2013 WI 35
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2012AP366-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Maria J. Schreier, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Maria J. Schreier,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SCHREIER
OPINION FILED: April 30, 2013
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2013 WI 35
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2012AP366-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Maria J. Schreier, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant,
APR 30, 2013
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Maria J. Schreier,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review the report filed by the
referee, Reserve Judge John B. Murphy, recommending that the
court suspend Attorney Maria J. Schreier's license to practice
law in this state for a period of two years for 20 counts of
No. 2012AP366-D
misconduct. Because no appeal has been filed, we review the
referee's report and recommendation pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1
¶2 We approve and adopt the referee's findings of fact
and conclusions of law. However, we disagree with the referee
as to the appropriate sanction. We conclude that the
appropriate discipline for Attorney Schreier's misconduct is a
30-month suspension of her law license rather than the two-year
suspension recommended by the referee. We further conclude that
conditions must be imposed on any future reinstatement of
Attorney Schreier's license related to her rehabilitation from
alcohol and drug addiction. We agree with the referee that a
portion of the costs of the proceeding, $1,403.04, should be
assessed against Attorney Schreier.
¶3 Attorney Schreier was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 1997. The most recent address Attorney Schreier
has on file with the State Bar of Wisconsin is in Montello,
Wisconsin, but the address she lists on the proceedings in this
case is in Roslindale, Massachusetts. Her license to practice
law in Wisconsin is currently suspended for nonpayment of dues
and noncompliance with continuing legal education requirements.
1
SCR 22.17(2) states:
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or
remand the matter to the referee for additional
findings; and determine and impose appropriate
discipline. The court, on its own motion, may order
the parties to file briefs in the matter.
2
No. 2012AP366-D
Her license had been suspended from February 26, 2004, to
September 29, 2011, for her failure to cooperate with the Office
of Lawyer Regulation's (OLR) efforts to investigate her.
¶4 The misconduct claims in this case stem from the
following matters:
• Attorney Schreier's 14 criminal convictions between
2008 and 2011, listed below, and her failure to report
them to the OLR and the Wisconsin Supreme Court clerk.
o Four counts of operating while under the
influence (two misdemeanors and two felonies).
o Three counts of misdemeanor resisting or
obstructing an officer.
o Two counts of misdemeanor hit and run.
o One count of misdemeanor cocaine possession.
o One count of misdemeanor operating while revoked.
o One count of misdemeanor bail jumping.
o One count of felony second-degree recklessly
endangering safety.
o One count of misdemeanor disorderly conduct.
• Attorney Schreier's municipal citation for retail
theft.
• Attorney Schreier's non-cooperation with the OLR's
inquiries into the following three matters:
o Overdrafts of her trust account totaling $66.37.
o A client grievance.
o Police reports that referenced drug paraphernalia
and cocaine in her residence.
3
No. 2012AP366-D
¶5 It is undisputed that much of the misconduct at issue
in this case was a by-product of Attorney Schreier's substance
abuse problems during the time period in question.
¶6 The OLR filed a complaint against Attorney Schreier on
February 21, 2012. Based on the misconduct described above, the
OLR's complaint alleged the following 20 claims of misconduct:
• Three counts of engaging in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. See
SCR 20:8.4(c).2
• Seven counts of committing a criminal act that
reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty,
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other
respects. See SCR 20:8.4(b).3
• One count of both engaging in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation and
committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on
the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a
lawyer. See SCR 20:8.4(c) and SCR 20:8.4(b).
2
SCR 20:8.4(c) states it is professional misconduct for a
lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit
or misrepresentation; . . . ."
3
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; . . . ."
4
No. 2012AP366-D
• Six counts of failing to timely notify the OLR of
convictions. See SCR 21.15(5)4 enforced via
SCR 20:8.4(f).5
• Three counts of failing to cooperate with an OLR
investigation. See SCRs 22.03(2) and 22.03(6),6
enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h).7
4
SCR 21.15(5) provides as follows:
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 Supreme Court within 5 days after the 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.
5
SCR 20:8.4(f) says 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; . . . ."
6
SCRs 22.03(2) and (6) state:
(2) 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 a 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.
