2017 WI 6
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2016AP1400-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Melinda R. Alfredson, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Melinda R. Alfredson,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ALFREDSON
OPINION FILED: February 1, 2017
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED: ABRAHAMSON, J. concurs (opinion filed).
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2017 WI 6
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2016AP1400-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Melinda R. Alfredson, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant, FEB 1, 2017
v. Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Melinda R. Alfredson,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a stipulation filed pursuant
to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12 by the Office of Lawyer
Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Melinda R. Alfredson. In the
stipulation, Attorney Alfredson admits that she committed
professional misconduct, and she agrees with the OLR's request
that her license to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for a
period of 60 days. Attorney Alfredson also agrees that she
No. 2016AP1400-D
should pay restitution totaling $1,809.71 to two parties,
divided as set forth below.
¶2 After careful review of the matter, we accept the
stipulation and impose the requested discipline. Because
Attorney Alfredson entered into a comprehensive stipulation
before the appointment of a referee, we do not require her to
pay the costs of this proceeding.
¶3 Attorney Alfredson was admitted to practice in
Wisconsin in 2009. She has no prior disciplinary history.
¶4 In July 2016, the OLR filed a complaint alleging that
Attorney Alfredson had engaged in sixteen counts of misconduct
arising out of her representation of two clients (K.H. and
N.W.), her violations of trust account rules, and her failure to
cooperate with the OLR's investigation into these matters. In
September 2016, the OLR and Attorney Alfredson filed a
stipulation pursuant to SCR 22.12. We take the following facts
from the parties' stipulation.
CLIENT K.H.
¶5 In January 2013, K.H. hired Attorney Alfredson to
represent him regarding two claims he had unsuccessfully pursued
with the Social Security Administration (SSA). Attorney
Alfredson filed an appeal on behalf of K.H. and attended a video
hearing with K.H. before a SSA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in
May 2013. In June 2013, the ALJ denied K.H.'s claims.
2
No. 2016AP1400-D
¶6 K.H. and Attorney Alfredson received a notice of the
ALJ's decision, which included instructions that a written
appeal must be filed within 60 days of June 30, 2013. K.H.
instructed Attorney Alfredson to file an appeal. Although
Attorney Alfredson claimed to the OLR that she sent a letter to
the local SSA office on August 9, 2013, informing the SSA of
K.H.'s intent to appeal, the SSA office received no such letter.
¶7 On August 13, 2013, Attorney Alfredson drafted an
appeal in letter form and reviewed the draft with K.H. K.H.
requested revisions to the appeal letter. Although Attorney
Alfredson claimed to the OLR that she made K.H.'s requested
revisions and submitted the appeal letter to the local SSA
office on August 13, 2013, the SSA office received no such
letter.
¶8 Between August 2013 and October 2014, K.H. asked
Attorney Alfredson to check the status of the appeal multiple
times. Although Attorney Alfredson claimed to the OLR that she
contacted the local SSA office multiple times, and that each
time she was told the appeal was open and pending, the SSA
office has no documentation of any phone calls from Attorney
Alfredson. The SSA's file also shows that no appeal was filed
and that the case was closed. Had Attorney Alfredson called the
SSA office to request the status of K.H.'s case, she would have
been informed that the case was closed.
¶9 In October 2014, K.H. contacted the SSA office to
check on the status of his appeal. He was told that the case
was closed because no appeal was filed.
3
No. 2016AP1400-D
¶10 K.H. left Attorney Alfredson a voicemail informing her
that the SSA office had closed his file. Attorney Alfredson
claimed to the OLR that she called the SSA office to check on
the status of K.H.'s appeal, and that she was told that the
matter was still open and that she should file the appeal again
if there was uncertainty about whether the appeal had been
filed. Attorney Alfredson also claimed to the OLR that she
filed a duplicate copy of the appeal letter on October 20, 2014.
However, the SSA office has no documentation of any phone calls
from Attorney Alfredson in October 2014, nor of an appeal letter
from Attorney Alfredson dated October 20, 2014. Despite
requests for a copy of the purported appeal letter, Attorney
Alfredson did not provide it to the OLR.
¶11 In the stipulation, Attorney Alfredson admits that she
committed the following counts of professional misconduct during
her representation of K.H.:
Count One: By failing to pursue the appeal as
agreed upon with K.H., Attorney Alfredson
violated SCR 20:1.3.1
Count Two: By failing to provide accurate case
status information upon K.H.'s request, Attorney
Alfredson violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4).2
1
SCR 20:l.3 provides: "A lawyer shall act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing a client."
