Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Daniel J. Rostollan

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2016AP001890-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2018-04-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
2018 WI 38 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2016AP1890-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Daniel J. Rostollan, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Daniel J. Rostollan, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ROSTOLLAN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 18, 2018 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
      
 
 
2018 WI 38
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2016AP1890-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Daniel J. Rostollan, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Daniel J. Rostollan, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
 
APR 18, 2018 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review Referee Jonathan V. Goodman's 
amended report recommending that this court suspend Attorney 
Daniel J. Rostollan's license to practice law in Wisconsin for a 
period of two years and direct him to pay restitution as well as 
the costs of this proceeding. 
¶2 
No appeal has been filed so we review the referee's 
report pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.17(2).  After 
conducting an independent review of the matter, we agree that 
No. 
2016AP1890-D   
 
2 
 
Attorney Rostollan should be deemed to have defaulted, we accept 
and adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law, 
which are based on the allegations of the complaint filed by the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR).  We agree that Attorney 
Rostollan's law license should be suspended for two years and 
that he should be directed to pay restitution.  We impose the 
full costs of this proceeding on Attorney Rostollan, which are 
$2,663.71 as of January 30, 2018. 
¶3 
Attorney Rostollan was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1983.  He has not previously been disciplined. 
However, while this matter was pending, this court granted the 
OLR's request and temporarily suspended Attorney Rostollan's 
license to practice law for failure to cooperate in a new and 
separate disciplinary investigation.  As of the date of this 
order, his license is suspended.  See Office of Lawyer 
Regulation v. Daniel J. Rostollan, No. 2018XX173-D, unpublished 
order (S. Ct. April 9, 2018). 
¶4  On September 30, 2016, the OLR filed a complaint 
against Attorney Rostollan alleging 21 counts of professional 
misconduct.  
¶5 
Attorney Rostollan filed an answer and asserted, inter 
alia, that his practice was adversely affected by depression and 
family issues.  He also stated that he had reimbursed former 
client, R.W.  Thereafter, however, he failed to respond to 
discovery requests and on June 5, 2017, the OLR moved for a 
default judgment.  On July 11, 2017, the referee advised 
No. 
2016AP1890-D   
 
3 
 
Attorney Rostollan that he had seven days to respond to the 
default motion.  Attorney Rostollan did not respond.  
¶6 
On July 31, 2017, the referee issued an initial report 
and 
recommendation, 
recommending 
the 
court 
deem 
Attorney 
Rostollan to have defaulted, finding the facts as alleged in the 
OLR's complaint as true, and concluding that Attorney Rostollan 
had committed the alleged misconduct.  The referee recommended 
we suspend Attorney Rostollan's license to practice law for two 
years and recommended that Attorney Rostollan be ordered to pay 
restitution to R.W. 
¶7 
The court identified some factual and procedural 
issues with the report and, on November 13, 2017, remanded the 
matter 
to 
the 
referee 
for 
additional 
information, 
with 
directions to file a supplemental report. 
¶8 
On remand, Attorney Rostollan indicated he wanted to 
participate in this proceeding.  The referee conducted a hearing 
on December 5, 2017, at which Attorney Rostollan appeared.  The 
referee afforded him an opportunity to respond to discovery, but 
Attorney Rostollan then failed to respond.   
¶9 
Accordingly, the referee filed a supplemental report 
on January 10, 2018, including additional information requested 
by this court and confirming the previous recommendation. 
Neither party has appealed so we consider the amended report 
pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).  
¶10 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, 
No. 
2016AP1890-D   
 