5
No. 2012AP366-D
¶7 In March 2012, prior to the appointment of a referee,
Attorney Schreier and the OLR entered into a stipulation
agreement. The parties stipulated that Attorney Schreier's
misconduct gave rise to the counts alleged in the complaint.
They stipulated to a one-year suspension of Attorney Schreier's
law license. The stipulation did not recommend the imposition
of conditions upon any future reinstatement of Attorney
Schreier's Wisconsin law license.
¶8 In a June 28, 2012 order, this court reviewed the
parties' stipulation and rejected it, explaining:
After our independent review of the matter, we
reject the SCR 22.12 stipulation. We determine that
the very serious and extensive nature of Attorney
Schreier's professional misconduct warrants
considerably more than a one-year suspension of her
license to practice law in this state. We further
determine that in addition to a considerably longer
license suspension, Attorney Schreier's professional
misconduct requires the imposition of conditions
directed to her rehabilitation from her demonstrated
substance abuse problems. We believe that this is a
necessary step to ensure Attorney Schreier's
rehabilitation and to protect the public given that
. . .
(6) 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.
7
SCR 20:8.4(h) states 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); . . . ."
6
No. 2012AP366-D
the use of controlled substances played a substantial
role in the misconduct to which Attorney Schreier
stipulated.
¶9 Pursuant to SCR 22.12(3),8 this court ordered the
appointment of a referee and further ordered that the matter
proceed as a complaint filed without a stipulation.
¶10 A referee was appointed and the parties entered into a
second stipulation. In the parties' second stipulation,
Attorney Schreier again admitted to all counts of misconduct
alleged in the OLR's complaint. The stipulation also explained
that Attorney Schreier currently is on probation for her past
criminal activity, has completed all periods of incarceration,
has paid all fines and court costs, has paid all of the
restitution owed to the victims of her criminal vehicular
operation, and has maintained absolute sobriety from alcohol and
drugs for over three years. The parties stipulated to a two-
year license suspension. Notwithstanding the above-quoted
language from this court's June 2012 order, the parties'
stipulation did not recommend the imposition of conditions upon
any future reinstatement of Attorney Schreier's Wisconsin law
license.
¶11 On November 14, 2012, the referee filed a report and
recommendation based on the parties' second stipulation. The
referee issued findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a
8
SCR 22.13(3) states as follows: "If the supreme court
rejects the stipulation, a referee shall be appointed and the
matter shall proceed as a complaint filed without a
stipulation."
7
No. 2012AP366-D
disciplinary recommendation consistent with the parties'
stipulation: a two-year suspension, with no conditions
precedent for reinstatement. In a later filing, the referee
recommended, consistent with the OLR's recommendation, that
Attorney Schreier pay $1,403.04 in costs, which consists of the
referee's and OLR counsel's fees and costs incurred after this
court's rejection of the parties' first stipulation.
¶12 No appeal was filed from the referee's report and
recommendation, so the court reviews this matter pursuant to
SCR 22.17(2).
¶13 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.
¶14 We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law
to which the parties have stipulated, and as adopted by the
referee. The factual findings are supported by the record, and
we agree with the referee that those factual findings
demonstrate that Attorney Schreier committed each of the 20
counts of professional misconduct alleged in the complaint.
¶15 We further decide, contrary to the referee's
recommendation, that a 30-month license suspension is
appropriate. Attorney Schreier's list of misdeeds is
considerable, and many of them, by themselves, could have led to
8
No. 2012AP366-D
a significant suspension. For example, though there are no
exact matches to the facts of this case, prior cases involving
drug use have warranted substantial suspensions. See, e.g., In
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Compton, 2010 WI 112, 329
Wis. 2d 318, 787 N.W.2d 831 (two-year suspension based on
convictions for felony possession of heroin and felony bail
jumping, with misdemeanor charges for possession of cocaine and
possession of drug paraphernalia dismissed and read-in for
sentencing); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Broadnax,
225 Wis. 2d 440, 591 N.W.2d 855 (1999) (two-year suspension for
using cocaine while subject to order not to do so,
misappropriating slightly less than $1,000 from his former law
firm, and stealing several compact discs from an employee of his
former law firm). In addition, this court has imposed
significant discipline for past criminal convictions. See In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Soldon, 2010 WI 27, 324
Wis. 2d 4, 782 N.W.2d 81 (six-month suspension after misdemeanor
convictions of retail theft and felony conviction of fleeing a
law enforcement officer); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
George, 2008 WI 21, 308 Wis. 2d 50, 746 N.W.2d 236 (suspension
of four years and three months after federal conviction of
conspiracy to commit offenses against federal programs in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371); In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Burke, 2007 WI 46, 300 Wis. 2d 198, 730 N.W.2d 651 (two-
year suspension after felony conviction of misconduct in public
office and misdemeanor conviction of obstructing an officer); In
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gral, 2007 WI 22, 299
9
No. 2012AP366-D
Wis. 2d 160, 727 N.W.2d 495 (three-year suspension after federal
conviction of mail fraud); In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Sostarich, 2005 WI 97, 282 Wis. 2d 712, 698 N.W.2d 711
(18-month suspension after conviction of conspiracy to commit
offenses involving federal program funds).
