Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. John C. Widule

Citation: 2012 WI 63

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2012-06-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
2012 WI 63 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2001AP2157-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against John C. Widule, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
John C. Widule, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST WIDULE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 22, 2012   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: ROGGENSACK, J., did not participate.    
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2012 WI 63
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2001AP2157-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against John C. Widule, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
John C. Widule, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 22, 2012 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.   Reinstatement granted. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review, pursuant to SCR 22.33(3),1 the 
report and recommendation of the referee, James J. Winiarski, in 
favor of reinstating the license of Attorney John C. Widule to 
practice law in Wisconsin.  After conducting our review of the 
matter, we agree that Attorney Widule's license should be 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.33(3) states as follows:  "If no appeal is timely 
filed, the supreme court shall review the referee's report, 
order 
reinstatement, 
with 
or 
without 
conditions, 
deny 
reinstatement, or order the parties to file briefs in the 
matter." 
No. 
2001AP2157-D   
 
2 
 
reinstated and that he should be required to follow a payment 
plan for paying a sanction judgment previously entered by a 
circuit court and the cost awards related to his disciplinary 
and reinstatement proceedings in this court.  We modify, 
however, the payment plan proposed by the referee.  Finally, 
consistent with our general practice, we require Attorney Widule 
to pay the full costs of this reinstatement proceeding. 
¶2 
Before turning to the particular facts of this case, 
we set forth the substantive standards that attorneys seeking 
reinstatement following a disciplinary suspension or revocation 
must satisfy.  Those standards are set forth in SCR 22.31(1).2  
In particular, the petitioning attorney must demonstrate by 
clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he or she has 
the moral character necessary to practice law in this state, 
                                                 
2 SCR 22.31(1) states: 
The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating, 
by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence, all 
of the following: 
(a) That he or she has the moral character to 
practice law in Wisconsin. 
(b) That his or her resumption of the practice of 
law will not be detrimental to the administration of 
justice or subversive of the public interest. 
(c) That 
his or her representations in the 
petition, including the representations required by 
SCR 
22.29(4)(a) 
to 
[(4m)] 
and 
22.29(5), 
are 
substantiated. 
(d) That he or she has complied fully with the 
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and 
with the requirements of SCR 22.26. 
No. 
2001AP2157-D   
 
3 
 
that his or her resumption of the practice of law will not be 
detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of 
the public interest, and that the attorney has complied fully 
with the terms of the suspension or revocation order and the 
requirements of SCR 22.26.  In addition, SCR 22.31(1)(c) 
incorporates the statements that a petition for reinstatement 
must contain pursuant to SCR 22.29(4)(a)-[(4m)].3  Thus, the 
                                                 
3 SCR 22.29(4)(a) through (4m) provides that a petition for 
reinstatement shall 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. 
No. 
2001AP2157-D   
 
4 
 
petitioning 
attorney 
must 
demonstrate 
that 
the 
required 
representations in the reinstatement petition are substantiated. 
¶3 
Attorney Widule was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin on May 24, 1982, following his graduation from 
Marquette Law School. 
¶4 
Effective June 27, 2003, this court suspended Attorney 
Widule's license for a period of six months as discipline for 
his professional misconduct.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.  In 
that proceeding, Attorney Widule was found to have advanced a 
factual position in litigation on behalf of his client without a 
basis for doing so that was not frivolous, in violation of 
SCR 20:3.1(a)(2).  In addition, this court agreed with the 
referee that Attorney Widule had been subject to a conflict of 
interest, in violation of SCR 20:1.7(b), when he had represented 
two secured creditors attempting to obtain relief from the same 
                                                                                                                                                             
(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. 
(k) A full description of all of the petitioner's 
business activities during the period of suspension or 
revocation. 
(4m) The petitioner has made restitution to or 
settled all claims of persons injured or harmed by 
petitioner's misconduct, including reimbursement to 
the Wisconsin lawyers' fund for client protection for 
all payments made from that fund, or, if not, the 
petitioner's explanation of the failure or inability 
to do so. 
No. 
2001AP2157-D   
 
