Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Suzanne M. Smith

Citation: 2013 WI 98

Docket Number: 2011AP002946-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2013-12-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
2013 WI 98 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2011AP2946-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Suzanne M. Smith, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Suzanne M. Smith, 
          Respondent-Appellant.   
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SMITH  
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
      
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the respondent-appellant, there was a brief by Suzanne 
M. Smith, Burlington. 
 
For the Office of Lawyer Regulation, there was a brief by 
Julie M. Spoke. 
 
 
 
2013 WI 98
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2011AP2946-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Suzanne M. Smith, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Suzanne M. Smith, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
DEC 12, 2013 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney Suzanne M. Smith appeals the 
report of Hannah C. Dugan, referee, recommending discipline of a 
six-month license suspension, the imposition of costs, and 
restitution to the State Public Defender's Office (SPD) in the 
amount of $112.  The referee found that Attorney Smith committed 
20 of the 22 charged counts of misconduct.  Nine of these counts 
were the subject of a stipulation entered into by the parties 
No. 
2011AP2946-D   
 
2 
 
and accepted by the referee shortly before the disciplinary 
hearing in this matter.   
¶2 
We adopt both the stipulated and the non-stipulated 
findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the 
referee's report.  We conclude that the referee's reasoning with 
respect 
to 
discipline 
and 
restitution 
is 
persuasive.  
Accordingly, this court concludes that a six-month suspension of 
Attorney Smith's license to practice law in Wisconsin is an 
appropriate sanction for her violations.  We further agree with 
the referee that Attorney Smith shall bear the costs of this 
disciplinary proceeding, which are $13,959.26 as of July 9, 
2013, and shall reimburse the State Public Defender's Office in 
the amount of $112. 
¶3 
Attorney Smith was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1995 and practices in Burlington.  In 2009 Attorney 
Smith was publicly reprimanded for misconduct in three separate 
matters.  The misconduct generally consisted of failing to act 
with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a 
client, failing to communicate appropriately with a client, 
failing to abide by a client's decisions concerning the 
objectives of representation, and failing to provide competent 
representation.  Public Reprimand of Suzanne M. Smith, No. 
2009-17. 
¶4 
On December 22, 2011, the OLR filed a complaint 
against Attorney Smith.  The complaint, as later amended in May 
2012, consisted of some 182 separately numbered paragraphs 
describing 22 counts of misconduct in connection with Attorney 
No. 
2011AP2946-D   
 
3 
 
Smith's work on four matters.  The complaint sought a six-month 
suspension of Attorney Smith's law license, as well as $112 in 
restitution to the SPD. 
¶5 
Attorney Smith filed answers to the complaint and the 
amended complaint in which she denied committing misconduct and 
requested the dismissal of the disciplinary action.  
¶6 
Shortly before the scheduled hearing, Attorney Smith 
entered into a partial stipulation in which she pled no contest 
to nine of the 22 charged counts of misconduct.  The referee 
accepted the stipulation.  
¶7 
Following a two-day disciplinary hearing, the referee 
determined that the OLR had proven misconduct in 11 of the 
remaining 13 non-stipulated counts.  The OLR does not appeal the 
dismissal of the two counts on which the referee found no 
misconduct; thus, these counts are not discussed herein. 
¶8 
The referee's report spans 45 single-spaced pages.  
The referee concluded that the record supported a total of 20 
counts of misconduct.  We do not repeat all of the factual 
findings and legal conclusions made by the referee, and instead 
provide the following summary of the referee's report. 
Mr. and Mrs. C. Matter (Counts 1 through 3) 
¶9 
Three 
counts 
of 
professional 
misconduct 
involve 
Attorney Smith's representation of Mrs. C. in a divorce action 
between Mr. and Mrs. C.  As part of the divorce proceedings, on 
November 2, 2009, Mr. C. gave Attorney Smith a check for $309.84 
made payable to Attorney Smith's trust account.  Also on 
November 2, 2009, Attorney Smith received a federal tax refund 
No. 
2011AP2946-D   
 
