Title: OLR v. Nancy A. Schlieve

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2015 WI 80 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
1997AP3862-D & 1996AP3390-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Medical Incapacity Proceedings 
Against Nancy A. Schlieve, Attorney at Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility , 
n/k/a  
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Appellant-Respondent-
Respondent, 
     v. 
Nancy A. Schlieve, 
          Respondent-Respondent-Petitioner-
Appellant.   
   
 
 
 
 
 
MEDICAL INCAPACITY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SCHLIEVE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 15, 2015 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
January 9, 2015 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
ABRAHAMSON, J., dissents. (Opinion Filed.) 
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the respondent-respondent-petitioner-appellant, there 
were briefs by Nancy Schlieve, Eau Claire, and oral argument by 
Nancy Schlieve. 
 
For the complainant-appellant-respondent-respondent, there 
was a brief by Wayne A. Arnold, Rice Lake, and oral argument by 
Wayne A. Arnold. 
 
 
 
 
2
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2015 WI 80
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
Nos. 1997AP3862-D 
 
1996AP3390-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Medical Incapacity Proceedings 
Against Nancy A. Schlieve, Attorney at Law. 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, 
n/k/a Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Appellant-Respondent-
Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Nancy A. Schlieve, 
 
          Respondent-Respondent-Petitioner-
Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 15, 2015 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.  Reinstatement denied.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Nancy A. Schlieve has appealed from a 
referee's report recommending the denial of Attorney Schlieve's 
petition for reinstatement of her license to practice law in 
Wisconsin.  Attorney Schlieve argues that the medical incapacity 
which resulted in the suspension of her law license has been 
removed and that she is fit to resume the practice of law.  
Nos. 1997AP3862-D 
1996AP3390-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
After careful consideration of the matter and after 
hearing oral argument, we conclude that Attorney Schlieve has 
failed 
to 
meet 
her 
burden 
under 
Supreme 
Court 
Rule 
(SCR) 22.36(6) to show by clear, satisfactory, and convincing 
evidence that she is currently fit to resume the practice of 
law.  Accordingly, we deny her reinstatement petition.  We also 
find it appropriate to impose the full amount of costs of this 
reinstatement proceeding, which are $20,367.49 as of January 29, 
2015. 
¶3 
Attorney Schlieve was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1990.  In 1997, this court imposed conditions on 
her license directed toward her rehabilitation from alcoholism.  
See In re Medical Incapacity Proceeding Against Schlieve, 
Case No. 96-3390-D, 212 Wis. 2d 693, 569 N.W.2d 593 (Table) 
(1997).  In 1998, this court suspended Attorney Schlieve's 
license due to her medical incapacity of alcoholism.  The 
suspension was imposed for an indefinite time.  See In re 
Medical Incapacity Proceedings Against Schlieve, 221 Wis. 2d 
610, 585 N.W.2d 585 (1998). 
¶4 
In 2006, Attorney Schlieve filed a petition seeking 
the reinstatement of her license to practice law.  This court 
denied reinstatement on the grounds that Attorney Schlieve had 
failed to meet her burden of proving "fitness" as required by 
SCR 22.36(6).  See In re Medical Incapacity Proceedings Against 
Schlieve, 2010 WI 22, 323 Wis. 2d 654, 780 N.W.2d 516.   
Nos. 1997AP3862-D 
1996AP3390-D   
 