5 
 
limited amount of the debtor's property and had even argued at 
one point that the security interest of one client was junior to 
the security interest of the other client.  Finally, this court 
determined that Attorney Widule had failed to provide competent 
representation, in violation of SCR 20:1.1.  In addition to 
imposing the six-month suspension of his license to practice law 
in this state for his professional misconduct, we also ordered 
Attorney Widule to pay the full costs of that disciplinary 
proceeding, which were $11,502.42. 
¶5 
In the underlying civil action litigated by Attorney 
Widule, Ormson v. Merg, Dane County Case No. 1994CV3753 (the 
Dane County action), the circuit court concluded that Attorney 
Widule had pursued a frivolous action in violation of what was 
then Wis. Stat. § 814.025, and as a sanction ordered him to pay 
the attorney fees of the opposing parties.  Ultimately, a 
sanction 
judgment 
was 
entered 
against 
Attorney 
Widule.  
According to the referee's report, the amount of that judgment 
was $82,185.58.  
¶6 
In 
2003 
Widule 
filed 
his 
first 
petition 
for 
reinstatement.  The referee in that proceeding recommended 
against 
reinstatement, 
finding, 
among 
other 
things, 
that 
Attorney Widule had not accepted that his actions in the earlier 
Dane County action had been improper.  In an unpublished order, 
this court agreed with the referee's recommendation and denied 
Attorney Widule's first reinstatement petition in September 
2004.  We also ordered Attorney Widule to pay $3,239.67 in costs 
for that first reinstatement proceeding. 
No. 
2001AP2157-D   
 
6 
 
¶7 
Attorney 
Widule 
filed 
the 
current 
(second) 
reinstatement petition in April 2011.  Attorney Widule's 
petition made all of the averments required by SCR 22.29.  He 
acknowledged, however, that he had not paid either the sanction 
judgment in the Dane County action or the previous cost 
judgments 
from 
the 
disciplinary 
and 
first 
reinstatement 
proceedings in this court, but he asserted that he had been 
unable to do so because of a lack of earnings.  Attorney Widule 
stated that, if his license were reinstated, he intended to 
engage in a general practice. 
¶8 
After conducting its reinstatement investigation, the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a response opposing 
Attorney Widule's petition.  The OLR's primary reason for 
opposing reinstatement was that Attorney Widule had paid only a 
few hundred dollars toward both the sanction judgment and cost 
judgments.  The OLR asserted that this meant that Attorney 
Widule had not complied with the prior orders of this court and 
that he did not have a proper understanding of and attitude 
toward the standards that are imposed upon attorneys in this 
state. 
¶9 
Following an evidentiary hearing, the referee issued 
his report and recommendation.  The referee found that Attorney 
Widule had not practiced during the term of his suspension, had 
maintained competence and learning in the law, had demonstrated 
that his conduct since his suspension had been exemplary and 
above reproach, had shown a proper understanding of and attitude 
toward the standards imposed upon members of the bar, and had 
No. 
2001AP2157-D   
 
7 
 
complied with the requirements set forth in SCR 22.26.  The 
referee further concluded that Attorney Widule could be safely 
recommended to represent members of the public. 
¶10 A large part of the referee's report addressed the 
issue of Attorney Widule's failure to pay the sanction judgment 
and the cost judgments.  The referee found that Attorney Widule 
had complied with the terms of this court's suspension order and 
its order denying reinstatement, with the sole exception that he 
had failed to pay all of the costs ordered in the original 
disciplinary proceeding and the first reinstatement proceeding.  
Indeed, the referee found that Attorney Widule had made only 
three payments of $200 each toward the cost awards from those 
two proceedings.  The referee further found that Attorney Widule 
had made only one payment of $300 toward the $82,185.58 sanction 
judgment in the Dane County action. 
¶11 The referee determined, however, that Attorney Widule 
had provided a satisfactory explanation for his failure to pay 
the costs of the prior proceedings and the sanction judgment.  
Specifically, the referee found that Attorney Widule had not 
earned sufficient income to make additional payments.  The 
referee found that Attorney Widule's annual income since 2004 
(the first full year of his suspension) had been quite meager, 
ranging from a low of $1,864 to a high of $9,086.  During his 
suspension Attorney Widule's primary source of income came from 
part-time work as a musician in a band.  In addition, in the 
first few years following his suspension, he had also received a 
limited amount of income from his family's real estate business, 
No. 
2001AP2157-D   
 