4 
 
check in the amount of $1,490.16 payable jointly to Mr. and Mrs. 
C. and endorsed by Mr. C.  Attorney Smith was to deposit the 
funds from both checks into her trust account and pay a portion 
of Mr. and Mrs. C.'s 2008 real estate taxes from that account.  
However, the checks remained in Attorney Smith's desk drawer for 
several weeks; Attorney Smith did not deposit the $309.84 check 
into her trust account until December 31, 2009, and did not 
deposit the $1,490.16 check until January 19, 2010.   
¶10 By April 2010 Attorney Smith still had not paid the 
designated trust account funds against Mr. and Mrs. C.'s 2008 
real estate taxes.  On April 20, 2010, Mr. C.'s attorney wrote 
to Attorney Smith to point out that the taxes remained unpaid.  
Attorney Smith did not respond.   
¶11 Attorney Smith did not apply the funds toward Mr. and 
Mrs. C.'s 2008 real estate taxes until May 28, 2010.  The delay 
in paying the taxes caused the county to assess $120 in 
additional interest and penalties against Mr. and Mrs. C.   
¶12 Based on these facts, the referee determined that the 
following misconduct occurred: 
• By failing to promptly deposit in her trust account the 
check from Mr. C. and the federal tax refund check 
payable jointly to Mr. and Mrs. C., Attorney Smith 
violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).1    
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.15(b)(l) provides as follows: Separate account. 
 
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 
No. 
2011AP2946-D   
 
5 
 
• By failing to promptly apply the funds at issue toward 
the 2008 property taxes owed by Mr. and Mrs. C., Attorney 
Smith violated SCR 20:1.15(d)(l).2    
• By ignoring the inquiry from Mr. C.'s attorney as to the 
status of the trust account funds and by failing to 
render any written accounting of the trust property when 
she distributed the funds to the county treasurer, 
Attorney Smith violated SCR 20:1.15(d)(2).3   
T.H. Matter (Counts 4, 5, 6, and 8)4  
¶13 In August 2008 T.H. retained Attorney Smith to 
represent her in a post-adjudication matter in a paternity case. 
During the course of this representation, Attorney Smith did not 
                                                                                                                                                             
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. 
2 SCR 20:1.15(d)(l) provides:  Notice and disbursement. 
 
Upon receiving funds or other property in which a 
client has an interest, or in which the lawyer has 
received notice that a 3rd party has an interest 
identified by a lien, court order, judgment, or 
contract, the lawyer shall promptly notify the client 
or 3rd party in writing. Except as stated in this rule 
or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the 
client, the lawyer shall promptly deliver to the 
client or 3rd party any funds or other property that 
the client or 3rd party is entitled to receive. 
3 SCR 20:1.15(d)(2) provides: "Upon final distribution of 
any trust property or upon request by the client or a 3rd party 
having an ownership interest in the property, the lawyer shall 
promptly 
render 
a 
full 
written 
accounting 
regarding 
the 
property." 
4 The referee dismissed Counts 7 and 9——an outcome the OLR 
does not appeal. 
No. 
2011AP2946-D   
 
6 
 
timely respond to T.H.'s multiple requests for a bill.  Attorney 
Smith also did not timely comply with the circuit court's 
instruction to prepare a final order reflecting the parties' 
eventual stipulation on all issues.  T.H. informed Attorney 
Smith that due to Attorney Smith's delay in preparing a final 
order, T.H. was unable to prove her daughter's father's 
violations of certain terms of the custodial arrangement for her 
daughter.  T.H. also asked Attorney Smith to send her a copy of 
the parties' signed stipulation; Attorney Smith never did so.  
When Attorney Smith eventually prepared a final bill for her 
work on T.H.'s case, the bill included an entry for attending 
and traveling to and from a circuit court hearing that Attorney 
Smith did not attend.   
¶14 Based on these facts, the referee determined that the 
following misconduct occurred: 
• By failing to timely prepare a final order implementing a 
stipulation of the parties, Attorney Smith violated SCR 
20:1.3.5   
• By failing to timely provide her client with a copy of 
the stipulation signed by the parties as her client 
requested, Attorney Smith violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(4).6   
                                                 
5 SCR 20:1.3 provides: "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
6 SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) states that a lawyer shall "promptly 
comply 
with 
reasonable 
requests 
by 
the 
client 
for 
information; . . . ." 
No. 
2011AP2946-D   
 
