Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Steven Cohen

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2015AP001350-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2017-11-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
2017 WI 96 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2015AP1350-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Steven Cohen, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Steven Cohen, 
          Respondent-Petitioner. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST COHEN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 17, 2017 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
June 20, 2017   
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
For the respondent-petitioner, there was a brief filed by 
Steven M. Cohen and Cohen Law Office, Madison. 
 
For the complainant-respondent there was a brief filed by 
Denis R. Vogel and Wheeler, Van Sickle & Anderson, S.C., 
Madison. 
 
 
2017 WI 96
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2015AP1350-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Steven Cohen, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Steven Cohen, 
 
          Respondent-Petitioner. 
 
FILED 
 
NOV 17, 2017 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney Steven Cohen has appealed a 
report filed by Referee James C. Boll, Jr. concluding that 
Attorney Cohen committed four counts of professional misconduct 
and recommending that Attorney Cohen's license to practice law 
in Wisconsin be suspended for four months.  Attorney Cohen 
entered into a stipulation whereby he agreed that the facts 
alleged in the amended complaint filed by the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR) could be used to form a basis for his 
No. 
2015AP1350-D   
 
2 
 
admissions to the first three counts of misconduct alleged in 
the amended complaint.  In his appeal, Attorney Cohen argues 
that the evidence was insufficient to support the referee's 
finding of misconduct with respect to count four of the amended 
complaint.  He also argues that mitigating circumstances support 
a lesser sanction than the four-month suspension recommended by 
the referee. 
¶2 
Upon careful review of this matter, we uphold all of 
the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law and 
conclude that a four-month suspension of Attorney Cohen's 
license to practice law is an appropriate sanction for his 
misconduct.  As is our usual custom, we also find that Attorney 
Cohen should be required to pay the full costs of this 
proceeding, which are $8,608.20 as of July 10, 2017.   
¶3 
Attorney Cohen was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1996.  He practices in Madison, Wisconsin.  In 
2007, he received a private reprimand as the result of a 
conviction for one count of misdemeanor disorderly conduct that 
stemmed from an altercation involving Attorney Cohen and his 
wife.  See Private Reprimand No. 2007-28 (electronic copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/002019.html). 
¶4 
On July 8, 2015, the OLR filed a complaint against 
Attorney Cohen.  Attorney Cohen filed an answer on August 10, 
2015.  The referee was appointed on October 15, 2015.  The OLR 
filed an amended complaint on March 3, 2016.   
No. 
2015AP1350-D   
 
3 
 
¶5 
Count one of the amended complaint arose out of an 
incident that occurred in the course of Attorney Cohen's 
representation of R.S., who is serving a life sentence for a 
homicide conviction.  On October 18, 2013, Attorney Cohen 
traveled to the Columbia Correctional Institution to meet with 
R.S.  Attorney Cohen carried with him a black bag containing 
pens, transcripts, and papers.  He also brought a white pastry 
bag containing two crème-filled donuts and hard boiled eggs.  
Attorney Cohen informed correctional officers that he had 
brought his lunch with him. 
¶6 
Attorney Cohen met with R.S. for several hours.  At 
some point correctional officers moved them to a different room.  
When leaving the room, R.S. threw Attorney Cohen's white pastry 
bag into a trash container.  An officer searched the discarded 
bag and found a leftover donut and a toothbrush package with the 
toothbrushes removed.  A subsequent search of R.S. and his 
belongings revealed two toothbrushes and a 1.5 ounce container 
of McCormick brand red pepper.  The toothbrushes and pepper had 
been secreted by Attorney Cohen into the prison in a legal 
folder. 
¶7 
According to prison authorities, the toothbrushes were 
heavier than the ones available to inmates at the prison canteen 
and could be fashioned into shanks.  The authorities also 
concluded that the crushed red pepper could be made into a 
pepper spray.   
¶8 
When correctional officers interviewed Attorney Cohen 
about the items, he denied knowing anything about them.  
No. 
2015AP1350-D   
 
