Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jeffrey T. Roethe

Citation: 2010 WI 19

Docket Number: 2008AP002366-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2010-03-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
2010 WI 19 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2008AP2366-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jeffrey T. Roethe, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Jeffrey T. Roethe, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ROETHE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 24, 2010   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2010 WI 19
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2008AP2366-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jeffrey T. Roethe, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Jeffrey T. Roethe, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 24, 2010 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of the referee, the Honorable Timothy L. Vocke, that Attorney 
Jeffrey T. Roethe receive a public reprimand and bear the full 
costs of this proceeding.  Because no appeal has been filed, we 
review the referee's report and recommendation pursuant to SCR 
22.17(2).1  We approve and adopt the referee's findings of fact 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) provides: 
No. 
2008AP2366-D   
 
2 
 
and conclusions of law.  We agree that Attorney Roethe's 
professional misconduct warrants a public reprimand.  We also 
find it appropriate to require Attorney Roethe to pay the full 
costs of this disciplinary proceeding, which are $24,630.53 as 
of December 16, 2009.   
¶2 
Attorney Roethe was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1969.  He practices in Edgerton.  In 2000 he 
received a public reprimand for violating conflict of interest 
rules when he represented a city, a developer, and a farmer in 
related real estate transactions without obtaining appropriate 
conflict waivers, and he also made misrepresentations to the 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, the predecessor 
to the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR).   
¶3 
On September 24, 2008, the OLR filed a complaint 
alleging five counts of misconduct arising out of Attorney 
Roethe's handling of two informal probate matters.  The first 
probate matter involved the estate of G.W., who died on 
October 28, 1999.  G.W.'s will appointed her niece, A.W., and 
her sister, M.S., as co-personal representatives.  G.W.'s will 
named 
five 
beneficiaries, 
including 
the 
two 
co-personal 
representatives. 
 
G.W.'s 
will 
gave 
her 
sister-in-law 
an 
                                                                                                                                                             
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. 
2008AP2366-D   
 
3 
 
undivided one-half interest in a home that G.W. and M.S. owned 
as tenants-in-common.  The will also made special bequests of 
personal property and provided that the remainder of the estate 
be divided equally among the five heirs. 
¶4 
On November 4 and 8, 1999, A.W. and G.W.'s sister-in-
law met with Attorney Scott McCarthy, one of Attorney Roethe's 
partners in the law firm then known as Roethe, Krohn, Pope, 
McCarthy & Hass, LLP.  M.S. was present at the November 8, 1999, 
meeting.  No fee agreement was signed on either of those dates.  
On November 10, 1999, Barb Beyer, the firm's probate paralegal 
assistant, asked A.W. and M.S. to meet at the firm's Edgerton 
office to sign the initial probate documents.  On November 11, 
1999, G.W.'s will and an application for informal probate were 
filed with the Rock County probate court and Attorney McCarthy 
entered his appearance in the matter.  Domiciliary letters were 
issued to the co-personal representatives on November 22, 1999. 
¶5 
On November 23, 1999, at Ms. Beyer's request, A.W. and 
M.S. again met at the firm's Edgerton office.  Attorney Roethe 
met with the two women and asked them to sign a document 
entitled, "Legal Services Agreement."  The document referred to 
A.W. and M.S. as "Client" and Roethe, Krohn, Pope, McCarthy & 
Haas, LLP, as "Attorney."  The agreement provided: 
1. Services:  CLIENT retains and employs ATTORNEY to 
provide legal services in his behalf concerning the 
probate of the following estate, to-wit [G.W.]. 
2. Fees:  CLIENT 
agrees 
to 
pay 
ATTORNEY 
on 
the 
following basis (check A or B):  
No. 
2008AP2366-D   
 
