Tales Of New Orleans

The Wisconsin Supreme court imposed a six-month suspension for an in-house counsel for an insurance company’s dishonesty in expenses

In October 2016, Attorney Bant and her supervisor agreed that Attorney Bant would attend an American Bar Association seminar in New Orleans, Louisiana. On October 31, 2016, Attorney Bant submitted a request for reimbursement of the $1,115 fee listed on a fabricated seminar registration receipt that Attorney Bant had created using computer editing software. The fabricated receipt listed the dates of the seminar as December 8 and 9, 2016, even though the seminar was actually scheduled to take place on November 3 and 4, 2016. Attorney Bant’s employer paid her the requested sum of $1,115 for the seminar fee.

Attorney Bant told her employer that she would fly to New Orleans for the seminar on Wednesday, December 7, 2016, and would attend the seminar on December 8 and 9, 2016. But Attorney Bant did not go to New Orleans on those dates; as mentioned above, the seminar had occurred over a month earlier. A coworker spotted Attorney Bant in town on the morning of Friday, December 9, 2016.

Sometime in December 2016, Attorney Bant had uploaded, but had not yet formally submitted for reimbursement, the following fabricated travel receipts into her employer’s expense system.

 A receipt for the Windsor Court Hotel in New Orleans for the nights of December 7, 8, and 9, 2016, in the amount of $1,562.92. Attorney Bant fabricated this receipt by using computer editing software to modify a prior receipt from a different hotel. Attorney Bant’s modifications included copying the Windsor Court Hotel logo from their website and adding it to the prior receipt, and changing the dates on the prior receipt.

 A receipt for a restaurant meal in New Orleans for the date of December 8, 2016 in the amount of $43. Attorney Bant fabricated this receipt by taking a screenshot of an image from the internet and modifying it with editing software.

 Several receipts for Uber car service in New Orleans for the dates of December 7, 8, and 9, 2016, for supposed rides from the airport to the hotel, to a restaurant and back to the hotel, and from the hotel back to the airport. Attorney Bant fabricated these receipts by obtaining emailed price estimates from Uber for certain rides, and then using editing software to insert dates, departure times, and arrival times into the estimates so as to make them look like trip receipts.

 A receipt for a roundtrip airline ticket to and from New Orleans. Attorney Bant testified that she did not know where this document came from or how it was created. There is no dispute, however, that the false receipt was uploaded to her employer’s expense reporting system.

On Monday morning, December 12, 2016, Attorney Bant’s supervisor confronted her about her supposed trip to New Orleans, noting that she had been spotted in town on the morning of Friday, December 9, 2016. Attorney Bant said that she had left New Orleans early Friday morning because she wasn’t feeling well and wasn’t learning anything from the seminar. Attorney Bant’s supervisor then asked her to provide a timeline of her activities from Wednesday, December 7 through Friday, December 9. Attorney Bant handwrote a timeline that was entirely false. She claimed in the timeline that she flew to New Orleans on Wednesday, December 7; attended the seminar on Thursday; dined at specific restaurants; took Uber car service to specific locations; and flew home on Friday, December 9. When Attorney Bant gave the timeline to her supervisor, she told her supervisor that she had been physically assaulted while in New Orleans, resulting in bruising to various parts of her body.

Sanction

The public, the courts, and the Wisconsin legal profession deserve the assurance that, before Attorney Bant resumes practice, she will have successfully demonstrated to this court that she has made efforts to remedy the causes of her misbehavior. The six-month suspension justified by our case law is therefore necessary. See SCR 22.28(3).

We depart, however, from the referee’s recommendation that Attorney Bant undergo a psychological assessment at this time. We see no basis for a psychological assessment.

Because Attorney Bant has already made full restitution to her former employer, no restitution award is sought, and none is ordered.

She had stipulated to the misconduct. (Mike Frisch)