7 
 
• By failing to timely provide her client with a copy of 
her bill for legal services despite repeated requests by 
her client, Attorney Smith violated SCR 20:1.5(b)(3).7    
• By billing her client for an appearance and travel to and 
from a circuit court hearing that Attorney Smith did not 
attend, and by failing to timely correct her billing, 
Attorney Smith violated SCR 20:1.5(a).8   
                                                 
7 SCR 20:1.5(b)(3) provides: "A lawyer shall promptly 
respond to a client's request for information concerning fees 
and expenses." 
8 SCR 20:1.5(a) provides as follows:  
 
A lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, 
or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable 
amount for expenses. The factors to be considered in 
determining the reasonableness of a fee include the 
following:  
 
(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and 
difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill 
requisite to perform the legal service properly;  
 
(2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client 
that the acceptance of the particular employment will 
preclude other employment by the lawyer;  
 
(3) the fee customarily charged in the locality 
for similar legal services;  
 
(4) the amount involved and the results obtained;  
 
(5) the time limitations imposed by the client or 
by the circumstances; 
 
(6) the nature and length of the professional 
relationship with the client;  
 
(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of 
the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and 
 
(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent. 
No. 
2011AP2946-D   
 
8 
 
M.T. Matter (Counts 10 through 17) 
¶15 In July 2009 the SPD appointed Attorney Smith to 
represent M.T. regarding the possible revocation of M.T.'s 
extended supervision.  Attorney Smith represented M.T. at a 
hearing at which M.T. stipulated to having engaged in conduct 
that violated the rules of his extended supervision.  On 
September 30, 2009, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a 
decision revoking M.T.'s extended supervision and returning him 
to prison for the remaining time available on his sentence.  The 
ALJ's decision included information related to challenging the 
decision, first by an administrative appeal to be filed on or 
before October 15, 2009, with subsequent judicial review 
available by a writ of certiorari to be commenced within 45 days 
of the subsequent decision.  
¶16 On October 15, 2009, Attorney Smith faxed, as an 
administrative appeal of the revocation decision, a one-and-a-
half page letter to the Administrator of the Division of 
Hearings and Appeals.  Attorney Smith did not append supporting 
materials.  
¶17 On October 22, 2009, the Administrator of the Division 
of Hearings and Appeals issued an appeal decision that sustained 
the original decision and order of the ALJ.  The decision 
included notice that to appeal the decision, a writ of 
certiorari action had to be commenced within 45 days.  Attorney 
Smith agreed to seek a writ of certiorari on M.T.'s behalf.  
¶18 Attorney Smith failed to file a petition for writ of 
certiorari on M.T.'s behalf before the December 7, 2009 
No. 
2011AP2946-D   
 
9 
 
deadline.  When the SPD's office, after receiving a complaint 
from M.T., inquired with Attorney Smith about the status of the 
case, Attorney Smith blamed her delay in filing the petition on 
the fact that she had previously been unaware of where M.T. was 
housed within the correctional system.   
¶19 Attorney Smith did not file the certiorari petition 
until July 22, 2010——well past the filing deadline.  Attorney 
Smith failed to include certain necessary items with her filing, 
including a copy of the decision being challenged and either a 
filing fee payment or a signed prisoner's petition and affidavit 
of indigency.  The office of the clerk of circuit court notified 
Attorney Smith of the deficiencies of her filing.  Attorney 
Smith promised to provide the missing documentation, but never 
did so.  Despite the deficiencies in her filing, Attorney Smith 
reported to M.T. that the writ had been filed.    
¶20 In June 2011 Attorney Smith filed on M.T.'s behalf a 
Wis. Stat. § 974.06 motion to modify M.T.'s sentence.  The 
motion did not include any statement of the relief requested.  
Although the motion stated that Attorney Smith would submit a 
brief explaining the grounds for the motion, Attorney Smith did 
not submit a brief.  At a hearing on the motion, Attorney Smith 
told the circuit court that after she had filed the motion, the 
applicable law changed such that she needed to amend her motion.  
The circuit court ordered Attorney Smith to file an amended 
motion and a supporting brief, plus any necessary supporting 
affidavits.  Although Attorney Smith advised the court she 
No. 
2011AP2946-D   
 
