 On June 8, 2017, a motion hearing was held in L.W.'s
criminal case, at which time the circuit court dismissed
Attorneys Kuchler and Nelson and allowed Attorneys Bowe and
Steinle to serve as L.W.'s co-counsel. The arraignment was
rescheduled for July 20, 2017.
¶23 On June 8, 2017, L.W. signed Attorneys Bowe's and
Steinle's fee agreement. L.W. agreed to pay a flat fee of
$100,000 for representation in the criminal case. Attorney Bowe
wrote a trust account check in the amount of $50,000, dated
June 2, 2017, payable to Attorney Steinle for his half of the
flat fee.
¶24 On or about June 13, 2017, T.J. notified the Dodge
County District Attorney's Office that she had received a check
6
No. 2020AP131-D
for $7,500 from Attorney Bowe's law office and that S.J. had
received a similar check for $10,000.
¶25 On June 27, 2017, Attorneys Bowe and Steinle met with
L.W. at the Dodge County jail.
¶26 On July 10, 2017, Attorney Steinle filed a motion to
withdraw from representing L.W., citing a breakdown in
communication.
¶27 On July 14, 2017, the district attorney filed an
"other acts" motion and a motion to disqualify Attorney Bowe in
L.W.'s criminal case based on a conflict of interest likely to
result in ineffective assistance of counsel. The "other acts"
motion identified S.J., T.J., and M.J. as State witnesses. In
the motion, the district attorney argued:
The transfer of large amounts of money to State
witnesses is designed to influence their testimony and
their cooperation with the State in its prosecution.
It is most telling that the mother and father of the
victim are in receipt of the largest sums of money.
The next largest documented amount is to his mother
who is a witness to the events surrounding the
homicide. All three are witnesses against him.
¶28 On July 17, 2017, Attorney Steinle was allowed to
withdraw from representing L.W.
¶29 On July 13, 2017, Attorney Bowe wrote a trust account
check payable to cash for $250. L.W. had instructed Attorney
Bowe to deposit this amount into the account of an incarcerated
female friend. On July 17, 2017, Attorney Bowe wrote a trust
account check payable to cash for $5,000. On August 4, 2017,
she wrote a trust account check payable to cash for $2,500. The
7
No. 2020AP131-D
checks totaled $7,500, which is the fee amount L.W. and Attorney
Bowe agreed that Attorney Bowe had earned out of the $50,000
flat fee.
¶30 On July 20, 2017, a motion hearing in L.W.'s criminal
case was held, at which time Attorney Bowe was provided copies
of the "other acts" motion and motion to disqualify her.
Attorney Bowe agreed to withdraw from L.W.'s case, and the
circuit court allowed her to do.
¶31 In the stipulation, Attorney Bowe agreed that her
conduct in writing checks on behalf of L.W. to potential state
witnesses carried a significant risk that her representation of
L.W. would be materially limited by her personal interests.
¶32 By entering into the stipulation, Attorney Bowe
admitted the following counts of misconduct alleged in the OLR's
amended complaint:
Count 1: By issuing checks from her trust account to
potential State witnesses against her client, Attorney
Bowe violated SCR 20:1.7(a)(2).1
Count 2: By making three trust account checks payable
to cash, Attorney Bowe violated SCR 20:1.15(f)(2)a.2
1 SCR 20:1.7(a)(2) provides:
(a) Except as provided in par. (b), a lawyer
shall not represent a client if the representation
involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A
concurrent conflict of interest exists if:
(2) there is a significant risk that the
representation of one or more clients will be
materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to
another client, a former client or a third person or
by a personal interest of the lawyer.
8
No. 2020AP131-D
¶33 The parties state that the stipulation did not result
from plea bargaining. Attorney Bowe represents that she fully
understands the allegations; that she fully understands the
ramifications should this court impose the stipulated level of
discipline; that she fully understands her right to contest the
matter; that that she fully understands her right to consult
with counsel and that she has consulted with counsel; that her
entry into the stipulation is made knowingly and voluntarily;
that she has read the amended complaint and the stipulation and
her entry into the stipulation represents her decision not to
contest the allegations in the amended complaint or the level
and type of discipline sought by the OLR's director.
