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

Citation: 2009 WI 103

Docket Number: 2009AP000353-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2009-12-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
2009 WI 103 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2009AP353-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Terry L. Nussberger,  Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Terry L. Nussberger, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST NUSSBERGER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 4, 2009   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2009 WI 103
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2009AP353-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Terry L. Nussberger, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Terry L. Nussberger, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
DEC 4, 2009 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the stipulation filed by the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Terry L. 
Nussberger regarding his professional misconduct in handling the 
probate of the estate of V.K.  The OLR and Attorney Nussberger 
stipulate Attorney Nussberger violated his duties of competence 
and diligence in probating the estate and agree the appropriate 
discipline would be a public reprimand.   
No. 
2009AP353-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Upon our independent review, we adopt the stipulated 
facts and accept the stipulation.  Given the nature of the 
misconduct in this matter, we conclude Attorney Nussberger's 
professional misconduct warrants a public reprimand.  
¶3 
Attorney Nussberger was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1983 and practices in Ladysmith.  On March 29, 
2003, Attorney Nussberger received a public reprimand for 
misconduct that violated SCR 20:8.4(c).  See Public Reprimand of 
Terry L. Nussberger, 2003-6.  On August 8, 2006, Attorney 
Nussberger's license to practice law was suspended for 60 days, 
effective September 11, 2006, for counseling a client to engage 
in conduct that he knew was criminal or fraudulent, contrary to 
SCR 20:1.2(d).  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Terry 
L. Nussberger, 2006 WI 111, ¶25, 296 Wis. 2d 47, 719 N.W.2d 501.  
His license was reinstated on November 10, 2006.   
¶4 
The current disciplinary matter involves the probate 
of the V.K. estate.  Attorney Nussberger stipulates to having 
committed two counts of professional misconduct: 
Count One.  By failing to value the assets of the 
estate in a timely and accurate manner; by failing to 
determine whether the estate was required to file state and 
federal estate tax returns prior to the filing deadlines; 
and by preparing and filing an inventory and amended 
inventory that incorrectly used the redemption value of the 
No. 
2009AP353-D   
 
3 
 
decedent's savings bonds rather than the date of death 
value, Attorney Nussberger violated SCR 20:1.1.1 
Count Two.  By failing to file an estate inventory 
until almost a year after the filing deadline and by 
failing to file estate tax returns for almost three years 
after the filing deadline, Attorney Nussberger violated SCR 
20:1.3.2 
¶5 
The following facts are stipulated.  V.K. died on 
August 21, 2001, leaving a will dividing her estate among her 
beneficiaries.  Attorney Nussberger was retained to probate her 
estate and filed a formal probate petition on November 29, 2001.  
On January 14, 2002, R.G. was named personal representative.   
¶6 
R.G. gave to Attorney Nussberger V.K.'s U.S. savings 
bonds with a total face value of $77,825 and accrued interest.  
The remaining estate assets consisted of certificates of 
deposit, personal property, bank accounts, and a home.  The 
value of these remaining assets totaled $278,000. 
¶7 
On January 17, 2002, Attorney Nussberger wrote to R.G. 
indicating the value of the savings bonds had not yet been 
determined but that Attorney Nussberger would take care of the 
valuation promptly.  To file an estate inventory and determine 
whether the estate needed to file tax returns, a determination 
                                                 
1 SCR 
20:1.1 
provides that, "A lawyer shall provide 
competent representation to a client.  Competent representation 
requires 
the 
legal 
knowledge, 
skill, 
thoroughness 
and 
preparation reasonably necessary for the representation." 
2 SCR 20:1.3 provides that, "A lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client."   
No. 
2009AP353-D   
 
