Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Ryan D. Lister

Citation: 2010 WI 108

Docket Number: 2008AP002766-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2010-09-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
2010 WI 108 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2008AP2766-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  Ryan D. Lister, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Ryan D. Lister, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST LISTER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
September 1, 2010   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
April 15, 2010   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
BRADLEY, J., dissents (opinon filed). 
ABRAHAMSON, C.J., joins dissent.   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the respondent-appellant there was a brief and oral 
argument by Attorney Ryan Lister. 
 
For the complainant-respondent there was a brief by 
Attorney Robert G. Krohn and Roethe Pope Roethe LLP, Edgerton, 
and oral argument by Attorney Robert G. Krohn. 
 
 
 
 
2010 WI 108
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2008AP2766-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Ryan D. Lister, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Ryan D. Lister, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
FILED 
 
SEP 1, 2010 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of 
Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   Attorney 
Ryan 
Lister 
appeals 
the 
referee's findings, conclusions, and recommendation in this 
lawyer discipline matter.  The referee, Richard P. Mozinski, 
determined the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) met its burden 
to prove violations of duties of diligence, communication, 
termination of representation, and cooperation with the OLR 
investigation.  Referee Mozinski recommends a 90-day license 
suspension, restitution of an unearned fee ($135.60), and costs. 
No. 
2008AP2766-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Attorney Lister challenges the sufficiency of the 
evidence supporting each of the four violations.  He also 
objects to a 90-day suspension and argues a public reprimand 
would be sufficient discipline.  Attorney Lister does not 
dispute restitution and does not challenge the imposition of 
costs. 
¶3 
After fully reviewing the matter, we conclude the 
record supports the referee's findings of fact and conclusions 
of law.  We uphold the referee's determination that Attorney 
Lister committed four counts of misconduct as alleged in the 
OLR's complaint.  Under the circumstances, we reject Attorney 
Lister's 
argument 
that 
a 
public 
reprimand 
is 
sufficient 
discipline.  We conclude his misconduct warrants a 60-day 
license suspension.  Finally, we order that Attorney Lister pay 
restitution of the $135.60 unearned fee together with the costs 
of this proceeding. 
¶4 
Attorney Lister was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1976 and has practiced in Wausau.  In 1986 he was 
publicly reprimanded for misconduct involving neglect of legal 
matters, failure to carry out a contract of employment with a 
client, and conduct constituting misrepresentation.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Lister, 127 Wis. 2d 453, 380 
N.W.2d 370 (1986).  Effective June 15, 2007, Attorney Lister's 
license was suspended for five months for violations involving 
seven separate grievance investigations.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Lister, 2007 WI 55, 300 Wis. 2d 326, 731 
N.W.2d 254.  His misconduct violated his duties of competence, 
No. 
2008AP2766-D   
 
3 
 
diligence, keeping a client informed, cooperation with an OLR 
investigation, candor to a tribunal, and to refund advanced 
fees.  His misconduct also involved misrepresentation and 
dishonesty.  Id., ¶55. 
¶5 
The present disciplinary action arose from Attorney 
Lister's representation of J.H. in a federal lawsuit against 
Marathon 
County 
and 
its 
sheriff, 
relating 
to 
the 
jail 
personnel's treatment of J.H. while confined in the Marathon 
County jail.  In 2001 J.H. had retained Attorney Lister after 
her arrest in Marathon County for first offense operating while 
intoxicated (OWI).  She ultimately pled to a reduced charge of 
reckless driving and paid a fine.  After completing his 
representation of J.H. in the OWI case, Attorney Lister 
suggested to J.H. that she sue Marathon County regarding her 
treatment while in jail.   
¶6 
On May 8, 2004, J.H. signed a contingency fee 
agreement providing Attorney Lister's fee would amount to one-
third of any recovery.  J.H. paid Attorney Lister $500; he 
expended $364.40 for filing and postage.  He did not return to 
J.H. the unused portion of the $500 payment.   
¶7 
On January 25, 2007, Attorney Lister filed a federal 
lawsuit on J.H.'s behalf but never served Marathon County or the 
sheriff.1  The U.S. District Court for the Western District of 
                                                 
