Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Arik J. Guenther

Citation: 2014 WI 120

Docket Number: 2012AP000967-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2014-11-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
2014 WI 120 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2012AP967-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against   
Arik J. Guenther, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Arik J. Guenther, 
          Respondent.   
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GUENTHER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 7, 2014 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2014 WI 120
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2012AP967-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Arik J. Guenther, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Arik J. Guenther, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
NOV 7, 2014 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   This 
is 
the 
ninth 
disciplinary 
proceeding against Attorney Arik J. Guenther and the fifth to 
result in a full disciplinary opinion and order from this court.  
In this proceeding, we review the report of the referee, 
Attorney Christine Harris Taylor, finding that Attorney Guenther 
committed professional misconduct as alleged in the 18 counts of 
the complaint filed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and 
recommending that (1) the court suspend Attorney Guenther's 
No. 
2012AP967-D   
 
2 
 
license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of one year 
and (2) the court impose the full costs of this disciplinary 
proceeding on Attorney Guenther. 
¶2 
Because no appeal has been filed from the referee's 
report and recommendation, we review the matter pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.17(2).1  After considering the 
referee's report and the record in this matter, we adopt the 
referee's findings of fact and agree that Attorney Guenther 
committed the acts of professional misconduct alleged in the 18 
counts of the complaint.  Due in large part to Attorney 
Guenther's disciplinary history and the seriousness of his 
misconduct, we further agree with the referee that the proper 
level of discipline to be imposed is a one-year suspension of 
Attorney Guenther's license to practice law in this state, 
effective the date of this opinion and order.  Finally, we see 
no reason to depart in this case from our general practice of 
imposing full costs on attorneys found to have engaged in 
misconduct, and we require Attorney Guenther to pay the full 
costs of this disciplinary proceeding, which were $2,070.35 as 
of September 18, 2013. 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) states: 
 
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
No. 
2012AP967-D   
 
3 
 
¶3 
Attorney Guenther was admitted to the practice of law 
in Wisconsin in September 1981.  His license was initially 
suspended for disciplinary reasons in August 2005.  Attorney 
Guenther filed petitions for reinstatement in 2006, 2008, and 
2010, but all of those petitions were dismissed before a 
reinstatement hearing was held.  His license therefore remains 
suspended as of the date of this opinion. 
¶4 
Attorney 
Guenther 
has 
a 
lengthy 
and 
troubling 
disciplinary history, with three consensual private reprimands, 
one consensual public reprimand, and four previous suspensions.  
It can be summarized as follows: 
 Private Reprimand No. 1989-13 (imposed with consent in 
May 1989); 
 Private Reprimand No. 2001-04 (imposed with consent in 
June 2001); 
 Private Reprimand No. 2002-05 (imposed with consent in 
February 2002); 
 In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Guenther, 
2005 WI 133, 285 Wis. 2d 587, 700 N.W.2d 260 (eight-
month suspension imposed, effective August 30, 2005)  
("Guenther I"); 
 Public Reprimand of Arik J. Guenther, No. 2007-3 
(imposed with consent in April 2007); 
 In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Guenther, 
2009 WI 25, 316 Wis. 2d 34, 762 N.W.2d 371 (nine-month 
suspension 
imposed, 
effective 
March 
24, 
2009) 
("Guenther II"); 
No. 
2012AP967-D   
 
4 
 
 In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Guenther, 
2012 WI 10, 338 Wis. 2d 542, 808 N.W.2d 921 (90-day 
suspension 
imposed, 
effective 
February 
10, 
2012) 
("Guenther III"); and 
 In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Guenther, 
2012 WI 116, 344 Wis. 2d 528, 823 N.W.2d 266 (60-day 
suspension 
imposed, 
effective 
November 
21, 
2012) 
("Guenther IV") 
¶5 
The 
Guenther III 
matter 
merits 
some 
further 
discussion, as several of Attorney Guenther's actions at issue 
there 
are 
relevant 
to 
the 
facts 
underlying 
the 
current 
disciplinary proceeding and the level of discipline to be 
imposed.  Several of the counts of misconduct in Guenther III 
related to Attorney Guenther's improper conduct toward his now-
former wife, R.G., and to his improper ingestion or abuse of 
alcohol. 
 
