Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Barry LeSieur

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2010 WI 117 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2007AP2763-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Barry LeSieur, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Barry LeSieur, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST LESIEUR 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
September 30, 2010   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
BRADLEY, J., dissents (opinion filed).   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2010 WI 117
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2007AP2763-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Barry LeSieur, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Barry LeSieur, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
SEP 30, 2010 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of 
Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of 
the referee, Attorney Gary L. Olstad.  The referee 
recommended that Attorney Barry LeSieur be privately reprimanded 
for his professional misconduct subject to the possibility of a 
later 
"conversion" 
to 
a 
public 
reprimand, 
that 
certain 
conditions be placed upon Attorney LeSieur's continued practice 
of law in Wisconsin, and that Attorney LeSieur be required to 
pay the costs of this proceeding.  After fully reviewing the 
No. 
2007AP2763-D   
 
2 
 
matter, we conclude that a public reprimand and the assessment 
of full costs are appropriate.  We also conclude that the 
imposition of conditions on Attorney LeSieur's license is 
appropriate, but we modify the conditions recommended by the 
referee. 
¶2 
Attorney LeSieur was admitted to the practice of law 
in Wisconsin in 1996.  He maintains a private law practice in 
Lac du Flambeau. 
¶3 
Attorney LeSieur has been the subject of professional 
discipline on one prior occasion.  On October 20, 2006, Attorney 
LeSieur agreed to the imposition of a consensual private 
reprimand due to his criminal conviction for operating a motor 
vehicle while intoxicated (OWI).  The incident underlying this 
private reprimand occurred in May 2004.  The consensual private 
reprimand was subsequently approved by a referee and was 
formally issued in February 2007.  The consensual private 
reprimand identified the May 2004 incident as Attorney LeSieur's 
third OWI offense.  In reality, the subject of the private 
reprimand was Attorney LeSieur's second OWI conviction. 
¶4 
The 
conduct 
underlying 
the 
present 
disciplinary 
proceeding stems from another OWI incident.  On October 28, 
2006, eight days after he agreed to the consensual private 
reprimand for his second OWI conviction, Attorney LeSieur once 
again operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated and was 
arrested.  He subsequently pled no contest to a charge of OWI 
(third offense).  He was sentenced to 90 days in jail and had 
his operator's license revoked for a period of 29 months.  
No. 
2007AP2763-D   
 
3 
 
Attorney LeSieur timely self-reported his OWI conviction to the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR).  See SCR 21.15(5). 
¶5 
Based on this conduct, the OLR filed a complaint 
alleging that Attorney LeSieur had committed a criminal act that 
reflected adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness 
as a lawyer in other respects, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(b).1  
Attorney LeSieur's answer generally admitted the complaint's 
factual allegations, but it did not admit a violation of 
SCR 20:8.4(b).  Attorney LeSieur, however, subsequently entered 
into a stipulation, in which he admitted the facts of his arrest 
and conviction for OWI (third offense) and also conceded that 
his conduct violated SCR 20:8.4(b).  
¶6 
The 
stipulation 
did 
not 
contain 
any 
agreement 
regarding the appropriate level of discipline to be requested.  
Consequently, the parties filed memoranda addressing the issue 
of sanction.   
¶7 
The 
OLR 
requested a public reprimand, primarily 
contending that the concept of progressive discipline required a 
more serious sanction than the private reprimand imposed for 
Attorney LeSieur's prior OWI conviction.  The OLR pointed out 
that the private reprimand had not sufficiently deterred 
Attorney LeSieur from further misconduct because he had operated 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:8.4(b) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the 
lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in 
other respects; . . . ." 
No. 
2007AP2763-D   
 
