Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Craig E. Vance

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2015AP000655-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2016-10-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
2016 WI 89 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2015AP655-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Craig E. Vance, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Craig E. Vance, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST VANCE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 26, 2016 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
 
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2016 WI 89
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2015AP655-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Craig E. Vance, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Craig E. Vance, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 26, 2016 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of the Referee Richard M. Esenberg that the license of Craig E. 
Vance to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for nine months 
as discipline for professional misconduct.  The referee's 
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation for a 
nine-month suspension were based on the parties' stipulation. 
¶2 
The complaint filed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) 
against 
Attorney 
Vance 
asserted 
various 
forms 
of 
No. 
2015AP655-D   
 
2 
 
misconduct, including that he was inattentive to a number of 
client matters; failed to cooperate with OLR investigations; 
failed to inform clients, opposing counsel, and the courts of 
his temporary license suspension; and continued to practice law 
after his temporary license suspension.  The OLR complaint 
asserted, the parties stipulated, and the referee found, that 
Attorney Vance committed 21 counts of misconduct through his 
actions and inactions. 
¶3 
We 
agree 
with 
the 
referee's 
determination 
of 
misconduct and his recommendation that this misconduct warrants 
a suspension of Attorney Vance's Wisconsin law license for nine 
months.  We depart from the referee's recommendation that 
Attorney Vance should pay one-half of the total costs of this 
proceeding; we instead order him to pay the full costs of this 
proceeding, which total $2,570.85.  Restitution is not an issue 
in this matter. 
¶4 
Attorney Vance was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in 2002.  This court temporarily suspended Attorney 
Vance's license on February 20, 2014, due to his failure to 
cooperate with an OLR investigation into one of the matters 
included in the disciplinary complaint before us.  Attorney 
Vance's 
license 
was 
also 
suspended 
in 
October 
2014 
for 
nonpayment of bar dues.  His license remains suspended to date. 
¶5 
Counts 1-6 of the OLR's complaint arose out of 
Attorney Vance's representation of Z.A.  The OLR complaint 
alleged, 
and 
the 
referee 
found 
based 
on 
the 
parties' 
stipulation, the following facts.   
No. 
2015AP655-D   
 
3 
 
¶6 
In March 2012, Attorney Vance filed a lawsuit on 
Z.A.'s behalf without informing Z.A. that he had filed the 
lawsuit.  He later failed to notify Z.A. of a settlement offer 
from the defendant.  He failed to respond to requests for 
admission from the defendant, resulting in the circuit court 
deeming the requests to be admitted.  He failed to respond to 
the defendant's warning that it would seek costs associated with 
filing a summary judgment motion based on the deemed admissions 
unless he dismissed the case.  He also failed to inform Z.A. of 
the defendant's warning.  He failed to respond to the 
defendant's ensuing summary judgment motion, and he failed to 
appear at the summary judgment hearing, resulting in the circuit 
court granting summary judgment against Z.A.  He failed to 
respond to Z.A.'s phone call regarding his failure to attend the 
summary judgment hearing.   
¶7 
Z.A. retained a new lawyer, who wrote Attorney Vance 
to request a copy of the case file.  Attorney Vance failed to 
respond to this request, which in turn forced the new lawyer to 
recreate the file and pay to obtain copies of documents from the 
clerk of court's office.   
¶8 
Z.A.'s new lawyer filed a grievance with the OLR 
against Attorney Vance.  Attorney Vance was uncooperative with 
the ensuing OLR investigation; he responded to the grievance 
only after this court ordered him to show cause why his license 
should not be suspended for willful failure to cooperate with 
the OLR investigation.  After receiving Attorney Vance's initial 
response to the grievance, the OLR repeatedly asked him for 
No. 
2015AP655-D   
 
4 
 
additional information.  He failed to respond to those requests.  
On February 20, 2014, this court temporarily suspended Attorney 
Vance's law license for his failure to comply with the OLR 
investigation. 
¶9 
The OLR complaint alleged, and the referee determined 
based on the parties' stipulation, that Attorney Vance's actions 
in the Z.A. matter constituted the following professional 
misconduct: 
 Count One:  By purportedly believing that not 
responding 
to 
the 
defendant's 
requests 
for 
admission was an appropriate course of action, 
without seeking a determination of relief from 
the court, Attorney Vance violated SCR 20:1.1.1  
 
