Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. David J. Bartz

Citation: 2015 WI 61

Docket Number: 2014AP002918-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2015-06-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
2015 WI 61 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2014AP2918-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against David J. Bartz , Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
David J. Bartz, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BARTZ 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 25, 2015 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2015 WI 61
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2014AP2918-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against David J. Bartz , Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
David J. Bartz, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 25, 2015 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a stipulation filed pursuant 
to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12 by the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation 
(OLR) 
and 
Attorney 
David 
J. 
Bartz. 
 
In 
the 
stipulation, Attorney Bartz agrees that he committed five counts 
of professional misconduct.  He also agrees that a 60-day 
suspension of his license to practice law in Wisconsin is an 
appropriate sanction, and he agrees to pay restitution to one 
client and to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection 
No. 
2014AP2918-D   
 
2 
 
(Fund).  The OLR is not seeking an assessment of costs against 
Attorney Bartz. 
¶2 
After careful review of the matter, we approve the 
stipulation.  We agree that a 60-day suspension of Attorney 
Bartz's license to practice law in Wisconsin is an appropriate 
level of discipline.  We also agree that Attorney Bartz should 
be ordered to pay restitution.  Because this matter is being 
resolved without the appointment of a referee, we do not impose 
any costs on Attorney Bartz. 
¶3 
Attorney Bartz was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1989.  He practiced in Madison.  In 1999, he 
received a consensual private reprimand for misconduct involving 
his failure to employ the requisite preparation reasonably 
necessary for competent representation of a client.  Private 
Reprimand No. 1999-19. 
¶4 
In 2011, Attorney Bartz's Wisconsin law license was 
suspended for his failure to pay State Bar dues and failure to 
file 
trust 
account 
certification. 
 
In 
2012, 
he 
was 
administratively suspended for failure to comply with continuing 
legal education requirements.  On October 16, 2012, this court 
temporarily suspended his Wisconsin law license for his willful 
failure to cooperate in two OLR investigations.  His license 
remains suspended. 
¶5 
On December 18, 2014, the OLR filed a complaint 
alleging that Attorney Bartz had engaged in five counts of 
misconduct with respect to his representation of P.M.  In 2008, 
P.M. was injured in a car accident.  He was treated by Walnut 
No. 
2014AP2918-D   
 
3 
 
Grove Chiropractic (Walnut Grove).  In November of 2009, P.M. 
hired Attorney Bartz to represent him in a personal injury claim 
concerning the car accident.  P.M. signed a written fee 
agreement.  Under the terms of the agreement, Attorney Bartz 
would collect a 15% contingent fee if the case settled before 
trial.  The agreement provided that P.M. would be responsible 
for costs. 
¶6 
In April of 2010, Attorney Bartz settled P.M.'s claim 
for $5,021.  The settlement statement provided that Attorney 
Bartz's fee would be $753.15, that P.M. would receive $996.85, 
and that Walnut Grove's balance was $3,271.  The settlement 
statement required Attorney Bartz to hold the funds due to 
Walnut Grove in his trust account while he tried to negotiate a 
lower payout to Walnut Grove.  
¶7 
On April 7, 2010, Attorney Bartz deposited the $5,021 
settlement check into his trust account.  On April 9, 2010, 
Attorney Bartz paid P.M. $996.85 and paid himself $755.  On 
April 14, 2010, Walnut Grove agreed to accept $2,191.80 to 
settle their bill.  Attorney Bartz never paid Walnut Grove.  
¶8 
Between April 15 and May 14, 2010, Attorney Bartz 
disbursed six trust account checks payable to himself, leaving 
no funds in trust attributable to either Walnut Grove or P.M.  
In late October of 2011, Attorney Bartz told P.M. that he would 
pay Walnut Grove's bill.  
¶9 
On October 31, 2011, Attorney Bartz's license to 
practice law was suspended for failure to pay his annual bar 
dues.  Attorney Bartz never informed P.M. of his suspension.   
No. 
2014AP2918-D   
 
4 
 
¶10 In 2012, P.M. filed a grievance against Attorney Bartz 
with the OLR.  The OLR sent Attorney Bartz two letters notifying 
him that he was required to respond to the grievance.  Attorney 
Bartz never responded.  As a result, this court temporarily 
suspended Attorney Bartz's Wisconsin law license due to his 
failure to cooperate with the OLR.  
¶11 In September of 2012, the Fund paid P.M. $2,191.80 as 
partial 
reimbursement 
for 
the 
funds 
Attorney 
Bartz 
had 
misappropriated.1   
¶12 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Bartz's representation of 
P.M.: 
[Count One]  By failing to promptly disburse to 
Walnut Grove funds it was entitled to receive, Bartz 
violated SCR 20:1.15(d)(1).2 
[Count Two]  By failing to continue to hold in 
trust $3,271 of settlement proceeds belonging to 
others, Bartz violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).3 
                                                 
1 The amount paid by the Fund represents the amount Walnut 
Grove had agreed to accept to settle its account with P.M. 
2 SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) provides: 
Upon receiving funds or other property in which a 
client has an interest, or in which the lawyer has 
received notice that a 3rd party has an interest 
identified by a lien, court order, judgment, or 
contract, the lawyer shall promptly notify the client 
or 3rd party in writing.  Except as stated in this 
rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement 
with the client, the lawyer shall promptly deliver to 
the client or 3rd party any funds or other property 
that the client or 3rd party is entitled to receive. 
No. 
2014AP2918-D   
 