4 
 
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. 
¶11 First, in light of Attorney Rostollan's failure to 
consistently appear or participate in this case, we accept the 
referee's 
finding 
that 
Attorney 
Rostollan's 
conduct 
was 
egregious such that his answer should be stricken and he should 
be deemed to have defaulted. 
¶12  The referee's findings of fact are based on the 
allegations in the complaint.  They have not been shown to be 
clearly erroneous, and we adopt them.  We also accept the 
conclusions of law that flow from those findings.   
¶13 The first nine counts of the complaint pertain to 
Attorney Rostollan's representation of R.W.  In 2012, R.W. 
retained Attorney Rostollan to file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy 
petition on his behalf and to represent him in certain adversary 
claims.   
¶14 There 
were 
a 
number 
of 
problems 
with 
Attorney 
Rostollan's representation of R.W.  These included no written 
fee agreement or disclosures, mishandling of the bankruptcy 
proceeding, 
mishandling 
of 
trust 
funds, 
and 
various 
misrepresentations that Attorney Rostollan made to his client, 
the court, and the OLR. 
¶15 On July 23, 2013, Attorney Rostollan filed the 
requested Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in the Eastern District 
No. 
2016AP1890-D   
 
5 
 
of Wisconsin.  The bankruptcy court dismissed this petition, so 
Attorney Rostollan filed a second petition, with documents 
required for two related adversary proceedings.  He then filed 
inaccurate bankruptcy schedules, and electronically affixed 
R.W.'s signature to these filings, potentially exposing R.W. to 
charges of perjury and endangering the bankruptcy matter.  
¶16 Attorney Rostollan also informed the bankruptcy court 
that he had charged R.W. $4,000 for the bankruptcy action but 
later acknowledged that he had charged R.W. an additional $4,690 
for 
related 
adversary 
actions 
without 
disclosing 
these 
additional fees to the bankruptcy court. 
¶17 The bankruptcy court has established a presumptively 
reasonable fee of $4,000 for Chapter 13 cases.  If attorney fees 
will exceed the presumptively reasonable amount, the attorney 
must disclose the additional fees to the bankruptcy court.  
11 U.S. Code § 329, Rule 2016(b).  Additionally, it is the 
bankruptcy 
court's 
policy 
that 
fees 
in 
addition 
to 
a 
presumptively reasonable fee must be approved by the court under 
local Rule 20.16. 
¶18 Meanwhile, R.W. gave Attorney Rostollan a $36,000 
check, representing life insurance proceeds that Attorney 
Rostollan was to hold in trust for R.W.  On April 9, 2013, 
Attorney Rostollan deposited these funds into his trust account, 
yielding a balance of $36,020.  
¶19 Over several months, Attorney Rostollan transferred 
money in and out of various accounts.  On April 10, 2013, 
Attorney Rostollan disbursed $4,281 from his trust account to 
No. 
2016AP1890-D   
 
6 
 
his business account, leaving $31,719 in trust.  On June 12, 
2013, Attorney Rostollan disbursed $5,000 to R.W.  Between April 
and mid-August 2013, Attorney Rostollan transferred almost all 
of the remaining funds from his trust account into his business 
account.  By May 30, 2014, Attorney Rostollan's trust account 
balance was $10.  
¶20 In 
July 
2014, 
Attorney 
Rostollan 
sent 
R.W. 
an 
accounting stating that only $1,500 remained from the insurance 
proceeds and that some $36,000 had been expended on debts, 
adversary claims, and legal fees.  R.W. questioned this 
accounting.  
¶21 In August 2014, Attorney Rostollan sent R.W. a second 
accounting, this time stating that $14,784 remained in trust. 
Meanwhile, on August 15, 2014, Attorney Rostollan deposited 
$29,407.53 belonging to another client, M.Z., into his trust 
account.  The next day, Attorney Rostollan wrote a check to R.W. 
in the amount of $14,784.24 with a memo line stating "balance 
from trust account."  At most, $10 of those funds actually 
belonged to R.W.  Attorney Rostollan failed to disclose his 
conversion of R.W.'s funds.  
¶22 The OLR received notice of an overdraft in Attorney 
Rostollan's trust account and commenced an investigation. 
Attorney Rostollan sent the OLR fabricated and misleading trust 
account ledgers that omitted deposit information, internet 
transfers, 
and 
included 
non-existent 
disbursements, 
and 
transactions.  Attorney Rostollan also made misrepresentations 
to the OLR orally and in writing regarding the source and use of 
No. 
2016AP1890-D   
 
