Case Title: Paul M. Goetz v.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1996AP001438-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 1997-11-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
96-1438-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against 
Paul M. Goetz, 
Attorney at Law.  
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
November 7, 1997 
Submitted on Briefs: 
October 9, 1997 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
For Paul M. Goetz there were briefs by Paul M. 
Goetz, Wausau. 
 
 
For the Board of Attorneys Professional 
Responsibility there was a brief by Paul W. Schwarzenbart, 
Madison.  
 
No. 96-1438-D 
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 96-1438-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against PAUL M. GOETZ, Attorney at Law. 
FILED 
 
NOV 7, 1997 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM   Attorney Paul M. Goetz appealed from the 
referee’s conclusions that he engaged in professional misconduct 
and from the recommendation that the court publicly reprimand 
him for that misconduct. The misconduct concerned Attorney 
Goetz’s having used a fictitious name in signing a letter he 
submitted to a newspaper for publication criticizing a district 
attorney, acting in the presence of a conflict of interest when, 
after being elected and taking office as district attorney, he 
advised the county corporation counsel on a request his 
predecessor had made to the sheriff for the release of the 
investigative file concerning the letter to the newspaper and 
its authorship, and refusing to answer questions in the 
investigation of his conduct concerning his role in authoring, 
publishing or mailing other letters derogatory of the district 
attorney.  
No. 96-1438-D 
 
2 
¶2 
We determine that the referee properly concluded that 
Attorney Goetz engaged in professional misconduct by his actions 
in these matters. We also determine that the nature and 
seriousness of that misconduct warrant imposition of the public 
reprimand 
recommended 
by 
the 
referee. 
Attorney 
Goetz’s 
misrepresentation of his identity in order to have his views 
concerning a public official published in a newspaper and his 
subsequent use of his public office to deter inquiry into that 
misrepresentation 
constitute 
serious 
breaches 
of 
his 
professional obligations as a person licensed to represent 
others and as an officer of the justice system. He also breached 
his obligation to cooperate in the investigation by those this 
court 
has 
authorized 
to 
investigate 
and, 
when 
deemed 
appropriate, prosecute allegations of attorney misconduct.  
¶3 
Attorney Goetz was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1973 and practices in Wausau. He was elected and 
served as Lincoln county district attorney from 1993 to 1995. He 
has been disciplined once previously: he consented to a private 
reprimand 
from 
the 
Board 
of 
Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility (Board) in March, 1993 for failing to prepare for 
an administrative hearing on his client’s equal rights claim and 
failing to give the client notice until the day of the hearing 
of his intention not to represent him at that hearing, thereby 
depriving the client of the opportunity to employ other counsel.  
¶4 
The referee in this proceeding, Attorney John E. 
Shannon Jr., made findings based on facts to which the parties 
stipulated prior to the disciplinary hearing and on the evidence 
No. 96-1438-D 
 
3 
presented at that hearing. In his answer to the Board’s 
complaint, Attorney Goetz admitted that he wrote a letter to the 
editor of the Wausau Daily Herald dated December 9, 1991 under 
the assumed name of Marie Conley, purporting to reside in 
Merrill, Wisconsin, with the intention of concealing his 
identity as the author of that letter when submitting it for 
publication. In that letter, he expressed displeasure with the 
majority of politicians and attacked specifically the district 
attorney for Lincoln county, Kenneth Johnson, suggesting that he 
had contempt for the law and thought himself above the law. The 
letter referred to a public reprimand this court had imposed on 
District Attorney Johnson in 1991. The referee concluded that by 
writing and submitting that letter to the newspaper for 
publication under a false name, Attorney Goetz engaged in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).1  
¶5 
In late spring or early summer of 1992, Attorney Goetz 
ran against District Attorney Johnson and was elected in 
November of that year. During the campaign, District Attorney 
Johnson received the following three letters. The first, 
received in July, was a copy of the December 9, 1991 letter 
                     
1 SCR 20:8.4 provides, in pertinent part: Misconduct 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: 
 . . .  
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation;  
No. 96-1438-D 
 
