Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Robert J. Baratki

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2016AP001877-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2017-10-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
2017 WI 89 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2016AP1877-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Robert J. Baratki, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Robert J. Baratki, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BARATKI 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 3, 2017 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
      
 
 
2017 WI 89
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2016AP1877-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Robert J. Baratki, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,   
 
 
Complainant,   
 
 
v. 
 
Robert J. Baratki,   
 
 
Respondent.   
FILED 
 
OCT 3, 2017 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review Referee James J. Winiarski's 
recommendation that the court declare Attorney Robert J. Baratki 
in default and suspend his Wisconsin law license for a period of 
60 days for his misconduct in two client matters, his appearance 
in numerous client matters while his license to practice law was 
suspended, and his non-cooperation with the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation's (OLR) investigation into his conduct.   The referee 
also recommended that Attorney Baratki be required to make 
restitution to a former client in the amount of $487.50, and to 
No. 
2016AP1877-D   
 
2 
 
pay the full costs of this proceeding, which total $1,428.93 as 
of June 13, 2017. 
¶2 
Because no appeal has been filed, we review the 
referee's report pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.17(2).  
After conducting our independent review of the matter, we agree 
with the referee that, based on Attorney Baratki's failure to 
answer the complaint filed by the OLR, the OLR is entitled to a 
default judgment.  However, we disagree with the referee that 
Attorney Baratki's professional misconduct warrants only a 60-
day suspension.  We conclude, instead, that a six-month 
suspension is warranted.  We agree with the referee that 
Attorney Baratki should be ordered to pay the full costs of the 
proceeding, as well $487.50 in restitution.   
¶3 
Attorney Baratki was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1990.  He has twice been privately reprimanded.  In 
2006, he was privately reprimanded for engaging in a consensual 
sexual relationship with his client when he did not have such a 
relationship with the client prior to the establishment of their 
attorney-client 
relationship, 
in 
violation 
of 
former 
SCR 20:1.8(k)(2).  See Private Reprimand No. 2006-20 (electronic 
copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/001926.html).  In 2014, 
he was privately reprimanded for:  (1) transmitting a letter to 
opposing counsel at a time his license was suspended for 
noncompliance with mandatory continuing legal education (CLE) 
requirements, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(f); and (2) acting on 
behalf of clients, including appearances in court, during a 
No. 
2016AP1877-D   
 
3 
 
period when his license was suspended for noncompliance with CLE 
requirements, in violation of SCR 31.10(1), enforced via SCR 
20:8.4(f).  See Private Reprimand No. 2014-4 (electronic copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/002644.html).   
¶4 
Attorney Baratki's law license is currently subject to 
administrative 
and 
temporary 
suspensions. 
 
It 
is 
administratively suspended for failure to comply with mandatory 
CLE reporting requirements.  It is temporarily suspended due to 
his willful failure to cooperate with OLR investigations into 
his conduct.  See Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Baratki, 
2016XX1482-D and 2016XX1830-D, unpublished orders (S. Ct. 
December 14, 2016 and February 13, 2017, respectively). 
¶5 
On September 28, 2016, the OLR filed the current 
complaint against Attorney Baratki.  The complaint alleges nine 
counts of professional wrongdoing, divided into three categories 
of misconduct. The following facts are taken from the OLR's 
complaint. 
Client K.D. (Counts 1-4) 
¶6 
In February 2014, K.D. retained Attorney Baratki to 
represent her in a divorce proceeding.  
¶7 
Beginning in April 2014, 
Attorney Baratki began 
sending flirtatious, and sometimes sexual, text messages to K.D.  
In April 2014, Attorney Baratki sent K.D. a text message that 
read, "I forgot to tell you yesterday your top was really 
pretty," and, "You[] are so bad."  When K.D. responded, "I think 
it is your imagination," Attorney Baratki replied, "Nope, it was 
No. 
2016AP1877-D   
 