7 
 
funds in his trust account.  On March 3, 2015, the OLR requested 
additional information from Attorney Rostollan.  Attorney 
Rostollan failed to fully and timely respond.  Eventually, this 
court issued an order directing Attorney Rostollan to show cause 
why his license should not be suspended for non-cooperation. 
This prompted Attorney Rostollan to respond, so the OLR withdrew 
its motion.  
¶23 Based on the allegations in the complaint, the referee 
concluded that: 
 By failing to communicate in writing to R.W. the 
rate and basis for all of the fees he intended to 
charge related to the representation, and also by 
failing to state in writing the purpose and 
effect of any advanced fee payment, Attorney 
Rostollan violated SCR 20:1.5(b)(1)1 and (2)2 
(Count 1);  
                                                 
1 SCR 20.1.5(b)(1) provides: 
The scope of the representation and the basis or 
rate of the fee and expenses for which the client will 
be responsible shall be communicated to the client in 
writing, before or within a reasonable time after 
commencing the representation, except when the lawyer 
will charge a regularly represented client on the same 
basis or rate as in the past.  If it is reasonably 
foreseeable that the total cost of representation to 
the client, including attorney's fees, will be $1000 
or less, the communication may be oral or in writing.  
Any changes in the basis or rate of the fee or 
expenses shall also be communicated in writing to the 
client.   
2 SCR 20:1.5(b)(2) provides:  "If the total cost of 
representation to the client, including attorney's fees, is more 
than $1000, the purpose and effect of any retainer or advance 
fee that is paid to the lawyer shall be communicated in 
writing." 
No. 
2016AP1890-D   
 
8 
 
 By failing to safeguard and hold in trust client 
funds, 
Attorney 
Rostollan 
violated 
SCR 20:1.l5(b)(1)3 (Count 2);  
 By converting client funds to his own use or for 
the use of other clients, Attorney Rostollan 
violated SCR 20:8.4(c)4 (Count 3); 
 By making misrepresentations to R.W. regarding 
his handling of R.W.'s funds, Attorney Rostollan 
violated SCR 20:8.4(c) (Count 4);  
 By failing to disclose to the United States 
Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of 
Wisconsin that he intended to charge and/or that 
he charged R.W. fees related to the adversary 
proceedings in addition to the $4,000 fee, 
Attorney Rostollan failed to comply with 11 U.S. 
Code § 329, Rule 2016(b) of the Federal Rules of 
Bankruptcy Procedure, and the Eastern District's 
local policy, in violation of SCR 20:3.4(c)5 
(Count 5);  
 By filing with the United States Bankruptcy Court 
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin documents 
related to R.W.'s bankruptcy that included false 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) provides: 
A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the 
lawyer's own property, that property of clients and 
3rd parties that is in the lawyer's possession in 
connection with a representation.  All funds of 
clients and 3rd parties paid to a lawyer or law firm 
in connection with a representation shall be deposited 
in one or more identifiable trust accounts.  
4 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
5 SCR 20:3.4(c) provides: "A lawyer shall not knowingly 
disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except for 
an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation 
exists." 
No. 
2016AP1890-D   
 
9 
 
and/or inaccurate information, Attorney Rostollan 
violated SCR 20:8.4(c) (Count 6);  
 By acting under a concurrent conflict of interest 
by 
representing 
R.W. 
in 
the 
bankruptcy 
proceedings 
after 
R.W. 
had 
claims 
against 
Attorney Rostollan for misuse of R.W.'s funds, 
Attorney Rostollan violated SCR 20:1.7(a)(2)6 
(Count 7); 
 By making deposits in and disbursements from his 
trust account via internet banking transactions, 
                                                 
 
6 SCR 20:1.7(a)(2) provides:  
Except as provided in par. (b), a lawyer shall 
not represent a client if the representation involves 
a concurrent conflict of interest.  A concurrent 
conflict of interest exists if; 
 . . .  
(2) 
there 
is 
a 
significant 
risk 
that 
the 
representation 
of 
one 
or 
more 
clients 
will 
be 
materially limited by a personal interest of the 
lawyer.  
(b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent 
conflict of interest under par. (a), a lawyer may 
represent a client if:  
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the 
lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent 
representation to each affected client;  
(2) the representation is not prohibited by law;  
(3) the representation does not involve the 
assertion of a claim by one client against another 
client 
represented 
by 
the 
lawyer 
in 
the 
same 
litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal; and  
(4) each affected client gives informed consent, 
confirmed in a writing signed by the client. 
No. 
2016AP1890-D   
 
