A Breach Of The Public Trust

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has revoked an attorney’s license

On February 5, 2021, the State charged Attorney Steffen with three counts of violating WIS. STAT. § 942.09(2)(am)1. by capturing intimate representations of a person without knowledge or consent of the victim. The charges related to two victims. Attorney Steffen was prosecuting the first victim while acting as a part-time assistant district attorney and entered into a sexual relationship with her before the case concluded. The second victim was also involved in a sexual relationship with Attorney Steffen and sought his advice on avoiding criminal prosecution for potential criminal acts. Attorney Steffen and both victims testified at trial. A jury convicted Attorney Steffen of all three counts on April 27, 2023. The court entered a judgment of conviction on July 24, 2023.

An interim suspension was imposed after the conviction and a disciplinary hearing held on the misconduct

Attorney Steffen was admitted to the practice of law in Wisconsin on September 29, 1998. He has no prior disciplinary history. After serving as the elected District Attorney in Polk County, Attorney Steffen began work as a part-time assistant district attorney in both Washburn and Burnett counties in 2017, whilst also maintaining a private criminal and family law practice. As an assistant district attorney in Burnett County, Attorney Steffen covered intake duties, including appearing for the state in new criminal matters, and he possessed the authority to negotiate and dismiss cases.

Victim 1 was charged in Burnett County with one count of violating a harassment restraining order protecting the father of a child she shared with him. Victim 1 was not represented by counsel. She appeared in court on June 6, 2018, for her initial appearance and pretrial conference and entered a not guilty plea. Within a week, Attorney Steffen and Victim 1 began exchanging “flirty” text messages, and the two discussed going out for a drink.

Respondent offered a plea deal to the victim

The same day as the plea hearing, Attorney Steffen gave Victim 1 advice about a pending family court matter involving Victim 1 and the child’s father involving the same restraining order that was the subject of the criminal prosecution. Attorney Steffen and Victim 1 then began exchanging text messages of “a sexual nature,” including “videos of each other engaged in sexual acts.” Attorney Steffen texted pictures of his genitalia to Victim 1, and they texted about “meeting up.”

He declined to press new charges 

In the interim, Attorney Steffen continued his sexual relationship with Victim 1, with encounters taking place at both their residences and Attorney Steffen’s office, even though he “had concerns about whether he could engage in a relationship with Victim 1.” On two separate occasions, Attorney Steffen captured an intimate representation of Victim 1 engaged in sex acts with him at his residence without her knowledge or consent, under circumstances in which Victim 1 possessed a reasonable expectation of privacy.7 Attorney Steffen did not inform the Burnett County District Attorney that he was engaged in a sexual relationship with Victim 1, or that he offered her legal advice, prior to the decision not to prosecute the July 30, 2018 referral.

She later came forward

Victim 1 eventually disclosed her relationship with Attorney Steffen to a DOJ special agent while incarcerated as a result of another matter. The referee noted that the criminal complaint indicated that the charges came about after Victim 1 “had openly talked about having sexual relations with a Burnett County Assistant District Attorney (ADA) in exchange for leniency on criminal cases . . . in Burnett County.”

Victim 2 

In 2017, Attorney Steffen began a sexual relationship with Victim 2, whom he had known since 2007, after the two began exchanging text messages that “were sexual in nature.” On August 1, 2017, Attorney Steffen captured an intimate representation of Victim 2 without her consent, under circumstances where Victim 2 had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The circumstances of the recording were similar to the instances where Attorney Steffen recorded Victim 1. During this encounter, Attorney Steffen spoke to Victim 2 about her concern over possible criminal charges resulting from her damaging a mailbox belonging to her daughter’s father.

Attorney Steffen later disclosed that he had recorded their sexual encounter without her knowledge, and Victim 2 became angry and asked him to delete the video. Attorney Steffen deleted the video from his cell phone, but not his iPad. Attorney Steffen later texted Victim 2 that he was aware his iPad was recording the encounter.