8 
 
but that income had ceased due to the difficult real estate 
market and the death of his father. 
¶12 The referee found that Attorney Widule has not had a 
permanent residence for a number of years.  He has lived with 
his parents, various friends, and his girlfriend.  He has a two-
year-old child, for whom he pays child support, but Attorney 
Widule is in arrearage on his child support obligations due to 
his lack of income. 
¶13 Although the referee acknowledged that Attorney Widule 
had made only minimal payments toward the cost amounts and the 
sanction judgment, he ultimately concluded that the failure to 
make more payments on those obligations should not prevent the 
reinstatement of Attorney Widule's law license.  He stated that 
Attorney Widule could and should have done more during his 
suspension to earn income to make additional payments toward 
those debts, but acknowledged that may well have involved only a 
job that paid the minimum wage, which may not have significantly 
improved Attorney Widule's ability to pay the judgments.  The 
referee indicated that since the suspension of his law license, 
Attorney Widule has been living a "Spartan like" existence 
involving no frivolous spending or unreported income, with his 
income not being sufficient to support even his most basic 
needs.  Indeed, Attorney Widule has apparently been forced to 
borrow money from friends to cover his living expenses. 
¶14 With respect to the misconduct that led to Attorney 
Widule's suspension, the referee found that Attorney Widule had 
recognized his mistakes and flawed judgment in the Dane County 
No. 
2001AP2157-D   
 
9 
 
action.  Attorney Widule acknowledged that he should have 
withdrawn questionable evidence and that he probably should have 
sought to withdraw from the representation.  The referee stated 
that Attorney Widule now recognizes the need to choose cases 
more 
wisely 
and 
to 
withdraw 
from 
a 
representation 
when 
appropriate.  Attorney Widule told the referee that he had taken 
on the representation resulting in the Dane County action even 
though he had not viewed himself as a litigator, and that he now 
intended to practice in the area of real estate law, which was a 
safer and more comfortable area of the law for him. 
¶15 The 
referee 
was 
particularly 
impressed 
by 
the 
testimony of Richard Harder.  Mr. Harder and his wife are 
friends and former clients of Attorney Widule, and they even 
allowed Attorney Widule to live with them for a period of time.  
Mr. Harder testified that although he considered Attorney Widule 
to be somewhat eccentric in some of his approaches to the 
practice of law, he found him to be a fine attorney, in whom he 
had a great deal of trust and confidence. 
¶16 The referee also noted that other individuals had 
commented favorably on Attorney Widule's character and legal 
ability.  For example, Waukesha County District Attorney Brad 
Schimel, who has played in the same band with Attorney Widule, 
submitted a letter indicating that he believed Attorney Widule 
had the character, judgment, and legal ability to practice law 
appropriately. 
No. 
2001AP2157-D   
 
10 
 
¶17 Ultimately, the referee concluded that Attorney Widule 
had satisfied all of the requirements for reinstatement by clear 
and convincing evidence. 
¶18 The 
referee recommended that Attorney Widule be 
ordered to pay the full costs of the current reinstatement 
proceeding.  He further recommended that, if the court grants 
reinstatement, the court establish a payment plan by which 
Attorney 
Widule 
can 
begin 
to 
pay 
off 
his 
obligations.  
Specifically, he recommended that the court require Attorney 
Widule to pay a minimum of $100 per month for the first 12 
months following reinstatement and a minimum of $500 per month 
for the succeeding 12 months.  He further recommended that this 
payment plan be reviewed after 24 months to determine whether it 
should be adjusted.  Finally, the referee recommended that all 
of the payments should be applied first to the cost judgments 
owed to the OLR, and when those are paid in full, additional 
payments should be applied to the outstanding sanction judgment 
in the Dane County action. 
¶19 Following the filing of the referee's report, the OLR 
submitted a statement of costs indicating that the total costs 
for 
this 
reinstatement 
proceeding 
were 
$4,700.21, 
as 
of 
January 30, 2012.  The OLR recommended that Attorney Widule be 
required to pay this full amount. 
¶20 Attorney Widule's response did not object to the 
amount of the costs.  It also stated that Attorney Widule 
accepted the referee's recommended payment plan. 
No. 
2001AP2157-D   
 
11 
 
¶21 The OLR's reply indicated that it also found the 
referee's recommended payment plan to be "fair under the 
circumstances."  It further stated in a footnote that it had 
referred the prior cost judgments to a collection agency.  It 
said that any monies it received from Attorney Widule would be 
applied first to the oldest cost judgment, then to the first 
reinstatement proceeding cost amount, and then to the current 
reinstatement proceeding cost amount.  The OLR's reply was not 
clear whether it was advocating that the cost judgments in its 
favor should be paid first, as the referee recommended, or 
whether it was simply explaining the order in which any funds 
paid to it at any time would be applied toward the cost 
judgments. 
¶22 The standards for our review of referee reports in 
reinstatement proceedings are similar to the standards we use 
for reviewing referee reports in disciplinary proceedings.  We 
do not overturn a referee's finding of fact unless it is clearly 
erroneous.  On the other hand, we review a referee's legal 
conclusions, including whether the attorney has satisfied the 
criteria for reinstatement, on a de novo basis.  In re 
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. 
¶23 After thoroughly considering this matter under these 
standards of review, we conclude that Attorney Widule has 
satisfied the requirements set forth in SCRs 22.31(1) and 
No. 
2001AP2157-D   
 
