Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Beth M. Bant

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2019-12-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
2019 WI 107 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2018AP540-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Beth M. Bant, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
          Complainant- Respondent, 
     v. 
Beth M. Bant, 
          Respondent- Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BANT 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 18, 2019   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the respondent-appellant, there were briefs filed by 
Peyton Engel and Hurley Burish, S.C., Madison.  
 
For the complainant-respondent, there was a brief filed by 
Kim M. Kluck an Office of Lawyer Regulation 
 
 
 
 
2019 WI 107
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2018AP540-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Beth M. Bant, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Beth M. Bant, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
FILED 
 
DEC 18, 2019 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney Beth M. Bant appeals the report 
of Robert E. Kinney, referee, recommending that this court suspend 
her Wisconsin law license for six months, impose the full costs of 
this proceeding, and order her to undergo a psychological 
evaluation 
for 
consideration 
at 
any 
future 
reinstatement 
proceeding.  The referee determined that Attorney Bant committed 
the two counts of misconduct that the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) complaint alleged and to which she eventually stipulated:  
engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
No. 
2018AP540-D   
 
2 
 
misrepresentation, in violation of Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 
20:8.4(c),1 and violating a standard of conduct set forth in one 
of this court's decisions, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(f).2 
¶2 
After fully reviewing this matter, we reject all but one 
of Attorney Bant's arguments on appeal.  We accept the referee's 
findings of fact (with one minor exception, noted below), and we 
agree that those facts establish that Attorney Bant committed the 
two misconduct counts brought by the OLR.  We further agree with 
the referee that those violations require the imposition of a six-
month suspension.  We also determine that Attorney Bant should be 
required to pay the full costs of this proceeding, which total 
$10,177.91 as of July 11, 2019.  We do not, however, accept the 
referee's 
recommendation 
that 
Attorney 
Bant 
undergo 
a 
psychological evaluation at this time.   
¶3 
Attorney Bant was licensed to practice law in Wisconsin 
in 2013.  She has no disciplinary history. 
¶4 
On March 22, 2018, the OLR filed a complaint alleging 
two counts of misconduct arising out of Attorney Bant's work as an 
in-house lawyer for an insurance company headquartered in 
Wisconsin.  Attorney Bant filed an answer in which she admitted 
some of the OLR's factual allegations, but denied that she engaged 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: "It is professional misconduct for 
a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation." 
2 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides:  "It is professional misconduct for 
a lawyer to violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme court 
order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of  
lawyers."   
No. 
2018AP540-D   
 
3 
 
in professional misconduct.  In July 2018, the parties entered 
into a stipulation in which Attorney Bant admitted certain facts, 
as well as the two counts of misconduct alleged in the OLR's 
complaint.  In December 2018, Attorney Bant filed an amended answer 
that was consistent with the parties' stipulation.  The referee 
then held a hearing at which he confirmed Attorney Bant's 
admissions of misconduct and took evidence to facilitate his 
recommendation as to the appropriate sanction.   
¶5 
The referee filed his report on March 21, 2019.  Attorney 
Bant timely appealed from the referee's report.  The referee's 
report and the exhibits received at the evidentiary hearing may be 
summarized as follows. 
¶6 
From February 2014 through December 2016, Attorney Bant 
worked as an in-house lawyer for an insurance company headquartered 
in Wisconsin. 
¶7 
In October 2016, Attorney Bant and her supervisor agreed 
that Attorney Bant would attend an American Bar Association seminar 
in New Orleans, Louisiana.  On October 31, 2016, Attorney Bant 
submitted a request for reimbursement of the $1,115 fee listed on 
a fabricated seminar registration receipt that Attorney Bant had 
created using computer editing software.  The fabricated receipt 
listed the dates of the seminar as December 8 and 9, 2016, even 
though the seminar was actually scheduled to take place on November 
3 and 4, 2016.   Attorney Bant's employer paid her the requested 
sum of $1,115 for the seminar fee.   
¶8 
Attorney Bant told her employer that she would fly to 
New Orleans for the seminar on Wednesday, December 7, 2016, and 
No. 
2018AP540-D   
 
