Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Frederick J. Voss

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2011 WI 2 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2008AP182-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Frederick J. Voss, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Frederick J. Voss, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST VOSS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
January 19, 2011   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
2011 WI 2
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2008AP182-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Frederick J. Voss, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Frederick J. Voss, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
JAN 19, 2011 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.  
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of the referee, Stanley F. Hack, that Attorney Frederick J. 
Voss's license to practice law be suspended for at least one 
year and that he bear the full costs of this proceeding.  
Because no appeal has been filed, we review the referee's report 
and recommendation pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1  We approve and 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) states:   
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 
No. 
2008AP182-D   
 
2 
 
adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law.  We 
find, 
moreover, 
that 
the 
seriousness 
of 
Attorney 
Voss's 
professional misconduct warrants a suspension of his license for 
four years, eight months.  We also find it appropriate to order 
that Attorney Voss have no contact with his former client and 
that the entire file and record in this matter be ordered to 
remain confidential and sealed.  Finally, we agree that Attorney 
Voss should pay the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding, 
which totaled $145,216.81 as of April 19, 2010.2 
¶2 
Attorney 
Voss 
was 
admitted 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin in 1983 and practices in Rhinelander.  In 2006 he was 
publicly reprimanded for misconduct consisting of arranging for 
a client to meet with persons in violation of a no-contact order 
issued by the Marathon County circuit court and failing to 
disclose to jail personnel the material fact of the existence of 
the no-contact order, when disclosure was necessary to avoid 
assisting the client in a criminal act. 
¶3 
The misconduct at issue in this case involves Attorney 
Voss's long-time representation of a female client with a very 
extensive history of and treatment for various psychiatric 
                                                                                                                                                             
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. 
2 This amount does not include $23,863.82 paid by the lawyer 
regulation system to an attorney appointed by the referee to 
represent the client's interests. 
No. 
2008AP182-D   
 
3 
 
disorders and alcohol dependency.  The client's diagnoses 
include bipolar I disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, 
eating 
disorders, 
and 
severe 
personality 
disorder 
with 
histrionic, 
borderline, 
anti-social, 
and 
passive-aggressive 
features.   
¶4 
The client has been hospitalized and placed at various 
inpatient mental health and substance abuse facilities on 
numerous occasions since 1999.  She had sexual relations with a 
man who worked at one of her treatment centers.  That man was 
subsequently fired, criminally prosecuted, and jailed. 
¶5 
Through a series of emergency detentions and chapter 
51 
commitments, 
the 
client 
was 
under 
continuous 
county 
supervision between December 23, 1998, and December 14, 1999, 
and again between May 11, 2000, and November 26, 2002.  She has 
been under continuous county supervision since January 7, 2003.   
¶6 
Attorney Voss was first appointed by the State Public 
Defender's office to represent the client regarding an Oneida 
County criminal case in February of 1996.  Between that time and 
May of 2003, Attorney Voss represented the client on at least 
eight separate court matters, including three criminal cases, 
one civil case, and three chapter 51 commitments.  At various 
times between February of 1996 and May of 2003, Attorney Voss 
also represented the client on matters unrelated to pending 
litigation, including efforts to assist her with obtaining 
reinstatement of her driver's license, social security income 
issues, and creditor issues.  The client understood Attorney 
Voss to be her attorney on an ongoing, continuing basis 
No. 
2008AP182-D   
 