Specifically, 
Attorney 
Guenther 
was 
ultimately 
convicted of disorderly conduct, with a domestic abuse modifier, 
for an altercation that he had with R.G. in their home on 
February 24, 2007.  338 Wis. 2d 524, ¶¶11, 19, & 29.  While 
subject to a bond that required no violent contact with R.G., on 
February 20, 2009, Attorney Guenther forcibly broke into R.G.'s 
residence, stole her laptop computer, and left a threatening 
No. 
2012AP967-D   
 
5 
 
written note.2  This conduct resulted in a conviction for 
misdemeanor bail jumping.  Id., ¶¶12, 25.   
¶6 
Several other counts of misconduct in Guenther III 
related to Attorney Guenther's improper ingestion of alcohol.  
In addition to violating the no-contact term of his bond, 
Attorney Guenther also violated the absolute sobriety term of 
the bond in March 2009 when he was found to have a blood alcohol 
concentration 
(BAC) 
of 
0.128 
grams 
of 
alcohol 
per 
100 
milliliters of blood (g/ml).  This resulted in a conviction for 
felony bail jumping.  Id., ¶¶16, 21.   
¶7 
In October 2009, while his driver's license was 
suspended, Attorney Guenther was again stopped by the police and 
found to have a BAC of 0.213 g/ml.  Attorney Guenther initially 
pled guilty to and was convicted of operating a motor vehicle 
with a prohibited alcohol concentration (PAC), as a second 
offense.  Id., ¶¶23, 24.  He failed to notify the OLR of this 
conviction.  He subsequently was allowed to withdraw his guilty 
plea, which reinstated all of the charges against him.  Despite 
the 
withdrawal 
of 
his 
plea, 
this 
court 
determined 
in 
Guenther III that his operation of a motor vehicle with a PAC 
constituted engaging in a criminal act that reflected adversely 
on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other 
                                                 
2 The note contained the following message:  "It's nice to 
see all the things that you and your little friend can afford 
while you pay no bills.  That['s] all over for you.  All you had 
to do was be my wife but you couldn't and you will now have [] 
to pay."  Guenther III, 338 Wis. 2d 524, ¶12. 
No. 
2012AP967-D   
 
6 
 
respects, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(b).  Id., ¶¶37, 45.  Since 
his ingestion of alcohol at the time of his October 2009 arrest 
had violated the absolute sobriety term of his bond, we also 
concluded that he had knowingly disobeyed an obligation under 
the rules of a tribunal, in violation of SCR 20:3.4(c).  Id., 
¶¶38, 45.  Finally, by not notifying the OLR and the clerk of 
this court of his conviction (even though it was subsequently 
vacated and charges were reinstated), we determined that 
Attorney 
Guenther 
had 
violated 
SCR 21.15(5), 
which 
is 
enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f).  Id., ¶¶39, 45. 
¶8 
In 
the 
current 
disciplinary 
proceeding, 
Attorney 
Guenther's answer initially admitted many of the factual 
allegations of the OLR's complaint, but denied the legal claims 
that his actions had constituted professional misconduct.  The 
OLR subsequently filed two motions for partial summary judgment, 
which together addressed all 18 counts alleged in the complaint.  
After the filing of each summary judgment motion, Attorney 
Guenther advised the referee that he either did not deny or was 
unable to contest the allegations in the motions.  Accordingly, 
the referee found that there were no genuine issues of material 
fact and granted the OLR's summary judgment motions.  The facts 
as found by the referee and the legal conclusions resulting from 
those facts are summarized in the following paragraphs. 
¶9 
Count Five of the present complaint relates to the PAC 
(second offense) charge against Attorney Guenther arising out of 
the traffic stop that occurred in October 2009.  As was noted in 
Guenther III, after initially pleading guilty to the PAC charge, 
No. 
2012AP967-D   
 
