Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. David W. Schiltz

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2018AP000497-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2018-12-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
2018 WI 116 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2018AP497-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against David W. Schiltz, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
David W. Schiltz, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SCHILTZ 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 28, 2018 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
      
 
 
2018 WI 116
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2018AP497-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against David W. Schiltz, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
David W. Schiltz, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
DEC 28, 2018 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review Referee Dennis J. Flynn's 
recommendation that the court declare Attorney David W. Schiltz 
in default and suspend his Wisconsin law license for a period of 
18 months for professional misconduct in connection with:  (1) 
his work on certain client matters; (2) his practice of law 
while his law license was suspended for noncompliance with 
mandatory 
continuing 
legal 
education 
(CLE) 
reporting 
requirements; and (3) his failure to disclose his unauthorized 
No. 
2018AP497-D   
 
2 
 
practice of law in his reinstatement petition to the Board of 
Bar Examiners (BBE).  The referee also recommended that this 
court order Attorney Schiltz to successfully complete 25 hours 
of 
continuing 
legal 
education 
(CLE) 
courses 
as 
deemed 
appropriate by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR).  Finally, 
the referee recommended that the court order Attorney Schiltz to 
make restitution to a former client and to pay the full costs of 
this proceeding.   
¶2 
Because no appeal has been filed, we review the 
referee's report pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.17(2).1  
After conducting our independent review of the matter, we agree 
with the referee that, based on Attorney Schiltz's failure to 
answer the complaint filed by the OLR, the OLR is entitled to a 
default judgment.  However, we disagree with the referee that 
Attorney Schiltz's professional misconduct warrants an 18-month 
suspension of his Wisconsin law license.  We conclude, instead, 
that a nine-month suspension is warranted.  We order Attorney 
Schiltz to make restitution and to successfully complete 25 
hours of CLE courses as deemed appropriate by the OLR.  We also 
                                                 
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. 
2018AP497-D   
 
3 
 
find it appropriate to impose the full costs of this proceeding 
on Attorney Schiltz, which are $4,705.70 as of August 27, 2018. 
¶3 
Attorney Schiltz was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1987.  He had no disciplinary history prior to the 
filing 
of 
this 
complaint. 
 
His 
law 
license 
has 
been 
administratively suspended for failing to comply with CLE 
reporting requirements since May 31, 2016, and for failing to 
pay annual bar dues and to provide a required trust account 
certification since October 31, 2017. 
¶4 
On March 15, 2018, the OLR filed the current complaint 
against Attorney Schiltz.  On June 25, 2018, the OLR filed an 
amended complaint.  The amended complaint alleges a total of 25 
counts of professional misconduct.  The following facts are 
taken from the OLR's amended complaint, which, as discussed more 
fully below, Attorney Schiltz has admitted by default. 
Practice During Suspension (Count 1) 
¶5 
On May 31, 2016, the BBE suspended Attorney Schiltz's 
law license due to his failure to comply with CLE reporting 
requirements.  During his suspension, Attorney Schiltz continued 
to meet with clients and appear in court, primarily in estate 
matters.  The OLR alleged in its amended complaint that this 
conduct gave rise to the following violation: 
 Count 1:  By continuing to practice law following the May 
31, 2016 suspension of his law license, Attorney Schiltz 
No. 
2018AP497-D   
 
4 
 
violated SCR 22.26(2),2 and SCR 31.10(1),3 enforceable via 
SCR 20:8.4(f).4   
Estate of W.E.S. (Counts 2-3) 
¶6 
W.E.S. died in May 2015.  In December 2015, the 
probate court appointed C.R. as the personal representative of 
W.E.S.'s estate.  Because C.R. resided out of state, the court 
appointed Attorney Schiltz as the estate's resident agent.   
¶7 
At the time of his death, W.E.S. owned a 50 percent 
interest in certain real property.  The property sold in 
February 2016, and Attorney Schiltz acted as the title company's 
disbursement agent for the sale.  Attorney Schiltz received the 
$104,766.75 net proceeds of the sale, from which he was to 
disburse 50 percent of the sale proceeds ($52,383.38) to 
W.E.S.'s estate.  He did not do so.   
                                                 
