Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Reed Martin

Citation: 2012 WI 84

Docket Number: 2011AP000989-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2012-07-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
2012 WI 84 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2011AP989-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Reed Martin, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Reed Martin, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MARTIN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 10, 2012   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
ABRAHAMSON, C.J., concurs in part and dissents 
in part.    
 
DISSENTED: 
   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2012 WI 84
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2011AP989-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Reed Martin, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Reed Martin, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 10, 2012 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.    Attorney publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of the referee, Attorney Hannah C. Dugan, that Attorney Reed 
Martin should be publicly reprimanded for his professional 
misconduct and that he should be required to pay the full costs 
of this proceeding, which were $2,617.78 as of April 13, 2012.  
Because no appeal has been filed in this matter, our review 
proceeds pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1  After reviewing the matter, 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) states: 
No. 
2011AP989-D   
 
2 
 
we adopt the referee's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 
recommended sanction. 
¶2 
The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed its 
complaint and order to answer in this matter on May 2, 2011.  On 
May 25, 2011, Attorney Martin filed a document entitled "Plea of 
No Contest," in which he stated that he was pleading no contest 
to the allegations in the OLR's complaint, but reserving his 
right to present evidence and make arguments regarding the 
proper level of discipline. 
¶3 
At a subsequent scheduling conference, Attorney Martin 
reiterated his no contest plea to the allegations against him, 
confirmed 
that 
he 
did 
not 
request 
a 
hearing 
on 
those 
allegations, and requested that he be allowed to be heard on the 
issue of discipline.  The OLR then filed a motion formally 
requesting the referee to accept Attorney Martin's no contest 
plea and to find that the violations alleged in the OLR's 
complaint had occurred.  There was no hearing on the issue of 
the appropriate level of discipline.  The parties agreed to 
submit memoranda on that issue and to have the referee make a 
sanction recommendation on the basis of those memoranda. 
                                                                                                                                                             
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. 
2011AP989-D   
 
3 
 
¶4 
In the referee's report, she found that Attorney 
Martin's plea of no contest was voluntary, not the result of 
plea bargaining, and not the product of coercion or threat.  The 
referee therefore accepted the plea and based her factual 
findings and legal conclusions on the allegations in the OLR's 
complaint, which are summarized below.  
¶5 
Attorney Martin was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in 1995.  He maintains a law practice in Wauwatosa.   
¶6 
Attorney Martin has been the subject of professional 
discipline on one other occasion.  In 2003 he received a 
consensual private reprimand for having committed a criminal act 
that reflected adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness or 
fitness 
as 
a 
lawyer, 
in 
violation 
of 
SCR 
20:8.4(b).  
Specifically, the basis for that private reprimand was Attorney 
Martin's conviction, based upon his guilty plea, of a class A 
misdemeanor involving the issuance of a worthless check in an 
amount less than $1,000, in violation of Wis. Stat. § 943.23(1). 
¶7 
The allegations of the current complaint stem from 
Attorney Martin's representation of J.C., a defendant in a 
juvenile delinquency action in the Milwaukee County circuit 
court.  The Office of the State Public Defender (SPD) appointed 
Attorney Martin to represent J.C. in that proceeding.  Circuit 
Court Judge Dennis Cimpl presided over a trial in the matter in 
August 2006 and found J.C. delinquent on two counts. 
¶8 
J.C., represented by an appellate attorney, filed a 
motion for post-disposition relief that was based, at least in 
part, on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel by 
No. 
2011AP989-D   
 
4 
 
Attorney Martin.  The motion was scheduled to be heard on 
January 7, 2008.  Although Attorney Martin may not have been 
specifically notified by the court that the motion would be 
heard on that date, the court had previously scheduled a status 
conference for that same date to review J.C.'s probation, and 
Attorney Martin was still J.C.'s trial counsel of record.  
Attorney Martin did not appear for the January 7, 2008 hearing.  
Moreover, both J.C.'s appellate attorney and the prosecuting 
attorney informed the court that Attorney Martin had not been 
cooperating with them with respect to the January 7, 2008 
hearing.   
¶9 
Due to Attorney Martin's absence and the need for his 
testimony to resolve J.C.'s ineffective assistance of counsel 
claim, Judge Cimpl rescheduled the hearing on J.C.'s motion for 
February 21, 2008.  On February 15, 2008, a subpoena was served 
on Attorney Martin requiring him to appear for the rescheduled 
hearing at 2:00 p.m. on February 21, 2008.  The process server 
prepared a memorandum regarding service, which was subsequently 
filed with the circuit court.  The process server reported that 
when she had handed the subpoena to Attorney Martin and had 
informed him that he was being served, Attorney Martin stated to 
her that he was refusing the subpoena and would not come to the 
hearing.  He subsequently told the process server that he would 
not be at the hearing because he was going on vacation.  He read 
the subpoena, but returned it to the process server. 
¶10 Shortly after 8:00 p.m. on February 20, 2008, Attorney 
Martin faxed a letter to Judge Cimpl listing a lengthy set of 
No. 
2011AP989-D   
 