4 
published in the newspaper, on which was typed language, 
including an offensive epithet, attacking District Attorney 
Johnson’s honesty, integrity and “mental status.” It listed 
seven names as signatories, including “Marie” and “Others too 
numerous to mention.”  
¶6 
The second letter, which was received in August, made 
reference to a court case in which District Attorney Johnson had 
appeared. It stated that opposing counsel in that case pointed 
out how District Attorney Johnson was misrepresenting facts. The 
letter referred to the district attorney as a “sociopath” and 
was signed “Marie Conley.” The third letter, replete with 
offensive epithets, was received in September. It alleged that 
District Attorney Johnson attempted to discredit the clerk of 
courts by investigating that office’s retention of a portion of 
passport fees. This letter, too, made reference to the district 
attorney’s public reprimand and was signed “Peter Robinski.”  
¶7 
After receiving the second letter, District Attorney 
Johnson asked the sheriff’s department to investigate whether it 
and the July letter violated state law. He subsequently amended 
his complaint to the sheriff to include the third letter. The 
sheriff’s officer conducting the investigation suspected that 
Attorney Goetz had written the three letters and sent them to 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation for analysis, together with 
exemplars of typewritten documents that had been signed by 
Attorney Goetz on his office letterhead stationery. The FBI 
determined that the letters and the exemplars originated from 
the same typewriting source.  
No. 96-1438-D 
 
5 
¶8 
The officer sent his report of the investigation to 
the sheriff September 1, 1993, and the sheriff then asked the 
Wisconsin Department of Justice to investigate the district 
attorney’s complaint. Three months later the Department of 
Justice responded that it saw nothing further that needed to be 
done from an investigative standpoint and that it would not 
consider forwarding the matter to a prosecutor. The sheriff 
informed his officer of that response and suggested the file be 
closed.  
¶9 
In March, 1994, Attorney Johnson made two public 
record requests to the sheriff for copies of documents in his 
department file concerning the investigation of the complaint he 
had made about the three letters. The sheriff did not respond to 
those requests for approximately four weeks. He did, however, 
tell District Attorney Goetz of the public records requests and 
showed him a copy of the officer’s investigative report, a copy 
of the letter forwarding the file to the Department of Justice, 
and a copy of that department’s response. At the same time, the 
sheriff 
told 
District 
Attorney 
Goetz 
of 
the 
typewriter 
comparison linking the typewriter in his law office to the three 
letters.  
¶10 In response to that information, District Attorney 
Goetz told the sheriff it was his opinion the letters did not 
amount to criminal conduct and that the public records request 
should be denied. On April 4, 1994, the sheriff asked the county 
corporation counsel for a legal opinion on the status of the 
records Attorney Johnson had requested. The corporation counsel 
No. 96-1438-D 
 
6 
responded that as of April 7, 1994, the investigator and those 
who had conducted the administrative review of the investigation 
considered it a closed file.  
¶11 On April 25, 1994, the corporation counsel told 
District Attorney Goetz that the Wausau Daily Herald had made 
public records requests 
for 
correspondence 
between 
former 
District Attorney Johnson and the sheriff’s department between 
January 1, 1993 and April 18, 1994, during which time Attorney 
Johnson had requested the investigative files. Corporation 
counsel asked District Attorney Goetz to advise her if he 
claimed 
any 
legal 
reason 
to 
deny 
the 
release 
of 
that 
correspondence to the newspaper, adding that if she heard 
nothing from him by midday, April 26, 1994, she would instruct 
the sheriff’s department to release the material.  
¶12 District Attorney Goetz wrote the corporation counsel 
that the requested records were part of an open file in his 
office, adding that up to that point no one had been charged 
with a crime but that the letters sought by the newspaper 
related to an open file in which he might decide to file charges 
against a former Lincoln county official for misconduct in 
office. District Attorney Goetz also stated that unless and 
until charges were filed, there would be no release of 
information from his office and asserted that if it was not 
appropriate for him as a prosecutor to release information on 
the file to the press, “[I]t clearly is not appropriate for you 
to direct the sheriff to release information to the press.” The 
No. 96-1438-D 
 
7 
referee concluded that Attorney Goetz violated SCR 20:1.7(b)2 by 
attempting to persuade the corporation counsel to advise the 
sheriff not to release records Attorney Johnson and the 
newspaper had requested when he knew he was the object of the 
investigation to which those records related.  
¶13 After Attorney Johnson filed a grievance with the 
Board concerning Attorney Goetz’s conduct in respect to the 
first “Conley” letter and the three subsequent campaign letters 
and concerning his conduct as district attorney regarding the 
public records requests made to the sheriff’s department, the 
Board 
referred 
the 
matter 
to 
the 
district 
professional 
responsibility committee for investigation. That committee asked 
Attorney Goetz whether he was responsible for authoring, 
publishing or mailing the campaign letters and whether he 
thought they were offensive. Attorney Goetz responded, “That is 
not 
something 
I 
would 
do 
 . . . I 
find 
your 
questions 
                     