2 SCR 22.26(2) provides: 
An attorney whose license to practice law is 
suspended or revoked or who is suspended from the 
practice of law may not engage in this state in the 
practice 
of 
law 
or 
in 
any 
law 
work 
activity 
customarily done by law students, law clerks, or other 
paralegal personnel, except that the attorney may 
engage in law related work in this state for a 
commercial employer itself not engaged in the practice 
of law. 
3 SCR 31.10(1) provides, in relevant part:  "A lawyer shall 
not engage in the practice of law in Wisconsin while his or her 
state bar membership is suspended under this rule." 
4 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme 
court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers." 
No. 
2018AP497-D   
 
5 
 
¶8 
In August 2016, C.R. retained a lawyer to represent 
him and the estate in an effort to obtain the sale proceeds from 
Attorney Schiltz.  The effort was unsuccessful. 
¶9 
In November 2016, W.E.S.'s estate sued Attorney 
Schiltz and the title company to obtain the owed portion of the 
real estate sale proceeds.  Attorney Schiltz did not appear or 
participate in the civil case.  In April 2017, the circuit court 
issued 
a 
default 
judgment 
against 
Attorney 
Schiltz 
for 
$55,875.59, representing the sale proceeds plus attorney fees.  
By early May 2017, Attorney Schiltz had paid $52,383.38 of the 
judgment, which represented the sale proceeds.   
¶10 Although the BBE suspended Attorney Schiltz's law 
license on May 31, 2016, Attorney Schiltz did not inform either 
C.R. or the probate court of his suspension.   
¶11 The OLR alleged in its amended complaint that the 
conduct 
described 
above 
gave 
rise 
to 
the 
following 
two 
violations: 
 Count 2:  By failing to promptly deliver $52,383.38 to 
the estate of W.E.S., Attorney Schiltz violated former 
SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) and current SCR 20:1.15(e)(1).5   
                                                 
5 Former 
SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) 
was 
renumbered 
as 
SCR 20:1.15(e)(1) effective July 1, 2016.  The text of the rule 
was not changed and 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 
contract, the lawyer shall promptly notify the client 
or 3rd party in writing.  Except as stated in this 
(continued) 
No. 
2018AP497-D   
 
6 
 
 Count 3:  By failing to notify C.R. that his Wisconsin 
law license had been suspended, by failing to advise C.R. 
to seek successor counsel, and by failing to provide 
written notification of his suspension to the probate 
court, Attorney Schiltz violated SCR 22.26(1).6   
Estate of J.S. (Counts 4-8) 
                                                                                                                                                             
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.   
6 SCR 22.26(1)(a), (b), and (c) provide: 
(1) On or before the effective date of license 
suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 
suspended or revoked shall do all of the following:  
(a) Notify by certified mail all clients being 
represented in pending matters of the suspension or 
revocation and of the attorney's consequent inability 
to act as an attorney following the effective date of 
the suspension or revocation.  
(b) Advise the clients to seek legal advice of 
their choice elsewhere.  
(c) Promptly provide written notification to the 
court or administrative agency and the attorney for 
each party in a matter pending before a court or 
administrative agency of the suspension or revocation 
and of the attorney's consequent inability to act as 
an attorney following the effective date of the 
suspension or revocation. The notice shall identify 
the successor attorney of the attorney's client or, if 
there is none at the time notice is given, shall state 
the client's place of residence. 
No. 
2018AP497-D   
 