3 
 
¶5 
Attorney 
Schlieve 
filed 
a 
second 
petition 
for 
reinstatement on September 10, 2012.  James G. Curtis, Jr. was 
appointed as referee on December 18, 2012.  A hearing was held 
over the course of two days, with testimony completed on 
March 13, 2014.   
¶6 
One of the witnesses who testified at the hearing was 
Linda Albert, who manages the Wisconsin Lawyers Assistance 
Program (WisLAP) which provides the systems and monitoring for 
attorneys.  Ms. Albert testified that Attorney Schlieve had 
contacted 
WisLAP 
in 
the 
spring 
of 
2013 
inquiring 
about 
monitoring since she was applying for reinstatement of her 
license to practice law.  Ms. Albert explained: 
Nancy came into the program and, unlike the majority 
of monitoring participants, has exhibited behaviors 
that have required a lot of clarification of what is 
to be done within monitoring.   
. . . . 
So a difficult time following directions of the 
program, you know, having directions to make sure and 
report all prescription medication to us, and then 
discovering that she hasn't done that and having to 
ask for that.  You know, she has wanted to dictate the 
terms of her testing, you know, when testing will be 
and how it will be done and why we would need to do 
hair testing.   
. . . .  
She had a positive screen for a mood-altering 
substance in her September of 2013 screen.  And I 
asked her about it, and her answer was very vague and 
something about, you know, having gotten medications 
from different countries when she was traveling and 
she didn't know if that could cause it. 
Nos. 1997AP3862-D 
1996AP3390-D   
 
4 
 
And so we have to take a lot of time trying to 
verify very objective data.  And so, for example, with 
the positive screen, we even went to her doctor and 
asked for a list of prescribed mediations.  And when 
that came back, it did not include any medication -- 
any prescription for something with codeine in it for 
September of 2013; yet she had a positive screen for 
codeine.  So it's been these types of things that have 
become particularly time-consuming and difficult with 
not following the directions and the questioning and 
not agreeing with.   
. . . . 
So, in essence, what I have said to Nancy is -- 
you know, sent her a letter to state, you know, we can 
follow her through her hearing today, but that she's 
no longer appropriate to be in the monitoring program.   
* * * * 
It's been a case of difficulty of getting 
information, problems following directions, causing 
problems at the collection site, not giving access to 
medical providers when the contract requires it.  So I 
don't 
anticipate 
that 
those 
things 
would 
change 
because we've tried hard to work with them and to 
redirect and to ask for what we need.  . . . . 
We don't have the staff time.  And I don't think 
that it's probably in the best interest to, you know, 
try to continue to work with that behavior versus just 
not have the relationship for either party.  . . . . 
* * * * 
I would say that 99% of the people that have come into 
monitoring are able to follow the instructions and 
understand them and do things according to sequence 
and provide the information requested.   
 
 
And it's a pretty rare case when someone is not 
able to do that.  
¶7 
Testimony was also received at the hearing from 
persons in the Eau Claire city attorney's office.  Eau Claire 
City Attorney Stephen Nick testified that in his opinion 
Nos. 1997AP3862-D 
1996AP3390-D   
 
5 
 
Attorney Schlieve had been dishonest, abused the legal system, 
lacked the ability to navigate the city and court procedures, 
and engaged in a pattern of intentional delay and avoidance with 
respect to various city citations issued against her relating to 
rental property.  Assistant City Attorney Stephen Bohrer 
testified about the numerous problems he had encountered with 
Attorney Schlieve on various citation matters.  He said she 
would send undated faxes with no return fax or phone number.  
Mr. Bohrer concluded that Attorney Schlieve was manipulating the 
dates on the faxes for purposes of causing delay or causing 
cases to become more complicated than they needed to be.  Mr. 
Bohrer said Attorney Schlieve's professionalism was very poor 
and his inability to reach and communicate with her was very 
frustrating.   
¶8 
The referee issued his report and recommendation on 
May 5, 2014.  The referee said that in the 2010 decision denying 
her previous reinstatement petition, this court noted that under 
SCR 22.36(6), the petitioner has the burden of showing by clear, 
satisfactory, 
and 
convincing 
evidence 
that 
the 
medical 
incapacity has been removed and that the petitioner is fit to 
resume the practice of law, with or without conditions.  The 
referee also noted that the term "fit," as used in SCR 22.36(6), 
with the phrase "to practice law," encompasses more than removal 
of a medical incapacity, and that the term "fit" is sufficiently 
broad to imply a state of preparedness to render competent legal 
services.   
Nos. 1997AP3862-D 
1996AP3390-D   
 
