Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Mark M. Ditter

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2020AP000148-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2021-03-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
2021 WI 21 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2020AP148-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Mark M. Ditter, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Mark M. Ditter, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DITTER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 9, 2021   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam.  
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2021 WI 21
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2020AP148-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Mark M. Ditter, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Mark M. Ditter, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
MAR 9, 2021 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of Referee Sue E. Bischel.  Based on a stipulation by the 
parties, Referee Bischel determined that Attorney Mark M. Ditter 
committed four counts of professional misconduct.  The referee, 
however, 
concluded 
that 
the 
level 
of 
discipline 
jointly 
requested by the parties, a 60-day suspension, was insufficient 
under the circumstances.  Referee Bischel recommended that this 
court impose a 120-day suspension.  She also recommended that 
the court require Attorney Ditter to pay the full costs of this 
No. 
2020AP148-D   
 
2 
 
disciplinary proceeding, which are $3,896.68 as of August 26, 
2020.   
¶2 
As neither party has appealed the referee's report and 
recommendation, we review this matter pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule (SCR) 22.17(2).1  We agree with the referee's conclusion 
that Attorney Ditter committed the four counts of professional 
misconduct alleged in the complaint filed by the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation (OLR).  We conclude that Attorney Ditter's 
conduct in this matter requires a 90-day suspension of his 
license to practice law in this state.  Because the Office of 
the State Public Defender (SPD) has already recouped the funds 
that Attorney Ditter failed to forward to a third party, we do 
not impose any restitution award in this matter.  Finally, 
because Attorney Ditter did not enter into a stipulation until 
after both the OLR and the referee had expended time and money 
in proceeding with this matter, we require Attorney Ditter to 
pay the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding. 
¶3 
The referee found the facts set forth below.  In 
addition to the facts to which Attorney Ditter stipulated, the 
referee made factual findings regarding Attorney Ditter's 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) provides:  
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 
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. 
2020AP148-D   
 
3 
 
interactions with the OLR during its investigation and events 
that occurred during this disciplinary proceeding.  The referee 
gave Attorney Ditter the opportunity to object to any of her 
proposed factual findings, but he did not object. 
¶4 
We will begin with the stipulated facts regarding 
Attorney Ditter's underlying conduct and his response to the 
OLR's investigation.  Then we will set forth the pertinent facts 
regarding Attorney Ditter's conduct during this disciplinary 
proceeding. 
¶5 
Attorney Ditter was initially admitted to the practice 
of law in this state in May 1983.  He most recently operated a 
small law practice in Kaukauna.   
¶6 
Attorney Ditter has been the subject of professional 
discipline on two previous occasions, both of which were quite 
some time ago.  In 1994 Attorney Ditter's law license was 
suspended for 60 days for engaging in the practice of law while 
his license had been administratively suspended for failure to 
comply with continuing legal education requirements.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ditter, 187 Wis. 2d 337, 523 
Wis. 2d 105 (1994).  In 1996 Attorney Ditter consented to the 
imposition of a private reprimand for failing to act with 
reasonable diligence and for failing to communicate with a 
client. 
 
Private 
Reprimand 
No. 
1996-17 
(electronic 
copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/ 
000179.html).   
¶7 
Attorney Ditter's license is currently suspended for 
multiple reasons.  First, this court temporarily suspended his 
No. 
2020AP148-D   
 
4 
 
license as of May 14, 2019, due to his willful failure to 
cooperate with the OLR's investigation of his conduct that is 
the subject of this disciplinary proceeding.  Second, Attorney 
Ditter's license is also administratively suspended due to his 
non-payment of bar dues, his failure to file a trust account 
certification, and his noncompliance with continuing legal 
education requirements.  See SCRs 10.03(6), 20:1.15(i)(4), and 
31.02. 
¶8 
The facts underlying the counts of misconduct in this 
matter relate to Attorney Ditter's handling of funds in two 
cases in which he was appointed to represent indigent criminal 
defendants in the Outagamie County circuit court by the SPD.  In 
both cases Attorney Ditter hired an investigator to prepare 
alternative pre-sentence reports.  The investigator completed 
his work, and the alternative reports were filed with the 
circuit court in those two cases.   
¶9 
In the first case the SPD approved payment to Attorney 
Ditter and issued a check to Attorney Ditter in the amount of 
$2,463.70 on June 29, 2018.  That amount included $1,200 for the 
work performed by the investigator, which Attorney Ditter was 
obligated to forward to him.   
¶10 In the second case the SPD also approved payment to 
Attorney Ditter and issued a check to Attorney Ditter in the 
amount of $3,227.62 on July 20, 2018.  That amount again 
included $1,200 for the work performed by the investigator, 
which Attorney Ditter was obligated to forward to him. 
No. 
2020AP148-D   
 
