Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Elizabeth A. Ewald-Herrick

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2014 WI 40 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2013AP948-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
Elizabeth Ewald-Herrick, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Elizabeth A. Ewald-Herrick, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST EWALD-HERRICK 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 19, 2014 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
         
 
COUNTY: 
       
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
2014 WI 40
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2013AP948-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Elizabeth Ewald-Herrick, Attorney at 
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Elizabeth A. Ewald-Herrick, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 19, 2014 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   In this disciplinary proceeding, the 
referee concluded that the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) had 
proven the one count of misconduct contained in the complaint 
filed by the OLR against Attorney Elizabeth A. Ewald-Herrick.  
The OLR claimed that by committing her fourth operating while 
intoxicated (OWI) offense in five years, Attorney Ewald-Herrick 
committed a criminal act that reflects adversely on her fitness 
No. 
2013AP948-D   
 
2 
 
as a lawyer and thereby violated SCR 20:8.4(b).1  Based on this 
violation, the referee recommended that Attorney Ewald-Herrick 
be publicly reprimanded and that various conditions be placed on 
her license directed toward her treatment for alcohol abuse. 
¶2 
Attorney Ewald-Herrick did not appeal the referee's 
report and recommendation.  Instead, she wrote a letter to this 
court stating, among other things, that she had no objection to 
the imposition of a public reprimand, but that she saw no point 
in 
complying 
with 
and 
paying 
for 
court-ordered 
alcohol 
monitoring when she intended to resign her Wisconsin law 
license.  Attorney Ewald-Herrick has since filed a petition to 
voluntarily resign her law license pursuant to SCR 10.03(7)(a).2 
¶3 
The OLR recommends that this court:  (1) publicly 
reprimand Attorney Ewald-Herrick without any conditions; (2) 
accept her petition to voluntarily resign her law license; and 
                                                 
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; . . . ." 
2 SCR 10.03(7)(a) states as follows: 
 
Voluntary resignation of membership.  If a member 
of the state bar files with the executive director a 
written notice of the member's surrender of his or her 
license to practice law and the acceptance by the 
supreme court of his or her resignation in the state 
bar, the person shall then cease to be a member of the 
state bar and his or her name shall be removed from 
the 
membership 
register. 
 
Before 
accepting 
a 
resignation, the supreme court shall request from the 
office of lawyer regulation information concerning 
whether the attorney is the subject of any pending 
grievances, investigations, or proceedings. 
No. 
2013AP948-D   
 
3 
 
(3) order the OLR, if Attorney Ewald-Herrick applies for 
readmission, to investigate whether conditions should be imposed 
on her license. 
¶4 
After independently reviewing the record, we determine 
that the facts as found by the referee demonstrate the 
misconduct charged by the OLR——a violation of SCR 20:8.4(b).  We 
conclude that Attorney Ewald-Herrick's professional misconduct 
requires a public reprimand.  We grant Attorney Ewald-Herrick's 
petition to voluntarily resign her Wisconsin law license.  We 
condition any future readmission to the State Bar of Wisconsin 
on her submission to an alcohol and other drug abuse (AODA) 
evaluation by a professional AODA counselor or treatment 
provider, with the results of the evaluation to be submitted to 
the OLR for its review and consideration.  Finally, we conclude 
that Attorney Ewald-Herrick should be required to pay 50 percent 
of the costs of this proceeding. 
¶5 
Attorney Ewald-Herrick has been admitted to practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin 
since 
1989. 
 
Attorney 
Ewald-Herrick's 
disciplinary history consists of an October 2008 private 
reprimand for professional misconduct consisting of a criminal 
act; namely, a 2007 conviction for third offense OWI.  This 
court held that Attorney Ewald-Herrick's conviction reflected 
adversely on her honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a 
lawyer in other respects.  See Private Reprimand No. 2008-31; 
see also SCR 20:8.4(b). 
¶6 
On April 25, 2013, the OLR filed a complaint against 
Attorney Ewald-Herrick alleging that in 2012, Attorney Ewald-
No. 
2013AP948-D   
 