10 
 
Attorney 
Rostollan 
violated 
former 
SCR 20:1.l5(e)(4)c7 (Count 8);  
 By failing to timely file responses to the OLR's 
investigative 
letters, 
and 
by 
making 
misrepresentations 
to 
the 
OLR 
during 
its 
investigation, Attorney Rostollan violated SCR 
22.03(2)8 and (6),9 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h)10 
(Count 9). 
                                                 
7 Effective July 1, 2016, substantial changes were made to 
Supreme Court Rule 20:1.15, the "trust account rule." See 
S. Ct. Order 14-07, (issued Apr. 4, 2016, eff. July 1, 2016). 
Because the conduct underlying this case arose prior to July 1, 
2016, unless otherwise indicated, all references to the supreme 
court rules will be to those in effect prior to July 1, 2016. 
Former SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)c provided: "A lawyer shall not 
make deposits to or disbursements from a trust account by way of 
an Internet transaction." 
8 SCR 22.03(2) provides: 
Upon commencing an investigation, the director 
shall notify the respondent of the matter being 
investigated unless in the opinion of the director the 
investigation of the matter requires otherwise.  The 
respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts 
and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct 
within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail 
request for a written response.  The director may 
allow additional time to respond.  Following receipt 
of the response, the director may conduct further 
investigation and may compel the respondent to answer 
questions, 
furnish 
documents, 
and 
present 
any 
information deemed relevant to the investigation.   
9 SCR 22.03(6) provides:  
In 
the 
course 
of 
the 
investigation, 
the 
respondent's 
wilful 
failure 
to 
provide 
relevant 
information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 
documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a 
disclosure are misconduct, regardless of the merits of 
the matters asserted in the grievance.  
No. 
2016AP1890-D   
 
11 
 
¶24 The 
next 
nine 
counts 
alleged 
involved 
Attorney 
Rostollan's representation of clients in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy 
petition.  The clients, who will jointly be called "E.A.", 
informed Attorney Rostollan that they wished to file their 
petition promptly.  There was no written fee or representation 
agreement. 
Attorney 
Rostollan 
delayed 
until 
the 
clients 
indicated they intended to hire another attorney.  At that 
point, Attorney Rostollan filed the Chapter 13 petition, but 
failed to file a fee disclosure statement or a Chapter 13 plan.  
Attorney Rostollan emailed the clients an affidavit for E.A. to 
sign and return.  The client signed the emailed affidavit 
outside of Attorney Rostollan's presence, yet Attorney Rostollan 
notarized it. 
¶25 The bankruptcy court dismissed the matter because no 
Chapter 13 plan had been filed.  Attorney Rostollan moved the 
court to reconsider dismissal of the bankruptcy, but did so 
without informing E.A. of the dismissal or his plans to file a 
reconsideration motion.  Attorney Rostollan filed his fee 
disclosure with the bankruptcy court, indicating that he was to 
be paid $2,750 to represent the clients, none of which had been 
paid. 
                                                                                                                                                             
10 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to fail to cooperate in the investigation of a 
grievance filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required 
by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), 
or SCR 22.04(1)." 
 
No. 
2016AP1890-D   
 
12 
 
¶26 On November 12, 2015, Attorney Rostollan sent E.A. a 
proposed Chapter 13 plan, disclosed that the court had dismissed 
their case, but said he had filed a reconsideration motion.  On 
November 
14, 
2015, 
E.A. 
terminated 
Attorney 
Rostollan's 
representation. 
¶27 On November 17, 2015, Attorney Rostollan appeared on 
E.A.'s behalf at a bankruptcy hearing on his motion for 
reconsideration, without telling the court that the clients had 
terminated him.  Attorney Rostollan told the court that E.A. had 
agreed to a Chapter 13 plan, while her spouse had not.  In fact, 
Attorney Rostollan had not presented a plan to the clients until 
after the dismissal.  The court denied the reconsideration 
motion, citing the clients' alleged inability to agree on a 
Chapter 13 plan as not excusable neglect.  
¶28 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded: 
 By failing to communicate the rate and basis of 
his fees, and any changes in the rate and basis 
of his fees, in writing to the clients, Attorney 
Rostollan violated SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) (Count 10);  
 By depositing the $300 the clients paid to him in 
his business account, Attorney Rostollan violated 
former SCR 20:1.l5(b)(4) (Count 11);11  
                                                 
