Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Scott F. Anderson

Citation: 2010 WI 39

Docket Number: 2007AP002617-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2010-05-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
2010 WI 39 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2007AP2617-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Scott F. Anderson, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Appellant, 
     v. 
Scott F. Anderson, 
          Respondent-Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ANDERSON 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 21, 2010   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
May 14, 2009   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the complainant-appellant there were briefs by Julie M. 
Scott on behalf of the Office of Lawyer Regulation, Madison, and 
oral argument by William Weigel of the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation. 
 
For the respondent-respondent there was a brief by Scott F. 
Anderson, and oral argument by Scott F. Anderson. 
 
 
 
 
 
2010 WI 39
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2007AP2617-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Scott F. Anderson, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Appellant, 
 
     v. 
 
Scott F. Anderson, 
 
          Respondent-Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 21, 2010 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
appeals the portion of Referee Jonathan V. Goodman's report 
recommending as discipline for professional misconduct that 
Attorney Scott F. Anderson pay his former client $10,872.50.  
Attorney Anderson stipulated to three counts of misconduct 
involving a lack of diligence, the failure to inform a client, 
and the failure to explain matters to a client.  The referee 
recommended that if Attorney Anderson would fail to make the 
No. 
2007AP2617-D   
 
2 
 
payment within 365 days, Attorney Anderson should remain 
obligated to make the payment and his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin should be suspended for 60 days.   
¶2 
The OLR does not seek restitution or a monetary 
penalty, and argues a 60-day license suspension should be 
imposed.   Attorney Anderson objects to a license suspension and 
requests this court impose the payment pursuant to the referee's 
recommendation. 
¶3 
We 
uphold 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law that Attorney Anderson committed three counts 
of professional misconduct.  We conclude the nature of his 
misconduct and Attorney Anderson's disciplinary history warrant 
a 60-day license suspension.  We do not order a monetary 
penalty.  We further conclude Attorney Anderson shall bear the 
cost of this proceeding.   
¶4 
Attorney Anderson was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1985.  He practices in Milwaukee.  He has been 
subject to professional discipline on three previous occasions.1  
                                                 
1 In 2005 Attorney Anderson was publicly reprimanded for 
violations of SCR 20:1.3, former SCR 20:1.4(a), former SCR 
20:1.5(b), and SCR 20:1.16(a)(3).  Public Reprimand of Scott F. 
Anderson, No. 2005-06.  In 2004 Attorney Anderson was publicly 
reprimanded for misconduct in three cases, including violations 
of former SCR 20:1.4(a), SCR 20:1.4(b), SCR 20:1.3, and SCR 
20:3.4(c).  Public Reprimand of Scott F. Anderson, No. 2004-05.  
In 1999 Attorney Anderson received a private reprimand for 
violations of former SCR 20:1.4(a) and SCR 20:1.3.  Private 
Reprimand of Scott F. Anderson, No. 1999-13. 
 
No. 
2007AP2617-D   
 
3 
 
¶5 
In 
November 
2007 
the 
OLR 
filed 
a 
three-count 
disciplinary complaint against Attorney Anderson alleging a lack 
of diligence and failures in communication with his former 
client, E.T., Jr.  E.T. had been charged with three felony drug 
offenses and felon in possession of a firearm in Milwaukee 
County circuit court.  As a result of these charges, U.S. 
Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) 
agents seized over $48,000 from E.T.'s residence and bank 
accounts.  In March 2005 E.T. retained Attorney Anderson to 
provide legal services for his defense related to the criminal 
prosecution and seizure of his assets.   
¶6 
In May 2005 the Milwaukee County prosecutor wrote 
Attorney Anderson offering to settle E.T.'s pending criminal 
charges.  Attorney Anderson did not provide a copy of the letter 
to E.T. nor did he discuss with E.T. the possibility of federal 
charges arising from the same circumstances.   
¶7 
At Attorney Anderson's request, the Milwaukee County 
circuit court scheduled a suppression motion hearing for 
July 15, 2005, and directed Attorney Anderson to file E.T.'s 
brief in support of the motion by July 1, 2005.  E.T. was 
confined to jail and was not present in court during Attorney 
Anderson's scheduling discussion.  Between June 2, 2005, and 
July 14, 2005, Attorney Anderson did not file any documents 
pertaining to E.T.'s case nor discuss with him any defense 
strategies.  Also, Attorney Anderson performed no research on 
the suppression motion until July 12, 2005; he did not prepare 
the motion until July 14, 2005, and did not file the motion or 
No. 
2007AP2617-D   
 