4 
 
XX (A) FIXED FEE.  A total fee not to exceed four 
(4%) three (3%)*** percent of the gross estate not 
including costs and disbursements to handle the 
completion of the estate proceedings through to 
conclusion. 
____(B) HOURLY CHARGE.  A fee of $____ per hour for 
all the time spent by ATTORNEY, and a fee of $_____ 
per hour for PARALEGAL time, on the CLIENT'S matter 
in completing the estate proceedings to conclusion 
plus costs and disbursements. 
***Unless contested issues increase the fees to not 
exceed four (4%) [percent]. 
¶6 
The agreement did not contain an hourly fee.  The 
fixed fee option was selected by inserting "XX" before the 
document was presented to the co-personal representatives.  The 
co-personal representatives and Attorney Roethe signed the Legal 
Services Agreement on November 23, 1999.  According to Attorney 
Roethe, the Legal Services Agreement was his standard written 
probate fee agreement and he made the change from 4 percent to 3 
percent with the understanding that the fee would become 4 
percent if there were contested issues.   
¶7 
On November 23, 1999, Attorney Roethe asked the co-
personal 
representatives 
to 
sign 
an 
undated 
personal 
representative's deed for the purpose of conveying G.W.'s 
undivided one-half interest in the house to G.W.'s sister-in-
law, pursuant to the special bequest in G.W.'s will.  The co-
personal representatives signed the deed.  The day and month on 
the deed were left blank.  The deed stated it was drafted by 
Attorney McCarthy, and his name was typed under the line for 
authentication of the grantors' signatures, but the signatures 
were not authenticated or notarized.   
No. 
2008AP2366-D   
 
5 
 
¶8 
A November 24, 1999, memorandum from Ms. Beyer to 
Attorney McCarthy stated the personal representative's deed had 
been signed and would be dated December 31, 1999.  As of late 
November 1999 a large volume of personal property was still in 
the house and needed to be sorted through and either distributed 
or sold.   
¶9 
On December 8, 1999, Attorney Roethe sent a letter to 
M.S. clarifying her responsibility for one-half of the expenses 
associated with the house because she owned an undivided one-
half interest in it.  Ms. Beyer wrote a December 23, 1999, 
memorandum to Attorneys Roethe and McCarthy summarizing a 
telephone call she had received from A.W.  The memo referred to 
a household sale and said that after the sale A.W. was planning 
to have the house professionally cleaned and treated for mice 
infestation, and that once the house was cleaned and readied for 
sale it could be transferred to G.W.'s sister-in-law.   
¶10 Attorney Roethe sent a letter dated January 17, 2000, 
addressed to all five heirs saying that a family meeting was 
scheduled for January 22 to discuss and resolve any problems.  
M.S. and one of the heirs were the only people to attend the 
meeting.  Attorney Roethe sent a letter dated January 24, 2000, 
to A.W. expressing his regret that she was unable to attend the 
meeting.  The letter stated that M.S. agreed the house could be 
put up for sale as soon as possible and that a sale of the 
personal property could be scheduled.  The letter also said that 
M.S. had serious health problems and that her doctor had 
recommended she not continue as a co-personal representative.  
No. 
2008AP2366-D   
 
6 
 
Attorney Roethe said he advised M.S. that instead of appointing 
someone else, they would work to wrap up the estate as quickly 
as possible.  The letter went on to say that all heirs agreed 
the house could be immediately conveyed to G.W.'s sister-in-law, 
and that if repairs needed to be made to the property, those 
expenses needed to be paid out of the sale proceeds and not paid 
by the estate.   
¶11 On January 25, 2000, A.W. and G.W.'s sister-in-law 
sent Attorney Roethe a letter saying the sister-in-law would not 
accept transfer of G.W.'s undivided one-half interest in the 
home until the estate sale was completed and the premises 
professionally cleaned.  The letter also stated the sister-in-
law would not accept responsibility for any utilities, property 
taxes, or expenses incurred until the sale and professional 
cleaning had been completed.  The letter was signed by the 
sister-in-law and A.W., as co-personal representative. 
¶12 On February 1, 2000, G.W.'s sister-in-law and A.W. 
sent Attorney McCarthy a letter notifying him that no one in the 
law firm was to handle the sale of the house and that the 
sister-in-law and A.W. would take care of any necessary house 
sale 
arrangements. 
 
According 
to 
various 
memoranda 
from 
Ms. Beyer to Attorney Roethe, Ms. Beyer had been contacted by 
one of the heirs and by the proposed estate sale agent, and both 
had indicated their concern that A.W. had not signed the 
contract for the estate sale, despite attempts to get her to do 
so. 
No. 
2008AP2366-D   
 