4 
 
a motor vehicle while intoxicated just a few days after agreeing 
to the private reprimand for this same type of conduct.   
¶8 
Attorney LeSieur argued that he should not receive any 
discipline for his conduct and that he should be diverted to an 
alternative to discipline program pursuant to SCR 22.10.  He 
contended that discipline was not appropriate because his OWI 
offense did not directly relate to the practice of law.   
¶9 
The referee found, based on the parties' stipulation, 
that Attorney LeSieur had engaged in the operation of a motor 
vehicle while intoxicated and that he had been convicted of a 
criminal OWI offense, based on his no contest plea.  The referee 
concluded 
that 
this 
conduct 
constituted 
a 
violation 
of 
SCR 20:8.4(b).   
¶10 The referee recommended that Attorney LeSieur receive 
a conditional private reprimand for his professional misconduct.  
He suggested that the private reprimand be conditioned on 
Attorney LeSieur completing a recognized alcohol treatment 
program and on Attorney LeSieur not committing any alcohol-
related offense for two years following the date of the 
reprimand order.  The referee recommended that if Attorney 
LeSieur failed to comply with either condition, the private 
reprimand should be "converted" to a public reprimand.  The 
referee also recommended that Attorney LeSieur be required to 
pay the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding. 
¶11 Following receipt of the referee's report, we issued 
an order directing Attorney LeSieur to advise as to what 
alcohol-related treatment he had received since October 2006 and 
No. 
2007AP2763-D   
 
5 
 
whether he was continuing to receive treatment or to participate 
in an alcohol-related program.  We also directed the OLR to 
speak with individuals who had provided or were providing 
alcohol-related treatment or programming to Attorney LeSieur and 
to file a report that (1) described the nature of Attorney 
LeSieur's alcohol consumption since October 2006, (2) discussed 
the alcohol-related treatment or programming he had received, 
and (3) suggested any conditions that should be placed on 
Attorney LeSieur's license to practice law in Wisconsin.  
Attorney LeSieur was given an opportunity to respond to the 
OLR's report and its suggested conditions.  The parties provided 
the requested information, which we have carefully considered. 
¶12 Before turning to our analysis of this matter, we note 
the standard of review that we follow in attorney disciplinary 
proceedings.  We affirm a referee's findings of fact unless they 
are found to be clearly erroneous.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 
740 N.W.2d 125.  We review the referee's conclusions of law, 
however, on a de novo basis.  Id.  Finally, we determine the 
appropriate level of discipline given the particular facts of 
each case, independent of the referee's recommendation, but 
benefiting from it.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶13 The underlying facts and the legal conclusion that 
those facts demonstrate a violation of SCR 20:8.4(b) have been 
stipulated.  We therefore accept and adopt the referee's 
findings of fact and conclusions of law. 
No. 
2007AP2763-D   
 
6 
 
¶14 The issues that require a decision in this matter are 
the appropriate level of discipline and the nature of any 
conditions that should be placed upon Attorney LeSieur's license 
to practice law.   
¶15 With respect to the appropriate sanction, we conclude 
that Attorney LeSieur should be publicly reprimanded.  Although 
Attorney LeSieur stipulated that his OWI conviction demonstrated 
that he had violated SCR 20:8.4(b), his filings both to the 
referee and to this court indicate his belief that he should not 
receive professional discipline for his conduct because it did 
not directly relate to the practice of law.  He contends that 
any response to his alcohol-related conduct should be "treatment 
oriented." 
¶16 While we acknowledge that assisting Wisconsin lawyers 
to cope with an addiction to or dependence on alcohol so they 
can comply with their professional obligations is a proper goal 
of the lawyer regulatory system, that fact does not mean that 
conduct that occurs while an attorney is under the influence of 
alcohol cannot subject the attorney to professional discipline.  
Indeed, we have held that a pattern of multiple OWI convictions 
can demonstrate a serious lack of respect for the law that 
reflects adversely on an attorney's "fitness as a lawyer in 
other respects" under SCR 20:8.4(b) and can support a public 
reprimand.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Brandt, 2009 
WI 43, ¶42, 317 Wis. 2d 266, 766 N.W.2d 194.  In the Brandt 
case, Attorney Brandt received both his third and fourth OWI 
convictions in Wisconsin, as well as another OWI conviction in 
No. 
2007AP2763-D   
 