7 
 
¶12 J.S. died in March 2015 with $3,000 in assets.  J.S.'s 
son, W.R.S., hired Attorney Schiltz to assist him with J.S.'s 
affairs.   
¶13 In May 2015, Attorney Schiltz drafted and had W.R.S. 
sign a transfer by affidavit form, seeking to have J.S.'s $3,000 
in assets transferred to W.R.S.  Consistent with the form's 
instructions, Attorney Schiltz sent a copy of the form to the 
Estate and Casualty Recovery Section (ECRS) of the Wisconsin 
Department of Health Services.   
¶14 In July 2015, and again in February 2016, the ECRS 
wrote to Attorney Schiltz, asking him to provide information 
that would determine if J.S.'s estate owed any funds to the 
ECRS.  Attorney Schiltz did not respond.   
¶15 Between February and May of 2016, W.R.S. called 
Attorney Schiltz 16 times to find out the status of the matter.  
Attorney Schiltz did not respond.   
¶16 In June 2016, Attorney Schiltz told W.R.S. that he had 
taken care of the ECRS claim.  This was false.   
¶17 Later in June 2016, the ECRS again wrote to Attorney 
Schiltz seeking documentation and any funds owed.  That same 
day, the ECRS contacted W.R.S. directly, who learned that the 
matter had not been resolved.  W.R.S. provided the requested 
information to the State. 
¶18 In July 2016, W.R.S. filed a grievance with the OLR 
against Attorney Schiltz.  Attorney Schiltz did not cooperate 
with the ensuing OLR investigation.  On February 13, 2017, this 
No. 
2018AP497-D   
 
8 
 
court temporarily suspended Attorney Schiltz's law license for 
his non-cooperation. 
¶19 Although the BBE suspended Attorney Schiltz's law 
license on May 31, 2016, Attorney Schiltz did not inform either 
W.R.S. or the probate court of his suspension.   
¶20 The OLR alleged in its amended complaint that the 
conduct described above gave rise to the following five 
violations: 
 Count 4:  By failing to respond to the ECRS's attempts to 
contact him regarding its claim against his client, the 
estate of J.S., between July 2015 and June 2016, Attorney 
Schiltz violated SCR 20:1.3.7   
 Count 5:  By failing to respond to W.R.S.'s telephone 
calls 
between 
February 
and 
May 
2016 
requesting 
information regarding the status of the probate matter, 
Attorney Schiltz violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(4).8   
 Count 6:  By falsely informing W.R.S. that he had 
resolved the ECRS claim against the estate of J.S. when 
he 
had 
not 
done 
so, 
Attorney 
Schiltz 
violated 
SCR 20:8.4(c).9   
                                                 
7 SCR 20:1.3 provides:  "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
8 SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) provides:  "A lawyer shall promptly 
comply with reasonable requests by the client for information." 
9 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
No. 
2018AP497-D   
 
9 
 
 Count 7:  By failing to notify W.R.S. that his license to 
practice law had been suspended, by failing to advise 
W.R.S. to seek successor counsel, and by failing to 
provide written notification of his suspension to the 
probate court, Attorney Schiltz violated SCR 22.26(1). 
 Count 8:  By willfully failing to respond timely to the 
OLR's written requests for information, Attorney Schiltz 
violated SCR 22.03(2)10 and SCR 22.03(6),11 enforceable 
via SCR 20:8.4(h).12   
                                                 
10 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. 
11 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." 
12 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. 
2018AP497-D   
 
10 
 
Municipal representation (Counts 9-11) 
¶21 At the time of his May 31, 2016 suspension for failure 
to comply with CLE reporting requirements, Attorney Schiltz had 
been the attorney for a particular town for several years, 
including acting as municipal prosecutor.  Attorney Schiltz did 
not timely inform the town or the town's municipal judge of his 
suspension, nor did he timely advise the town to seek successor 
counsel. 
¶22 From June of 2016 through at least April 30, 2017, 
Attorney Schiltz continued to represent the town in municipal 
court and other proceedings. 
¶23 In May 2017, the OLR received a grievance against 
Attorney Schiltz concerning his representation of the town while 
his law license was suspended.  Attorney Schiltz did not 
cooperate with the OLR's subsequent investigation. 
¶24 The OLR alleged in its amended complaint that the 
course of conduct described above gave rise to the following 
three violations: 
 Count 9:  By continuing until April 30, 2017 to actively 
represent the town following the May 31, 2016 suspension 
of 
his 
law 
license, 
Attorney 
Schiltz 
violated 
SCR 22.26(2) 
and 
SCR 
31.10(1), 
enforceable 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(f). 
 Count 10:  By failing to notify the town that his license 
to practice law had been suspended, by failing to advise 
the town to seek successor counsel, and by failing to 
provide written notification of his suspension to the 
No. 
2018AP497-D   
 
11 
 
municipal court before which he had matters pending, 
Attorney Schiltz violated SCR 22.26(1). 
 Count 11:  By failing to respond timely to the OLR's 
written 
requests 
for 
information, 
Attorney 
Schiltz 
violated SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via 
SCR 20:8.4(h). 
Limited Liability Partnership Representation (Counts 12-15) 
¶25 In March 2015, a condominium association filed a civil 
suit against a limited liability partnership (LLP) and two 
individuals 
over 
a 
dispute 
regarding 
management 
of 
the 
condominium.   Soon after being served, the defendants hired 
Attorney 
Schiltz 
to 
represent 
them. 
 