1 At the disciplinary hearing before the referee, Attorney 
Lister admitted he had "dropped the ball" and no one had been 
served. 
No. 
2008AP2766-D   
 
4 
 
Wisconsin sent Attorney Lister a notice that a telephone 
pretrial conference was scheduled for March 20, 2007.   
¶8 
On 
March 20, 
2007, 
J.H.'s 
federal 
lawsuit 
was 
dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution.  The dismissal 
order stated the plaintiff had failed to appear for the 
March 20, 2007, pretrial conference.  At the disciplinary 
hearing, Attorney Lister did not dispute he failed to appear for 
the pretrial conference, but argued he had not received the 
scheduling notice.  He also claimed he did not receive notice of 
the dismissal. 
¶9 
The referee noted that when Attorney Lister filed his 
pleadings in federal court, he included a postage-paid return 
envelope with his Wausau address.  Also, Attorney Lister had 
admitted the notices of the scheduling conference and dismissal 
were mailed by the U.S. District Court for the Western District 
of Wisconsin.  The referee found that Attorney Lister's address 
had not changed before March 2007.  The referee found incredible 
Attorney Lister's assertion that he did not receive the 
scheduling notice and dismissal order, given the undisputed 
evidence that they had been sent to Attorney Lister's law office 
address.   
¶10 J.H. testified she had been unsuccessful in her 
repeated attempts to contact Attorney Lister regarding the 
status of her federal action.  The first she learned of the 
dismissal was through Attorney Jay Kronenwetter, whom she 
consulted regarding her federal lawsuit.  The referee found that 
No. 
2008AP2766-D   
 
5 
 
Attorney 
Lister 
had 
not 
advised 
J.H. 
of 
the 
scheduling 
conference and dismissal of her federal claim with prejudice.   
¶11 Attorney Kronenwetter testified he requested J.H.'s 
file in a June 15, 2007, telephone conversation with Attorney 
Lister.  Attorney Kronenwetter said he confirmed his request by 
letter the same day.  After receiving these requests, Attorney 
Lister did not call J.H. to confirm her permission to send the 
file.  Also during the telephone conversation, Attorney Lister 
did not advise Attorney Kronenwetter the federal lawsuit had 
been dismissed.  Sometime after June 15, 2007, Attorney 
Kronenwetter again telephoned Attorney Lister but was unable to 
reach him.  Attorney Kronenwetter testified he was unable to 
leave a message because, each time he called, he received a 
recording that the voicemail box was full or unable to receive 
messages.   
¶12 Eventually, 
Attorney 
Kronenwetter 
had 
a 
second 
telephone discussion with Attorney Lister, in which Attorney 
Lister promised to provide the J.H. file.  When Attorney 
Kronenwetter eventually received J.H.'s file, it contained no 
indication the federal lawsuit had been dismissed.  Attorney 
Kronenwetter testified he discovered J.H.'s lawsuit had been 
dismissed when he accessed the federal court's electronic 
docket. 
¶13 Attorney Kronenwetter testified he received J.H.'s 
file in late September 2007.  Attorney Lister, on the other 
hand, claimed he conveyed the file by August 15, 2007.  Attorney 
Lister claimed he did not promptly transmit the file because 
No. 
2008AP2766-D   
 