4 
 
Following additional investigation, Attorney Cohen was arrested 
for 
delivering 
contraband 
into 
the 
Columbia 
Correctional 
Institution.  In February of 2014, the Columbia County district 
attorney filed a complaint charging Attorney Cohen with one 
felony count of delivering illegal articles to an inmate and one 
misdemeanor count of resisting or obstructing an officer. 
¶9 
On November 14, 2014, Attorney Cohen pled no contest 
and was found guilty of one felony count of delivery of illegal 
articles to an inmate, one count of misdemeanor obstructing an 
officer, and one count of misdemeanor disorderly conduct.  The 
circuit court withheld judgment on the felony count pursuant to 
a deferred entry of judgment agreement.  It entered judgment on 
the two misdemeanor counts.  The court deferred sentencing on 
those two counts and placed Attorney Cohen on probation for two 
years with conditions including counseling, costs, electronic 
monitoring, and 60 days of incarceration in the county jail with 
Huber privileges. 
¶10 Count one of the OLR's amended complaint alleged: 
Count One:  By engaging in acts leading to a finding 
of guilt for delivery of illegal articles to an 
inmate, 
and, 
in 
addition, 
for 
acts 
leading 
to 
convictions for resisting or obstructing an officer 
and 
disorderly 
conduct, 
Attorney 
Cohen 
violated 
SCR 20:8.4(b).1 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:8.4(b) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on 
the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in 
other respects." 
No. 
2015AP1350-D   
 
5 
 
¶11 The remaining three counts of misconduct alleged in 
the 
amended 
complaint 
arose 
out 
of 
Attorney 
Cohen's 
representation of C.S.  In October of 2012, C.S. was charged 
with criminal operating while under the influence of an 
intoxicant.  C.S. hired Attorney Cohen to represent him and paid 
advanced fees totaling $2,500.  Attorney Cohen deposited all of 
the funds received into his client trust account.  Attorney 
Cohen did not prepare a written fee communication to C.S. 
identifying the scope of the representation, the basis or rate 
of the fee, or the purpose and effect of the $2,500 advanced 
fee. 
¶12 After advancing the fees to Attorney Cohen, C.S. 
attempted to reach Attorney Cohen by telephone but was unable to 
adequately communicate and discuss the circumstances of the case 
with him.  On January 7, 2013, C.S. terminated Attorney Cohen's 
representation 
by 
sending 
a 
handwritten 
letter 
asserting 
Attorney Cohen had not returned his calls or discussed his case 
with him.  C.S. demanded a full refund of the advanced fee.   
¶13 On January 20, 2013, Attorney Cohen responded in 
writing to C.S.'s termination letter and forwarded his file to 
C.S.  Attorney Cohen said he would discuss with C.S. a partial 
fee refund.  According to Attorney Cohen, he communicated 
adequately with C.S., including sending C.S. emails.  However, 
C.S. asserted that he did not have an email address and that 
Attorney Cohen's statements that he had ever emailed C.S. were 
false.  During OLR's investigation, Attorney Cohen was unable to 
provide 
documentation 
demonstrating 
that 
he 
communicated 
No. 
2015AP1350-D   
 
6 
 
adequately with C.S. by telephone, email, or otherwise, or that 
he responded to C.S.'s reasonable requests for information.  
Attorney Cohen ultimately refunded $1,250 to C.S.  The OLR's 
amended complaint alleged the following counts of misconduct 
with respect to Attorney Cohen's representation of C.S.: 
Count Two:    By charging fees over $1,000 from C.S. 
without providing a written communication of the fee 
agreement 
to 
C.S., 
including 
the 
scope 
of 
representation and the basis or rate of the fee, 
Attorney Cohen violated SCR 20:1.5(b)(1).2 
Count Three:  By receiving a $2,500 advanced fee from 
C.S. without explaining in a written fee agreement the 
purpose and effect of such advanced or retainer 
payment, Attorney Cohen violated SCR 20:1.5(b)(2).3 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) provides: 
 
The scope of the representation and the basis or 
rate of the fee and expenses for which the client will 
be responsible shall be communicated to the client in 
writing, before or within a reasonable time after 
commencing the representation, except when the lawyer 
will charge a regularly represented client on the same 
basis or rate as in the past.  If it is reasonably 
foreseeable that the total cost of representation to 
the client, including attorney's fees, will be $1000 
or less, the communication may be oral or in writing.  
Any changes in the basis or rate of the fee or 
expenses shall also be communicated in writing to the 
client.   
3 SCR 20:1.5(b)(2) provides:  "If the total cost of 
representation to the client, including attorney's fees, is more 
than $1000, the purpose and effect of any retainer or advance 
fee that is paid to the lawyer shall be communicated in 
writing." 
No. 
2015AP1350-D   
 