5 
 
¶11 Attorney Ditter did not deliver to the investigator 
the $2,400 that he had received from the SPD and that he owed to 
the investigator.  The investigator and the SPD made repeated 
requests for payment to Attorney Ditter by email, letter, and 
telephone calls.  Attorney Ditter, however, did not respond.  
Ultimately, the investigator filed a grievance with the OLR 
regarding Attorney Ditter's failure to forward the funds he had 
received from the SPD. 
¶12 Members of the OLR's intake department attempted to 
contact Attorney Ditter regarding the grievance.  On December 7, 
2018, 
Attorney 
Ditter 
sent 
an 
email 
to 
an 
OLR 
intake 
representative, in which he made the following statement:  "I am 
working to get [the investigator] paid quickly.  I sent him a 
payment this week towards one of the two outstanding bills, and 
expect to be able to take care of the rest very soon."  Attorney 
Ditter's claim that he had sent a payment to the investigator 
was a false statement.  He did not ever send a payment to the 
investigator for his work on the two cases.  He converted to his 
own use the funds due to the investigator.   
¶13 The OLR opened a formal investigation of the grievance 
against Attorney Ditter.  On December 19, 2018, the OLR Trust 
Account Program Administrator, Travis Stieren, sent a letter to 
Attorney Ditter via first class mail advising him of the formal 
investigation and giving him a deadline of January 14, 2019, to 
provide a written response to the grievance against him.  
Attorney Ditter did not respond. 
No. 
2020AP148-D   
 
6 
 
¶14 On January 29, 2019, Mr. Stieren sent a second letter, 
via both first class and certified mail, seeking a written 
response to the grievance by February 8, 2019.  The January 29, 
2019 letter also advised Attorney Ditter that in the event he 
failed to respond, the OLR Director was authorized to file a 
motion seeking the temporary suspension of his license for a 
willful failure to cooperate.  The certified letter was returned 
to the OLR unclaimed.  The letter sent via first class mail was 
not returned.  Attorney Ditter again did not respond. 
¶15 On February 15, 2019, Mr. Stieren sent an email to 
Attorney Ditter.  He attached copies of his prior letters and 
requested a written response to the grievance by February 22, 
2019.  Attorney Ditter still did not respond. 
¶16 Attorney Ditter finally spoke with Mr. Stieren via 
telephone on February 22, 2019.  During that call, Attorney 
Ditter confirmed that he had received at least one of the OLR's 
letters.  He stated that he would prepare and submit to the OLR 
a written response to the grievance by the following week.  
Later that same day, Attorney Ditter sent an email to 
Mr. Stieren, in which he stated, "Pursuant to our phone 
conversation this AM, I have prepared a response and have mailed 
it."  Attorney Ditter's representation was false, as the OLR 
never received any written response to the grievance against 
him.   
¶17 On March 12, 2019, the OLR filed a motion seeking the 
temporary suspension of Attorney Ditter's license to practice 
law in Wisconsin due to his willful failure to cooperate with 
No. 
2020AP148-D   
 
7 
 
its investigation.  This court subsequently issued an order 
directing Attorney Ditter to show cause in writing by April 3, 
2019, why the OLR's motion should not be granted.  Attorney 
Ditter did not respond to the court's order to show cause.  
Accordingly, on May 14, 2019, this court issued an order 
temporarily suspending Attorney Ditter's license to practice law 
in Wisconsin. 
¶18 On March 27, 2019, due to Attorney Ditter's conversion 
of the funds, the SPD sent $2,400 directly to the investigator 
to pay him for the work he had performed on the two matters.  In 
order to recoup the $2,400 owed to the investigator that 
Attorney Ditter had wrongfully converted, the SPD withheld that 
sum from subsequent payments made to Attorney Ditter on other 
cases.   
¶19 The OLR filed a formal complaint against Attorney 
Ditter in this court on January 23, 2020.  The referee's report 
contains additional factual findings regarding events that 
occurred during the disciplinary proceeding.   
¶20 Attorney 
Ditter 
was 
personally 
served 
with 
the 
complaint and the order to answer on February 20, 2020.  The 
order to answer required him to file an answer to the complaint 
within 20 days.  Attorney Ditter did not file an answer or 
otherwise respond to the complaint.   
¶21 After Referee Bischel was appointed, she sent an email 
to the parties on April 14, 2020, advising them of a telephonic 
scheduling conference to take place on April 22, 2020.  Attorney 
Ditter did not respond to the referee's email, nor did he appear 
No. 
2020AP148-D   
 
