Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Heather Downs Russell

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2019AP001690-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2021-03-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
2021 WI 18 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2019AP1690-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Heather Downs Russell, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Heather Downs Russell, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST RUSSELL 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 2, 2021   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam.  
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2021 WI 18
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2019AP1690-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Heather Downs Russell, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Heather Downs Russell, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
MAR 2, 2021 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report of Referee James J. 
Winiarski which concluded that Attorney Heather Downs Russell's 
professional misconduct warrants a public reprimand.  The 
referee 
further 
recommends 
that 
the 
full 
costs 
of 
this 
proceeding, which are $5,235.37 as of October 27, 2020, be 
assessed against Attorney Downs Russell.   
¶2 
Since 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).  Upon consideration of the 
No. 
2019AP1690-D   
 
2 
 
referee's report, the parties' partial stipulation, and the 
record in this matter, we agree that a public reprimand is an 
appropriate sanction for Attorney Downs Russell's misconduct.  
We also agree with the referee that Attorney Downs Russell 
should pay the full costs of this proceeding.   
¶3 
Attorney Downs Russell was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1999.  She is employed at Modine Manufacturing 
Company in Racine.  She has no previous disciplinary history. 
¶4 
Attorney Downs Russell's Wisconsin law license became 
inactive effective July 23, 2002.  In the summer of 2015, 
Attorney Downs Russell applied for and obtained employment as an 
attorney with Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek S.C. (Whyte Hirschboeck), 
a Wisconsin law firm.  Attorney Downs Russell's employment with 
Whyte Hirschboeck required that she have an active law license 
or otherwise be authorized to practice law in Wisconsin.  In its 
offer letter dated August 19, 2015, Whyte Hirschboeck noted that 
Attorney Downs Russell's license status was inactive and that 
until she regained active status to practice law in Wisconsin, 
she must refrain from holding herself out as an "attorney" 
practicing in Wisconsin. 
¶5 
No later than September 1, 2015, Attorney Downs 
Russell was aware that she would have to complete 60 hours of 
continuing legal education (CLE) in order to reactivate her 
license, and that she could not use on-demand CLE courses to 
satisfy that requirement. 
¶6 
Attorney Downs Russell began her employment at Whyte 
Hirschboeck on September 15, 2015 without telling anyone 
No. 
2019AP1690-D   
 
3 
 
associated with the firm that she did not yet have an active 
license to practice law in Wisconsin, that she had not filed a 
request to return to active status, or that she would be 
ineligible to file that request until she had completed the 
required CLE. 
¶7 
At or soon after the commencement of her employment, 
Attorney Downs Russell began using the title "attorney" and 
holding herself out as an attorney licensed and authorized to 
practice law in Wisconsin.  She allowed Whyte Hirschboeck to 
begin holding her out as an attorney licensed and authorized to 
practice law in Wisconsin.  At or soon after the commencement of 
her employment with Whyte Hirschboeck, Attorney Downs Russell 
began practicing law in Wisconsin.  She did not inform Whyte 
Hirschboeck that there would be a delay in her return to active 
status.  By failing to inform Whyte Hirschboeck that her license 
remained inactive, and would remain so for an indefinite period 
of time, Attorney Downs Russell misled Whyte Hirschboeck into 
assuming that she had returned to active status. 
¶8 
Because the Whyte Hirschboeck website listed Attorney 
Downs Russell as an attorney admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin, and because her email and written communications 
never indicated otherwise, clients, other attorneys, and anyone 
employed by or associated with Whyte Hirschboeck would have 
reasonably believed that she had an active license to practice 
law in Wisconsin.  Attorney Downs Russell did not take any 
action to correct that mistaken belief. 
No. 
2019AP1690-D   
 
4 
 
¶9 
On her Fiscal 2017 State Bar of Wisconsin dues 
statement, which she signed on June 6, 2016, Attorney Downs 
Russell represented that she was engaged in the active practice 
of law in Wisconsin. 
¶10 In July 2016, Whyte Hirschboeck merged with Husch 
Blackwell, a nationwide firm with a Milwaukee office.  Attorney 
Downs Russell signed a new employment agreement with Husch 
Blackwell, which described her employment as "a Senior Counsel 
attorney."  The employment agreement stated that Husch Blackwell 
was "excited about the prospect of practicing with you."  
¶11 Husch Blackwell, like Whyte Hirschboeck, assumed that 
Attorney Downs Russell had an active Wisconsin law license and 
she did not inform anyone associated with Husch Blackwell that 
her Wisconsin law license was inactive.   
¶12 On May 30, 2017, Attorney Downs Russell signed her 
Fiscal 2018 State Bar of Wisconsin dues statement and checked 
the box indicating, "I do not practice law in Wisconsin."  She 
included a hand-written note saying, "I am currently inactive 
and have been enrolled in CLE courses to become active once 
again in Wisconsin."  In fact, at the time she signed the 
statement, Attorney Downs Russell was engaged in the active 
practice of law in Wisconsin through her employment with Husch 
Blackwell. 
¶13 Attorney Downs Russell entered into another employment 
with Husch Blackwell in June 2017, in which her employment was 
again described as "Senior Counsel," without advising anyone 
No. 
2019AP1690-D   
 
