Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Richard W. Voss

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2018-03-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
2018 WI 18 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2012AP931-D & 2014AP2086-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Richard W. Voss, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Appellant, 
     v. 
Richard W. Voss, 
          Respondent-Respondent. 
------------------------------------------------ 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Richard W. Voss, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Richard W. Voss, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST VOSS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 1, 2018 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
November 27, 2017 
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
For the respondent-respondent (2012AP931-D), respondent-
appellant (2014AP2086-D), there were briefs filed by Richard W. 
Voss, Rhinelander. 
 
For the complainant-appellant (2012AP931-D), complainant-
respondent (2014AP2086-D), there was a brief filed by Julie M. 
Spoke 
and 
Office 
of 
Lawyer 
Regulation, 
Madison. 
 
 
2018 WI 18
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
 
No.   2012AP931-D & 2014AP2086-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Richard W. Voss, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Appellant, 
 
     v. 
 
Richard W. Voss, 
 
          Respondent-Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 1, 2018 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Richard W. Voss, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Richard W. Voss, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.   Reinstatement denied.   
 
No. 
2012AP931-D & 2014AP2086-D   
 
2 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Richard W. Voss has appealed a referee's 
report recommending the denial of Attorney Voss's petition for 
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin.  We 
agree with the referee that Attorney Voss's license to practice 
law should not be reinstated at this time.  We direct Attorney 
Voss to pay the costs of the reinstatement proceeding, which 
totaled $4,034.75 as of November 13, 2017. 
¶2 
Attorney 
Voss 
was 
admitted 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin in 1976 and practiced in Rhinelander.  In 2004, he was 
privately 
reprimanded 
for 
failing 
to 
provide 
competent 
representation and failing to keep a client reasonably informed.  
Private Reprimand No. 2004-24 (electronic copy available at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/001746.html).  In 2006, 
Attorney Voss was publicly reprimanded for various trust account 
violations.  Public reprimand of Richard W. Voss, No. 2006-7 
(electronic copy available at https://compendium.wicourts.gov/ 
app/raw/001861.html).   
¶3 
In 2014, Attorney Voss's license to practice law was 
suspended for 18 months for his conduct as the court appointed 
guardian of the person and estate of an individual suffering 
from mental illness.  This court determined that Attorney Voss 
committed 11 counts of misconduct by, among other things, 
converting at least $48,791.73 of his client's funds either for 
his own use or to cover expenditures for other client matters, 
committing 
various 
trust 
account 
violations, 
and 
making 
misrepresentations to the circuit court about the client's 
assets.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Voss, 2014 WI 
No. 
2012AP931-D & 2014AP2086-D   
 
3 
 
75, 356 Wis. 2d 382, 850 N.W.2d 190.  In 2015, Attorney Voss's 
law license was suspended for a period of 60 days, to run 
consecutive to the discipline imposed in 2014.  The misconduct 
at issue in the 2014 case included improprieties in the handling 
of matters filed in United States Bankruptcy Courts; failing to 
adequately supervise his staff so as to ensure the documents 
prepared and filed by staff on behalf of clients conformed in 
all respects with applicable law and court rules and were in all 
respects accurate; failing to take reasonable steps to ensure 
his 
staff 
timely 
informed 
him 
and/or 
clients 
of 
case 
developments, including the payment status of filing fees; trust 
account violations; and failing to provide the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR) with a copy of his trust account transaction 
register for the period requested of him by the OLR.  In re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Voss, 
2015 
WI 
104, 
365 
Wis. 2d 442, 871 N.W.2d 859.  
¶4 
Attorney Voss filed a petition for the reinstatement 
of his license to practice law in March 2016.  The OLR filed a 
response opposing the Petition for Reinstatement.  The OLR said 
its investigation revealed that Attorney Voss's conduct since 
his suspension has not been exemplary and above reproach and he 
cannot be safely recommended to the legal profession, the 
courts, and the public as a person fit to be consulted by others 
or act in matters of trust or confidence.   
¶5 
The Honorable John B. Murphy was appointed referee.  A 
hearing was held in October 2016.  Attorney Voss was the only 
witness to testify at the hearing.   
No. 
2012AP931-D & 2014AP2086-D   
 
