Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Benjamin C. Butler

Citation: 2012 WI 37

Docket Number: 2010AP003013-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2012-04-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
2012 WI 37 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2010AP3013-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Benjamin C. Butler, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Benjamin C. Butler, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BUTLER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 4, 2012   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
ROGGENSACK, J., dissents (Opinion filed).    
CROOKS, J., joins dissent.  
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: BRADLEY, J., withdrew from participation.    
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2012 WI 37
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2010AP3013-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Benjamin C. Butler, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Benjamin C. Butler, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 4, 2012 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This is a companion case to In re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Addison, 
2012 
WI 
38 
(No. 2010AP3014-D), which is being released at the same time as 
this opinion.  Both cases involve the same underlying set of 
facts and one or more criminal convictions arising from those 
facts.  As in that proceeding, we are called upon here to decide 
whether to impose discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the 
Supreme Court of Illinois, which in this case would be a 30-day 
No. 
2010AP3013-D   
 
2 
 
suspension of the license of Attorney Benjamin C. Butler to 
practice law in Wisconsin.  Although Attorney Butler's admitted 
conduct, like the conduct of Attorney Stephan Addison, is both 
unprofessional and unseemly, and although we may have imposed a 
more severe level of discipline if the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR) had prosecuted this matter directly in the 
first instance rather than filing a reciprocal discipline 
complaint, given the standards in our rules that apply to 
reciprocal discipline situations, we determine that we must 
impose the same 30-day license suspension in this matter as the 
Supreme Court of Illinois imposed.  We do not impose costs on 
Attorney Butler, given his agreement that reciprocal discipline 
should be imposed, which obviated the need for the appointment 
of a referee and the costs of a full disciplinary proceeding. 
¶2 
On 
December 
14, 
2010, 
the 
OLR 
filed 
a 
formal 
disciplinary complaint against Attorney Butler requesting the 
imposition of reciprocal discipline and a motion requesting the 
court to issue an order to show cause to Attorney Butler.  On 
March 31, 2011, the court ordered Attorney Butler to inform the 
court of any claim, predicated on the grounds set forth in 
SCR 22.22(3),1 why the imposition of discipline identical to that 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.22(3) states as follows: 
The supreme court shall impose the identical 
discipline or license suspension unless one or more of 
the following is present: 
(a) The procedure in the other jurisdiction was 
so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to 
constitute a deprivation of due process. 
No. 
2010AP3013-D   
 
3 
 
imposed by the Supreme Court of Illinois would be unwarranted, 
and of the factual basis for any such claim.  On April 11, 2011, 
Attorney Butler filed a response stating that he was not making 
any claim under SCR 22.22(3) and that he was not raising any 
objection to the imposition of discipline identical to that 
imposed in Illinois. 
¶3 
Because this matter involves allegations of serious 
misconduct that occurred in Wisconsin and led to Attorney Butler 
being criminally convicted in a Wisconsin court following his 
no-contest plea in December 2006, on September 23, 2011, this 
court issued an order directing the OLR to advise the court as 
to why it had chosen in this matter to seek the imposition of 
reciprocal discipline under SCR 22.22 rather than to conduct its 
own investigation and pursue its own disciplinary complaint 
under SCRs 22.11 through 22.16. 
¶4 
The OLR filed a response to the court's order on 
October 12, 2011.  Its response states that it first learned of 
the criminal charges against Attorneys Butler and Addison in 
December 2005.  It opened grievance investigations against them 
at that time, but placed those investigations on hold pending 
the result of the criminal actions in Green Lake County, 
                                                                                                                                                             
(b) There 
was 
such 
an 
infirmity 
of 
proof 
establishing the misconduct or medical incapacity that 
the supreme court could not accept as final the 
conclusion in respect to the misconduct or medical 
incapacity. 
(c) The 
misconduct 
justifies 
substantially 
different discipline in this state. 
No. 
2010AP3013-D   
 
