Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Terry L. Constant

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2017AP000666-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2020-01-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
2020 WI 4 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2017AP666-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Terry L. Constant, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent-Cross-
Appellant, 
     v. 
Terry L. Constant, 
          Respondent-Appellant-Cross-Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CONSTANT 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
January 28, 2020   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
October 24, 2019   
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
HAGEDORN, J. dissents (opinion filed) 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
For the respondent-petitioner-cross-respondent, there were 
briefs filed by Terry L. Constant, Kenosha. 
 
For the complainant-respondent-cross-appellant, there was a 
brief filed by Jonathan E. Hendrix and Office of Lawyers 
Regulation, Madison.  
 
 
 
 
2020 WI 4
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2017AP666-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Terry L. Constant, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
 
Complainant-Respondent- 
  
Cross-Appellant, 
 
     v. 
 
Terry L. Constant, 
 
 
Respondent-Appellant- 
 
Cross-Respondent. 
FILED 
 
JAN 28, 2020 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney Terry L. Constant has appealed a 
report and recommendation filed by Referee Dennis J. Flynn, 
concluding that Attorney Constant committed eight counts of 
professional misconduct and recommending that his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for five months.  Attorney 
Constant argues that the referee mistakenly allowed his bank 
records into evidence; that the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
failed to meet its burden of proof as to the eight counts of 
No. 
2017AP666-D   
 
2 
 
misconduct; that the referee erred in making a credibility 
determination; and that a five-month suspension of his license to 
practice law is an excessive sanction.  The OLR has filed a cross-
appeal arguing that a five-month suspension is insufficient and 
that this court should suspend Attorney Constant's license for at 
least one year. 
¶2 
Upon careful review of this matter, we uphold the 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law.  We conclude 
that a six-month suspension of Attorney Constant's Wisconsin law 
license is an appropriate sanction for the misconduct at issue.  
We also find it appropriate to follow our normal custom of imposing 
the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding, which are 
$13,409.63 as of December 10, 2019, on Attorney Constant.   
¶3 
Attorney Constant was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1968 and practices in Kenosha.  He has no prior 
disciplinary history.   
¶4 
On April 14, 2017, the OLR filed a complaint alleging 
nine counts of misconduct.  In 2009, M.B. hired Attorney Constant 
to represent her in a personal injury case.  In 2010 and 2011, 
Attorney Constant disbursed 13 checks from his trust account at 
U.S. Bank in connection with M.B.'s claim.  Attorney Constant had 
not deposited any funds into the trust account for his 
representation of M.B. when he wrote the checks.   
¶5 
In January 2012, Attorney Constant filed a lawsuit on 
behalf of M.B. in Kenosha County Circuit Court.  In the first half 
of 2013, Attorney Constant settled M.B.'s claim for $175,000.  
Between June 14 and July 5, 2013, Attorney Constant disbursed six 
No. 
2017AP666-D   
 
3 
 
checks from his client trust account totaling $3,144 in connection 
with M.B.'s case.  One of the checks was payable to Attorney 
Constant in the amount of $1,000.  During this time period, 
Attorney Constant had not deposited any funds into his trust 
account for M.B.'s case. 
¶6 
On July 9, 2013, Attorney Constant deposited the 
$175,000 settlement check into his trust account.  He did not 
promptly notify M.B. in writing that he had received and deposited 
the funds.  Attorney Constant's settlement statement showed he was 
entitled to $50,000 in attorney's fees and $5,290.93 in costs. 
¶7 
Between July 11, 2013 and October 10, 2013, Attorney 
Constant disbursed $57,300 in attorney fees and $2,028.71 for costs 
in the M.B. matter out of funds in his trust account.  After these 
disbursements, the trust account held $178,359.13, of which 
$115,421.29 was attributable to M.B.'s case. 
¶8 
During November and December of 2013, Attorney Constant 
transferred $16,200 from his trust account to his business account 
without identifying the client matter.  During the same time frame, 
Attorney Constant withdrew $4,600 in cash from the trust account 
without identifying the purpose or client matter.  On December 31, 
2013, the trust account had a balance of $86,386.58.  It should 
have held $115,421.29 in the M.B. matter alone.   
¶9 
The $175,000 settlement amount was subject to numerous 
liens, and Attorney Constant negotiated settlements with the 
lienholders so that M.B. would recover a portion of the $175,000.  
On January 10, 2014, Attorney Constant disbursed a $21,882.35 trust 
account check to the federal government in the M.B. matter.  After 
No. 
2017AP666-D   
 