¶16 While all of Attorney Schreier's criminal convictions
are troublesome, one is particularly so: Attorney Schreier's
conviction for second-degree reckless endangerment contrary to
Wis. Stat. § 941.30(2), a Class G felony. By definition, this
conviction was based on conduct that Attorney Schreier knew
created an unreasonable and substantial risk of great bodily
harm. See Wis JI-Criminal 1347; Wis. Stat. § 939.24(1). By any
measure, that is a serious crime. Combining that felony with
Attorney Schreier's long list of other convictions, it becomes
clear that for several years, Attorney Schreier had a habitual
disregard for the law and her obligations as an attorney. A
two-year suspension risks unduly depreciating the seriousness of
Attorney Schreier's professional misconduct. A 30-month
suspension is more appropriate.
¶17 We turn now to the issue of conditions. There is no
dispute that much of Attorney Schreier's misconduct at issue in
this case was a by-product of substance abuse problems. There
also is no dispute that Attorney Schreier has made
rehabilitative strides through her personal efforts in
Massachusetts, where she currently resides. The record
indicates, for example, that she has received treatment for her
substance abuse issues, that she does volunteer work, and that
10
No. 2012AP366-D
she has entered into an agreement with the Massachusetts Lawyers
Concerned for Lawyers program——a program which we understand
provides services for lawyers dealing with substance abuse
issues. However, given the apparent severity of Attorney
Schreier's previous substance abuse issues, and in order to
ensure that Attorney Schreier does not lapse into a repetition
of the misconduct that led to the instant suspension, we order
that Attorney Schreier must demonstrate compliance with the
following requirements as a condition of any future
reinstatement of her Wisconsin law license:
• Compliance with all treatment recommendations of any
substance abuse treatment provider;
• Abstinence from all alcohol and other mood-altering
substances;
• Abstinence from over-the-counter medications that
contain alcohol or mood-altering substances; and
• Regular participation in a community-based support group
such as Alcoholics Anonymous, including obtaining
documentation of attendance.
¶18 Finally, we turn to the issue of costs. Both the OLR
and the referee recommend that Attorney Schreier pay $1,403.04
in costs, which represents the referee's and the OLR counsel's
costs after this court's rejection of the parties' first
stipulation. We agree with the OLR and the referee that, on the
facts of this particular case, this court's rejection of the
parties' first stipulation was an extraordinary circumstance
justifying a reduction in costs. See SCR 22.24(1m).
11
No. 2012AP366-D
¶19 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Maria J. Schreier to
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 30
months, effective the date of this order.
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of any
future reinstatement of her license to practice law in
Wisconsin, Maria J. Schreier must demonstrate compliance with
the following requirements:
A) Compliance with all treatment recommendations of any
substance abuse treatment provider;
B) Abstinence from all alcohol and other mood-altering
substances;
C) Abstinence from over-the-counter medications that
contain alcohol or mood-altering substances; and
D) Regular participation in a community-based support
group such as Alcoholics Anonymous, including obtaining
documentation of attendance.
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order, Maria J. Schreier shall pay $1,403.04 in costs to
the Office of Lawyer Regulation.
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent she has not
already done so, Maria J. Schreier 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.
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all
conditions of this decision is required for reinstatement. See
SCR 22.29(4)(c).
12