10 
 
expected to file the motion and brief within ten days, she 
failed to file an amended motion and brief.   
¶21 Attorney Smith also failed to appear at the subsequent 
hearing scheduled to address the merits of the § 974.06 motion.  
On the morning of the hearing, Attorney Smith sent a text 
message to M.T.'s wife stating that she was sick and would have 
to reschedule the hearing.  In response texts, M.T.'s wife urged 
Attorney Smith to attend the hearing.  M.T.'s wife also asked 
whether Attorney Smith would notify the circuit court of her 
need to reschedule the hearing, and whether Attorney Smith 
thought M.T. would be allowed to speak at the hearing.  Attorney 
Smith did not reply to these inquiries.   
¶22 The hearing proceeded without Attorney Smith.  The 
circuit court dismissed Attorney Smith's motion for sentence 
modification without prejudice because it failed to set forth 
the specific relief requested and failed to substantively 
discuss the applicable law.  The circuit court gave Attorney 
Smith ten days to file a motion for reconsideration of the 
denial of the motion.  Attorney Smith failed to file a motion 
for reconsideration. 
¶23 Throughout her representation of M.T., Attorney Smith 
failed to respond to numerous inquiries from M.T. and his wife, 
made directly or relayed by the SPD's office, including requests 
to provide M.T. with a copy of the certiorari filing.   
¶24 Attorney Smith also made various misrepresentations 
regarding the status of her work and the reasons for her delay 
in completing the work.  She falsely told M.T. that from March 
No. 
2011AP2946-D   
 
11 
 
to May 2010, she had been too ill to file pleadings on his 
behalf.  Attorney Smith appeared in court on behalf of numerous 
other clients during this time period, thereby disproving her 
representation that she was too ill to file pleadings.  Attorney 
Smith also falsely told the office of the clerk of circuit court 
that she was in possession of the documents necessary to 
complete the deficient certiorari filing of July 22, 2010.   
¶25 Attorney Smith also showed an inadequate level of 
cooperation and honesty during the OLR's investigation of her 
representation of M.T.  During the OLR investigation, Attorney 
Smith failed to answer questions and furnish documents and 
information requested by the OLR, misrepresented to the OLR that 
she was unable to file the certiorari petition from March to May 
2010 due to illness, and misrepresented to the OLR that certain 
documents she provided to the OLR had been ready to file in 
March 2010.   
¶26 Based on these facts, the referee determined that the 
following misconduct occurred: 
• By not being able to locate M.T. within the correctional 
system prior to December 2009, by not filing a petition 
for 
writ 
of 
certiorari 
in 
proper 
form 
with 
the 
documentation required by statute, and by filing a motion 
for sentence modification under Wis. Stat. § 974.06 so 
No. 
2011AP2946-D   
 
12 
 
deficient that the court summarily dismissed it, Attorney 
Smith violated SCR 20:1.1.9   
• By failing to file a timely petition for writ of 
certiorari; by failing to seek relief for her client from 
the filing deadline for a writ of certiorari; by failing 
to follow up on reminders from the office of the circuit 
court clerk concerning missing documents needed to 
complete her certiorari petition filing; by failing to 
promptly file and diligently pursue her motion to modify 
M.T.'s 
sentence, 
despite 
being 
given 
an 
extended 
opportunity to file an adequate amended motion, a brief, 
and supporting affidavits; and by generally neglecting 
her representation of M.T., Attorney Smith violated 
SCR 20:1.3.10   
• By repeatedly failing to adequately communicate with 
M.T., Attorney Smith violated SCRs 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4).11   
• By failing to promptly explain the reasons she did not 
file a timely or proper petition for writ of certiorari, 
thereby preventing M.T. from making informed decisions 
                                                 
9 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." 
10 SCR 20:1.3 provides: "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
11 SCRs 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4) state that a lawyer shall "(3) 
keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the 
matter;" and "(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests by 
the client for information; . . . ." 
No. 
2011AP2946-D   
 