5 
 
associated with Husch Blackwell that she did not have an active 
law license. 
¶14 Attorney Downs Russell did not complete the required 
CLE credits until April 2017, and she did not request a return 
to active status until August 2017.  By letter dated August 17, 
2017, to the State Bar of Wisconsin, with a copy to the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), Attorney Downs Russell requested to 
transfer from inactive to active status. 
¶15 On September 7, 2017, Attorney Downs Russell forwarded 
to Husch Blackwell's compliance counsel a copy of the OLR's 
correspondence 
requesting 
information 
relevant 
to 
its 
investigation of her request to return to active status.   
¶16 On September 15, 2017, Husch Blackwell suspended 
Attorney Downs Russell's employment pending resolution of the 
OLR's investigation of her request to return to active status. 
¶17 On October 11, 2017, the OLR filed a memorandum with 
this court supporting Attorney Downs Russell's request to return 
to active status, but advising the court of the OLR's intent to 
open a separate investigation regarding Attorney Downs Russell.  
This court granted Attorney Downs Russell's request to return to 
active status on November 17, 2017. 
¶18 On September 10, 2019, the OLR filed a complaint 
alleging the following counts of misconduct: 
Count 1:  By practicing law in Wisconsin at a time 
when her Wisconsin law license was inactive, Attorney 
Downs 
Russell 
violated 
SCR 
10.03(3)(c),1 
                                                 
1 SCR 10.03(3)(c) provides:   
No. 
2019AP1690-D   
 
6 
 
SCR 10.03(4)(a),2 and SCR 23.02(1),3 enforced via 
SCR 20:8.4(f).4 
Count 2:  By using the titles "attorney" and "Senior 
Counsel" in Wisconsin at a time when her Wisconsin law 
license was inactive, Attorney Downs Russell violated 
SCR 23.02(3)5 enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f). 
                                                                                                                                                             
No judicial or inactive member may practice law 
in this state or hold office or vote in any election 
conducted by the state bar. No person engaged in the 
practice of law in this state in his or her own behalf 
or as an assistant or employee of an active member of 
the state bar, or occupying a position, the duties of 
which require the giving of legal advice or service in 
this state, may be enrolled as an inactive member. 
2 SCR 10.03(4)(a) provides: "No individual other than an 
enrolled active member of the state bar may practice law in this 
state or in any manner purported to be authorized or qualified 
to practice law." 
3 SCR 23.02(1) provides: 
A person who is duly licensed to practice law in 
this state by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and who is 
an active member of the State Bar of Wisconsin may 
practice law in Wisconsin.  No person may engage in 
the practice of law in Wisconsin, or attempt to do so, 
or make a representation that he or she is authorized 
to do so, unless the person is currently licensed to 
practice law in Wisconsin by the Wisconsin s Supreme 
court and is an active member of the State Bar of 
Wisconsin. 
4 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." 
5 SCR 23.02(3) provides: 
 
Except as permitted by SCR 10.03(4), only a 
person who is currently licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin and who is an active member of the State Bar 
of Wisconsin may represent himself or herself to the 
public using the words attorney at law, lawyer, 
solicitor, counselor, attorney and counselor, proctor, 
No. 
2019AP1690-D   
 
7 
 
Count 3:  By engaging in a course of conduct that 
misled two firms that employed her into believing that 
she had an active Wisconsin law license when she did 
not, Attorney Downs Russell violated a standard of 
professional conduct established by the supreme court 
in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Shea, 190 
Wis. 2d 560, 527 N.W.2d 314 (1995),6 enforced via 
SCR 20:8.4(f). 
Count 4:  By misrepresenting on her 2018 Fiscal Dues 
Statement, "I do not practice law in Wisconsin," and 
"I am currently inactive and have been enrolled in CLE 
courses to become active once again in Wisconsin" 
while she was actively practicing law in Wisconsin 
Attorney Downs Russell violated SCR 20:8.4(c).7 
¶19 Attorney 
Downs 
Russell 
filed 
an 
answer 
to 
the 
complaint on October 9, 2019.  The referee was appointed on 
December 3, 2019. 
¶20 On February 4, 2020, the parties filed a partial 
stipulation whereby Attorney Downs Russell agreed that the 
referee may use the allegations of the complaint as an adequate 
factual basis in the record for a determination of Supreme Court 
                                                                                                                                                             
law, 
law 
office, 
or 
other 
equivalent 
words 
in 
connection 
with 
his 
or 
her 
name 
or 
any 
sign, 
advertisement, business card, letterhead, circular, 
notice, or other writing, document or design, the 
evident purpose of which is to induce others to 
believe or understand the person to be authorized to 
practice law in this state or otherwise qualified to 
provide professional legal services or advice. 
6 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. 
7 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or mispresentation." 
No. 
2019AP1690-D   
 
