Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Richard W. Steffes

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2017AP001910-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2018-04-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
2018 WI 31 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2017AP1910-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Richard W. Steffes, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Plaintiff, 
     v. 
Richard W. Steffes, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST STEFFES 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 10, 2018 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
ABRAHAMSON, J. dissents, joined by A.W. BRADLEY 
J. (opinion filed). 
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
      
 
 
2018 WI 31
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2017AP1910-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Richard W. Steffes, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Plaintiff, 
 
     v. 
 
Richard W. Steffes, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 10, 2018 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney Richard W. Steffes has filed a 
petition 
for 
consensual 
license 
revocation 
pursuant 
to 
SCR 22.19.1  The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) has filed a 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.19 provides:   
(1) An 
attorney 
who 
is 
the 
subject 
of 
an 
investigation 
for 
possible 
misconduct 
or 
the 
respondent in a proceeding may file with the supreme 
court a petition for the revocation by consent or his 
or her license to practice law. 
(continued) 
No. 
2017AP1910-D   
 
2 
 
complaint against Attorney Steffes, alleging that he committed 
professional misconduct.  He is also the subject of a pending 
OLR grievance that has not yet been fully investigated.  
Attorney 
Steffes 
states 
in 
his 
petition 
that 
he 
cannot 
successfully defend against the allegations of professional 
misconduct.  
¶2 
Attorney Steffes was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1970.  He resides in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin.  His 
                                                                                                                                                             
(2) The petition shall state that the petitioner 
cannot successfully defend against the allegations of 
misconduct. 
(3) If a complaint has not been filed, the 
petition shall be filed in the supreme court and shall 
include the director's summary of the misconduct 
allegations being investigated.  Within 20 days after 
the date of filing of the petition, the director shall 
file in the supreme court a recommendation on the 
petition.  Upon a showing of good cause, the supreme 
court may extend the time for filing a recommendation. 
(4) If a complaint has been filed, the petition 
shall be filed in the supreme court and served on the 
director and on the referee to whom the proceeding has 
been assigned.  Within 20 days after the filing of the 
petition, the director shall file in the supreme court 
a response in support of or in opposition to the 
petition and serve a copy on the referee.  Upon a 
showing of good cause, the supreme court may extend 
the time for filing a response.  The referee shall 
file a report and recommendation on the petition in 
the supreme court within 30 days after receipt of the 
director's response. 
(5) The supreme court shall grant the petition 
and revoke the petitioner's license to practice law or 
deny the petition and remand the matter to the 
director or to the referee for further proceedings. 
No. 
2017AP1910-D   
 
3 
 
law license has been temporarily suspended since March 2017 for 
failure to cooperate with the OLR in these investigations.  
Attorney Steffes' law license is also administratively suspended 
for failure to pay bar dues and failure to comply with trust 
account certification requirements.   
¶3 
Attorney Steffes' disciplinary history consists of a 
single public reprimand issued in 2014 for allowing his non-
lawyer son to use his trust account.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Steffes, 2014 WI 128, 359 Wis. 2d 299, 856 
N.W.2d 824. 
¶4 
The matter giving rise to this petition stems from 
Attorney Steffes' misconduct as guardian for R.S.  R.S. was born 
in 1927 and has been adjudicated incompetent.  He has had a 
court appointed guardian for decades.  
¶5 
Attorney 
Steffes 
was 
appointed 
R.S.' 
successor 
guardian in 1975.  In 2015, it was determined that Attorney 
Steffes had not filed required accountings or annual reports 
pertaining to the guardianship from 2010 to 2013.  He was 
directed to do so.  Attorney Steffes requested and received a 
one-month extension, but then failed to file the documents. 
¶6 
In September 2015, the Dodge County Department of 
Human Services filed a petition asking the circuit court to 
remove Attorney Steffes as R.S.' guardian because of his failure 
to file these accountings and condition reports.   
¶7 
On September 21, 2015, the court appointed a guardian 
ad litem for R.S.  The guardian subpoenaed Attorney Steffes in 
an attempt to obtain information about the matter, but Attorney 
No. 
2017AP1910-D   
 