7 
 
Attorney Guenther was allowed to withdraw his guilty plea, and 
the conviction based on that plea was vacated in December 2010.  
The original charges were then reinstated.  In August 2011, 
Attorney Guenther again pled guilty and was convicted of the PAC 
charge, as a second offense.  As had been the case on the first 
conviction that had subsequently been vacated, Attorney Guenther 
again did not send a timely written notice of the conviction to 
the OLR and the clerk of this court.  On October 21, 2011, more 
than two months after the conviction, the OLR received a letter 
from Attorney Guenther notifying them of the conviction, 
although the letter did not identify the jurisdiction in which 
the convictions had occurred.  No such notification was sent to 
the clerk of this court.   
¶10 The referee determined on Count Five that Attorney 
Guenther's failure to notify the OLR of the conviction and the 
jurisdiction in which it had occurred within the required five-
No. 
2012AP967-D   
 
8 
 
day period constituted a violation of SCR 21.15(5),3 which is 
enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f).4   
¶11 Counts One through Four of the complaint relate to a 
subsequent drunken driving incident.  On September 17, 2010, 
Attorney Guenther was stopped while he was driving by an officer 
of the Jackson Police Department, and his blood was tested for 
alcohol at a local hospital.  The test revealed a BAC of 
0.232 g/ml.  At the time of the arrest, Attorney Guenther was 
subject to a bond condition that required him to maintain 
absolute sobriety and not to commit any new crimes.   
¶12 Attorney Guenther ultimately pled guilty to and was 
convicted of one count of operating a motor vehicle with a PAC 
(third offense) and misdemeanor bail jumping.  This occurred on 
the same date that his guilty plea and conviction were entered 
for the PAC (second offense).  He again failed to notify the OLR 
                                                 
3 SCR 21.15(5) states:  
An attorney found guilty or convicted of any 
crime on or after July 1, 2002, shall notify in 
writing the office of lawyer regulation and the clerk 
of the Supreme Court within 5 days after the finding 
or conviction, whichever first occurs.  The notice 
shall include the identity of the attorney, the date 
of finding or conviction, the offenses, and the 
jurisdiction.  An attorney’s failure to notify the 
office of lawyer regulation and clerk of the supreme 
court of being found guilty or his or her conviction 
is misconduct. 
4 SCR 20:8.4(f) states that 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. 
2012AP967-D   
 
9 
 
and the clerk of this court within the required five-day period.  
He finally notified the OLR of the conviction via the letter it 
received on October 21, 2010, although that letter failed to 
identify the jurisdiction in which the conviction had occurred.   
¶13 The referee determined that these facts supported 
conclusions of misconduct on four counts of the OLR's complaint.  
First, the referee concluded that Attorney Guenther's conviction 
for operation of a motor vehicle with a PAC, as a repeat 
offender, violated SCR 20:8.4(b).5  Second, his consumption of 
alcohol and commission of a crime, contrary to the terms of his 
bond, constituted a violation of SCR 20:8.4(b).  Third, his 
disobedience of the court's order in his bond not to consume 
alcohol or commit any new crimes also constituted a violation of 
SCR 20:3.4(c).6  Fourth, his failure to provide timely notice of 
his conviction and his failure to provide all of the required 
information when he finally did notify the OLR constituted a 
violation of SCR 21.15(5), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f).   
¶14 After 
the 
OLR 
received 
notification 
of 
the 
convictions, 
it 
sent 
a 
letter 
to 
Attorney 
Guenther 
on 
November 17, 2011, notifying him that it was investigating the 
                                                 
5 SCR 20:8.4(b) states that 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." 
6 SCR 20:3.4(c) states that a lawyer shall not "knowingly 
disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except for 
an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation 
exists." 
No. 
2012AP967-D   
 
10 
 
convictions and their underlying facts, and asking him to 
provide a written response by December 12, 2011.  Attorney 
Guenther did not respond.  The OLR sent another letter in 
January 2012, but Attorney Guenther again did not respond.  On 
Count Six of the complaint, the referee determined that Attorney 
Guenther's failure to respond to the OLR's requests for 
information as part of its investigation constituted a violation 
of SCR 22.03(2)7 and SCR 20:8.4(h).8 
¶15 The remaining counts in the present complaint (Counts 
Seven through Eighteen) all relate to Attorney Guenther's 
contacts with his now ex-wife, R.G., and the resulting court 
proceedings.  In March 2009 the Fond du Lac County circuit court 
issued 
an 
injunction 
prohibiting 
Attorney 
Guenther 
from 
                                                 