4 
 
you and your abs."  In May 2014, Attorney Baratki texted K.D. to 
suggest that she "could stop over for a 10 or 15 minute pawing 
before [K.D.'s daughter] stops over."  Attorney Baratki later 
texted such appeals as, "Are you ignoring me?" and, "You don't 
love me anymore."  Attorney Baratki also bragged to K.D. about 
how many women he had been with, suggested that she should 
"date," and forecasted her sexual predilections.  In one of his 
meetings with K.D., Attorney Baratki lifted her shirt and kissed 
her abdominal area. 
¶8 
In December 2014, K.D. retained new counsel and 
Attorney Baratki's flirtatious communications ended. 
¶9 
In July 2015, the OLR sent Attorney Baratki notice of 
a formal investigation asking him to respond to a grievance 
filed by K.D.  The OLR requested copies of all of his 
communications with K.D., as well as a complete copy of his 
file.  Although Attorney Baratki provided a response to the 
OLR's investigative request, he did not provide the OLR with 
copies of his communications with K.D., or a complete copy of 
his file.  After another written request from the OLR for a copy 
of these documents, Attorney Baratki provided what he claimed 
was a copy of all text messages pertaining to K.D.'s grievance.  
This claim was not true; Attorney Baratki omitted several text 
exchanges.   When the OLR wrote to Attorney Baratki requesting 
copies of the omitted text messages, he failed to respond.  When 
the OLR wrote to Attorney Baratki requesting a response to 
K.D.'s allegation that he had lifted her shirt and kissed her 
abdominal area, he failed to respond. 
No. 
2016AP1877-D   
 
5 
 
¶10 Based on the course of conduct described above, the 
OLR alleged in its complaint that Attorney Baratki represented 
K.D. despite a significant risk that his representation would be 
materially limited by his personal interest, in violation of 
SCR 20:1.7(a)(2)1 (Count 1); engaged in harassment on the basis 
of sex, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(i)2 (Count 2); violated that 
portion of the attorney's oath which requires abstention from 
all offensive personality, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(g)3 and 
SCR 40.154 (Count 3); and failed to timely provide relevant 
information during the course of the OLR's investigation, in 
violation of SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6),5 enforced through SCR 
20:8.4(h)6 (Count 4). 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.7(a)(2) provides: 
(a) Except as provided in par. (b), a lawyer 
shall not represent a client if the representation 
involves a concurrent conflict of interest.  A 
concurrent conflict of interest exists if: 
(2) 
there 
is 
a 
significant 
risk 
that 
the 
representation 
of 
one 
or 
more 
clients 
will 
be 
materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to 
another client, a former client or a third person or 
by a personal interest of the lawyer. 
2 SCR 20:8.4(i) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to harass a person on the basis of sex, . . .." 
3 SCR 20:8.4(g) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to violate the attorney's oath."  
4 SCR 40.15, the attorney's oath, provides in part:  "I will 
abstain from all offensive personality . . .." 
5 SCR 22.03(2) and (6) provides:  
(continued) 
No. 
2016AP1877-D   
 
6 
 
Client T.T. (Counts 5-6) 
¶11 In June 2013, T.T. retained Attorney Baratki to 
represent her in a divorce proceeding.  Attorney Baratki failed 
to appear at a March 17, 2015 scheduling conference.  On March 
31, 2015, Attorney Baratki informed the circuit court that he no 
longer represented T.T.  Attorney Baratki did not file a notice 
of withdrawal, did not request permission from the court to 
withdraw, and did not give T.T. reasonable notice or the 
opportunity to obtain substitute counsel.  Following his 
                                                                                                                                                             
(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 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. 
6 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides:  "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(6), 
or 
SCR 22.04(1)." 
No. 
2016AP1877-D   
 
7 
 
withdrawal, Attorney Baratki did not provide T.T. with an 
accounting of his time or the services provided. 
¶12 After T.T. filed a grievance with the OLR, Attorney 
Baratki provided the OLR with an accounting showing a balance 
due to T.T. in the amount of $487.50, which remains unpaid.   
¶13 Based on the course of conduct described above, the 
OLR alleged in its complaint that Attorney Baratki failed to act 
with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing T.T., 
in violation of SCR 20:1.37 (Count 5); and failed to take proper 
steps upon termination of the representation to protect T.T.'s 
interests, in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d)8 (Count 6). 
Practicing While Suspended (Counts 7-9) 
¶14 On September 30, 2015, the State Bar of Wisconsin sent 
Attorney Baratki a certified letter advising him that if he 
failed to pay his fiscal 2016 State Bar dues, as well as sign a 
trust account certification, by 5:00 p.m. on October 31, 2015, 
he would be suspended from the practice of law.  Attorney 
Baratki personally signed the receipt for the certified letter.  
Attorney Baratki failed to pay his bar dues or sign the trust 
account certification by the October 31, 2015 deadline. 
                                                 