4 
 
beginning in December 1998 through at least May 1, 2003.  From 
about June 2003 until August 12, 2006, Attorney Voss acted as 
the client's representative payee for her supplemental security 
income (SSI) benefits.  He also provided legal services for the 
client's will and estate plan. 
¶7 
Attorney Voss and the client had not been involved in 
a sexual relationship before they developed a lawyer-client 
relationship.  According to the client, she and Attorney Voss 
began a sexual relationship one summer in the early 2000s, 
during a time when Attorney Voss was representing her as her 
attorney.   
¶8 
The client said she and Attorney Voss had sexual 
intercourse on numerous occasions between that first incident in 
the early 2000s and July 30, 2006.   
¶9 
In August of 2001, the client told her substance 
clinician that she was having a sexual relationship with 
Attorney Voss.  The substance clinician reported the client's 
comment to the agency director of the mental health clinic where 
she worked.  The agency director contacted the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR), but apparently the client would not go forward 
with a complaint against Attorney Voss at that time. 
¶10 The client stated that prior to July 30, 2006, she had 
not had sexual relations with Attorney Voss for several years.  
She said that on July 30, 2006, Attorney Voss called her and 
asked if she wanted to go for a ride and she agreed.  She said 
Attorney Voss drove to a hotel and forced her to have sex with 
him.   
No. 
2008AP182-D   
 
5 
 
¶11 Within a couple of days after July 30, the client told 
her case worker about being sexually assaulted by Attorney Voss 
on July 30, 2006.   
¶12 The July 30, 2006, incident was reported to the local 
sheriff's department.  The investigating officers believed there 
was cause to file criminal charges against Attorney Voss and 
referred the matter to the district attorney, but no charges 
were filed.   
¶13 After August 1, 2006, Attorney Voss had numerous 
communications with the client and others, including the 
client's mother and her sister, who is an attorney in another 
state, in an effort to cause the client to recant her statements 
regarding his sexual relations with her on July 30, 2006.   
¶14 An October 8, 2006, e-mail to the client's sister 
alluded to the possibility that the client would have to testify 
about things she would not want to talk about in open court and 
said, "The courtroom can be closed, but things leak out."  In an 
October 15, 2006, e-mail to the client's sister, Attorney Voss 
said that if he were charged criminally, as part of his defense 
he would introduce into evidence information regarding various 
incidents involving the client that would not make her look good 
and that she would not enjoy testifying about in open court.  
¶15 On October 23, 2006, Attorney Voss sent a letter to 
two circuit judges attempting to persuade them there was no 
merit to the potential charges Attorney Voss believed the 
district attorney might pursue against him relating to his 
engaging in sexual relations with the client on July 30.  
No. 
2008AP182-D   
 
6 
 
Attorney Voss discussed why he believed the district attorney 
would not be able to prove his case.  The letter to the judges 
attached documents relating to the client's sexual history and 
prior complaints of sexual assault that the client had made 
against other persons.  On October 23, 2006, there was no suit 
pending in circuit court to which the letter was relevant. 
¶16 In early November 2006, while the client was in a 
mental health institution, Attorney Voss sent her various 
documents and continued to telephone her.  On November 25, 2006, 
Attorney Voss telephoned the client and told her she should 
"stay at [the mental health institution] if she wants to remain 
protected."   
¶17 In late November 2006 Attorney Voss contacted the 
client's mother and said that if he were charged with a crime 
related to his contact with the client he "will bring up her 
family/issues" that would embarrass the client's family.   
¶18 A court commissioner issued a temporary restraining 
order against Attorney Voss in early December 2006.  A judge 
ultimately 
denied 
the 
restraining 
order 
request. 
 
In 
a 
December 18, 2006, memorandum filed in the case, Attorney Voss 
included substantial embarrassing and personal information about 
the client's sexual and mental health history.  A supplement to 
Attorney Voss's motion to dismiss filed in late January 2007 
again included embarrassing personal information about the 
client. 
¶19 On January 31, 2007, Attorney Voss sent a letter to 
the client's counsel alleging that the client had put "a knife 
No. 
2008AP182-D   
 