Related 
to 
the 
representation, the LLP gave $3,305 to Attorney Schiltz to be 
held in trust.   
¶26 In August 2016, Attorney Schiltz filed pleadings in 
the case.  Over the next few months, Attorney Schiltz appeared 
at multiple scheduling conferences in the case.  The court 
scheduled a trial.  Attorney Schiltz informed his clients of 
that fact, but told them they did not need to appear. 
¶27 In March 2017, Attorney Schiltz failed to appear at a 
summary judgment proceeding.  Later in March 2017, neither 
Attorney Schiltz nor his clients appeared at the scheduled court 
trial.  As a result of the non-appearance, the circuit court 
granted summary judgment against the defendants in the amount of 
$66,000. 
¶28 Attorney Schiltz's clients made numerous attempts to 
contact him both before and after the circuit court's entry of 
No. 
2018AP497-D   
 
12 
 
summary 
judgment 
against 
them. 
 
Attorney 
Schiltz 
was 
unresponsive, and did not otherwise inform his clients about the 
status of the case. 
¶29 Eventually, Attorney Schiltz contacted his clients and 
told them he would move to vacate the judgment.  He never did. 
¶30 In early May 2017, the defendants hired a different 
lawyer to represent them. The successor counsel moved to 
overturn the judgment.  The circuit court eventually reopened 
the case. 
¶31 In July 2017, the successor counsel wrote to Attorney 
Schiltz, requesting the $3,305 that Attorney Schiltz was to be 
holding in trust.  Attorney Schiltz did not respond or turn over 
the funds. 
¶32 During the circuit court proceedings, the circuit 
court informed the OLR of Attorney Schiltz's conduct.  Attorney 
Schiltz 
did 
not 
cooperate 
with 
the 
OLR's 
subsequent 
investigation. 
¶33 Although the BBE suspended Attorney Schiltz's law 
license on May 31, 2016, Attorney Schiltz did not inform his 
clients or the circuit court of the suspension, nor did he 
timely advise his clients to seek successor counsel.     
¶34 The OLR alleged in its amended complaint that the 
conduct described above gave rise to the following four 
violations: 
 Count 12:  By failing to notify his clients that his 
license to practice law had been suspended, by failing to 
advise them to seek successor counsel, and by failing to 
No. 
2018AP497-D   
 
13 
 
provide written notification of his suspension to the 
circuit court presiding over the case, Attorney Schiltz 
violated SCR 22.26(1). 
 Count 13:  By continuing to actively represent his 
clients following the May 31, 2016 suspension of his law 
license, Attorney Schiltz violated SCR 22.26(2) and 
SCR 31.10(1), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f). 
 Count 14:  By failing to return the $3,305 to his former 
clients upon their request, Attorney Schiltz violated 
former SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) and current SCR 20:1.15(e)(1). 
 Count 15:  By failing to respond timely to the OLR's 
written 
requests 
for 
information 
regarding 
its 
investigation in this matter, Attorney Schiltz violated 
SCR 
22.03(2) 
and 
SCR 
22.03(6), 
enforceable 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(h). 
Estate of M.P.M. (Counts 16-18) 
¶35 M.P.M. died in 2016.  In February 2016, Attorney 
Schiltz filed an application for informal probate of M.P.M.'s 
estate.  The court named R.F. as the estate's personal 
representative.   
¶36 In March 2016, Attorney Schiltz sent R.F. an invoice 
showing that he had paid $66.07 to publish a notice to 
creditors.  In fact, he had not paid that amount, and had not 
published a notice. 
¶37 In March 2017, Attorney Schiltz did not appear at a 
status conference on the estate.  R.F. subsequently hired 
replacement counsel. 
No. 
2018AP497-D   
 
