Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Othman M. Atta

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2014AP002150-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2016-07-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
2016 WI 69 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2014AP2150-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Othman M. Atta, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Othman M. Atta, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ATTA 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 14, 2016 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
BRADLEY, A. W., J. and ABRAHAMSON, J. dissent 
(Opinion filed. 
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2016 WI 69
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2014AP2150-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Othman M. Atta, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Othman M. Atta, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 14, 2016 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of Referee James J. Winiarski approving the stipulation and no 
contest plea filed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and 
Attorney Othman M. Atta.  In the stipulation, Attorney Atta pled 
no contest to eight counts of misconduct as alleged in the 
complaint filed by the OLR.  The parties jointly recommended 
that the sanction imposed be a public reprimand.  The referee 
No. 
2014AP2150-D   
 
2 
 
agreed that a public reprimand was an appropriate sanction. The 
referee also recommended that Attorney Atta be ordered to pay 
the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding, which are 
$9,187.41 as of April 4, 2016.  
¶2 
After careful review of the matter, we uphold the 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law and agree that 
a public reprimand is an appropriate sanction.  We further agree 
that Attorney Atta should bear the full costs of this 
disciplinary proceeding.   
¶3 
Attorney 
Atta 
was 
admitted 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin in 1994 and practices in Milwaukee.  He has no prior 
disciplinary record.   
¶4 
On September 15, 2014, the OLR filed a complaint 
against Attorney Atta.  Attorney Atta filed an answer on October 
14, 2014.  The referee was appointed on December 15, 2014.  The 
parties' stipulation was filed on February 19, 2016.  As part of 
the stipulation, Attorney Atta withdrew his answer to the 
complaint and pled no contest to the eight counts of misconduct 
alleged therein.   
¶5 
This 
matter 
arose 
out 
of 
Attorney 
Atta's 
representation of BA-B.  In April of 2010, Attorney Atta agreed 
to represent her in a divorce action and also agreed to assist 
her in immigration matters involving her husband, AAN.  Both BA-
B and her husband were born in Jordan.  In the spring of 2009, 
the couple had discussed the possibility of divorce and AAN had 
returned to Jordan, received a divorce decree there, and married 
another woman. In seeking Attorney Atta's assistance, BA-B 
No. 
2014AP2150-D   
 
3 
 
sought to protect herself, as well as her young daughter, from 
AAN's actions.   
¶6 
Beginning 
in 
September 
2010, 
Attorney 
Atta's 
professional 
relationship 
with 
BA-B 
became 
increasingly 
personal, and the two had sexual relations.  A consensual sexual 
relationship had not existed between them prior to the time 
their attorney-client relationship began.  Between April 2012 
and February 2013, Attorney Atta and BA-B had numerous telephone 
conversations, with a majority of the calls being lengthy and 
after midnight.  In one telephone conversation, Attorney Atta 
told BA-B he had strong feelings for her, discussed one day 
being married to her, and discussed intimate topics.  Attorney 
Atta went to BA-B's house for dinners.  Attorney Atta, BA-B, and 
her young daughter would also go out for lunch or dinner 
together at local restaurants.  
¶7 
Attorney Atta's personal communications, interactions, 
and personal relationship with his client while he continued to 
represent her in her divorce action created a conflict of 
interest on Attorney Atta's part.  In March 2013, near the end 
of the divorce proceeding, AAN accused Attorney Atta of having a 
romantic relationship with BA-B.  On March 11, 2013, AAN's 
attorney emailed Attorney Atta expressing concern that his 
client was claiming Attorney Atta had some sort of relationship 
with AB-B.  Attorney Atta responded to the email by denying that 
such a relationship existed and claimed that AAN and his new 
wife were spreading false rumors. 
No. 
2014AP2150-D   
 