6 
 
¶9 
The referee noted that Attorney Schlieve has not 
practiced law since 1998, and during that time she has not been 
employed outside the home.  She has primarily spent her time 
caring for her son, who has medical issues.  The referee noted 
that in addition to caring for her son, Attorney Schlieve has 
been active in her church, in dog rescue efforts, and in other 
community affairs.  In recent times, she has been working with a 
friend to establish two startup businesses, one offering tea 
party services and one offering wedding planning services.   
¶10 The referee noted that Attorney Schlieve has earned a 
significant number of continuing legal education (CLE) credits 
and has attended a significant amount of coursework, all online.  
The referee noted that Attorney Schlieve provided a printout 
from the State Bar listing CLE attendance and dues payments from 
the early 1990s through January 2014.  The referee said it was 
impossible to determine precisely what courses Attorney Schlieve 
had actually attended, since all were online courses.   
¶11 The referee also said: 
Ms. Schlieve is to be commended for the efforts 
she has taken to update her education on various legal 
topics.  However attending courses on Whistleblowing 
cases involving the SEC or IRS, or Sarbanes-Oxley, or 
Mining Loss Symposiums, would seem to have little 
bearing on her preferred practice areas.  More 
importantly, the record reflects that Ms. Schlieve has 
not approached her re-education in an organized, 
consistent and deliberate fashion.  She has not 
planned and prepared for the day when her license to 
practice may be reinstated.  She has taken courses for 
the sake of taking courses in order to show that she 
has gone beyond the minimum requirements of the rules. 
Nos. 1997AP3862-D 
1996AP3390-D   
 
7 
 
¶12 The referee said that Ms. Albert's testimony about 
Attorney Schlieve's participation in the WisLAP program raised a 
number of serious questions.  The referee said that after 
Attorney Schlieve's second positive test for codeine, and after 
Ms. Albert had informed Attorney Schlieve that WisLAP would 
continue with monitoring efforts through the reinstatement 
hearing but not thereafter, Attorney Schlieve contacted her 
doctor's office and withdrew the medical release in favor of 
WisLAP.  Because of the positive drug screen in February of 
2014, WisLAP again requested a list of Attorney Schlieve's 
current medications and the dates they were first prescribed.  
When the list was not forthcoming, WisLAP staff followed up with 
the 
doctor 
and 
was 
informed 
that 
there 
was 
no 
medical 
authorization from the patient.   
¶13 The referee noted that around March 7, 2014, Attorney 
Schlieve 
instructed 
her 
doctor's 
office 
to 
release 
the 
information that she had a prescription for acetaminophen with 
codeine, although the date when it was first prescribed was not 
provided.  The referee queries, "Was Ms. Schlieve attempting to 
fabricate an explanation for the positive drug screen showing 
codeine in her system?  At a minimum, it would seem that Ms. 
Schlieve was less than forthcoming in WisLAP's efforts to 
understand the reason for the positive drug screen."   
¶14 While the referee said he was satisfied that the 
medical incapacity of alcoholism has been removed, the referee 
said that, based on her interactions with WisLAP, two positive 
Nos. 1997AP3862-D 
1996AP3390-D   
 
