Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Todd J. Beatse

Citation: 2006 WI 115

Docket Number: 2005AP002826-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2006-10-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
2006 WI 115 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2005AP2826-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Todd J. Beatse, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Todd J. Beatse, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BEATSE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
        
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2006 WI 115
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2005AP2826-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Todd J. Beatse, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Todd J. Beatse, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 11, 2006 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the referee's recommendation 
that Attorney Todd Beatse be publicly reprimanded for his 
professional misconduct. 
¶2 
Neither the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) nor 
Attorney Beatse has appealed the referee's recommendation.  
Thus, the matter is submitted to the court for its review 
pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1  In conducting our review, we will 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) provides:  Review; appeal. 
No. 
2005AP2826-D   
 
2 
 
affirm the referee's findings of fact unless they are clearly 
erroneous.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Sosnay, 
209 Wis. 2d 241, 243, 562 N.W.2d 137 (1997).  We review the 
referee's conclusions of law, however, on a de novo basis.  See 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, 
¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 718.  Finally, in accordance 
with our authority to supervise the practice of law in this 
state, we determine the level of discipline that is appropriate 
under the particular circumstances, independent of the referee's 
recommendation, but benefiting from it.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 
N.W.2d 686. 
¶3 
After our independent review of the record, we adopt 
the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law.  Further, 
we agree with the referee's recommendation that a public 
reprimand is appropriate discipline in this case. 
¶4 
Attorney Beatse was admitted to the practice of law in 
May 2000.  At the times relevant to this matter, he was an 
assistant district attorney for Monroe County. 
¶5 
According to the OLR's complaint, on January 24 or 25, 
2005, Attorney Beatse left his office to attend court hearings.  
                                                                                                                                                             
(2) 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. 
2005AP2826-D   
 
3 
 
While he was out of his office, the district attorney's office 
received notification that its computer system had to be shut 
down for maintenance purposes.  When Attorney Beatse's secretary 
went to shut down his computer, she discovered pornographic 
images that had been downloaded from the Internet and minimized 
on the bottom of his screen.   
¶6 
Attorney Beatse told various individuals, including 
his supervisor, Monroe County District Attorney Daniel Cary, 
that the images had come from his son's use of a home computer, 
that he had copied them onto a memory stick, and that he had 
loaded them onto his work computer to determine what files or 
websites his son had been accessing at home.  This story was 
false. 
¶7 
When the district attorney ordered an investigation of 
the matter, a review of Attorney Beatse's state-provided 
computer showed that during the preceding 55 days (on 29 of 
which Attorney Beatse had been at work), he had browsed 
pornographic Internet sites for 36 hours, and that 12 of the 20 
sites visited most by Attorney Beatse were pornographic sites. 
¶8 
Attorney Beatse thereafter admitted that he had lied 
to District Attorney Cary about his son having been the source 
of the pornography and that he himself had been improperly 
viewing pornography with his work computer, contrary to various 
state and local work rules.  Attorney Beatse, however, stated 
that he had not viewed pornography after the discovery on 
January 24 or 25.  This was false because the audit of his 
No. 
2005AP2826-D   
 
4 
 
computer showed that he had spent over a half hour viewing 
pornography on January 26 and 27, 2005. 
¶9 
Attorney Beatse was suspended without pay and given a 
disciplinary letter advising him that further misuse of the 
state computer system would lead to further disciplinary action. 
¶10 While on disciplinary suspension, Attorney Beatse used 
the state e-mail system from his home computer to send a number 
of improper e-mail messages, including messages to two female 
government employees, one of whom was a court reporter.  In 
those messages he made comments about having touched the breasts 
of a third Monroe County employee and about the court reporter's 
breasts.  The court reporter also stated that Attorney Beatse 
had made a number of similar inappropriate oral comments about 
her breasts on previous occasions.  In addition to all of these 
comments, the audit of the computer system disclosed that 
Attorney Beatse had sent a number of e-mails about his sexual 
activities and other sexual topics.  Attorney Beatse initially 
denied having sent sexually explicit e-mails using the state 
computer system, except when the sexual content was "part of a 
joke."  This was not true. 
¶11 In light of these additional facts, the district 
attorney's 
office 
terminated 
Attorney 
Beatse's 
employment.  
After a period of not practicing law, Attorney Beatse now works 
as a private attorney. 
¶12 The OLR's complaint alleged that by lying to his co-
workers and his supervisor about the source of and reason for 
the pornography on his work computer, by lying about his 
No. 
2005AP2826-D   
 