7 SCR 22.03(2) states: 
Upon commencing an investigation, the director 
shall notify the respondent of the matter being 
investigated unless in the opinion of the director the 
investigation of the matter requires otherwise.  The 
respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts 
and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct 
within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail a 
request for a written response.  The director may 
allow additional time to respond.  Following receipt 
of the response, the director may conduct further 
investigation and may compel the respondent to answer 
questions, 
furnish 
documents, 
and 
present 
any 
information deemed relevant to the investigation. 
8 SCR 20:8.4(h) states that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "fail to cooperate in the investigation of a 
grievance filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required 
by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), 
or SCR 22.04(1)." 
No. 
2012AP967-D   
 
11 
 
"contacting or causing any person other than a party's attorney 
or law enforcement officer" to contact R.G., unless she had 
previously consented in writing.  The injunction specified that 
"contacting" included communicating in writing.  The injunction 
stated that it would remain in effect until March 2013.   
¶16 Attorney Guenther petitioned for divorce from R.G. in 
April 2009, and a judgment of divorce was issued in November 
2009.  Throughout the divorce proceedings, R.G. was represented 
by counsel.  Attorney Guenther represented himself. 
¶17 On October 1, 2010, Attorney Guenther mailed legal 
documents related to the divorce directly to R.G., as well as to 
the 
Winnebago 
County 
circuit 
court. 
 
The 
cover 
letter 
accompanying the documents contained the following explanation 
as to why Attorney Guenther was mailing the documents directly 
to R.G.:  "I am unable to have [R.G.] served at her place of 
employment as they will not allow it and her former lawyer told 
me that he was no longer willing to accept anything on her 
behalf, therefore I am forced to attempt service in this 
fashion."  R.G. had not consented to receiving documents in the 
mail directly from Attorney Guenther.  In addition, her divorce 
lawyer had not told Attorney Guenther that he would no longer 
accept documents on her behalf. 
¶18 On 
October 
4, 
2010, 
Attorney 
Guenther 
mailed 
additional legal documents directly to R.G.  She had not 
consented to receiving those documents from Attorney Guenther.   
¶19 The state filed two criminal complaints against 
Attorney Guenther.  State v. Guenther, Winnebago County Case No. 
No. 
2012AP967-D   
 
12 
 
2010CM1666 (for the October 1, 2010 mailing); State v. Guenther, 
Winnebago County Case No. 2010CM1667 (for the October 4, 2010 
mailing).  Each complaint charged a single count of knowingly 
violating a domestic abuse order, contrary to Wis. Stat. 
§ 813.12(8), as an act of domestic abuse.  On June 2, 2011, 
Attorney Guenther appeared by telephone at a joint motion 
hearing.  In response to the prosecutor's statement that he did 
not think Attorney Guenther had received permission to appear by 
telephone, Attorney Guenther told the court that he had 
requested at a prior hearing to appear by telephone and that he 
was appearing by telephone with the permission of the court.  
The court had not granted any such permission to appear by 
telephone.  The court found that Attorney Guenther had failed to 
appear 
in 
person 
for 
the 
hearing 
and 
had 
made 
a 
misrepresentation to the court.  It therefore found him in 
contempt and ordered him to pay $100 as a contempt sanction 
within seven days.  It further informed him that he did not have 
permission to appear by telephone and directed him to be present 
at the next proceeding, which was a status conference scheduled 
for July 11, 2011.   
¶20 When Attorney Guenther did not pay the $100 sanction 
within the required seven-day period, the court held a show 
cause hearing on June 30, 2011.  Attorney Guenther did not 
appear at that hearing.  He also did not appear at the status 
conference, which had been rescheduled for July 13, 2011.   
¶21 The OLR sent letters to Attorney Guenther in July and 
August 2011 directing him to file responses to the grievances it 
No. 
2012AP967-D   
 