7 
 
¶13 Attorney Roethe directed Ms. Beyer to "white out" 
Attorney McCarthy's name and insert Attorney Roethe's name as 
the person who had drafted the personal representative's deed 
that had been signed, but not dated, by the co-personal 
representatives on November 23, 1999.  Attorney McCarthy's name, 
which had been typed under the line for authentication of the 
grantors' signatures, was also "whited out," and Attorney 
Roethe's name was typed under the line instead.  Attorney Roethe 
also had the year the deed was drafted changed from 1999 to 2000 
and he inserted February 11 as the date.  Attorney Roethe then 
authenticated the co-personal representatives' signatures on 
February 11, 2000.  Attorney Roethe said it was his firm's 
policy to list the name of the attorney responsible for a file 
on deeds, and he said that in his opinion, changing the name of 
the attorney and the date violated no part of the code of ethics 
and did not materially change the document or its effect. 
¶14 The personal representative's deed containing Attorney 
Roethe's changes was recorded on February 14, 2000.  Attorney 
Roethe said the decision to record the deed on that date was a 
joint decision of the heirs, Attorney McCarthy, and himself.   
¶15 Attorney McCarthy sent A.W. and G.W.'s sister-in-law a 
letter dated 
February 11, 2000, which said it was his 
understanding that they wanted to handle the house sale 
themselves.  He advised that the law firm was recording the 
personal representative's deed transferring G.W.'s one-half 
interest in the house from the estate to G.W.'s sister-in-law.  
The letter also advised that the sister-in-law was empowered to 
No. 
2008AP2366-D   
 
8 
 
proceed with the sale of the house with M.S.  Attorney Roethe 
said the letter was drafted for Attorney McCarthy's signature 
because the February 1, 2000, letter from A.W. and G.W.'s 
sister-in-law had been addressed to Attorney McCarthy.  Attorney 
Roethe said he reviewed the letter with Ms. Beyer and approved 
it.   
¶16 On February 21, 2000, Attorney McCarthy sent G.W.'s 
sister-in-law the recorded personal representative's deed and 
said, "The estate no longer retains any interest in the house, 
and all expenses (utilities, repairs and taxes) should be paid 
for equally by you and [M.S.]." 
¶17 On March 6, 2000, Ms. Beyer wrote a memorandum to 
Attorneys Roethe and McCarthy which said the person who had been 
planning to hold the estate sale would not in fact be holding 
the sale since she had been unable to obtain a signed contract 
from A.W.  The memo also said that one of the heirs wanted to 
know what the options were since it was not possible to move 
forward without A.W.'s cooperation.  The heir wondered if 
another co-personal representative could be appointed to serve 
with M.S.  A handwritten note on the bottom of the memorandum 
stated, "Yes.  Appoint new PR."   
¶18 On March 6, 2000, Attorney Roethe sent A.W. a letter 
saying that the other heirs were upset that there was still no 
date scheduled for a sale of the personal property, and that 
A.W.'s lack of communication was causing unnecessary delays in 
the estate.  The letter went on to say: 
No. 
2008AP2366-D   
 
9 
 
We are also now at the point in the estate where we 
need to obtain your financial accounting as personal 
representative.  . . .  
It is imperative that you communicate with our office 
regarding the household sale and the final accounting 
we need to prepare for the estate.  If I do not hear 
from you by March 15, 2000, the other heirs have 
instructed me to prepare the necessary documents to 
have 
you 
removed 
as 
co-personal 
representa-
tive.  . . .  
¶19 Attorney Roethe's time records for G.W.'s estate show 
that a petition for M.S. to sign seeking the removal of A.W. as 
co-personal representative was drafted on March 14, 2000.  An 
affidavit for M.S.'s and two heirs' signatures was drafted and 
reviewed by Attorney Roethe on the same date.  M.S. signed the 
petition and affidavit on March 17, 2000.  Attorney Roethe sent 
a letter dated March 15, 2000, to M.S. and the two heirs 
enclosing "the paperwork necessary to begin the process of 
removing [A.W.] as co-personal representative of the estate."  
The letter said the two heirs should each fax back their signed 
"Page 3" of the affidavit.  The letter did not contain a 
notation that a copy was being sent to A.W. or G.W.'s sister-in-
law. 
¶20 According to firm time records, on March 15, 2000, 
Ms. Beyer had a telephone conversation with one of the heirs, 
revised 
the 
documents 
to 
remove 
A.W. 
as 
co-personal 
representative, and faxed copies to the heir.  A copy of the 
last 
page 
of 
the 
affidavit, 
containing 
the 
two 
heirs' 
signatures, was faxed back to the law firm on March 16, 2000.  
Ms. 
Beyer 
notarized 
the 
two 
heirs' 
signatures 
on 
their 
No. 
2008AP2366-D   
 