4 
 
would attend the seminar on December 8 and 9, 2016.  But Attorney 
Bant did not go to New Orleans on those dates; as mentioned above, 
the seminar had occurred over a month earlier.  A coworker spotted 
Attorney Bant in town on the morning of Friday, December 9, 2016.   
¶9 
Sometime in December 2016, Attorney Bant had uploaded, 
but had not yet formally submitted for reimbursement, the following 
fabricated travel receipts into her employer's expense system.   
 A receipt for the Windsor Court Hotel in New Orleans for 
the nights of December 7, 8, and 9, 2016, in the amount 
of $1,562.92.  Attorney Bant fabricated this receipt by 
using computer editing software to modify a prior 
receipt from a different hotel.  Attorney Bant's 
modifications included copying the Windsor Court Hotel 
logo from their website and adding it to the prior 
receipt, and changing the dates on the prior receipt.   
 A receipt for a restaurant meal in New Orleans for the 
date of December 8, 2016 in the amount of $43.   Attorney 
Bant fabricated this receipt by taking a screenshot of 
an image from the internet and modifying it with editing 
software. 
 Several receipts for Uber car service in New Orleans for 
the dates of December 7, 8, and 9, 2016, for supposed 
rides from the airport to the hotel, to a restaurant and 
back to the hotel, and from the hotel back to the 
airport.  Attorney Bant fabricated these receipts by 
obtaining emailed price estimates from Uber for certain 
rides, and then using editing software to insert dates, 
No. 
2018AP540-D   
 
5 
 
departure times, and arrival times into the estimates so 
as to make them look like trip receipts.   
 A receipt for a roundtrip airline ticket to and from New 
Orleans.  Attorney Bant testified that she did not know 
where this document came from or how it was created.  
There is no dispute, however, that the false receipt was 
uploaded to her employer's expense reporting system. 
¶10 On Monday morning, December 12, 2016, Attorney Bant's 
supervisor confronted her about her supposed trip to New Orleans, 
noting that she had been spotted in town on the morning of Friday, 
December 9, 2016.  Attorney Bant said that she had left New Orleans 
early Friday morning because she wasn't feeling well and wasn't 
learning anything from the seminar.  Attorney Bant's supervisor 
then asked her to provide a timeline of her activities from 
Wednesday, December 7 through Friday, December 9.  Attorney Bant 
handwrote a timeline that was entirely false.  She claimed in the 
timeline that she flew to New Orleans on Wednesday, December 7; 
attended the seminar on Thursday; dined at specific restaurants; 
took Uber car service to specific locations; and flew home on 
Friday, December 9.  When Attorney Bant gave the timeline to her 
supervisor, she told her supervisor that she had been physically 
assaulted while in New Orleans, resulting in bruising to various 
parts of her body. 
¶11 A subsequent audit of Attorney Bant's travel and expense 
claims revealed a fraudulent charge of $557.28 for three nights at 
a hotel in Madison, Wisconsin, from June 7 through 10, 2016.  
Attorney Bant had, in fact, attended a legal education seminar in 
No. 
2018AP540-D   
 
6 
 
Madison during that time, but her claim for reimbursement for hotel 
expenses was fraudulent.  Attorney Bant had been paid $557.28 as 
a result of this improper request for reimbursement. 
¶12 Attorney Bant's employer terminated her employment in 
mid-December 2016, shortly after her fraudulent expense reports 
came to light.  In February 2017, Attorney Bant voluntarily 
reimbursed her employer $1,115 for the seminar registration fee 
payment, and $557.28 related to the June 2016 hotel expense 
payment.  
¶13 The parties stipulated, and the referee determined, that 
by making false statements and submitting falsified documents in 
order to obtain reimbursement for expenses not actually incurred, 
and by providing false statements and falsified documents to her 
employer after she was confronted with questions regarding her 
requests for expense reimbursement, Attorney Bant violated SCR 
20:8.4(c). 
¶14 The parties further stipulated, and the referee further 
determined, that by making false statements and submitting 
falsified documents in order to obtain reimbursement for expenses 
not actually incurred, and by providing false statements and 
falsified documents to her employer after she was confronted with 
questions regarding her requests for expense reimbursement, 
Attorney Bant violated a standard of conduct set forth in In re 
No. 
2018AP540-D   
 