2 SCR 20:1.7 provides, in pertinent part: Conflict of 
interest: general rule 
 . . .  
(b) 
A lawyer 
shall 
not 
represent a 
client if the 
representation of that client may be materially limited by the 
lawyer’s responsibilities to another client or to a third 
person, or by the lawyer’s own interests, unless:  
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will 
not be adversely affected; and 
(2) the client consents in writing after consultation. When 
representation of multiple clients in a single matter is 
undertaken, the consultation shall include explanation of the 
implications of the common representation and the advantages and 
risks involved.  
No. 96-1438-D 
 
8 
offensive.” 
Thereupon, 
Attorney 
Goetz 
stopped 
answering 
questions and insisted that the committee review the “legal 
authority” he had cited and furnish him with any authority the 
committee found in support of the Board’s authority to ask 
questions about the campaign letters. The referee concluded that 
Attorney Goetz’s refusal to answer the committee’s questions 
concerning whether he had any role in authoring, publishing or 
mailing the campaign letters constituted a refusal to cooperate 
in the Board’s investigation, in violation of SCR 21.03(4)3 and 
22.07(3).4  
¶14 After the investigative meeting ended, Attorney Goetz 
was notified of the date of a second investigative meeting 
before the committee. Attorney Goetz did not appear at that 
meeting, for the stated reason that he had scheduled three court 
                     
3 SCR 21.03 provides, in pertinent part: General principles. 
 . . .  
(4) Every attorney shall cooperate with the board and the 
administrator in the investigation, prosecution and disposition 
of grievances and complaints filed with or by the board or 
administrator.  
4 SCR 22.07 provides, in pertinent part: Investigation. 
 . . .  
(3) 
The 
administrator 
or 
committee 
may 
compel 
the 
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents and present 
any information deemed relevant to the investigation. Failure of 
the respondent to answer questions, furnish documents or present 
relevant information is misconduct. The administrator or a 
committee may compel any other person to produce pertinent 
books, papers and documents under SCR 22.22.  
No. 96-1438-D 
 
9 
hearings during that morning and was unable to have them 
rescheduled. The referee found that it was reasonable for 
Attorney Goetz to assume that the second meeting would begin in 
the afternoon, as the first had done, and, consequently, his 
nonattendance at the morning meeting did not constitute a 
refusal to cooperate in the Board’s investigation.  
¶15 In this appeal, Attorney Goetz argued that the referee 
improperly concluded that he had engaged in misconduct by using 
a fictitious name on the December, 1991 letter he submitted to 
the newspaper for publication for the reason that the letter 
constituted “core political speech” criticizing a public officer 
and as such enjoyed constitutional protection. Further, he 
contended, that protection extended to his use of the false name 
as the author of that content, as the name was “inextricably 
intertwined” with the letter’s political content. Attorney Goetz 
had made that argument during the course of the disciplinary 
proceeding, and the referee correctly rejected it, as well as 
Attorney Goetz’s insistence that his use of the false name was 
nothing more than his attempt to remain anonymous in criticizing 
a public official. In this appeal, the Board noted that Attorney 
Goetz elected not to use a non-deceptive means of concealing his 
identity, for example, using an obviously fabricated name, 
“Anonymous,” or his own name but asking that it not be 
published. As he testified at the disciplinary hearing, Attorney 
Goetz was concerned that the newspaper might not publish the 
letter if it were signed “Anonymous” or with an obviously 
No. 96-1438-D 
 
10
fabricated name and, further, that it might not protect his 
identity had he given it. 
¶16 As the referee determined, it was not Attorney Goetz’s 
criticism of the district attorney in that letter that is the 
issue; it is the deceptive means he employed to have that 
criticism published by a reputable newspaper and communicated to 
its readership. Attorney Goetz misrepresented his identity as a 
lawyer attacking the professional integrity of the chief law 
enforcement official of the county, thereby reflecting adversely 
on Attorney Goetz’s professional position.  
¶17 Attorney Goetz also argued that the rule the referee 
concluded he had violated, SCR 20:8.4(c), is not applicable to 
that conduct, as there is a more specific rule that he contended 
applies exclusively. That rule, SCR 20:8.2, prohibits a lawyer 
from making a statement the lawyer knows to be false or with 
reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the 
qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or 
public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or 
appointment to judicial or legal office. That argument has no 
merit for the reason already given: the misrepresentation did 
not concern the statements made in the letter about the district 
attorney; it was the falsification of the letter writer’s 
identity in order to have those statements published.  
¶18 On the issue of whether the referee properly concluded 
that he acted in the presence of a conflict of interest when 
advising the corporation counsel concerning the release of the 
sheriff’s department records of an investigation of which he was 
No. 96-1438-D 
 