14 
 
¶38 During the course of the probate matter, the OLR 
received a grievance against Attorney Schiltz regarding his 
handling of the matter.  Attorney Schiltz did not cooperate with 
the OLR's subsequent investigation. 
¶39 Although the BBE suspended Attorney Schiltz's law 
license on May 31, 2016, Attorney Schiltz did not inform R.F. or 
the probate court of his suspension. 
¶40 The OLR alleged in its amended complaint that the 
course of conduct described above gave rise to the following 
three violations: 
 Count 16:   By sending an invoice showing charges 
totaling 
$66.07 
for 
the 
publication 
of 
notice 
to 
creditors, which notice Attorney Schiltz never submitted  
for publication, Attorney Schiltz violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
 Count 17:  By failing to notify R.F. that his license to 
practice law had been suspended, by failing to advise 
R.F. to seek successor counsel, and by failing to provide 
written notification of his suspension to the probate 
court, Attorney Schiltz violated SCR 22.26(1). 
 Count 18:  By failing to respond timely to the OLR's 
written 
requests 
for 
information 
regarding 
its 
investigation, Attorney Schiltz violated SCR 22.03(2) and 
SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
Matter of R.W. (Counts 19-22) 
¶41 In November of 2014, R.W. purchased a house.  As part 
of the closing, the seller's attorney held a portion of the sale 
proceeds in escrow for repairs. 
No. 
2018AP497-D   
 
15 
 
¶42 In approximately January 2015, R.W. hired Attorney 
Schiltz to represent him in resolving the repair issues.  In 
April 2016, the seller's attorney filed a declaratory judgment 
action concerning the sale and the escrowed funds.  Attorney 
Schiltz continued to represent R.W.'s interests, but did not 
enter an appearance in the declaratory judgment case. 
¶43 In August 2016, an involuntary plaintiff in the matter 
filed for default judgment against R.W.  Attorney Schiltz later 
sent an email to the seller's attorney and the involuntary 
plaintiff's attorney in which Attorney Schiltz stated that he 
represented R.W.  He did not inform them that his law license 
was suspended. 
¶44 The circuit court held a default hearing in the 
declaratory judgment case.  Neither R.W. nor Attorney Schiltz 
appeared.  The court granted the default judgment. 
¶45 In 
September 
2016, 
another 
involuntary 
plaintiff 
sought and received a default judgment against R.W.  Neither 
R.W. nor Attorney Schiltz appeared for that hearing. 
¶46 In November 2016, the court issued a declaratory 
judgment and closed the case.  
¶47 In August 2017, R.W. filed a grievance with the OLR 
against Attorney Schiltz.  Attorney Schiltz did not cooperate 
with the OLR's subsequent investigation. 
¶48 Although the BBE suspended Attorney Schiltz's law 
license on May 31, 2016, Attorney Schiltz did not inform R.W. of 
his suspension. 
No. 
2018AP497-D   
 
16 
 
¶49 The OLR alleged in its amended complaint that the 
conduct described above gave rise to the following four 
violations: 
 Count 19:  By continuing to represent R.W. following the 
May 31, 2016 suspension of his law license for failing  
to 
comply 
with 
CLE 
requirements, 
Attorney 
Schiltz 
violated SCR 22.26(2), and SCR 31.10(1), enforceable via 
SCR 20:8.4(f). 
 Count 20:  By failing to notify R.W. that his license to 
practice law had been suspended and by failing to advise 
R.W. to seek successor counsel, Attorney Schiltz violated 
SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b).   
 Count 21:  By failing to inform the seller's counsel and 
the involuntary plaintiff's counsel of his law license 
suspension, Attorney Schiltz violated SCR 22.26(1)(c).   
 Count 22:  By willfully failing to respond timely to the 
OLR's written requests for information, Attorney Schiltz 
violated SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via 
SCR 20:8.4(h). 
Matter of P.S. and K.S.  
¶50 In approximately September 2016, P.S. and K.S. hired 
Attorney Schiltz to represent them in a proposed land purchase.  
Attorney Schiltz did not inform P.S. and K.S. of his May 31, 
2016 suspension by the BBE. 
¶51 P.S. and K.S. and the property's sellers agreed to 
have Attorney Schiltz represent both groups.  Attorney Schiltz 
No. 
2018AP497-D   
 