8 
 
drug screens showing codeine in her system, and her inability to 
complete sustained monitoring for a period of at least 12 
months, there was no objective verification from WisLAP that 
Attorney 
Schlieve 
does 
not 
still 
suffer 
from 
a 
medical 
incapacity.  Moreover, the referee concluded that Attorney 
Schlieve failed to sustain her burden to prove by clear, 
satisfactory, and convincing evidence that she is currently fit 
to 
resume 
the 
practice 
of 
law 
within 
the 
meaning 
of 
SCR 22.36(6). 
¶15 Attorney 
Schlieve 
argues 
that 
she 
has 
in 
fact 
presented clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence both that 
her medical incapacity has been removed and that she is fit to 
practice law.  At oral argument, she stated that she would be 
amenable to having her law practice monitored by a licensed 
attorney.  She said that an attorney indicated he would be 
willing to monitor her.  Attorney Schlieve stated that if her 
law license is reinstated, she would like to practice in the 
areas of adoption and immigration.  She said the attorney she 
identified as a possible monitor has no experience in either of 
those practice areas. 
¶16 The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) argues that the 
referee's findings, conclusions, and recommendations should be 
upheld.  The OLR notes that the referee had an extensive 
opportunity to make personal observations of Attorney Schlieve 
and the other witnesses, and that the referee set forth and 
explained in detail the rationale and basis for his conclusion 
Nos. 1997AP3862-D 
1996AP3390-D   
 
9 
 
that 
Attorney 
Schlieve's 
reinstatement 
petition 
should 
be 
denied. 
¶17 When we review a referee's report and recommendation, 
we will adopt the referee's findings of fact unless they are 
clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.  
See 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Eisenberg, 
2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.   
¶18 Following a suspension for medical incapacity, an 
attorney seeking the reinstatement of his or her license to 
practice law must show both that the medical incapacity has been 
removed and that the petitioner is fit to resume the practice of 
law.  As we noted in our order denying Attorney Schlieve's 
previous reinstatement petition: 
The term "fit," as used in 22.36(6) with the 
phrase "to practice law," encompasses more than the 
removal of a medical incapacity or being in a 
physically, mentally, or morally sound state.  The 
term "fit" is sufficiently broad to imply a state of 
preparedness to render competent legal services; that 
is, to be prepared to provide the measure of expertise 
to ensure the attorney may be safely recommended to 
the community as a person to be consulted by and to 
represent others in legal matters. 
Schlieve, 323 Wis. 2d 654, ¶24.   
¶19 Upon careful review of this matter, we agree with the 
referee that Attorney Schlieve has failed to demonstrate that 
she 
is 
currently 
fit 
to 
resume 
the 
practice 
of 
law.  
Accordingly, we deny her petition for reinstatement. 
¶20 Attorney Schlieve has filed an objection to the OLR's 
statement of costs.  Among other things, she argues that costs 
Nos. 1997AP3862-D 
1996AP3390-D   
 
10 
 
should not include the fees of counsel for the OLR.  This 
court's general policy, as expressed in SCR 22.24(1m), is to 
impose all costs, including the expenses of counsel for the OLR, 
upon the respondent.  We find no reason to depart from that 
general practice here. 
¶21 IT IS ORDERED that the petition of Nancy A. Schlieve 
seeking reinstatement of her license to practice law in 
Wisconsin is denied. 
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 180 days of the date 
of this order, Nancy A. Schlieve shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, totaling 
$20,367.49.  If the costs are not paid within the time specified 
and absent a showing to this court of her inability to pay the 
costs within that time, the license of Nancy A. Schlieve to 
practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further 
order of the court. 
 
 
Nos.  1997AP3862-D.ssa 
1996AP3390-D.ssa 
 
1 
 
¶23 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.   (dissenting).  The court 
is today reinstating the license of another attorney who 
suffered from a medical incapacity.  See In Re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Linehan, 2015 WI 82, ___ Wis. 2d ___, 
___ N.W.2d ___.  In that case, the court imposed numerous 
conditions to ensure that the attorney continues to receive 
appropriate treatment and monitoring to prevent a relapse and to 
protect his clients and the public.  I would reinstate Attorney 
Schlieve's license to practice law in Wisconsin subject to 
strict conditions such as those imposed in Linehan. 
 
 
Nos.  1997AP3862-D.ssa 
1996AP3390-D.ssa 
 
 
 
1