4 
 
Herrick pled guilty to and was convicted of a fourth offense 
OWI.  The OLR claimed that by committing her fourth OWI offense 
in five years, Attorney Ewald-Herrick committed a criminal act 
that reflects adversely on her fitness as a lawyer and thereby 
violated SCR 20:8.4(b).  The OLR asked this court to publicly 
reprimand Attorney Ewald-Herrick and to order her to:  (1) enter 
into 
a 
monitoring 
contract 
with 
the 
Wisconsin 
Lawyers' 
Assistance Program (WisLAP) with various conditions; and (2) 
sign reciprocal releases of confidentiality for each treatment 
provider who is providing or has provided AODA or mental health 
related treatment or services to her during the preceding five 
years. 
¶7 
Attorney Ewald-Herrick admitted service of the OLR's 
complaint, but did not file an answer. 
¶8 
On June 17, 2013, the parties filed a written 
stipulation by which Attorney Ewald-Herrick pled no contest to 
the SCR 20:8.4(b) violation alleged in the OLR's complaint.  The 
stipulation requested that an assigned referee approve the 
stipulation and schedule further proceedings to determine the 
appropriate sanction. 
¶9 
The referee, Hannah C. Dugan, held several status 
conferences. 
 
Although 
there 
is 
no 
transcript 
of 
these 
conferences in the record, it appears undisputed that Attorney 
Ewald-Herrick stated during these conferences that she did not 
object to a public reprimand.  Attorney Ewald-Herrick also 
stated, however, that because it was her intent to surrender her 
law license, she saw no reason to agree to the conditions on her 
No. 
2013AP948-D   
 
5 
 
license sought by the OLR.  Attorney Ewald-Herrick also stated 
that she did not want to incur the costs associated with any 
briefing or hearing associated with the OLR's complaint. 
¶10 In a written order, the referee directed the parties 
to brief the issue of "why a hearing or a greater sanction is 
not appropriate given the facts and the respondent's stated 
refusal" to enter into a monitoring contract with WisLAP.  The 
OLR filed a brief stating that its sanction recommendation 
remained unchanged because discipline should not be imposed in 
anticipation of future non-compliance with a disciplinary order, 
and because any future non-compliance could be addressed at the 
time it occurs.  Attorney Ewald-Herrick did not file a response 
to the OLR's brief. 
¶11 The referee filed a report on September 30, 2013.  The 
referee accepted Attorney Ewald-Herrick's no contest plea and 
found that by committing her fourth OWI offense in five years, 
Attorney Ewald-Herrick committed a criminal act that reflected 
adversely on her fitness as a lawyer and thereby violated 
SCR 20:8.4(b).  The referee recommended a public reprimand and 
the imposition of the following conditions: 
 Enter into a monitoring contract with WisLAP, via OLR 
referral, and fully comply with the conditions of the 
contract, which may include, but may not be limited to: 
o Abstain from using alcohol and other mood-altering 
substances, unless prescribed by a licensed physician 
and approved by WisLAP;  
No. 
2013AP948-D   
 
6 
 
o Upon WisLAP's request, undergo an AODA and mental 
health assessment by a professional selected by 
WisLAP;  
o Comply 
with 
all 
treatments 
recommended 
by 
the 
assessment or treatment professionals;  
o Submit to monitoring by a person selected by WisLAP, 
comply with all conditions and reporting requirements 
WisLAP 
deems 
appropriate, 
and 
comply 
with 
all 
obligations under WisLAP's policies;  
o Submit to random alcohol and substance abuse testing 
as WisLAP determines appropriate; and 
o Pay any and all costs incurred for monitoring, 
including, but not limited to, costs for treatment, 
random alcohol and drug screens, and other activities 
required to stay in compliance with WisLAP monitoring 
conditions.  
 
Sign reciprocal releases of confidentiality for each 
treatment provider who is providing or has provided AODA 
or mental health related treatment or services to 
Attorney Ewald-Herrick during the preceding five years, 
so that such treatment providers may share pertinent 
information with each other, with WisLAP, with the 
professional selected to conduct an assessment, and with 
the OLR.  
¶12 The 
referee 
wrote 
that 
these 
sanctions 
were 
appropriate in light of, among other things, Attorney Ewald-
Herrick's "statements of intent not to comply with disciplinary 
No. 
2013AP948-D   
 