6 
 
doing so, he believed, would have been practicing law during his 
license suspension.  He said he sought ethics advice to 
determine whether he could copy and transfer the file without 
violating a duty not to practice law during his suspension.   
¶14 The referee concluded the dispute over the date of 
delivery of the file was immaterial because Attorney Lister 
provided no reasonable explanation as to why it would have taken 
two months to transfer the file.  The referee noted the supreme 
court rules provide a 15-day grace period to wind up a suspended 
attorney's 
practice, so Attorney Lister's claimed ethical 
concern was not grounded.  The referee rejected Attorney 
Lister's explanation as not credible, noting Attorney Lister had 
testified he had been busy on the day Attorney Kronenwetter had 
requested the file.    
¶15 The OLR also presented the testimony of Attorney Dawn 
Lemke, a member of the OLR District 16 investigative committee, 
who was assigned in May 2008 to investigate J.H.'s grievance.  
Attorney Lister had received and replied to various letters from 
the OLR during its initial investigation.  Attorney Lemke 
testified as to her subsequent unsuccessful attempts to elicit 
additional 
information from Attorney Lister regarding the 
grievance.  She said she left six voicemail messages on Attorney 
Lister's telephone answering system in June 2008.  She said all 
of Attorney Lister's outgoing telephone messages had stated, 
"You have reached Lister Law Offices . . . ."  Attorney Lemke 
was unable to reach Attorney Lister and her voice mail messages 
were not returned.   
No. 
2008AP2766-D   
 
7 
 
¶16 Attorney Lemke explained that on June 5, 2008, for 
example, she left a message identifying herself as a member of 
the OLR District 16 committee investigating J.H.'s grievance.  
Attorney Lemke received an outgoing recorded message by Attorney 
Lister, stating it was May 30 and he would be back in the office 
on June 2.  Attorney Lemke left additional messages on Attorney 
Lister's phone answering service on June 6, June 9, June 10, and 
June 11, and each time received the same recorded voice mail 
message.   
¶17 Finally, on June 12, she left a sixth message.  On 
this occasion, she received a recorded message stating Attorney 
Lister would be back on June 12.  Attorney Lemke requested 
Attorney Lister return her call and advised him of her previous 
calls.  Attorney Lemke testified she tried calling a different 
phone number for Attorney Lister that was noted on his 
letterhead but, when she called that number, she learned it had 
been disconnected.  She received no return phone call from 
Attorney Lister.  
¶18 The referee rejected Attorney Lister's explanations in 
defense of the four counts.  With respect to Count One, the 
referee 
found 
Attorney 
Lister's 
testimony——that 
he 
had 
experienced 
problems 
with 
mail 
being 
received——was 
not 
persuasive or credible.  The referee observed the evidence of 
mailing raised the rebuttable presumption that the addressee had 
received the letter and, once that presumption had been 
established, the burden shifted to the party challenging receipt 
to present credible evidence of non-receipt.  See American 
No. 
2008AP2766-D   
 
8 
 
Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Golke, 2009 WI 81, ¶36, 319 Wis. 2d 397, 
768 N.W.2d 729.  The referee concluded Attorney Lister's 
testimony was not specific as to the time frame in which the 
federal court notification had been sent, and a bare assertion 
he did not receive the federal court notice was insufficient to 
create credible evidence of non-receipt.  As a result, the 
referee concluded the evidence supported Count One:   
By failing to have the defendants served in [J.H.]'s 
federal civil rights lawsuit and by failing to appear 
at 
a 
court 
telephonic 
scheduling 
conference 
on 
March 20, 
2007, 
or 
file 
a 
preliminary 
pretrial 
conference report, all as required by the Federal 
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, 
[Attorney] Lister violated SCR 20:1.3.2 
¶19 As for Count Two, the referee noted that Attorney 
Lister acknowledged he had been informed the federal case was 
assigned to a procedurally demanding judge.  The referee found 
Attorney Lister was perpetually unavailable to J.H. and made no 
reasonable efforts to keep her informed of the status of her 
case.  The referee observed Attorney Lister admitted receiving 
information regarding the dismissal of the case from successor 
counsel while it was Attorney Lister's professional duty to have 
the case knowledge necessary to advise J.H. of the dismissal.  
The referee concluded Attorney Lister failed to fulfill that 
duty.  As a result, the referee determined:    
By his failure to inform [J.H.] that the United States 
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.3 provides, "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
No. 
2008AP2766-D   
 
