Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Ryan D. Lister

Citation: 2012 WI 102

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2012-07-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
2012 WI 102 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2004AP2767-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Ryan D. Lister, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Ryan D. Lister, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST LISTER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 27, 2012   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2012 WI 102
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2004AP2767-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Ryan D. Lister, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Ryan D. Lister, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 27, 2012 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
subject to suspension.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This attorney disciplinary matter comes 
to us in an unusual procedural posture.  The Office of Lawyer 
Regulation 
(OLR) 
has 
filed 
a 
motion 
in 
an 
underlying 
disciplinary proceeding asking this court to issue an order to 
show cause why Attorney Ryan D. Lister should not be found to be 
in contempt or to have sanctions imposed on him due to his 
failure to comply with the mandate of our previous disciplinary 
decision.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Lister, 2007 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
2 
 
WI 55, 300 Wis. 2d 326, 731 N.W.2d 254 (Lister I).  We referred 
the OLR's motion to a referee, who was directed to make findings 
as to the relevant facts, conclusions of law concerning whether 
or 
not Attorney Lister had violated our orders, and a 
recommendation regarding the sanction, if any, that should be 
imposed on Attorney Lister.  Neither party has objected to the 
referee's report and recommendation.  We therefore now review 
that report and recommendation for the purpose of ruling on the 
OLR's motion. 
¶2 
In Lister I, which was issued on May 17, 2007, in Case 
No. 2004AP2767-D, we suspended Attorney Lister's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin for a period of five months.  We also 
ordered Attorney Lister to pay $12,209 in restitution to client 
J.A. to reimburse her for a default judgment that had been 
entered against her due to Attorney Lister's misconduct and for 
the fee payments she had made to Attorney Lister.  The specific 
paragraph of our order addressing this restitution obligation 
read as follows: 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the 
date 
of 
this 
order, 
Attorney 
Lister 
shall 
pay 
restitution to J.A. in the amount of $12,209.  If 
restitution to J.A. is not paid within the time 
specified and absent a showing to this court of his 
inability to pay the restitution amount within that 
time, the license of Attorney Lister to practice law 
in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further 
order of this court. 
300 Wis. 2d 326, ¶84. 
¶3 
Attorney Lister did not pay the specified restitution 
amount within 60 days of the May 17, 2007 order.   On August 15, 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
3 
 
2007, Attorney Lister filed a motion seeking an extension of 
time to pay the restitution to J.A (and to pay the costs of the 
disciplinary proceeding) because his financial resources were 
limited, especially during the suspension of his license to 
practice law.  This court initially held his motion in abeyance 
and directed him to negotiate a payment plan with the OLR.   
¶4 
Attorney Lister proposed to the OLR that he begin 
making $500 monthly payments in December 2007, one month after 
the expiration of his suspension and expected reinstatement to 
the practice of law.  The payments were to be made to J.A. until 
the court-ordered restitution was paid in full.  Once that had 
occurred, the payments would be made to the OLR and applied to 
the cost judgment.  The OLR agreed to this proposal, and the 
parties communicated their agreement to this court. 
¶5 
We incorporated the parties' negotiated payment plan 
into an order dated October 10, 2007.  The relevant mandate 
paragraph of that order stated as follows: 
 
IT IS ORDERED that respondent-appellant's motion 
for an extension of time to make payments toward the 
restitution and cost assessments imposed in the 
court's May 17, 2007 decision is granted.  Beginning 
on December 15, 2007, Attorney Ryan D. Lister shall 
make monthly payments in the amount of $500 until the 
full amounts of the restitution and cost assessment 
are paid.  Such payments shall be made to client J.A. 
until 
the 
restitution 
amount 
is 
fully 
paid.  
Thereafter, the payments shall be made to the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation until the cost assessment is 
fully paid.  The parties shall meet approximately six 
months after the beginning date of the payments to 
review Attorney Lister's financial status and to 
determine 
whether 
the 
payment 
amount 
should 
be 
adjusted.  If a party believes the amount should be 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
4 
 
