Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Susan L. Schuster

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2007 WI 131 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2007AP1758-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Susan L. Schuster, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Susan L. Schuster, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SCHUSTER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 14, 2007   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2007 WI 131
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2007AP1758-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Susan L. Schuster, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Susan L. Schuster, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
NOV 14, 2007 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the stipulation filed by 
Attorney Susan L. Schuster and the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) pursuant to SCR 22.12.  Attorney Schuster stipulates to 
the facts and misconduct alleged by the OLR and agrees to the 
discipline level the OLR seeks, a 90-day suspension of her 
license to practice law in Wisconsin.  We approve the 
stipulation and adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of 
law.  We agree that the seriousness of Attorney Schuster's 
misconduct warrants a 90-day suspension of her license to 
practice law.   
No. 
2007AP1758-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Attorney Schuster was admitted to the practice of law 
in Wisconsin in March 2000 and has practiced in Stoughton.  
Attorney Schuster has been disciplined on two prior occasions. 
¶3 
Effective December 2, 2003, this court suspended 
Attorney Schuster's law license for 90 days for misconduct 
related to numerous trust account violations, failing to notify 
her client until four days before trial that she was withdrawing 
from representation, and making false statements to the OLR.   
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Schuster, 2003 WI 
135, 266 Wis. 2d 36, 670 N.W.2d 545.  Effective April 11, 2006, 
Attorney Schuster's license was suspended for nine months due to 
numerous trust account violations, and for engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in 
making multiple payments to herself out of trust account funds 
to which she was not entitled.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Schuster, 2006 WI 21, 289 Wis. 2d 23, 710 
N.W.2d 458. 
¶4 
In 
the 
instant 
disciplinary 
matter, 
Attorney 
Schuster's misconduct consists of over-billing her client, D.L., 
by not showing proper credit for the client's payments and by 
overstating the amount due.  Attorney Schuster stipulates that 
in September 2005, D.L. retained Attorney Schuster in her 
divorce proceeding and signed a fee agreement providing a $1,500 
retainer against hourly fees of $200 per hour.  D.L. paid $500 
upon signing the fee agreement and promised to pay the remaining 
$1,000 by October 31.  Attorney Schuster deposited the $500 
payment to her client trust account.  When D.L. was unable to 
No. 
2007AP1758-D   
 
3 
 
pay the remaining $1,000 by October 31, Attorney Schuster agreed 
to accept weekly payments of $100 each.  D.L. made four $100 
payments during November.  However, on December 9 Attorney 
Schuster sent D.L. a bill showing D.L. had made only two $100 
payments.  The bill erroneously stated an outstanding balance of 
$2,465; the correct balance was $2,265.   
¶5 
D.L. made four $100 payments during December and sent 
Attorney Schuster a detailed list of her prior payments.  
Attorney Schuster's January 18, 2006, billing statement failed 
to credit D.L. with any payments made in November 2005 and 
credited only $100 of the $400 D.L. had paid in December 2005.  
The bill indicated an incorrect outstanding balance of $2,645 
when the correct balance was $1,945.   
¶6 
In January 2006 Attorney Schuster's billing correctly 
credited three $100 payments received in January but continued 
to show an incorrect outstanding balance of $2,465 when the 
correct balance was $1,765.  In February D.L. wrote to Attorney 
Schuster and sent a spreadsheet correctly showing that D.L. had 
paid $2,100 to Schuster, including $100 and $300 paid in 
February.  Attorney Schuster wrote to D.L. and agreed with 
D.L.'s documentation.  Nonetheless, a day later, D.L. received 
another inaccurate billing statement. 
¶7 
On March 1, 2006, D.L. sent Attorney Schuster a $300 
payment 
and 
payment 
information 
to 
correct 
the 
billing 
inaccuracies.  On or about March 14, Attorney Schuster and D.L. 
met to review the payment history.  On or about March 15, 
Attorney Schuster sent D.L. a revised billing statement and 
No. 
2007AP1758-D   
 