Additionally, based on her trial testimony, the referee noted that Victim 2 attempted to blackmail Attorney Steffen during the investigation into the underlying criminal charges “by offering to not give her cell phones to the DOJ if the respondent forgave a bill owed to him by one of her friends.”

Respondent’s criminal charges

The criminal complaint alleged that Attorney Steffen made two unlawful recordings of Victim 1 and another unlawful recording of Victim 2 engaged in sexual acts with him. Attorney Steffen entered pleas of not guilty, and the matter proceeded to trial, during which Attorney Steffen was represented by counsel. Both victims testified at trial.11 The jury found Attorney Steffen guilty of all three counts.

On July 24, 2023, the court sentenced Attorney Steffen to 1.5 years’ initial confinement and two years’ extended supervision on count 1 and count 3 (concurrent), and four years’ probation on count 2, consecutive to the other sentences.

In the bar case

As to the appropriate level of discipline, the OLR sought a two-year suspension of Attorney Steffen’s license to practice law; Attorney Steffen requested a one-year suspension. The referee rejected both proposals and recommended an 18-month suspension.

The court

While we agree with the referee that this case involves “serious misconduct” and that a “stern consequence” is warranted, we reject the referee’s recommendation for an 18-month suspension, which is insufficient given the nature and seriousness of the misconduct, the need to protect the public, the need to deter other attorneys from similar misconduct, and the significant aggravating factors present in this case. While we appreciate the referee’s thorough analysis of the relevant factors under our prior decisions and the ABA standards, we believe the referee missed the mark in several related respects.

Reasoning

Relatedly, while the referee made passing reference to the fact that Attorney Steffen was employed as an assistant district attorney when committing the underlying offenses, the referee seems to have ignored the connection between this position of public trust and the nature of the misconduct. This case involves much more than an attorney ignoring the “fundamental” duty to simply “obey the law.” Specifically, the referee seemingly lost sight of the fact that Attorney Steffen was employed as an assistant district attorney when he pursued a romantic and sexual relationship with a defendant in a criminal matter that he was prosecuting and recorded their sexual encounters. Likewise, he did the same thing with respect to Victim 2, who came to him for advice on avoiding penalties for a potential criminal act. Attorney Steffen continued his sexual relationship with Victim 1 while the district attorney’s office was responsible for overseeing a deferred judgment of conviction. And he was involved (in some fashion) in the decision to not prosecute additional criminal charges against Victim 1 based on her subsequent conduct that arguably violated the terms of the agreement and could have led to its termination. Attorney Steffen also failed to inform the Burnett County District Attorney of his relationship when the district attorney declined to prosecute a second referral of additional criminal conduct by Victim 1. Likewise, Attorney Steffen failed to inform the judge presiding over Victim 1’s case of the relationship while the case remained open. All of this occurred despite Attorney Steffen having concerns about the nature of his relationship with Victim 1. Attorney Steffen admitted to all of these facts in the parties’ first stipulation.

Bottom line

In light of all of the above, we conclude that revocation of Attorney Steffen’s license to practice law is the appropriate type of “stern consequence” that the referee indicated was necessary, given “[t]he seriousness, nature, and extent of the misconduct; the level of discipline needed to protect the public; the need to impress upon the attorney the seriousness of the misconduct; and the need to deter other attorneys from similar misconduct.” DeLadurantey, 406 Wis. 2d 62, ¶52.

The sanction was made retroactive to the date of the interim suspension.

The Wisconsin Examiner reported on the criminal case

In 2015, Steffen was arrested and charged with operating a vehicle while intoxicated after he was pulled over and blew a 0.11 on a preliminary breath test. Steffen told police during that incident that he’d stopped for a couple drinks on the way to a district attorney’s conference. 

Steffen was also found guilty after pleading no contest to a 2019 misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge in Dane County. In that case, Steffen was initially charged with misdemeanor theft after he and a woman attempted to be reimbursed for an extra night in a hotel he stayed in for a conference hosted by DOJ. 

(Mike Frisch)