5 
 
continued viewing of pornography on his work computer after 
January 24 or 25, and by lying about sending and receiving 
sexually explicit e-mails, Attorney Beatse had engaged in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).2 
¶13 The second count of the OLR's complaint alleged that 
by making offensive comments to the court reporter about her 
breasts and by using the state e-mail system to send and receive 
numerous messages containing inappropriate sexual and other 
offensive content, Attorney Beatse had violated the attorney's 
oath, including the requirement to "abstain from all offensive 
personality," 
see 
SCR 
40.15, 
thereby 
also 
violating 
SCR 
20:8.4(g).3 
¶14 Attorney Beatse filed an answer pleading no-contest to 
the two counts in the OLR's complaint.  He objected, however, to 
the OLR's request for a public reprimand, arguing that a private 
reprimand was sufficient discipline. 
¶15 Russell L. Hanson was appointed as a referee and 
conducted a hearing on the appropriate sanction. The referee's 
subsequent report concluded that Attorney Beatse's no-contest 
pleas to the allegations of the complaint were a sufficient 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
3 SCR 20:8.4(g) provides that it is professional misconduct 
to "violate the attorney's oath." 
No. 
2005AP2826-D   
 
6 
 
basis to find that he had violated SCR 20:8.4(c) and SCR 
20:8.4(g). 
¶16 With respect to the question of the appropriate level 
of discipline, the referee concluded that a public reprimand was 
warranted.  He acknowledged that there were some mitigating 
factors in Attorney Beatse's favor, including that Attorney 
Beatse had already suffered significant consequences, such as 
the loss of his job, that he had cooperated with the OLR in its 
investigation, and that he appears to have genuine remorse for 
his misconduct.  On the other hand, the referee concluded that 
Attorney Beatse's conduct was so outrageous that it required 
public, rather than private, discipline.  He stated that it was 
disturbing not only that Attorney Beatse had lied and attempted 
to place undeserved blame on his son, but also that his repeated 
lies had caused his employer and co-workers additional work.  In 
addition, the referee stated that he believed that Attorney 
Beatse still did not fully understand that because someone 
shares questionable or inappropriate stories with him, he did 
not have the right to comment on that person's anatomy. 
¶17 After reviewing the record and in light of Attorney 
Beatse's no-contest plea, we adopt the referee's factual 
findings based on the allegations of the OLR's complaint.  We 
also adopt the referee's legal conclusions that Attorney Beatse 
violated SCR 20:8.4(c) by his multiple false statements and that 
he violated his oath as an attorney, thereby also violating SCR 
20:8.4(g).  We further agree that the repeated nature and 
seriousness of Attorney Beatse's misconduct warrants a public 
No. 
2005AP2826-D   
 
7 
 
reprimand.  Finally, we decide that Attorney Beatse should be 
required to pay the costs of this proceeding, which were 
$6693.98 as of May 11, 2006. 
¶18 IT IS ORDERED that Todd J. Beatse is publicly 
reprimanded for his professional misconduct. 
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Attorney Todd J. Beatse pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If the costs 
are not paid within the time specified and absent a showing to 
this court of his inability to pay the costs within that time, 
the license of Todd J. Beatse to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
be suspended until further order of the court. 
 
No. 
2005AP2826-D   
 
 
 
1