7 
 
orders and marginal cooperation in the disciplinary process," 
including her failure to file a brief regarding sanctions.  The 
referee wrote that Attorney Ewald-Herrick's statements at the 
status conferences "do not reflect remorse for the conduct to 
which she already pled."  The referee also stated that Attorney 
Ewald-Herrick 
showed 
an 
inadequate 
understanding 
of 
the 
seriousness of her misconduct. 
¶13 On October 28, 2013, Attorney Ewald-Herrick filed a 
letter with the court objecting to certain aspects of the 
referee's report.  Attorney Ewald-Herrick stated that she was 
not appealing the referee's report and recommendation.3  Attorney 
Ewald-Herrick did, however, dispute the referee's charge that 
she was unremorseful and unaware of the seriousness of her 
misconduct.  Attorney Ewald-Herrick stated that she was fully 
aware of the seriousness of her misconduct; that she had been 
sober since August 2012; that she had completed a 28-day in-
patient program; that she attends individual counselling weekly; 
and that she participates in two Alcoholics Anonymous meetings 
per week.  Attorney Ewald-Herrick stated, however, that "I do 
not believe that I can remain sober while practicing law.  As a 
result, I have decided to leave the practice of law."  Attorney 
Ewald-Herrick also stated that she could not afford the cost of 
WisLAP monitoring, and that she wanted only "to leave the 
                                                 
3 We note that Attorney Ewald-Herrick's letter, filed 
October 28, 2013, could not have served as a timely appeal from 
the referee's September 30, 2013 report and recommendation.  Cf. 
SCR 22.17(1) (appeal from the referee's report must be filed 
within 20 days after the filing of the referee's report). 
No. 
2013AP948-D   
 
8 
 
practice of law without incurring a huge debt."  Attorney Ewald-
Herrick stated that although she had no objection to the 
imposition of a public reprimand, she saw no point in complying 
with and paying for WisLAP monitoring when she had no intention 
to practice law. 
¶14 Attorney Ewald-Herrick also requested the waiver of 
costs, which total $1,254.65 as of October 21, 2013.  Attorney 
Ewald-Herrick stated that costs had been "the focus of my 
concern" throughout the disciplinary proceeding because of her 
financial troubles.  Attorney Ewald-Herrick stated that she 
urged the referee not to order any briefing because she knew 
that costs would be assessed against her.  Attorney Ewald-
Herrick claims that the referee ordered briefing nonetheless 
because the referee did not know "how to handle a lawyer who 
agreed with the discipline (a public reprimand) but did not 
agree to comply with conditions." 
¶15 On January 22 and February 13, 2014, this court 
ordered Attorney Ewald-Herrick to formalize her position.  
Specifically, the court ordered that she petition the court for 
a voluntary resignation of her law license, if that was her 
intent.  See SCR 10.03(7).  On February 21, 2014, Attorney 
Ewald-Herrick filed a petition for voluntary resignation. 
¶16 This court then ordered the OLR to file a response to 
Attorney Ewald-Herrick's petition for voluntary resignation, and 
to specifically discuss whether this court should accept 
Attorney Ewald-Herrick's resignation.  In its response, the OLR 
recommended that the court accept Attorney Ewald-Herrick's 
No. 
2013AP948-D   
 
9 
 
petition for resignation and publicly reprimand her without any 
conditions.  The OLR further recommended that the court order 
the OLR, if Attorney Ewald-Herrick applies for readmission, to 
investigate whether conditions should be imposed on her license. 
¶17 After having independently reviewed the record, we 
adopt the referee's findings of fact.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 
675 N.W.2d 747.  We also agree with the referee that those 
factual 
findings 
demonstrate 
that 
Attorney 
Ewald-Herrick 
committed a criminal act (fourth offense OWI) that reflected 
adversely on Attorney Ewald-Herrick's honesty, trustworthiness, 
or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.  See SCR 20:8.4(b); 
see also In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Brandt, 2009 WI 
43, ¶¶42-45, 317 Wis. 2d 266, 766 N.W.2d 194 (holding 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).  We also agree 
that a public reprimand is appropriate discipline for Attorney 
Ewald-Herrick's misconduct in this matter.  See Brandt, 317 
Wis. 2d 266, ¶45. 
¶18 We 
decline 
to 
impose 
the 
referee's 
recommended 
conditions 
on 
Attorney 
Ewald-Herrick's 
license 
(WisLAP 
monitoring and medical release authorizations for AODA or mental 
health records).  Because we accept Attorney Ewald-Herrick's 
unopposed petition for voluntary resignation of her law license, 
there is no need to impose conditions on her license. 
No. 
2013AP948-D   
 
10 
 
¶19 We are mindful of our precedent holding that this 
court must not allow an attorney to resign from the practice of 
law in order to avoid the imposition of discipline for 
unprofessional 
conduct. 
 