13 
 
had received.  Attorney Guenther did not respond.  After the OLR 
learned that Attorney Guenther had been incarcerated in the 
Washington County Jail, it sent another letter to him at that 
location, again asking for a response.  Attorney Guenther still 
did not respond.   
¶22 In January 2012 Attorney Guenther pled no contest and 
guilty in the two pending Winnebago County cases to reduced 
misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct, with a domestic abuse 
surcharge.  He did not timely report his convictions in these 
two cases to the OLR or the clerk of this court.   
¶23 The referee concluded that these facts properly 
supported legal conclusions that Attorney Guenther had engaged 
in 12 counts of professional misconduct.  With respect to Counts 
Seven and Eight, the referee determined that Attorney Guenther's 
written contact with R.G. on October 1, 2010 (Count Seven), and 
on October 4, 2010 (Count Eight), without her consent and in 
violation of the terms of a domestic abuse injunction, had 
violated SCR 20:8.4(b).  The referee further found on Count Nine 
that Attorney Guenther had engaged in misrepresentation when he 
had falsely stated to the circuit court that R.G.'s allegedly 
former lawyer had said he was unwilling to accept legal papers 
on R.G.'s behalf and that Attorney Guenther had been forced to 
mail 
legal 
documents 
directly 
to 
R.G., 
in 
violation 
of 
No. 
2012AP967-D   
 
14 
 
SCR 20:3.3(a)(1)9 and SCR 20:8.4(c).10  On Count Ten, the referee 
found that Attorney Guenther's knowingly false representation to 
the circuit court at the June 2, 2011 motion hearing that it had 
previously granted permission to him to appear by telephone 
violated SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) and SCR 20:8.4(c).  The referee found 
on Count Eleven that Attorney Guenther's action in contempt of 
court at the June 2, 2011 hearing had violated his attorney's 
oath, as set forth in SCR 40:15,11 and SCR 20:8.4(g).12  The 
                                                 
9 SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) states that a lawyer shall not knowingly 
"make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to 
correct a false statement of material fact or law previously 
made to the tribunal by the lawyer." 
10 SCR 20:8.4(c) states that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
11 Attorney Guenther's failure to appear demonstrated a lack 
of respect for the court and his false statements about having 
received prior permission to appear by telephone constituted an 
attempt to mislead the judge.  SCR 40:15 (Attorney's oath) 
states, in pertinent part: 
The oath or affirmation to be taken to qualify 
for admission to the practice of law shall be in 
substantially the following form: 
. . . . 
I will maintain the respect due to courts of 
justice and judicial officers; 
. . . . 
I will employ, for the purpose of maintaining the 
causes confided to me, such means only as are 
consistent with truth and honor, and will never seek 
to mislead the judge or jury by any artifice or false 
statement of fact or law; . . . . 
No. 
2012AP967-D   
 
15 
 
referee further determined that Attorney Guenther's mailing of 
legal documents directly to R.G. on October 1, 2010 (Count 
Twelve) and on October 4, 2010 (Count Thirteen), contrary to the 
circuit court's "no contact" provision in the domestic abuse 
injunction, had violated SCR 20:3.4(c).  Attorney Guenther's 
failure to pay the $100 contempt sanction (Count Fourteen), his 
failure to appear at the June 30, 2011 hearing to explain his 
failure to appear (Count Fifteen), and his failure to appear at 
the July 13, 2011 status conference (Count Sixteen) also 
constituted violations of SCR 20:3.4(c).  The referee further 
concluded on Count Seventeen that Attorney Guenther's failure to 
give timely notice of his convictions in the two Winnebago 
County criminal cases had violated SCR 21.15(5), enforceable via 
SCR 20:8.4(f).  Finally, with respect to Count Eighteen, the 
referee determined that Attorney Guenther's failure to answer 
the OLR's repeated requests for a written response to its 
grievance investigation had violated SCR 22.03(2), enforceable 
via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶24 The referee directed the parties to submit briefs 
regarding the appropriate sanction to be imposed in this matter.  
The OLR submitted a sanction brief, asking the referee to 
recommend a six-month suspension.  In addition to noting a 
number of aggravating factors, including a lengthy disciplinary 
history, multiple offenses, a pattern of misconduct, substantial 
                                                                                                                                                             
12 SCR 20:8.4(g) states that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "violate the attorney's oath." 
No. 
2012AP967-D   
 