7 SCR 20:1.3 provides: "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
8 SCR 
20:1.16(d) 
provides: 
"Upon 
termination 
of 
representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent 
reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as 
 . . . refunding any advance payment of fee or expense that has 
not been earned or incurred." 
No. 
2016AP1877-D   
 
8 
 
¶15 On November 2, 2015, Attorney Baratki sent the State 
Bar a check for the dues owed, as well as for a late fee and a 
reinstatement fee.  The State Bar received the check on November 
5, 2015.  However, Attorney Baratki failed to submit a signed 
trust account certification to the State Bar. 
¶16 On November 6, 2015, the State Bar advised Attorney 
Baratki that his law license had been suspended, effective 
October 31, 2015, for "failure to pay State Bar dues and Supreme 
Court Board assessments as well as failure to comply with trust 
account certification requirements." 
¶17 Over the next several weeks, while his license to 
practice law was suspended, Attorney Baratki either appeared in 
court or filed documents in 15 case matters.  Attorney Baratki 
also met with a number of his clients while his law license was 
suspended. 
¶18 After receiving a letter from the State Bar on 
November 23, 2015, regarding his suspension, Attorney Baratki 
contacted the State Bar and was told that he had failed to 
submit a signed trust account certification.  Attorney Baratki 
faxed a signed certification to the State Bar, and the State Bar 
reinstated his license on November 24, 2015. 
¶19 On December 3, 2015, the OLR sent a notice of 
investigation to 
Attorney Baratki, requesting a response.  
Attorney Baratki failed to respond. 
¶20 Attorney Baratki later telephoned the OLR to request a 
response extension through February 12, 2016.  He failed to 
respond by that deadline. 
No. 
2016AP1877-D   
 
9 
 
¶21 Attorney Baratki eventually submitted a response to 
the OLR on March 31, 2016, after this court issued an order to 
show cause why his license should not be suspended due to his 
failure to cooperate with the OLR's investigation. 
¶22 Based on the course of conduct described above, the 
OLR alleged in its complaint that Attorney Baratki failed to 
comply with the trust account certification requirement, in 
violation of former SCR 20:1.15(i)(l)9 (Count 7); engaged in the 
practice of law while his law license was suspended, in 
violation of SCR 22.26(2),10 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f)11 
                                                 
9 Effective July 1, 2016, substantial changes were made to 
Supreme Court Rule 20:1.15, the "trust account rule."  See S. 
Ct. Order 14-07, (issued Apr. 4, 2016, eff. July 1, 2016).  
Because the conduct underlying this case arose prior to July 1, 
2016, unless otherwise indicated, all references to the supreme 
court rules will be to those in effect prior to July 1, 2016.  
Former SCR 20:1.15(i)(1) provided:  
A member of the state bar of Wisconsin shall file 
with the state bar of Wisconsin annually, with payment 
of the member's state bar dues or upon any other date 
approved by the supreme court, a certificate stating 
whether the member is engaged in the practice of law. 
If the member is practicing law, the member shall 
state the account number of any trust account, and the 
name of each financial institution in which the member 
maintains the trust account . . .. 
10 SCR 22.26(2) provides:  
An attorney whose license to practice law is 
suspended or revoked or who is suspended from the 
practice of law may not engage in this state in the 
practice 
of 
law 
or 
in 
any 
law 
work 
activity 
customarily done by law students, law clerks, or other 
paralegal personnel, except that the attorney may 
engage in law related work in this state for a 
(continued) 
No. 
2016AP1877-D   
 