8 
 
for the telephonic scheduling conference.  At that conference, 
the OLR's counsel advised the referee that he had made multiple 
attempts to contact Attorney Ditter, but had received no 
response.   
¶22 Although Attorney Ditter's time for filing an answer 
had expired, the referee issued a scheduling order that granted 
him a period of additional eight days to file an answer.  
Attorney Ditter never filed an answer.  Accordingly, the OLR 
filed a motion for a default.     
¶23 The referee's scheduling order set a second scheduling 
conference for May 8, 2020.  After difficulties reaching 
Attorney Ditter on both May 7, 2020, and May 8, 2020, the OLR's 
counsel did reach Attorney Ditter, and the parties then informed 
the referee that they wished to enter into a comprehensive 
stipulation.  The referee issued an order directing the parties 
to file such a stipulation by June 1, 2020. 
¶24 The referee did not receive a stipulation by the 
deadline.  On June 2, 2020, the referee sent an email to the 
parties stating that unless they advised her that a stipulation 
was being filed, she would proceed with deciding the motion for 
a default.  The OLR's counsel responded that he had sent the 
proposed stipulation to Attorney Ditter on May 11, 2020, with a 
request for a quick response, but that he had not received any 
response.  Later that afternoon, Attorney Ditter sent a reply 
email to the referee, which stated, "My apologies.  It's on the 
way by mail."   
No. 
2020AP148-D   
 
9 
 
¶25 The next morning the referee sent Attorney Ditter an 
email asking him to advise to whom, from where, and on what date 
he had mailed the stipulation.  Attorney Ditter responded, but 
did not provide the information requested by the referee.  
Attorney Ditter stated that he had signed the stipulation over 
the weekend, which the referee understood to mean the previous 
weekend (May 30-31), and had then mailed it (presumably to the 
OLR).  The OLR's counsel, however, advised the referee that he 
had not received the original in the mail from Attorney Ditter 
as of June 4, 2020, when counsel sent a scanned version of the 
stipulation to the referee.  The scanned version indicated that 
Attorney Ditter had signed the stipulation as of May 26, 2020, 
which was actually the preceding Tuesday (not the previous 
weekend).  Ultimately, the OLR's counsel filed a printout of the 
scanned version of the stipulation with the clerk of this court 
on June 12, 2020.  The cover letter accompanying that scanned 
version indicated that the OLR had still not received the 
original signed stipulation from Attorney Ditter so it was 
filing a printout of the scanned version. 
¶26 The referee did not make a specific finding that 
Attorney Ditter had intentionally misrepresented to her when he 
had signed and mailed the original stipulation to the OLR.  She 
includes the facts regarding Attorney Ditter's representation 
and his conduct regarding the stipulation because she had 
concerns about Attorney Ditter's veracity and his continued lack 
of cooperation with the disciplinary process during the formal 
disciplinary proceeding.   
No. 
2020AP148-D   
 
10 
 
¶27 The stipulation provides that Attorney Ditter pleads 
no contest to the four counts of professional misconduct alleged 
in the OLR's complaint and that the referee may use the 
allegations in the complaint as an adequate factual basis for a 
determination of misconduct as to each count of the complaint.  
Further, Attorney Ditter agrees with the OLR's director that the 
appropriate level of discipline in this matter would be a 60-day 
suspension of Attorney Ditter's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin.  The stipulation states that it is not the result of 
plea bargaining.  In addition, in the stipulation Attorney 
Ditter verifies that he fully understands the misconduct 
allegations which he is admitting; that he fully understands his 
right to contest the allegations of the complaint; that he fully 
understands the ramifications of his entry into the stipulation; 
that he fully understands his right to consult counsel about 
entering into the stipulation; and that his entry into the 
stipulation is knowing and voluntary.   
¶28 Based on these facts, the referee concluded that the 
OLR had sufficiently proven that Attorney Ditter had engaged in 
four counts of professional misconduct.  First, by failing to 
deliver funds he received from the SPD to the investigator to 
pay for his services on behalf of Attorney Ditter's clients, 
Attorney Ditter violated SCR 20:1.15(e)(1).2  
Second, by 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.15(e)(1) provides: 
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 
No. 
2020AP148-D   
 
