Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Diann P. Burton

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2018AP001397-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2019-03-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
2019 WI 30 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2018AP1397-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Diann P. Burton, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Diann P. Burton, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BURTON 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 22, 2019 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
      
 
 
2019 WI 30
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2018AP1397-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Diann P. Burton, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Diann P. Burton, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 22, 2019 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.  We review Referee Kim M. Peterson's 
recommendation that the court declare Attorney Diann P. Burton 
in 
default 
and 
publicly 
reprimand 
her 
for 
professional 
misconduct in connection with her practice of law while her law 
license was suspended, and her improper use of a firm name for 
her solo practice.  The referee also recommended that Attorney 
Burton pay the full costs of this proceeding, which total $533 
as of January 15, 2019. 
No. 
2018AP1397-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Because no appeal has been filed, we review the 
referee's report pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.17(2).1  
After conducting our independent review of the matter, we agree 
with the referee that, based on Attorney Burton's failure to 
answer the complaint filed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR), the OLR is entitled to a default judgment.  We also agree 
with the referee that Attorney Burton's professional misconduct 
warrants a public reprimand.  Finally, we agree with the referee 
that Attorney Burton should be ordered to pay the full costs of 
the proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney Burton was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1997.  Her law license is currently subject to 
administrative and temporary suspensions.  On October 31, 2016, 
Attorney Burton's law license was administratively suspended due 
to her failure to pay mandatory bar dues and her failure to file 
a trust account certification.  On May 22, 2018, her law license 
was administratively suspended due to her failure to comply with 
continuing legal education requirements.  On July 10, 2018, her 
law license was temporarily suspended due to her failure to 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) provides: 
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
No. 
2018AP1397-D   
 
3 
 
cooperate in an OLR investigation unrelated to the misconduct at 
issue in this case. 
¶4 
On July 26, 2018, the OLR filed the current complaint 
against Attorney Burton.  The complaint alleges four counts of 
professional wrongdoing.  The following facts are taken from the 
OLR's complaint. 
¶5 
In August 2014, M.B. and Y.B. hired Attorney Burton to 
file a petition for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and paid her a $1,000 
flat fee for her representation.  Attorney Burton continued to 
provide legal advice to M.B. and Y.B. after her law license was 
administratively suspended in October 2016, though she never 
filed a bankruptcy petition on their behalf. 
¶6 
In addition, at the time of her administrative license 
suspension in October 2016, Attorney Burton had at least eight 
open bankruptcy cases pending in the United States Bankruptcy 
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.  Attorney Burton 
did not notify her clients or the bankruptcy court of the 
suspension of her license and continued as counsel of record in 
the pending cases while her license was suspended.  Legal work 
that Burton performed while her law license was suspended 
included: 
• filing a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in February 2017 
on behalf of a client, and representing that client 
through the bankruptcy discharge granted in May of 2017; 
• filing amended Chapter 13 plans; 
• filing responses to and stipulations resolving trustees' 
motions to dismiss; and 
No. 
2018AP1397-D   
 
4 
 
• filing a petition for voluntary amortization of debts in 
February 2017 on behalf of another client in a Wisconsin 
circuit court. 
¶7 
Finally, while operating as a solo practitioner, 
Attorney Burton used a law firm name and letterhead that listed 
several partners, one of whom had a suspended law license.  
¶8 
The OLR's complaint alleged the following four counts 
of misconduct arising out of the matters described above: 
• By practicing law while her license was suspended, 
Attorney Burton violated SCR 10.03(6)2 and SCR 22.26(2),3 
enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f)4 (Count 1). 
                                                 
2 SCR 10.03(6) provides:  
If the annual dues or assessments of any member 
remain unpaid 120 days after the payment is due, the 
membership of the member may be suspended in the 
manner provided in the bylaws; and no person whose 
membership is so suspended for nonpayment of dues or 
assessments may practice law during the period of the 
suspension.  
3 SCR 22.26(2) provides: 
An attorney whose license to practice law is 
suspended or revoked or who is suspended from the 
practice of law may not engage in this state in the 
practice 
of 
law 
or 
in 
any 
law 
work 
activity 
customarily done by law students, law clerks, or other 
paralegal personnel, except that the attorney may 
engage in law related work in this state for a 
commercial employer itself not engaged in the practice 
of law. 
4 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme 
court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers." 
No. 
2018AP1397-D   
 
5 
 
• By failing to provide proper written notice of the 
suspension of her law license to clients and to courts 
before which she had pending matters, Attorney Burton 
violated SCR 22.26(l),5 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f) 
(Count 2). 
                                                 
5 SCR 22.26(1) provides:   
(1) On or before the effective date of license 
suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 
suspended or revoked shall do all of the following: 
(a) Notify by certified mail all clients being 
represented in pending matters of the suspension or 
revocation and of the attorney's consequent inability 
to act as an attorney following the effective date of 
the suspension or revocation.  
(b) Advise the clients to seek legal advice of 
their choice elsewhere.  
(c) Promptly provide written notification to the 
court or administrative agency and the attorney for 
each party in a matter pending before a court or 
administrative agency of the suspension or revocation 
and of the attorney's consequent inability to act as 
an attorney following the effective date of the 
suspension or revocation. The notice shall identify 
the successor attorney of the attorney's client or, if 
there is none at the time notice is given, shall state 
the client's place of residence.  
(d) Within the first 15 days after the effective 
date 
of 
suspension 
or 
revocation, 
make 
all 
arrangements for the temporary or permanent closing or 
winding up of the attorney's practice. The attorney 
may assist in having others take over clients' work in 
progress.  
(e) Within 25 days after the effective date of 
suspension or revocation, file with the director an 
affidavit showing all of the following: 
(continued) 
No. 
2018AP1397-D   
 