7 
 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Shea, 190 Wis. 2d 560, 527 
N.W.2d 314 (1995),3 actionable via SCR 20:8.4(f). 
¶15 As discipline for Attorney Bant's misconduct, the 
referee recommended that the court suspend Attorney Bant for six 
months——the length of suspension sought by the OLR.  In making 
this recommendation, the referee rejected Attorney Bant's call for 
a more modest suspension of 60 days.  Attorney Bant attempted to 
justify this minimal suspension by explaining that she had 
inadvertently mixed up the dates of the New Orleans seminar, 
causing her to be unable to attend the seminar when it was actually 
held in November, and she feigned her attendance at the seminar in 
December because she was afraid that her supervisor——whom she 
described as "intimat[ing]" and "potentially vindictive"——would 
fire her for missing it.   
¶16 The referee was unpersuaded by Attorney Bant's argument 
for various reasons, including the following.  First, according to 
the referee, the evidence showed that, far from being on thin ice 
with her supervisor, Attorney Bant was about to receive a major 
promotion with the backing of her supervisor.  Second, the referee 
noted that Attorney Bant submitted the fraudulent seminar receipt 
for reimbursement on October 31, 2016——before the seminar actually 
took place on November 3 and 4, 2016——thereby casting doubt on her 
claim that she had submitted the fraudulent receipt in order to 
                                                 
3 In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Shea, 
190 
Wis. 2d 560, 527 N.W.2d 314 (1995) holds that an attorney has a 
fiduciary duty and a duty of honesty in the attorney's professional 
dealings with the attorney's law firm. 
No. 
2018AP540-D   
 
8 
 
conceal the fact that she had missed the seminar.  Third, the 
referee pointed out that this was not the first time Attorney Bant 
had submitted a false hotel receipt for reimbursement; six months 
earlier, she had submitted a false hotel receipt related to a 
seminar in Madison.  Fourth, the referee explained that Attorney 
Bant's deceitful behavior showed especially poor judgment given 
that she was not only an attorney but also a certified public 
accountant and a certified fraud examiner; indeed, she had drafted 
her employer's ethics handbook for all employees. 
¶17 In light of the above, the referee stated that a six-
month suspension was both factually justified and well within the 
range of discipline imposed in arguably analogous situations; 
namely, In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Siderits, 2013 WI 
2, 345 Wis. 2d 89, 824 N.W.2d 812 (one-year license suspension for 
the respondent-lawyer's manipulation of his billing records for 
the sole purpose of collecting almost $47,000 in bonuses over a 
two-year period), and Shea, 190 Wis. 2d 560 (1995) (six-month 
license suspension for the respondent-lawyer's concealment from 
his law firm of his receipt of a $75,000 legal fee from a client 
while the firm was not being paid in full for legal fees, and 
misrepresentation of the quality of work of another attorney in 
the firm for purposes of his own financial gain). 
¶18 The referee also recommended that the court require 
Attorney Bant to undergo a psychological assessment for use at any 
future reinstatement hearing.  The referee wrote that although no 
testimony regarding Attorney Bant's mental health was presented at 
the hearing: 
No. 
2018AP540-D   
 