4 
 
¶6 
The referee issued his report and recommendation on 
November 1, 2016.  The referee found that Attorney Voss had met 
some of the reinstatement criteria.  The referee found that 
Attorney Voss did not practice law during his suspension, kept 
up on his educational requirements, and met his financial 
obligations as to reimbursement and payment of client claims and 
fees.  The referee found, however, that Attorney Voss did not 
meet some of the other reinstatement requirements. 
¶7 
The referee said most importantly, Attorney Voss 
failed to comply with the Order of Suspension by not properly 
notifying his clients, by mail, of his suspension and that the 
cessation of his law practice was a result of the suspension.  
The referee said while it was true that Attorney Voss did send 
letters to his bankruptcy clients, those letters made no mention 
of any suspension or attorney disciplinary action.  Rather, the 
letters simply indicated that Attorney Voss would be "leaving my 
Law Practice on September 4, 2014."  The referee said when 
questioned about the letters at the evidentiary hearing, 
Attorney Voss seemed to feel that there was no need to give his 
bankruptcy clients a reason for why he was leaving his law 
practice since the end result —— the client would need to find a 
new attorney —— would be the same whether or not the clients 
knew about the suspension.  The referee said, "any reasonable 
reading of the Voss letters makes clear that Voss was trying to 
give his clients the impression that his winding up of his 
practice was just a routine matter and was, implicitly, based 
upon some 'good' reason such as retirement." 
No. 
2012AP931-D & 2014AP2086-D   
 
5 
 
¶8 
The referee said Attorney Voss seemed to feel that his 
failure to mention the suspension in the letters he sent to 
clients was merely an oversight because it did not occur to him 
to mention it at the time.  The referee said the record suggests 
otherwise.  The referee noted that SCR 22.26(1)(a) is clear as 
to the need to establish the nexus between leaving the practice 
of law and the suspension.  The referee said this is not a rule 
where "substantial compliance" is good enough.  The referee 
opined that failure to use the word "suspension" in the letters 
to clients meant that SCR 22.26(1)(a) was not complied with. 
¶9 
The referee also noted that Attorney Voss testified at 
the evidentiary hearing that he became aware that the initial 
notification letters that his secretary had to send to the 
bankruptcy clients were erroneously sent out by registered mail 
rather than certified mail.  Once Attorney Voss became aware of 
this error, he instructed his secretary to resend the letters.  
The referee said since the only way Attorney Voss could have 
known of the need to use certified mail was by reading 
SCR 22.26(1)(a), Attorney Voss's claim that he was unaware of 
the requirement of stating that a suspension was the cause of 
his termination of practice was absurd and suggests that 
Attorney Voss is being disingenuous in his claim that he was 
ignorant of the provisions of the rule. 
¶10 The referee went on to note that on September 25, 
2014, Attorney Voss signed a document entitled "Winding up of 
Practice Richard W. Voss," which was a sworn statement that 
Attorney Voss provided to this court at the time of his 
No. 
2012AP931-D & 2014AP2086-D   
 
6 
 
suspension.  The referee noted that in the document, Attorney 
Voss attested that, "[a]ll clients with pending matters in which 
he was the attorney of record were advised of his inability to 
continue to represent them after September 4, 2014, the 
effective date of the suspension."  The referee said the wording 
of this paragraph, along with the language of the letters sent 
to the bankruptcy clients, leads to the conclusion that Attorney 
Voss deliberately chose to circumvent the requirement of 
SCR 22.26(1)(a) by misleading his clients about his suspension.  
¶11 Further, the referee said Attorney Voss admitted that 
he failed to give any written notification of his suspension and 
his leaving the practice of law to any of his public defender 
clients.  The referee said this, too, was a clear violation of 
the 
requirement 
of 
SCR 22.26(1)(a) 
and 
"suggests 
a 
more 
troubling concern regarding Voss's competency to practice law."  
The 
referee 
noted 
that 
Attorney 
Voss 
testified 
at 
the 
evidentiary hearing that public defender clients were somehow 
not his clients but were rather clients of the public defender 
itself and that Attorney Voss represented the individual clients 
by some sort of proxy.  The referee said, "this view is 
extremely troubling since it indicates that Voss has little 
understanding of the attorney-client relationship or how that 
relationship is the cornerstone of all legal practice." 
¶12 In addition, the referee noted that SCR 22.26(1)(c) 
requires all suspended or revoked attorneys to give written 
notice to all courts, agencies, and opposing counsel of the 
suspension or revocation and of the termination of practice.  
No. 
2012AP931-D & 2014AP2086-D   
 