7 
 
in my back."  Attorney Voss also said, "I could not come up with 
a better revenge for [her] than her being in her current 
status," which was being committed to a locked facility.  
¶20 On March 13, 2007, Attorney Voss gave the client a 
cash payment and caused her to sign a document he had prepared 
with a list of ten numbered statements, and caused her to write 
at the bottom of the document, "I read all of the above; and 
it's the truth."   
¶21 Between November 25, 2006, and March 30, 2007, 
Attorney Voss sent the client documents intending to intimidate, 
embarrass, and harass her in retribution for her making 
allegations against him, and for refusing to provide him with 
the information he requested for his defense or recant the 
allegations. 
¶22 The OLR filed a complaint against Attorney Voss on 
January 17, 2008, alleging six counts of misconduct: 
[1]  By engaging in sexual relations with [the 
client] on several occasions beginning in July or 
August 2001 and through July 2006, during a time when 
Voss represented [the client] in ongoing legal matters 
or 
when 
Voss 
was 
serving 
as 
[the 
client's] 
representative payee for SSI benefits, and when it was 
not reasonable for Voss to believe that there was no 
possibility that engaging in sexual relations with 
[the client] could materially limit or adversely 
affect his representation of [the client], and when 
Voss failed to obtain a written consent from [the 
client], Voss violated former SCR 20:1.7(b).3  
                                                 
3 Former SCR 20:1.7(b) applies to misconduct committed prior 
to July 1, 2007.  It provided: 
 
A lawyer shall not represent a client if the 
representation 
of that client may be materially 
No. 
2008AP182-D   
 
8 
 
[2]  By first engaging in sexual relations with 
[the client] at a time when Voss represented [the 
client] in ongoing legal matters and had an ongoing 
lawyer-client relationship with [the client], absent a 
consensual sexual relationship at the time the lawyer-
client relationship commenced, Voss violated former 
SCR 20:1.8(k)(2).4 
[3]  By stating in his Memorandum filed with [the 
circuit court] on December 19, 2006, [], that on 
October 9, 2006, [the client] requested that he not 
call her anymore and that the "only time I called her 
since then was on November 25, 2006," when, in fact, 
Voss made numerous telephone calls to [the client] 
between October 9, 2006 and December 18, 2006, Voss 
violated former SCR 20:3.3(a)(1).5 
[4]  By 
repeatedly 
communicating 
with 
[the 
client], her family members, and others in a manner 
that served to intimidate, embarrass, harass, or 
discredit [the client] and by publishing confidential, 
personal, and irrelevant information regarding the 
client 
in 
a 
manner 
that 
served 
to 
intimidate, 
                                                                                                                                                             
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. 
4 Former SCR 20:1.8(k)(2) applies to misconduct committed 
prior to July 1, 2007, and provided, "A lawyer shall not have 
sexual relations with a current client unless a consensual 
sexual relationship existed between them when the lawyer-client 
relationship commenced."   
5 Former SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) applies to misconduct committed 
prior to July 1, 2007, and provided that a lawyer shall not 
knowingly "make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal." 
No. 
2008AP182-D   
 
9 
 
embarrass, 
harass, 
or 
discredit 
[the 
client], 
including 
by 
sending 
the 
correspondence 
dated 
October 23, 2006, to two [circuit court judges] and by 
filing the memorandum with the [circuit court] on 
December 19, 2006, [], Voss violated SCR 20:3.1(a)(3),6 
and via SCR 20:8.4(g),7 Voss violated the Attorney's 
Oath, SCR 40.15.8 
[5]  By 
sending 
the 
correspondence 
dated 
October 23, 2006, to two [circuit court] judges, when 
Voss had no legitimate purpose to send the letter and 
enclosures to the judges, which letter and enclosures 
had the effect of embarrassing and burdening the 
client, Voss violated former SCR 20:4.4.9  
                                                 