4 
 
¶8 
On March 12, 2013, the circuit court held a final, 
stipulated hearing in the divorce case.  Prior to the hearing, 
AAN's attorney met with Attorney Atta and the judge in chambers 
to discuss the concerns raised by AAN.  The court asked the 
parties to state their concerns on the record. AAN's attorney 
expressed concern that there was a romantic relationship between 
Attorney Atta and BA-B.  Attorney Atta responded by saying that 
the allegations were "entirely without merit" and he accused AAN 
and his new wife of "going around the community trying to 
badmouth me, badmouthing my client, alleging that we are 
sleeping together, alleging that my client is sleeping with 
other men, and so forth."  At the hearing, the circuit court 
accepted the terms of the stipulation on all issues, granted the 
divorce, and ordered Attorney Atta to submit proposed findings 
of fact, conclusions of law, and a judgment to the court within 
30 days. 
¶9 
Attorney Atta and BA-B continued to speak after the 
divorce hearing, but by May 2013, their relationship had 
deteriorated.  By the end of May 2013, Attorney Atta had not yet 
filed the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 
judgment with the court. On May 24, 2013, BA-B sent Attorney 
Atta an email expressing concern that the final divorce papers 
had not yet been prepared.  On May 28, BA-B wrote to the court 
asking for assistance in having the paperwork completed.  On May 
31, 2013, AAN's attorney emailed Attorney Atta asking him to 
advise of the status of the matter.  Attorney Atta did not 
respond for over two weeks.   
No. 
2014AP2150-D   
 
5 
 
¶10 On June 16, 2013, Attorney Atta responded to AAN's 
attorney's email, saying he would drop off the proposed 
documents the next day.  On June 18, 2013, Attorney Atta 
forwarded his proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 
judgment, apologizing for the delay.  Attorney Atta emailed BA-B 
the proposed documents on July 1, explaining the changes made 
and advising her on outstanding issues, including past due child 
support and credit card debt.  Without BA-B's consent, Attorney 
Atta 
copied 
his 
email, 
including 
the 
findings 
of 
fact, 
conclusions of law, and judgment, to his brother, Ihsan Atta.  
BA-B had met with and been in contact with Attorney Atta's 
brother.  On July 1, 2013, after incorporating subsequent 
language changes proposed by both attorneys, Attorney Atta sent 
the final proposed documents to the court.  The court signed the 
documents and submitted them for filing on July 16, 2013.   
¶11 On August 8, 2013, BA-B filed a telephonic grievance 
against Attorney Atta, alleging that he intentionally delayed 
filing 
the 
divorce 
documents 
after 
she 
terminated 
their 
relationship. BA-B was also upset that Attorney Atta had copied 
his brother with the divorce papers, and she asserted that 
Attorney Atta had taken advantage of her by engaging in a sexual 
relationship with her while she was in an emotional stage in her 
life. 
¶12 On October 5, 2013, the OLR sent Atta a formal notice 
of investigation asking him to respond to BA-B's allegations.  
Attorney Atta responded on December 16, 2013, claiming the 
allegations were completely false.  He denied he and BA-B had a 
No. 
2014AP2150-D   
 
6 
 
sexual relationship and stated that BA-B wanted to marry him and 
told him if he did not agree to the marriage she would file 
false accusations against him.  As to the late night phone 
calls, Attorney Atta said he regularly conducted business 
outside of regular business hours and he knew BA-B stayed up 
late.  Attorney Atta admitted that he met BA-B for coffee, 
lunch, and dinner, but said he would do that with any client.  
On April 1, 2014, the OLR requested supplemental information    
from Attorney Atta regarding the grievance.  Attorney Atta 
failed to timely respond. 
¶13 The referee's March 15, 2016 report and recommendation 
found that the OLR met its burden of proof with respect to the 
following counts of misconduct:   
[Count One:]  By representing [BA-B] during her 
divorce matter while simultaneously engaging in a 
romantic 
relationship 
with 
her, 
[Attorney] 
Atta 
violated SCR 20:1.7(a)(2).1  
[Count 
Two:] 
 
By 
failing 
to 
withdraw 
from 
representation of [BA-B] in a divorce proceeding 
following engagement in a romantic relationship with 
his client, giving rise to a conflict of interest, 
[Attorney] Atta violated SCR 20:1.16(a).2  
                                                 
1 SCR 20:l.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." 
2 SCR 20:1.16(a) 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: (1) the representation will result in violation of the Rules 
of Professional Conduct or other law . . . ." 
No. 
2014AP2150-D   
 