12 
 
22.29(4)(a)-(4m) and that his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin should be reinstated. 
¶24 There does not appear to be any dispute regarding 
nearly all of the requirements for reinstatement.  For example, 
there is no dispute that Attorney Widule has maintained 
competence in the law during his suspension, or that he has 
avoided engaging in the practice of law in this state while 
suspended, or that his conduct since his suspension has been 
above reproach. 
¶25 The only real dispute in this reinstatement proceeding 
has been whether Attorney Widule's failure to make regular 
payments toward the cost judgments and the sanction judgment 
means that he has failed to comply with this court's prior 
orders and to show that he has a proper attitude toward the 
standards that are imposed upon attorneys in this state. 
¶26 In its response to Attorney Widule's reinstatement 
petition, the OLR argued that Attorney Widule's failure to earn 
additional income meant that he had not complied with this 
court's orders to pay the costs of the disciplinary and first 
reinstatement proceedings.  In addition, the OLR indicated that 
it viewed Attorney Widule's failure to pay the sanction judgment 
as demonstrating a nonchalant attitude, a failure to recognize 
and accept responsibility for his past wrongdoing, and a failure 
to show a proper attitude toward the standards that are imposed 
upon attorneys in this state. 
¶27 There is a difference, however, between choosing to 
disobey this court's orders to pay costs and being unable to do 
No. 
2001AP2157-D   
 
13 
 
so because of a lack of funds.  The OLR's positions regarding 
these requirements for reinstatement are all premised on a view 
that Attorney Widule made a conscious decision not to earn money 
in order to avoid paying his legal obligations.  There is 
nothing in the referee's report, however, to indicate a 
deliberate choice by Attorney Widule to avoid paying his 
creditors.  The referee found that Attorney Widule has not been 
living a comfort-filled life while stonewalling his creditors.  
Rather, the referee described Attorney Widule's life since his 
suspension as a "Spartan like" existence with no frivolous 
spending or unreported income.  Attorney Widule's income simply 
has not covered even his most basic needs, and he has apparently 
been forced to live off the kindness of his family and friends.  
Given the referee's findings, we cannot conclude that Attorney 
Widule chose to violate this court's orders or to avoid paying 
the civil sanction judgment against him. 
¶28 Moreover, the referee disagreed with the OLR's claim 
that Attorney Widule's lack of regular payments toward his debts 
indicated a refusal to accept responsibility for his prior 
misconduct.  Indeed, the referee specifically found that 
Attorney Widule had acknowledged that he had made mistakes in 
handling the representation in the Dane County action.  That 
finding supports a conclusion that Attorney Widule now has a 
proper attitude toward the standards that are imposed upon 
attorneys in this state and will act in conformity with those 
standards.  See SCR 22.29(4)(f). 
No. 
2001AP2157-D   
 
14 
 
¶29 Having determined that Attorney Widule's license to 
practice law in this state should be reinstated, we turn to the 
subject of costs.  Initially, we conclude that Attorney Widule 
should be required to pay the full costs of this current 
reinstatement proceeding.  He did not object to the imposition 
of costs generally or claim that any of the costs incurred in 
this proceeding were unreasonable.  We therefore follow our 
general policy and impose the full costs of this proceeding on 
Attorney Widule since it was his misconduct that necessitated 
it.  See SCR 22.24(1)-(1m). 
¶30 We also agree with the referee that, given the various 
cost and sanction amounts that have been imposed on Attorney 
Widule, his return to the practice of law in this state should 
be conditioned on compliance with a payment plan for those 
obligations.  We differ with the referee's recommendation, 
however, in two respects.   
¶31 First, given that it appears Attorney Widule presently 
has little income, we conclude that it would not be advisable to 
require him to begin making immediate payments.  Even if 
Attorney Widule is able to find legal work immediately, there 
will be some time lag before he realizes income from that work.  
We therefore will not require the payments to begin until the 
fourth month after the date of this reinstatement order.  For 
the first 12 months in which the payment plan is effective, 
Attorney Widule will be required to pay $100 per month.  For the 
next 12 months, he will be required to pay $500 per month.  At 
the end of that second 12-month period, the OLR shall negotiate 
No. 
2001AP2157-D   
 