4 
 
Wisconsin.  The OLR's response indicates that, for a number of 
reasons, it will commonly place investigations in which there 
are pending criminal charges on hold until those criminal 
charges have been resolved. 
¶5 
In this situation, after the OLR received notice of 
the convictions and sentences imposed on Attorneys Butler and 
Addison in December 2006, it reopened its investigations.  
Approximately one month later, however, it was notified that the 
Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (the 
Illinois Commission) had also opened a grievance investigation 
against Attorneys Butler and Addison.  The Illinois Commission 
expressly informed the OLR that it had set aside resources to 
conduct an investigation that would go beyond the record 
compiled in the criminal case and that it intended to conduct 
supplemental interviews of the victim and other witnesses. 
¶6 
The OLR's response states that after it was informed 
of the Illinois Commission's investigation, the OLR director 
made the decision to allow the Illinois Commission to take the 
lead role in investigating the conduct of Attorneys Butler and 
Addison and in seeking discipline because both attorneys were 
practicing law primarily in Illinois for Illinois law firms.  
The OLR further explains that it wanted to avoid the duplicative 
use of investigatory resources in the two jurisdictions.  It 
states that it is common for it and other lawyer regulatory 
agencies 
in 
other 
jurisdictions 
to 
allow 
the 
"primary 
jurisdiction," i.e., the jurisdiction in which the attorney is 
primarily practicing, to investigate and impose discipline in 
No. 
2010AP3013-D   
 
5 
 
the first instance, with the other applicable jurisdictions then 
seeking the imposition of reciprocal discipline. 
¶7 
The 
OLR's 
response 
further 
asserts 
that 
it 
communicated periodically with the Illinois Commission during 
the more than three years in which the Illinois Commission 
conducted its investigation and its prosecution of the Illinois 
disciplinary action.  The OLR notes that it was ultimately able 
to review the more than 1,700 pages of discovery from the 
criminal actions that Attorneys Butler and Addison provided to 
the Illinois Commission, plus copies of a video discovery 
deposition of a witness, the discovery depositions of the two 
respondent attorneys, expert witness information, and other 
video and audio evidence.  In addition, the Illinois Commission 
provided to the OLR another 1,400 pages of documents from its 
own investigation.  The OLR asserts that, following the 
conclusion of the Illinois disciplinary proceeding, it reviewed 
and evaluated these voluminous documents before it reached the 
determination not to conduct its own investigation and instead 
to seek the imposition of reciprocal discipline. 
¶8 
Because the record in this proceeding still did not 
contain information regarding the factual basis for the felony 
to which Attorney Butler pled no contest, we issued a second 
order directing the OLR to state the factual basis for the 
felony charge and to provide public documents from the criminal 
case that related to the factual basis.  The OLR's response 
contained a stipulation filed in the Green Lake County action at 
the time Attorney Butler entered his plea to a reduced charge, 
No. 
2010AP3013-D   
 
6 
 
as well as the transcripts of the plea and sentencing hearings.  
The content of the criminal stipulation will be discussed later 
in this opinion. 
¶9 
Given that this matter has been presented to us in the 
context 
of 
a 
request 
for 
the 
imposition 
of 
reciprocal 
discipline, we are constrained to follow the rules that we have 
adopted for such proceedings.  See SCR 22.22.  We therefore 
shall impose the identical discipline imposed in the other 
jurisdiction 
unless 
we 
determine 
that 
one 
of 
the 
three 
exceptions set forth in SCR 22.22(3) applies.  In assessing 
whether one of those exceptions applies, we further are limited 
to the record in this matter, which primarily consists of the 
OLR's complaint, the documents from the Illinois disciplinary 
proceeding that have been filed by the OLR, and the documents 
relating to Attorney Butler's no contest plea in the Green Lake 
County criminal action that have also been submitted by the OLR.  
In particular, the stipulations entered in the Green Lake County 
criminal case and in the Illinois disciplinary proceeding are 
the only sources in the record of this proceeding of facts that 
have been proven or stipulated regarding the underlying events.  
The factual recitation that follows is primarily taken from 
those stipulations. 
¶10 Attorney Butler was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in August 2004.  He was also admitted to the practice 
of law in Illinois in 2004.  Attorney Butler initially practiced 
law in Illinois with a large Chicago firm, but was required to 
resign as a result of his criminal conviction, which is 
No. 
2010AP3013-D   
 