10 
 
(Count 8); and failed to timely provide information during the 
course of the OLR's investigation, in violation of SCR 22.03(2), 
enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h) (Count 9). 
Default Proceedings 
¶23 According to the OLR's motion for default, to which 
Attorney Baratki did not respond, the OLR made multiple attempts 
to serve Attorney Baratki with the complaint and an order to 
answer.  On three occasions in November 2016, a process server 
retained by the OLR attempted, unsuccessfully, to personally 
serve Attorney Baratki with the complaint and order to answer at 
his address on file with the State Bar.  In December 2016, the 
OLR mailed the complaint and order to answer to Attorney 
Baratki's address on file with the State Bar, via certified 
mail. 
¶24 Attorney Baratki failed to file an answer.  In January 
2017, the OLR filed a default motion.   
¶25 According to the referee's report, after the OLR filed 
the default motion, the OLR's counsel was contacted by a lawyer 
who stated that Attorney Baratki might retain him in this 
matter.  This possibility did not come to pass, however, and 
Attorney Baratki remained unrepresented.   
                                                                                                                                                             
commercial employer itself not engaged in the practice 
of law. 
11 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides:  "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. 
2016AP1877-D   
 
11 
 
¶26 The referee noticed and held a hearing on the OLR's 
default motion.  Attorney Baratki failed to appear for the 
hearing. 
¶27 The referee issued an order recommending that this 
court grant the OLR's default motion.  Noting that Attorney 
Baratki had contacted a lawyer about the possibility (never 
realized) of representing him in this case, the referee found 
that Attorney Baratki was aware of the OLR's complaint and had 
chosen not to answer it.  
¶28 The referee subsequently filed a report finding the 
facts as alleged in the OLR's complaint and concluding that 
Attorney Baratki had committed each of the nine alleged counts 
of misconduct.  Based on the conclusions of misconduct, the 
referee recommended that Attorney Baratki's law license be 
suspended for 60 days.  The referee also recommended that 
Attorney Baratki be ordered to pay the full costs of this 
matter, as well as restitution to T.T. in the amount of $487.50. 
¶29 Attorney Baratki did not appeal from the referee's 
report and recommendation.  Thus, we proceed with our review of 
the matter pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).  We review a referee's 
findings of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard.  See 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, 
¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  We review the referee's 
conclusions of law de novo.  Id.  We determine the appropriate 
level of discipline independent of the referee's recommendation.  
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, 
¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
No. 
2016AP1877-D   
 
12 
 
¶30 We agree with the referee that Attorney Baratki should 
be declared in default.  Although the OLR made reasonably 
diligent attempts to serve him, and although Attorney Baratki 
had sufficient notice of this matter to contact a lawyer about 
the possibility (never realized) of representing him, Attorney 
Baratki failed to appear or present a defense.  Accordingly, we 
deem it appropriate to declare him in default.  We also accept 
the referee's findings of fact based on the allegations of the 
complaint, and agree with the referee that those findings 
support a determination of misconduct on the nine counts alleged 
in the OLR's complaint. 
¶31 However, we disagree with the referee's recommendation 
that this court impose a 60-day license suspension.  This 
recommended sanction is too light.   
¶32 Attorney Baratki's first category of misconduct——his 
inappropriate statements to and behavior toward K.D.——by itself 
justifies a suspension longer than 60 days.  In In re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Kratz, 
2014 
WI 
31, 
353 
Wis. 2d 696, 851 N.W.2d 219, we suspended a prosecutor, with no 
previous disciplinary history, for four months for sending 
unsolicited, sexually suggestive text messages to a domestic 
abuse crime victim, as well as for making sexually suggestive 
statements to two social workers before or during court 
proceedings.  To be sure, Kratz does not exactly match the facts 
of this case——the respondent lawyer's conduct in Kratz was in 
some ways less severe, and in some ways more severe, than 
Attorney Baratki's conduct.  There were no allegations in Kratz 
No. 
2016AP1877-D   
 