5 
 
dates on which he would be available to testify at a hearing in 
J.C.'s case.  The letter did not mention the previously 
scheduled hearing for the next day or his purported refusal of 
service of the subpoena.  It also gave no reason for refusing to 
appear on February 21, 2008. 
¶11 Attorney Martin was seen at the Milwaukee County 
Courthouse on the morning of February 21, 2008.  He did not 
appear at 2:00 p.m. in Judge Cimpl's courtroom, however, for the 
scheduled hearing. 
¶12 Judge Cimpl again was forced to reschedule the hearing 
on J.C.'s post-disposition motion.  He scheduled the hearing for 
March 24, 2008.  A new trial attorney was appointed to represent 
J.C.  Judge Cimpl informed the new trial attorney that he wanted 
Attorney Martin to be subpoenaed for the March 24 hearing both 
to answer for his previous failures to appear and to testify 
regarding J.C.'s motion.   
¶13 The assistant district attorney was concerned by 
Attorney Martin's failure to appear and what he viewed as 
Attorney Martin's lack of candor.  Because of the potential for 
a reversal of the finding of delinquency on the two counts 
against J.C. due in part to Attorney Martin's conduct, the 
assistant district attorney has indicated that he was forced to 
agree to reduce the two serious charges on which J.C. had 
already been found delinquent to a single, lesser charge.   
¶14 On March 24, 2008, Attorney Martin did appear at the 
courthouse but did not enter Judge Cimpl's courtroom.  When he 
learned that J.C.'s motion had been resolved by the court's 
No. 
2011AP989-D   
 
6 
 
approval of the agreement to reduce the charges against J.C., 
Attorney Martin left the courthouse without appearing before 
Judge Cimpl to explain his prior failures to appear.  Attorney 
Martin asserted that he was not served with a subpoena for the 
March 24, 2008 hearing, but the successor trial counsel informed 
Judge Cimpl that Attorney Martin had refused to cooperate and 
had evaded service of a subpoena. 
¶15 Judge Cimpl subsequently filed a written grievance 
with the OLR regarding Attorney Martin's conduct.  When the OLR 
asked Attorney Martin to respond, he initially claimed that he 
had not appeared at the February 21, 2008 hearing even though 
subpoenaed because he had been on a family vacation that had 
been scheduled months earlier.  When the OLR subsequently asked 
Attorney Martin for some information about his vacation travel, 
he responded in a letter dated March 24, 2009.  In that letter 
Attorney Martin asserted that he and his family had left at 5:00 
p.m. on February 20, 2008, and had driven to Holcombe, 
Wisconsin, arriving there about 10:00 p.m.  In a subsequent 
letter, Attorney Martin twice more repeated that he had been out 
of town on February 21, 2008, and that he had notified the court 
and the assistant district attorney of his unavailability on 
that date.  He also alleged that whoever had claimed to have 
seen him in the Milwaukee County Courthouse on February 21, 
2008, had been mistaken. 
¶16 When Attorney Martin failed to produce documentation 
to verify his travel as he had promised, the OLR formally 
requested the documentation.  Attorney Martin responded by 
No. 
2011AP989-D   
 
7 
 
producing a redacted credit card statement.  The statement did 
show a transaction in Holcombe on February 21, 2008, but the 
five preceding transactions had been redacted.  After a further 
request from the OLR, Attorney Martin finally produced an 
unredacted copy of the credit card statement, which disclosed a 
gasoline purchase in Wauwatosa on February 21, 2008, indicating 
that Attorney Martin had indeed been in the Milwaukee area at 
least during the morning hours of that date.  Although Attorney 
Martin produced an unredacted copy of the credit card statement, 
he did not provide the actual credit card receipts as requested 
by the OLR.  
¶17 Based on these factual findings, the referee concluded 
that Attorney Martin had engaged in two counts of professional 
misconduct.  First, the referee concluded that Attorney Martin 
had violated SCR 20:3.4(c)2 by failing to honor the lawfully 
served subpoena commanding his attendance at the February 21, 
2008 hearing before Judge Cimpl.  Second, the referee determined 
that Attorney Martin had violated SCRs 22.03(6)3 and 20:8.4(h)4 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:3.4(c) states a lawyer shall not "knowingly disobey 
an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except for an open 
refusal 
based 
on 
an 
assertion 
that 
no 
valid 
obligation 
exists; . . . ." 
3 SCR 22.03(6) provides as follows: "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." 
No. 
2011AP989-D   
 