7 
 
described below.  As of the time of the stipulation in the 
Illinois disciplinary proceeding, Attorney Butler was operating 
a solo legal practice in Chicago and was associated with a law 
firm there as an independent contractor.  His license to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin 
is 
currently 
administratively 
suspended for failure to comply with mandatory continuing legal 
education (CLE) reporting requirements and for failure to pay 
bar dues and assessments.  He has not previously been the 
subject of professional discipline. 
¶11 Prior to August 5, 2005, Attorney Butler made plans 
with Attorney Addison, a law school classmate, for a weekend 
reunion at a summer house in Green Lake, Wisconsin, that was 
owned by Attorney Addison's family.  On Friday, August 5, 2005, 
Attorneys Butler and Addison picked up supplies for the weekend, 
including alcoholic beverages such as beer, vodka, and whiskey.  
From that Friday afternoon through the daytime hours of 
Saturday, Attorneys Butler and Addison and their friends 
socialized and drank alcohol.  At approximately 11:00 p.m. on 
August 6th, they drove to a tavern in Green Lake, where they 
consumed additional alcoholic beverages.  At approximately 1:00 
a.m. on Sunday, August 7th, the group drove to another tavern in 
Ripon, where they continued to consume alcoholic beverages. 
¶12 Shortly before the 2:00 a.m. bar closing time, 
Attorney Addison met a woman, D.P., on the dance floor.  After 
the bar closed, D.P. agreed to drive Attorneys Addison and 
Butler back to Green Lake to the Addison summer house.     
No. 
2010AP3013-D   
 
8 
 
¶13 The Illinois stipulation of facts continues that a few 
blocks from the Addison summer home, D.P. pulled her car into a 
boat landing and placed the vehicle in park.  The stipulation 
does not provide details of what occurred next.  It merely 
states that Attorney Butler, "while intoxicated, engaged in 
sexual activity with [D.P.] while both were on the hood of a 
motor vehicle that was parked on a public boat ramp in Green 
Lake, Wisconsin."  D.P. subsequently complained to the police 
about the actions of Attorneys Butler and Addison, and Attorney 
Butler gave a statement to law enforcement in response to her 
complaint.   
¶14 The State of Wisconsin initially charged Attorney 
Butler with three criminal offenses in Green Lake County circuit 
court:  first-degree sexual assault, as party to a crime; false 
imprisonment; and misdemeanor battery.  State v. Butler, Green 
Lake County Case No. 05CF91.   
¶15 Ultimately, the State filed an amended information 
that charged Attorney Butler with one count of felony second-
degree 
reckless 
endangerment, 
contrary 
to 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 941.30(2).  Attorney Butler then pled no contest to the single 
count set forth in the amended information.  The stipulation in 
the criminal case set forth the factual basis for the second-
degree reckless endangerment charge as follows: 
 
As a factual basis for the acceptance of the 
Defendant's plea, the parties stipulate and agree that 
on August 7, 2005 in Green Lake County, Wisconsin, 
Mr. Butler and Mr. Addison engaged in physical contact 
with [D.P.] in such a manner that [D.P.'s] safety was 
endangered and that she could have been injured while 
No. 
2010AP3013-D   
 
9 
 
having contact with the defendants on the hood of an 
automobile from which she could have fallen. 
¶16 The circuit court imposed and stayed a sentence of 18 
months of initial confinement and 24 months of extended 
supervision.  The court placed Attorney Butler on probation for 
a period of three years and ordered him to complete 300 hours of 
community service.  According to the Report and Recommendation 
of the Illinois Commission's Hearing Board,2 Attorney Butler 
completed his community service by providing pro bono legal 
services to a number of non-profit agencies.  Indeed, he 
provided more than 300 additional hours of pro bono work beyond 
the 300 hours that were required of him.  Attorney Butler was 
released from probation in December 2009. 
¶17 A 
disciplinary 
proceeding 
was 
initiated 
against 
Attorney Butler in Illinois as a result of his actions in August 
2005 and his subsequent criminal conviction.  Attorney Butler 
ultimately entered into a stipulation in that proceeding setting 
forth the facts described above and requesting the imposition of 
a 30-day suspension of his Illinois law license as discipline 
for his misconduct.  The Illinois Hearing Board accepted the 
stipulation and recommended that Attorney Butler's Illinois law 
license be suspended for 30 days for professional misconduct 
that consisted of (1) violating Rule 8.4(a)(3) of the Illinois 
Rules of Professional Conduct (IRPC) by committing a criminal 
act that reflects adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness or 
                                                 
2 This opinion will refer to these items and entities, 
respectively, as "the Illinois Report" and the "Illinois Hearing 
Board." 
No. 
2010AP3013-D   
 