7 
 
The referee said Attorney Voss provided no such notification to 
any of the required persons or entities, nor did he attempt to 
gain 
the 
circuit 
court's 
approval 
for 
withdrawal 
and 
substitution of counsel with respect to his criminal clients.  
The referee noted that at the evidentiary hearing, Attorney Voss 
said there had been an article about his suspension in the 
Rhinelander newspaper.  The referee said Attorney Voss seemed to 
consider the newspaper article substitute notice sufficient to 
meet the requirements of SCR 22.26. 
¶13 In addition to the failure to comply with the 
requirements of SCR 22.26, the referee also found that Attorney 
Voss still lacks an understanding of the need for a proper and 
approved system of managing client funds.  The referee noted 
that as early as 2005 or even sooner, Attorney Voss began having 
major problems with the handling of trust accounts, and those 
problems continued up to the time of his suspension.  The 
referee said according to the records of the two cases that led 
to his suspensions, and from what Attorney Voss testified to at 
the evidentiary hearing, it appeared to the referee that 
Attorney Voss has learned very little since 2005 about the 
correct handling of client funds through the use of a properly 
created trust account, in spite of having taken classes on such 
accounts.  The referee said there was nothing to suggest that if 
Attorney Voss were reinstated to the practice of law, he would 
be any more successful in keeping his accounts straight.  The 
referee said, "in fact, it was unclear, at the hearing, whether 
No. 
2012AP931-D & 2014AP2086-D   
 
8 
 
Voss even understood the basic accounting and ethical principles 
behind maintaining a trust account . . .."   
¶14 The referee concluded that Attorney Voss's failure to 
fulfill the requirements of SCR 22.26 made him ineligible for 
reinstatement.  The referee also said because Attorney Voss 
still lacked an understanding about the approved handling of 
trust accounts, in the event he were to be reinstated, constant 
monitoring of his handling of client funds would probably be 
required to prevent further ethical violations. 
¶15 The referee concluded by saying:   
In making this recommendation, I am aware that Voss 
cannot 
go 
back 
and 
correct 
his 
violations 
of 
SCR 22.26.  That time has passed and Voss's failure to 
perform his obligations in 2014 may be a permanent bar 
to his reinstatement.  Therefore, Voss cannot "safely 
be recommended to the legal profession, the courts and 
the public as a person fit to be consulted by others 
and to represent them and otherwise act in matters of 
trust and confidence and in general to aid in the 
administration of justice as a member of the bar and 
as an officer of the court."  SCR 22.29(4)(g). 
¶16 Attorney Voss has appealed, arguing that it is 
appropriate for this court to grant his petition for the 
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin.   
¶17 Attorney Voss concedes that he did not comply with the 
letter of SCR 22.26.  However, he says all of the bankruptcy 
clients received a certified letter noting the date of the end 
of his services and their right to obtain other legal counsel.  
He admits that the letter did not inform the bankruptcy clients 
that his license to practice law was being suspended.  Attorney 
Voss says the clients who were represented through the Wisconsin 
No. 
2012AP931-D & 2014AP2086-D   
 