9 
 
had dismissed her lawsuit, [Attorney] Lister violated 
former SCR 20:1.4(a).3 
¶20 With respect to Count Three, the referee rejected 
Attorney Lister's explanation that he did not timely forward 
J.H.'s file to Attorney Kronenwetter due to ethical concerns.  
See SCR 22.26(1)(d) (providing 15 days to wind up an attorney's 
practice following a license suspension).  The referee stated it 
was incumbent upon Attorney Lister to protect his client's 
interests by making immediate arrangements to copy the 38-page 
file and transmit it to Attorney Kronenwetter.  Therefore, the 
referee concluded: 
By failing to promptly respond to numerous 
requests 
from 
successor 
counsel 
to 
forward 
to 
successor counsel the [J.H.] case file and by failing 
to refund to [J.H.] the unused balance of $135.60 of 
the $500 retainer fee previously advanced, [Attorney] 
Lister violated SCR 20:1.16(d).4 
¶21 Additionally, the referee concluded, Attorney Lister's 
testimony that he was having a problem with his phone service 
                                                 
3 Former SCR 20:1.4(a) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
stated, "A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about 
the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable 
requests for information." 
4 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides as follows: 
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. 
No. 
2008AP2766-D   
 
10 
 
was insufficient to provide any defense to Count Four.  The 
referee said Attorney Lister received, or should have received, 
and responded to Lemke's six telephone calls regarding the 
grievance investigation.  The referee noted that during June 
2008 Attorney Lister was not suspended and was a full-time 
lawyer.  He presented no records from his phone service 
demonstrating what days he had problems.  The referee concluded 
Attorney Lister's failure to respond to Lemke's inquiries 
constituted a failure to cooperate with the District 16 
investigator assigned to the grievance.  The referee concluded: 
By failing to return any of the six telephone 
messages that OLR's District 16 Committee Investigator 
left for [Attorney] Lister during the period June 5, 
2008 through June 12, 2008, [Attorney] Lister violated 
SCR 21.15(4),5 22.03(2),6 and 22.04(1).7 
                                                 
5 SCR 21.15(4) states:  
Every attorney shall cooperate with the office of 
lawyer regulation in the investigation, prosecution 
and disposition of grievances, complaints filed with 
or by the director, and petitions for reinstatement.  
An attorney's wilful failure to cooperate with the 
office of lawyer regulation constitutes violation of 
the rules of professional conduct for attorneys. 
6 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 
No. 
2008AP2766-D   
 
11 
 
¶22 On the basis of these findings and conclusions, 
Referee Mozinski concluded a 90-day suspension was warranted.  
He 
noted 
Attorney 
Lister's 
disciplinary 
history 
was 
an 
aggravating factor, involving essentially the same type of 
misconduct charged here.  The referee found that Attorney 
Lister's misconduct caused a significant degree of emotional 
distress to J.H., which was evident from her testimony and 
demeanor.  Thus, the referee concluded, Attorney Lister's 
misconduct resulted in harm to the client.   
¶23 The referee observed Attorney Lister had provided some 
evidence of mitigating factors in the form of testimony from a 
professional colleague, Attorney Peter Rotter, who had shared 
office space with Attorney Lister for a time.  Also, Attorney 
Lister had elicited testimony from Attorney Jay Kronenwetter 
that he believed Attorney Lister was concerned about practicing 
ethically and took his ethical duties seriously.  The referee 
stated: 
 
The quandary then is how can an attorney who on 
the one hand exhibits a high motivation towards 
professional legal standards then commit repeated acts 
                                                                                                                                                             
questions, 
furnish 
documents, 
and 
present 
any 
information deemed relevant to the investigation. 
7 SCR 22.04(1) states:   
The director may refer a matter to a district 
committee for assistance in the investigation.  A 
respondent has the duty to cooperate specified in SCR 
21.15(4) and 22.03(2) in respect to the district 
committee.  The committee may subpoena and compel the 
production of documents specified in SCR 22.03(8) and 
22.42. 
No. 
2008AP2766-D   
 