4 
 
Steffes failed to respond to the subpoena. The guardian then 
filed a motion to compel discovery to obtain records necessary 
to review R.S.' accounts.  
¶8 
On October 21, 2015, the circuit court removed 
Attorney Steffes as guardian and ordered him to file an 
accounting by November 23, 2015.  The court appointed G&L 
Advocacy of Portage as successor guardian for R.S.  
¶9 
On November 23, 2015, Attorney Steffes filed a final 
accounting, but failed to provide bank records.  On December 3, 
2015, Attorney Steffes appeared at a scheduled review hearing, 
but failed to bring the financial records.  The court ordered 
Attorney Steffes to turn over all of the financial records by 
December 11, 2015.  Meanwhile, the acting guardian ad litem 
subpoenaed financial records directly from the bank.  
¶10 Over 
the 
next 
several 
months, 
Attorney 
Steffes 
requested and received several adjournments.  In May 2016, the 
guardian ad litem filed a report with the court identifying 
several concerns with Attorney Steffes' handling of the R.S. 
guardianship.  The report stated that Attorney Steffes had: (1) 
given R.S. monthly payments in cash, leaving no way for Attorney 
Steffes to establish that R.S. received the entire amount to 
which he was entitled or that R.S. used the funds to care for 
himself; (2) taken money from R.S.' account that was not given 
to R.S. or used for his benefit; (3) taken money from R.S.' 
account that went directly to Attorney Steffes; (4) failed to 
monitor R.S.' bank account, resulting in monthly maintenance 
fees when the account balance fell below a certain level; (5) 
No. 
2017AP1910-D   
 
5 
 
failed to apply for a homestead credit on R.S.' behalf; and (6) 
paid medical expenses from R.S.' account that should have been 
covered by insurance. 
¶11 Attorney Steffes requested and received time to 
respond and then requested several extensions until the circuit 
court ordered Attorney Steffes to file his written response no 
later than July 21, 2016 or default judgment would be entered 
against him. 
¶12 On July 21, 2016, Attorney Steffes filed a response to 
the report.  Attorney Steffes said that he issued checks payable 
to cash in order to purchase money orders that were mailed to 
R.S.  He said that R.S. required payment in the form of money 
orders because they were accepted at his check cashing station.  
He said that some of the payments to him were for his 
guardianship fees.  He said that two checks from R.S.' account 
were inadvertently written to his firm by a new secretary, but 
were immediately returned to R.S.' account when the error was 
discovered.  Attorney Steffes said he had no recollection of the 
purpose of several of the checks written to his firm, but stated 
that at no time did he benefit from R.S.' assets.  He explained 
that he did not think it was necessary for him to check on the 
account because there was minimal activity, so he was unaware of 
the fees being charged. 
¶13 In September 2016, the Dodge County Circuit Court 
conducted a final hearing on the R.S. guardianship matter and 
ruled that Attorney Steffes had committed waste of his ward's 
assets.  The court found: (1) there were unexplained checks 
No. 
2017AP1910-D   
 
6 
 
written on R.S.' account totaling $9,000; (2) Attorney Steffes 
failed to apply for the homestead credit resulting in a loss to 
R.S. 
of 
$1,904.30; 
and 
(3) 
Attorney 
Steffes 
permitted 
unnecessary bank account maintenance fees to accrue, totaling 
$480.58.  The court ordered Attorney Steffes to pay $11,384.88 
to the guardianship estate as well as $9,000 for guardian ad 
litem fees.  Attorney Steffes failed to make the ordered 
payments. 
¶14 Attorney Steffes' conduct regarding this matter was 
reported to the OLR.  In October 2016, the OLR informed Attorney 
Steffes he was required to provide a written response to the 
OLR's inquiries into this matter.  Despite repeated requests, 
Attorney Steffes failed to respond, then requested additional 
time or submitted correspondence that was not responsive to the 
OLR's inquiries. 
¶15 In January 2017, at the OLR's request, this court 
issued an order directing Attorney Steffes to show cause as to 
why his license should not be suspended for his willful failure 
to cooperate in the OLR investigation.  Attorney Steffes failed 
to respond and, on March 13, 2017, this court issued an order 
temporarily suspending Attorney Steffes' law license.  His 
license remains suspended.  
¶16 On September 29, 2017, the OLR filed a complaint 
against Attorney Steffes based on the foregoing alleging six 
counts of professional misconduct.  The complaint alleged that 
by providing his ward with cash payments contrary to the purpose 
of the guardianship, which was to ensure that R.S.' assets would 
No. 
2017AP1910-D   
 
7 
 
be used to meet his essential needs of health and safety, 
Attorney Steffes violated SCR 20:1.12 (Count 1); by failing to 
file annual accounts and annual reports of his ward's condition 
from 2010 through 2014, and by failing to monitor his ward's 
bank account resulting in the wasting of the ward's assets, 
Attorney Steffes violated SCR 20:1.33 (Count 2); by failing to 
respond to the Order to Show Cause issued by the court in 
February of 2015 in the guardianship, Attorney Steffes violated 
SCR 20:3.4(c)4 (Count 3); by failing to comply with the court's 
September 20, 2016 order that he reimburse the guardianship 
estate and pay the guardian ad litem fees, Attorney Steffes 
violated SCR 20:3.4(c) (Count 4); by misappropriating funds from 
his ward's account, Attorney Steffes violated SCR 20:8.4(c)5 
(Count 5); and by willfully failing to respond to the OLR's 
investigation, Attorney Steffes violated SCR 22.03(2)6 and SCR 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.1 provides:  "A lawyer shall provide competent 
representation to a client.  Competent representation requires 
the 
legal 
knowledge, 
skill, 
thoroughness 
and 
preparation 
reasonably necessary for the representation." 
3 SCR 20:1.3 provides:  "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
4 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." 
5 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
6 SCR 20:03(2) provides: 
(continued) 
No. 
2017AP1910-D   
 