4 
 
issuing this check, the trust account held $70,108.53.  Attorney 
Constant should have been holding $93,538.94 for the M.B. matter 
alone. 
¶10 On January 21, 2014, Attorney Constant issued a check 
for $40,000 to M.B. in partial payment of the settlement funds.  
At that point his trust account should have held $53,538.94 in 
remaining funds for M.B., but the entire balance in the trust 
account was $19,021.16.   
¶11 On January 2, 2015, Attorney Constant's trust account 
had a balance of $363.11.  On January 13, 2015, Attorney Constant 
deposited $800,000 into the trust account which was unrelated to 
the M.B. matter.   Attorney Constant's trust account records show 
that on January 14, 2015 he disbursed $25,000 from the trust 
account to himself for reimbursement of costs in the M.B. matter. 
¶12 On January 16, 2015, Attorney Constant issued a $10,000 
trust account check to M.B.  Without the $800,000 deposit a few 
days earlier, which was not related to M.B.'s case, the trust 
account did not have enough funds to cover the $10,000 check.   
¶13 Attorney Constant's trust account records show that on 
February 7, 2015, he paid M.B. $4,540.58.  As of the date the OLR 
filed its complaint, Attorney Constant retained $2,100.65 in 
settlement proceeds due to M.B.  The record indicates that during 
the prosecution of this case, Attorney Constant made full 
restitution to M.B. 
¶14 On April 22, 2014, Attorney Constant transferred $15,000 
in personal funds from his business account to his trust account, 
raising the balance of the trust account to $15,759.57. 
No. 
2017AP666-D   
 
5 
 
¶15 On October 29, 2014, Attorney Constant deposited 
$9,500.94 into his trust account in connection with the K.C. 
matter.  After this deposit, the trust account had a balance of 
$9,548.98. 
¶16 On October 30, 2014, Attorney Constant withdrew $4,300 
in attorney fees from his trust account and deposited that amount 
into his business account.  The remaining balance in the trust 
account was then $5,248.98. 
¶17 On October 31, 2014, Attorney Constant wrote two trust 
account checks, one for $68.30 for a lien in the K.C. case and 
$1,467.32 to K.C. 
¶18 On November 3, 2014, Attorney Constant transferred 
$2,000 from his trust account to his business account.  On November 
4, 2014, Attorney Constant withdrew $500 in cash from the trust 
account.  On November 5, 2014, Attorney Constant withdrew $1,500 
in cash from the trust account, leaving a balance of $1,248.98.  
That same day, U.S. Bank denied payment on Attorney Constant's 
October 31, 2014 check in the amount of $1,467.32 due to 
insufficient funds.  On November 7, 2014, U.S. Bank denied payment 
on the check again, as Attorney Constant had not deposited any 
additional funds into the trust account. 
¶19 After the denial of payment by U.S. Bank, Attorney 
Constant wrote a replacement check payable to K.C. in the amount 
of $1,467.32.  The replacement check cleared the trust account on 
November 17, 2014. 
¶20 In October and November of 2014, Attorney Constant made 
13 cash withdrawals totaling $11,730 from his trust account.  
No. 
2017AP666-D   
 
6 
 
During October and December of 2014, Attorney Constant made eight 
electronic transfers from the trust account into his business 
account.  He had made other electronic transfers from the trust 
account to the business account since July 2013. 
¶21 Attorney Constant maintained a transaction register for 
October and November of 2014, but it did not include accurate 
balances following his transactions; the date, payee, and amount 
of all disbursements; a $500 transfer from the trust account to 
the business account; various checks that were issued; return of 
the K.C. checks that caused the overdrafts; the identity of all 
clients for whom Attorney Constant disbursed funds; and accurate 
dates for the transactions. 
¶22 Attorney Constant's client ledgers did not consistently 
contain accurate dates, amounts of deposits and disbursements 
which he had made on his clients' behalf, nor did it consistently 
contain balances of funds remaining in the trust account pertaining 
to each client. 
¶23 In November 2014, Attorney Constant's bank informed the 
OLR of the overdrafts in Attorney Constant's trust account.  On 
December 9, 2014, the OLR notified Attorney Constant of its 
investigation into the overdrafts.  During the investigation, 
Attorney Constant provided the OLR with trust account and client 
records that were sometimes inconsistent with each other and 
incomplete.  During the investigation, Attorney Constant wrote to 
the OLR representing he had not made cash withdrawals from his 
trust account. 
No. 
2017AP666-D   
 