4 
 
serve a copy on the prosecutor until July 15, 2005.  Attorney 
Anderson never provided E.T. with a copy of the motion.  Due to 
the late filing, the court adjourned the suppression hearing 
until September 26, 2005.   
¶8 
Because E.T. remained in jail, he was not in court on 
July 15, 2005, and Attorney Anderson did not advise E.T. what 
had occurred during the hearing.  In August 2005 E.T. wrote to 
Attorney Anderson expressing concern with the lack of contact 
and failure to communicate the outcome of the July 15, 2005, 
hearing.  E.T. requested to see Attorney Anderson immediately.  
¶9 
Attorney Anderson did not respond to E.T.'s letter and 
did not contact him between August 5, 2005, and September 29, 
2005.  On September 20, 2005, Attorney Anderson filed a notice 
of motion and motion to adjourn the September 26, 2005, 
suppression hearing.  The court adjourned the suppression 
hearing until January 10, 2006.  Attorney Anderson did not send 
E.T. a copy of the motion or otherwise advise him of the 
adjournment or the new hearing date.   
¶10 On November 29, 2005, E.T. filed a pro se bail 
reduction motion and requested a hearing.  Attorney Anderson had 
no contact with E.T. between October 3, 2005, and January 10, 
2006, and took no action with respect to the motion.  Due to a 
congested docket, the court adjourned the January 10, 2006, 
hearing on the suppression and pro se bail reduction motions to 
January 18, 2006.  E.T. remained in custody and was not present 
in court at the January 10 adjournment. 
No. 
2007AP2617-D   
 
5 
 
¶11 On January 18, 2006, Attorney Anderson appeared by 
telephone to request another adjournment due to a trial in a 
different court.  The matter was adjourned to January 20, 2006.  
E.T. remained in jail and did not appear in court on January 18. 
Attorney Anderson failed to advise him of what had transpired.   
¶12 On January 20, 2006, Attorney Anderson moved to reduce 
bail, stating grounds other than those provided in E.T.'s pro se 
motion.  Attorney Anderson did not provide E.T. with a copy of 
this new bail reduction motion.  Attorney Anderson appeared on 
January 20 and argued the bail issue on E.T.'s behalf; E.T. was 
not brought to court.  The bail reduction motions were denied 
and the suppression hearing was adjourned to April 20, 2006. 
¶13 Although E.T. was brought to court for the April 20, 
2006, suppression hearing, the court adjourned the hearing due 
to time constraints.  At the May 18, 2006, adjourned hearing, 
E.T. once again was in court but the suppression hearing was 
adjourned yet again, this time to September 21, 2006, due to a 
co-defendant's attorney's conflict.   
¶14 On June 2, 2006, the court denied another bail 
reduction motion; E.T. remained in jail and was not at the 
hearing.  Attorney Anderson spoke with E.T. by telephone and 
agreed to meet with him in person to discuss his case.  However, 
Attorney Anderson had no contact with E.T. between June 2, 2006, 
and September 20, 2006.  On September 21, 2006, the State 
dismissed the Milwaukee County case because, on that day, the 
U.S. Attorney filed a federal criminal complaint against E.T. 
No. 
2007AP2617-D   
 