8 
 
by misrepresenting to the OLR that he had left with his family 
for a vacation on February 20, 2008, and was therefore out of 
town on February 21, 2008, by deliberately redacting relevant 
information on the original credit card statement provided to 
the OLR, and by deliberately failing to provide relevant 
documents 
to 
the 
OLR, 
all 
of 
which 
impeded 
the 
OLR's 
investigation. 
¶18 Although he pled no contest to the allegations in the 
OLR's complaint, Attorney Martin requested the opportunity to 
present argument regarding the proper level of discipline to be 
imposed.  The referee therefore invited the parties to file 
briefs on the subject. 
¶19 The 
OLR 
requested 
the 
imposition 
of 
a 
public 
reprimand.  It contended that a public reprimand was supported 
by 
a 
number 
of 
prior 
disciplinary 
matters, 
although 
it 
acknowledged that it could not find a previous case involving 
the exact same violations committed by Attorney Martin.  See, 
e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kohler, 2009 WI 24, 
316 Wis. 2d 17, 762 N.W.2d 377 (prosecuting attorney publicly 
reprimanded for failing to obey court orders to provide 
discovery and for falsely stating to the court that he had 
provided the required discovery to opposing counsel); In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Miller, 2005 WI 146, 286 
                                                                                                                                                             
4 SCR 20:8.4(h) states 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. 
2011AP989-D   
 
9 
 
Wis. 2d 79, 704 N.W.2d 912 (public reprimand imposed for failing 
to comply with court order to disburse funds in trust account to 
the 
opposing 
party 
in 
a 
divorce 
proceeding 
and 
instead 
disbursing the funds to himself and his client); Public 
Reprimand of Lori A. Schmitz, No. 2006-8 (consensual public 
reprimand imposed where attorney, among other things, refused to 
answer a question at a John Doe proceeding despite being ordered 
by the court to do so); Public Reprimand of James G. 
Moldenhauer, No. 2008-01 (consensual public reprimand imposed 
where attorney failed to act with diligence, failed to respond 
to client requests for information, and failed to appear at 
three hearings despite being ordered to do so by the court).  
The OLR further asserted that this court's general policy of 
progressive discipline called for a public reprimand in light of 
Attorney Martin's earlier private reprimand.  Finally, the OLR 
noted that there were no mitigating factors and a number of 
aggravating factors, including multiple counts of misconduct, 
intentional 
noncompliance 
with 
the 
rules 
governing 
OLR 
investigations, and the submission of false or misleading 
evidence to the OLR. 
¶20 Attorney 
Martin 
argued 
in 
favor 
of 
a 
private 
reprimand.  He acknowledged that he did not appear at the 
February 21, 2008 hearing, but asserted that he had a valid 
reason for not attending due to his previously scheduled family 
vacation.  He contended that he was not being obstructive or 
recalcitrant because his fax to the court on February 20, 2008, 
offered a lengthy list of dates and times when he would be 
No. 
2011AP989-D   
 
10 
 
available to attend a hearing on J.C.'s motion.  He also asserts 
that his concern for the judicial process of resolving J.C.'s 
case was demonstrated by the fact that he showed up at the 
March 24, 2008 hearing without having been subpoenaed.  With 
respect to the statements about having been out of town on 
February 21, 2008, that were made to the OLR, Attorney Martin 
claimed that he initially had simply been mistaken as to when he 
had left for his family vacation.  He asserted that he was not 
intentionally attempting to mislead or deceive the OLR, that he 
ultimately provided the relevant documents to the OLR, and that 
he admitted his initial statements had been wrong.  Attorney 
Martin attempted to distinguish a number of the public reprimand 
cases cited by the OLR, but he supported his argument for a 
private reprimand with just one consensual private reprimand 
order, which had also been cited by the OLR.  See Private 
Reprimand No. 2002-17 (consensual private reprimand imposed on 
attorney representing a defendant in a civil action who failed 
to comply with a court order to provide discovery and failed to 
communicate his choice of mediator, thereby violating SCR 20:3.2 
(requiring 
reasonable efforts to expedite litigation) and 
SCR 20:3.4(c) (forbidding attorneys from knowingly disobeying an 
obligation imposed under the rules or orders of a tribunal)). 
¶21 The referee found Attorney Martin's sanction arguments 
to be unpersuasive.  She stated that Attorney Martin had not 
provided any independent precedential support for his request 
for a private reprimand and that his analysis of the precedents 
cited by the OLR was sparse.  She further commented that 
No. 
2011AP989-D   
 