13 
 
about the forms of relief available to him or his right 
to seek other representation, Attorney Smith violated 
SCR 20:1.4(b).12   
• By failing to comply with the circuit court order to file 
an 
amended 
motion 
for 
sentence 
modification 
and 
supporting brief, Attorney Smith violated SCR 20:3.4(c).13   
• By making misrepresentations to M.T., M.T.'s wife, and 
the staff of the SPD that a petition for writ of 
certiorari had been filed on behalf of M.T., when 
Attorney Smith knew the only filing she ever made was 
untimely, 
incomplete, 
and 
unacceptable; 
by 
falsely 
telling M.T. that from March to May 2010, she had been 
too ill to file pleadings that she falsely represented 
were ready to file; by representing to the office of the 
clerk of circuit court that she was in possession of 
papers necessary to complete her deficient certiorari 
filing; 
and 
by 
generally 
exhibiting 
a 
pattern 
of 
dishonesty, deceit or misrepresentation throughout her 
                                                 
12 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." 
13 SCR 20:3.4(c) provides that 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. 
2011AP2946-D   
 
14 
 
representation 
of 
M.T., 
Attorney 
Smith 
violated 
SCR 20:8.4(c).14   
• By failing to answer questions and furnish documents and 
information requested by the OLR in the course of its 
investigation and by failing to respond to an OLR letter 
requesting a response to a supplemental grievance filed 
by 
M.T., 
Attorney 
Smith 
violated 
SCR 
22.03(2),15 
SCR 22.03(6),16 and SCR 20:8.4(h).17   
                                                 
14 SCR 20:8.4(c) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation; . . . ." 
15 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 a 
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. 
16 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." 
17 SCR 20:8.4(h) says 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. 
2011AP2946-D   
 
15 
 
• By misrepresenting to the OLR that she was unable to file 
a petition for writ of certiorari for M.T. from March to 
May 2010 due to illness, and by falsely representing that 
the petition documents she provided to the OLR had been 
ready to file in March 2010, Attorney Smith violated 
SCR 22.03(6) and SCR 20:8.4(h).  
D.D. Matter (Counts 18 through 22) 
¶27 In 2008 the SPD appointed Attorney Smith to represent 
D.D. with respect to appellate and postconviction matters in 
three cases involving felony operating while intoxicated charges 
in Milwaukee County.  D.D. pled guilty in each case.  
¶28 Prior to Attorney Smith's representation of D.D., the 
court of appeals had granted D.D.'s pro se request for an 
extension of time to file a notice of intent to pursue 
postconviction relief in all three cases.  Attorney Smith began 
her representation of D.D. after the expiration of that 
deadline.  
¶29 Over the next eight months, Attorney Smith made little 
effort to pursue substantive relief on D.D.'s behalf.  However, 
she deliberately gave D.D. the impression that she had filed or 
would file pleadings on his behalf.  She failed to keep D.D. 
adequately informed about the status of his matters, including 
explaining failures to file and delays on her part.  Attorney 
Smith also made false claims to the circuit court that she had 
previously prepared and submitted motions on D.D.'s behalf.   
¶30 Attorney Smith's time slips to the SPD for her work on 
D.D.'s case include entries for "Draft motion to modify 
No. 
2011AP2946-D   
 
16 
 
sentence" and "Finalize motion and file."  However, Attorney 
Smith never filed a motion to modify sentence with the circuit 
court during the time period covered by the time slips in 
question.  Attorney Smith's claimed time in the above entries 
totaled 2.8 hours, and she was paid $112 by the SPD as a result 
of these entries.   
¶31 Attorney Smith eventually prepared a motion to modify 
sentence and a motion for postconviction relief, both of which 
the circuit court rejected.  The circuit court instructed 
Attorney Smith to prepare an order denying postconviction 
relief.  She failed to do so.   
¶32 In December 2009, after receiving a pro se complaint 
from D.D. about Attorney Smith, the court of appeals directed 
Attorney Smith, under threat of sanctions, to answer various 
questions concerning her representation of D.D.  In her 
responses, Attorney Smith informed the court of appeals that she 
had allowed appellate deadlines to lapse because she had been 
suffering from headaches and flu-like symptoms.  
¶33 In January 2010 the SPD filed a report with the court 
of appeals advising the court that Attorney Smith had agreed to 
remove herself from the list of attorneys certified to take SPD 
appointments, and thus, she could no longer represent D.D.  The 
court 
of 
appeals 
ordered 
Attorney 
Smith 
discharged 
from 
representing D.D. and ordered the SPD to appoint new counsel. 
¶34 Attorney 
Smith 
showed 
an 
inadequate 
level 
of 
cooperation and honesty during the OLR's investigation of her 
representation of D.D.  Attorney Smith told the OLR that she had 
No. 
2011AP2946-D   
 
