Another Call For Transparency In Wisconsin Discipline

An attorney who had neglected three matters and made misrepresentations to the clients to conceal the inaction was suspended for 60 days by the Wisconsin Supreme Court

The central issue for this court is whether a suspension greater than the 60-day minimum suspension is in order. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Grady, 188 Wis. 2d 98, 108-09, 523 N.W.2d 564 (1994) (explaining that generally the minimum length of a license suspension is 60 days). After careful review, we accept the stipulation and impose the jointly requested sanction of a 60-day suspension of Attorney Alfredson’s Wisconsin law license, plus restitution payments of $1,500 to N.W. and $309.71 to U.S. Bank. We note that this sanction, on these facts, is modest. We also note that Attorney Alfredson has no prior disciplinary history. If she had been previously disciplined, a longer suspension would be in order. We remind Attorney Alfredson that the court may impose progressively severe sanctions when an attorney engages in repeated misconduct. We impose the sanction to which the parties stipulated with the expectation that Attorney Alfredson will not commit future misconduct subjecting her to additional discipline.

Because Attorney Alfredson entered into a comprehensive stipulation, thereby obviating the need for the appointment of a referee and a full disciplinary proceeding, we do not impose costs in this matter.

 A concurring opinion repeats a call for action in the public interest where lawyer discipline is concerned

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J. (concurring). I write separately to point out that this decision seems to continue a trend of this court’s imposing too light discipline following the parties’ entry into a stipulation. See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Krogman, 2015 WI 113, 365 Wis. 2d 628, 872 N.W.2d 657 (Abrahamson, J., dissenting); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Crandall, 2015 WI 111, 365 Wis. 2d 682, 872 N.W.2d 649 (Abrahamson, J., dissenting).

I am concerned that the stipulation has become a way to engage in plea (including sentencing) negotiations forbidden by this court…

I advocated for the creation of a committee to review the procedures of the OLR and recommend changes.  A majority of the justices finally created such a committee. I would hope that the Office of Lawyer Regulation Procedure Review Committee studies both plea negotiations and stipulations.

Unfortunately, the Committee was formed without any input from the bench, bar, or public…

Unfortunately the Committee has only one public member. No charge was provided to the Committee, but it has adopted a mission statement.  No time has been proposed within which the committee is to complete its work. Unfortunately, the committee has no web site and does not publicly announce its meetings or distribute its minutes widely.

Fortunately, the committee has an able reporter——Attorney Marsha Mansfield of the University of Wisconsin Law School faculty.

I hope that the Committee’s work will be more public and will benefit from public participation to improve the procedures for disciplining lawyers, for both the public and for lawyers.

For the reasons set forth, I write separately.

 When the District of Columbia considered reform of its system, the process suffered from many of the defects identified by Justice Abrahamson. As a result, it was a largely (but not entirely) wasted effort. (Mike Frisch)