adjusted, the party shall file a motion seeking an 
adjustment in the payment amount. 
¶6 
On November 9, 2011, the OLR filed a motion in Case 
No. 2004AP2767-D requesting this court to issue an order 
directing Attorney Lister to show cause why he should not be 
held in contempt or why a sanction should not be imposed upon 
him for failure to comply with this court's May 17, 2007 and 
October 10, 2007 orders.  The affidavit in support of the OLR's 
motion stated, in summary, that after an initial period of 
monthly payments, Attorney Lister had made only sporadic 
payments after being cajoled by the OLR, had not made any 
payments for extended periods of time, and was substantially in 
arrears on his obligations under the payment plan set forth in 
the court's October 10, 2007 order.  The OLR's affidavit further 
noted that Attorney Lister still owed $10,132.35 in costs from 
Case No. 2004AP2767-D and another $9,250.86 in costs from a 
subsequent disciplinary proceeding, Case No. 2008AP2766-D. 
¶7 
On January 25, 2012, this court issued an order 
directing Attorney Lister to respond to the allegations in the 
OLR's motion and supporting affidavit and to demonstrate that he 
was in compliance with his obligations under the May 17, 2007 
and October 10, 2007 orders.  The order further referred the 
OLR's motion to Referee Timothy L. Vocke, who had handled the 
initial disciplinary proceedings in this case.  The order 
instructed the referee to make findings of fact as to all 
relevant 
facts 
regarding 
Attorney 
Lister's 
compliance 
or 
noncompliance with his obligations under the court's prior 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
5 
 
orders and to render conclusions of law as to whether or not 
Attorney Lister had violated those obligations.  The order 
further directed the referee to make a recommendation as to the 
appropriate type of discipline or sanction, if any, that the 
court should impose on Attorney Lister if it determined that he 
had violated his obligations under the court's orders. 
¶8 
Attorney 
Lister's 
response 
to 
the 
OLR's 
motion 
admitted the truth of all but three paragraphs of the affidavit 
in support of the OLR's motion.  Shortly before the scheduled 
date for the hearing before the referee, Attorney Lister and the 
OLR executed a stipulation.  The stipulation essentially 
admitted the truth of the remaining paragraphs of the OLR's 
affidavit, except the parties agreed that Attorney Lister had 
made one additional $200 payment to the heirs of J.A. in 
February/March 2012, and that after the date of the OLR's motion 
Attorney Lister had communicated with the OLR regarding his 
failure to make payments to J.A.'s heirs and to execute a tax 
authorization form sent to him by the OLR.   
¶9 
The referee used the affidavit in support of the OLR's 
motion, which had essentially been admitted by Attorney Lister, 
and the stipulation to make findings of fact regarding Attorney 
Lister's conduct concerning his restitution obligation.  Those 
findings of fact are summarized below. 
¶10 According to a chart that was part of the stipulation, 
Attorney Lister made monthly payments to J.A. from December 2007 
through October 2008, although two payments were less than and 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
6 
 
one payment was more than the $500 amount required by the 
court's October 10, 2007 order. 
¶11 Attorney Lister made no payment in November 2008, 
prompting the OLR to write a letter to him urging him to make 
timely payments or to call the OLR if he was financially unable 
to do so.  Attorney Lister subsequently made a $300 payment in 
December 2008 and told the OLR that he was experiencing some 
financial hardship. 
¶12 In late January and February 2009, Attorney Lister did 
make the required $500 payments but only after the OLR was again 
forced to communicate with him about the need to make the 
payments.  Attorney Lister then stopped making payments for 
several months.  By this time his total payments to J.A. were 
substantially lower than what was required under the payment 
plan in the October 10, 2007 order.  Attorney Lister made a 
payment to J.A. in July 2009, after the OLR twice more was 
forced to communicate its displeasure with Attorney Lister's 
failure to make payments and to raise the possibility of seeking 
a sanction from this court.    
¶13 In September 2009 J.A. sent a letter to the OLR 
expressing frustration at the fact that Attorney Lister was more 
than $4,000 behind on his payments.  J.A. indicated that she was 
facing a serious medical emergency and needed the restitution 
funds from Attorney Lister.  The OLR forwarded J.A.'s letter to 
Attorney Lister and spoke to him about the matter.  Attorney 
Lister sent a single $500 payment to J.A. in October 2009, but 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
7 
 
then did not make further payments during the remainder of 2009 
or the entirety of 2010. 
¶14 J.A. passed away in April 2010, which resulted in 
Attorney Lister owing the remaining restitution amount to her 
heirs.  The OLR located the heirs and facilitated a December 
2010 agreement between Attorney Lister and the heirs, which 
called for Attorney Lister to make $250 monthly payments for the 
first six months, $500 monthly payments for the following six 
months, and then $1,000 monthly payments until the restitution 
was paid in full.  Attorney Lister made only one $250 payment in 
January 2011.  He made no further payments to J.A.'s heirs until 
the $200 payment in February/March 2012, which occurred after 
the OLR filed the present motion seeking a sanction against him. 
¶15 Although the payment plan mandated in the court's 
October 10, 2007 order would have resulted in the full 
restitution amount to J.A. having been paid by December 2009, 
the stipulation acknowledged that Attorney Lister still owed 
$4,525 in restitution to J.A.'s heirs.1  Attorney Lister further 
agreed that he had failed to comply with the restitution 
requirements of the May 17, 2007 and October 10, 2007 orders.  
He stipulated that although he had experienced financial 
difficulties at times, he was not indigent and could have 
                                                 