7 
 
Count Four:  By failing to promptly respond to his 
client by telephone, correspondence or otherwise, 
Attorney Cohen violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(4).4 
¶14 On August 31, 2016, the OLR and Attorney Cohen entered 
into a stipulation whereby Attorney Cohen admitted counts one, 
two, and three of the complaint and agreed that the facts 
alleged in the amended complaint could be used to form a basis 
to his admissions to those counts and for the referee's 
conclusions of misconduct thereon.  Attorney Cohen did not admit 
that the facts in the amended complaint were sufficient to form 
the basis for a finding of a violation of count four.  Attorney 
Cohen also did not stipulate to the OLR's request for a 60-day 
suspension of his license to practice law in Wisconsin and 
reserved the right to be heard on that issue.   
¶15 At a hearing before the referee, the OLR presented 
testimony on count four of the amended complaint in the form of 
an adverse examination of Attorney Cohen and testimony from C.S.  
In the course of the hearing, the referee advised the parties 
that they could submit additional information with post trial 
briefing, particularly with respect to a disagreement that 
emerged at the hearing concerning whether the record included a 
complete set of emails allegedly sent from Attorney Cohen to 
C.S.  At the close of the hearing, both parties declined the 
referee's invitation to submit post trial briefs.  The referee 
then closed the hearing and advised the parties that no 
                                                 
4 SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) provides:  "A lawyer shall promptly 
comply with reasonable requests by the client for information." 
No. 
2015AP1350-D   
 
8 
 
additional evidence would be admitted, except that Attorney 
Cohen was given the opportunity to submit additional email 
correspondence between himself and C.S. for the referee's 
consideration. 
¶16 The day after the hearing, Attorney Cohen sent an 
email to the referee requesting that "some papers" that he 
claimed to have submitted around March 2016 become part of the 
hearing record.  No papers were attached to Attorney Cohen's 
email.  A few days later, Attorney Cohen sent a second email to 
the referee, again referring to the "papers."  Attorney Cohen 
advised the referee that, "they were already part of the record, 
but do with them as you see fit . . .."  No documents were 
submitted to the referee in conjunction with Attorney Cohen's 
post hearing request.  The OLR advised the referee that the 
"papers" referred to by Attorney Cohen were not subject to 
examination at the evidentiary hearing.  However, the OLR said 
it did not object if the referee were to look at the "papers" 
and 
give 
them 
the 
weight, 
if 
any, 
the 
referee 
deemed 
appropriate.   
¶17 The referee filed his report on August 31, 2016.  
Based on the parties' stipulation and the record, the referee 
found that the OLR clearly and convincingly proved that Attorney 
Cohen committed all four counts of professional misconduct 
alleged in the amended complaint. 
¶18 With respect to count four of the amended complaint, 
which was the only count Attorney Cohen challenged, the referee 
noted that Attorney Cohen testified at the evidentiary hearing 
No. 
2015AP1350-D   
 
9 
 
that he did not respond to C.S.'s telephone calls because he was 
not ready to speak with C.S. and that this was "a normal trial 
tactic."  The referee also noted that Attorney Cohen testified 
another reason he did not respond to C.S. was that he urges 
clients to call him on his cell phone rather than his landline 
and C.S. called the landline.  Further, Attorney Cohen indicated 
his secretary did not take messages.  The referee said he did 
not find any of those explanations to be credible evidence to 
mitigate Attorney Cohen's lack of response to C.S. 
¶19 The referee also noted that Attorney Cohen and C.S. 
testified to email communications.  The referee said the emails 
in question appeared to have been exchanged between Attorney 
Cohen and C.S.'s new counsel, not between Attorney Cohen and 
C.S.  The emails discussed Attorney Cohen returning a portion of 
the advanced fee.  The referee found that those email 
communications occurred after C.S. had terminated Attorney Cohen 
as counsel and were not relevant to the allegation that Attorney 
Cohen failed to respond to his client.  Further, the referee 
pointed out that C.S. was facing a potential felony conviction 
and incarceration and the need for communication with his 
attorney was a serious matter.  The referee said he "does not 
find any credible evidence presented by Attorney Cohen to 
mitigate why he did not respond to [C.S.]."  Accordingly, the 
referee found that all allegations in the amended complaint, 
including the allegations in support of count four, were proven 
by the OLR by the requisite burden of proof. 
No. 
2015AP1350-D   
 
