Wisconsin Suspends Attorney Who Practiced While On Administrative Suspension

The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended an attorney for nine months for practice while on administrative suspension

Attorney Schiltz was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 1987. He had no disciplinary history prior to the filing of this complaint. His law license has been administratively suspended for failing to comply with CLE reporting requirements since May 31, 2016, and for failing to pay annual bar dues and to provide a required trust account certification since October 31, 2017.

He practiced in several matters while suspended including

At the time of his May 31, 2016 suspension for failure to comply with CLE reporting requirements, Attorney Schiltz had been the attorney for a particular town for several years, including acting as municipal prosecutor. Attorney Schiltz did not timely inform the town or the town’s municipal judge of his suspension, nor did he timely advise the town to seek successor counsel.

From June of 2016 through at least April 30, 2017, Attorney Schiltz continued to represent the town in municipal court and other proceedings.

When he petitioned the Board of Bae Examiners for reinstatement

On October 6, 2016, Attorney Schiltz filed a petition for reinstatement with the BBE. In it, Attorney Schiltz stated, “I have not practiced law during the time of my suspension.” This statement was false.

He defaulted

We agree with the referee that Attorney Schiltz should be declared in default. Although the OLR effected personal service of its original complaint and mailed the amended complaint to both Attorney Schiltz’s office address registered with the State Bar and the address at which he was served with the original complaint, he failed to appear or present a defense. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to declare him in default. In addition, the referee properly relied on the allegations of the complaint, which were deemed admitted.

The court did not impose the referee’s 18-month suspension

Under the unique circumstances of this case, we conclude that a nine-month suspension is appropriate. In imposing this suspension, we agree with the referee’s view that
the six-month suspension requested by the OLR in its amended complaint is insufficient.

The court was influenced by the absence of prior discipline. (Mike Frisch)