4 
 
of the bonds' date of death value was necessary.  If the total 
value of the estate exceeded $675,000, the estate would have 
been required to file state and federal estate tax returns or 
file within nine months of the date of death an extension 
request with an estimated tax payment.  The filing deadline was 
May 21, 2002.   
¶8 
R.G. redeemed the U.S. savings bonds in two groups.  
He redeemed the first group on September 23, 2002, for a total 
of $369,557.84.  He redeemed the second group on October 15, 
2002, for a total of $90,791.12.  Because the bonds' redemption 
and other estate assets totaled $738,348.96, an estate tax 
return was required.  
¶9 
Attorney Nussberger failed to determine whether the 
estate's value exceeded $675,000 and did not file estate tax 
returns in 2002.  Also, an estate inventory was required to have 
been filed within six months of the personal representative's 
appointment.  Attorney Nussberger did not file an estate 
inventory by the July 14, 2002, deadline.   
¶10 On June 6, 2003, Attorney Nussberger filed an estate 
inventory inaccurately listing the total estate value as 
$647,928.  The inventory omitted the bonds redeemed in October 
2002 and erroneously valued the other bonds at their redemption 
value, rather than their date of death value.  In June or July 
2003 Attorney Nussberger realized the bonds redeemed in October 
2002 had been omitted from the inventory.  He stipulates he 
should have also realized at this time that an estate tax return 
was required.  Although Attorney Nussberger charged the estate 
No. 
2009AP353-D   
 
5 
 
for one hour of his time to review the bonds' values, he failed 
to determine their date of death values.  
¶11 In September 2003 V.K.'s house was sold.  Upon the 
completion of the sale all estate assets had been liquidated.  
Therefore, the estate could have been closed after the filing of 
a final account and final tax returns.  Other than filing a 
fiduciary income tax return prepared by the estate's accountant, 
nothing happened to close the estate for the next year.   
¶12 On September 27, 2004, over a year after Attorney 
Nussberger determined he had inadvertently omitted the bonds 
redeemed on October 2002 from the estate inventory, he filed an 
amended inventory listing a total estate value of $738,719, with 
the bonds still listed at their redemption value rather than 
their date of death value.  In January 2005 the estate's 
accountant provided Attorney Nussberger with the bonds' date of 
death value.  
¶13 On January 13, 2005, Attorney Nussberger filed a 
second amended inventory listing the bonds' date of death value 
and showing a total estate value of $726,222.50.  Also in 
January 2005 Attorney Nussberger filed an untimely Wisconsin 
estate tax return, resulting in a $500 late penalty and 
$8,946.79 in interest.  In April 2005 a federal estate tax 
return was filed and no tax was owed.   
¶14 On January 20, 2005, Attorney Nussberger filed a 
petition for an extension to close the estate, stating that he 
was waiting for a Wisconsin Department of Revenue certificate.  
On January 28, 2005, three and one-half years after the date of 
No. 
2009AP353-D   
 
6 
 
death, 
Attorney 
Nussberger 
wrote 
to 
the 
estate's 
heirs, 
explaining that an accurate valuation of the estate had been 
accomplished.  When R.G. questioned Attorney Nussberger about 
the interest and penalty charges totaling $9,446.79 on the 
Wisconsin estate tax return, Attorney Nussberger responded that 
"no one had any idea that the assets would surpass the [estate 
tax] limit and that an Estate Tax return would even have to be 
filed."  
¶15 On November 28, 2005, Attorney Nussberger filed a 
final account and, on January 6, 2006, filed an amended final 
account.  At the February 2006 hearing on the final account, 
R.G. alleged Attorney Nussberger should be held responsible for 
the $500 penalty and $8,946.79 interest for the late estate tax 
return.  The court deferred action on the final account and the 
estate remained open.  A new attorney was hired to complete 
probate.   
¶16 In the OLR's memorandum filed in support of the 
stipulated discipline of a public reprimand, the OLR states it 
has considered Attorney Nussberger's disciplinary history and 
the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions.  The OLR relies 
on the case of the Public Reprimand of James Moldenhauer, 
2008-01, involving failure to close an estate with diligence, 
failure to respond to client's request for information, and 
failure to appear at hearings.  Attorney Moldenhauer had 
previously received one private reprimand and one public 
reprimand.   
No. 
2009AP353-D   
 
7 
 
¶17 The OLR says that as mitigating factors, Attorney 
Nussberger lacked a dishonest or selfish motive, made a full 
disclosure, and evinced a cooperative attitude.  The OLR notes, 
however, that Attorney Nussberger's misconduct evinces certain 
aggravating 
factors: 
 