6 
 
stemming from the same circumstances.  Attorney Anderson advised 
E.T. on that date that the state charges had been dismissed. 
¶15 With respect to contesting the forfeiture of more than 
$48,000 of E.T.'s bank accounts and cash, the DEA notified E.T. 
on March 22 and April 5, 2005, that certain claims must be filed 
with the DEA's counsel by April 26, 2005, and others must be 
filed by May 10, 2005.  Attorney Anderson did not mail the 
notices contesting the forfeiture of most of the seized assets 
until April 28, 2005.   
¶16 On May 13, 2005, the DEA notified Attorney Anderson 
that because they were received after the April 26 deadline, 
E.T.'s notices regarding most of the seized assets were being 
returned.  On June 3, 2005, Attorney Anderson filed a petition 
for remission regarding the rejected claims, but failed to 
provide E.T. with copies until December 2006. 
¶17 On June 6, 2005, the DEA sent Attorney Anderson a 
second notice of its seizure of $8,946 cash belonging to E.T.  
To contest this forfeiture, the notice required E.T. to file a 
claim by July 11, 2005.  On July 7, 2005, Attorney Anderson sent 
a notice contesting the forfeiture but it was not until December 
2006 that he provided E.T. a copy of the DEA's notice or the 
filed claim.  On July 29, 2005, the U.S. Attorney filed a notice 
for civil forfeiture, a complaint, and verification for the 
forfeiture of $8,946 in cash and $1,926.50 in a bank account 
belonging to E.T.   
¶18 On August 5, 2005, E.T. wrote Attorney Anderson, 
complaining he had not received copies of documents relating to 
No. 
2007AP2617-D   
 
7 
 
the federal forfeiture action.  Attorney Anderson did not reply.  
On August 10, 2005, the DEA denied Attorney Anderson's June 3, 
2005, petition for remission and advised him that E.T. could 
file one request for reconsideration based on material not 
previously submitted, provided it was postmarked within ten days 
of Attorney Anderson's receipt of the DEA's August 10 letter.   
¶19 On August 24, 2005, the forfeiture complaint was 
served upon Attorney Anderson.  Attorney Anderson took no 
action.  On October 18, 2005, the U.S. Attorney filed a motion 
for default judgment, which Attorney Anderson received by mail.  
Attorney Anderson took no action with respect to the default 
judgment motion.  Attorney Anderson did not notify E.T. until 
February 2007 of the rejection of his claims for the return of 
the seized property or his right to reconsideration.    
¶20 Attorney 
Anderson stipulated to three counts of 
misconduct arising from his representation of E.T.: 
• 
Count One.  Attorney Anderson violated SCR 20:1.32 by 
failing to file claims timely and failing to take 
action on his client's behalf with regard to the 
Complaint for Civil Forfeiture filed on July 29, 2005, 
or 
the 
Motion 
for 
Default 
Judgment 
filed 
on 
October 18, 2005. 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.3 states, "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
No. 
2007AP2617-D   
 
8 
 
• 
Count Two.  Attorney Anderson violated former SCR 
20:1.4(a)3 by failing to respond to his client's 
reasonable requests for information and to communicate 
case developments to his client in a timely manner. 
• 
Count Three.  Attorney Anderson violated SCR 20:1.4(b)4 
by failing to explain to his client the effect of 
correspondence he received from the DEA and the U.S. 
Attorney's Notice of Complaint for Civil Forfeiture of 
Property, 
Verified 
Complaint 
for 
Forfeiture, 
Verification, Motion for Default Judgment, Judgment of 
Default and Forfeiture, and Application to Clerk for 
Entry of Judgment; failing to explain the implications 
of the assistant district attorney's May 4, 2005, 
letter; and failing to explain the implications of the 
State's dismissal of the Milwaukee County case, 
including that the case was dismissed due to the 
charges in federal court, and that Attorney Anderson's 
representation would not include representation with 
regard to the federal charges. 
¶21 Because of Attorney Anderson's stipulation to the 
three counts of misconduct, the only issue litigated at the 
                                                 
3 Former SCR 20:1.4(a) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
provided, "A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed 
about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable 
requests for information."   
4 SCR 20:1.4(b) provides, "A lawyer shall explain a matter 
to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make 
informed decisions regarding the representation."  
No. 
2007AP2617-D   
 