6 
 
• By using a law firm name that listed several partners 
despite operating as a solo practitioner, Attorney Burton 
violated SCR 20:7.5(d)6 (Count 3). 
• By using the name of a suspended attorney in her firm 
name 
and 
letterhead, 
Attorney 
Burton 
violated 
SCR 22.27(l),7 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f) (Count 4). 
¶9 
According to the OLR's motion for default, to which 
Attorney Burton did not respond, the OLR made multiple attempts 
to serve Attorney Burton with the complaint and an order to 
answer.  Specifically, in August and September 2018, a process 
                                                                                                                                                             
(i) Full compliance with the provisions of the 
suspension or revocation order and with the rules and 
procedures regarding the closing of the attorney's 
practice.  
(ii) A list of all jurisdictions, including 
state, federal and administrative bodies, before which 
the attorney is admitted to practice.  
(iii) A list of clients in all pending matters 
and a list of all matters pending before any court or 
administrative agency, together with the case number 
of each matter.  
(f) Maintain records of the various steps taken 
under this rule in order that, in any subsequent 
proceeding instituted by or against the attorney, 
proof of compliance with the rule and with the 
suspension or revocation order is available.  
6 SCR 20:7.5(d) provides:  "Lawyers may state or imply that 
they practice in a partnership or other organization only when 
that is the fact." 
7 SCR 22.27(1) provides:  An attorney may not use in a firm 
name, letterhead or other written form the name of an attorney 
whose license is suspended or revoked. 
No. 
2018AP1397-D   
 
7 
 
server retained by the OLR tried to personally serve Attorney 
Burton with the complaint and order to answer at the home 
address that Attorney Burton had provided to the OLR during its 
investigation, as well as her office address on file with the 
State Bar.  These attempts were unsuccessful.  In October 2018, 
the OLR mailed the complaint and order to answer to Attorney 
Burton's home address and her office address on file with the 
State Bar, via certified mail.  See SCR 22.13(1).8  
¶10 Attorney Burton failed to file an answer.  In November 
2018, the OLR filed a default motion. 
¶11 In her ensuing report, the referee recommended that 
the court find Attorney Burton in default.  The referee accepted 
the allegations of the complaint as the findings of fact in the 
case and concluded that those facts established that Attorney 
Burton had committed professional misconduct as set forth in the 
four counts of the complaint.  As requested by the OLR, the 
referee recommended that Attorney Burton be publicly reprimanded 
for her misconduct and that she be ordered to pay the costs of 
the proceeding. 
                                                 
8 SCR 22.13(1) provides:  
The complaint and the order to answer shall be 
served upon the respondent in the same manner as a 
summons under section 801.11(1) of the statutes.  If, 
with reasonable diligence, the respondent cannot be 
served under section 801.11(1)(a) or (b) of the 
statutes, service may be made by sending by certified 
mail an authenticated copy of the complaint and order 
to answer to the most recent address furnished by the 
respondent to the state bar.  
No. 
2018AP1397-D   
 
8 
 
¶12 Because Attorney Burton has not filed an appeal, this 
matter is submitted to the court for its review pursuant to 
SCR 22.17(2).  We review a referee's findings of fact subject to 
the clearly erroneous standard.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 
675 N.W.2d 747.  We review the referee's conclusions of law 
de novo.  Id.  We determine the appropriate level of discipline 
independent of the referee's recommendation.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 
Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶13 We agree with the referee that Attorney Burton should 
be declared in default.  Attorney Burton was given the 
opportunity to file an answer and present a defense to the OLR's 
complaint.  She failed to do so, and thus may appropriately be 
declared in default.  We also accept the referee's findings of 
fact based on the allegations of the complaint, and agree with 
the referee that those findings support a determination of 
misconduct on the four counts alleged in the OLR's complaint. 
¶14 We also agree with the referee that a public reprimand 
is an appropriate sanction for Attorney Burton's misconduct.  
Although no two disciplinary proceedings are identical, a public 
reprimand is generally consistent with our precedent.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Willihnganz, 2017 WI 4, 373 
Wis. 2d 44, 889 N.W.2d 637 (publicly reprimanding a respondent-
lawyer with a disciplinary history for, among other things, 
practicing law after his law license was administratively 
suspended); see also In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
No. 
2018AP1397-D   
 
9 
 
Weigel, 2012 WI 71, 342 Wis. 2d 129, 817 N.W.2d 835 (publicly 
reprimanding the respondent-lawyer for, among other things, 
continuing to use another attorney's name in a firm name after 
that attorney's employment at the firm had ended).  We also 
believe that a public reprimand will be sufficient to deter 
Attorney Burton and other attorneys from similar misconduct. 
¶15 As to the issue of costs, it is our general practice 
to impose full costs on attorneys who are found to have 
committed misconduct.  See SCR 22.24(1m).  There is no reason to 
depart from that practice here.  We therefore impose full costs. 
¶16 Finally, we note that no restitution was sought and 
none is ordered in this proceeding. 
¶17 IT IS ORDERED that Diann P. Burton is publicly 
reprimanded for her professional misconduct. 
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Diann P. Burton shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the director of the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation shall advise the court if there has not 
been full compliance with all conditions of this decision. 
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of Diann P. 
Burton to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain temporarily 
suspended pursuant to this court's July 10, 2018 order. 
¶21 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
administrative 
suspension of Diann P. Burton's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin, due to her failure to pay mandatory bar dues, failure 
to file a trust account certification, and failure to comply 
No. 
2018AP1397-D   
 
10 
 
with continuing legal education requirements, will remain in 
effect until each reason for the administrative suspension has 
been rectified, pursuant to SCR 22.28(1). 
 
No. 
2018AP1397-D   
 
 
 
1