Attorney 
Nussberger's 
disciplinary 
history, his initial refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing, his 
substantial experience, his failure to compensate the estate for 
over $9,000 in tax penalties and interest, and the fact that the 
estate had been harmed by these charges.  The OLR states that 
Attorney Nussberger failed to show remorse and his prior 
disciplinary proceedings were not remote.   
¶18 The OLR does not seek costs.  The OLR explains its 
practice is not to seek a cost assessment against a respondent 
who enters into a comprehensive stipulation that is approved by 
the court because, in such circumstances, the respondent has 
been fully cooperative in the litigation process with the effect 
of limiting the expenditure of OLR resources.  The OLR requests 
the 
court 
approve 
the 
parties' 
stipulation 
without 
the 
appointment of a referee. 
¶19 Pursuant to SCR 22.12(1), this court may consider a 
complaint and stipulation without the appointment of a referee.  
If this court approves the stipulation, it shall adopt the 
stipulated 
facts 
and 
conclusions 
of 
law 
and 
impose 
the 
stipulated discipline.  See SCR 22.12(2).  If the court rejects 
the stipulation, a referee shall be appointed and the matter 
No. 
2009AP353-D   
 
8 
 
shall proceed as a complaint filed without a stipulation.  See 
SCR 22.12(3).3 
¶20 The 
stipulation 
demonstrates 
that 
Attorney 
Nussberger's misconduct harmed the estate by the belated filing 
of the estate tax return that resulted in $9,446.79 in penalties 
and interest.  Because of our concern that the stipulation does 
not address restitution, we ordered the parties to explain why 
their stipulation does not provide for restitution of the tax 
penalties and interest the estate incurred due to Attorney 
Nussberger's misconduct.  The OLR responded that its policy, 
formulated in 2007, is to seek restitution only under the 
following circumstances: 
• 
The grievant's or respondent's rights in a collateral 
proceeding will not likely be prejudiced; 
• 
The funds to be restored do not constitute incidental 
or consequential damages; 
                                                 
3 SCRs 
22.12(1), 
(2), 
and 
(3) 
provide 
as 
follows:  Stipulation. 
(1) The director may file with the complaint a 
stipulation of the director and the respondent to the 
facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and 
discipline to be imposed.  The supreme court may 
consider the complaint and stipulation without the 
appointment of a referee.   
(2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation, 
it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of 
law and impose the stipulated discipline. 
(3) If the supreme court rejects the stipulation, 
a referee shall be appointed and the matter shall 
proceed as a complaint filed without a stipulation. 
No. 
2009AP353-D   
 
9 
 
• 
The funds to be restored were in the respondent 
lawyer's direct control; and 
• 
There is a reasonably ascertainable amount. 
¶21 The OLR states that although the V.K. estate incurred 
consequential damages in penalties and interest, and the amount 
is reasonably ascertainable, the funds were never under Attorney 
Nussberger's direct control.  The OLR says that to be consistent 
with its 2007 policy, it decided not to pursue restitution.  The 
OLR notes that its policy regarding restitution does not bind 
this court and, in a 1997 case involving similar misconduct, the 
court ordered restitution.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against 
Langer, 
213 
Wis. 2d 125, 
569 
N.W.2d 465 
(1997).  
Attorney Nussberger filed a short response stating restitution 
should not be ordered based on the OLR's policy. 
¶22 It is this court's responsibility to determine the 
appropriate level of discipline.  See SCR 21.16;4 see also In re 
                                                 
4 SCR 21.16 provides as follows:  Discipline.   
(1m) Any of the following may be imposed on an 
attorney as discipline for misconduct pursuant to the 
procedure set forth in SCR chapter 22: 
(a) Revocation of license to practice law. 
(b) Suspension of license to practice law. 
(c) Public or private reprimand. 
(d) Conditions on the continued practice of law. 
(e) Monetary payment.  
(em) Restitution, as provided under sub. (2m). 
(f) Conditions on seeking license reinstatement. 
No. 
2009AP353-D   
 