16 
 
practice experience, and an intentional failure to cooperate 
with a disciplinary agency's investigations, the OLR relied on 
this court's imposition of a six-month suspension for multiple 
instances of criminal conduct and for failure to cooperate with 
disciplinary investigations.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Soldon, 2010 WI 27, 324 Wis. 2d 4, 782 N.W.2d 81.  It 
also pointed to our decision in Guenther III, where we imposed a 
90-day suspension for a series of criminal acts, failure to 
provide timely notice of his convictions, and failure to 
cooperate with grievance investigations.  Attorney Guenther did 
not file any sanction brief. 
¶25 Although the referee agreed with much of the OLR's 
sanction analysis, she concluded that this court's practice of 
imposing progressive discipline required a longer suspension 
than the OLR sought.  She believed that Attorney Guenther's 
criminal acts of driving with a PAC were more serious than 
Attorney Soldon's series of retail thefts.  Given Attorney 
Guenther's lengthy disciplinary history, the referee recommended 
that his repeated disobedience of court orders, including 
absolute 
sobriety 
and 
no-contact 
orders, 
and 
his 
false 
statements to a court warranted a suspension of one year.  She 
further recommended that Attorney Guenther should be required to 
pay the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding. 
¶26 Our 
review 
of 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact, 
conclusions of law, and sanction recommendation follows long-
established standards.  Specifically, we affirm a referee's 
findings of fact unless they are found to be clearly erroneous, 
No. 
2012AP967-D   
 
17 
 
but we review the referee's conclusions of law on a de novo 
basis. 
 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Inglimo, 
2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125.  We determine 
the appropriate level of discipline given the particular facts 
of each case, independent of the referee's recommendation, but 
benefiting from it.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶27 As noted above, Attorney Guenther has not appealed 
from the referee's report and recommendation.  After conducting 
our own review of the record, we do not find that any of the 
substantive 
factual 
findings 
of 
the 
referee 
are 
clearly 
erroneous, and we adopt them.  We further agree that those facts 
provide clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that 
Attorney Guenther committed the professional misconduct alleged 
in the 18 counts of the OLR's complaint. 
¶28 Turning to the appropriate level of discipline, we 
agree with the referee that the seriousness of Attorney 
Guenther's misconduct and our practice of imposing progressively 
stronger sanctions require a one-year suspension of Attorney 
Guenther's license to practice law in this state.  Unlike the 
disciplinary proceeding involving Attorney Soldon, this is the 
fifth time that Attorney Guenther has committed misconduct 
serious enough to warrant a suspension.  He was already 
disciplined 
for 
very 
similar 
misconduct 
in 
Guenther III.  
Specifically, 
although 
he 
had 
been 
disciplined 
in 
that 
proceeding for criminal convictions that arose out of improper 
actions toward his then-wife, he subsequently chose to violate a 
No. 
2012AP967-D   
 
18 
 
domestic abuse injunction by sending legal documents to her 
directly.  Further, although he had been disciplined in 
Guenther III for his second offense of operating a motor vehicle 
with a PAC, he engaged in the conduct again, leading to a third 
PAC conviction.  This repetition of misconduct makes the 
violations in this matter more troubling and worthy of a 
lengthier suspension, which hopefully will impress upon him the 
seriousness of his misconduct and the need to conform his 
conduct to both the criminal laws of this state and the Rules of 
Professional Conduct for Attorneys.   
¶29 We do not include any restitution award in our order.  
There are no monetary losses that arose from the misconduct at 
issue in this proceeding. 
¶30 Finally, we conclude that Attorney Guenther should pay 
the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding.  Our general 
practice is to impose full costs on attorneys who are found to 
have committed misconduct.  See SCR 22.24(1m).  Attorney 
Guenther has not claimed that there are reasons to depart from 
that practice in this matter, and we have not found any reason 
to do so. 
¶31 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Arik J. Guenther to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of one year, 
effective the date of this order. 
¶32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Arik J. Guenther shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
No. 
2012AP967-D   
 
19 
 
¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Arik J. Guenther shall 
continue compliance with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning 
the duties of a person whose license to practice law in 
Wisconsin has been suspended. 
¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.29(4)(c). 
 
 
 
No. 
2012AP967-D   
 
 
 
1