Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Douglas Batt

Citation: 2010 WI 7

Docket Number: 2008AP002817-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2010-02-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
2010 WI 7 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2008AP2817-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Douglas Batt, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Douglas Batt, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BATT 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 3, 2010   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2010 WI 7
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2008AP2817-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Douglas Batt, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Douglas Batt, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 3, 2010 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of Referee Timothy L. Vocke that Attorney Douglas Batt be 
publicly 
reprimanded for professional misconduct and that 
Attorney Batt pay the costs of this proceeding.  The Office of 
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a four-count complaint against 
Attorney 
Batt 
alleging 
misconduct 
with 
respect 
to 
his 
representation of his former client, L.G.  The referee concluded 
the evidence supported the allegations that Attorney Batt failed 
No. 
2008AP2817-D   
 
2 
 
to consult with L.G. regarding the means by which to appeal, 
contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a)(2)1 (Count 2), and that Attorney Batt 
failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status 
of a matter, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a)(3)2 (Count 3).   
¶2 
The referee determined the evidence failed to support 
the allegation that Attorney Batt failed to abide by his 
client's decision to file an appeal (Count 1).  The referee also 
concluded the evidence was insufficient to show Attorney Batt 
violated his duty to act with reasonable diligence by failing to 
file a timely appeal (Count 4).  The referee recommended 
dismissal of Counts 1 and 4.   
¶3 
Upon our independent review, we approve the referee's 
findings and conclusions and adopt them.  No appeal of the 
referee's report and recommendation has been filed.  The 
referee's findings and conclusions are supported by the record.  
We conclude Attorney Batt's professional misconduct warrants a 
public reprimand.  We order Attorney Batt to pay the full costs 
of this disciplinary proceeding.    
¶4 
Attorney Batt was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in 1990.  He practices in the Milwaukee area.  In 2007 
Attorney Batt was publicly reprimanded for trust account 
violations.  See Public Reprimand of Douglas Batt, No. 2007-04. 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.4(a)(2) provides that a lawyer shall "reasonably 
consult with the client about the means by which the client's 
objectives are to be accomplished; . . . ." 
2 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides that a lawyer shall "keep the 
client 
reasonably 
informed 
about 
the 
status 
of 
the 
matter; . . . ." 
No. 
2008AP2817-D   
 
3 
 
¶5 
The 
current 
matter 
involves 
Attorney 
Batt's 
representation of L.G. in his probation revocation proceedings. 
Attorney Batt attended L.G.'s probation revocation hearing on 
August 8, 2007.  In a decision dated August 10, 2007, the 
administrative law judge revoked L.G.'s probation.  On the same 
day, a copy of the decision was sent to Attorney Batt with a 
letter stating the time limit to file an administrative appeal 
was August 24, 2007.  L.G. also received a copy of the decision 
and was notified of the time limit for filing an appeal.   
¶6 
Following a conversation with L.G. after the appeal 
time had expired, Attorney Batt sent a letter to the division of 
hearings and appeals requesting an extension to file an appeal.  
The administrator denied the extension, noting he had no 
authority to enlarge the time for an administrative appeal.  The 
referee found that Attorney Batt did not inform L.G. the 
administrator had denied his extension request.   
¶7 
Attorney Batt did not file a timely appeal on behalf 
of L.G.  The referee found credible Attorney Batt's testimony at 
the disciplinary hearing that L.G. did not request an appeal to 
be filed before the time limit had expired.  The referee 
determined the OLR failed to show that Attorney Batt was under 
any obligation to file an appeal or a petition for a writ of 
certiorari, absent a request from his client. 
¶8 
The 
referee 
concluded 
the 
evidence 
established 
violations as alleged in Counts 2 and 3.  The referee found that 
Attorney Batt failed to consult with his client regarding the 
means by which the appeal of the adverse probation revocation 
No. 
2008AP2817-D   
 