10 
 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Steinberg, 2007 WI 113, ¶20, 
304 Wis. 2d 577, 735 N.W.2d 527.  This court considers the 
seriousness of the misconduct, the need to protect the public, 
the courts, and the legal system from repetition of misconduct, 
the need to impress upon the attorney the seriousness of the 
misconduct, and the need to deter other attorneys from engaging 
in similar misconduct.  See id.  Discipline may include 
restitution 
"to 
the 
person 
whose 
money 
or 
property 
was 
misappropriated or misapplied in the amount or value of such 
money or property as found in the disciplinary proceedings."  
See SCR 21.16(1m)(em) and (2m).  
                                                                                                                                                             
(2m) (a) An attorney may be ordered to do any of 
the following as restitution under sub. (1m)(em): 
1. Pay monetary restitution to the person whose 
money or property was misappropriated or misapplied in 
the amount or value of such money or property as found 
in the disciplinary proceedings.   
2. Reimburse the Wisconsin lawyers' fund for 
client protection for awards made to the person whose 
money or property was misappropriated or misapplied. 
(b) Any payment made as restitution under par. 
(a) does not limit, preclude or impair any liability 
for damages in any civil action or proceeding for an 
amount in excess of the payment. 
(c) Upon ordering restitution to the Wisconsin 
lawyers' fund for client protection under par. (a)2., 
the supreme court shall issue a judgment and furnish a 
transcript 
of 
the 
judgment 
to 
the 
Fund. 
 
The 
transcript of the judgment may be filed and docketed 
in the office of the clerk of court in any county and 
shall have the same force and effect as judgments 
docketed under ss. 809.25 and 806.16, stats. 
No. 
2009AP353-D   
 
11 
 
¶23 We 
note 
restitution 
has 
been 
imposed 
under 
circumstances similar to those presented here.  See In re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Losby, 
2008 
WI 
8, 
306 
Wis. 2d 303, 
743 
N.W.2d 819 
(restitution 
of 
interest 
and 
penalties incurred by estate due to attorney misconduct imposed 
as a condition of reinstatement); In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against 
Seehafer, 
108 
Wis. 2d 578, 
322 
N.W.2d 888 
(1982) 
(stipulation included the imposition of restitution of interest 
and penalties incurred by estate due to attorney misconduct).  
Nonetheless, while this court frequently imposes restitution, 
historically the purpose of lawyer discipline is not to make 
whole 
those harmed 
by attorney misconduct.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Harman, 137 Wis. 2d 148, 150, 
403 N.W.2d 459 (1987).   
¶24 We are satisfied that a public reprimand of Attorney 
Nussberger will achieve the objectives of lawyer discipline.  We 
therefore adopt the stipulation that Attorney Nussberger has 
committed the two counts of misconduct charged in the OLR 
complaint.  We impose the stipulated discipline and do not 
impose costs or restitution.  We place considerable weight on 
Attorney Nussberger's admission of his misconduct, his full 
disclosure, and his cooperative attitude.   
¶25 We are mindful that Attorney Nussberger has failed to 
compensate the estate for more than $9,000 in penalties and 
interest incurred as a result of his misconduct.  The court will 
review with the OLR the broader issue of its policies with 
respect to seeking restitution.  In approving the stipulation, 
No. 
2009AP353-D   
 
12 
 
we note that Attorney Nussberger's stipulation to his lack of 
competence and diligence in handling the estate and his 
agreement to a public reprimand does not detract from the 
grievant's right to any civil remedy against Attorney Nussberger 
for harm suffered as a result of his misconduct.   
¶26 We 
adopt 
the 
stipulated 
facts 
and 
recommended 
discipline.  We caution Attorney Nussberger of the seriousness 
of his misconduct.  We remind Attorney Nussberger that the court 
may impose progressively severe sanctions when an attorney 
engages in a pattern of misconduct.  See Nussberger, 296 
Wis. 2d 47, ¶27.  A pattern of repetitive misconduct is 
unacceptable.  See id.  We accept the stipulation with the 
expectation that Attorney Nussberger will not commit conduct 
subjecting him to future discipline.   
¶27 IT IS ORDERED that Attorney Terry L. Nussberger is 
publicly reprimanded as discipline for professional misconduct. 
 
No. 
2009AP353-D   
 
 
 
1