12 
 
of misconduct, including those in the instant case.  
Part of the problem appears to be [Attorney] Lister 
does not appreciate the need to conform to ethics 
standards not strictly as he perceives them, but as 
written.  The other conclusion that can be drawn is 
that [Attorney] Lister needs to engage in the type of 
legal practice that will facilitate his ability to 
maintain appropriate client communication and meet 
deadlines.  This may require some significant changes 
in the type and number of cases [Attorney] Lister 
handles in the future.  (Emphasis in original.) 
¶24 Referee Mozinski observed this disciplinary matter 
bore similarity to In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Converse, 2004 WI 10, 268 Wis. 2d 562, 675 N.W.2d 238, which 
imposed a 90-day suspension.  The referee noted Attorney 
Converse 
had 
committed 
similar 
misconduct, 
had 
a 
prior 
disciplinary history, and also had failed to cooperate with an 
OLR investigation.  As a result, Referee Mozinski recommended 
Attorney Lister's license to practice law be suspended for 90 
days.   
¶25 On appeal, Attorney Lister presents two issues.  
First, Attorney Lister argues the OLR failed to meet its burden 
of proving each of the four counts.  Second, he contends the 
sanction of a public reprimand is all that would be required to 
impress upon him the importance of complying with the rules of 
professional conduct.  
¶26 Attorney Lister claims the referee's findings are 
unsupported by the record and clearly erroneous.  He says his 
character witnesses established his dedication and strong work 
ethic, and his mistake in failing to serve the summons and 
complaint was not a failure to act with reasonable diligence.  
No. 
2008AP2766-D   
 
13 
 
Attorney Lister says he told his client he had not done a civil 
rights action in a long time, did not want to do an action, and 
tried to find counsel to represent her.  Attorney Lister 
explains his client had taken vacation time in California and 
was uncertain about filing the civil rights action.  Attorney 
Lister contends he filed the action to protect her claim and, 
when he became aware of the dismissal, he advised Attorney 
Kronenwetter that he would assist in any way he could to reopen 
the case.  Therefore, Attorney Lister claims the referee's 
finding of a lack of diligence is clearly erroneous. 
¶27 Next, Attorney Lister argues he did not receive the 
federal scheduling order and the order of dismissal.  He claims 
he is experienced in federal court matters and zealously 
represents his clients.  Also, Attorney Lister claims, if he had 
received the order of dismissal, he would have moved to have the 
matter reopened.  He says he showed full acceptance of 
responsibility when he offered Attorney Kronenwetter assistance 
in reopening the matter.  He claims the record establishes he 
did not receive the documents and, therefore, could not be 
faulted for failing to keep J.H. informed.  As a result, he 
contends, he did not violate his duty to keep his client 
informed as alleged in Count Two. 
¶28 Next, 
Attorney 
Lister 
argues 
that 
Attorney 
Kronenwetter's testimony that he called Attorney Lister is a 
physical impossibility.  Attorney Lister says that around 
June 15, 2007, the telephone number was terminated and never 
reinstated.  He also claims he surrendered the J.H. file to 
No. 
2008AP2766-D   
 
14 
 
Attorney Kronenwetter as soon as reasonably practicable.  In 
addition, 
he 
says 
he 
provided 
an 
explanation 
of 
the 
circumstances, offered to assist in reopening the file, and 
offered 
financial 
assistance 
to 
Attorney 
Kronenwetter.  
Therefore, Attorney Lister argues, the OLR failed to prove he 
violated his duty to a client when terminating representation, 
as alleged in Count Three.   
¶29 With respect to Count Four, Attorney Lister contends 
no evidence indicates he hid anything from the district 
committee.  He says his undisputed testimony was that he 
contacted another district committee member to see whether any 
additional information was needed.  Attorney Lister argues the 
referee failed to consider his reinstatement in November of 
2007, and due to tremendous financial problems, he could not 
hire a secretary and instead hired a telephone service.  
Attorney Lister claims he had numerous problems with the 
service; it would not accept new messages and, therefore, he was 
not receiving messages left for him.  Attorney Lister says there 
came a point when he changed services and corrected the problem.  
Attorney Lister asserts that because he did not hide anything 
from the district committee, the OLR failed to prove the 
violations charged in Count Four.   
¶30 We are unpersuaded.  The OLR has the burden of 
demonstrating 
its 
allegations 
of 
misconduct 
by 
clear, 
satisfactory, and convincing evidence.  See SCR 22.16(5).  The 
referee's findings of fact will be adopted unless they are 
clearly erroneous.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
No. 
2008AP2766-D   
 