9 
 
disciplinary hearing was the level of sanction.  E.T. testified 
by telephone that due to the lack of communication with Attorney 
Anderson, he suffered stress while confined for two and one-half 
years in the Milwaukee County jail.  E.T. testified he paid 
Attorney Anderson $2,500.  E.T. stated he believed Attorney 
Anderson's 
caseload 
was 
too 
heavy 
to 
permit 
proper 
representation.  E.T. said Attorney Anderson had contacted him a 
couple of times during the two and one-half years he was in 
jail.  E.T. claimed the sums forfeited represented benefit 
payments from his military service.  E.T. further testified that 
a few days after the state charges were dismissed, he retained 
separate counsel on the federal charges through the federal 
public defender's office.  E.T. was subsequently sentenced to a 
lengthy term in federal prison for drug-related offenses.  
¶22 The referee observed Attorney Anderson admitted he 
mishandled the forfeiture.  The referee considered that Attorney 
Anderson had fully cooperated with the OLR and showed contrition 
at the disciplinary hearing, but concluded these actions did not 
outweigh the harm to E.T., which was Attorney Anderson's fourth 
disciplinary proceeding involving similar supreme court rules in 
six years.  The referee also noted that while subject to the 
disciplinary proceedings resulting in his 2005 public reprimand, 
Attorney Anderson was engaged in similar misconduct in this 
matter.   
¶23 The referee recommended that Attorney Anderson be 
required to compensate E.T. within 365 days for the $10,872.50 
forfeited by the DEA.  The referee recommended that if Attorney 
No. 
2007AP2617-D   
 
10 
 
Anderson would fail to make the payment, Attorney Anderson 
should remain obligated to make the payment and his license to 
practice law should be suspended for 60 days.  The referee also 
recommended the full costs of this proceeding be imposed and, if 
Attorney Anderson would fail to pay the costs within 180 days, 
his license be suspended until costs are paid in full.    
¶24 The OLR objects to the recommended stayed suspension 
dependent upon a monetary sanction.  The OLR states it does not 
seek restitution of forfeited sums because the funds were not in 
Attorney Anderson's direct control.  The OLR says the forfeited 
funds constitute incidental or consequential damages resulting 
from 
Attorney 
Anderson's 
misconduct, 
but 
claims 
that 
reimbursement fails to achieve the goals of attorney discipline.  
The OLR contends that a stayed suspension does not protect the 
public or legal system from further misconduct, nor would it 
impress 
upon 
Attorney 
Anderson 
the 
seriousness 
of 
his 
misconduct.  
¶25 Attorney 
Anderson 
responds 
that 
the 
recommended 
sanction is a severe financial burden, but he does not challenge 
the amount.  He argues his misconduct does not involve 
dishonesty 
and, 
therefore, 
a 
license 
suspension 
is 
not 
justified.  He states he is painfully aware of the seriousness 
No. 
2007AP2617-D   
 
11 
 
of his misconduct and requests the court impose the referee's 
recommended sanction.5   
¶26 A referee's findings of fact will not be overturned 
unless clearly erroneous.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 
N.W.2d 718.  This court determines the level of discipline that 
would 
be 
appropriate 
under 
the 
particular 
circumstances, 
independent of the referee's recommendation but benefiting from 
it.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 
34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.  In determining the 
level of discipline, we consider the seriousness of the 
misconduct, the need to protect the public, the courts, and the 
legal system from repetitive misconduct, as well as the need to 
                                                 
5 Subsequent to oral argument, the clerk of court received 
an unsolicited letter from an attorney who wished to convey to 
the court his thoughts regarding this disciplinary matter.  The 
attorney attached to his letter copies of court records in 
E.T.'s federal prosecution.  Attorney Anderson does not object 
to 
the 
submission. 
 