11 Former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) provided: 
Except as provided in par. (4m) unearned fees and 
advanced payments of fees shall be held in trust until 
earned by the lawyer, and withdrawn pursuant to sub. 
(g).  Funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for 
payment of costs shall be held in trust until the 
costs are incurred.    
No. 
2016AP1890-D   
 
13 
 
 By failing to take the steps necessary to file 
the Chapter 13 plan, or to file a motion for an 
extension of time to file the plan, Attorney 
Rostollan violated SCR 20:1.312 (Count 12);  
 By failing to clearly and accurately communicate 
with the  clients when their Chapter 13 petition 
would be filed, and failing to inform them of the 
dismissal of their Chapter 13 bankruptcy or of 
his intent to file a motion to reconsider the 
dismissal until after the motion was filed, 
Attorney Rostollan in each instance violated 
SCR 20:1.4(a)(3)13 (Count 13);  
 By appearing on behalf of the clients at the 
November 17, 2015 hearing without advising the 
court that they had terminated or attempted to 
terminate 
his 
representation, 
and 
without 
clarifying with the clients whether they wished 
for him to appear on their behalf or the steps 
they would need to take to protect their own 
interests if they did not wish for him to appear, 
Attorney Rostollan violated SCR 20:1.16(a)(3) and 
(d)14 (Count 14);  
                                                 
12 SCR 20:1.3 provides:  "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
13 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides:  "A lawyer shall keep the 
client reasonably informed about the status of the matter." 
14 SCR 20:l.16(a)(3) and (d) provides: 
Except as stated in par. (c), a lawyer shall not 
represent a client or, where representation has 
commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a 
client if: 
 . . .  
(3) the lawyer is discharged. 
 . . .  
(d) Upon termination of representation, a lawyer 
shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable 
to protect a client's interests, such as giving 
(continued) 
No. 
2016AP1890-D   
 
14 
 
 By making false statements to the bankruptcy 
court, 
and/or 
by 
failing 
to 
correct 
false 
statements previously made to the bankruptcy 
court, 
Attorney 
Rostollan 
violated 
SCR 20:3.3(a)(1)15 (Count 15); 
 By causing, or failing to correct, the bankruptcy 
court's mistaken belief that the clients had been 
presented with a Chapter 13 plan for signature 
prior to the dismissal of their case and had 
failed 
to 
agree 
to 
that 
plan, 
causing 
or 
contributing to the failure of a plan to be 
timely 
filed, 
Attorney 
Rostollan 
violated 
SC 20:8.4(c) (Count 16);  
 By notarizing the affidavit signed by E.A., 
thereby asserting that it had been "Subscribed 
and sworn to before me," even though E.A. did not 
sign the affidavit in front of him, Attorney 
Rostollan violated SCR 20:8.4(c) (Count 17);  
 By making misrepresentations to the OLR during 
the course of its investigation of the clients' 
matter, Attorney Rostollan violated SCR 22.03(6), 
enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h) (Count 18). 
¶29 In May 2015, J.V.E. filed a grievance against Attorney 
Rostollan.  The OLR requested certain information but Attorney 
Rostollan did not timely respond, despite repeated requests. 
This court ordered Attorney Rostollan to show cause why his 
                                                                                                                                                             
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for 
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and 
property to which the client is entitled and refunding 
any advance payment of fee or expense that has not 
been earned or incurred.  The lawyer may retain papers 
relating to the client to the extent permitted by 
other law. 
15 SCR 20:3.3(a)(l) provides:  "A lawyer shall not knowingly 
make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to 
correct a false statement of material fact or law previously 
made to the tribunal by the lawyer. " 
No. 
2016AP1890-D   
 