 Count Two:  By failing to pursue Z.A.'s suit, 
including 
by 
failing 
to 
respond 
to 
the 
defendant's requests for admission, failing to 
respond 
to 
the 
defendant's 
summary 
judgment 
motion, and failing to appear at the summary 
judgment hearing, Attorney Vance violated SCR 
20:1.3.2   
 
 Count Three:  By failing to inform Z.A. that the 
defendant's requests for admission were deemed 
admitted 
by 
operation 
of 
law, 
and 
that 
defendant's counsel requested that Attorney Vance 
voluntarily 
dismiss 
the 
suit 
against 
the 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.1 provides:  "A lawyer shall provide competent 
representation to a client. Competent representation requires 
the 
legal 
knowledge, 
skill, 
thoroughness 
and 
preparation 
reasonably necessary for the representation." 
2 SCR 20:1.3 provides:  "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
 
No. 
2015AP655-D   
 
5 
 
defendant or face summary judgment and potential 
costs, Attorney Vance violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3).3   
 
 Count Four:  By failing to provide Z.A.'s file to 
successor counsel, causing Z.A. and successor 
counsel to have to reassemble a file with copies 
produced by the circuit court at a cost, Attorney 
Vance violated SCR 20:1.16(d)4   
 
 Count Five:  By failing to timely file an initial 
written response to the grievance against him, 
and by doing so only after being ordered to show 
cause by the Supreme Court, 
Attorney 
Vance 
violated SCR 22.03(2)5 and SCR 22.03(6)6 enforced 
via SCR 20:8.4(h).7  
                                                 
3 SCR: 20:1.4(a)3 provides: "a lawyer shall keep the client 
reasonably informed about the status of the matter." 
4 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides:   
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall 
take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to 
protect 
a 
client's 
interests, 
such 
as 
giving 
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for 
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and 
property to which the client is entitled and refunding 
any advance payment of fee or expense that has not 
been earned or incurred.  The lawyer may retain papers 
relating to the client to the extent permitted by 
other law. 
5 SCR 22.03(2) provides: 
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 
(continued) 
No. 
2015AP655-D   
 
6 
 
 
 Count Six:  By failing to respond to the OLR's 
subsequent request for a supplemental response, 
Attorney Vance violated SCR 22.03(6), enforced 
via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶10 Counts 7-8 of the OLR's complaint arose out of 
Attorney Vance's representation of D.K.  The OLR complaint 
alleged, 
and 
the 
referee 
found 
based 
on 
the 
parties' 
stipulation, the following facts. 
¶11 In July 2014, after the February 20, 2014 temporary 
suspension of his Wisconsin law license, Attorney Vance agreed 
to represent D.K. related to a petition for a temporary 
restraining order filed against D.K.   Attorney Vance appeared 
with D.K. at a hearing on the temporary restraining order.  An 
individual who assisted the petitioner at the hearing filed a 
grievance against Attorney Vance.  Attorney Vance failed to 
respond to the OLR's requests to respond to the grievance. 
¶12 The OLR complaint alleged, and the referee determined 
based on the parties' stipulation, that Attorney Vance's actions 
                                                                                                                                                             
questions, 
furnish 
documents, 
and 
present 
any 
information deemed relevant to the investigation. 
6 SCR 22.03(6) 
provides, 
"In 
the 
course 
of 
the 
investigation, the respondent's wilful failure to provide 
relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 
documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure 
are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted 
in the grievance." 
7 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides:  "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(6), or SCR 
22.04(1)." 
No. 
2015AP655-D   
 
7 
 
in the D.K. matter constituted the following professional 
misconduct: 
 Count Seven:  By accepting a new matter and 
appearing in court to represent D.K. at a hearing 
on the temporary restraining order while his 
license was suspended, Attorney Vance violated 
SCR 22.26(2),8 enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f).9 
 