10 
 
affidavit.  The jurat for the affidavit stated, "Subscribed and 
sworn to before me this 16 day of March, 2000" and was signed 
"Barbara F. Beyer."  Attorney Roethe admitted the two heirs 
lived out of state and did not personally appear before 
Ms. Beyer on March 16, 2000. 
¶21 The 
petition 
to 
remove 
A.W. 
as 
co-personal 
representative, with its accompanying affidavit, was filed with 
the court on March 24, 2000.  An order was issued that same day 
for the petition to be heard on April 26, 2000.  The hearing was 
later adjourned to May 31, 2000.  After several attempts to 
personally serve A.W. with notice of the hearing, the notice was 
served on G.W.'s sister-in-law on April 8, 2000.  Notice of the 
hearing was also published in the Milton Courier.   
¶22 On April 18, 2000, Attorney Guy Fish faxed a letter to 
Attorneys Roethe and McCarthy saying he had been retained by 
A.W. and asking whether Attorney Roethe's firm represented M.S. 
with respect to the petition.  By letter dated April 19, 2000, 
Attorney Roethe told Attorney Fish that his firm represented 
G.W.'s estate and not M.S. as an individual.  The letter said 
the majority of G.W.'s heirs were "clamoring to find out why 
this estate is not proceeding."  He said he brought the petition 
because 
he 
could 
not 
probate 
the 
estate 
without 
A.W.'s 
cooperation.  Attorney Roethe said he intended "to testify at 
the hearing as an officer of the Court about the delays caused 
by [A.W.'s] behavior.  . . . " 
¶23 On May 1, 2000, A.W. advised Attorney Roethe that she 
would resign as personal representative.  Attorney Roethe sent 
No. 
2008AP2366-D   
 
11 
 
A.W. a letter the following day enclosing a resignation form for 
A.W. to sign.   
¶24 On May 3, 2000, G.W.'s sister-in-law collapsed and was 
rushed to a hospital.  She lapsed into a coma and died on May 6, 
2000.  
¶25 A.W. signed the document saying she was resigning as 
co-personal representative on May 11, 2000.  One of G.W.'s 
heirs, 
R.W., 
was 
appointed 
as 
successor 
co-personal 
representative on May 22, 2000.   
¶26 The final account for G.W.'s estate listed attorney 
fees of $6,205.96.  This amount was 4 percent of the inventoried 
value of the estate.  The final account did not indicate that a 
percentage was used to calculate the amount of attorney fees.  
Attorney Roethe kept time records through August 3, 2000, on 
which date the billable time for the estate was $6,386.25.  The 
final account was submitted and the estate was closed on 
February 1, 2001.  The time spent to finalize the estate after 
August 3, 2000, was not billed because it exceeded the 4 percent 
fixed rate.  Attorney Roethe's time records indicated that 
between March 3 and April 30, 2000, he spent 4.1 hours on 
matters that appeared to be directly related to the effort to 
remove A.W. as co-personal representative and Ms. Beyer spent 
approximately 9 hours on that task.  Using their respective 
billing rates, this amounted to approximately $1,300 of billable 
time. 
¶27 As noted, G.W.'s sister-in-law died on May 6, 2000.  
The sister-in-law's most recent will was dated September 18, 
No. 
2008AP2366-D   
 
12 
 
1998, and named A.W. and R.W. as beneficiaries and asked that 
they be appointed to serve as co-personal representatives.  A.W. 
had the will in her possession.  A copy of a 1987 will was also 
in existence.  R.W. said he believed that A.W. had G.W.'s 
sister-in-law's most recent will.  R.W. said he did not want 
A.W. to act as personal representative because of the trouble 
they had with her in G.W.'s estate. 
¶28 On May 17, 2000, Attorney Carol Hatch faxed a copy of 
G.W.'s sister-in-law's 1987 will to R.W.  The 1987 will 
appointed R.W. and A.W. as co-executors.  On May 19, 2000, in 
response to a request from Ms. Beyer, Attorney Fish faxed a copy 
of a more recent, but unsigned and undated, will to Ms. Beyer.   
¶29 According 
to Attorney Roethe's time records, on 
May 22, 2000, a file was opened and the initial probate 
documents were prepared for G.W.'s sister-in-law's estate.  By 
letter dated the same day, Attorney Roethe mailed the documents 
to R.W. instructing him to sign them so that the copy of the 
1987 will could be filed with the court.  On May 24, 2000, Ms. 
Beyer wrote Attorney Roethe a memo saying that R.W. had called 
to say A.W. told him she had a new will.  The memo said R.W. 
told Ms. Beyer he would like to wait and see if A.W. filed the 
will.  Ms. Beyer said she asked that R.W. still sign and return 
the documents that had been sent to him.  In a May 29, 2000, 
letter to Attorney Roethe, R.W. said, "I have executed and 
hereby return the initial documents to be used to file with a 
copy of my mother's 1987 will.  You should place whatever date 
is necessary on them."  
No. 
2008AP2366-D   
 