4 
 
stated 
that 
Attorney 
Schuster 
had 
reviewed 
the 
payment 
information.  Attorney Schuster stated that the invoices 
enclosed were correct and reflected payment information from 
D.L.'s documentation.  Attorney Schuster added, "The current 
balance due is not $980.00 but is $2185.00 minus the $300.00 
paid in March.  That equals $1885.00 currently.  Please review 
the invoices carefully.  I am absolutely positive of this but am 
happy to discuss it with you at length."   
¶8 
The revised billing statement was inaccurate because 
it omitted D.L.'S initial $500 payment deposited to Attorney 
Schuster's trust account in September 2005.  It credited D.L. 
with only a $100 payment on February 2, 2006, although D.L. had 
paid $300.  Also, it showed an outstanding balance of $2,185, 
although the correct balance was $1,285.   
¶9 
On April 7, 2006, Attorney Schuster filed a motion for 
judgment, proposed judgment and affidavit in D.L.'s underlying 
divorce, asserting D.L. owed Attorney Schuster $2,185 in 
outstanding legal fees when in fact only $1,285 was due.  The 
circuit court found insufficient evidence to support the 
requested attorney fee.   
¶10 During the OLR's investigation of D.L.'s grievance, 
the OLR obtained a payment schedule from Attorney Schuster 
showing she had received each payment D.L. had claimed to have 
made and for which Attorney Schuster failed to credit D.L.   
¶11 The OLR filed a two count disciplinary complaint 
seeking a 90-day license suspension.  Count I states that by 
submitting bills that repeatedly overstated the amounts of fees 
No. 
2007AP1758-D   
 
5 
 
the client owed Schuster, and by failing to credit the client 
with payments when Attorney Schuster possessed the correct 
payment information, and by seeking a judgment for fees against 
the client based on inaccurate figures, Attorney Schuster 
engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit and 
misrepresentation contrary to former SCR 20:8.4(c).1  Count II 
states that by submitting a motion for judgment, proposed 
judgment and affidavit to the circuit court that falsely 
asserted that the client owed $2,185 and described that amount 
as 
being 
due 
as 
of 
"February 
31, 
2006" 
[sic], 
while 
intentionally failing to inform the court the client had made a 
$300 payment against the outstanding balance on March 1, 2006, 
Attorney Schuster knowingly made a false statement of fact to a 
tribunal, contrary to former SCR 20:3.3(a)(1).2   
¶12 The OLR and Attorney Schuster stipulate to the 
violations alleged in the complaint and to a 90-day license 
                                                 
1 Effective July 1, 2007, substantial changes were made to 
the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct for 
Attorneys, SCR Chapter 20.  See Supreme Court Order No. 04-07, 
2007 WI 4, 293 Wis. 2d xv; and Supreme Court Order No. 06-04, 
2007 WI 48, 297 Wis. 2d xlvii.  Because the conduct underlying 
this case arose prior to July 1, 2007, unless otherwise 
indicated, all references to the supreme court rules will be to 
those in effect prior to July 1, 2007. 
Former SCR 20:8.4(c) states it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation."  
2 Former SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) states it is misconduct for a 
lawyer to knowingly "make a false statement of fact or law to a 
tribunal." 
No. 
2007AP1758-D   
 
6 
 
suspension. 
 
Attorney 
Schuster 
verifies 
that 
she 
fully 
understands the misconduct allegations and the ramifications of 
the stipulated discipline.  She stipulates that she understands 
her right to contest the matter and to consult with counsel.  
She further states that her entry into the stipulation is 
knowing and voluntary, and that it represents her admission to 
the misconduct charged and the level of discipline sought by the 
OLR. 
¶13 We approve the stipulation.  We adopt the findings of 
fact and conclusions of law to which the parties have stipulated 
concerning Attorney Schuster's professional misconduct.  We 
determine the seriousness of Attorney Schuster's misconduct 
warrants the suspension of Attorney Schuster's license to 
practice law for 90 days.   
¶14 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Susan L. Schuster to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 90 days 
effective the date of this order. 
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent she has not 
yet done so, Attorney Schuster comply with the provisions of SCR 
22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.   
 
No. 
2007AP1758-D   
 
 
 
1