7 
 
Minnesota.  In addition, he was found to have failed to 
supervise his non-lawyer assistant, leading to irregularities in 
his client trust account.  For this conduct, we imposed a public 
reprimand. 
¶17 Likewise, we determine that Attorney LeSieur's conduct 
demonstrates a pattern of disregard for the requirements of the 
law 
and 
calls 
for 
the 
imposition 
of 
public 
discipline.  
Moreover, it is clear that a private reprimand would not be 
sufficient to deter Attorney LeSieur from further alcohol-
related misconduct.  He already received a consensual private 
reprimand for his second OWI offense.  After he agreed to such a 
reprimand and before it was even finalized, he again got behind 
the wheel of a vehicle while he was intoxicated.  This 
demonstrates a disregard both for the state's criminal law 
against operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and this 
court's 
Rules 
of 
Professional 
Conduct 
for 
Attorneys.  
Consequently, a more serious sanction than a private reprimand 
is clearly appropriate.2 
¶18 We also conclude that some conditions on Attorney 
LeSieur's license to practice law are necessary to ensure that 
Attorney LeSieur is obtaining the treatment he needs to cope 
with his alcohol-related problems and to protect the public from 
any future misconduct that might result from Attorney LeSieur's 
                                                 
2 We do not follow the recommendation of the referee that we 
impose a private reprimand that could be "converted" into a 
public reprimand if Attorney LeSieur fails to comply with the 
specified conditions.  We do not impose such contingent or 
convertible discipline. 
No. 
2007AP2763-D   
 
8 
 
consumption of alcohol.  Generally, we conclude that Attorney 
LeSieur should undergo a thorough alcohol and other drug abuse 
(AODA) evaluation and should comply with the recommendations 
contained in the evaluation.  Although we recognize that 
Attorney LeSieur has stated that he has not consumed alcohol 
since 2006, we also believe it is appropriate to require him to 
submit to random alcohol/substance abuse screenings for a period 
of two years.  These conditions are based on the OLR's suggested 
conditions, which in turn were based on the suggestions of 
Attorney LeSieur's treatment provider. 
¶19 Finally, we determine that Attorney LeSieur should be 
required to pay the full costs of this proceeding, which were 
$2,667.83 as of February 17, 2009.  There are no extraordinary 
circumstances present in this case that would call for a 
deviation from the court's general policy of imposing full 
costs.  SCR 22.24(1m).  Although Attorney LeSieur did enter into 
a stipulation, he did not do so until after a referee had been 
appointed, and even then he continued to contest the level of 
discipline to be imposed.  As requested by the OLR, we do not 
require Attorney LeSieur to pay the OLR's costs in responding to 
our order to prepare a report regarding Attorney LeSieur's 
treatment and proposed conditions on his license to practice law 
in this state. 
¶20 IT 
IS 
ORDERED 
that 
Barry 
LeSieur 
is 
publicly 
reprimanded for his professional misconduct. 
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 30 days after the 
date of this order, Barry LeSieur shall sign reciprocal releases 
No. 
2007AP2763-D   
 
9 
 
of confidentiality (complying with the federal Health Insurance 
Portability and Accountability Act and all other applicable 
federal and state laws) for each treatment provider who is 
providing or has provided alcohol-related or substance abuse-
related treatment or services to Barry LeSieur within the last 
ten years, so that such treatment providers may share pertinent 
information related to Barry LeSieur's substance abuse history 
and related issues.  In addition to authorizing other treatment 
providers to obtain access to such treatment information, the 
releases signed by Barry LeSieur shall also authorize disclosure 
of all records concerning alcohol-related or substance abuse-
related 
treatment 
or 
services 
to 
the 
Office 
of 
Lawyer 
Regulation.  The Office of Lawyer Regulation shall maintain as 
confidential all information or documents received pursuant to 
these releases.  The releases required by this paragraph shall 
remain in effect for two years from the date of this order. 
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days after the 
date of this order, Barry LeSieur shall submit to an alcohol and 
other drug abuse (AODA) evaluation by a professional AODA 
counselor or treatment provider, which written evaluation shall 
assess Barry LeSieur's substance abuse history and current 
status and make specific recommendations for Barry LeSieur's 
continuing treatment or maintenance.  A copy of the written AODA 
evaluation shall be submitted to the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
and shall be maintained by it as confidential. 
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Barry LeSieur shall, to the 
best of his ability, comply with all written recommendations set 
No. 
2007AP2763-D   
 
10 
 
forth in the AODA evaluation, with the OLR to monitor Barry 
LeSieur's compliance. 
¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for two years following the 
date of this order, Barry LeSieur shall, at his own expense, 
submit to random alcohol and substance abuse screening, directed 
and monitored by the Office of Lawyer Regulation. 
¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Barry LeSieur shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding incurred through the 
filing of the referee's report.  If the costs are not paid 
within the time specified and absent a showing to this court of 
his inability to pay the costs within that time, the license of 
Barry LeSieur to practice law in Wisconsin shall be suspended 
until further order of the court. 
 