10 
 
fitness as a lawyer in other respects; (2) engaging in conduct 
that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in 
violation of IRPC Rule 8.4(a)(5); and (3) engaging in conduct 
which tends to defeat the administration of justice or bring the 
courts or legal profession into disrepute, in violation of 
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 770. 
¶18 The Illinois Report also included some stipulated 
evidence offered in mitigation.  Specifically, the Illinois 
Report noted that Attorney Butler had not been previously 
disciplined, had expressed great remorse and shame, and had 
cooperated with the Illinois disciplinary process.  The Illinois 
Report also stated that if the matter had proceeded to a 
contested 
hearing, 
Attorney 
Butler 
would 
have 
presented 
character witness testimony from at least six witnesses, 
including a former University of Wisconsin Law School professor 
and other attorneys familiar with his work and his reputation as 
an honest and truthful lawyer.  The Illinois Report indicated 
that no aggravating evidence had been offered. 
¶19 The Illinois Hearing Board stated Attorney Butler 
should receive a slightly shorter suspension than Attorney 
Addison because he was convicted of a lesser number of criminal 
offenses. 
¶20 The 
Supreme 
Court 
of 
Illinois 
accepted 
the 
recommendation of the Illinois Hearing Board and suspended 
Attorney Butler's license to practice law in that state for 30 
days. 
No. 
2010AP3013-D   
 
11 
 
¶21 The OLR's complaint in this matter asks that Attorney 
Butler's license to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for 
an identical period of 30 days as reciprocal discipline under 
SCR 22.22(3).  As noted above, Attorney Butler does not object 
to the OLR's request. 
¶22 The initial allegations made against both Attorney 
Addison 
and 
Attorney 
Butler 
in 
the 
respective 
criminal 
complaints against them were extremely troubling.  Those 
allegations, however, have not been proven, and we are bound by 
the facts as they have been proven or stipulated in the record 
before us.  In the criminal action the state eliminated any 
charge of sexual assault, false imprisonment, or battery.  Thus, 
there is no finding of fact in any proceeding, whether criminal 
or disciplinary, in this state or in Illinois, that Attorney 
Butler engaged in sexually assaultive conduct.  Although 
Attorney Butler was convicted of a felony that involves placing 
another person in danger of death or great bodily harm, the 
stipulated factual basis for that crime was that Attorney 
Butler's contact with the victim created a risk that she might 
have fallen off the hood of an automobile and become injured.  
While the Illinois Hearing Board properly concluded that the 
criminal charge to which Attorney Butler ultimately pled no 
contest is a serious matter that reflects adversely on his 
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, we 
must base our decision on these facts as they have been 
stipulated and not on what the factual findings might possibly 
have been.   
No. 
2010AP3013-D   
 
12 
 
¶23 Moreover, it is important to remember that this matter 
is being presented to us in the context of a reciprocal 
discipline matter, not as a review of a referee's report or a 
stipulation in the first instance.  As commonly occurs in such 
situations, the OLR allowed the Illinois Commission to take the 
lead 
in 
investigating 
and 
prosecuting 
Attorney 
Butler's 
professional misconduct because Illinois was his primary place 
of practice and Illinois committed significant resources to 
investigating the matter.  According to the OLR, it maintained 
communication with the Illinois Commission throughout the three-
year pendency of the Illinois investigation and disciplinary 
proceeding.  In addition, it reviewed the voluminous documents 
provided by the Illinois Commission before it ultimately 
determined to seek the imposition of reciprocal discipline. 
¶24 In a reciprocal discipline matter our rules require us 
to impose the identical discipline rendered by the other 
jurisdiction unless one of the three listed exceptions applies.  
Keeping in mind that the OLR has not asserted that Attorney 
Butler's conduct requires a substantially different level of 
discipline in this state, see SCR 22.22(3)(c), we do not find 
that any exception applies.  Consistent with our rules, 
therefore, we impose a 30-day suspension of Attorney Butler's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin, as discipline reciprocal 
No. 
2010AP3013-D   
 
13 
 
to that imposed in Illinois.3  In order to have his license to 
practice law in this state reinstated, Attorney Butler will not 
only need to comply with the provisions for reinstating a 
license following a disciplinary suspension of less than six 
months, he will also need to take the required steps for 
reinstatement following a suspension for failure to comply with 
CLE reporting requirements and for reinstatement following a 
suspension for failure to pay bar dues and assessments.  
Finally, because Attorney Butler agreed to the imposition of 
reciprocal discipline and it was not necessary to appoint a 
referee or incur the costs of a full disciplinary proceeding, we 
do not require him to pay the costs of this proceeding. 
¶25 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Benjamin C. Butler 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 30 
days, effective as of the date of this order. 
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Benjamin C. Butler shall 
comply with the requirements of SCR 22.26 pertaining to the 
duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin 
has been suspended. 
¶27 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J., withdrew from participation. 
                                                 