15 
 
license to practice law should not be suspended.  Attorney 
Rostollan did not respond and, on December 2, 2015, Attorney 
Rostollan's license to practice law was temporarily suspended. 
¶30 On December 8, 2015, Attorney Rostollan appeared at 
two bankruptcy hearings on behalf of clients, despite the fact 
that his license was temporarily suspended. 
¶31 On January 19, 2016, Attorney Rostollan provided a 
response 
sufficient 
to 
allow 
the 
OLR 
to 
continue 
its 
investigation, and Attorney Rostollan's license to practice law 
was reinstated.  On January 25, 2016, Attorney Rostollan 
disclosed 
that 
he 
had 
practiced 
law 
during 
his 
license 
suspension. 
¶32 On February 4, 2016, the OLR requested Attorney 
Rostollan provide it with additional information but Attorney 
Rostollan failed to timely respond.  Again, this court ordered 
Attorney Rostollan to show cause why his license to practice law 
should not be suspended.  Attorney Rostollan responded and the 
OLR withdrew its motion.   
¶33 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded: 
 By failing to timely file a response to the OLR's 
July 31, 2015 letter in the J.V.E. matter, 
Attorney Rostollan violated SCR 22.03(2) and (6), 
enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h) (Count 19);  
 By practicing law in Wisconsin at a time when his 
license to practice law was suspended, Attorney 
Rostollan violated SCR 22.26(2) (Count 20);16 
                                                 
16 SCR 22.26(2) provides:  
(continued) 
No. 
2016AP1890-D   
 
16 
 
 By failing to timely file a response to the OLR's 
February 
4, 
2016 
letter, 
Attorney 
Rostollan 
violated SCR 22.03(2) and (6), via SCR 20:8.4(h) 
(Count 21). 
¶34 Having accepted the referee's conclusions of law, we 
turn to the appropriate discipline for Attorney Rostollan's 
misconduct.  While no two disciplinary cases are identical, we 
agree that In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ramthun, 2015 
WI 94, 365 Wis. 2d 7, 869 N.W.2d 775, supports the referee's 
recommendation for a two-year license suspension.  Like Attorney 
Rostollan, Attorney Ramthun had no prior formal disciplinary 
history, 
initially 
participated 
in 
the 
matter 
but 
later 
defaulted, and cited extenuating medical issues as a reason for 
his failure to abide by the rules of professional misconduct.  
He was suspended for two and one-half years for 46 counts of 
misconduct that included failure to respond to pleadings, 
failure to appear at court proceedings, failure to communicate, 
trust account anomalies, including conversion of a portion of 
the client funds, and failure to cooperate with the OLR, 
including making misrepresentations.  We agree that a two-year 
                                                                                                                                                             
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. 
No. 
2016AP1890-D   
 
17 
 
license suspension is required to impress on Attorney Rostollan 
the seriousness of his extensive misconduct. 
¶35 The OLR requested we order Attorney Rostollan to pay 
$4,690 in restitution to R.W.  In his initial report the referee 
agreed and recommended restitution in the amount on $4,690.  In 
his supplemental report, however, the referee recommended 
$1,690.  In response to an inquiry from the court, the referee 
confirmed this was a typographical error; the referee recommends 
restitution 
in 
the 
amount 
of 
$4,690. 
 
We 
accept 
this 
recommendation.  Further, consistent with our standard practice, 
we impose the costs of this proceeding on Attorney Rostollan 
which are $2,663.71 as of January 30, 2018. 
¶36 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Daniel J. Rostollan 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of two 
years, effective the date of this order. 
¶37 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Daniel J. Rostollan shall 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
¶38 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Daniel J. Rostollan shall pay restitution to his 
former client, R.W., in the amount of $4,690. 
¶39 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Daniel J. Rostollan shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
No. 
2016AP1890-D   
 
18 
 
¶40 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution is to be 
completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation. 
 
No. 
2016AP1890-D   
 
 
 
1