17 
 
advised P.S. and K.S. that he would provide the legal services 
required before and during the closing. 
¶52 Attorney Schiltz collected fees from the sellers for 
the closing, and from P.S. and K.S. to prepare a quit claim 
deed.  In March 2017, Attorney Schiltz filed a quit claim deed 
that listed the wrong lot numbers. 
¶53 In October 2017, P.S. and K.S. filed a grievance with 
the OLR against Attorney Schiltz.  Attorney Schiltz did not 
cooperate with the OLR's subsequent investigation. 
¶54 The OLR alleged in its amended complaint that the 
conduct 
described 
above 
gave 
rise 
to 
the 
following 
two 
violations: 
 Count 23:  By representing P.S. and K.S. and the sellers 
in a real estate transaction following the May 31, 2016 
suspension of his law license for failing to comply with 
CLE requirements, Attorney Schiltz violated SCR 22.26(2), 
and SCR 31.10(1), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f). 
 Count 24:  By willfully failing to respond timely to the 
OLR's written requests for information regarding this 
investigation, Attorney Schiltz violated SCR 22.03(2) and 
SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
Misrepresentation to BBE (Count 25) 
¶55 On October 6, 2016, Attorney Schiltz filed a petition 
for reinstatement with the BBE.  In it, Attorney Schiltz stated, 
"I have not practiced law during the time of my suspension."  
This statement was false. 
No. 
2018AP497-D   
 
18 
 
¶56 On October 7, 2016, the BBE wrote to Attorney Schiltz, 
informing him that his petition was insufficient in several 
respects.  Attorney Schiltz did not amend his petition, and the 
BBE's suspension remains in effect. 
¶57 The OLR alleged in its amended complaint that the 
conduct described above gave rise to the following violation: 
 Count 25:  Given that Attorney Schiltz continued to 
actively represent clients between the date he was 
suspended, May 31, 2016, and October 6, 2016, by filing 
on October 6, 2016 a petition for reinstatement with the 
BBE that included a false representation, Attorney 
Schiltz violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
¶58 In April 2018, the OLR personally served the complaint 
and an order to answer on Attorney Schiltz.  Attorney Schiltz 
failed to file an answer.  In June 2018, the OLR served Attorney 
Schiltz with an amended complaint via mail to both the address 
he had provided to the State Bar and the address at which he had 
been personally served with the original complaint.13  Again, 
Attorney Schiltz failed to file an answer.  Attorney Schiltz 
also failed to appear at a July 2018 telephonic scheduling 
conference held by the referee, of which the referee had 
                                                 
13 Both mailings were returned by the postal service as 
undeliverable. 
No. 
2018AP497-D   
 
19 
 
attempted to notify Attorney Schiltz by a letter notice sent via 
mail and email and by phone.14   
¶59 The OLR moved for a default judgment.  The referee 
issued a report recommending that this court grant the OLR's 
motion.15  In so doing, the referee deemed the allegations in the 
OLR's complaint to be established.  
¶60 In its amended complaint, the OLR sought a six-month 
suspension of Attorney Schiltz's law license.  In a brief in 
support of its default judgment motion, the OLR argued that a 
six-month suspension was consistent with In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Scanlan, 2006 WI 38, 290 Wis. 2d 30, 712 
N.W.2d 877 (six-month suspension for 21 counts of misconduct 
including practicing law while suspended, failing to provide 
notice to clients and courts concerning the suspension, failing 
to provide competent representation, trust account violations, 
and failing to timely respond to an OLR investigation; lawyer 
                                                 
14 The referee mailed the letter notice to the address 
Attorney Schiltz provided to the State Bar and to the address at 
which he had been personally served with the original complaint.  
Both 
mailings 
were 
returned 
by 
the 
postal 
service 
as 
undeliverable.  The referee also emailed the letter notice to 
the email address Attorney Schiltz had provided to the State 
Bar.  The email was returned as undeliverable.  The referee also 
attempted to telephone Attorney Schiltz regarding the scheduling 
conference at the phone number Attorney Schiltz had provided to 
the State Bar.  The calls went unanswered. 
15 The referee mailed his report to the address Attorney 
Schiltz had provided to the State Bar and to the address at 
which he had been personally served with the original complaint.  
Both 
mailings 
were 
returned 
by 
the 
postal 
service 
as 
undeliverable.   
No. 
2018AP497-D   
 