2
SCRs 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4) provides: "A lawyer shall (3)
keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the
matter," and "(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests by
the client for information."
4
No. 2016AP1400-D
Count Three: By providing false case status
information to K.H., Attorney Alfredson violated
SCR 20:8.4(c).3
Count Four: By providing false information
regarding the filing of the appeal to the OLR,
Attorney Alfredson violated SCR 22.03(6),4
5
enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).
CLIENT N.W.
¶12 In mid-April 2014, N.W. retained Attorney Alfredson to
represent him in a custody and paternity matter. This matter
arose after a domestic incident occurred between N.W. and the
mother of his children, D.N. As a result of the incident, N.W.
was taken into custody. D.N. moved to the State of Oregon with
the children.
¶13 D.N. filed for, and obtained, a restraining order
against N.W. After being served with the restraining order,
N.W. entered into a retainer contract with Attorney Alfredson,
3
SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: "It is professional misconduct for
a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit or misrepresentation."
4
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."
5
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 22.03(6)."
5
No. 2016AP1400-D
which provided that she would represent him on custody and
placement issues for an advanced fee of $1,500. N.W. also
entered into a fee agreement with Attorney Alfredson, which
provided that the advanced fee would be placed into Attorney
Alfredson's business account. N.W.'s mother made an initial
payment of $400 by credit card, which was deposited into
Attorney Alfredson's business account. The remaining $1,100 of
the advanced fee was later paid to Attorney Alfredson and
deposited into her business account.
¶14 Attorney Alfredson drafted court papers, including a
petition for custody, placement, and child support, but did not
file the paperwork in a Wisconsin circuit court until almost
three months later, in July 2014. Attorney Alfredson told the
OLR that she delayed filing the paperwork because she did not
know where to serve D.N.
¶15 Attorney Alfredson and N.W. never discussed the delay
in filing the legal action. Had Attorney Alfredson told N.W.
that she did not know where to serve D.N., N.W. would have
provided Attorney Alfredson with an address at which he had
recently and successfully served D.N. in a different legal
matter. In addition, both N.W. and Attorney Alfredson were
aware of D.N.'s address in Oregon because it was included on the
restraining order that had been served upon N.W.
¶16 After filing the petition for custody, placement, and
child support, Attorney Alfredson made no effort to obtain
service on D.N. Nevertheless, she claimed that a process server
in Oregon had twice attempted to obtain service on D.N., and she
6
No. 2016AP1400-D
billed N.W. $75 for a service fee in August 2014. In a letter
to the OLR, Attorney Alfredson claimed that "service was not
delayed" until August 2014; rather, that was "simply when the
bill was paid." In a subsequent letter to the OLR, Attorney
Alfredson stated that she never received a bill from a process
server and that she was unable to provide proof of attempted
service.
¶17 In late August 2014, N.W. requested that Attorney
Alfredson refund the full advanced fee of $1,500. Attorney
Alfredson responded that she was unable to return the fee and
that "monies have to be transferred from the trust account
(where your retainer sits) and a grace period is required to be
waited." This statement was false, as the funds had been
deposited into Attorney Alfredson's business account.
¶18 On August 28, 2015, Attorney Alfredson sent a letter
to N.W. stating that she was terminating her representation of
N.W. and closing her file. She did not include in the closing
letter any information about the ability to contest the fee.
¶19 During the course of the OLR's investigation, Attorney
Alfredson told the OLR in an email that N.W. "never contested"
his bill, even though she had sent him "a letter upon closing
that stated that he had 30 days to let me know if he contested
his bill, per the terms of our retainer agreement." This
statement was false, as Attorney Alfredson did not include in
the closing letter any information about N.W.'s ability to
contest the fee. Moreover, far from having "never contested"
his bill, as Attorney Alfredson claimed, N.W. had requested a
7
No. 2016AP1400-D
full refund of the $1,500 advanced fee. Although Attorney
Alfredson acknowledged to the OLR during the course of its
investigation that N.W. is entitled to some sort of refund,
Attorney Alfredson has not refunded any portion of the $1,500
fee to N.W.
¶20 In early September 2014, N.W. asked a different
attorney to take over his case in place of Attorney Alfredson.