13 
 
¶30 In a June 5, 2000, letter to the register in probate, 
Attorney Roethe said because the original could not be located, 
he was enclosing a copy of G.W.'s sister-in-law's September 4, 
1987, will.  He also enclosed an application for informal 
administration, notice to creditors, and proof of heirship.  
Those documents were filed on June 6, 2000.  The application, 
signed by R.W., said that R.W. had made diligent inquiry and was 
unaware of any subsequent revocation of the 1987 will.  Attorney 
Roethe's letter to the court said, "You will note that the 
(sic.) [R.W.] is requesting that he be appointed as sole 
personal representative of the estate as he believes his sister 
[A.W.] is not suitable to serve."   
¶31 On June 6, 2000, A.W. filed the 1998 will with the 
probate court. 
¶32 The application for informal administration filed by 
Attorney Roethe on June 6, 2000, was signed by R.W.  Ms. Beyer 
notarized R.W.'s signature on the application, and the jurat 
stated, "Subscribed and sworn to before me on 06-05-00" and was 
signed "Barbara F. Beyer."  The proof of heirship was also 
signed by R.W.  Ms. Beyer notarized R.W.'s signature on that 
document, with the same jurat as appeared on the application.  
R.W. was not in Wisconsin on June 5, 2000.  His signature was 
already on the documents he returned to Attorney Roethe with his 
May 29, 2000, letter. 
¶33 R.W. 
faxed 
G.W.'s 
sister-in-law's 
1998 
will 
to 
Attorney Roethe on June 6, 2000, saying he had received the 
document from A.W. that same day in an envelope postmarked 
No. 
2008AP2366-D   
 
14 
 
June 2, 2000.  On June 8, 2000, Attorney Roethe sent A.W. copies 
of the documents that had been filed on June 6, 2000, including 
a copy of the 1987 will, which he said R.W. had believed to be 
the last signed will.  Attorney Roethe also enclosed a copy of 
the order giving notice of claims.  He said he had just received 
a copy of the 1998 will from R.W. and he advised A.W. to file 
the original will as soon as possible.  The letter also 
discussed the offer to purchase the house in which G.W.'s 
sister-in-law had owned an undivided one-half interest. 
¶34 A.W., through counsel, filed a second petition for 
administration on June 13, 2000.  The matter was set for hearing 
on July 7, 2000.  A.W.'s attorney suggested the appointment of 
an independent personal representative, and this was agreed to 
by stipulation.  The stipulation and order, filed on July 7, 
2000, appointed a bank as the sole personal representative, 
admitted the 1998 will to probate, and stated that the June 6, 
2000, notice and order for filing claims was valid.   
¶35 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct arising out of Attorney Roethe's handling of the two 
estates: 
Count 
One.  By 
having 
the 
two 
co-personal 
representatives 
sign a Legal Services Agreement that 
provided for a fee based on a percentage of the estate's 
gross value, and by charging a percentage of the estate's 
value for his representation, Attorney Roethe violated Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 851.40(2)(e), 
and 
supreme 
court 
decisions 
No. 
2008AP2366-D   
 
15 
 
regulating the conduct of lawyers, in violation of former 
SCR 20:8.4(f).2 
Count Two.  By directing his assistant to change the 
year typed on a deed, to change the name of the deed's 
drafter, and to insert a day and a month on the deed, after 
the deed had been signed by the grantors and without the 
knowledge or permission of one of the grantors, when 
Attorney Roethe would have violated SCR 20:8.4(c) had he 
engaged in the conduct himself, Attorney Roethe violated 
former SCR 20:8.4(a).3 
Count Three.  After having received a January 25, 
2000, joint letter from one of the grantors/co-personal 
representatives 
who had previously signed an undated 
personal representative's deed and from the grantee named 
                                                 