20 
 
had no previous discipline), and In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Baratki, 2017 WI 89, 378 Wis. 2d 1, 902 N.W.2d 250 (six-
month suspension for nine counts of misconduct including 
practicing law while suspended, making sexual comments to 
client, failing to act with reasonable diligence, and failing to 
cooperate with disciplinary investigation; lawyer had been 
privately reprimanded twice before). 
¶61 The 
referee 
recommended 
a 
significantly 
longer 
suspension of Attorney Schiltz's Wisconsin law license:  18 
months.  The referee cited no precedent to support his suggested 
tripling of the suspension sought by the OLR, nor did he discuss 
the cases cited by the OLR in its brief in support of default 
judgment.  The referee noted that no mitigating factors existed 
to diminish the seriousness of Attorney Schiltz's misconduct, 
and that Attorney Schiltz's actions "do not reflect respect for 
the rule of law or basic honesty."  The referee additionally 
recommended that this court require Attorney Schiltz "to 
complete 25 hours of CLE credit courses in areas that are 
approved in advance by OLR.  The courses should include ethics 
and trust account matters."  Finally, the referee recommended 
that this court order Attorney Schiltz to pay the full costs of 
this proceeding, as well as $3,305 in restitution to the LLP 
referenced earlier.   
¶62 Attorney Schiltz did not appeal from the referee's 
report and recommendation.  Thus, we proceed with our review of 
the matter pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).  We review a referee's 
findings of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard.  See 
No. 
2018AP497-D   
 
21 
 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, 
¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  We review the referee's 
conclusions of law de novo.  Id.  We determine the appropriate 
level of discipline independent of the referee's recommendation.  
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, 
¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶63 We agree with the referee that Attorney Schiltz should 
be declared in default.  Although the OLR effected personal 
service of its original complaint and mailed the amended 
complaint to both Attorney Schiltz's office address registered 
with the State Bar and the address at which he was served with 
the original complaint, he failed to appear or present a 
defense.  Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to declare him in 
default.  In addition, the referee properly relied on the 
allegations of the complaint, which were deemed admitted.  See 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Coplien, 2010 WI 109, 
¶¶10–11, 329 Wis. 2d 311, 788 N.W.2d 376.  We therefore accept 
the referee's findings of fact based on the allegations of the 
amended complaint.  We also agree with the referee that those 
findings of fact adequately support the legal conclusions of 
professional misconduct with respect to all counts of misconduct 
alleged in the complaint. 
¶64 However, we disagree with the referee's recommendation 
that this court should impose an 18-month license suspension.  
As noted above, it is ultimately this court's responsibility, 
rather than the referee's, to determine the appropriate level of 
discipline.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Reitz, 
No. 
2018AP497-D   
 
22 
 
2005 WI 39, ¶74, 279 Wis. 2d 550, 694 N.W.2d 894.  We owe no 
deference to the referee's recommended sanctions.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶37, 248 
Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 718.  In considering the appropriate 
sanction, this court seeks to impress upon the attorney the 
seriousness of the misconduct, to deter other attorneys from 
engaging in similar misconduct, and to protect the public, the 
courts, and the legal system from a repetition of the 
misconduct.  See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Grogan, 2011 WI 7, ¶17, 331 Wis. 2d 341, 795 N.W.2d 745. 
¶65 Under the unique circumstances of this case, we 
conclude that a nine-month suspension is appropriate.  In 
imposing this suspension, we agree with the referee's view that 
the six-month suspension requested by the OLR in its amended 
complaint is insufficient.  Although the OLR correctly noted in 
briefing to the referee that we imposed a six-month suspension 
in Scanlan and Baratki, both of these cases have distinguishing 
features.  Unlike the present case, where no mitigating factors 
appear present, Scanlan featured a respondent-lawyer who was 
remorseful and ultimately cooperative with the disciplinary 
process, and who suffered significant mental health and personal 
problems at the time of his misconduct.  
Scanlan, 290 
Wis. 2d 30, ¶73.  Additionally, the present case involves nearly 
three times as many misconduct counts as did Baratki (25 counts 
here versus nine in Baratki).  On the instant facts, then, we 
agree with the referee that something more than a six-month 
suspension is required. 
No. 
2018AP497-D   
 