11 
 
converting to his own purposes those funds that he was required 
to hold in trust, Attorney Ditter violated SCR 20:8.4(c).3  Next, 
by misrepresenting to the OLR's representative that he had sent 
a partial payment to the investigator when he had not done so, 
Attorney Ditter again violated SCR 20:8.4(c).  Finally, by 
willfully failing to cooperate with the OLR's investigation when 
he failed to respond to the OLR's multiple written requests for 
information, 
Attorney 
Ditter 
violated 
SCR 
22.03(2)4 
and 
                                                                                                                                                             
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 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
4 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. 
No. 
2020AP148-D   
 
12 
 
SCR 22.03(6),5 
which 
also 
constitutes 
a 
violation 
of 
SCR 20:8.4(h).6 
¶29 The referee invited the parties to submit memoranda to 
her regarding the appropriate sanction in this matter.  The OLR 
filed such a memorandum, in which it asked the referee to 
recommend a 60-day suspension.  Attorney Ditter did not file a 
sanction memorandum.   
¶30 Concluding that the 60-day suspension requested by the 
OLR was not sufficient, the referee ultimately recommended a 
120-day suspension of Attorney Ditter's license to practice law 
in Wisconsin.  She pointed to a number of factors that supported 
her recommendation.  She found Attorney Ditter's misconduct, 
which involved converting funds belonging to an investigator, as 
well as failing to cooperate with and lying to the OLR, to be 
serious and to involve more than a single instance of 
misconduct.  She emphasized that Attorney Ditter's conduct in 
lying to the OLR and generally failing to cooperate with the 
OLR's investigation and this disciplinary proceeding indicated 
that he did not understand the seriousness of his misconduct or 
                                                 
5 SCR 
22.03(6) 
provides: 
 
"In 
the 
course 
of 
the 
investigation, the respondent's willful 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." 
6 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. 
2020AP148-D   
 
13 
 
its impact on the judicial system and the public.7  Moreover, 
Attorney Ditter's previous misconduct involved continuing to 
engage in the practice of law for nearly 11 months after his 
license had been administratively suspended and a failure to 
cooperate with the ensuing disciplinary investigation, which 
demonstrated a cavalier attitude toward his obligation to comply 
with this court's rules of conduct.  His conduct in this matter 
demonstrated a similar attitude.  As one of the prior 
disciplinary proceedings involved the imposition of a 60-day 
suspension, 
the 
referee 
indicated 
that 
the 
principle 
of 
progressive discipline required a longer suspension in this 
matter.  The referee considered the disciplinary decisions cited 
by the OLR, but concluded that they did not match the 
circumstances and extent of Attorney Ditter's misconduct.   
¶31 Because the SPD had paid the investigator the amounts 
due and had then deducted those amounts from other funds due to 
Attorney Ditter, the OLR did not request and the referee did not 
recommend that the court order Attorney Ditter to pay any 
restitution.   
¶32 The referee recommended that Attorney Ditter be 
required to pay the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding.  
                                                 
7 The referee noted that in her prior experience as a 
circuit court judge, sentencing judges rely heavily on alternate 
presentence investigation reports prepared by individuals hired 
by defendants, as occurred here with the investigator.  If such 
individuals cannot trust that they will be paid for their work, 
it may discourage them from preparing such reports, which would 
harm not only the defendants but the sentencing judges, who will 
have less information on which to base their sentences.   
No. 
2020AP148-D   
 
14 
 
Although 
Attorney 
Ditter 
did 
ultimately 
enter 
into 
a 
comprehensive stipulation, the referee emphasized that Attorney 
Ditter's ongoing failure to cooperate with the OLR or to respond 
in a timely manner in this disciplinary proceeding had required 
the OLR to incur costs and had necessitated the appointment of a 
referee.   
¶33 As Attorney Ditter has not appealed the referee's 
report or recommendation, our review of this matter proceeds 
pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).  When we review a referee's report, we 
will affirm a referee's findings of fact unless they are found 
to be clearly erroneous, but we review the referee's conclusions 
of law on a de novo basis.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against 
Inglimo, 
2007 
WI 
126, 
¶5, 
305 
Wis. 2d 71, 
740 N.W.2d 125. 
 