The 
OLR 
objects 
to 
this 
court's 
consideration of the letter on the ground that it amounts to an 
attempt to influence the court with opinion testimony, which was 
not offered at the disciplinary hearing when the writer could 
have been available for examination.  The OLR does not object to 
the court taking judicial notice of the copies of E.T.'s federal 
court records.    
We sustain the OLR's objection.  This court does not find 
facts, but rather reaches its conclusion based on the record 
made before the referee.  See Wis. Stat. §§ 751.05; 751.09.  An 
argument by a person not a party to the proceeding is made 
through motion practice.  See Wis. S. Ct. IOP II.B. 6.c. 
(October 19, 2007).  On the basis of the OLR's objection, the 
letter will not be received for the court's consideration.  
Because neither party objects to the copies of the federal court 
records, they will be received. 
No. 
2007AP2617-D   
 
12 
 
deter other attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct.  In 
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Arthur, 2005 WI 40, ¶78, 279 
Wis. 2d 583, 694 N.W.2d 910.   
¶27 We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law as to Attorney Anderson's professional 
misconduct.  We do not adopt the referee's recommendation as to 
discipline.  
We conclude Attorney Anderson's disciplinary 
history and the nature of his misconduct warrant a 60-day 
license suspension.6   
¶28 Contrary to Attorney Anderson's suggestion, not all 
cases imposing a license suspension involve dishonesty.  See In 
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Whitnall, 230 Wis. 2d 194, 
195-96, 600 N.W.2d 910 (1999).  Attorney Whitnall had been 
disciplined three previous times.  See id.  His misconduct 
involved a lack of diligence and cooperation with the OLR 
investigation, resulting in a 60-day suspension.  Also, in the 
case of In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jones, 176 
Wis. 2d 140, 499 N.W.2d 674 (1993), after Attorney Jones had 
been disciplined five previous times, he was found to have 
violated his duties of diligence and communication.  See Jones, 
176 Wis. 2d at 141, 143.  His license was suspended 60 days.  
Id.  
                                                 
6 Because the stipulation was not entered into pursuant to 
SCR 22.12, additional proceedings are not required when the 
court rejects the recommended sanction.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Peterson, 2006 WI 41, ¶10, 290 Wis. 2d 74, 
713 N.W.2d 101.  
No. 
2007AP2617-D   
 
13 
 
¶29 We are not persuaded a monetary penalty would satisfy 
the objectives of attorney discipline.  Attorney Anderson has 
demonstrated a pattern of misconduct; this is his fourth 
disciplinary proceeding involving similar misconduct.  We note 
Attorney Anderson's expressions of remorse and his cooperation 
in these proceedings.  We conclude, nonetheless, a license 
suspension for a minimal period is called for under the 
circumstances.  Attorney Anderson must be impressed with his 
professional obligation to pursue diligently the interests of 
those persons who rely on him to protect and further their 
interests in the legal system.  We conclude progressive 
discipline in the form of a 60-day license suspension is 
warranted. 
¶30 The OLR does not seek restitution and the record lacks 
documentary evidence as to the source of the forfeited funds; we 
decline to order compensation to the client in this instance.   
¶31 We order Attorney Anderson to pay the costs of this 
proceeding within 90 days of the date of this order.  Under SCR 
22.24(1m),7 the court's general policy is to impose costs on the 
respondent.  To award less than full costs, the court must find 
                                                 
7 SCR 22.24(1m) reads, in part: 
The court's general policy is that upon a finding 
of misconduct it is appropriate to impose all costs, 
including the expenses of counsel for the office of 
lawyer regulation, upon the respondent.  In cases 
involving extraordinary circumstances the court may, 
in the exercise of its discretion, reduce the amount 
of costs imposed upon a respondent.  . . .  
No. 
2007AP2617-D   
 
14 
 
"extraordinary circumstances."  Id.  Attorney Anderson has not 
objected 
to 
costs 
and 
has 
not 
claimed 
extraordinary 
circumstances to justify a reduction or deferment of his 
obligation to pay costs.8   
¶32 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Scott F. Anderson to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective June 28, 2010. 
¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 90 days of the date 
of this order, Scott F. Anderson pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If costs are not paid 
within the time specified and absent a showing of his inability 
to pay the costs, Scott F. Anderson's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the 
court. 
¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Scott F. Anderson shall 
comply with SCR 22.26 regarding the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
                                                 
8 On May 27, 2009, the OLR filed a statement seeking costs 
of $5,863.96.  
No. 
2007AP2617-D   
 
 
 
1