2 Effective July 1, 2007, substantial changes were made to 
the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct for 
Attorneys, SCR Chapter 20.  See S. Ct. Order 04-07, 2007 WI 4, 
293 Wis. 2d xv, 726 N.W.2d Ct.R-45 (eff. July 1, 2007); and 
S. Ct. 
Order 
06-04, 
2007 
WI 
48, 
297 
Wis. 2d xv, 
730 
N.W.2d Ct.R.-29 (eff. July 1, 2007).  Because the conduct 
underlying this case arose prior to July 1, 2007, unless 
otherwise indicated, all references to the Wisconsin Supreme 
Court Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys will be to 
those in effect prior to July 1, 2007. 
Former SCR 20:8.4(f) provided 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; . . . ." 
3 Former 
SCR 
20:8.4(a) 
provided 
it 
is 
professional 
misconduct for a lawyer to "violate or attempt to violate the 
Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce 
another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; . . . ." 
No. 
2008AP2366-D   
 
16 
 
on the deed, stating that the grantee would not accept 
transfer of the real estate to her until certain events had 
occurred; by inserting the date of February 11, 2000, on 
the deed, by inserting February 11, 2000, as the date he 
authenticated the grantors' signatures, and by recording 
the deed on February 14, 2000, Attorney Roethe violated 
former SCR 20:1.2(a)4 and SCR 20:8.4(c).5 
Also, by failing to respond to the co-personal 
representative's January 25, 2000, letter; by failing to 
inform her that he had dated the personal representative's 
deed February 11, 2000, and authenticated her signature on 
that date; by failing to ensure that A.W., as co-personal 
representative, was informed of his intention to record the 
personal representative's deed prior to the time it was 
recorded; and by failing to send A.W. a copy of a March 15, 
2000, 
letter 
addressed 
to 
the 
other 
co-personal 
representative 
and 
two 
heirs, 
which 
letter 
enclosed 
                                                 
4 Former SCR 20:1.2(a) provided, in pertinent part:  
 
A lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions 
concerning the objectives of representation, subject 
to paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), and shall consult with 
the client as to the means by which they are to be 
pursued.  A lawyer shall inform a client of all offers 
of settlement and abide by a client's decision whether 
to accept an offer of settlement of a matter.  . . .  
5 Former SCR 20:8.4(c) stated it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation."  
No. 
2008AP2366-D   
 
17 
 
paperwork to remove A.W. as co-personal representative, 
Attorney Roethe violated former SCR 20:1.4(a).6 
Count 
Four.  By 
permitting 
and 
ratifying 
his 
assistant's conduct in notarizing the signatures of two 
persons on a sworn affidavit, when those persons did not 
appear before his assistant on the date she attested the 
signatures were subscribed and sworn to before her and when 
the two persons were not even in Wisconsin on that date; 
and by permitting the notarized affidavit to be filed with 
a court, when Attorney Roethe would have violated SCR 
20:8.4(c) had he engaged in the conduct himself, Attorney 
Roethe violated former SCR 20:5.3(c).7 
Count 
Five.  By 
permitting 
and 
ratifying 
his 
assistant's conduct in notarizing R.W.'s signature on an 
                                                 
6 Former SCR 20:1.4(a) provided, "A lawyer shall keep a 
client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and 
promptly comply with reasonable requests for information." 
7 Former SCR 20:5.3(c) provided:  Responsibilities regarding 
nonlawyer assistants. 
 
(c) A lawyer shall be responsible for conduct of 
such a person that would be a violation of the Rules 
of Professional Conduct if engaged in by a lawyer if: 
 
(1) the lawyer orders or, with the knowledge of 
the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; 
or 
 
(2) the lawyer is a partner in the law firm in 
which 
the 
person 
is 
employed, 
or 
has 
direct 
supervisory authority over the person, and knows of 
the conduct at a time when its consequences can be 
avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable 
remedial action. 
No. 
2008AP2366-D   
 