15 
 
Paget, 2003 WI 26, ¶12, 260 Wis. 2d 604, 660 N.W.2d 255.  We 
review conclusions of law de novo.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 
675 N.W.2d 747. 
¶31 Attorney Lister's arguments essentially challenge the 
referee's assessment of weight and credibility of the testimony.  
He asks this court to overturn the referee's determination that 
his testimony in support of his defenses was neither credible 
nor persuasive.  Attorney Lister also asks the court to make 
inferences opposing those drawn by the referee.  For instance, 
he asks the court to infer from his character witnesses' 
testimony that because he is a zealous advocate, he could not 
have lacked diligence in representing J.H.   
¶32 Attorney 
Lister's 
arguments 
neglect 
the 
court's 
standard of review.  An appeal from the referee's report is 
conducted under the rules governing civil appeals to the supreme 
court.  SCR 22.17(3).  When testimony is conflicting, the 
referee is the ultimate arbiter of credibility.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Pump, 120 Wis. 2d 422, 426-27, 
355 N.W.2d 248 (1984).  In reviewing the referee's findings of 
fact: 
The test for an appellate court to apply in matters of 
witness credibility is whether "the trier of facts 
could, acting reasonably, be convinced to the required 
degree of certitude by the evidence which it had a 
right to believe and accept as true."  
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Elverman, 2008 WI 28, 
¶41, 308 Wis. 2d 524, 746 N.W.2d 793.  An appellate court does 
No. 
2008AP2766-D   
 
16 
 
not substitute inferences for reasonable inferences drawn by the 
fact-finder. 
 
Cogswell 
v. 
Robertshaw 
Controls 
Co., 
87 
Wis. 2d 243, 250, 274 N.W.2d 647 (1979).  Attorney Lister has 
not demonstrated the referee's credibility assessments and 
inferences are clearly erroneous. 
¶33 It is undisputed that Attorney Lister failed to serve 
the defendants in J.H.'s federal civil rights lawsuit and failed 
to appear at the court's telephone status conference, supporting 
the determination of a lack of diligence (Count One).  Also, it 
is undisputed Attorney Lister failed to inform J.H. that her 
federal lawsuit was dismissed, supporting a finding that he 
failed to keep his client reasonably informed (Count Two). 
¶34 In addition, Attorney Lister admits he did not 
transfer J.H.'s file to Attorney Kronenwetter for at least two 
months and does not dispute he failed to refund promptly J.H.'s 
unused retainer fee.  As a result, the record supports a 
determination that Attorney Lister violated his duties upon 
termination of representation (Count Three).  The record also 
shows Attorney Lister failed to return numerous telephone 
messages from the OLR's District 16 committee investigator, 
supporting the conclusion Attorney Lister failed to cooperate 
with the OLR investigator (Count Four).  Therefore, we approve 
and adopt the referee's findings and conclusions that the OLR 
met its burden to prove the four counts of misconduct by 
evidence that is clear, satisfactory, and convincing.  
¶35 Next, we consider Attorney Lister's challenge to the 
referee's recommendation of a 90-day suspension.  While we take 
No. 
2008AP2766-D   
 