8 
 
Rules violations as to each of the four counts alleged in the 
OLR's complaint.  The parties agreed that the only unresolved 
issued was the appropriate level of discipline to impose for 
Attorney Downs Russell's misconduct.   
¶21 A hearing on the appropriate sanction to impose for 
Attorney Downs Russell's misconduct was held before the referee 
on August 4, 2020.  The referee issued his report and 
recommendation on October 5, 2020.  Based on the parties' 
partial stipulation, the referee found that the OLR met its 
burden of proof with respect to all four counts of misconduct 
alleged in the complaint.  
¶22 In discussing the appropriate sanction to impose for 
Attorney Downs Russell's misconduct, the referee noted that not 
only did Attorney Downs Russell practice law for a period of 
approximately two years while holding an inactive license, but 
she also failed in her duty to inform the two law firms for 
which she worked during that two-year period of her inactive 
status.  The referee said that conduct posed a significant risk 
to both of the law firms and constituted a violation of Attorney 
Downs Russell's fiduciary duties to the law firms. 
¶23 The referee said that Attorney Downs Russell is an 
intelligent and competent lawyer; she is likeable and very 
family oriented; and she has received no prior discipline.  The 
referee noted that the reasons Attorney Downs Russell gave for 
her misconduct included being busy with family obligations and 
raising three children.  The referee said, however, being busy 
with family obligations is not an excuse to practice law for 
No. 
2019AP1690-D   
 
9 
 
approximately two years without an active law license.  The 
referee noted that Attorney Downs Russell also testified at the 
sanction hearing that she did not think it would take as long as 
it actually did to acquire the 60 CLE credits she needed to 
return to active status.  But the referee said certainly at some 
point during that two-year period she should have realized the 
seriousness of continuing to practice law while her status was 
still inactive.  The referee said, "it is difficult for me to 
understand how she thought, after practicing law for two years 
while inactive, that she could return to active status without 
anyone 
realizing 
she 
had 
practiced 
for 
two 
years 
while 
inactive." 
¶24 While Attorney Downs Russell argued in favor of a 
private reprimand, the referee ultimately concluded that the 
public reprimand sought by the OLR was the appropriate sanction 
for Attorney Downs Russell's misconduct.  In support of his 
recommendation, the referee cited Public Reprimand of Thomas P. 
DeMuth, 
No. 
2011-4 
(electronic 
copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/002348.html) 
(attorney 
who practiced law for approximately six months while inactive 
received public reprimand).  As noted, the referee also 
recommends that Attorney Downs Russell be responsible for the 
full costs associated with the disciplinary proceeding. 
¶25 This court will affirm a referee's findings of fact 
unless they are clearly erroneous but will review the referee's 
conclusions of law de novo. In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against 
Inglimo, 
2007 
WI 
126, 
¶5, 
305 
Wis. 2d 71, 
740 
No. 
2019AP1690-D   
 
10 
 
N.W.2d 125.  This court determines the appropriate sanction 
independent of the referee's recommendation, but benefitting 
from it.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 
34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.   
¶26 There is no showing that any of the referee's findings 
of fact, which are derived from the parties' partial stipulation 
are clearly erroneous, and we adopt them.  We also adopt the 
referee's conclusions of law with respect to the four counts of 
misconduct.   
¶27 With respect to the appropriate sanction, upon careful 
consideration of the matter we agree that a public reprimand is 
an appropriate sanction.  In addition to the DeMuth case cited 
by the referee, we find Public Reprimand of Lori S. Eshleman, 
No. 2009-14, (electronic copy available at https://compendium. 
wicourts.gov/app/raw/002199.html) 
in 
which 
an 
attorney 
who 
practiced law for eight and a half months when she knew that her 
license 
had 
been 
administratively 
suspended, 
and 
Public 
Reprimand of Michael M. Cassidy, No. 2002-5, (electronic copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/ 
000953.html), in which an attorney practiced law for three years 
when his Wisconsin law license had been administratively 
suspended 
due 
to 
failure 
to 
comply 
with 
mandatory 
CLE 
requirements, to be somewhat analogous.  We agree with the 
referee that although Attorney Downs Russell apparently did not 
view the practice of law while inactive to be a serious problem, 
in fact that conduct did pose a significant risk to the law 
No. 
2019AP1690-D   
 
11 
 
firms where she practiced and was a violation of her fiduciary 
duties to those firms.  A public sanction is warranted. 
¶28 IT IS ORDERED that Heather Downs Russell is publicly 
reprimanded for her professional misconduct.  
¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Heather Downs Russell shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$5,235.37 as of October 27, 2020. 
 
No. 
2019AP1690-D   
 
 
 
1