17 
 
motions prepared to file on D.D.'s behalf by a particular point 
in time, but her billing records showed otherwise.  Attorney 
Smith also failed to provide the OLR with a timely response to 
its requests for copies of her billing records in the D.D. 
matter, for details of her work, for copies of all motions she 
claimed to have filed, and for an explanation for the billing 
discrepancy described above.  
¶35 Based on these facts, the referee determined that the 
following misconduct occurred: 
• By allowing appellate deadlines to lapse and by her 
general inattention to D.D.'s interests, Attorney Smith 
violated SCR 20:1.3.  
• By failing to prepare an order denying postconviction 
relief consistent with the directive of the circuit 
court, Attorney Smith violated SCR 20:3.4(c).   
• By deliberately giving D.D. the impression that she would 
file or had filed pleadings on his behalf and then 
failing to keep him adequately informed about the status 
of his matters, including explaining failures to file and 
delays 
on 
her 
part, 
Attorney 
Smith 
violated 
SCR 20:1.4(a)(3).  
• By making repeated false claims to the court that she had 
previously prepared and sent motions on D.D.'s behalf, 
Attorney Smith violated SCR 20:3.3(a)(1).18    
                                                 
18 SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) states 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. 
2011AP2946-D   
 
18 
 
• By falsely stating to the OLR that she had motions ready 
on behalf of D.D. and by failing to answer questions and 
provide documents requested by the OLR, Attorney Smith 
violated SCR 22.03(6) and SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶36 After determining that Attorney Smith had committed 
the misconduct in the 20 counts described above, the referee 
recommended a six-month suspension of Attorney Smith's law 
license.  In support of this recommendation, the referee noted 
that, in both this disciplinary matter and Attorney Smith's 
earlier public reprimand, Attorney Smith displayed a tendency 
toward failing to communicate appropriately with her clients and 
offering dubious excuses for her substandard and untimely work.  
The referee expressed serious concerns about Attorney Smith's 
law firm management and client advocacy skills.  The referee 
determined that Attorney Smith's medical issues provided an 
explanation 
for 
some, 
but 
not 
all, 
of 
Attorney 
Smith's 
difficulties in providing effective counsel.  The referee 
determined that many of the unfavorable facts of Attorney 
Smith's conduct showed that, for reasons independent of her 
medical issues, Attorney Smith was dilatory in her case 
management and in meeting her duties to her clients.  
¶37 As to the appropriate monetary sanctions, the referee 
recommended that Attorney Smith should be assessed the entire 
costs of the disciplinary proceeding, which total $13,959.26 as 
of July 9, 2013.  The referee further recommended that Attorney 
Smith should be required to make restitution to the SPD in the 
No. 
2011AP2946-D   
 
19 
 
amount of $112, the amount of the billing discrepancy in the 
D.D. case. 
¶38 Attorney Smith appeals.  The level of discipline and 
the amount of awardable costs are the only disputes.  Turning 
first to the level of discipline, Attorney Smith argues that the 
recommended six-month suspension does not sufficiently take into 
account various mitigating factors, which include her allegation 
that both she and her husband had significant health issues 
during the time period in question, her expression of remorse 
for her conduct, her recent efforts to improve her law practice 
management and organization, and her history of serving low-
income clients.  Attorney Smith also argues that although she 
has been publicly reprimanded once before, moving from a public 
reprimand 
directly 
to 
a 
six-month 
suspension 
would 
be 
unreasonably harsh.  
¶39 The 
OLR 
argues 
that 
a 
six-month 
suspension 
is 
appropriate.  It argues that the record discloses few, if any, 
legitimate mitigating factors.  It claims that suspensions are 
frequently predicated on misconduct like that at issue here; 
i.e., misconduct that spans multiple clients, incorporates 
multiple counts of professional wrongdoing, and shows patterns 
of unprofessional behavior.  The OLR also points out that this 
court has issued substantial suspensions even when the lawyer at 
issue does not have a lengthy disciplinary history.  See e.g., 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against DeGracie, 2004 WI 44, 270 
Wis. 2d 640, 678 N.W.2d 252 (eight-month suspension for six 
No. 
2011AP2946-D   
 