 Count Eight:  By failing to file a response to 
the 
grievance 
investigation 
relating 
to 
his 
representation of D.K., Attorney Vance violated 
SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6), enforced via SCR 
20:8.4(h). 
¶13 Counts 9-12 of the OLR's complaint arose out of 
Attorney Vance's representation of R.K.  The OLR complaint 
alleged, 
and 
the 
referee 
found 
based 
on 
the 
parties' 
stipulation, the following facts. 
¶14 In April 2013, Attorney Vance filed a lawsuit on 
R.K.'s behalf.  After Attorney Vance failed to disclose expert 
and lay witnesses and provide expert reports by a court-ordered 
deadline in August 2013, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss 
                                                 
8 SCR 22.26(2) provides: 
An attorney whose license to practice law is suspended 
or revoked or who is suspended from the practice of 
law may not engage in this state in the practice of 
law or in any law work activity customarily done by 
law 
students, 
law 
clerks, 
or 
other 
paralegal 
personnel, except that the attorney may engage in law 
related work in this state for a commercial employer 
itself not engaged in the practice of law. 
9 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." 
No. 
2015AP655-D   
 
8 
 
the case due to Attorney Vance's failure to prosecute it.  In 
January 2014, the circuit court held a hearing on the 
defendant's motion to dismiss.  Attorney Vance appeared at the 
hearing.  The circuit court held its decision on the defendant's 
motion to dismiss in abeyance and allowed Attorney Vance to file 
his witness list on the date of the hearing.  Attorney Vance 
failed to inform R.K. of the defendant's motion to dismiss, the 
hearing on the motion, and his filing of a witness list.  When 
this court temporarily suspended Attorney Vance's law license on 
February 20, 2014, Attorney Vance failed to inform R.K., 
opposing counsel, and the circuit court about his license 
suspension.  Eventually, the circuit court dismissed R.K.'s case 
without prejudice due to Attorney Vance's failure to diligently 
prosecute it.  R.K. learned of the dismissal by looking at 
online records.   
¶15 R.K. filed a grievance with the OLR regarding Attorney 
Vance's representation.  Attorney Vance failed to respond to the 
OLR's requests to respond to the grievance. 
¶16 The OLR complaint alleged, and the referee determined 
based on the parties' stipulation, that Attorney Vance's actions 
in the R.K. matter constituted the following professional 
misconduct: 
 Count Nine:  By failing to advance R.K.'s 
interests, 
such 
that 
R.K.'s 
lawsuit 
became 
subject to a motion to dismiss for want of 
prosecution and, ultimately, dismissal by the 
circuit 
court, 
Attorney 
Vance 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.3. 
 
No. 
2015AP655-D   
 
9 
 
 Count Ten:  By failing to inform R.K. of case 
developments, including that the case was subject 
to a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution, 
that a hearing on the motion was scheduled and 
heard, and that he filed a witness list on the 
date of the hearing on the motion to dismiss, 
Attorney Vance violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and SCR 
20:1.4(a)(4).10   
 
 Count Eleven:  By failing to notify R.K., the 
court, or opposing counsel of his February 2014 
license suspension, Attorney Vance violated SCR 
22.26(1),11 enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f).   
 
 Count Twelve:  By failing to file a response in 
OLR's grievance investigation relating to his 
representation of R.K., Attorney Vance violated 
SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6), enforced via SCR 
20:8.4(h). 
¶17 Counts 13-14 of the OLR's complaint arose out of 
Attorney Vance's representation of L.M.  The OLR complaint 
alleged, 
and 
the 
referee 
found 
based 
on 
the 
parties' 
stipulation, the following facts. 
¶18 L.M. retained Attorney Vance to represent her in a 
matter related to a petition for a restraining order and a 
disorderly conduct charge filed against her.  In January 2014, 
Attorney Vance appeared on L.M.'s behalf at an injunction 
hearing.  The circuit court granted the injunction.  After this 
court temporarily suspended Attorney Vance's law license on 
                                                 
10 SCR: 20:1.4(a)4 provides: "a lawyer shall promptly comply 
with reasonable requests by the client for information." 
11 SCR 
22.26(1) 
Activities 
following 
suspension 
or 
revocation provides:  "On or before the effective date of 
license suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 
suspended or revoked shall do the following:  . . . " 
No. 
2015AP655-D   
 
