Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michael R. Bauer

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2020-11-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
2020 WI 86 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2016AP1259-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Michael R. Bauer, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Michael R. Bauer, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BAUER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 24, 2020   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam.  
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2020 WI 86
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2016AP1259-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Michael R. Bauer, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Michael R. Bauer, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
FILED 
 
NOV 24, 2020 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.   Reinstatement granted 
upon conditions.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a report filed by Referee 
James C. Boll recommending that the court reinstate the license 
of Michael R. Bauer to practice law in Wisconsin with certain 
conditions.  No appeal has been filed from the referee's report 
and recommendation.  Accordingly, our review proceeds pursuant 
to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.33(3).1  Upon careful review of 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.33(3) provides:  "If no appeal is timely filed, the 
supreme 
court 
shall 
review 
the 
referee's 
report, 
order 
reinstatement, with or without conditions, deny reinstatement, 
or order the parties to file briefs in the matter." 
No. 
2016AP1259-D   
 
2 
 
the matter we adopt the referee's findings and conclusions and 
agree that Attorney Bauer's petition for reinstatement should be 
granted upon the recommended conditions as described below.  We 
also direct that the costs of this current reinstatement 
proceeding, totaling $4,093.40, be paid by Attorney Bauer. 
¶2 
Attorney Bauer was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1988.  He practiced law in Madison.  He also owned 
a business, Sports Advisors, Inc., which related to his work as 
an agent for several National Football League players.  Before 
the complaint giving rise to his current license suspension 
Attorney Bauer had not previously been subject to professional 
discipline. 
¶3 
On June 24, 2016, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a disciplinary complaint against Attorney Bauer 
alleging 28 counts of professional misconduct.  The complaint 
alleged that between December 2013 and October 2014, Attorney 
Bauer mishandled client funds held in trust, comingled personal 
funds in his trust account, failed to keep proper trust account 
records, exercised a lack of diligence, failed to properly 
communicate with clients, failed to promptly refund unearned 
fees 
and 
repeatedly 
failed 
to 
cooperate 
with 
the 
OLR's 
investigations. 
Ultimately, 
following 
litigation, 
it 
was 
determined that Attorney Bauer committed 22 counts of misconduct 
and converted $376,818.63.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Bauer, 2018 WI 49, 381 Wis. 2d 474, 912 N.W.2d 108.  
Although the dollar amount is staggeringly high, it bears noting 
No. 
2016AP1259-D   
 
3 
 
that it was undisputed that Attorney Bauer's clients received 
all monies due to them.   
¶4 
On April 5, 2019, Attorney Bauer filed a petition 
seeking the reinstatement of his Wisconsin law license.  The OLR 
conducted an investigation and initially opposed the petition.  
The court appointed Referee Boll, who conducted an evidentiary 
hearing on November 12, 2019, in Madison.  Attorney Bauer 
testified and presented several character witnesses who voiced 
support for his reinstatement.   
¶5 
On December 12, 2019, the referee issued a report 
concluding that Attorney Bauer had satisfied his burden of proof 
and had met the requirements for reinstatement set forth in 
SCR 22.31.2  The referee recommends reinstatement with certain 
conditions, and the imposition of costs. 
                                                 
2 SCR 22.31(1) provides the petitioner has the burden 
of 
demonstrating, 
by 
clear, 
satisfactory, 
and 
convincing evidence, all of the following:  
(a) That he or she has the moral character to 
practice law in Wisconsin.  
(b) That his or her resumption of the practice of 
law will not be detrimental to the administration of 
justice or subversive of the public interest.  
(c) That his or her representations in the 
petition, including the representations required by 
SCR 
22.29(4)(a) 
to 
(m) 
and 
22.29(5), 
are 
substantiated.  
(d) That he or she has complied fully with the 
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and 
with the requirements of SCR 22.26. 
No. 
2016AP1259-D   
 
4 
 
¶6 
When we review a referee's report and recommendation, 
we will adopt the referee's findings of fact unless they are 
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.   
¶7 
During review, the court ascertained that Attorney 
Bauer had commenced a voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding 
in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District 
of Wisconsin.  Michael R. Bauer and Kathleen R. LaRocque, 3-19-
13610-bhl.  On January 23, 2020, Attorney Bauer's former law 
partner, Attorney Daniel P. Bach, filed in that bankruptcy 
proceeding a "complaint to determine dischargeability of a debt" 
seeking an order excepting the debt owed to Attorney Bach from 
discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B), 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) 
and 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6), and for a judgment in the amount of 
$678,900.87 
"representing 
treble 
damages . . . on 
the 
$226,300.29 paid by [Attorney Bach] due to Bauer's actions."  
Attorney Bach's claim clearly related to this disciplinary 
proceeding.  Accordingly, on February 18, 2020, the court 
ordered the parties to advise the court why the reinstatement 
petition should not be held in abeyance pending resolution of 
the bankruptcy proceeding. 
¶8 
On February 26, 2020, the OLR filed a statement 
agreeing that the matter should be held.  On March 3, 2020, 
Attorney Bauer filed a two-page statement asking the court to 
decide the reinstatement "based upon the facts found by the 
Referee in its decision dated December 9, 2019."  On May 19, 
No. 
2016AP1259-D   
 