No.  2007AP2763-D.awb 
 
1 
 
 
¶26 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.   (dissenting).  Although I 
agree with the conditions of practice and costs imposed by the 
majority, 
I 
disagree 
with 
its 
determination 
as 
to 
the 
appropriate level of discipline.  The majority concludes that a 
public reprimand is sufficient.  Given the pattern of conduct 
and the state of the evidence,  I think that a public reprimand 
is too lenient.  I instead would impose a 60-day suspension of 
Attorney LeSieur's license. 
¶27 Attorney LeSieur has been arrested five times for 
operating while under the influence of alcohol (OWI) and has 
three convictions for that offense.  The first arrest was in 
1991.  It resulted in a conviction which apparently was 
overturned "on constitutional grounds."1  The second OWI arrest 
was in 2001. The case was transferred from Vilas County to 
another jurisdiction which did not pursue the prosecution.2   
¶28 The third, fourth, and fifth arrests resulted in three 
convictions in May 2003, May 2004, and October 2006.  As the 
majority correctly states: "On October 28, 2006, eight days 
after he agreed to the consensual private reprimand for his 
second OWI conviction, Attorney LeSieur once again operated a 
                                                 
1 It 
appears 
from 
the 
record 
that 
"overturned 
on 
constitutional grounds" is Attorney LeSieur's description of 
what happened.  There is no further evidence in this record 
which illuminates the history of that conviction. 
2 Although there is little in the record about this case, it 
appears that it was transferred to tribal court jurisdiction in 
Lac Du Flambeau and not prosecuted. 
 
No.  2007AP2763-D.awb 
 
2 
 
motor vehicle while intoxicated and was arrested."  Majority 
op., ¶4.  It is this third conviction (fifth arrest) which is 
before us in the present disciplinary proceeding. 
¶29 As part of its rationale for imposing a public 
reprimand 
rather 
than 
a 
private 
reprimand, 
the 
majority 
concludes that "it is clear that a private reprimand would not 
be sufficient to deter Attorney LeSieur from further alcohol-
related misconduct."  Id., ¶17.  I think that the majority is 
mistaken if it thinks that a public reprimand here is sufficient 
to deter further alcohol-related misconduct.  
¶30 I see this case as similar to our recent case of 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Brandt, 2009 WI 43, 317 
Wis. 2d 266, 766 N.W.2d 194.  In that case, Attorney Brandt was 
also the subject of five OWI offenses.  The majority imposed 
only a public reprimand for his violation of former SCR 
20:8.4(b) which provided in part that it is professional 
misconduct for a lawyer to commit a criminal act that reflects 
adversely on the lawyer's fitness to practice as a lawyer.3  
¶31 I dissented in Brandt.  Given the repeated nature of 
the conduct and the equivocal state of the evidence on the 
                                                 
3 One of the conditions of Attorney Brandt's continued 
practice of law was that he refrain from the consumption of 
alcohol.  On June 4, 2010, the Office of Lawyer Regulation filed 
a report of Attorney Brandt's noncompliance with the no-alcohol 
condition.  Attached to the report was a January 26, 2010 
Minnesota District Court complaint indicating a pending action 
against Attorney Brandt who was charged with alcohol-related 
offenses. 
 
No.  2007AP2763-D.awb 
 
3 
 
question of maintaining sobriety, I thought that the discipline 
was too lenient.  Brandt, 317 Wis. 2d 266, ¶56.  
¶32 Those same reasons also apply here. I would impose a 
60-day suspension of Attorney LeSieur's license.  Accordingly, I 
respectfully dissent. 
 
 
No.  2007AP2763-D.awb 
 
 
 
1