10 
 
February 20, 2014, he failed to inform L.M., the prosecutor, and 
the circuit court about his license suspension.  He appeared at 
a court hearing on the disorderly conduct charge against L.M. 
following his temporary license suspension.  He failed to appear 
at a later scheduled status conference.  L.M. informed the 
circuit court that Attorney Vance was not responsive to her and 
was not performing his job as her attorney.  The circuit court 
terminated Attorney Vance's representation and referred L.M. to 
the State Public Defender's Office.   
¶19 L.M. filed a grievance with the OLR against Attorney 
Vance.  Attorney Vance failed to respond to the OLR's requests 
to respond to the grievance.   
¶20 The OLR complaint alleged, and the referee determined 
based on the parties' stipulation, that Attorney Vance's actions 
in the L.M. matter constituted the following professional 
misconduct: 
 Count Thirteen:  By failing to notify L.M., the 
prosecutor, 
and 
the 
circuit 
court 
of 
his 
suspension, and by appearing at a hearing when 
his 
license 
was 
suspended, 
Attorney 
Vance 
violated SCR 22.26(1) and SCR 22.26(2), enforced 
via SCR 20:8.4(f).   
 
 Count Fourteen:  By failing to file a response to 
the OLR's grievance investigation relating to his 
representation of L.M., Attorney Vance violated 
SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6), enforced via SCR 
20:8.4(h). 
¶21 Counts 15-17 of the OLR's complaint arose out of 
Attorney Vance's representation of H.B. and M.B.  The OLR 
No. 
2015AP655-D   
 
11 
 
complaint alleged, and the referee found based on the parties' 
stipulation, the following facts. 
¶22 In April 2013, Attorney Vance filed a lawsuit on 
H.B.'s and M.B.'s behalf.  Attorney Vance appeared at a 
scheduling conference, but then failed to perform any further 
work on the case.  The defendant filed a motion for partial 
summary judgment, and the circuit court scheduled a hearing on 
the motion.  Attorney Vance failed to file a response to the 
motion and failed to appear at the motion hearing.  The circuit 
court granted the defendant's motion for partial summary 
judgment.  The defendant then filed a motion to dismiss, and the 
circuit court scheduled a hearing on the motion.  Attorney Vance 
failed to respond to the motion and failed to appear at the 
motion hearing.  The circuit court granted the defendant's 
motion to dismiss.  Because Attorney Vance did not respond to 
H.B.'s and M.B.'s phone calls and emails regarding the case, 
they were unaware that the defendant had filed a motion to 
dismiss, and they were expecting their case to proceed to trial 
until they received the notice of dismissal from the circuit 
court. 
¶23 The OLR received a grievance against Attorney Vance 
regarding his conduct in the H.B. and M.B. matter.  He failed to 
respond to the OLR's requests to respond to the grievance.   
¶24 The OLR complaint alleged, and the referee determined 
based on the parties' stipulation, that Attorney Vance's actions 
in 
the 
H.B. 
and 
M.B. 
matter 
constituted 
the 
following 
professional misconduct: 
No. 
2015AP655-D   
 
12 
 
 Count Fifteen:  By failing to file any response 
to the defendant's motion for partial summary 
judgment; by failing to appear at the hearing for 
that motion; by failing to file any response to 
the defendant's motion to dismiss; and by failing 
to appear at the hearing for that motion, 
Attorney Vance violated SCR 20:1.3. 
 
 Count Sixteen:  By failing to inform his clients 
of 
case 
developments, 
such 
that 
they 
were 
expecting their case to proceed to trial up to 
the point that they received the notice of 
dismissal from the circuit court, Attorney Vance 
violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3). 
 
 Count Seventeen:  By failing to file a response 
in the OLR grievance investigation relating to 
his representation of H.B. and M.B., Attorney 
Vance violated SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6), 
enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶25 Counts 20-21 of the OLR's complaint arose out of 
Attorney Vance's representation of M.J.12  The OLR complaint 
alleged, 
and 
the 
referee 
found 
based 
on 
the 
parties' 
stipulation, the following facts.   
¶26 In October 2013, Attorney Vance began representing 
M.J. in her divorce and child placement cases.  Attorney Vance 
continued to represent M.J. after his February 20, 2014 license 
suspension, without informing her of the suspension. 
¶27  The OLR received a grievance against Attorney Vance 
regarding his conduct in the M.J. matter.  He failed to respond 
to the OLR's requests to respond to the grievance.   
                                                 
12 Note that the OLR withdrew Counts 18 and 19 consistent 
with the terms of the parties' stipulation.  Counts 18 and 19 
involved Attorney Vance's conduct in the M.J. matter. 
No. 
2015AP655-D   
 
13 
 
¶28 The OLR complaint alleged, and the referee determined 
based on the parties' stipulation, that Attorney Vance's actions 
in the M.J. matter constituted the following professional 
misconduct: 
 Count Twenty:  By failing to notify M.J. of his 
suspension, Attorney Vance violated SCR 22.26(1), 
enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f). 
 