6 SCR 20:3.1(a)(3) states that in representing a client, a 
lawyer shall not "file a suit, assert a position, conduct a 
defense, delay a trial or take other action on behalf of the 
client when the lawyer knows or when it is obvious that such an 
action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure 
another."   
7 SCR 20:8.4(g) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "violate the attorney's oath." 
8 SCR 40.15 provides, in pertinent part: 
I will employ, for the purpose of maintaining the 
causes confided to me, such means only as are 
consistent with truth and honor, and will never seek 
to mislead the judge or jury by any artifice or false 
statement of fact or law; I will maintain the 
confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of my 
client and will accept no compensation in connection 
with my client's business except from my client or 
with my client's knowledge and approval; I will 
abstain from all offensive personality and advance no 
fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party 
or witness, unless required by the justice of the 
cause with which I am charged; . . . . 
9 Former SCR 20:4.4 applies to misconduct committed prior to 
July 1, 2007, and provided, "In representing a client, a lawyer 
shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than 
to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or use methods of 
obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a 
person." 
No. 
2008AP182-D   
 
10 
 
[6]  By 
stating 
to 
OLR 
in 
a 
letter 
dated 
April 25, 2007, that, with the exception of one get 
well card, he had provided OLR with all documents he 
had sent to the client since August of 2006, when in 
fact, Voss had failed to provide OLR with a copy of 
the letter received by the client on March 30, 2007 or 
to identify it as omitted, Voss violated SCR 22.03(6)10 
and SCR 20:8.4(f).11  
¶23 Jonathan Goodman was initially appointed as referee.  
The OLR filed a request for substitution, and Stanley F. Hack 
was then appointed referee.  Attorney Voss filed an answer on 
February 14, 2008, averring that he never had sexual relations 
with the client while acting as her attorney.  Referee Hack 
subsequently ordered all documents in the case to be maintained 
under seal. 
¶24 The case proceeded through extensive discovery and 15 
days of hearings before the referee.  When asked if he had 
sexual relations with the client on various dates, Attorney Voss 
repeatedly, 
although 
not 
exclusively, 
invoked 
his 
Fifth 
Amendment right against self-incrimination.  With respect to 
some specific dates, he would answer, "No."   
¶25 The client's recollection of her sexual relationship 
with Attorney Voss was quite consistent throughout and was 
                                                 
10 SCR 
22.03(6) 
provides, 
"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." 
11 SCR 20:8.4(f) states 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. 
2008AP182-D   
 
11 
 
corroborated by testimony from the various witnesses she told 
about the relationship, including her case workers, the attorney 
who succeeded Attorney Voss in representing her, and the law 
enforcement personnel who investigated possible sexual assault 
charges against Attorney Voss.   
¶26 Following the close of the testimony, the referee 
asked for post-trial briefs.  The OLR's brief stated that 
Attorney Voss admitted that he knew about the client's mental 
health diagnoses, including her suicidal history.  The OLR noted 
that Attorney Voss claimed he has sole authority and decision-
making power to decide when he is the attorney and when he is 
not the attorney for a client, and that the client has no right 
to 
decide 
whether 
there 
is 
a 
continuing 
attorney-client 
relationship.  Thus, Attorney Voss argued he may end the 
attorney-client relationship with the client immediately after a 
hearing on a chapter 51 commitment and that same day may elect 
to have sexual relations with the client.  The OLR said this is 
a self-serving interpretation of the supreme court rules and in 
this fact situation, it is particularly egregious and predatory.  
The OLR noted that the client was the subject of approximately 
82 different treatment matters, including mental commitments, 
out-of-home placements, substance abuse treatments, inpatient 
placements, and home placements between 1996 and June 30, 2006.   
¶27 Attorney Voss filed a 109-page post-trial brief which 
started out by announcing, "[The client] is a manipulative, 
alcoholic, violent, mentally ill, criminal."  Attorney Voss's 
post-trial 
brief 
ended 
by 
saying, 
"No 
relationship 
is 
No. 
2008AP182-D   
 