9 
 
[I]t is hard for this referee to fathom why, for the 
paltry sum of money involved here, Attorney Bant would 
have jeopardized her employment and her professional 
licenses.  Having heard the testimony, and based on my 
years of experience, I believe there may have been a 
psychological component to Bant's behavior. 
¶19 Attorney Bant appeals.  In conducting our review, we 
will affirm the referee's findings of fact unless they are found 
to be clearly erroneous, but we will review the referee's 
conclusions of law on a de novo basis.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 740 
N.W.2d 125.  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. 
¶20 In her appellate briefing, Attorney Bant challenges the 
referee's disciplinary recommendation as tainted by various 
factual missteps.  She argues that the referee clearly erred by 
describing her fabricated seminar receipt as a fabricated seminar 
"flyer" that she showed her supervisor when they first discussed 
the prospect of her attending the seminar.  This errant factual 
description, Attorney Bant says, led the referee to the mistaken 
conclusion that the trip to the seminar was a ruse from the outset, 
when this is not so:  she had genuinely planned to go to the 
seminar, but was unable to attend because she mixed up the dates.  
The referee also erred, Attorney Bant claims, by assuming that at 
the time she submitted the fabricated seminar receipt for 
reimbursement on October 31, 2016, she could have actually attended 
the seminar on November 3 and 4, 2016, and simply chose not to do 
No. 
2018AP540-D   
 
10 
 
so.  There is no evidence that she could have actually attended 
the conference on those dates, Attorney Bant claims.  Attorney 
Bant also faults the referee for stating that the evidence suggests 
her misconduct was financially motivated; Attorney Bant insists 
her motivation was job preservation, as she testified at the 
evidentiary hearing.  Attorney Bant also claims that the referee 
wrongly believed she was projecting blame on others for her 
misconduct.  To the contrary, she says, she has "only endeavored 
to explain how, as a new attorney in her first attorney job, the 
combination of a toxic corporate environment and a manipulative 
supervisor eroded her good judgment."   
¶21 Attorney Bant further argues that the cases cited by the 
referee——Shea and Siderits——are distinguishable.  Both involved 
misappropriation of more money than that involved in this case, by 
more experienced attorneys, through courses of misconduct that 
spanned far longer than hers.  Attorney Bant contends that other, 
more analogous cases call for a 60-day suspension, such as In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Davig Huesmann, 2018 WI 114, 385 
Wis. 2d 49, 922 N.W.2d 498 (2018) (60-day suspension for numerous 
trust account violations, including the conversion of over 
$13,000), In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bartz, 2015 WI 
61, 362 Wis. 2d 752, 864 N.W.2d 881 (60-day suspension for, among 
other 
things, 
failure 
to 
disburse 
settlement 
funds 
and 
misappropriation of trust funds, resulting in a restitution order 
of over $3,000), In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kitto, 
2018 WI 71, 382 Wis. 2d 368, 913 N.W.2d 874 (60-day suspension for 
mishandling funds and converting about $10,000 of funds to personal 
No. 
2018AP540-D   
 
11 
 
use), and In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Casey, 174 Wis. 
2d 341, 342–43, 496 N.W.2d 94, 95 (1993) (60-day suspension for 
misappropriation of three client retainers, totaling $2,300).  
Attorney Bant insists that in the face of these cases, a six-month 
suspension for her misconduct would be "arbitrarily harsh."  
¶22 Finally, Attorney Bant argues that the referee's 
recommendation for a psychological examination was inappropriate 
for a number of reasons, including the absence of evidence in the 
record regarding her mental health. 
¶23 In its appellate briefing, the OLR disputes Attorney 
Bant's arguments, with limited exceptions.  It concedes that the 
referee should not have described the fabricated seminar receipt 
that Attorney Bant submitted for reimbursement as a "flyer" that 
she showed her supervisor to obtain permission to attend the 
seminar in the first place.  The OLR submits, however, that this 
mistake had no bearing on the referee's ultimate disciplinary 
recommendation.  The referee correctly determined that Attorney 
Bant's conduct in creating and submitting the falsified receipt 
was 
intentional, 
fraudulent, 
and 
deserving 
of 
a 
lengthy 
suspension, especially in light of the surrounding circumstances; 
e.g., her lies to her supervisor when caught; her submission of 
false hotel receipts for reimbursement on two separate occasions, 
months apart; her continued attempt to blame her misconduct on her 
work environment and her supervisor; and her decision to submit a 
fabricated seminar receipt at a time (October 31, 2016) when she 
could have still registered for the early November seminar.  The 
OLR also cites a variety of cases in support of a six-month 
No. 
2018AP540-D   
 