1 The referee's finding of fact on this point used the 
$4,725 amount contained in the affidavit in support of the OLR's 
November 2011 motion.  This finding of fact is clearly erroneous 
in light of the subsequent stipulation that Attorney Lister made 
a $200 payment in February/March 2012 and that the outstanding 
balance at the time of the stipulation in March 2012 was $4,525. 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
8 
 
consistently paid some amount each month, even if, at times, he 
may not have been able to pay the full $500 required amount.  
Attorney Lister further acknowledged in the stipulation that a 
pattern had developed where he had been inconsistent in making 
payments and after the initial period of compliance had made 
payments only after the OLR had cajoled him or raised the 
possibility of reporting his noncompliance to this court.  
Finally, Attorney Lister also admitted that he had failed to 
return an authorization form sent to him by the OLR that would 
have allowed the OLR to review his recent tax returns. 
¶16 The stipulation proposed that Attorney Lister should 
be given one final opportunity to make consistent monthly 
restitution payments, on the condition that his failure to do so 
would result in the automatic indefinite suspension of his 
license to practice law in this state.  The stipulation set 
forth a payment schedule whereby Attorney Lister would make 
monthly payments in the amount of $500, beginning on May 1, 
2012, with a final payment of $525 due on January 1, 2013.  The 
stipulation proposed that Attorney Lister would be required to 
send the OLR a copy of each monthly payment by the fifth day of 
each month, and that the OLR could notify this court of any 
failure to receive such proof of payment, which would result in 
an immediate suspension order.  At the hearing before the 
referee, the parties modified the stipulation to propose that in 
the event of a failure to provide proof of payment, the OLR 
would notify this court, which would impose a 60-day suspension 
of Attorney Lister's license. 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
9 
 
¶17 Based on these facts, the referee made a number of 
legal conclusions.  First, the referee stated that Attorney 
Lister had failed to comply with this court's orders of May 17, 
2007, and October 10, 2007.  Second, the referee concluded that, 
as of the date of the referee's report, Attorney Lister was not 
and had not been indigent.  Third, the referee determined that 
Attorney Lister's failure to comply with this court's orders had 
been intentional.  The referee further stated that he believed 
that this court had either inherent authority or authority under 
the contempt statutes, Wis. Stat. ch. 785, to impose remedial 
sanctions for disobedience of its orders, and that Attorney 
Lister was in continuing contempt for his disobedience of the 
court's 2007 orders.   
¶18 Consistent 
with 
the 
proposal 
in 
the 
parties' 
stipulation, the referee recommended that the court impose a 60-
day suspension on Attorney Lister, but stay the suspension as 
long as Attorney Lister complies with the new payment plan set 
forth in the stipulation.   
¶19 As noted at the top of this opinion, the procedural 
posture of this matter is unusual.  Under SCR 20:8.4(f), it is 
professional misconduct for an attorney to violate a supreme 
court order.  Thus, the OLR could have moved forward with this 
matter by conducting an investigation and pursuing one of the 
options available under the rules, which included a new 
consensual private or public reprimand (SCR 22.09), a new 
stipulation submitted to the court for its approval or rejection 
(SCR 22.12), or the filing of a new disciplinary complaint 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
10 
 
(SCRs 22.11 and 22.13 through 22.17).  If a new complaint had 
been 
filed, 
it 
would 
have 
initiated 
a 
new 
disciplinary 
proceeding with a new case number, which would have followed the 
standard procedures for disciplinary cases.  See SCRs 22.13 
through 22.17. 
¶20 The OLR, however, did not follow any of these paths.  
It filed a motion in the original disciplinary proceeding asking 
this court to issue an order to show cause why Attorney Lister 
should not be held in contempt or why sanctions should not be 
imposed on him under the court's inherent authority to regulate 
the practice of law and to enforce its orders.  There are no 
provisions in our rules that expressly authorize such a motion 
or that provide a procedure for deciding such a motion.  The OLR 
contends, however, that it chose to file a motion seeking an 
order to show cause because it wanted a quicker and more 
streamlined process for resolving this matter. 
¶21 We have, on one occasion, been confronted with a 
similar motion filed in the underlying disciplinary proceeding 
that sought an order to show cause against an attorney who 
remained a member of the bar but undisputedly continued to 
practice law during a disciplinary suspension.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hetzel, 124 Wis. 2d 462, 369 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
11 
 