On September 9, 2014, successor counsel sent Attorney Alfredson
a Consent and Order for Substitution of Attorneys. On September
14, 2014, N.W. sent Attorney Alfredson an email asking her to
"sign off on my case." Attorney Alfredson replied to N.W.'s
email by stating that she had received the Consent and Order for
Substitution of Attorneys on September 11, 2014, and that she
had "turned it in" on September 12, 2014. However, Attorney
Alfredson did not file the Consent and Order for Substitution of
Attorneys until October 9, 2014. Her signature on the document
was dated September 8, 2014——a day before successor counsel sent
her the document and three days before she received the
document.
¶21 In the stipulation, Attorney Alfredson admits that she
committed the following counts of professional misconduct during
her representation of N.W.:
Count Five: By failing to ever serve D.N. and
delaying the filing of the court papers in the
Wisconsin circuit court case until July 2014,
Attorney Alfredson violated SCR 20:1.3.
Count Six: By failing to provide written notice
to N.W. regarding his ability to dispute the fee
8
No. 2016AP1400-D
and participate in binding arbitration to resolve
any dispute over the amount of the fee at the
termination of her representation, Attorney
Alfredson violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m)(b).6
Count Seven: Having acknowledged that N.W. is
entitled to a refund of an unspecified amount, by
failing to refund to N.W. any portion of the
advanced fee, Attorney Alfredson violated SCR
20:1.16(d).7
Count Eight: By asserting to N.W. that she was
unable to refund an advanced fee because the fee
was located in trust when the fee had been
6
SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m)(b) provides:
Upon termination of the representation, the lawyer
shall deliver to the client in writing all of the
following: (1) a final accounting or an accounting
from the date of the lawyer's most recent statement to
the end of the representation, regarding the client's
advanced fee payment with a refund of any unearned
advanced fees; (2) notice that, if the client disputes
the amount of the fee and wants that dispute to be
submitted to binding arbitration, the client must
provide written notice of the dispute to the lawyer
within 30 days of the mailing of the accounting; and
(3) notice that, if the lawyer is unable to resolve
the dispute to the satisfaction of the client within
30 days after receiving notice of the dispute from the
client, the lawyer shall submit the dispute to binding
arbitration.
7
SCR 20:1.16(d) provides:
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall
take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to
protect a client's interests, such as giving
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and
property to which the client is entitled and refunding
any advance payment of fee or expense that has not
been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers
relating to the client to the extent permitted by
other law.
9
No. 2016AP1400-D
deposited directly into her business account,
Attorney Alfredson violated SCR 20:8.4(c).
Count Nine: By asserting to the OLR that upon
termination of representation she provided N.W.
with written notice of his ability to contest the
fee when she had not done so, Attorney Alfredson
violated SCR 20:8.4(c).
Count Ten: By charging N.W. a $75 service fee
and asserting that she was billing for attempted
service when she was never billed by a process
server, Attorney Alfredson violated SCR
20:8.4(c).
Count Eleven: By providing false case status
information to N.W. regarding her filing of the
Consent and Order for Substitution of Attorneys,
Attorney Alfredson violated SCR 20:8.4(c).
Count Twelve: By failing to timely file the
Consent and Order for Substitution of Attorneys,
Attorney Alfredson violated SCR 20:1.16(d).
VIOLATIONS OF TRUST ACCOUNT RULES
¶22 Attorney Alfredson practiced as Alfredson Law Offices
for just over two years, from mid-November 2013 through late
January 2016. Attorney Alfredson was the only attorney
affiliated with that firm. Attorney Alfredson maintained a
trust account at U.S. Bank.
¶23 During the time that she operated Alfredson Law
Offices, Attorney Alfredson represented L.Z. in a divorce
matter. L.Z. removed and partially spent about $5,000 from the
couple's joint bank account. The circuit court ordered L.Z. to
provide an accounting of the money that had been spent, pay
$1,000 to the opposing counsel for attorney fees, and deposit
10
No. 2016AP1400-D
the balance of the money in Attorney Alfredson's trust account.
Notwithstanding this court order, no funds related to L.Z.'s
case were ever deposited in Attorney Alfredson's trust account.
¶24 The opposing counsel in the matter repeatedly tried to
contact Attorney Alfredson to determine the status of the
accounting and the payment of his $1,000 fee award. Attorney
Alfredson did not respond to the opposing counsel's inquiries.
¶25 At a subsequent court hearing, Attorney Alfredson told
the opposing counsel that her trust account contained $900 of
the funds at issue, which she would in turn forward to him in
partial payment of his fee award. This statement was false;
Attorney Alfredson had no funds relating to L.Z. in her trust
account, and the balance in the account was $11.49.