12 
 
suspension, including Siderits, Shea, and In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Glasbrenner, 2005 WI 50, 280 Wis. 2d 37, 695 
N.W.2d 291 (six-month suspension for associate who overbilled the 
state public defender's office on appointed cases as a result of 
sloppy billing habits).  The OLR agrees with Attorney Bant, 
however, that there is no cause for her to undergo a psychological 
assessment now, and suggests that the need for such an assessment 
can be addressed during any future reinstatement proceeding. 
¶24 After conducting our review, we find no basis to conclude 
that the referee's findings of fact are clearly erroneous, with 
one minor exception that has no bearing on whether Attorney Bant 
engaged in misconduct deserving of a six-month suspension.  As 
mentioned above, Attorney Bant insists, and the OLR agrees, that 
the referee incorrectly described Attorney Bant's seminar 
documentation as a fabricated "flyer" that she showed her 
supervisor in order to obtain permission to attend the seminar, 
when the document was actually a fabricated seminar registration 
receipt that she uploaded to her employer's expense reporting 
system to obtain reimbursement.  We fail to see how such 
differences matter.  Whether one labels the fabricated seminar 
document a "receipt" or a "flyer," and whether Attorney Bant 
submitted the document to her supervisor or her company's 
procurement department, the core, undisputed facts remain the 
same:  Attorney Bant submitted a phony document to her employer in 
order to perpetuate a ruse that she would be traveling to New 
Orleans to attend a seminar that she knew she would not actually 
attend.  We note, too, that while Attorney Bant criticizes various 
No. 
2018AP540-D   
 
13 
 
aspects of the referee's factual discussion, she does not directly 
challenge any other factual findings by the referee as clearly 
erroneous.  Thus, we accept and adopt all but the referee's finding 
that Attorney Bant showed her supervisor an altered seminar "flyer" 
in order to obtain permission to attend the seminar, and we hold 
that this single erroneous finding is immaterial to the outcome. 
¶25 As for the referee's legal conclusions of misconduct, we 
note that while Attorney Bant attempts to downplay the severity of 
her misconduct, she does not claim that the facts as found by the 
referee fail to satisfy the elements of the two counts against 
her.  Our review of the matter leads us to agree with the referee 
that the facts of this case establish a conclusion of misconduct 
on each of the two counts alleged by the OLR. 
¶26 Turning now to the question of the proper level of 
discipline, we agree with the referee's recommendation for a six-
month license suspension.  Our precedent demonstrates that this 
court takes a dim view of a lawyer's creation and use of false 
documentation for the purpose of misleading others.  For example, 
in 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Donovan, 
211 
Wis. 2d 451, 564 N.W.2d 772 (1997), this court imposed a six-month 
license suspension on an attorney who filed false documents with 
the court in order to obtain favorable treatment for an 
acquaintance and for a former boyfriend in cases she was 
prosecuting as a municipal attorney.  In In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Spangler, 2016 WI 61, 370 Wis. 2d 369, 881 
N.W.2d 35, this court imposed a six-month suspension on an attorney 
who created an array of meticulously faked documents to support 
No. 
2018AP540-D   
 
14 
 
false representations made to his clients that their lawsuits were 
pending when in fact they were not.  We particularly noted in 
Spangler that the misconduct involved was not "a passive type of 
error," but was rather "an affirmative act of deception and a 
betrayal of the trust" others had placed in the respondent-lawyer.  
Id., ¶36. 
¶27 Donovan, 
Spangler, 
and 
this 
case 
are 
alike 
in 
significant ways.  In all three cases, the lawyers committed 
affirmative acts of deception by creating false documentation for 
the sole purpose of misleading others.  In all three cases, the 
lawyers 
had 
no 
disciplinary 
history. 
 