N.W.2d 394 (1985).2  Our decision in that matter, however, did 
not purport to create a procedure for resolving a dispute about 
disobedience of a prior order through a motion filed in the same 
case.  Although the court did issue an order to show cause in 
that case, as requested by the Board of Attorneys Professional 
Responsibility (BAPR), it did not immediately rule on BAPR's 
motion, even though Attorney Hetzel failed to file a response to 
the order to show cause.  Rather, the court referred BAPR's 
motion to a referee, who essentially treated the case as if BAPR 
had filed a new complaint against Attorney Hetzel.  The referee 
conducted an evidentiary hearing and issued a report and 
                                                 
2 The OLR notes that there have also been situations where 
its 
predecessor, 
the 
Board 
of 
Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility (BAPR), filed motions seeking sanctions for 
contempt in the original disciplinary proceeding.  In those 
cases, however, the attorneys' licenses to practice law had 
already been revoked prior to the court's orders regarding 
BAPR's contempt motions, which were generally unpublished.  
See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Straub, 178 
Wis. 2d 617, 504 N.W.2d 612 (1993) (granting petition for 
consensual license revocation); In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Moran, 165 Wis. 2d 504, 477 N.W.2d 628 (1991) (revoking 
license); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hill, 143 
Wis. 2d 373, 421 N.W.2d 504 (1988) (granting petition for 
consensual license revocation); In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against 
Elliott, 
133 
Wis. 2d 110, 
394 
N.W.2d 313 
(1986) 
(revoking license); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Pasch, 127 Wis. 2d 444, 380 N.W.2d 672 (1986) (published opinion 
holding attorney in contempt and imposing $300 fine for 
practicing law after revocation of his license).  Thus, since 
the attorney's license had been revoked, a contempt motion in 
the original disciplinary proceeding was the most effective way 
for this court to exercise jurisdiction over the individual.  
That is different from the present situation where Attorney 
Lister remains a member of the bar and holds an active license 
to practice law in this state. 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
12 
 
recommendation, which the court reviewed in the normal fashion, 
ultimately revoking Attorney Hetzel's license to practice law in 
this state.   
¶22 Given the similar unusual procedural posture we have 
faced with the OLR's motion here, we have moved forward in a 
similar fashion as we did in Hetzel, with a referral to a 
referee. 
 
The 
matter 
then 
proceeded 
before 
the 
referee 
essentially in the same way that a new complaint would be 
handled.  Attorney Lister filed a response to the OLR's motion 
that identified facts and legal conclusions he disputed, the OLR 
submitted discovery requests to Attorney Lister, the referee 
scheduled 
an 
evidentiary 
hearing 
to 
resolve 
the 
factual 
disputes, the parties reached a stipulation that addressed the 
remaining factual disputes, and the referee issued a report that 
contained 
findings 
of 
fact, 
conclusions 
of 
law, 
and 
a 
recommendation. 
¶23 Because none of the existing rules specifically 
provides for an appeal from a referee's report issued in this 
context, the court issued an order that afforded the parties an 
opportunity to file objections to the referee's report.  Neither 
party 
filed 
any 
objections 
to 
the 
referee's 
report.  
Accordingly, we will utilize the same review protocol we use 
when no appeal is filed in an initial disciplinary proceeding.  
See SCR 22.17(2).3  Specifically, we will affirm the referee's 
                                                 
3 SCR 22.17(2) states:   
 
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
13 
 
findings of fact unless they are found to be clearly erroneous, 
but we will review the referee's conclusions of law on a de novo 
basis.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 
WI 126, ¶5, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125.  We will determine 
the appropriate type and level of sanction or discipline given 
the particular facts of the 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. 
¶24 With the exception of the outstanding balance that 
remained on Attorney Lister's restitution obligation, as noted 
above, we find no clear error in the referee's findings of fact, 
and we adopt them.  We also agree with the referee that those 
facts demonstrate that Attorney Lister consistently had some 
ability to make monthly payments to J.A. and her heirs, but he 
knowingly and intentionally chose to disobey this court's order 
to make monthly restitution payments to them.   
¶25 This was not a situation where an attorney was unable 
to comply with an order of this court to make specified payments 
because of the attorney's lack of financial resources.  It was a 
deliberate choice by Attorney Lister to place other personal 
expenditures above the payments explicitly ordered by this 
court.  Moreover, this was not an isolated or short-term action; 
                                                                                                                                                             