7 
 
[Count Three:]  By having sexual relations with a 
client while representing her in a divorce action, 
when no sexual relationship existed prior to the   
representation, 
[Attorney] 
Atta 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.8(j).3  
[Count Four:]  By failing to inform the tribunal in a 
divorce proceeding of the fact of his relationship 
with [BA-B] and falsely denying such a relationship 
existed, [Attorney] Atta violated SCR 20:3.3(a)(1).4 
[Count Five:]  By informing [AAN's attorney] that he 
did not have a romantic relationship with [BA-B], 
after [AAN's attorney] specifically asked [Attorney] 
Atta whether he had a romantic relationship (both in 
email correspondence and in a meeting with the 
presiding judge, Atta violated SCR 20:4.l(a)(1).5 
[Count Six:]  By emailing the proposed Findings of 
Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment to [Attorney 
Atta's 
brother], 
along 
with 
other 
information 
pertaining to the representation of [BA-B], without 
[BA-B's] 
consent, 
[Attorney] 
Atta 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.6(a).6 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:1.8(j) provides: "A lawyer shall not have sexual 
relations with a current client unless a consensual sexual 
relationship 
existed 
between 
them 
when 
the 
client-lawyer 
relationship commenced." 
4 SCR 20:3.3(a)(l) provides: "A lawyer shall not knowingly 
(1) 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." 
5 SCR 20:4.l(a)(l) provides: "In the course of representing 
a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:  (1) make a false 
statement of material fact or law to a 3rd person . . . ." 
6 SCR 20:l.6(a) provides:  "A lawyer shall not reveal 
information relating to the representation of a client unless 
the client gives informed consent, except for disclosures that 
are 
impliedly 
authorized 
in 
order 
to 
carry 
out 
the 
representation, and except as stated in pars. (b) and (c)." 
No. 
2014AP2150-D   
 
8 
 
[Count Seven:]  By failing to provide truthful 
information 
to 
OLR 
in 
connection 
with 
an 
investigation, and specifically denying the existence 
of a romantic relationship with his client, [Attorney] 
Atta violated SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6), enforced 
via SCR 20:8.4(h).7 
[Count Eight:]  By failing to timely respond to OLR's 
April l, 2014 request for supplemental information, 
Atta violated SCR 22.03(6), enforced via  20:8.4(h). 
¶14 The referee noted that before the parties reached a 
stipulation, BA-B filed a civil suit against Attorney Atta in 
Milwaukee County Circuit Court alleging a sexually inappropriate 
relationship between her and Attorney Atta while he was 
representing her in her divorce action. The referee also noted 
that he did not have the opportunity to meet or hear from 
Attorney Atta during the course of this case, and the referee's 
report and recommendation were based entirely on the written 
file and the parties' stipulation and Attorney Atta's no contest 
plea.   
¶15 The referee found it significant that Attorney Atta 
denied having any sexual or inappropriate contact with BA-B 
until the no contest plea and stipulation were entered.  The 
referee noted that Attorney Atta denied the allegations during 
the course of the OLR's investigation of the grievance; in open 
                                                 
7 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides: "It is professional misconduct for 
a lawyer to . . . (h) 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), 
22.03(6) or SCR 22.04(1) . . . ." 
 
No. 
2014AP2150-D   
 
9 
 
court during his representation of the grievant in the divorce 
case; in his answer to the OLR's complaint; and to opposing 
counsel during the course of the divorce action.   
¶16 The referee went on to say that Attorney Atta's 
admitted misconduct was not limited to an inappropriate sexual 
relationship with a client.  The referee said Attorney Atta also 
admitted that the relationship with his client gave rise to a 
conflict of interest, and he admitted failing to inform the 
tribunal in the divorce proceeding about his relationship with 
BA-B.  Further, Attorney Atta admitted he was not truthful when 
asked by opposing counsel in the divorce case as to whether he 
was involved in an inappropriate relationship with BA-B.  
Attorney Atta also mailed copies of the proposed divorce 
documents to his brother without the permission of the grievant, 
and he failed to cooperate and be truthful with the OLR during 
the course of its investigation.  The referee said although the 
relationship with BA-B was apparently mutual for an extended 
period of time, Attorney Atta should have recognized that he 
could not provide objective legal services and advice to BA-B 
when their relationship had become so personal in nature.   
¶17 The referee went on to note that Attorney Atta did 
ultimately agree to the no contest plea and the factual basis 
for it.  The referee further noted that Attorney Atta has no 
prior disciplinary history in his over 20 years of practicing 
law.  The referee said public reprimands have been imposed for 
inappropriate sexual relationships with clients, and some 
attorneys have even received private reprimands for having 
No. 
2014AP2150-D   
 