7 
 
¶24 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct: 
Count One:  By making disbursements from the trust 
account on behalf of M.B. prior to any funds having been 
deposited into the client trust account attributable to 
her 
matter, 
Attorney 
Constant 
violated 
former 
SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)b.1 
Count Two:  By failing to provide M.B. with written 
notice of receipt of the $175,000 settlement proceeds 
received in trust during July, 2013; by failing to 
promptly deliver and distribute all of the settlement 
proceeds to M.B.; and by failing to provide M.B. with a 
written settlement statement setting forth a full 
accounting regarding the property and final distribution 
of the property, Attorney Constant violated former SCR 
20:1.15(d)(1) and (d)(2).2 
                                                 
1 Effective July 1, 2016, substantial changes were made to 
Supreme Court Rule 20:1.15, the "trust account rule."  See S. Ct. 
Order 14-07, 2016 WI 21 (issued Apr. 4, 2016, eff. July 1, 2016).  
Because the conduct underlying this case arose prior to July 1, 
2016, unless otherwise indicated, all references to the supreme 
court rules will be to those in effect prior to July 1, 2016. 
Former SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)b. provided: 
A subsidiary ledger shall be maintained for each 
client or 3rd party for whom the lawyer receives trust 
funds that are deposited in an IOLTA account or any other 
pooled trust account.  The lawyer shall record each 
receipt and disbursement of a client's or 3rd party's 
funds and the balance following each transaction.  A 
lawyer shall not disburse funds from an IOLTA account or 
any pooled trust account that would create a negative 
balance with respect to any individual client or matter.   
2 Former SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) and (d)(2) provided: 
(1) 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 rule or 
No. 
2017AP666-D   
 
8 
 
Count Three:  By converting, via electronic transfers to 
his business account and cash withdrawals, funds he held 
in trust in the M.B. matter and other matters, Attorney 
Constant violated SCR 20:8.4(c).3 
Count Four:  By failing to have funds in his trust 
account sufficient to cover the amounts recorded as 
being held in trust for multiple clients, and by 
withdrawing cash, electronically transferring funds to 
his business account, and disbursing funds without 
sufficient amounts in trust for the related matters, 
Attorney Constant violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).4 
Count Five:  By depositing $15,000 of his personal funds 
into the trust account on April 22, 2014, Attorney 
Constant violated former SCR 20:1.15(b)(3).5 
                                                 
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.   
(2) Upon final distribution of any trust property 
or upon request by the client or a 3rd party having an 
ownership interest in the property, the lawyer shall 
promptly render a full written accounting regarding the 
property. 
3 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct for 
a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation." 
4 SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) provides:   
A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the 
lawyer's own property, that property of clients and 3rd 
parties that is in the lawyer's possession in connection 
with a representation.  All funds of clients and 3rd 
parties paid to a lawyer or law firm in connection with 
a representation shall be deposited in one or more 
identifiable trust accounts.  
5 Former SCR 20:1.15(b)(3) provided:  "No funds belonging to 
the lawyer or law firm, except funds reasonably sufficient to pay 
monthly account service charges may be deposited or retained in a 
trust account." 
No. 
2017AP666-D   
 
9 
 
Count Six:  By making 13 withdrawals totaling $11,730 
from his trust account for cash during October and 
November, 2014, Attorney Constant violated former 
SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)a.6 
Count Seven:  By making several non-wire, direct, 
electronic transfers of funds from his trust account to 
his business account between July 1, 2013 and December 
2014, 
Attorney 
Constant 
violated 
former 
SCR 20:1.15(e)(4).7 
                                                 
6 Former SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)a. provided:  "No disbursement of 
cash shall be made from a trust account or from a deposit to a 
trust account, and no check shall be made payable to 'Cash.'" 
7 Former SCR 20:1.15(e)(4) provided: 
 
Prohibited transactions. 
a. No disbursement of cash shall be made from a 
trust account or from a deposit to a trust 
account, and no check shall be made payable to 
'Cash.' 
b. No disbursement deposits or disbursement shall 
be made to or from a pooled trust account by a 
telephone transfer of funds.  This section does 
not prohibit any of the following: 
1. wire transfers. 
2. telephone transfers between non-pooled draft and 
non-pooled non-draft trust accounts that a 
lawyer maintains for a particular client. 
c. A 
lawyer 
shall 
not 
make 
deposits 
to 
or 
disbursements from a trust account by way of an 
Internet transaction. 
d. A lawyer shall not authorize a 3rd party to 
electronically withdraw funds from a trust 
account.  A lawyer shall not authorize a 3rd 
party to deposit funds into the lawyer's trust 
account through a form of electronic deposit that 
allows the 3rd party making the deposit to 
withdraw the funds without the permission of the 
lawyer. 
No. 
2017AP666-D   
 