¶26 Approximately two months after making this statement,
Attorney Alfredson disbursed a $900 check from her trust account
to opposing counsel, even though there were no funds relating to
L.Z. in her trust account and the balance in the trust account
at that time was $1.29. The check cleared several days later,
after Attorney Alfredson deposited a $284 check from the State
Public Defender's Office for earned legal fees to the trust
account, as well as $640 in cash.
¶27 Several other trust account discrepancies are at issue
in this disciplinary proceeding. Between September 5, 2014, and
April 3, 2015, Attorney Alfredson deposited six checks totaling
$1,698.29 to her trust account that consisted of earned fees or
other funds belonging to her. Between September 5, 2014, and
April 15, 2015, Attorney Alfredson made six disbursements
11
No. 2016AP1400-D
totaling $1,783 from her trust account for personal purposes;
she wrote one trust account check for her law office rent, and
five trust account checks to family members (her father,
brother-in-law, and husband). Starting on April 2, 2015,
Attorney Alfredson's trust account was overdrawn. Attorney
Alfredson did not attempt to rectify the deficit in her trust
account. The account had a negative balance of $309.71 until
June 3, 2015, when the bank charged off the negative balance and
closed the trust account.
¶28 In addition, between September 2014 and April 2015,
Attorney Alfredson made seven internet deposits to her trust
account via her cell phone, totaling $1,733.29.
¶29 Finally, Attorney Alfredson failed to timely cooperate
with the OLR's investigation of the above-described trust
account discrepancies. She either failed to respond to the
OLR's inquiries, or when she did respond, she provided
incomplete or contradictory information.
¶30 In the stipulation, Attorney Alfredson admits that she
committed the following counts of professional misconduct:
Count Thirteen: By depositing at least $1,698.29
in earned fees and personal or law firm funds to
her trust account, by paying her law office rent
for September 2014 from the trust account, and by
issuing a total of five trust account checks to
her father, brother-in-law, and husband, Attorney
Alfredson deposited and retained funds belonging
to herself or her law firm in her client trust
account and used those funds to pay personal and
12
No. 2016AP1400-D
business expenses, in violation of SCR
20:1.15(b)(3).8
Count Fourteen: By making seven internet
deposits to her trust account, totaling $1,733.29
between September 5, 2014 and April 3, 2015,
Attorney Alfredson violated SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)c.9
Count Fifteen: By failing to address the
overdrafts of her trust account for more than a
month, resulting in the bank having to close the
trust account and absorb the negative balance of
$309.71, Attorney Alfredson violated SCR
20:8.4(c).
Count Sixteen: By failing to timely cooperate
with the OLR's investigation of her trust account
discrepancies, Attorney Alfredson violated SCR
22.03(2)10 and (6), as enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).
8
Effective July 1, 2016, substantial changes were made to
Supreme Court Rule 20:1.15, the "trust account rule." See
S. Ct. Order 14-07, (issued Apr. 4, 2016, eff. July 1, 2016).
Because the conduct underlying this case arose prior to July 1,
2016, unless otherwise indicated, all references to the supreme
court rules will be to those in effect prior to July 1, 2016.
SCR 20:1.15(b)(3) provides: "No funds belonging to the
lawyer or law firm, except funds reasonably sufficient to pay
monthly account service charges, may be deposited or retained in
a trust account."
9
SCR 20:l.15(e)(4)c provides: "A lawyer shall not make
deposits to or disbursements from a trust account by way of an
Internet transaction."
10
SCR 22.03(2) provides:
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
(continued)
13
No. 2016AP1400-D
¶31 The parties' stipulation provides that Attorney
Alfredson does not contest the facts and misconduct alleged by
the OLR or the discipline that the OLR is seeking. The
stipulation further provides that Attorney Alfredson fully
understands the misconduct allegations against her, her right to
contest those allegations, and the ramifications that would
follow from this court's imposition of the stipulated level of
discipline. The stipulation further provides that Attorney
Alfredson understands her right to counsel, that she is entering
into the stipulation knowingly and voluntarily, and that her
entry into the stipulation represents her admission of the
misconduct described above. Attorney Alfredson agrees in the
stipulation that it would be appropriate for this court to
impose a 60-day suspension of her license to practice law in
Wisconsin. Attorney Alfredson further agrees that a restitution
award in the amount of $1,500 to N.W. and $309.71 to U.S. Bank
would be appropriate.
