A Violation Of Ethics Rules

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has publicly reprimanded an attorney for an alcohol-related traffic offense

The OWI conviction results from Attorney Layber’s conduct on July 4, 2020. On that date, a police officer was driving a patrol car at Sandy Beach Park in Lake Mills. An individual approached the officer and pointed out a vehicle that was leaving the parking lot and was being driven by a female driver. The individual told the officer that the driver appeared to be intoxicated. The officer followed the vehicle for several blocks, observing, inter alia, that the vehicle deviated from its lane.

The officer stopped the vehicle. He identified Attorney Layber as the driver of the vehicle. During the stop, officers noticed the smell of alcohol on her breath. They learned that at the time, Attorney Layber’s driver’s license was subject to a legal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limitation of 0.02% due to her three prior OWI convictions, one of which had occurred in 1991 and two of which had occurred in 1999. The officers asked Attorney Layber to perform field sobriety tests, which she agreed to do. Attorney Layber, however, refused to take a preliminary breath test.

Based on the lane deviation, the results of the field sobriety tests, and the smell of alcohol on Attorney Layber’s breath, the police arrested her and transported her to the Lake Mills police station. The police then obtained a warrant to perform a blood draw. The results of that blood draw showed a BAC of 0.106%

In the criminal case

Ultimately, Attorney Layber pled no contest to the fourthoffense OWI charge, a Class H felony, and the fourth-offense PAC charge was dismissed. The circuit court sentenced Attorney Layber to six months in jail with Huber release privileges. It also required Attorney Layber to place an ignition interlock device on her car for 33 months.

The court rejected the contention that the conduct did not violate ethics rules.

Although Attorney Layber admitted these facts as alleged in the OLR’s complaint in this proceeding, she denied the claim that her conduct had violated SCR 20:8.4(b). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Attorney Layber essentially argued that her conduct that led to a conviction for fourth-offense OWI did not “reflect adversely on [her] honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.”

…Although Attorney Layber argued initially before the referee that her conduct in operating a vehicle while intoxicated for the fourth time was not a violation of SCR 20:8.4(b), she has not appealed from the referee’s legal conclusion of a violation of that rule. If she had, we would have rejected that argument under the facts of this case.

(Mike Frisch)