23 
 
¶66 But given that Attorney Schiltz has no disciplinary 
history, the referee's recommended 18-month suspension seems 
high.  We find In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Vance, 
2016 WI 89, 372 Wis. 2d 39, 886 N.W.2d 583 instructive.  Like 
Attorney 
Schiltz, 
the 
respondent-lawyer 
in 
Vance 
had 
no 
disciplinary 
history. 
 
Also 
like 
Attorney 
Schiltz, 
the 
respondent-lawyer in Vance committed a considerable number of 
misconduct counts (21 counts, versus Attorney Schiltz's 25 
counts).  Also like Attorney Schiltz, this misconduct included 
failing to inform multiple clients, opposing counsel, and courts 
of a license suspension; continuing to practice law after a 
license suspension; inattentiveness to client matters; and 
failing to cooperate with OLR investigations.  We concluded that 
a nine-month suspension was "clearly deserved" in Vance, as the 
respondent-lawyer's actions showed "a total disregard of his 
clients' needs and objectives, as well as of his obligations as 
an attorney in this state."  Id., ¶38.  We hold that the same 
length of suspension is appropriate here, for the same core 
reasons.  See also In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Marx, 
2016 
WI 
75, 
371 
Wis. 2d 591, 
882 
N.W.2d 863 
(nine-month 
suspension for 22 counts of misconduct including practicing law 
while suspended, mismanaging trust account matters, failing to 
communicate with a client, and failing to cooperate with an OLR 
investigation; lawyer had no disciplinary history). 
¶67 We move next to the referee's recommendation that we 
require Attorney Schiltz to complete 25 hours of CLE courses as 
No. 
2018AP497-D   
 
24 
 
deemed appropriate by the OLR, to include courses on ethics and 
trust account matters.  We agree with this recommendation.   
¶68 As is our normal practice, we also find it appropriate 
to impose the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding, which 
are $4,705.70 as of August 27, 2018, on Attorney Schiltz.  See 
SCR 22.24(1m). 
¶69 Finally, turning to the issue of restitution, the OLR 
alleged, and the referee agreed, that this court should order 
Attorney Schiltz to pay restitution in the amount of $3,305 to 
the LLP that had given Attorney Schiltz that sum to be held in 
trust.  As explained above, Attorney Schiltz failed to return 
that sum to the LLP upon its request.  Attorney Schiltz had 
multiple opportunities to object to this restitution amount 
before both the referee and this court.  He has not done so.  
Thus, we determine that Attorney Schiltz should be ordered to 
pay 
restitution 
as 
the 
OLR 
requested 
and 
the 
referee 
recommended. 
¶70 IT IS ORDERED that the license of David W. Schiltz to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of nine 
months, effective the date of this order. 
¶71 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, David W. Schiltz shall pay restitution to the 
above-referenced LLP in the amount of $3,305. 
¶72 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, David W. Schiltz shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$4,705.70 as of August 27, 2018. 
No. 
2018AP497-D   
 
25 
 
¶73 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution is to be 
completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation. 
¶74 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of his 
reinstatement, David W. Schiltz shall successfully complete 25 
hours of CLE courses as deemed appropriate by the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation, to include courses on ethics and trust 
account matters.   
¶75 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the February 13, 2017, 
temporary suspension of David W. Schiltz's license to practice 
law in Wisconsin, due to his willful failure to cooperate with 
the Office of Lawyer Regulation's investigation in this matter, 
is lifted. 
¶76 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
administrative 
suspension of David W. Schiltz's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin for failing to comply with CLE reporting requirements, 
and for failing to pay annual bar dues and to provide a required 
trust account certification, will remain in effect until each 
reason for the administrative suspension has been rectified 
pursuant to SCR 22.28(1). 
¶77 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that David W. Schiltz 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. 
¶78 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(3). 
No. 
2018AP497-D   
 
 
 
1