3 "Although generally the minimum length of a suspension of 
an attorney's license in this state is 60 days, in reciprocal 
discipline cases we will impose a 30-day suspension when doing 
so makes the discipline identical to that imposed in the other 
jurisdiction."  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Crandall, 
2008 WI 112, ¶24 n.3, 314 Wis. 2d 33, 754 N.W.2d 501; see also 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Grady, 188 Wis. 2d 98, 
523 N.W.2d 564 (1994); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Nora, 173 Wis. 2d 660, 495 N.W.2d 99 (1993). 
No.  2010AP3013-D.pdr 
 
1 
 
¶28 PATIENCE 
DRAKE 
ROGGENSACK, 
J. 
(dissenting).   I 
dissent because I would reject the parties' stipulation asking 
this court to suspend Benjamin C. Butler's license to practice 
law in Wisconsin for 30 days as reciprocal discipline to that 
imposed by Illinois for his admitted acts of criminal conduct 
that occurred in Wisconsin, and I would require the Office of 
Lawyer 
Regulation 
(OLR) 
to 
apply 
Wisconsin's 
Rules 
of 
Professional 
Conduct 
for 
Attorneys 
to 
Attorney 
Butler's 
misconduct.   
¶29 Attorney Butler's conviction was the result of a plea 
bargain.  The criminal act which he admitted committing 
constitutes one count of second-degree reckless endangerment, 
contrary to Wis. Stat. § 941.30(2), which is a Class G felony.  
¶30 In order to accept a plea and convict a defendant of 
second-degree reckless endangerment, the circuit court must 
determine that there are facts sufficient to prove that (1) 
Attorney Butler endangered the safety of another human being; 
and (2) he did so by criminally reckless conduct.  See Wis JI—
Criminal 1347.  "Criminal recklessness" is defined in Wis. Stat. 
§ 939.24(1) as conduct that "creates an unreasonable and 
substantial risk of death or great bodily harm to another human 
being and the actor is aware of that risk."  
¶31 Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.22(3) directs this court 
in reciprocal discipline matters to impose identical discipline 
to that imposed by another state unless the misconduct justifies 
substantially 
different 
discipline 
in 
this 
state. 
 
SCR 
22.22(3)(c).  It seems probable that creating an "unreasonable 
No.  2010AP3013-D.pdr 
 
2 
 
and substantial" risk of great bodily harm when the defendant 
"is aware of that risk" would have resulted in more than a 30-
day license suspension if OLR had begun its own investigation in 
light of SCR 20:8.4(b),1 rather than relying on the judgment of 
the State of Illinois.   
¶32 My conclusion is supported by discipline meted out for 
past criminal convictions, which we have held violate SCR 
20:8.4(b).  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Compton, 
2010 WI 112, ¶¶1, 7, 329 Wis. 2d 318, 787 N.W.2d 831 (two years 
suspension based on conviction of possession of narcotic drugs, 
a Class I felony, and bail jumping, a Class H felony, based on 
the use of those drugs); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Soldon, 2010 WI 27, ¶¶1, 6, 324 Wis. 2d 4, 782 N.W.2d 81 (six 
months suspension based on retail theft read-in and conviction 
of fleeing a law enforcement officer, a Class I felony); In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against George, 2008 WI 21 ¶¶3, 30, 308 
Wis. 2d 50, 746 N.W.2d 236 (four years and three months 
suspension based on federal conviction of conspiracy to commit 
offenses against federal programs in violation of 18 U.S.C. 
§ 371); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gral, 2007 WI 22, 
¶¶1, 4, 299 Wis. 2d 160, 727 N.W.2d 495 (suspension of three 
years based on federal conviction of mail fraud).   
                                                 
1 SCR 20:8.4 provides in relevant part:  "It is professional 
misconduct for a lawyer to: 
. . .  
(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the 
lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in 
other respects[.]"  
No.  2010AP3013-D.pdr 
 
3 
 
¶33 In my view, a conviction based conduct that creates an 
unreasonable and substantial risk of great bodily harm when the 
defendant is aware of that risk is at least as serious as the 
crimes that form the bases for the suspensions above.  Because I 
conclude that the convictions at issue here would justify 
substantially 
different 
discipline 
in 
Wisconsin 
than 
has 
resulted in Illinois and that SCR 22.22(3)(c) requires this 
court to reject the parties' stipulation on that basis, I 
respectfully dissent. 
¶34 I am authorized to state that Justice N. PATRICK 
CROOKS joins in this dissent. 
 
 
No.  2010AP3013-D.pdr 
 
 
 
1