¶32 The OLR filed a memorandum in support of the
stipulation. The OLR cited several cases that it claims support
its request for a 60–day suspension: In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Bartz, 2015 WI 61, 362 Wis. 2d 752, 864
N.W.2d 881 (60-day suspension for five counts of misconduct
related to one client matter; lawyer had one prior private
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.
14
No. 2016AP1400-D
reprimand); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Paul, 2007 WI
11, 298 Wis. 2d 629, 726 N.W.2d 253 (60-day suspension for eight
counts of misconduct related to one client matter; lawyer had no
prior discipline); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bowe,
2011 WI 48, 334 Wis. 2d 360, 800 N.W.2d 367 (public reprimand
for five counts of misconduct related to one client matter;
lawyer had one prior private reprimand); In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Tishberg, 2014 WI 118, 358 Wis. 2d 483, 860
N.W.2d 263 (public reprimand for five counts of misconduct
related to one client matter; lawyer had no prior discipline).
¶33 The OLR acknowledges that these cited cases are
distinguishable from the facts at hand in certain respects. For
example, Attorney Alfredson engaged in significantly more counts
of misconduct than the disciplined lawyers in the cited cases;
the sixteen misconduct counts here far exceed the five involved
in Bartz, Bowe, and Tishberg, and the eight involved in Paul.
This case also involves more extensive misconduct——spread over
multiple matters——than the cited cases, each of which involved
misconduct committed in a single client matter.
¶34 The OLR additionally notes that there are more
aggravating than mitigating factors here. On the aggravating
side of the ledger, the OLR notes that Attorney Alfredson
engaged in dishonest conduct with selfish motives by making
misrepresentations to K.H., N.W., and the OLR, each of which was
designed to conceal her misconduct or delay refunding unearned
fees. The OLR also notes that Attorney Alfredson engaged in a
pattern of inappropriate behavior, has expressed no remorse, and
15
No. 2016AP1400-D
appears indifferent to making restitution, having failed to
refund any portion of N.W.'s fee advance or to refund U.S. Bank
for the overdrafts on her trust account. Only one factor is
present on the mitigating side of the ledger: the fact that
Attorney Alfredson does not have a prior disciplinary record.
¶35 The central issue for this court is whether a
suspension greater than the 60-day minimum suspension is in
order. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Grady, 188
Wis. 2d 98, 108-09, 523 N.W.2d 564 (1994) (explaining that
generally the minimum length of a license suspension is 60
days). After careful review, we accept the stipulation and
impose the jointly requested sanction of a 60-day suspension of
Attorney Alfredson's Wisconsin law license, plus restitution
payments of $1,500 to N.W. and $309.71 to U.S. Bank. We note
that this sanction, on these facts, is modest. We also note
that Attorney Alfredson has no prior disciplinary history. If
she had been previously disciplined, a longer suspension would
be in order. We remind Attorney Alfredson that the court may
impose progressively severe sanctions when an attorney engages
in repeated misconduct. We impose the sanction to which the
parties stipulated with the expectation that Attorney Alfredson
will not commit future misconduct subjecting her to additional
discipline.
¶36 Because Attorney Alfredson entered into a
comprehensive stipulation, thereby obviating the need for the
appointment of a referee and a full disciplinary proceeding, we
do not impose costs in this matter.
16
No. 2016AP1400-D
¶37 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Melinda R. Alfredson
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60
days, effective March 15, 2017.
¶38 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order, Melinda R. Alfredson shall make restitution in
the amount of $1,500 to N.W. and $309.71 to U.S. Bank.
¶39 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Melinda R. Alfredson shall
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of
an attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended.
¶40 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all
conditions of this decision is required for reinstatement. See
SCR 22.28(2).
17
No. 2016AP1400-D.ssa
¶41 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J. (concurring). I write
separately to point out that this decision seems to continue a
trend of this court's imposing too light discipline following
the parties' entry into a stipulation. See, e.g., In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Krogman, 2015 WI 113, 365
Wis. 2d 628, 872 N.W.2d 657 (Abrahamson, J., dissenting); In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Crandall, 2015 WI 111, 365
Wis. 2d 682, 872 N.W.2d 649 (Abrahamson, J., dissenting).
¶42 I am concerned that the stipulation has become a way
to engage in plea (including sentencing) negotiations forbidden
by this court. The court has written:
[W]e note that the OLR is not authorized to plea
bargain disciplinary matters, although it may enter
into stipulations of fact and law and jointly request
the imposition of a certain level of discipline that
is supported by the particular facts of a matter.