10 
 
¶20 In discussing the appropriate sanction, the referee 
noted that the OLR argued for a 60-day suspension of Attorney 
Cohen's license.  The referee noted that the case involves four 
counts of professional misconduct against an attorney who was 
previously privately reprimanded following a disorderly conduct 
conviction.  The referee noted that the misconduct occurred in 
two separate matters, one resulting in Attorney Cohen's criminal 
conviction for providing contraband to an inmate, and the other 
involving a failure to comply with supreme court rules relating 
to fee agreements and failing to adequately communicate with his 
client. 
¶21 The referee said there is not a great deal of 
precedent involving Wisconsin attorneys prosecuted for bringing 
contraband into a prison.  However, the referee noted that in In 
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mross, 2003 WI 4, 259 
Wis. 2d 8, 657 N.W.2d 342, an attorney received a 90-day 
suspension following a conviction for passing packages of 
cigarettes to multiple inmates over an extended period of time.  
The referee concluded that Attorney Cohen's behavior was more 
egregious than the conduct in Mross because the contraband 
delivered by Attorney Cohen could have been used as a weapon.  
In addition, the referee said the fact that Attorney Cohen lied 
to the authorities who questioned him after the incident was an 
aggravating factor.   
¶22 The referee said he was troubled by the fact that 
Attorney Cohen did not present any mitigating evidence about the 
prison incident either at the evidentiary hearing or as part of 
No. 
2015AP1350-D   
 
11 
 
the stipulation.  The referee further said that he was troubled 
by Attorney Cohen's behavior during the hearing.  The referee 
said, "Attorney Cohen took no responsibility for his actions.  
He demonstrated no remorse for his actions and demonstrated 
contempt for the proceedings.  Attorney Cohen did not even bring 
a file to the hearing to assist him in his representation."   
¶23 The referee agreed with the OLR's position that 
Attorney Cohen's conduct in representing C.S., standing alone, 
would not support a license suspension.  However, the referee 
said he was very troubled by the fact that Attorney Cohen, an 
experienced criminal defense attorney, furnished contraband to 
an inmate, and the referee was also troubled that Attorney Cohen 
took no responsibility for his actions and presented no 
mitigating evidence during the evidentiary hearing.  Based on 
all of those factors, the referee concluded that an appropriate 
sanction for Attorney Cohen's misconduct would be a four-month 
suspension of Attorney Cohen's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin.   
¶24 Attorney Cohen has appealed the referee's report.  His 
brief raises two issues:  (1) was the evidence of insufficient 
attorney client communication alleged in count four of the 
amended complaint clear, and were mitigating circumstances 
considered?; and (2) were there mitigating circumstances related 
to Attorney Cohen's convictions? 
¶25 After the notice of appeal was filed, Attorney Cohen 
filed a motion to correct or supplement the record with 
documents that he said were previously submitted to the OLR and 
No. 
2015AP1350-D   
 
12 
 
the referee for the purpose of supplying mitigating evidence.  
Attorney 
Cohen's 
motion 
said 
he 
mistakenly 
believed 
the 
documents were made part of the record but after the hearing 
discovered they were not in fact in the record.  The OLR filed a 
response saying it did not object to the documents being added 
to the record but that this court should "give such records only 
the 
limited 
(or 
no) 
weight 
to 
which 
they 
would 
be 
entitled, . . .."  Many of the documents relate to Attorney 
Cohen's stormy relationship with his former wife.  This court 
granted Attorney Cohen's motion to supplement the record on 
November 14, 2016.   
¶26 Attorney Cohen argues that there was insufficient 
evidence 
to 
support 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law with respect to count four of the amended 
complaint.  He further accuses the referee of failing to 
consider mitigating circumstances.  Attorney Cohen argues that 
C.S. was able to contact him approximately half of the times he 
attempted to do so.  Attorney Cohen says, "there was not a 
pattern of the client making a large number of calls that were 
cavalierly ignored over time.  The representation was short, and 
some contacts were made."   
¶27 Attorney Cohen also argues that the referee failed to 
consider mitigating circumstances relating to Attorney Cohen's 
convictions for bringing contraband into the prison.  He says 
his client wrote him a letter asking that Attorney Cohen bring a 
toothbrush and some food seasoning to the prison, and the only 
motive behind delivering those items was "from concern for the 
No. 
2015AP1350-D   
 
13 
 
care of the inmate, and desire to serve."  Attorney Cohen says 
he had been trying to do as much charitable work as possible at 
that time to help him "cope with his awful divorce, . . .."  
Attorney Cohen says he has expressed a sincere and deep regret 
for his actions, and that he has already suffered long lasting 
and damaging consequences which include loss of trust, public 
embarrassment, loss of clients, damage to personal reputation, 
and monetary loss.  Attorney Cohen says he will never make these 
same mistakes again.   
¶28 The OLR argues that the referee's findings of fact 
regarding count four of the amended complaint are not clearly 
erroneous, and the referee's conclusion of law with respect to 
that count is supported by the record.  The OLR says the referee 
was correct that Attorney Cohen offered no good reason for 
failing to return calls from C.S.  The OLR notes that while 
there 
was 
considerable 
discussion 
about 
purported 
email 
communications between Attorney Cohen and C.S., C.S. confirmed 
at the evidentiary hearing that he did not have an email address 
and did not know how to use email and that the evidence 
presented at the hearing demonstrated that the only emails that 
Attorney Cohen sent with respect to C.S.'s case were between 
Attorney Cohen and C.S.'s new counsel after C.S. had fired 
Attorney Cohen. 
¶29 The OLR says that it is reasonable for any client to 
assume that a reasonable request for information will generate a 
response from the attorney and Attorney Cohen failed to properly 
respond to C.S.  The OLR says while Attorney Cohen gave multiple 
No. 
2015AP1350-D   
 