4 
 
decision was to be accomplished or otherwise advise his client 
of available options.  The referee also determined that by 
failing to notify L.G. that the extension request had been 
denied, Attorney Batt failed to keep his client reasonably 
informed regarding the status of the matter. 
¶9 
As to Count 1, the referee concluded the OLR failed to 
show L.G. had made a timely request to appeal.  With respect to 
Count 4, the referee further concluded the OLR failed to show 
that the scope of Attorney Batt's representation included the 
filing of an administrative appeal.  
¶10 Turning to the issue of discipline, the referee found 
the most aggravating factor was Attorney Batt's previous public 
reprimand.  Another aggravating factor the referee found was 
that client communication is a basic and significant duty.  In 
mitigation, the referee observed Attorney Batt's previous 
discipline involved totally unrelated trust account violations.  
Additionally, the referee doubted Attorney Batt's misconduct 
caused L.G. any actual harm, noting that L.G. had been "in deep 
trouble long before he ran into [Attorney Batt].  It's unlikely 
that there's anything that Mr. Batt could have done at that 
hearing to get him out of trouble or subsequently.  Based upon 
the testimony today, there was no merit to an appeal."  
Therefore, the referee concluded Attorney Batt's misconduct 
warranted a public reprimand and he should bear the costs of the 
proceeding. 
¶11 A referee's findings of fact will not be overturned 
unless clearly erroneous.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
No. 
2008AP2817-D   
 
5 
 
Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 
N.W.2d 718.  We independently review the referee's legal 
conclusions.  Id.  Referee Vocke's findings and conclusions are 
unchallenged and supported by the record.  We therefore approve 
and adopt the referee's findings and conclusions regarding 
Attorney Batt's misconduct. 
¶12 It is our independent responsibility to determine 
appropriate discipline.  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, the need to 
protect the public, courts, and legal system from the repetition 
of misconduct, the need to impress upon the attorney the 
seriousness of the misconduct, and the need to deter other 
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.  We are satisfied the record 
supports the referee's recommendation of a public reprimand.   
¶13 We also impose full costs.  Supreme court rule 22.24 
governs the assessment of costs in this proceeding.3  Under SCR 
                                                 
3 SCR 22.24 reads in part: Assessment of costs. 
(1) The supreme court may assess against the 
respondent all or a portion of the costs of a 
disciplinary proceeding in which misconduct is found, 
a medical incapacity proceeding in which it finds a 
medical incapacity, or a reinstatement proceeding and 
may enter a judgment for costs.  The director may 
assess 
all 
or 
a 
portion 
of 
the 
costs 
of 
an 
investigation when discipline is imposed under SCR 
22.09.  Costs are payable to the office of lawyer 
regulation. 
No. 
2008AP2817-D   
 
6 
 
22.24(1m), the court's general policy is to impose costs on the 
respondent, Attorney Batt.  To award less than full costs, the 
court must find "extraordinary circumstances."  Id.  Attorney 
Batt has not objected to the costs and has not claimed 
extraordinary circumstances to justify the imposition of less 
than full costs.  We conclude Attorney Batt shall bear the 
entire costs of the proceedings.4    
¶14 IT 
IS 
ORDERED 
that 
Douglas 
Batt 
is 
publicly 
reprimanded as discipline for professional misconduct.  
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 90 days of the date 
of this order, Douglas Batt pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If costs are not paid 
within the time specified and absent a showing of his inability 
to pay, Douglas Batt's license to practice law in Wisconsin 
shall be suspended until further order of the court. 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
(1m) The court's general policy is that upon a 
finding of misconduct it is appropriate to impose all 
costs, including the expenses of counsel for the 
office of lawyer regulation, upon the respondent.  In 
cases involving extraordinary circumstances the court 
may, in the exercise of its discretion, reduce the 
amount of costs imposed upon a respondent.  . . .  
4 The OLR filed a statement of costs totaling $4,772.09. 
No. 
2008AP2817-D   
 
 
 
1