5 
 
2020 we held the reinstatement petition in abeyance pending 
resolution of the bankruptcy proceeding.  On September 15, 2020, 
Attorney Bauer advised the court that the dispute involving 
Attorney Bach had been resolved.  The OLR confirmed this 
statement in a report filed on October 1, 2020.  The parties 
agree the court may proceed with Attorney Bauer's reinstatement 
petition.  
¶9 
Supreme Court Rule 22.31(1) sets forth the standards 
to be met for reinstatement.  The petitioner must show by clear, 
satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he or she has the 
moral character to practice law, that his or her resumption of 
the 
practice 
of 
law 
will 
not 
be 
detrimental 
to 
the 
administration of justice or subversive to the public interest, 
and that he or she has complied with SCR 22.26 and the terms of 
the 
order 
of 
suspension. 
 
In 
addition, 
SCR 
22.31(1)(c) 
incorporates the statements that a petition for reinstatement 
must contain pursuant to SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(k) and (4m).3  Thus, 
                                                 
3 SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(k) and (4m) provides that a petition 
for reinstatement shall show all of the following:  
(a) The 
petitioner 
desires 
to 
have 
the 
petitioner's license reinstated.  
(b) The petitioner has not practiced law during 
the period of suspension or revocation.  
(c) The petitioner has complied fully with the 
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and 
will 
continue 
to 
comply 
with 
them 
until 
the 
petitioner's license is reinstated.  
(d) The petitioner has maintained competence and 
learning in the law by attendance at identified 
educational activities.  
No. 
2016AP1259-D   
 
6 
 
the petitioning attorney must demonstrate that the required 
representations in the reinstatement petition are substantiated. 
¶10 The referee found that Attorney Bauer:  desires to 
have his license reinstated, 22.29(4)(a); has not practiced law 
in 
Wisconsin 
during 
the 
period 
of 
his 
suspension, 
SCR 22.29(4)(b); has complied fully with the terms of the order 
of suspension or revocation and will continue to comp1y with 
                                                                                                                                                             
(e) The petitioner's conduct since the suspension 
or revocation has been exemplary and above reproach.  
(f) The petitioner has a proper understanding of 
and attitude toward the standards that are imposed 
upon members of the bar and will act in conformity 
with the standards.  
(g) The petitioner can safely be recommended to 
the legal profession, the courts and the public as a 
person fit to be consulted by others and to represent 
them and otherwise act in matters of trust and 
confidence and in general to aid in the administration 
of justice as a member of the bar and as an officer of 
the courts.  
(h) The petitioner has fully complied with the 
requirements set forth in SCR 22.26.  
(j) The petitioner's proposed use of the license 
if reinstated.  
(k) A full description of all of the petitioner's 
business activities during the period of suspension or 
revocation.  
(4m) The petitioner has made restitution to or 
settled all claims of persons injured or harmed by 
petitioner's misconduct, including reimbursement to 
the Wisconsin lawyers' fund for client protection for 
all payments made from that fund, or, if not, the 
petitioner's explanation of the failure or inability 
to do so. 
No. 
2016AP1259-D   
 
7 
 
them unti1 his 1icense is reinstated, SCR 22.29(4)(c); and has 
maintained competence and learning in the law by attending 
identified educational activities, SCR 22.29(4)(d).4  The referee 
further found that Attorney Bauer's conduct since the suspension 
has been exemp1ary and above reproach, SCR 22.29(4)(e); he has a  
proper understanding of and attitude toward the standards that 
are imposed upon members of the bar and will act in conformity 
with the standards, SCR 22.29(4)(f); and that he can safely be 
recommended to the legal profession, the courts, and the public 
as a person fit to be consulted by others and to represent them 
and otherwise act in matters of trust and confidence and in 
general to aid in the administration of justice as a member of 
the bar and as an officer of the courts, SCR 22.29(4)(g).  The 
referee found that Attorney Bauer has fully complied with the 
requirements set forth in SCR 22.26, SCR 22.29(4)(h); he has 
explained the proposed use of his law license if reinstated, 
SCR 22.29(4)(j);5 and he has offered a full description of all of 
his business activities during the period of suspension, 
                                                 
4 By memo dated May 6, 2019, the Board of Bar Examiners, 
based on the information that has been submitted by the 
petitioner, concluded the petitioner was currently in compliance 
with the court's CLE and EPR requirements for reinstatement.  In 
addition, the petitioner voluntarily attended a seminar entitled 
Trust Account Management on April 26, 2018, conducted by the 
OLR. 
5 Attorney Bauer indicated that he will practice law in 
Wisconsin and focus on consumer and immigration matters.  He may 
also seek training to mediate eminent domain disputes. 
No. 
2016AP1259-D   
 