 County Twenty-One:  By failing to file a response 
in the OLR's grievance investigation relating to 
his 
representation 
of 
M.J., 
Attorney 
Vance 
violated SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6), enforced 
via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶29 Counts 22-23 of the OLR's complaint arose out of 
Attorney Vance's representation of P.L.  The OLR complaint 
alleged, 
and 
the 
referee 
found 
based 
on 
the 
parties' 
stipulation, the following facts. 
¶30 In April 2014, after this court temporarily suspended 
Attorney Vance's law license on February 20, 2014, Attorney 
Vance began representing P.L. regarding a petition for a 
restraining order and/or injunction filed against him.  Attorney 
Vance did not inform P.L. that his law license was suspended.  
Attorney Vance appeared on P.L.'s behalf at a May 1, 2014 
hearing, at which he successfully asked the circuit court for 
additional time to review the case.  Attorney Vance then 
demanded that P.L. pay him $500 in fees to attend the next 
scheduled hearing in the matter.  P.L. never paid him the fee 
and filed a grievance against Attorney Vance.  Attorney Vance 
failed to respond to the OLR's requests to respond to P.L.'s 
No. 
2015AP655-D   
 
14 
 
grievance and to the OLR's own inquiry into his representation 
of P.L. 
¶31 The OLR complaint alleged, and the referee determined 
based on the parties' stipulation, that Attorney Vance's actions 
in the P.L. matter constituted the following professional 
misconduct: 
 Count Twenty-Two:  By accepting a new matter and 
appearing in court to represent P.L. at a May 1, 
2014 
court 
hearing 
when 
his 
license 
was 
suspended, Attorney Vance violated SCR 22.26(2), 
enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f). 
 
 Count Twenty-Three:  By failing to file a 
response to the OLR's investigations relating to 
his 
representation 
of 
P.L., 
Attorney 
Vance 
violated SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6), enforced 
via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶32 As mentioned earlier, this case comes to the court on 
a referee's report based on a stipulation between the parties.  
In 
the 
stipulation, 
Attorney 
Vance 
represents 
that 
he 
understands the misconduct allegations and the ramifications of 
his entry into the stipulation.  He states that he fully 
understands his right to contest the matter and his right to 
consult with counsel. He states that he entered into the 
stipulation knowingly and voluntarily.  He states that he admits 
the misconduct alleged in the 21 counts set forth above.  The 
stipulation also provides that it is not the result of plea 
bargaining. 
¶33 Based 
on 
the 
parties' 
stipulation, 
the 
referee 
determined that the record conclusively established the 21 
counts of misconduct described above.  Also based on the 
No. 
2015AP655-D   
 
15 
 
parties' stipulation, the referee recommended that this court 
suspend the Wisconsin law license of Attorney Vance for nine 
months.   
¶34 In recommending this suspension, the referee found 
both mitigating and aggravating factors.  On the mitigating 
side, the referee noted that Attorney Vance has no prior record 
of discipline, and that his misconduct occurred during a 
relatively brief period of time.  On the aggravating side, the 
referee 
found 
that 
Attorney 
Vance 
"has 
no 
excuse" 
for 
"atrocious" conduct, which included disregarding his clients, 
the OLR's requests for information, and this court's temporary 
suspension order.   
¶35 The referee cited two cases that he believed were 
particularly 
analogous 
to 
the 
instant 
matter: 
 
In 
re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Baehr, 2002 WI 17, 250 Wis. 2d 
541, 639 N.W.2d 708, and In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Hansen, 2009 WI 56, 318 Wis. 2d 1, 768 N.W.2d 1.  In Baehr, a 
lawyer received a six-month suspension for misconduct, including 
failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of 
a matter; failing to cooperate with disciplinary investigations; 
failing, upon termination of the representation, to take steps 
to protect a client's interests; and failing to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.  
In Hansen, a lawyer received a nine-month suspension for 28 
counts of misconduct in four client matters, including failing 
to take action on behalf of his clients, failing to keep clients 
reasonably informed, failing to properly explain matters to 
No. 
2015AP655-D   
 