10 
 
Count Eight:  By failing to maintain the requisite client 
trust account records, such as a transaction register, 
individual client ledgers, deposit records, disbursement 
records, monthly statements and reconciliation reports, 
Attorney Constant violated former SCR 20:1.15(f)(1).8 
Count Nine:  By falsely stating in a letter to the OLR 
dated February 15, 2015 that he did not withdraw cash 
                                                 
8 Former SCR 20:1.15(f)(1) provided:  
Complete records of a trust account that is a draft 
account shall include a transaction register; individual 
client ledgers for IOLTA accounts and other pooled trust 
accounts; a ledger for account fees and charges, if law 
firm funds are held in the account pursuant to sub. 
(b)(3); deposit records; disbursement records; monthly 
statements; and reconciliation reports, subject to all 
of the following: 
a. The transaction register shall contain a 
chronological record of all account transactions, and 
shall include all of the following:  
1. the date, source, and amount of all deposits; 
2. the date, check or transaction number, payee and 
amount of all disbursements, whether by check, wire 
transfer, or other means; 
3. the date and amount of every other deposit or 
deduction of whatever nature; 
4. the identity of the client for whom funds were 
deposited or disbursed; and 
5. the balance in the account after each transaction.   
No. 
2017AP666-D   
 
11 
 
from his trust account, Attorney Constant violated 
SCR 22.03(6);9 via SCR 20:8.4(h).10 
¶25 Attorney Constant filed an answer and affirmative 
defenses on May 26, 2017.  The referee was appointed on June 5, 
2017.  During the course of the proceeding, the OLR voluntarily 
dismissed Count Nine of its complaint.  An evidentiary hearing was 
held on November 5, 2018.  The witnesses at the hearing were 
Attorney 
Constant, 
M.B., 
M.B.'s 
boyfriend, 
and 
an 
OLR 
investigator.   
¶26 The referee issued his report and recommendation on 
February 19, 2019.  The referee found that the OLR had proved by 
clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that Attorney 
Constant committed the remaining eight counts of misconduct 
alleged in the OLR's complaint.  Although the OLR had sought a 
two-year suspension of Attorney Constant's Wisconsin law license, 
the referee concluded that a five-month suspension was an 
appropriate sanction for Attorney Constant's misconduct.   
¶27 The referee said that the misconduct at issue here is 
serious.  He noted the violations of trust account rules were 
multiple and occurred over a number of years.  The referee pointed 
                                                 
9 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." 
10 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. 
2017AP666-D   
 
12 
 
out that Attorney Constant's area of practice was in the field of 
personal injury law, and he said Attorney Constant's failure to 
provide written notices to M.B. regarding the receipt of settlement 
funds and then not providing an accurate settlement statement at 
the conclusion of the case were major violations of the duties 
owed to his client. 
¶28 The referee also said Attorney Constant's practice of 
electronic transfers and multiple cash withdrawals that were not 
allocated to a specific client appear to be part of an effort to 
convert funds from the client and to conceal Attorney Constant's 
wrongdoing by intentionally violating supreme court rules.  The 
referee said the deposit of Attorney Constant's own funds into his 
trust account to avoid an overdraft grossly represented a knowing 
and intentional rule violation.  Further, the referee said Attorney 
Constant took no action to reconcile the differences between his 
trust account bank records and his own business records.  The 
referee noted that in M.B.'s case, these failures occurred 
repeatedly over more than two years.  The referee said Attorney 
Constant's actions and non-actions were consistent with not caring 
about the problems in his trust account or not wanting to take 
actions to correct those problems. 
¶29 The referee went on to say Attorney Constant has avoided 
responsibility for his actions throughout the OLR's investigation.  
The referee said Attorney Constant consistently blamed others 
without any corroboration.  Attorney Constant blamed the Quicken 
software program he used; he blamed unnamed employees at U.S. Bank 
who he claimed gave him incorrect instructions on how to operate 
No. 
2017AP666-D   
 