17 
 
the referee's recommendation as to the discipline into account, 
we are not bound by it.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Reitz, 2005 WI 39, ¶74, 279 Wis. 2d 550, 694 N.W.2d 894.  
We must consider the seriousness of the misconduct, as well as 
the need to protect the public, courts, and legal system from 
repetition of misconduct and to deter attorneys from engaging in 
similar misconduct.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Arthur, 2005 WI 40, ¶78, 279 Wis. 2d 583, 694 N.W.2d 910. 
¶36 Attorney Lister argues Wisconsin case law does not 
support the referee's recommended sanction of a 90-day license 
suspension.  Attorney Lister relies on In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Nussberger, 2006 WI 111, 296 Wis. 2d 47, 719 
N.W.2d 501, where the attorney advised a client to engage in 
activity that, if completed, could have resulted in criminal 
charges.  A 60-day suspension was ordered.  Id., ¶2.  Attorney 
Lister argues that none of the allegations here rise to the 
seriousness of the allegation of criminal activity in the 
Nussberger case.  He claims his witnesses, Attorney Rotter and 
Attorney Kronenwetter, establish his concern with ethics and 
diligence.  Attorney Lister says it is undisputed he zealously 
represents his clients.  He points out the allegations in this 
matter arose before his previous suspension and, since his 
reinstatement he has practiced in a very professional and 
ethical manner.  He claims a public reprimand, together with 
costs, would constitute a substantial penalty and impress upon 
him the need to comply with supreme court rules.   
No. 
2008AP2766-D   
 
18 
 
¶37 The OLR responds that the referee properly recommended 
a 90-day suspension.  The OLR notes progressive discipline is 
endorsed by this court.  See Nussberger, 296 Wis. 2d 47, ¶27.  
The OLR contends Attorney Lister's misconduct is aggravated, 
particularly in consideration of his disciplinary history.  See 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Wells, 2000 WI 1, ¶9, 231 
Wis. 2d 364, 603 N.W.2d 743 (an extended pattern of professional 
misconduct is an aggravating factor).   
¶38 Additionally, the OLR argues that Attorney Lister does 
not assume personal responsibility but blames others.  The OLR 
says Attorney Lister's claim that his telephone service was 
defective was found by the referee to be incredible.  The OLR 
contends the referee properly found Attorney Lister appears not 
to appreciate the need to conform to ethical rules.  According 
to the OLR, because Attorney Lister has substantial experience 
and has previously violated the same ethical rules, he should 
have been more cautious in adhering to rules of professional 
conduct.  The OLR contends the referee appropriately addressed 
the harm to J.H., who was deprived of her opportunity to pursue 
a federal civil rights claim, causing her emotional distress. 
The OLR asserts that these aggravating factors overcome any 
mitigating factors elicited from the testimony of colleagues 
regarding Attorney Lister's reputation in the legal community. 
¶39 We reject Attorney Lister's request to limit the 
sanction to a public reprimand.  This is Attorney Lister's third 
disciplinary proceeding involving similar misconduct.  The 
referee found the misconduct caused J.H. harm and that Attorney 
No. 
2008AP2766-D   
 
19 
 
Lister's excuses were not credible.  Given Attorney Lister's 
disciplinary history, his pattern of similar violations, and his 
hesitation to accept full responsibility for his violations, we 
are satisfied that a suspension is necessary to achieve the 
purposes of lawyer discipline.8 
¶40 Attorney Lister is reminded Wisconsin adheres to the 
practice of progressive discipline.  See Nussberger, 269 
Wis. 2d 47, ¶27.  Nonetheless, we do not conclude a 90-day 
suspension 
is 
necessary 
and, 
instead, 
impose 
a 
minimal 
suspension of 60 days.  While we share the concerns expressed by 
the OLR and the referee, we note that each case must turn on its 
individual facts.  We note Attorney Lister's argument that 
J.H.'s case arose before his previous suspension and, since his 
reinstatement, he has been very careful to practice ethically.  
                                                 