8 
 
satisfying SCR 22.29(4)(k).6  The referee specifically found that 
Attorney Bauer has the moral character to practice law. 
¶11 The referee observed that no restitution was ordered 
in the underlying disciplinary proceedings and noted that no 
claims were made to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client 
Protection against Attorney Bauer.  Accordingly, the referee 
determined that Attorney Bauer has satisfied SCR 22.29(4m).  See 
also ¶¶7-8 (addressing resolution of Attorney Bach's claims 
against Attorney Bauer in the bankruptcy proceeding).  
¶12 The referee addressed two particular concerns raised 
by the OLR:  his access to client trust accounts in light of his 
financial condition, namely a high level of debt, and the 
serious nature of Attorney Bauer's underlying misconduct.  The 
referee observed that debt alone is not a disqualifying factor 
for reinstatement.  However, where previous misconduct coupled 
with strained personal finances creates an enhanced risk to the 
public, high debt levels may be a valid concern.  Here, the 
referee noted that Attorney Bauer had filed for bankruptcy which 
the referee accepted as evidence that Attorney Bauer had a 
viable plan to address his personal finances.  After the 
referee's report was filed, the bankruptcy court discharged most 
of Attorney Bauer's debts. 
                                                 
6 Attorney Bauer testified that he engaged in no income 
producing business activities during the time period of his 
suspension.  He cared for his family and volunteered in the 
community. 
No. 
2016AP1259-D   
 
9 
 
¶13 In addition, the referee observed that Attorney Bauer 
testified that he would not object to reasonable conditions 
being placed on his reinstatement as it relates to his use of or 
access to client trust funds.  The recommended conditions are 
designed, in part, to address these concerns.   
¶14 The referee then considered the OLR's stated concern 
about the seriousness of the underlying misconduct.  The referee 
acknowledged that Attorney Bauer's underlying misconduct was not 
the result of an honest mistake or sloppy bookkeeping.  It was 
intentional and dishonest.  Without discounting the seriousness 
of the underlying misconduct, the referee noted that Attorney 
Bauer has served the suspension imposed by this court and the 
referee was persuaded that Attorney Bauer's resumption of the 
practice of law will not be detrimental to the administration of 
justice or subversive of the public interest. 
¶15 We agree with the referee that Attorney Bauer has met 
his burden of proof with respect to all elements needed to 
justify his reinstatement.  Moreover, his period of suspension 
has been over six months longer than ordered by this court 
because of the delays resulting from his underlying bankruptcy 
proceeding.   
¶16 As stated by the referee in the underlying proceeding, 
for some reason, the "wheels came off" Attorney Bauer's trust 
account management practices in 2014.  The conversions occurred 
between December 2013 and October 2014 and consisted of 
"labyrinthine transfers" that "seemed to constantly be in the 
process of 'robbing Peter to pay Paul' and, in some cases, to 
No. 
2016AP1259-D   
 
10 
 
pay Michael Bauer."  However, once confronted, Attorney Bauer 
admitted guilt as to many of the allegations; no clients lost 
funds; he fully cooperated with the OLR investigation; and he 
expressed remorse for his misbehavior.  He had no prior 
discipline over what had been an otherwise distinguished 20-year 
legal career.  
¶17 The referee in this reinstatement proceeding observed 
that Attorney Bauer has expressed regret for his conduct and 
found that Attorney Bauer's testimony and the evidence adduced 
through the testimony of his character witnesses demonstrated 
that he has taken responsibility for his actions.  He completed 
the OLR's Trust Account Management Seminar in 2018.  We accept 
the referee's conclusion that Attorney Bauer's resumption of the 
practice of law will not be detrimental to the administration of 
justice or subversive of the public interest and that he has met 
his burden of proof with respect to all elements needed to 
justify his reinstatement. 
¶18 We agree, however that it is appropriate to impose 
certain conditions on Attorney Bauer's practice of law.  We 
require Attorney Bauer to provide quarterly trust account and 
business accounting records to the OLR for a period of two years 
after the date of his reinstatement.  As the referee observed, 
this requirement is consistent with conditions we have imposed 
in other attorney reinstatement proceedings where we sought to 
address concerns about trust account management.  See, e.g., In 
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Malloy, 2019 WI 16, 385 
Wis. 2d 554, 923 N.W.2d 876; In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
No. 
2016AP1259-D   
 
11 
 
Against Mulligan, 2017 WI 50, 375 Wis. 2d 133, 895 N.W.2d 34; 
and In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Curtis, 2018 WI 13, 
379 Wis. 2d 521, 907 N.W.2d 91.   
¶19 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Michael R. Bauer to 
practice law in Wisconsin is reinstated, effective the date of 
this order.   
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of the 
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin, 
Michael R. Bauer is required to provide quarterly trust account 
and business accounting records to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation for a period of two years after the date of this 
reinstatement. 
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Michael R. Bauer shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$4,093.40 as of December 23, 2019, or enter into a payment 
agreement plan with the Office of Lawyer Regulation for the full 
payment of costs over a period of time. 
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all of the 
terms of this order remains a condition of Michael R. Bauer's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin.   
No. 
2016AP1259-D   
 
 
 
1