12 
 
symmetrical.  It is one she wanted to be in.  . . .  The 
relationship 
was 
as 
normal 
as 
it 
could 
be 
under 
the 
circumstances." 
¶28 The referee issued his report and recommendation on 
March 29, 2010.  The referee found that the OLR had met its 
burden of proof with respect to Counts 1 through 5 of the 
complaint.  The referee found a lack of proof as to Count 6, 
which alleged that Attorney Voss failed to provide the OLR with 
a copy of a letter he sent to the client.   
¶29 The referee found that Attorney Voss engaged in sexual 
relations with the client on several occasions beginning in the 
summer of 2001 and continuing through July 2006, during a time 
when he represented her in ongoing legal matters or when he was 
serving as her representative payee for SSI benefits.  The 
referee also found that it was not reasonable for Attorney Voss 
to believe there was no possibility that engaging in sex with 
her 
could 
not 
materially 
limit 
or 
adversely 
affect 
his 
representation of her.  The referee also found that Attorney 
Voss repeatedly communicated with the client, her family 
members, and others in a manner that served to intimidate, 
embarrass, harass, or discredit her, and that he published 
confidential, personal, and irrelevant information about her in 
a manner that served to intimidate, embarrass, harass, or 
discredit her.   
¶30 The referee concluded that "due to the very serious 
nature of his conduct, Attorney Frederick J. Voss should receive 
No. 
2008AP182-D   
 
13 
 
at least a one-year suspension of his Wisconsin law license and 
pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding."   
¶31 On April 22, 2010, counsel for the client sent a 
letter to the court requesting that the sanctions in the case 
include an order that Attorney Voss continue to have no contact 
with the client in the future and that the file in the case 
remain confidential and not accessible to the public even after 
the conclusion of the matter.  On June 4, 2010, Attorney Voss 
wrote to the court objecting to the no-contact order.  He said, 
"There is already protection under the law" for the client since 
if he harassed her she could call the police and he could be 
charged with harassment or disorderly conduct.  He has no 
objection to the record being sealed.   
¶32 This court will affirm a 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.  This 
court 
is 
free 
to 
impose 
whatever 
discipline 
it 
deems 
appropriate, regardless 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.  
¶33 Because they have not been shown to be clearly 
erroneous, we adopt the referee's findings of fact.  We also 
agree with the referee's conclusions of law.  We conclude, 
however, that the seriousness of Attorney Voss's misconduct 
warrants a suspension of his license to practice law for a 
period of four years, eight months.   
No. 
2008AP182-D   
 
14 
 
¶34 We 
find 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Woodmansee, 147 Wis. 2d 837, 434 N.W.2d 94 (1989), to be quite 
analogous to this fact situation.  Attorney Woodmansee had 
represented a woman in a divorce commenced by her husband.  The 
client had told Woodmansee that her husband had abused her and 
that her infant son had recently died of Sudden Infant Death 
Syndrome and her husband blamed her for the death.  As a result, 
she had sought counseling and treatment from both a psychologist 
and psychiatrist and was taking anti-depressants and anti-
anxiety medications.   
¶35 Attorney 
Woodmansee 
visited 
the 
client's 
home, 
purportedly to bring some papers related to the divorce action, 
and asked her to arrange for her daughter not to be present.  
When he arrived at the client's home, Attorney Woodmansee put 
his hands on the woman's shoulders and directed her to the 
bedroom where he pushed her onto the bed and began touching her 
sexually and trying to remove her clothing.  The client 
protested and struck him with her elbow, whereby Attorney 
Woodmansee left.   
¶36 As a result of the incident, Attorney Woodmansee's 
client experienced severe depression, to the point of becoming 
suicidal.  Her psychiatrist diagnosed her as suffering from a 
post-traumatic stress disorder, and she was hospitalized for 
eight days.  Attorney Woodmansee was subsequently convicted of 
fourth-degree sexual assault as a result of the incident.  This 
court imposed a three-year suspension of his law license. 
No. 
2008AP182-D   
 
15 
 
¶37 Attorney Voss's conduct was even more egregious than 
Attorney Woodmansee's and as a result deserves a harsher 
sanction.  Although Attorney Woodmansee's client was able to 
rebuff his advances, Attorney Voss engaged in numerous instances 
of sexual relations with a client who suffered from numerous 
vulnerabilities. 
 