¶34 The referee agreed that by issuing checks from her
trust account to potential State witnesses in L.W.'s criminal
case, Attorney Bowe engaged in conduct that created a
significant risk that her representation of L.W. would be
materially limited by her personal interest. The referee
commented that at a July 14, 2020 hearing, Attorney Bowe
explained the reason for writing the checks. Attorney Bowe said
L.W. had settled a large personal injury case and had a large
amount of money at his disposal. She said at the time the
criminal charges were filed, there were various actions seeking
to freeze or seize those funds. She said at the time L.W.
2 SCR 20:1.15(f)(2)a. provides: "No withdrawal of cash
shall me made from a trust account or from a deposit to a trust
account. No check shall be made payable to "Cash." No
withdrawal shall be made from a trust account by automated
teller or cash dispensing machine."
9
No. 2020AP131-D
retained her in the criminal case none of those actions had been
successful, but L.W. feared that he would soon not have access
to that money and while he still had it he wanted to make gifts
to a number of people, using her to disburse the funds. The
referee commented, "one need not dwell on the possible
hypothetical problems that this could have created; the details
of this case are living proof that this was a bad idea." The
referee said to Attorney Bowe's credit, she realized she could
not defend against the district attorney's motion to remove her
from the case and she immediately stepped aside. The referee
noted that Attorney Bowe's counsel commented that Attorney Bowe,
"perceived as a necessity the appeasing of a difficult client,
as [L.W.] most certainly was."
¶35 The referee concluded that a public reprimand was an
appropriate sanction for Attorney Bowe's misconduct.
¶36 This court will affirm a referee's findings of fact
unless they are found to be clearly erroneous, but we review the
referee's conclusions of law de novo. In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 Wis. 2d 71,
740 N.W.2d 125. We determine the appropriate level of
discipline independent of the referee's recommendation, but
benefitting from it. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.
¶37 There is no showing that any of the referee's findings
of fact, which are largely derived from the parties'
stipulation, are clearly erroneous, so we adopt them. We also
10
No. 2020AP131-D
adopt the referee's conclusions of law with respect to the
alleged misconduct.
¶38 With respect to the sanction, we agree that a public
reprimand is an appropriate sanction. While no two cases are
preciously identical, we find that Public Reprimand of Kristin
Schrank, No. 2018-08 (electronic copy available at
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/003045.html) is somewhat
analogous. Attorney Schrank was an assistant district attorney.
Her responsibilities included answering questions and assisting
law enforcement during non-business hours. While working at a
different part-time job, Attorney Schrank asked a friend, who
was a former assistant district attorney but who was not
authorized to answer the duty district attorney phone at that
time, to respond to any calls from law enforcement.
¶39 During that time, officers from a police department
attempted to contact Attorney Schrank about an arrestee's
refusal to consent to a blood draw following an operating while
intoxicated arrest with injuries. Attorney Schrank's friend
answered the call and advised the officer to obtain a search
warrant. The friend represented himself as an intern at the
district attorney's office and gave the name of an intern.
Attorney Schrank subsequently appeared in court on the matter
and dismissed the case without providing any reason. Following
an investigation into her conduct, Attorney Schrank was
convicted of misdemeanor attempted misconduct in public office.
Her personal interest presented a conflict of interest. Like
Attorney Schrank, Attorney Bowe made poor decisions in writing
11
No. 2020AP131-D
checks to potential witnesses in L.W.'s case, which ultimately
created a conflict of interest that impacted the administration
of justice. A public reprimand is warranted.
¶40 IT IS ORDERED that Ann T. Bowe is publicly reprimanded
for her professional misconduct.
¶41 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order, Ann T. Bowe shall pay to the Office of Lawyer
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which total $6,482.86
as of September 1, 2020.
12
No. 2020AP131-D
1