See, 
e.g., 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Schalow, 131 Wis. 2d 1, 6, 388 N.W.2d 176 
(1986); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Snyder, 127 
Wis. 2d 446, 452-453, 380 N.W.2d 367 (1986).  Here, Attorney 
Ewald-Herrick is not avoiding discipline by resigning her 
license.  As explained above, we have decided to publicly 
reprimand Attorney Ewald-Herrick for her misconduct.  We elect 
not to impose conditions on a law license that she has decided 
to surrender. 
¶20 We advise Attorney Ewald-Herrick that we take very 
seriously the fact that her professional misconduct stems from 
her demonstrated alcohol abuse problem.  If Attorney Ewald-
Herrick chooses in the future to petition for readmission to the 
State Bar of Wisconsin, she must submit to an AODA evaluation by 
a professional AODA counselor or treatment provider; this 
evaluation will assess Attorney Ewald-Herrick's substance abuse 
history and current status and make specific recommendations for 
any necessary continuing treatment.  A copy of the written AODA 
evaluation shall be submitted to the OLR for its review and 
consideration and shall be maintained by it as confidential. 
¶21 Finally, we turn to the issue of costs.  Both the OLR 
and the referee maintain that Attorney Ewald-Herrick should be 
made to pay the full costs of this disciplinary matter—— 
$1,254.65 as of October 21, 2013——consistent with the court's 
No. 
2013AP948-D   
 
11 
 
general practice to levy the full costs of the disciplinary 
proceeding on the respondent attorney.  See SCR 22.24(1m).  As 
mentioned earlier, Attorney Ewald-Herrick asks for a waiver of 
costs because she is in poor financial shape and because the 
costs in this case were partially driven by a dispute over 
possible conditions on her law license——a license she has 
consistently stated she wanted to surrender. 
¶22 We agree with Attorney Ewald-Herrick that a reduction 
in costs is warranted.  It would be unfair to Attorney Ewald-
Herrick to impose all of the costs of litigating the conditions 
to be imposed on a law license that she has resigned consistent 
with 
her 
stated 
intentions 
throughout 
this 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
¶23 However, we reject Attorney Ewald-Herrick's assertion 
that we should assess no costs at all.  Attorney Ewald-Herrick 
has been determined to have committed the misconduct charge 
brought 
by 
the 
OLR. 
 
This 
misconduct——a 
violation 
of 
SCR 20:8.4(b) caused by a fourth offense OWI conviction——was 
undeniably serious, and this is the second time that Attorney 
Ewald-Herrick 
has 
been 
disciplined 
for 
a 
drunk 
driving 
conviction.  These factors weigh against a reduction in costs.  
See SCR 22.24(1m)(a), (b), (e). 
¶24 On balance, we deem it appropriate to impose 50 
percent of the costs on Attorney Ewald-Herrick, or $627.33. Our 
determination is not the result of the application of a precise 
mathematical formula, but is based on our thorough consideration 
No. 
2013AP948-D   
 
12 
 
of the record, the unusual posture of this case, and the factors 
set forth in SCR 22.24(1m). 
¶25 IT IS ORDERED that Elizabeth A. Ewald-Herrick is 
publicly reprimanded for her professional misconduct. 
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Elizabeth A. Ewald-
Herrick's petition for voluntary resignation of her Wisconsin 
law license is granted and her license is hereby surrendered. 
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any future readmission of 
Elizabeth A. Ewald-Herrick to the State Bar of Wisconsin is 
conditioned on her submission to an AODA evaluation by a 
professional AODA counselor or treatment provider.  A copy of 
the written AODA evaluation shall be submitted to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation for its review and consideration and shall be 
maintained by it as confidential. 
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Elizabeth A. Ewald-Herrick shall pay to the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation costs in the amount of $627.33. 
¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the director of the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation shall advise the court if there has not 
been full compliance with all conditions of this order. 
 
 
 
No. 
2013AP948-D   
 
 
 
1