See 
Donovan, 
211 
Wis. 2d at 456; Spangler, 370 Wis. 2d 369, ¶3.  In all three cases, 
the lawyers and the OLR reached stipulations as to the lawyers' 
misconduct.  See Donovan, 211 Wis. 2d at 452; Spangler, 370 
Wis. 2d 369, ¶¶16-18.  In all three cases, restitution was not an 
issue:  Attorney Donovan did not benefit financially from her 
misconduct, and Attorney Spangler, like Attorney Bant, had already 
paid restitution by the time this court issued its disciplinary 
decision.  See Donovan, 211 Wis. 2d at 456; Spangler, 370 
Wis. 2d 369, ¶37.  In all three cases, the lawyers demonstrated 
remorse.  See Donovan, 211 Wis. 2d at 457; Spangler, 370 
Wis. 2d 369, ¶37. 
¶28 To be sure, the cases are not exactly alike.  Attorney 
Donovan filed false documents with the court, see Donovan, 211 
Wis. 2d at 452, 
whereas 
Attorney 
Bant 
fabricated 
documents 
intended only for her company's internal use.  Attorney Spangler 
perpetuated a ruse that went on for years, see Spangler, 370 
No. 
2018AP540-D   
 
15 
 
Wis. 2d 369, ¶¶7-28, whereas Attorney Bant's subterfuge was 
comparatively brief.  The number of counts of misconduct alleged 
and proven against Attorney Bant (two) is less than the number of 
misconduct counts involved in Donovan (three) and in Spangler 
(seven).  See Donovan, 211 Wis. 2d at 454-56; Spangler, 370 
Wis. 2d 369, ¶¶1-2.  
¶29 In the end, however, we find the misconduct here to be 
sufficiently analogous to that in Donovan and Spangler to justify 
the same suspension length:  six months.  Like the respondent-
lawyers' conduct in Donovan and Spangler, Attorney Bant's conduct 
was laced with calculated dishonesty, from the time of the first 
false hotel receipt she submitted in June 2016 through the time, 
in December 2016, she submitted an assortment of meticulously faked 
receipts purporting to establish her visit to a city in which she 
had not stepped foot, for a conference she could not possibly have 
attended.  When her employer questioned her story, she doubled 
down on it, drafting a detailed fictional account of her time in 
New Orleans and claiming to have been physically assaulted there.  
Although Attorney Bant argues on appeal that her misconduct was 
not as severe as it seems——a misguided attempt to cover-up a 
scheduling error in a difficult work environment——the referee 
found this explanation incredible; he wrote that "there does not 
appear to be" a "fathomable factual nexus between her conduct and 
the explanation she has given."  This is not the forum for 
reweighing Attorney Bant's credibility.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Lister, 2010 WI 108, ¶32, 329 Wis. 2d 289, 787 
N.W.2d 820 (referee is the ultimate arbiter of credibility). 
No. 
2018AP540-D   
 
16 
 
¶30 The public, the courts, and the Wisconsin legal 
profession deserve the assurance that, before Attorney Bant 
resumes practice, she will have successfully demonstrated to this 
court that she has made efforts to remedy the causes of her 
misbehavior.  The six-month suspension justified by our case law 
is therefore necessary.  See SCR 22.28(3). 
¶31 We depart, however, from the referee's recommendation 
that Attorney Bant undergo a psychological assessment at this time.   
We see no basis for a psychological assessment. 
¶32 Because Attorney Bant has already made full restitution 
to her former employer, no restitution award is sought, and none 
is ordered.   
¶33 Finally, as is our general practice, we impose full costs 
on Attorney Bant, which total $10,177.91 as of July 11, 2019.  
Neither the OLR nor Attorney Bant challenges the imposition of 
full costs. 
¶34 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Beth M. Bant to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six months, 
effective January 29, 2020. 
¶35 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of 
this order, Beth M. Bant shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $10,177.91 as 
of July 11, 2019. 
¶36 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent that she has 
not already done so, Beth M. Bant 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. 
No. 
2018AP540-D   
 
17 
 
¶37 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions with this order is required for reinstatement.  See SCR 
22.29(4)(c). 
 
 
No. 
2018AP540-D   
 
 
 
1