Reinstatement Denied After Attempt Adultery Conviction

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has agreed with a referee’s recommendation that a petition for reinstatement be denied

Attorney Ritland was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 1978. In 2021, his license to practice law was suspended for two years for paying money to two women to perform sex acts and being convicted of attempted adultery and disorderly conduct. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ritland, 2021 WI 36, 396 Wis. 2d 509, 957 N.W.2d 540.

Among the findings below

The referee found that Attorney Ritland did not meet other aspects of the reinstatement criteria. The referee found that Attorney Ritland failed to demonstrate that he has the necessary moral character to practice law in Wisconsin. The referee noted that the sexual misconduct which resulted in Attorney Ritland’s suspension involved the misuse of his status as an attorney in that the sexual encounters occurred at Attorney Ritland’s law office, and he used his attorney status through his representation of one victim and his access to visit the other victim while she was in jail. The referee said that at the reinstatement hearing, Attorney Ritland continued to minimize the connection between his status as an attorney and the sexual misconduct that resulted in his suspension, choosing to portray the misconduct as primarily a failure in his personal life.

This court’s order imposing the two-year suspension of Attorney Ritland’s law license was issued on April 22, 2021, and took effect on June 3, 2021. The referee noted that on May 6, 2021, Attorney Ritland entered a notice of retainer as attorney for A.P. in a criminal case in Clark County. The referee found that on May 11, 2021, at A.P.’s initial appearance involving several traffic forfeitures and a felony charge, Attorney Ritland twice misrepresented the reason for his need to withdraw from the case, referring to June 3, 2021, as the date of his retirement. At the reinstatement hearing, Attorney Ritland equated his references to retirement as notice of his suspension, claiming, “I said the same thing in different words.”

Additional findings

The referee further found that Attorney Ritland failed to show that his conduct after his suspension has been exemplary and above reproach. The referee said of particular concern in that regard were Attorney Ritland’s misrepresentations to the Clark County circuit court in the A.P. case, his misrepresentation  to OLR, and his failure to comply with the rules of this court regarding notification to clients and courts of his suspension.

The court

We also share the referee’s concern that Attorney Ritland has failed to demonstrate that he possesses the moral character to practice law. His false representations to various tribunals and OLR amply support this conclusion, as does his continued minimization of the misconduct that led to his suspension.

The suspension order is linked here.

In 2013, Attorney Ritland met Z.H. while in the checkout line at a Walmart. After Z.H. exited the store, Attorney Ritland invited her into his car, gave her his business card for his law office, and told her to contact him if she needed help or money. Several months later, Z.H. called Attorney Ritland, and he invited her to come to his law office after regular business hours. Upon luring Z.H. to his office and isolating her as he was the only one present, he gave her $40, touched her breasts outside of her clothing, and received oral sex from her. On another occasion, Z.H. again called Attorney Ritland and went to his office. He gave her $40, after which she displayed her breasts and then left, promising to return to complete the sexual encounter. Subsequent to these two incidents, Attorney Ritland visited Z.H. in jail, at a time when she was represented by a different attorney. Attorney Ritland informed jail personnel that he was visiting Z.H. as her attorney.

Attorney Ritland knew the other woman involved in this case, M.F., through his representation of her in numerous criminal matters. Attorney Ritland knew that M.F. had substance addiction problems. Attorney Ritland also knew that M.F. had financial troubles, as she consistently did not have the resources to pay modest bail amounts.

He had paid her bail and withdrew from representation of M.F. when his checkbook was found in her possession

After he withdrew from representing M.F., Attorney Ritland continued to provide money and other benefits to her. In March 2015, Attorney Ritland posted a $250 cash bail for M.F. in a criminal matter. In May 2015, Attorney Ritland and M.F. went to a casino together, where Attorney Ritland provided M.F. with money. In August 2015, Attorney Ritland told law enforcement that he did not want to pursue charges against M.F. even though she had altered a check originally made payable to him by making herself the payee. In March 2016, Attorney Ritland posted $300 cash bail for M.F. in a criminal matter; visited her in jail, identifying himself on the jail visitor log as an attorney even though he did not represent her; and gave her a note, received as a hearing exhibit, that said: “I still want 6 free ones. I got you out of jail.” The referee found that the phrase “6 free ones” referred to sexual interactions.

As of September 2016, M.F. owed Attorney Ritland hundreds or perhaps thousands of dollars in legal fees. After Attorney Ritland learned he would be charged with criminal offenses pertaining to his sexual contacts with M.F., he removed information pertaining to M.F. from his office’s billing records.

Criminal case

 In 2017, the State charged Attorney Ritland with four counts of solicitation of prostitution, two counts of attempted adultery, four counts of prostitution, one count of disorderly conduct, and one count of maintaining a drug trafficking place. Attorney Ritland ultimately pled no contest to, and was convicted of, one count of attempted adultery related to his conduct with Z.H., another count of attempted adultery related to his conduct with M.F., and one count of disorderly conduct. See State v. Ritland, Jackson County Case No. 2016CF177. The remaining counts were dismissed and read-in for sentencing purposes.

(Mike Frisch)