5 
 
[Count Three]  By misappropriating funds held in 
trust, Bartz violated SCR 20:8.4(c).4 
[Count Four]  By failing to inform [P.M.] that 
his Wisconsin law license had been suspended, Bartz 
violated SCR 22.26,5 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f).6 
[Count Five]  By failing to respond to OLR's 
written 
requests 
for 
information 
regarding 
its 
                                                                                                                                                             
3 SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) provides: 
A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the 
lawyer's own property, that property of clients and 
3rd parties that is in the lawyer's possession in 
connection with a representation.  All funds of 
clients and 3rd parties paid to a lawyer or law firm 
in connection with a representation shall be deposited 
in one or more identifiable trust accounts. 
4 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
5 SCR 22.26 provides, in relevant part:  
(1) On or before the effective date of license 
suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 
suspended or revoked shall do all of the following: 
(a) Notify by certified mail all clients being 
represented in pending matters of the suspension or 
revocation and of the attorney's consequent inability 
to act as an attorney following the effective date of 
the suspension or revocation. 
(b) Advise the clients to seek legal advice of 
their choice elsewhere. 
. . . . 
6 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides that 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. 
2014AP2918-D   
 
6 
 
investigation of the [P.M.] grievance, Bartz violated 
SCR 22.03(2) and (6),7 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h).8 
¶13 On March 3, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation 
whereby Attorney Bartz admitted the five counts of misconduct 
alleged in the OLR's complaint.  In the stipulation, Attorney 
Bartz represents that he fully understands the misconduct 
allegations, the ramifications should the court impose the 
stipulated level of discipline, his right to contest the matter, 
                                                 
7 SCR 22.03(2) and (6) provide: 
(2) 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 questions, furnish documents, and 
present 
any 
information 
deemed 
relevant 
to 
the 
investigation. 
. . . . 
(6) 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. 
8 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides that 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(2), SCR 22.03(6), 
or SCR 22.04(1)." 
No. 
2014AP2918-D   
 
7 
 
and his right to consult with counsel.  He further avers that 
his entry into the stipulation is made knowingly and voluntarily 
and represents his decision not to contest the misconduct 
alleged in the complaint, the level and type of discipline 
sought by the OLR's director, or the restitution sought. 
¶14 Having carefully considered this matter, we approve 
the stipulation and adopt the stipulated facts and legal 
conclusions of professional misconduct.  We agree that a 60-day 
suspension of Attorney Bartz's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin is an appropriate level of discipline.  Although no 
two disciplinary matters are identical, a 60-day suspension is 
consistent with sanctions imposed in somewhat similar cases.  
See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Barrock, 
2007 WI 24, 299 Wis. 2d 207, 727 N.W.2d 833 (60-day suspension 
imposed for six counts of misconduct arising out of attorney's 
failure to hold settlement funds subject to third-party claim in 
trust 
account); 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Riegleman, 2003 WI 3, 259 Wis. 2d 1, 657 N.W.2d 339 (60-day 
suspension imposed for three counts of misconduct arising out of 
attorney's failure to notify lienholder of settlement and 
unauthorized endorsement of settlement check).   
¶15 We also agree that Attorney Bartz should pay $1,081.059 
in restitution to P.M. and $2,191.8010 in restitution to the 
                                                 
9 The OLR notes that the amount payable to P.M. includes the 
funds which should have been distributable to P.M. after 
Attorney Bartz settled the Walnut Grove claim ($1,079.20) and 
the fees Attorney Bartz took in excess of the settlement 
statement ($1.85). 
No. 
2014AP2918-D   
 
8 
 
Fund.  Because Attorney Bartz entered into a comprehensive 
stipulation, thereby obviating the need for the appointment of a 
referee and a full disciplinary proceeding, we do not impose 
costs in this matter. 
¶16 IT IS ORDERED that the license of David J. Bartz to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective the date of this order. 
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, David J. Bartz shall pay restitution as follows:  
$1,081.05 to P.M. and $2,191.80 to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund 
for Client Protection. 
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the October 16, 2012 
temporary suspension of David J. Bartz's license to practice law 
in Wisconsin, due to his willful failure to cooperate with the 
OLR's grievance investigation in this matter, is lifted.11  
                                                                                                                                                             
10 Although both the OLR's complaint and the stipulation 
state that Attorney Bartz should be ordered to pay $2,191.30 in 
restitution to the Fund, the complaint states that Walnut Grove 
agreed to accept $2,191.80 to settle its bill and that the Fund 
paid P.M. $2,191.80.  As a result, it appears the $2,191.30 
figure is a typographical error and Attorney Bartz should be 
ordered to pay $2,191.80 in restitution to the Fund. 
11 On 
March 
4, 
2015, 
the 
OLR 
filed 
a 
report 
and 
recommendation stating that Attorney Bartz's law license should 
be reinstated from the October 16, 2012 temporary suspension.  
The suspension arose out of Attorney Bartz's failure to 
cooperate in two grievance investigations.  One of those 
investigations resulted in the complaint that was filed in this 
case.  The OLR states that its investigation into the second 
grievance is ongoing.  
No. 
2014AP2918-D   
 
9 
 
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, David J. Bartz 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.  
 
No. 
2014AP2918-D   
 
 
 
1