8 Contrary 
to 
Attorney 
Lister's 
suggestion, 
criminal 
activity is not a prerequisite for a 90-day suspension.  See 
Converse, 268 Wis. 2d 562.  Also, the endorsement of colleagues 
is not necessarily redeeming.  Discussing lawyer discipline, the 
court has observed: 
The fact that a man has enjoyed a high reputation and 
won the confidence and trust of his clients does not 
excuse him, but rather makes his breach of trust the 
more culpable.  The greater a man's ability, the 
larger his experience, the more clearly should he be 
able to see and distinguish the moral implications of 
a breach of his duty.  So it is often said the higher 
a man rises the greater his fall when he yields to 
temptation or the pressure of circumstances. 
State v. Bradford, 217 Wis. 389, 393, 259 N.W. 109 (1935).  In 
addition, civic work does not necessarily warrant a lesser 
sanction.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jones, 160 
Wis. 2d 564, 577, 466 N.W.2d 890 (1991).  
No. 
2008AP2766-D   
 
20 
 
Attorney Lister expresses his awareness that attorneys licensed 
to practice in Wisconsin are held to the highest standard of 
conduct and we may expect nothing less from him.  We are 
satisfied that a 60-day license suspension, together with costs 
and restitution, will impress upon Attorney Lister the need to 
adhere to rules of professional conduct, and will deter other 
attorneys from engaging in misconduct.   
¶41 On April 27, 2010, the OLR filed a statement seeking 
costs in the total sum of $9,250.86.  Attorney Lister does not 
dispute the assessment of the costs and has not presented 
extraordinary circumstances to justify a reduction in costs.  
See SCR 22.24(1m).  In addition, Attorney Lister does not object 
to the referee's recommendation of restitution.  
¶42 Accordingly, we adopt the referee's recommendation 
that Attorney Lister pay full costs and restitution.   
¶43 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Ryan D. Lister to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective October 4, 2010. 
¶44 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Ryan D. Lister shall pay restitution to J.H. in 
the total sum of $135.60.  If the restitution is not paid within 
the time specified, Ryan D. Lister's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the 
court. 
¶45 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Ryan D. Lister pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding in the sum of $9,250.86.  
No. 
2008AP2766-D   
 
21 
 
If costs are not paid within the time specified and absent a 
showing of his inability to pay, Ryan D. Lister's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further 
order of the court. 
¶46 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution is to be 
paid in full prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation. 
¶47 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ryan D. Lister shall comply 
with SCR 22.26 regarding the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
 
No.  2008AP2766-D.awb 
 
1 
 
¶48 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.   (dissenting).  Given that this 
is Attorney Lister's third disciplinary proceeding involving 
similar misconduct, I conclude that the discipline ordered by 
the majority is too light.  I would instead impose a 90-day 
suspension. 
¶49 Referee Mozinski got it right when he recommended that 
this court impose a 90-day suspension of license as discipline.  
He weighed the credibility of the testimony presented and the 
arguments advanced.   
¶50 The 
referee 
concluded 
that 
Attorney 
Lister 
had 
violated duties of diligence, communication, termination of 
representation, and cooperation with the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation investigation.  This misconduct is similar to the 
misconduct for which Attorney Lister previously was disciplined 
by this court in 1986 and again in 2007.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Lister, 127 Wis. 2d 453, 380 N.W.2d 370 
(1986); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Lister, 2007 WI 
55, 300 Wis. 2d 326, 731 N.W.2d 254. 
¶51 The majority of the court acknowledges that Attorney 
Lister's misconduct caused harm to his client and that some of 
his excuses were not credible.  Per curiam, ¶39.  It recognizes 
that 
"Wisconsin 
adheres 
to 
the 
practice 
of 
progressive 
discipline."  Id., ¶40.  Nevertheless, it rejects the referee's 
recommendation and instead lessens the discipline imposed.   
¶52 I think that the majority of the court is headed in 
the wrong direction.  Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.   
No.  2008AP2766-D.awb 
 
2 
 
¶53 I am authorized to state that Chief Justice SHIRLEY S. 
ABRAHAMSON joins this dissent. 
 
No.  2008AP2766-D.awb 
 
1