13 
 
his trust account; he claimed his own trust account and business 
bank records should not have been admitted into evidence; and he 
excused his misconduct by noting that neither M.B. nor the 
lienholders in her case suffered any loss.  The referee said this 
type of rationalization indicated a lack of insight into the 
misconduct and showed that Attorney Constant had no remorse for 
his improper actions.  The referee said it was critically important 
that the seriousness of his wrongdoing be impressed upon Attorney 
Constant.   
¶30 The referee also found a number of mitigating factors.  
The referee noted that Attorney Constant has practiced law in 
Wisconsin for over 50 years and has not previously been the subject 
of any disciplinary action.  The referee also said that Attorney 
Constant has brought credit to the legal profession by his many 
positive community involvements in the city and county of Kenosha.  
In addition, for over ten years Attorney Constant provided pro 
bono legal services through Legal Action of Wisconsin.  In the 
1980s Attorney Constant was a charter member of Kenoshans Against 
Sexual Assault, and he also served on the Board of Directors for 
the Salvation Army for many years. 
¶31 The referee said Attorney Constant brought forward a 
basketball analogy of "no harm/no foul" to support his position 
that M.B. and all of the lienholders in her case did ultimately 
receive all of the money that was due them.  The referee said this 
attitude was consistent with Attorney Constant's assertion that he 
did nothing that constituted a violation of supreme court rules. 
No. 
2017AP666-D   
 
14 
 
¶32 The referee ultimately concluded that a five-month 
suspension of Attorney Constant's Wisconsin law license was an 
appropriate sanction for his misconduct.  In support of his 
recommendation, the referee cited In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against McClure, 2015 WI 25, 361 Wis. 2d 339, 860 N.W.2d 474.  
Attorney McClure stipulated to 11 counts of misconduct involving 
trust account violations, and various other counts of misconduct.  
The referee in that case found Attorney McClure to be generally 
remorseful.  Attorney McClure fully cooperated with the OLR, and 
the OLR did not dispute the fact that Attorney McClure was faced 
with a multitude of personal problems during the time period at 
issue. 
¶33 In addition to a five-month suspension, the referee in 
the instant case also recommends that Attorney Constant should be 
ordered to attend and successfully complete 12 hours of continuing 
legal education (CLE) courses approved in advance by the OLR; at 
least six hours of which should be in OLR approved courses relating 
to proper trust account management.  Further, the referee 
recommends that if Attorney Constant desires to resume the practice 
of law, he should have his trust account monitored by the OLR for 
at least two years.  The referee also recommends that Attorney 
Constant be ordered to pay the full costs of the proceeding. 
¶34 In his appeal, Attorney Constant argues that the OLR 
mistakenly allowed his U.S. Bank records into evidence at the 
evidentiary hearing because the certification by a U.S. Bank 
officer was supported by an insufficient affidavit.  He also 
asserts that the bank records received into evidence were 
No. 
2017AP666-D   
 
15 
 
insufficient to meet the OLR's burden of proof.  Finally, he 
asserts that a five-month suspension of his license to practice 
law is excessive.  He argues that a public reprimand, or at most, 
a 60-day suspension, would be an appropriate sanction. 
¶35 Attorney Constant maintains that he returned M.B.'s 
entire file to her, whereas M.B. and her boyfriend both testified 
that she did not receive her complete file.  The referee found the 
testimony of M.B. and her boyfriend to be more credible than 
Attorney Constant's testimony on this issue.  Attorney Constant 
argued that his testimony should have been believed.  He says the 
record contained a statement that M.B. had a criminal record, and 
he argues the referee should have made a specific finding of fact 
on that point. 
¶36 As to the appropriate sanction, Attorney Constant agrees 
that the referee engaged in a detailed thoughtful analysis of the 
mitigating factors; however, he says even a five-month suspension 
is too much and a public reprimand or a sixty-day suspension is 
adequate. 
¶37 The OLR responds to Attorney Constant's appeal by 
arguing that the referee correctly admitted the certified U.S. 
Bank records into evidence.  The OLR notes Wisconsin allows self-
authenticating documents to be admitted into evidence based on 
circumstances, and pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 909.02(12)(a), 
"extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to 
admissibility is not required" for certified domestic records of 
regularly conducted activity.  The referee notes that at the 
No. 
2017AP666-D   
 