14 
 
excuses why he did not timely respond to C.S.'s calls to him, 
the credibility of those various explanations was up to the 
trier of fact to weigh and the referee specifically said he did 
not find Attorney Cohen's explanations to be credible evidence 
to mitigate the lack of response to his client.  The OLR says 
that none of the referee's findings of fact concerning Attorney 
Cohen's representation of C.S. are clearly erroneous.   
¶30 As to the appropriate level of discipline, the OLR 
notes that it sought a 60-day license suspension and the referee 
recommended a four-month suspension.  The OLR notes that this 
court is not bound by either recommendation and is the final 
arbiter of attorney discipline in Wisconsin. 
¶31 The 
OLR 
argues 
that 
the 
supplemental 
documents 
submitted by Attorney Cohen after the notice of appeal was filed 
do not support mitigation to the extent Attorney Cohen might 
wish.  The OLR notes that Attorney Cohen's supplemental 
submission references at length his marital difficulties.  The 
OLR says while it is sympathetic to anyone experiencing stress 
or troubles, this does not explain or excuse Attorney Cohen's 
criminal actions nor does it justify his laxness toward C.S., 
who had serious criminal difficulties himself and was facing 
prison time.  
¶32 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 
No. 
2015AP1350-D   
 
15 
 
recommendation.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.   
¶33 After careful review of the matter, we conclude that 
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 Cohen violated all of the supreme court rules set forth 
above. 
¶34 With respect to the appropriate level of discipline, 
we also agree with the referee that a four-month suspension of 
Attorney Cohen's license to practice law in Wisconsin is an 
appropriate sanction.  We share the referee's concern that 
Attorney Cohen's bringing contraband into a prison, which led to 
one felony and two misdemeanor convictions, is a very serious 
offense that reflects adversely on an attorney's honesty, 
trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.   
¶35 We also agree with the referee that Attorney Cohen's 
behavior is more egregious than Attorney Mross' furnishing 
inmates with cigarettes because the contraband delivered to the 
inmate by Attorney Cohen could have been used as a weapon.  In 
addition, we note that Attorney Mross had no disciplinary 
history and there were no other counts of misconduct involved.  
By contrast, Attorney Cohen was previously reprimanded for a 
misdemeanor disorderly conduct conviction, and in addition to 
the criminal conviction this case also involves three additional 
counts 
of 
misconduct 
with 
respect 
to 
Attorney 
Cohen's 
representation of C.S.   
No. 
2015AP1350-D   
 
16 
 
¶36 Further, we concur with the referee's conclusion that 
Attorney Cohen failed to present any mitigating evidence at the 
evidentiary hearing, and we agree with the OLR that the 
documents with which we allowed Attorney Cohen to supplement the 
record to a large extent simply detail Attorney Cohen's marital 
difficulties.  As the OLR noted, while one may be sympathetic to 
anyone experiencing domestic problems, there is nothing in 
Attorney Cohen's supplemental document submission that would 
mitigate the seriousness of the offenses at issue here.  
Accordingly, we agree with the referee that a four-month 
suspension of Attorney Cohen's license is appropriate.  We also 
find it appropriate for Attorney Cohen to pay the full costs of 
the proceeding.  Attorney Cohen made a partial refund to C.S.  
At the hearing, C.S. did not seek additional restitution, and we 
do not order it. 
¶37 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Steven Cohen to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of four 
months effective December 29, 2017. 
¶38 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Steven Cohen comply with 
the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person 
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.   
¶39 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Steven Cohen pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $8,608.20.  
If the costs are not paid within the time specified, and absent 
a showing to this court of his inability to pay the costs within 
that time, the license of Steven Cohen to practice law in 
No. 
2015AP1350-D   
 
17 
 
Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the 
court. 
¶40 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2).  
 
No. 
2015AP1350-D   
 
 
 
1