10 
 
sexual relationships with their clients.  After review of prior 
cases and factoring in both aggravating and mitigating factors, 
the 
referee 
recommended 
that 
Attorney 
Atta 
be 
publicly 
reprimanded and that he pay the full costs of the proceeding.  
¶18 This court will adopt a referee's findings of fact 
unless they are clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law are 
reviewed de novo.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  The 
court may impose whatever sanction it sees fit, regardless of 
the 
referee's 
recommendation. 
 
See 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 
N.W.2d 686. 
¶19 We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law that Attorney Atta violated the supreme court 
rules as alleged in the eight counts set forth above.  We also 
agree with the referee that a public reprimand is an appropriate 
sanction for Attorney Atta's misconduct.  We note that the 
misconduct at issue in this case is similar to that in In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ruppelt, 2014 WI 53, 354 
Wis. 2d 738, 850 N.W.2d 1.  Like Attorney Atta, Attorney Ruppelt 
began a sexual relationship with a client during the course of 
representing her.  Like Attorney Atta, Attorney Ruppelt falsely 
denied that he was involved in a romantic relationship with his 
client, both when confronted by his partners and in his initial 
responses to the OLR's investigation.  As in this case, Attorney 
Ruppelt ultimately entered into a stipulation and no contest 
plea whereby he admitted the misconduct.  As in Ruppelt, we 
No. 
2014AP2150-D   
 
11 
 
conclude that a public reprimand is an appropriate sanction.  We 
further agree with the referee that Attorney Atta should bear 
the full costs of this proceeding.   
¶20 IT IS ORDERED that Othman M. Atta is publicly 
reprimanded for professional misconduct. 
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Othman M. Atta shall pay the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $9,187.41. 
¶22 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.   
 
 
No.  2014AP2150-D.awb 
 
1 
 
 
¶23 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.   (dissenting).  Attorney Othman 
M. Atta entered into a stipulation which provides he is not 
contesting the eight counts of misconduct.  The misconduct 
centers on Attorney Atta's consensual sexual involvement with a 
client that arose during the course of the representation in 
divorce and immigration matters.  The underpinnings of this 
prohibition are rooted in concerns about conflicts of interest 
and breach of fiduciary rules.  Such concerns address the 
essence of the professional relationship. 
¶24 Truth 
telling 
also 
lies 
at 
the 
heart 
of 
the 
profession——especially truth telling to a tribunal.  Attorney 
Atta's misconduct included making false statements to a tribunal 
by advising the circuit court that the allegations of a romantic 
relationship with his client were "entirely without merit" in 
violation of SCR 20:3.3(a)(1).  Additionally his misconduct 
includes making false statements to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation in violation of SCR 22.03(6), and to opposing counsel 
in violation of SCR 20:4.1(a)(1).  
¶25 I have written in the past, and I do again today, 
because the court appears to be too lenient for violations of 
this 
nature 
that 
undermine 
the 
trust 
relationship 
and 
truthfulness required of an attorney.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Ruppelt, 2014 WI 53, ¶32, 354 Wis. 2d 738, 
850 N.W.2d 1 (Ann Walsh Bradley, J., dissenting). 
¶26 Because I conclude that the violations warrant more 
than a public reprimand, I respectfully dissent.  
No.  2014AP2150-D.awb 
 
2 
 
¶27 I am authorized to state that Justice SHIRLEY S. 
ABRAHAMSON joins this dissent. 
 
 
 
No.  2014AP2150-D.awb 
 
 
 
1