16 
 
evidentiary hearing, the U.S. Bank certified records were 
accompanied by an affidavit that included the following language: 
The documents delivered with this Affidavit in response 
to the Subpoena represent true and correct copies of 
documents which are in our files.  These records were 
prepared in the ordinary course of business at or near 
the time of the act, condition or event. 
¶38 The OLR says Wis. Stat. § 909.02(12) does not require 
the person certifying the record to state the source of their 
knowledge.  The OLR says the U.S. Bank certification met the 
statutory requirements, and the referee properly admitted the bank 
documents into the record. 
¶39 The OLR says this court should affirm the referee's 
finding that Attorney Constant did not give M.B. her entire client 
file.  The OLR notes when testimony is conflicting, the referee is 
the ultimate arbiter of witness credibility.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Pump, 120 Wis. 2d 422, 426-27, 
355 N.W.2d 248 (1984). 
¶40 In its cross-appeal, the OLR argues that a five-month 
suspension is inadequate due to the nature and severity of Attorney 
Constant's misconduct.  The OLR advocates for a suspension of a 
least one year. 
¶41 The OLR argues that Attorney Constant's trust account 
violations were systemic and intentional.  It also says Attorney 
Constant's inability to identify whose funds he used for expenses 
and disbursement from his trust account demonstrates that the true 
extent of the trust account misconduct is unknown.  The OLR argues 
that in addition to a suspension of at least one year, this court 
No. 
2017AP666-D   
 
17 
 
should follow the referee's recommendation that Attorney Constant 
have his trust account monitored for two years after reinstatement. 
¶42 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless clearly 
erroneous.  Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 
Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  The court may impose whatever sanction 
it sees fit, regardless 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. 
¶43 From our review of the record, we find there has been no 
showing that any of the referee's findings of fact are clearly 
erroneous.  Accordingly, we adopt them.  We further agree with the 
referee's conclusions of law that Attorney Constant violated the 
supreme court rules set forth above.  We specifically find that 
Attorney Constant's challenge to the admissibility of his U.S. 
Bank records is meritless, and we find no basis to disturb the 
referee's credibility finding with respect to whether Attorney 
Constant returned M.B.'s entire client file. 
¶44 Turning to the appropriate level of discipline, we 
conclude that a six-month suspension of Attorney Constant's law 
license, which will require him to file a formal petition for 
reinstatement, is appropriate.   
¶45 Although no two disciplinary proceedings are identical, 
we agree with the referee that this case is somewhat similar to 
McClure.  However, whereas Attorney McClure fully cooperated with 
the OLR and entered into a stipulation whereby he admitted 
virtually all of the facts alleged in the complaint, Attorney 
No. 
2017AP666-D   
 
18 
 
Constant provided the OLR with incomplete and inconsistent trust 
account and client records, and he represented that he had not 
made cash withdrawals from his trust account when in fact he had 
done so.  In addition, unlike Attorney McClure, who the referee 
found to be genuinely remorseful and was dealing with a variety of 
personal problems during the time the misconduct occurred, 
Attorney Constant has consistently maintained that he did nothing 
wrong.  Imposing a six-month suspension, which will require 
Attorney Constant to petition for reinstatement, will provide 
assurance that he can be safely recommended to the profession, the 
courts, and the public as a person who is fit and capable to 
practice law in this state. 
¶46 We also agree with the referee that in the event Attorney 
Constant's license is reinstated, he should be required to 
successfully complete 12 hours of CLE courses approved in advance 
by the OLR, at least six of which should relate to properly 
managing a trust account and he should have his trust account 
monitored by the OLR for at least two years.  As is our usual 
custom, we find it appropriate to assess the full costs of this 
proceeding against Attorney Constant.  Since the OLR states that 
Attorney Constant made full restitution to M.B., we do not impose 
a restitution award. 
¶47 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Terry L. Constant to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six months, 
effective March 10, 2020. 
¶48 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of the 
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin, Terry 
No. 
2017AP666-D   
 
19 
 
L. Constant shall be required to successfully complete 12 hours of 
continuing legal education courses approved in advance by the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, at least six of which hours shall be 
in courses relating to properly managing a trust account. 
¶49 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of the 
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin, Terry 
L. Constant shall have his trust account monitored by the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation for a period of two years. 
¶50 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Terry L. Constant 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. 
¶51 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of 
this order, Terry L. Constant shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $13,409.63 as 
of December 10, 2019. 
¶52 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.29(4). 
 
No.  2017AP666-D.bh 
 
1 
 
¶53 BRIAN HAGEDORN, J. (dissenting).  I would adopt the 
referee's recommendation of a five-month license suspension rather 
than 
the 
six-month 
suspension 
imposed 
by 
the 
majority.  
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. 
 
 
No.  2017AP666-D.bh 
 
 
 
1