18 
 
application for informal administration and on a proof of 
heirship, when R.W. did not appear before his assistant on 
the date she attested the signatures were subscribed and 
sworn to before her, and when R.W. was not even in 
Wisconsin on that date and Attorney Roethe and his 
assistant knew R.W. had signed the documents several days 
before the date of the notarization; and by then permitting 
the two notarized documents to be filed with a court, when 
Attorney Roethe would have violated SCR 20:8.4(c) had he 
engaged in the conduct himself, Attorney Roethe violated 
former SCR 20:5.3(c). 
¶36 Attorney 
Roethe filed an answer and affirmative 
defenses.  On October 2, 2009, the parties entered into a 
stipulation whereby they agreed that certain matters could be 
considered by the referee as being established as a matter of 
fact.  A hearing was held before the referee on October 19 and 
20, 2009.  The referee issued his report and recommendation on 
November 27, 2009.  He concluded the OLR failed to meet its 
burden of proof with respect to the allegations contained in 
Counts 2 and 3 of the OLR's complaint.  He concluded the OLR had 
met its burden of proof as to the allegations contained in 
Counts 1, 4, and 5.   
¶37 As to Count 1, the referee concluded that Attorney 
Roethe's legal services agreement providing for a fee based upon 
a percentage of the gross value of the estate was a violation of 
Wis. Stat. § 851.40(2)(e), which controls billing in probate 
No. 
2008AP2366-D   
 
19 
 
matters.8  The referee noted that Attorney Roethe was charged 
with violating SCR 20:8.4(f), which makes it professional 
misconduct for an attorney to violate a statute.  The referee 
found that the OLR met its burden of proof on Count 1. 
¶38 As to Count 2, the referee found that Attorney Roethe 
directed his assistant to change the year typed on a deed, 
change the name of the deed's drafter, and insert a month and 
date on the deed after it was signed by the grantors.  The 
referee found these changes were made with the knowledge and 
permission of the grantors.  Consequently, the referee found 
that OLR failed to meet its burden of proof as to Count 2. 
¶39 As to Count 3, the referee also found that OLR failed 
to meet its burden of proof.  The referee concluded that the OLR 
failed to prove that Attorney Roethe did anything beyond the 
scope of his representation.  The referee said Attorney Roethe 
was representing the co-personal representative of an estate, 
and the goal was to distribute the special bequests and do 
                                                 
8 Wisconsin Stat. § 851.40(2)(e) (1999-2000) provided:  
(2) Any 
personal 
representative, 
heir, 
beneficiary under a will or other interested party may 
petition the court to review any attorney's fee which 
is subject to sub. (1).  If the decedent died 
intestate or the testator's will contains no provision 
concerning attorney fees, the court shall consider the 
following factors in determining what is a just and 
reasonable attorney’s fee:  
. . .  
(e) The sufficiency of assets properly available 
to pay for the services, except that the value of the 
estate may not be the controlling factor. 
No. 
2008AP2366-D   
 
20 
 
whatever was necessary to close the estate.  The referee 
concluded that any problems in communication were caused by 
A.W.'s failure to communicate with Attorney Roethe, not the 
other way around. 
¶40 With respect to Count 4, the referee noted the parties 
stipulated that by permitting and ratifying his assistant's 
conduct in notarizing signatures of two persons on a sworn 
affidavit, when those two persons did not appear before the 
assistant 
on 
the 
date 
she 
attested 
the 
signatures 
were 
subscribed and sworn to before her, and when the two persons 
were not even in Wisconsin on that date, Attorney Roethe 
violated former SCR 20:5.3(c).   
¶41 As to Count 5, the referee noted that Attorney Roethe 
also stipulated that by permitting and ratifying his assistant's 
conduct in notarizing R.W.'s signature on an application for 
informal administration and on a proof of heirship, when R.W. 
did not appear before the assistant on the date she attested his 
signatures were subscribed and sworn to before her, and then by 
permitting the notarized documents to be filed with the court, 
Attorney Roethe violated former SCR 20:5.3(c).   
¶42 The OLR's complaint sought a 60-day suspension of 
Attorney Roethe's license.  In forming his recommendation for a 
sanction, the referee noted a number of aggravating factors, the 
most serious being that Attorney Roethe received a public 
reprimand in 2000.  The referee also noted that the matter 
involved 
two 
different 
estates 
and 
multiple 
counts 
of 
misconduct. 
No. 
2008AP2366-D   
 