15 
 
with Attorney Widule an appropriate per month payment consistent 
with his level of income at that time. 
¶32 Second, we disagree with the referee's suggestion that 
the payments made by Attorney Widule should be allocated first 
to the outstanding cost judgments in favor of the OLR stemming 
from his disciplinary proceeding and his two reinstatement 
proceedings.  This court's standard policy is to require an 
attorney whose misconduct has caused harm to reimburse the 
individuals who have been harmed before paying any cost amounts 
to the OLR.   See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Woodard, 2012 WI 41, ¶42, 340 Wis. 2d 248, 812 N.W.2d 511 
(requiring attorney being reinstated to pay restitution before 
paying costs to the OLR); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Niesen, 2011 WI 97, ¶16, 337 Wis. 2d 340, 805 N.W.2d 105 (in 
disciplinary proceeding requiring payment of restitution to 
client 
prior 
to 
payment 
of 
costs); 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Krombach, 2005 WI 170, ¶68, 286 Wis. 2d 589, 
707 N.W.2d 146 (same).  We recognize that in this instance, 
given the large sanction judgment against Attorney Widule, the 
policy will result in a long period of time passing before any 
payments will be allocated to the cost judgments.  That mere 
delay, however, does not cause us to deviate from our policy 
that those individuals who have been directly injured by an 
attorney's 
misconduct 
should 
be 
the 
first 
to 
receive 
restitutionary payments.  Although the judgment entered in the 
Dane County action was levied as a sanction, the circuit court 
calculated the amount of the sanction based on the amount of 
No. 
2001AP2157-D   
 
16 
 
expenses the opposing parties had incurred and rendered the 
sanction judgment in their favor rather than in favor of the 
court.  Thus, we require Attorney Widule to make the monthly 
payments required by this opinion and order toward satisfying 
the sanction judgment until it has been fully satisfied.  Only 
then will his payments be allocated toward the payment of the 
cost judgments owed to the OLR. 
¶33 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement of 
the license of John C. Widule to practice law in Wisconsin is 
granted, effective the date of this order. 
¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that John C. Widule shall pay 
the sanction judgment entered against him in Ormson v. Merg, 
Dane County Case No. 1994CV3753, pursuant to the terms of the 
payment plan set forth below. 
¶35 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that John C. Widule shall pay to 
the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding 
pursuant to the terms of the payment plan set forth below. 
¶36 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that John C. Widule shall comply 
with the following payment schedule: 
A. 
Beginning on October 1, 2012, John C. Widule shall 
make monthly payments of $100 on the first day of each month for 
a period of 12 months; 
B. 
Beginning on October 1, 2013, John C. Widule shall 
make monthly payments of $500 on the first day of each month for 
a period of 12 months; 
C. 
John C. Widule and the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
shall thereafter confer and agree upon a monthly payment amount, 
No. 
2001AP2157-D   
 
17 
 
consistent with John C. Widule's level of income, which John C. 
Widule shall pay on a monthly basis beginning on October 1, 
2014.  If the parties are unable to agree on a monthly payment 
amount, one or both of the parties may move the court to 
establish a monthly payment amount; 
D. 
In the event that John C. Widule fails to make any 
payment by the 15th day of the month when due, the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation is authorized to move this court for a further 
suspension of the license of John C. Widule to practice law in 
Wisconsin. 
¶37 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the payments described 
above shall be made first toward the sanction judgment in Ormson 
v. Merg, Dane County Case No. 1994CV3753, until that sanction 
judgment has been paid in full.  Once the sanction judgment has 
been paid in full, the payments shall be paid toward the prior 
cost judgments that are owed to the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
and the costs of this current reinstatement proceeding. 
¶38 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation shall cease all attempts to collect on the various 
cost judgments in its favor against John C. Widule until such 
time as John C. Widule has satisfied the sanction judgment in 
Ormson v. Merg, Dane County Case No. 1994CV3753, or John C. 
Widule has failed to comply with the payment plan set forth in 
this decision and order. 
¶39 PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, J., did not participate. 
 
 
No. 
2001AP2157-D   
 
18 
 
 
 
No. 
2001AP2157-D   
 
 
 
1