Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. William J. Spangler

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2021-01-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
2021 WI 4 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2014AP2633-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against William J. Spangler, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
William J. Spangler, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY SPANGLER REINSTATEMENT PROCEEDINGS 
Reported at 370 Wis. 2d 369,881 N.W.2d 35 
PDC No:2016 WI 61 - Published 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
January 26, 2021   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam. 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2021 WI 4
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2014AP2633-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against William J. Spangler, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
William J. Spangler, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
JAN 26, 2021 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.   Reinstatement granted.  
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of 
Referee 
John 
B. 
Murphy 
recommending 
that 
William 
J. 
Spangler's license to practice law in Wisconsin be reinstated.  
After careful review of the matter, we agree that Attorney 
Spangler's license should be reinstated.  Consistent with our 
general practice, we also find that Attorney Spangler should be 
required to pay the full costs of this reinstatement proceeding, 
which are $3,973.88 as of October 27, 2020. 
¶2 
Attorney Spangler was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2003 and practiced in Eau Claire.  In 2016, 
No. 
2014AP2633-D   
 
2 
 
Attorney Spangler's Wisconsin law license was suspended for a 
period of six months, effective August 12, 2016.  As we noted in 
the opinion suspending Attorney Spangler's license, 
[H]e engaged in an elaborate web of deception that 
included creating false documents and meticulously 
adding fake file stamps and other notations to make 
them appear to be genuine.  He managed to perpetuate 
his ruses for years, leading his clients to believe 
that they had live lawsuits pending when, in fact, 
Attorney Spangler had voluntarily dismissed [one] suit 
and never filed [a second] action. 
See  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Spangler, 2016 WI 
61, ¶35, 370 Wis. 2d 369, 881 N.W.2d 35. 
¶3 
Attorney Spangler filed a petition for reinstatement 
of his Wisconsin law license on April 19, 2019.  A hearing on 
the reinstatement petition was held, via Zoom, on July 28, 2020.  
The referee issued his report and recommendation on October 8, 
2020.   
¶4 
In his report, the referee noted that as part of his 
testimony at the July 28, 2020 hearing, Attorney Spangler stated 
that he had become personally mentally involved in the two cases 
that formed the basis for the disciplinary proceeding and that 
he "felt bad for his clients."  Attorney Spangler said, "I felt 
like I needed to personally demonstrate that I could help them 
while at the same time I kept telling myself that I couldn't." 
¶5 
The referee noted that since his suspension, Attorney 
Spangler 
has 
been 
very 
involved 
in 
community 
activities 
including volunteer service at his church and with a local boy 
scout organization.  The referee noted that various letters of 
No. 
2014AP2633-D   
 
3 
 
reference submitted by Attorney Spangler speak positively as to 
his character since his suspension.  The referee noted Attorney 
Spangler states that, "I've made significant changes to the way 
I live my life . . . I believe that I am now at a point in my 
life where I can, again, honestly, truthfully, trustworthily 
represent myself, the profession, my family in a completely 
ethical and responsibly way."  Attorney Spangler stated that if 
he should ever be in a position where he could not handle a 
legal matter he would seek help from other attorneys or refer 
matters to other counsel. 
¶6 
The referee recommends that this court grant Attorney 
Spangler's reinstatement petition.  The referee said he did not 
believe 
that 
Attorney 
Spangler's 
reinstatement 
would 
be 
detrimental to the administration of justice nor would it 
subvert the public interest.  The referee commented that Eau 
Claire is a relatively small community; many people are probably 
aware of Attorney Spangler's situation; and since Attorney 
Spangler seems intent on remaining in the Eau Claire community, 
his motivation to never again violate the ethical rules will be 
exceedingly strong.   
¶7 
Neither 
party 
has 
appealed 
from 
the 
referee's 
recommendation, so this court considers this matter pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.33(3).   
¶8 
In our review, we accept a referee's findings of fact 
unless they are clearly erroneous.  We review a referee's legal 
conclusions, including whether the attorney has satisfied the 
criteria for reinstatement, on a de novo basis.  See In re 
No. 
2014AP2633-D   
 
4 
 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jennings, 2011 WI 45, ¶39, 334 
Wis. 2d 335, 801 N.W.2d 304; In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Gral, 2010 WI 14, ¶22, 323 Wis. 2d 280, 779 N.W.2d 168. 
¶9 
Supreme Court Rule 22.29(4) provides that a petition 
for reinstatement must 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.  
(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.  
No. 
2014AP2633-D   
 
5 
 
(k) A full description of all of the petitioner's 
business activities during the period of suspension or 
revocation. 
¶10 Supreme Court Rule 22.31(1)(c) provides that an 
attorney seeking reinstatement has the burden of demonstrating 
all of the above requirements by clear, satisfactory, and 
convincing evidence.  Supreme Court Rule 22.31(1) also provides 
that an attorney seeking reinstatement 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 underlying disciplinary order.  See SCR 22.31(1)(a), (b), 
and (d). 
¶11 This court agrees with the referee that Attorney 
Spangler has met his burden of proof with respect to all of the 
elements needed to justify his reinstatement.  As is our usual 
practice, we also find it appropriate it to impose the full 
costs of this disciplinary proceeding upon Attorney Spangler. 
¶12 IT IS ORDERED that the license of William J. Spangler 
to practice law in Wisconsin is reinstated, effective the date 
of this order. 
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, William J. Spangler shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$3,973.88 as of October 27, 2020.  
No. 
2014AP2633-D   
 
 
 
1