See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Barrock, 2007 WI 24, ¶5, 299 Wis. 2d 207, 727
N.W.2d 833; In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Robinson, 2007 WI 17, ¶5, 299 Wis. 2d 49, 726
N.W.2d 896; In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Paul, 2007 WI 11, ¶22, 298 Wis. 2d 629, 726
N.W.2d 253; In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Morrissey, 2005 WI 169, ¶27, 286 Wis. 2d 579, 707
N.W.2d 142; In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Malloy, 2002 WI 52, ¶13, 252 Wis. 2d 597, 644
N.W.2d 663.
¶43 I concur rather than dissent because it is too
cumbersome for the court to reject a stipulation.
1
No. 2016AP1400-D.ssa
¶44 I advocated for the creation of a committee to review
the procedures of the OLR and recommend changes.1 A majority of
the justices finally created such a committee. I would hope
that the Office of Lawyer Regulation Procedure Review Committee
studies both plea negotiations and stipulations.
¶45 Unfortunately, the Committee was formed without any
input from the bench, bar, or public.
¶46 The members of the Committee are:
• Hon. (ret.) Gerald Ptacek (chair)
• Attorney Michael Apfeld (Godfrey & Kahn)
• Mr. Mark Baker (WS Darley & Co.)
• Attorney Rick Esenberg (Wisconsin Institute for Law &
Liberty)
• Attorney Edward Hannan (Hannan Legal LLC)
• Attorney Amy Jahnke (Anderson, O'Brien, Bertz, Skrenes
& Golla LLP)
• Attorney Terry Johnson (Peterson, Johnson & Murray SC)
• Attorney Catherine La Fleur (La Fleur Law Office SC)
1
See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Osicka,
2014 WI 34, ¶38, 353 Wis. 2d 675, 847 N.W.2d 333 (Abrahamson,
C.J., concurring); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Osicka, 2014 WI 33, ¶37, 353 Wis. 2d 656, 847 N.W.2d 343
(Abrahamson, C.J., concurring); In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Johns, 2014 WI 32, ¶¶68-76, 353 Wis. 2d 746, 847
N.W.2d 179 (Abrahamson, C.J., dissenting); In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Kratz, 2014 WI 31, ¶¶73-75, 353 Wis. 2d 696,
851 N.W.2d 219 (Abrahamson, C.J., concurring); Rule Petition 15-
01, In the Matter of the Review of the Office of Lawyer
Regulation (petition filed Feb. 6, 2015; dismissed by a vote of
the majority of the court Dec. 21, 2015).
2
No. 2016AP1400-D.ssa
• Attorney Frank LoCoco (Husch Blackwell LLP)
• Professor Michael McChrystal (Marquette University Law
School)
• Attorney David Meany (Wisconsin Department of Justice)
• Attorney Jennifer Nashold (Wisconsin Division of
Hearings & Appeals)
• Attorney Joseph Ranney (DeWitt Ross & Stevens SC)
• Attorney Jacquelynn Rothstein (Board of Bar Examiners)
• Attorney Carrie Schneider (Outagamie County District
Attorney's Office)
• Attorney Paul Schwarzenbart (Stafford Rosenbaum LLP)
• Attorney Christopher Sobic (State Public Defender's
Office)
• Attorney Rod Rogahn (Rogahn Jones LLC)
• Hon. David Wambach (Jefferson County Circuit Court
Judge)
¶47 Unfortunately the Committee has only one public
member. No charge was provided to the Committee, but it has
adopted a mission statement.2 No time has been proposed within
which the committee is to complete its work. Unfortunately, the
committee has no web site and does not publicly announce its
meetings or distribute its minutes widely. Fortunately, the
2
"It is the mission of the OLR Procedure Review Committee
to review OLR procedures/process and structure and to report to
the Wisconsin Supreme Court recommendations for changes to the
current Supreme Court rules that would increase the efficiency
and effectiveness of the OLR procedures/process."
3
No. 2016AP1400-D.ssa
committee has an able reporter——Attorney Marsha Mansfield of the
University of Wisconsin Law School faculty.
¶48 I hope that the Committee's work will be more public
and will benefit from public participation to improve the
procedures for disciplining lawyers, for both the public and for
lawyers.
¶49 For the reasons set forth, I write separately.
4
No. 2016AP1400-D.ssa
5