We 
determine 
the 
appropriate 
level 
of 
discipline to impose given the particular facts of each case, 
independent of the referee's recommendation, but benefiting from 
it.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, 
¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶34 In this case Attorney Ditter has stipulated to the 
facts and acknowledges that those facts support conclusions of 
law that he committed the four counts of professional misconduct 
alleged in the OLR's complaint.  There is no dispute about 
Attorney Ditter's underlying misconduct.  In addition, to the 
extent that the referee's preliminary and final report contain 
factual 
findings 
about 
events 
that 
occurred 
during 
the 
disciplinary proceeding before the referee, Attorney Ditter also 
has not contested those facts.  We therefore adopt the referee's 
No. 
2020AP148-D   
 
15 
 
factual findings, and we agree that he committed the four counts 
of misconduct alleged by the OLR. 
¶35 The issue that this court must decide in this matter 
is the appropriate level of discipline to impose.  We agree with 
the referee that the 60-day suspension jointly requested by the 
parties would be insufficient under all of the circumstances of 
this case.8  The operative question is whether the suspension 
here should be for 90 days or 120 days. 
¶36 In its sanction memorandum to the referee, the OLR 
cited four prior cases that it considered analogous to the 
present case and that supported its request for a 60-day 
suspension.  We again agree with the referee that the most 
analogous of those four cases is In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Alfredson, 2019 WI 17, 385 Wis. 2d 565, 923 N.W.2d 869 
(Alfredson II).  In that case Attorney Alfredson failed to hold 
in trust and then converted funds that she had received from her 
client and that were to be held in trust and ultimately paid to 
                                                 
8 A stipulation by the OLR and a respondent attorney as to a 
particular level of discipline is a joint request to this court 
for the imposition of that sanction.  The agreement of the 
parties as to the sanction binds neither the referee nor this 
court.  The determination of the appropriate level of discipline 
is a matter committed to this court, which is the entity 
responsible under the Wisconsin Constitution for the regulation 
of the practice of law.  Wis. Const. art. VII, § 2 (judicial 
power of this state is vested in uniform court system, of which 
the supreme court is the head); Wis. Const. art. VII, § 3 
(supreme court has superintending and administrative authority 
over all courts in state); In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686 
(supreme court independently determines appropriate level of 
discipline).   
No. 
2020AP148-D   
 
16 
 
her client's ex-spouse.  She also failed to respond to multiple 
requests for information from the OLR, responding only when the 
OLR threatened to move for a temporary suspension of her 
license.  When Attorney Alfredson did finally respond to one OLR 
request, her response was misleading because she failed to 
include the fact there was an outstanding issue with her alleged 
payment of the remaining trust funds.  In a second client 
matter, Attorney Alfredson failed to communicate with her client 
and then failed for three months to provide her client's file to 
successor counsel.   
¶37 The referee, however, believed that Attorney Ditter's 
misconduct 
merited 
a 
longer 
suspension 
than 
the 
90-day 
suspension imposed on Attorney Alfredson in Alfredson II.  She 
pointed to the fact that Attorney Ditter's case included a count 
of lying to the OLR during its investigation about whether he 
had sent a payment to the investigator, which was not present in 
Alfredson II.  Indeed, the factual findings indicated that 
Attorney Ditter had also made a second misrepresentation to the 
OLR when he said he had mailed a written response to the 
investigator's 
grievance. 
 
Most 
importantly, 
the 
referee 
believed that Attorney Ditter's ongoing lack of cooperation with 
the OLR's investigation and the disciplinary proceeding merited 
a longer suspension.   
¶38 Although we agree that Attorney Ditter's lack of 
cooperation with the investigation and disciplinary proceeding 
is troubling, we do not think that the facts of Attorney 
Alfredson's case are so different that Attorney Ditter should be 
No. 
2020AP148-D   
 
17 
 
treated differently.  Like Attorney Ditter, Attorney Alfredson 
repeatedly 
failed 
to 
respond 
to 
the 
OLR's 
requests 
for 
information during its investigation.  She responded to the OLR 
only when it threatened to seek a temporary suspension of her 
license.  When the OLR sought additional information, she again 
did not respond until the OLR threatened once more to seek a 
temporary suspension.  Like Attorney Ditter, Attorney Alfredson 
did not enter into a stipulation until after the disciplinary 
proceeding had begun and a referee had been appointed.  Attorney 
Ditter did not file an answer to the OLR's complaint, leading 
the OLR to file a motion for a default, but Attorney Ditter, 
like Attorney Alfredson, did ultimately stipulate to the facts 
and acknowledge his misconduct.  The fact that Attorney 
Alfredson filed an answer before entering into a stipulation is 
not a significant difference in the level of cooperation. 
¶39 It is also true that the OLR charged Attorney Ditter 
with a count of making a false statement to it while there was 
no such count alleged against Attorney Alfredson.  Our decision 
in the Alfredson II case, however, shows that she also was not 
truthful to the OLR.  When she finally did provide a response to 
the grievance against her, she failed to disclose the fact that 
successor counsel had not received the check she claimed to have 
sent and that the client's money was still in her possession 
(and not in her client trust account).  In addition, although it 
did not include a specific charge of making a false statement, 
the OLR advised the referee that Attorney Alfredson had "engaged 
No. 
2020AP148-D   
 