21 
 
¶43 The referee commented at length about the credibility 
of the various witnesses who testified at the hearing.  The 
referee 
found 
that 
A.W. 
"was 
argumentative 
and 
often 
nonresponsive, especially on cross-examination.  . . .  She 
attempted to parse words . . . when it suited her.  She did run 
on answers.  She basically tried to take control of the 
questioning when she was on the stand."  The referee said during 
her testimony A.W. repeatedly denied the obvious, gave opinions 
she 
was 
not 
qualified 
to 
give, 
and 
frequently 
made 
overstatements of fact.  The referee noted that A.W. waited for 
six years before filing a grievance with the OLR.  When asked 
about the delay, A.W. said she had spent 700 hours working on 
the second estate and that she had been injured and laid up for 
a year and a half or two years.  The referee said, "I found her 
reasons to be entirely unconvincing." 
¶44 The referee said although A.W. continually denied she 
had hired Attorney Roethe's firm for the probate, exhibits 
admitted into evidence clearly indicated that she did in fact 
hire the law firm for probate.  While A.W. denied receiving 
Attorney Roethe's March 6, 2000, letter, the referee found she 
did not receive the letter because she deliberately avoided 
picking it up.  The referee summed up A.W.'s testimony by 
saying, "She basically accuses everybody else, at the best, of 
being wrong, and at the most of lying.  Therefore, unless her 
testimony was corroborated by some other witness, I gave it 
absolutely no weight whatsoever." 
No. 
2008AP2366-D   
 
22 
 
¶45 The referee found that Attorney Roethe was an honest 
witness, and there was nothing to suggest he did anything for 
personal gain or to injure any of the heirs.   
¶46 There was a dispute over whether the estate or the co-
personal representatives were the client.  Attorney Bruce Briney 
testified there were no reported cases on point giving guidance 
as to who the client is in a probate matter.  However, Attorney 
Briney testified unequivocally that the client is the estate.  
In Attorney Briney's opinion, it was reasonable for Attorney 
Roethe to presume he was representing the estate as a client, 
and he testified that Attorney Roethe's scope of representation 
was appropriate.  Attorney James Hill expressed the opinion that 
the co-personal representatives, not the estate, were the 
clients.  The referee ultimately concluded the co-personal 
representatives were the clients.   
¶47 The referee based this conclusion, in large part, on 
the 
language 
of 
the 
legal 
services 
agreement, 
which 
unequivocally 
indicated 
the 
clients 
were 
the 
co-personal 
representatives.  Nonetheless, the referee said Attorney Roethe 
quite clearly and honestly believed the estate was his client 
and he was doing what he was obligated to do as an attorney for 
the benefit of the estate.  The referee noted that Attorney 
Roethe has had a long and honorable career and has benefitted 
his local communities through various civic organizations.  The 
referee also said there was testimony at the hearing that 
Attorney Roethe was acting as a reasonable attorney would act.  
The referee also commended the parties for entering into a 
No. 
2008AP2366-D   
 
23 
 
stipulation as to many of the facts, which shortened the hearing 
process.  The referee concluded by saying: 
 
And finally, I would be remiss if I didn't say 
quite bluntly that Attorney Roethe was afflicted with 
an insufferable, unreasonable client in this case.  
We've all had them and his biggest mistake was not 
getting rid of her quickly rather than allowing her to 
take up the resources of his firm in such a way that 
it should have been predictable that nothing the firm 
did for her was ever going to satisfy her.  
¶48 Accordingly, the referee recommended that Attorney 
Roethe be publicly reprimanded and that he be required to pay 
the full costs of the proceeding.   
¶49 This court will affirm a referee's findings of fact 
unless they are clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law are 
reviewed de novo.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Tully, 
2005 WI 100, ¶25, 283 Wis. 2d 124, 699 N.W.2d 882.  This court 
is free to impose whatever discipline it deems appropriate, 
regardless of the referee's recommendation.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 
N.W.2d 686.  
¶50 Because they have not been shown to be clearly 
erroneous, we adopt the referee's findings of fact.  We also 
agree 
with 
the 
referee's 
conclusions 
of 
law 
and 
his 
recommendation regarding the appropriate level of discipline.  
We conclude that a public reprimand is sufficient to achieve the 
objectives of attorney discipline.  Finally, we order that 
Attorney Roethe shall bear the full costs of this proceeding. 
No. 
2008AP2366-D   
 
24 
 
¶51 IT IS ORDERED that Jeffrey T. Roethe is publicly 
reprimanded for professional misconduct. 
¶52 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Jeffrey T. Roethe pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If such costs are not 
paid within the time specified, and absent a showing to the 
court of his inability to pay the costs within that time, the 
license of Jeffrey T. Roethe to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
be suspended until further order of this court. 
 
No. 
2008AP2366-D   
 
 
 
1