20 
 
counts of misconduct where attorney had no previous disciplinary 
history). 
¶40 We conclude that the referee's findings of fact are 
not clearly erroneous.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against 
Eisenberg, 
2004 
WI 
14, 
¶5, 
269 
Wis. 2d 43, 
675 
N.W.2d 747.  Although Attorney Smith argues that the referee 
failed to give adequate weight to her testimony as to the extent 
of her medical issues during the period in question, the referee 
implicitly weighed the credibility of Attorney Smith's testimony 
in this regard when the referee decided that some portion of her 
misconduct was related to her medical issues.  We will not 
reassess Attorney Smith's credibility.  See id.  We also agree 
with the referee that the facts of record demonstrate that 
Attorney Smith committed each of the 20 counts of professional 
misconduct as determined by the referee. 
¶41 With respect to the discipline to be imposed, we 
determine 
the 
appropriate 
level 
of 
discipline 
given 
the 
particular facts of each case, 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.  After careful consideration of the report and 
recommendation, the record in this matter, and the written 
statements 
of 
the 
parties, 
we 
accept 
the 
referee's 
recommendation regarding suspension.   
¶42 Although there are both mitigating and aggravating 
factors to consider in weighing the seriousness of Attorney 
Smith's misconduct, the balance does not tip in Attorney Smith's 
No. 
2011AP2946-D   
 
21 
 
favor.  Weighing in Attorney Smith's favor are the facts that 
she did not operate with a malicious intent, she did not benefit 
personally from her misconduct, and, according to the referee, 
she experienced medical problems during the period in question 
that can explain some portion of her misconduct.  Also weighing 
in Attorney Smith's favor is the fact that she has expressed 
remorse for her behavior.  Weighing more heavily against 
Attorney Smith are the facts that both this case and her 
previous disciplinary case show a troubling pattern of poor 
bookkeeping, office mismanagement, inadequate communication with 
clients, and insufficient concern for her clients' reasonable 
needs.  Attorney Smith also has displayed a pattern of excuse-
making, blame-shifting, and obfuscation which suggests that 
these types of transgressions could happen again. 
¶43 In light of the circumstances presented, we are 
persuaded that the referee's reasoning is sound and that a six-
month license suspension is necessary to advance the objectives 
of lawyer discipline.  A six-month suspension will require 
Attorney Smith to petition this court for reinstatement under 
SCR 22.28(3).  Doing so will require her to demonstrate to this 
court, before she resumes practice, that she has made efforts to 
remedy the causes of her repeated failures to serve her clients. 
¶44 We further conclude that full costs in the amount of 
$13,956.26 are to be imposed on Attorney Smith.  Attorney Smith 
does not argue that there are extraordinary circumstances here 
that would justify a departure from the court's standard 
practice of imposing full costs against the respondent attorney.  
No. 
2011AP2946-D   
 
22 
 
See SCR 22.24(1m).  Attorney Smith argues instead that the 
amount of costs to be imposed against her will impose a 
significant hardship given her current financial status.  We 
will not adjust the amount of costs imposed against Attorney 
Smith based on a claim of lack of assets at this time.  Attorney 
Smith's allegations of financial hardship are an appropriate 
consideration for establishment of a payment plan with the OLR; 
assigning greater significance to them at this point would be 
premature. 
¶45 We further agree with the referee's recommendation 
that Attorney Smith make a restitution payment to the SPD in the 
amount of $112.  Attorney Smith does not dispute the referee's 
restitution 
recommendation, 
and 
we 
award 
restitution 
accordingly. 
¶46 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Suzanne M. Smith to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six 
months, effective January 16, 2014. 
¶47 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Suzanne M. Smith shall pay 
restitution in the amount of $112 to the Office of the State 
Public Defender, within 30 days of the date of this order. 
¶48 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Suzanne M. Smith 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. 
¶49 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Suzanne M. Smith shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
No. 
2011AP2946-D   
 
23 
 
¶50 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified 
above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation. 
¶51 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.29(4)(c). 
 
No. 
2011AP2946-D   
 
 
 
1