18 
 
in a pattern of neglect, dishonesty, and failure to cooperate."9  
Alfredson II, 388 Wis. 2d 565, ¶25 (emphasis added). 
¶40 We certainly do not condone Attorney Ditter's failure 
to cooperate or his false statements to the OLR.10  His response 
to the OLR's investigation and this disciplinary proceeding 
should factor into the sanction determination.  Nevertheless, 
although each case must be decided based on its unique facts, we 
endeavor to impose similar discipline in similar cases.  We 
conclude that it is appropriate here to impose a 90-day 
suspension on Attorney Ditter for his professional misconduct, 
as we did with respect to Attorney Alfredson.  Imposing a 90-day 
suspension in this case will still comport with our general 
policy 
of 
imposing 
progressive 
discipline 
for 
subsequent 
misconduct.  See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Nora, 2020 WI 70, ¶91, 393 Wis. 2d 359, 945 N.W.2d 559; In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Netzer, 2014 WI 7, ¶49, 352 
                                                 
9 We also note that both Attorney Ditter and Attorney 
Alfredson previously received a 60-day suspension.  Attorney 
Ditter 
did 
also 
previously 
receive 
a 
consensual 
private 
reprimand.  However, both of Attorney Ditter's instances of 
previous discipline were fairly remote in time, dating back to 
the mid-1990s.  Thus, he practiced for two decades without being 
subject to professional discipline.  Attorney Alfredson, on the 
other hand, had received her 60-day suspension just two years 
prior to receiving the 90-day suspension. 
10 The referee expressed concern about Attorney Ditter's 
truthfulness in telling the referee that he had mailed the 
original stipulation to the OLR's counsel.  The referee, 
however, expressly did not make a factual finding that Attorney 
Ditter 
had 
made 
a 
misrepresentation 
in 
this 
regard.  
Consequently, we do not think that it would be appropriate to 
base a longer suspension on that instance. 
No. 
2020AP148-D   
 
19 
 
Wis. 2d 310, 841 N.W.2d 820; In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Nussberger, 2006 WI 111, ¶27, 296 Wis. 2d 47, 719 
N.W.2d 501. 
¶41 Although Attorney Ditter did ultimately enter into a 
comprehensive stipulation, we agree that he should be required 
to pay the full costs of this disciplinary hearing.  His failure 
to cooperate with the disciplinary process required the OLR to 
file a complaint and a motion for a default, and it required the 
court to appoint a referee.  The costs of this proceeding are 
therefore appropriately the responsibility of Attorney Ditter. 
¶42 We do not impose a restitution obligation on Attorney 
Ditter.  The SPD already recouped the $2,400 that it was 
required to pay directly to the investigator by deducting that 
amount from the fees owed to Attorney Ditter in other cases. 
¶43 IT IS ORDERED that, as discipline for his professional 
misconduct, the license of Mark M. Ditter to practice law in 
Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 90 days, effective as of 
the date of this order. 
¶44 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the May 14, 2019 temporary 
suspension in Case No. 2019XX428-D of Mark M. Ditter's license 
to practice law in Wisconsin, due to his willful failure to 
cooperate with the grievance investigation in this matter by the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, is lifted. 
¶45 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Mark M. Ditter shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $3,896.68 as 
of August 26, 2020. 
No. 
2020AP148-D   
 
20 
 
¶46 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
done so, Mark M. Ditter 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. 
¶47 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
administrative 
suspension of Mark M. Ditter's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin, due to his failure to pay mandatory bar dues, his 
failure to file Office of Lawyer Regulation trust account 
certification, and his noncompliance with continuing legal 
education requirements, will remain in effect until each reason 
for the administrative suspension has been rectified pursuant to 
SCR 22.28(1). 
¶48 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2). 
 
 
No. 
2020AP148-D   
 
 
 
1