9 
 
State Public Defender program were all given oral notice by 
Attorney Voss and their cases were promptly returned to the 
State Public Defender. 
¶18 Attorney Voss says while the referee and the OLR 
believe that Attorney Voss intentionally omitted explaining to 
his clients that the reason he was ceasing the practice of law 
was due to suspension:  
[T]hat does not change the fact that the suspension 
which went in to effect began so soon after the 
letters were sent that he could not in any way profit 
by omitting the words since they could not remain his 
clients after the suspension date and there is no 
evidence that anyone continued to be his client after 
that date.   
Attorney Voss again notes that the top headline of the local 
newspaper indicated that he was being suspended so "it can 
hardly be argued that failure to include those words would be 
advantageous to him.  The more likely conclusion is that it was 
an oversight."   
¶19 With respect to the referee's criticism of Attorney 
Voss's trust account practices, Attorney Voss says that none of 
his clients lost any money and all of his legal work was done in 
a manner that did not result in any dissatisfied clients.  He 
says, "while the procedures were at times inappropriate, the 
results were not harmful to the clients."  He also says if he 
were reinstated, "by starting out with a new balanced trust 
account which will be approved by the Wisconsin State Bar before 
any funds are placed in it, the problems of the past should not 
be repeated."   
No. 
2012AP931-D & 2014AP2086-D   
 
10 
 
¶20 The OLR argues that the referee properly found that 
Attorney Voss did not meet his burden for the reinstatement of 
his Wisconsin law license.  The OLR says that although an 
attorney's failure to strictly comply with SCR 22.26 may not 
per se bar reinstatement, what is most disconcerting about 
Attorney Voss's failure to fully comply with the rule is his 
failure to comprehend the necessity of following the rule's 
requirements.  The OLR argues that Attorney Voss's testimony at 
the 
evidentiary 
hearing 
displayed 
a 
complete 
lack 
of 
understanding as to what his ethical obligations are as an 
attorney.  The OLR says although technical violations of 
SCR 22.26 may not bar reinstatement, it is Attorney Voss's 
complete lack of understanding of his ethical obligations as it 
relates to his post-discipline requirements that supports a 
denial of his petition for reinstatement.  The OLR argues that 
Attorney Voss's testimony at the hearing demonstrates that his 
apparent belief is that the rules are merely advisory and do not 
have to be followed in situations where Attorney Voss feels it 
is unnecessary to do so. 
¶21 The OLR also argues that the referee appropriately 
concluded that Attorney Voss failed to demonstrate that he has a 
proper understanding of and attitude toward the standards that 
are imposed upon members of the bar and will act in conformity 
with those standards.  The OLR says that at the time Attorney 
Voss learned of his suspension in July of 2014, he had some 
$12,000 in his trust account and he did not know to whom 
specifically those funds belonged.  The OLR says Attorney Voss 
No. 
2012AP931-D & 2014AP2086-D   
 
11 
 
never sat down and accurately figured out to whom all the money 
in the trust account belonged.  The OLR says by September of 
2014, Attorney Voss had $260 remaining in his trust account and 
despite keeping inaccurate records, he simply assumed those 
funds belonged to him because none of his clients had asked for 
any money to be refunded.  The OLR says Attorney Voss's position 
that no money belonged to his clients because none of them had 
asked for money exemplifies his ignorance of the rules and what 
is ethically required of him as an attorney.   
¶22 In his reply brief, Attorney Voss reiterates that he 
believes that he has demonstrated that he is entitled to the 
reinstatement of his Wisconsin law license.  He says:   
During the period of his practice, from 1976 through 
2014, Voss did comply with all of the rules of the 
Supreme Court except those rules which he has been 
found to have violated.  When he was sanctioned he 
took steps to correct his behavior . . .. 
¶23 This court will affirm a referee's findings of fact 
unless they are found to be clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of 
law are reviewed de novo.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Davison, 2010 WI 1, ¶19, 322 Wis. 2d 67, 777 N.W.2d 82.   
¶24 Supreme Court Rule 22.29(4) provides that a petition 
for reinstatement shall show all of the following:  
(a) The petitioner desires to have the petitioner's 
license reinstated. 
(b) The petitioner has not practiced law during the 
period of suspension or revocation. 
(c) The petitioner has complied fully with the terms 
of the order of suspension or revocation and will 
No. 
2012AP931-D & 2014AP2086-D   
 