In 
addition 
to 
engaging 
in 
a 
sexual 
relationship with a vulnerable client, Attorney Voss disregarded 
the requests made by his client in early October 2006 that he 
not call her any more, and made numerous telephone calls to her 
between October and December 2006, including during the time she 
was a patient in a mental institution.  After law enforcement 
authorities began their criminal investigation of Attorney Voss 
pertaining to his July 30, 2006, sexual encounter with the 
client, Attorney Voss had numerous communications with the 
client, her mother, her sister, and others, in an effort to get 
her to recant her statements about the events of July 30, 2006.  
In March 2007 Attorney Voss gave the client a cash payment and 
induced her to sign a self-serving document that he had 
prepared. 
¶38 Attorney Voss sent a letter to two circuit court 
judges trying to persuade them there would be no merit to the 
potential criminal charges Attorney Voss believed the district 
attorney might pursue against him relating to the July 30, 2006, 
sexual encounter with the client.  The letter Attorney Voss sent 
to the judges attached documents relating to the client's sexual 
history.  Attorney Voss also included detailed information about 
the client's sexual and mental health histories in documents he 
No. 
2008AP182-D   
 
16 
 
submitted in the restraining order case the client filed against 
him.  Throughout this entire disciplinary proceeding, Attorney 
Voss persisted in attaching to his pleadings hundreds of pages 
of 
medical 
records 
containing 
highly 
sensitive 
personal 
information about the client.   
¶39 In determining an appropriate sanction for an attorney 
who has engaged in misconduct, we must consider the seriousness 
of the misconduct, as well as the need to protect the public, 
courts, and legal system from repetition of misconduct and to 
deter attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceeding Against Arthur, 2005 WI 40, ¶78, 279 
Wis. 2d 583, 694 N.W.2d 910.  Attorney Voss's misconduct is 
extremely serious.  As the client's longtime attorney and the 
payee for her SSI benefits, Attorney Voss held substantial power 
over the client.  He repeatedly took advantage of his position 
of power and victimized a very vulnerable person for his own 
selfish motives.  The egregious nature of Attorney Voss's 
conduct caused us to give serious consideration to the sanction 
of revocation.  Although we ultimately chose not to revoke his 
license to practice law, a lengthy suspension is required to 
effectuate the purposes of Wisconsin's attorney regulatory 
system. 
 
A 
lesser 
sanction 
would 
unduly 
depreciate 
the 
seriousness of Attorney Voss's misconduct. 
¶40 Although the record in attorney regulatory proceedings 
is normally public once the OLR has filed a complaint, due to 
the extremely sensitive nature of this matter, the referee 
ordered that the entire record be sealed.  We find it 
No. 
2008AP182-D   
 
17 
 
appropriate to grant the request made by counsel for the client 
that the entire file in this matter remain confidential and not 
accessible to the public.  We also deem it appropriate to order 
that Attorney Voss not have any contact with the client.   
¶41 Finally, we find it appropriate that Attorney Voss pay 
the full costs of the proceeding, which are $145,216.81.  
Although this is a staggering amount, the reason the costs 
escalated to this level is largely because of Attorney Voss's 
aggressive litigation style.  It appears he greatly over-
litigated the case and thus it is appropriate to assess the full 
amount of costs against him. 
¶42 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Frederick J. Voss to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of four 
years, eight months, effective March 1, 2011. 
¶43 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Frederick J. Voss have no 
contact with his former client. 
¶44 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the entire file in this 
proceeding remain sealed and confidential. 
¶45 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within six months of the 
date of this order, Frederick J. Voss 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 the costs, Frederick J. Voss's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further 
order of the court.   
No. 
2008AP182-D   
 
18 
 
¶46 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Frederick J. Voss shall 
comply with SCR 22.26 regarding the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.   
 
No. 
2008AP182-D   
 
 
 
1