11 
 
Attorney 
Martin's 
sanction 
memorandum 
had 
attempted 
to 
recharacterize the facts in the OLR's complaint to which he had 
already entered a no contest plea.  She agreed that the cases 
cited 
in 
the 
OLR's 
sanction 
memoranda, 
the 
concept 
of 
progressive discipline, and the presence of aggravating factors 
supported a public reprimand in this instance.   
¶22 When reviewing a referee's report and recommendation 
in an attorney disciplinary proceeding, we affirm a 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.  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 given the particular facts of 
each case, independent of the referee's recommendation, but 
benefiting from it.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶23 In light of Attorney Martin's no contest plea, we 
adopt the referee's findings of fact, which are based on the 
OLR's complaint.  We also agree with the referee that those 
findings of fact support a legal conclusion that Attorney Martin 
committed both counts of professional misconduct alleged by the 
OLR.   
¶24 We now turn to the only real dispute in this 
proceeding, which is the proper level of discipline.  We agree 
with the referee and the OLR that a public reprimand is 
appropriate in this case.  Not only did Attorney Martin disobey 
the command of a lawful subpoena, he made false statements to 
No. 
2011AP989-D   
 
12 
 
the OLR and redacted relevant portions of the credit card 
statement that he later provided to the OLR in order to create 
the appearance that he was out of town during the entirety of 
February 21, 2008.  There can be no other reason for redacting a 
gasoline purchase entry for that same date from the credit card 
statement, especially when Attorney Martin had already claimed 
to the OLR that anyone who said he/she had seen Attorney Martin 
in the Milwaukee County Courthouse during the morning of 
February 21, 2008, must have been mistaken.  The purchase of 
gasoline is not a confidential or embarrassing matter that would 
lead a person to redact the transaction information, unless the 
purchase entry shows that the person's prior statement was not 
accurate.   
¶25 Imposing a public reprimand for Attorney Martin's 
misconduct is supported by this court's decision in Kohler.  316 
Wis. 2d 17, 
¶¶28, 
40. 
 
While 
Attorney 
Martin 
made 
a 
misrepresentation to the OLR rather than a court, as Attorney 
Kohler did, both attorneys refused to comply with a lawful order 
of a court and made a misrepresentation.  The differences 
between the two cases are not substantial enough to justify a 
different result. 
¶26 Finally, we turn to the issue of the costs of this 
proceeding.  Our general policy is to impose the costs of a 
disciplinary proceeding against the respondent attorney whose 
misconduct necessitated the proceeding.  We see no reason to 
deviate from that policy in this case.  There is nothing on the 
face of the OLR's statement of costs that would suggest the 
No. 
2011AP989-D   
 
13 
 
requested costs are unreasonable.  Moreover, Attorney Martin has 
not objected to the imposition of the requested costs.  We 
therefore require Attorney Martin to pay the full costs of this 
proceeding. 
¶27 IT IS ORDERED that Reed Martin is publicly reprimanded 
for his professional misconduct. 
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Reed Martin shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If the costs are not 
paid within the time specified and Reed Martin has not entered 
into a payment plan approved by the Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
then the Office of Lawyer Regulation is authorized to move this 
court for a suspension of the license of Reed Martin to practice 
law in Wisconsin. 
 
 
No.  2011AP989-D.ssa 
 
1 
 
 
¶29 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.   (concurring in part, 
dissenting in part).  I concur with the majority's conclusion 
that Attorney Martin engaged in two counts of professional 
misconduct and its determination that Attorney Martin should be 
required to pay the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding.  
I dissent, however, from the majority's decision that a public 
reprimand is the appropriate level of discipline in this case.  
Given the serious nature of Attorney Martin's misconduct and the 
fact that he has previously received a consensual private 
reprimand, I would impose a more stringent sanction for his 
misconduct in this matter. 
 
 
No.  2011AP989-D.ssa 
 
 
 
1