12 
 
continue to comply with them until the petitioner's 
license is reinstated. 
(d) The petitioner has maintained competence and 
learning in the law by attendance at identified 
educational activities. 
(e) The petitioner's conduct since the suspension or 
revocation has been exemplary and above reproach. 
(f) The petitioner has a proper understanding of and 
attitude toward the standards that are imposed upon 
members of the bar and will act in conformity with the 
standards. 
(g) The petitioner can safely be recommended to the 
legal profession, the courts and the public as a 
person fit to be consulted by others and to represent 
them and otherwise act in matters of trust and 
confidence and in general to aid in the administration 
of justice as a member of the bar and as an officer of 
the courts. 
(h) The petitioner has fully complied with the 
requirements set for in SCR 22.26. 
(j) The petitioner's proposed use of the license if 
reinstated. 
(k) A full description of all of the petitioner's 
business activities during the period of suspension or 
revocation. 
¶25 Supreme Court Rule 22.31(1) provides that an attorney 
seeking reinstatement of his or her license has the burden of 
demonstrating all of these requirements by clear, satisfactory, 
and convincing evidence.  We adopt the referee's findings and 
conclusions and agree that Attorney Voss has failed to meet his 
burden of demonstrating by clear, satisfactory, and convincing 
evidence that he fully complied with all of the terms of the 
order of suspension.  We also agree with the referee that, at 
the present time, Attorney Voss cannot safely be recommended to 
No. 
2012AP931-D & 2014AP2086-D   
 
13 
 
the legal profession, the courts, and the public as a person fit 
to be consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise 
act in matters of trust and confidence and in general to aid in 
the administration of justice as a member of the bar and as an 
officer of the court. 
¶26 Supreme Court Rule 22.26(1)(a) plainly provides that 
an attorney whose license is suspended shall notify all clients 
being 
represented 
in 
pending 
matters 
"of 
the 
suspension . . . and of the attorney's consequent inability to 
act as an attorney following the effective date of the 
suspension . . .." 
 
Supreme 
Court 
Rule 22.26(1)(c) 
plainly 
provides that an attorney whose license is suspended shall 
"promptly provide written notification to the court . . . and 
the attorney for each party in a matter pending before a 
court . . . and of the attorney's consequent inability to act as 
an 
attorney 
following 
the 
effective 
date 
of 
the 
suspension . . .."  By his own admission, Attorney Voss failed 
to comply with these rules.  However, in the "Winding up of 
Practice Richard W. Voss" document dated September 25, 2014, 
Attorney Voss averred that all clients with pending matters in 
which he was the attorney of record had been advised of his 
inability to continue to represent them after the effective date 
of the suspension.  Thus, it appears that not only did Attorney 
Voss fail to comply with the notice requirements of SCR 22.26, 
he then untruthfully certified to the OLR that he had fully 
complied. 
No. 
2012AP931-D & 2014AP2086-D   
 
14 
 
¶27 An attorney seeking reinstatement of his or her 
license must demonstrate by clear, satisfactory, and convincing 
evidence 
that 
he 
has 
met 
all 
of 
the 
requirements 
for 
reinstatement.  It is clear that Attorney Voss failed to do so.  
As the referee pointed out, Attorney Voss cannot go back and 
correct his failure to comply with SCR 22.26.  Although we are 
not suggesting that his failure to comply with that rule should 
serve as a permanent bar to his reinstatement, on the record 
before us we agree with the referee that his failure to comply 
with SCR 22.26, coupled with his rather cavalier attitude that 
strict compliance was perhaps not all that important, leads to 
the conclusion that at the present time he has not met his 
burden of demonstrating that his license to practice law should 
be reinstated.  We also share the referee's concerns about 
whether Attorney Voss understands the proper handling of a 
client trust account, although he could potentially correct that 
deficiency in the future by attending continuing legal education 
programs regarding trust accounts. 
¶28 As is our general practice, we find it appropriate to 
impose the full costs of this proceeding, $4,034.75 on Attorney 
Voss. 
¶29 IT IS ORDERED that Richard W. Voss's Petition for 
Reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin is 
denied. 
¶30 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Richard W. Voss shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this reinstatement proceeding.  
No. 
2012AP931-D & 2014AP2086-D   
 
 
 
1