16 
 
clients, failing to cooperate with OLR investigations, and 
failing to withdraw from representation when a medical condition 
(depression) affected his ability to represent clients.  
¶36 Because no appeal has been filed from the referee's 
report and recommendation, we review the matter pursuant to SCR 
22.17(2).13 
 
When 
reviewing 
a 
referee's 
report 
and 
recommendation, we affirm the referee's findings of fact unless 
they are found to be clearly erroneous, but we review the 
referee's conclusions of law on a de novo basis. See 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 to impose given the particular facts of each case, 
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. 
¶37 We accept the referee's findings of fact, which were 
based on the parties' stipulation.  We agree with the referee 
that those facts demonstrate that Attorney Vance committed each 
of the 21 counts of misconduct discussed above.   
                                                 
13 SCR 22.17(2) provides:  
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. 
2015AP655-D   
 
17 
 
¶38 Turning to the level of discipline, we agree with the 
referee that the proper level of discipline is a nine-month 
suspension.  The aggravating factors here are considerable.  
Attorney Vance's actions show a total disregard of his clients' 
needs and objectives, as well as of his obligations as an 
attorney in this state.  His actions had serious, negative 
effects.  His indifference to the welfare of his clients and the 
status of their cases caused them distress and legal setbacks.  
His indifference to the OLR's investigatory process and this 
court's temporary suspension order flaunted the authority of 
this court and its rules and orders.  The mitigating factors are 
few.  All Attorney Vance has to offset the weight on the 
aggravating side of the scale are the facts that he has no prior 
disciplinary history and that he entered into a stipulation that 
resolves this disciplinary proceeding.  Balancing these factors, 
we conclude that the recommended nine-month suspension is 
clearly deserved. 
¶39 We turn now to the matter of costs.  Although the 
parties' stipulation does not address the issue of costs, the 
OLR has filed a statement showing total costs for this 
proceeding of $2,570.85 and recommending that this court impose 
the full amount of costs on Attorney Vance.  In contrast, the 
referee suggested in his report that this court should order a 
one-half reduction in costs because, in the referee's view, this 
case became contested as a result of the OLR asserting two 
counts (Counts 18 and 19) that it later withdrew.   
No. 
2015AP655-D   
 
18 
 
¶40 After 
considering 
the 
OLR's 
and 
the 
referee's 
positions on the costs issue, we hold that Attorney Vance should 
be required to pay the full costs of this disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney Vance has not demonstrated why we should 
deviate in this case from our practice of assessing full costs.  
See SCR 22.24(1m).  He has not shown that the OLR over-litigated 
any part of this case.  He has not shown that the two counts 
alleged and then withdrawn by the OLR were wholly without 
prosecutorial merit; indeed, it is doubtful he could make such a 
showing in light of his admission that he did not fully 
cooperate with the OLR's investigation into these counts.  Given 
that Attorney Vance's conduct caused this prosecution to proceed 
on all counts, we see no reason to shift any of the costs of 
this proceeding to the other attorneys of the state who are 
innocent of wrongdoing. 
¶41 Finally, 
we 
note 
that 
the 
OLR 
does 
not 
seek 
restitution.  None is ordered. 
¶42 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Craig E. Vance to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of nine 
months, effective November 30, 2016. 
¶43 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Craig E. Vance shall comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
¶44 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Craig E. Vance shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
No. 
2015AP655-D   
 
19 
 
¶45 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See SCR 
22.29(4)(c). 
¶46 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the February 20, 2014 
temporary suspension of Craig E. Vance's license to practice law 
in Wisconsin, due to his willful failure to cooperate with the 
OLR's investigation in this matter, is lifted. 
¶47 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
administrative 
suspension of Craig E. Vance's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin as a result of his failure to pay mandatory bar dues 
will remain in effect until he rectifies this delinquency, 
pursuant to SCR 22.28(1). 
 
 
No. 
2015AP655-D   
 
 
 
1