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
14 
 
Attorney Lister engaged in a consistent pattern of disobeying 
the mandate of this court.  What should have taken just over two 
years to complete has dragged on for more than four years, and 
there still remains a sizeable balance that is owed to J.A.'s 
heirs. 
¶26 The stipulation executed by the OLR and Attorney 
Lister stated that it sought to give Attorney Lister a final 
chance to make the monthly payments he should have been making 
over the last several years.  Given the indifference Attorney 
Lister has demonstrated to his obligations under this court's 
October 10, 2007 order, we believe that his final opportunity to 
pay his restitution obligation and to avoid a suspension should 
be much shorter in length.  We grant Attorney Lister a period of 
30 days from the date of this order to pay the full balance that 
remains to be paid to J.A.'s heirs.  If Attorney Lister does not 
file documentation with the clerk of this court on or before 
August 
27, 
2012, 
demonstrating 
payment 
in 
full 
of 
the 
restitution obligation to J.A.'s heirs, his license to practice 
law in Wisconsin is suspended as of August 27, 2012, until such 
time as the restitution has been fully paid, documentation 
demonstrating such payment in full has been filed with the clerk 
of this court, and this court has issued an order reinstating 
his license. 
¶27 We now turn to the issue of the costs of the OLR's 
motion and the proceedings that resulted from that motion.  The 
OLR has filed a statement of costs showing total costs of 
$2,695.01 for this motion proceeding as of April 27, 2012.  The 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
15 
 
OLR requests that the full costs of this motion proceeding be 
assessed against Attorney Lister.  Attorney Lister has not 
objected to the OLR's request or to the reasonableness of the 
listed costs.  Accordingly, consistent with our general policy, 
we require Attorney Lister to pay the full costs of this motion 
proceeding. 
¶28 We note that in addition to the remaining restitution 
amount that Attorney Lister must pay to J.A.'s heirs, he will 
now have three cost judgments that he will be required to 
satisfy.  Our October 10, 2007 order provided that after 
Attorney Lister completed the payment of restitution to J.A., he 
was required to continue making $500 monthly payments to the OLR 
that were to be applied to the original cost judgment in 
Case No. 2004AP2767-D.  We will impose that same obligation in 
this order with respect to all cost judgments entered against 
him.  In other words, we will require him to make monthly 
payments of $500 to the OLR until all of the cost judgments have 
been satisfied.  If Attorney Lister is financially unable to 
make such payments, he will be obligated to negotiate an 
appropriate payment amount with the OLR and to move this court 
for an adjustment of the payment amount.  His failure to comply 
with this requirement may again subject him to additional 
sanctions. 
¶29 Finally, because our rules currently do not contain 
provisions governing the procedure for filing and resolving 
motions in an underlying disciplinary proceeding that seek the 
imposition of sanctions due to a violation of this court's 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
16 
 
disciplinary orders, we direct the OLR to prepare and file a 
rule petition regarding this subject. 
¶30 IT IS ORDERED that on or before August 27, 2012, 
Ryan D. Lister shall pay the remaining restitution amount to the 
heirs of J.A. and shall file with the clerk of this court 
documentation demonstrating such payment in full.  If Ryan D. 
Lister fails to pay the remaining restitution amount to the 
heirs of J.A. and to file documentation of such payment in full 
with the clerk of this court on or before August 27, 2012, the 
license of Ryan D. Lister to practice law in Wisconsin is hereby 
suspended as of August 27, 2012, until the restitution to the 
heirs of J.A. has been paid in full, documentation demonstrating 
such payment in full has been filed with the clerk of this 
court, and this court has issued an order reinstating the 
license of Ryan D. Lister to practice law in Wisconsin. 
¶31 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that beginning on October 1, 
2012, Ryan D. Lister shall make monthly payments in the amount 
of $500 to the Office of Lawyer Regulation to be credited 
against all cost judgments entered against him, until all such 
cost judgments have been fully satisfied.  If Attorney Lister is 
financially unable to make such payments, he shall attempt to 
negotiate an appropriate monthly payment amount with the Office 
of 
Lawyer 
Regulation 
and 
shall 
move 
this 
court 
for 
a 
modification of the obligation to pay the outstanding cost 
judgments. 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
 
 
1