11
the object, Attorney Goetz contended that he did not have a 
“client” when corporation counsel sought his advice in the 
matter and thus could not have violated the specified rule. He 
also argued that a waiver by the corporation counsel of any 
conflict may be inferred from the facts that he had referred the 
sheriff to corporation counsel, assertedly because there would 
be an appearance of a conflict of interest as a result of the 
involvement of his office in the matter, the sheriff went to the 
corporation 
counsel 
for 
advice, 
and 
corporation 
counsel 
thereafter sought his advice in the matter.  
¶19 Regardless whether the county was a “client” in the 
usual 
meaning 
of 
the 
word 
when 
applied 
to 
a 
lawyer’s 
representation, there is no question that District Attorney 
Goetz was being asked in his official capacity the status of a 
file in his office by another legal representative of the 
county. Rather than turning the request over to someone else in 
his office, he took the official position that the file in his 
office remained open, saying that he might decide to prosecute 
his predecessor for having asked the sheriff to investigate what 
he considered a non-criminal matter, and actively advocated that 
the public records requests be denied.  
¶20 We find no merit to the waiver argument, as the 
corporation counsel’s request for advice was with respect to 
whether there was reason to advise the sheriff not to release 
the information because there was an open file in the district 
attorney’s office that was connected to it. Moreover, there is 
no indication that the corporation counsel was aware that the 
No. 96-1438-D 
 
12
subject of the investigation about which the records had been 
requested was the very person who was advising her not only in 
respect to the open status of a file in his office but also on 
whether it was appropriate that she advise the sheriff to 
release the records. Likewise meritless is Attorney Goetz’s 
contention that any personal interest he might have had in the 
matter was “merely coincidental” to what he termed his pursuit 
of a long-standing policy in the district attorney’s office not 
to honor a public records request for closed investigative files 
when no one was charged or likely to be charged.  
¶21 In respect to his refusal to answer questions from the 
investigative committee concerning his involvement in the three 
campaign letters, Attorney Goetz argued that the Board’s 
allegation that he failed to cooperate in the investigation must 
fail because the referee found that one of the two acts on which 
that allegation was premised, namely, his failure to attend the 
second investigative meeting, did not constitute a failure to 
cooperate in the investigation. He also contended that the three 
campaign letters constituted “core political speech” implicating 
First Amendment rights and that he was constitutionally entitled 
to refuse to answer the questions concerning them. Neither of 
these arguments has merit. The FBI report linking those letters 
to a typewriter in Attorney Goetz’s office gave the district 
committee cause to believe Attorney Goetz might have had some 
involvement in or knowledge of their creation, and it was 
reasonable that the committee ask him what he knew about the 
letters.  
No. 96-1438-D 
 
13
¶22 We 
adopt 
the 
referee’s 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law concerning Attorney Goetz’s misconduct in 
these matters. On the issue of discipline to be imposed, the 
Board took the position that the public reprimand recommended by 
the referee is appropriate in view of the multiple acts of 
misconduct established in this proceeding, Attorney Goetz’s 
refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing, and the private reprimand 
imposed on him, with his consent, for misconduct that occurred 
just prior to his submission of the “Marie Conley” letter for 
publication. We agree.  
¶23 In addition to that public reprimand, the referee 
recommended that the court require Attorney Goetz to pay the 
costs of this disciplinary proceeding. Attorney Goetz filed an 
objection to the assessment of costs against him and renewed 
that objection following submission by the Board of the costs it 
incurred in this appeal. None of the grounds set forth in that 
objection has merit with the exception of the contention that a 
portion of the costs itemized by the Board already might have 
been taxed against Attorney Goetz in a proceeding he had 
unsuccessfully 
pursued 
in 
circuit 
court 
to 
enjoin 
this 
proceeding. Accordingly, we hold the matter of costs in abeyance 
pending resubmission by the Board of costs it incurred in this 
proceeding prior to the filing of Attorney Goetz’s appeal, 
deleting 
therefrom 
those 
costs 
clearly 
identifiable 
and 
traceable to time and expenses incurred in the injunction 
proceeding that were taxed against Attorney Goetz. Following 
No. 96-1438-D 
 
14
that submission, Attorney Goetz will be afforded the opportunity 
to respond.  
¶24 IT IS ORDERED that Attorney Paul M. Goetz is publicly 
reprimanded as discipline for professional misconduct.  
¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the assessment of costs of 
this proceeding shall be held in abeyance pending further order 
of the court.  
 
 
 
1