8 
 
22.03(6),7 enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h)8 (Count 6).  The complaint 
requested this court suspend Attorney Steffes' law license for 
three years and order Attorney Steffes to pay restitution to the 
guardian estate of R.S. 
¶17 On February 15, 2018, Attorney Steffes filed a 
petition for revocation by consent.  It attaches a copy of the 
complaint as well as a summary of a pending OLR investigation 
into additional potential ethical violations involving Attorney 
Steffes' handling of a probate matter for J.R.  The OLR summary 
                                                                                                                                                             
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.   
7 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." 
8 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. 
2017AP1910-D   
 
9 
 
indicates that its investigation involves Attorney Steffes' 
potential violations of the following supreme court rules: 
SCR 20:1.3, SCR 20:1.4(a), SCR 22.26 and SCR 22.03(2).  The OLR 
states that it does not seek restitution in the pending 
investigation. 
¶18 Attorney Steffes' petition for consensual revocation 
asserts that he is seeking consensual revocation of his law 
license freely, voluntarily, and knowingly.  He states that he 
cannot successfully defend himself against the allegations of 
misconduct summarized above and more fully described in the 
OLR's 
summary. 
 
Attorney 
Steffes 
acknowledges 
that 
he 
understands he is giving up his right to contest any of the 
OLR's allegations.  He has the assistance of counsel in this 
matter.  The petition acknowledges that if the court grants the 
petition and revokes his license, Attorney Steffes will be 
subject to the requirements of SCR 22.26 and, should he ever 
wish to seek the reinstatement of his license, the reinstatement 
procedure set forth in SCRs 22.29-22.33.  
¶19 The court has reviewed Attorney Steffes' petition, the 
OLR's 
summary 
of 
possible 
misconduct, 
and 
its 
written 
recommendation in favor of the petition, and we conclude that 
the petition for consensual revocation should be granted.   
¶20 Attorney Steffes misappropriated funds from a very 
vulnerable person for whom he served as guardian.  Although 
Attorney Steffes does not have an extensive disciplinary 
history, the allegations in the underlying complaint are very 
serious and were committed over a period of several years.  When 
No. 
2017AP1910-D   
 
10 
 
his misconduct was discovered, Attorney Steffes fostered delay, 
ignored a subpoena, court orders, and failed to fully cooperate 
with the ensuing disciplinary process.  His actions reflect a 
troubling and serious breach of his ethical obligations as a 
lawyer in this state.  
¶21 Consistent with the terms of the petition, we order 
Attorney Steffes to pay restitution to the guardian estate of 
R.S. c/o G&L Advocacy, in the amount of $11,384.88.  Because 
this matter is being resolved via a petition for consensual 
revocation without the need to appoint a referee or hold an 
extensive hearing, we will not impose costs on Attorney Steffes.  
¶22 IT IS ORDERED that the petition of Richard W. Steffes 
for the consensual revocation of his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin is granted.  
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of Richard W. 
Steffes to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the 
date of this order.  
¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the March 13, 2017 
temporary suspension of Richard W. Steffes' license to practice 
law in Wisconsin, due to his willful failure to cooperate with 
the Office of Lawyer Regulation's investigation in this matter, 
is lifted. 
¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Richard W. Steffes shall 
pay restitution to the guardian estate of R.S. c/o G&L Advocacy, 
in the amount of $11,384.88. 
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Richard W. Steffes is 
ordered to comply with any final monetary order or judgment 
No. 
2017AP1910-D   
 
11 
 
issued in In the Matter of the Guardianship and Protective 
Placement of R.S., Dodge County case no. 1958GN37423.  
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Richard W. Steffes shall comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked. 
 
 
No.  2017AP1910-D.ssa 
 
1 
 
¶28 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.   I agree that Attorney 
Steffes violated the Code and should be disciplined.  I would 
not adopt the stipulation for consensual license revocation.  
License revocation is too harsh a punishment for the offense and 
the offender in the instant case.  The OLR initially sought a 
three-year suspension.  Three years seems right to me on the 
basis of past cases. 
¶29 I am authorized to state that Justice ANN WALSH 
BRADLEY joins this separate writing. 
 
 
No.  2017AP1910-D.ssa 
 
1