13 
 
that the respondent lawyer engaged in improper physical contact; 
Attorney Baratki undisputedly did so, lifting K.D.'s shirt and 
kissing her abdominal area during a meeting.  The respondent 
lawyer in Kratz made inappropriate statements to multiple women; 
Attorney Baratki affronted one woman.  Kratz involved a lawyer's 
attempts 
to 
become 
sexually 
involved 
with 
an 
especially 
vulnerable person——a domestic abuse crime victim whose abuser he 
was prosecuting; this case involves Attorney Baratki's attempts 
to become sexually involved with a client.  These differences 
notwithstanding, Kratz strongly suggests that Attorney Baratki's 
efforts 
to 
leverage 
his 
position 
of 
trust 
for 
personal 
gratification deserves more than the 60-day minimum12 suspension.  
See Kratz, 353 Wis. 2d 696, ¶47 (imposing four-month suspension 
for the respondent lawyer's "crass placement of his personal 
interests above those of his client"); see also In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gibson, 124 Wis. 2d 466, 475, 
369 N.W.2d 695 (1985)(imposing a ninety-day suspension on an 
attorney who made unsolicited sexual advances to a client; 
noting that such actions constitute "egregious conduct" that 
"perverts the very essence of the lawyer-client  relationship"). 
¶33 There are additional matters to consider in this case.  
To Attorney Baratki's first category of misconduct we add his 
violation 
of 
professional 
rules 
governing 
an 
attorney's 
                                                 
12 See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Grady, 188 
Wis. 2d 98, 108-09, 523 N.W.2d 564 (1994) (explaining that 
generally the minimum length of a license suspension is 60 
days). 
No. 
2016AP1877-D   
 
14 
 
withdrawal from representation, his appearance in numerous 
client matters while his law license was suspended, and his non-
cooperation with the OLR's investigation into his conduct.  We 
also consider his previous disciplinary matters, in which he 
failed to set appropriate boundaries with a client (as he did 
here) and practiced law during a license suspension (as he also 
did here).  See Private Reprimand 2006-20, (electronic copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/001926.html); 
Private 
Reprimand 
2014-4, 
(electronic 
copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/002644.html).  We agree 
with the referee's observation that Attorney Baratki "apparently 
did not learn from either of his prior private reprimands." 
¶34 Taken 
together, 
Attorney 
Baratki's 
serious 
and 
troublingly familiar misconduct renders a 60-day suspension an 
insufficient response.  He abused his position of trust as a 
lawyer (again), practiced law during a suspension (again), 
violated the duties attendant to withdrawing from representation 
of a client, and disregarded his obligation to cooperate with 
the OLR.  Given his course of conduct, we deem it imperative 
that, to resume the practice of law in Wisconsin, Attorney 
Baratki show this court that he has taken steps to avoid similar 
misdeeds in the future.  We therefore impose a six-month 
suspension of Attorney Baratki's Wisconsin law license.  See 
SCR 22.28(3).  We note, too, that this particular length of 
suspension is consistent with our disciplinary precedent.  See, 
e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ridgeway, 158 
No. 
2016AP1877-D   
 
15 
 
Wis. 2d 452, 462 N.W.2d 671 (1990) (assistant state public 
defender suspended for six months for having sexual contact with 
his client and providing her with beer in violation of her 
probation terms).  
¶35 We turn next to the issue of costs.  Our general 
practice is to impose full costs on attorneys who are found to 
have committed misconduct.  See SCR 22.24(1m).  There is no 
reason to depart from that practice here.  We therefore impose 
full costs. 
¶36 Finally, we turn to the issue of restitution.  We 
agree with the referee that Attorney Baratki should be ordered 
to pay restitution to T.T. in the amount of $487.50. 
¶37 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Robert J. Baratki to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six 
months, effective November 14, 2017. 
¶38 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Robert J. Baratki shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$1,428.93. 
¶39 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Robert J. Baratki shall make restitution in the 
amount of $487.50 to T.T.  
¶40 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified 
above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation. 
No. 
2016AP1877-D   
 
16 
 
¶41 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Robert J. Baratki shall 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
an attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended. 
¶42 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See SCR 
22.29(4)(c).13 
 
 
 
                                                 
13 In 
addition 
to 
obtaining 
reinstatement 
from 
the 
disciplinary suspension imposed by this order, before he is able 
to practice law in Wisconsin, Attorney Baratki will be required 
to demonstrate that the grounds for any existing administrative 
and temporary suspensions have been resolved.  See ¶4, supra. 
No. 
2016AP1877-D   
 
 
 
1