Title: Richard Lee Winter v.

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

No. 95-0933-D 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
 
 
 
 
No.  95-0933-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN             :                IN SUPREME COURT 
                                                                   
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against RICHARD LEE WINTER, Attorney at Law. 
 
FILED 
 
 
NOV 1, 1995 
 
 
 Marilyn L. Graves 
  Clerk of Supreme Court 
  
Madison, WI  
 
                                                                
   
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney's 
license 
suspended. 
 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the referee 
that the license of Richard Lee Winter to practice law in 
Wisconsin be suspended for 90 days as discipline for professional 
misconduct.  That misconduct consisted of his having continued to 
practice law and make court appearances while suspended from the 
practice of law for failure to pay State Bar dues and his failure 
to respond to numerous requests from the disciplinary authorities 
in the course of their investigation of his conduct.  We determine 
that the recommended license suspension is appropriate discipline 
 
No. 95-0933-D 
 
 
 
2 
to impose for Attorney Winter's misconduct established in this 
proceeding.   
 
Attorney Winter was licensed to practice law in Wisconsin in 
1989 and practices in Shawano.  He has not previously been the 
subject of an attorney disciplinary proceeding.  He has been 
suspended from practice since June 7, 1994 for failure to comply 
with continuing legal education requirements.   
 
Soon after this proceeding was commenced, the referee, 
Attorney John Schweitzer, unsuccessfully attempted to contact 
Attorney Winter to conduct a scheduled telephone conference.  
Attorney Winter did not return the referee's call and did not 
appear for his scheduled deposition by the Board of Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility (Board).  Consequently, the referee 
granted the Board's motion to strike Attorney Winter's answer to 
its complaint and found him in default.  Thereafter, Attorney 
Winter did not respond to the referee's order that he show cause 
why the Board's proposed findings, conclusions and disciplinary 
recommendation should not be adopted as the referee's report.   
 
The referee made the following findings of fact.  Attorney 
Winter was suspended from the practice of law, effective November 
2, 1992, for failure to pay State Bar dues and the assessments for 
the court's attorney boards.  On August 26, 1993, while still 
suspended from practice, Attorney Winter appeared in circuit court 
for Portage county as attorney for the respondent in a divorce 
proceeding.  Attorney Winter made full payment of dues and 
 
No. 95-0933-D 
 
 
 
3 
assessments by September 17, 1993 and was reinstated to practice. 
  
In a September 29, 1993 letter to the Board during its 
investigation, Attorney Winter said he had engaged in the practice 
of law since November, 1992 on various occasions and in numerous 
counties.  He asserted that he was unaware he had been suspended 
from practice until a complaint was made to the court in the 
divorce proceeding.  Attorney Winter claimed that mail addressed 
to him at his post office apparently had been delivered to a 
relative with a similar name.  However, certified receipts showed 
that the notice the State Bar mailed to him October 1, 1992 
regarding his impending suspension and its subsequent notice of 
the actual suspension were delivered directly to his law office 
and signed for by his wife and sister.   
 
Continuing its investigation into his misconduct, the Board 
wrote to 
Attorney 
Winter 
requesting 
additional 
information 
concerning the manner in which his professional correspondence was 
handled during the fall of 1992.  Attorney Winter did not respond 
to that request nor to the Board's second inquiry, made by 
certified letter for which he personally signed.  He also did not 
respond to a subsequent inquiry from the Board.   
 
After the Board referred the matter to the district 
professional responsibility committee for further investigation, 
the committee's investigator made numerous unsuccessful attempts 
to contact Attorney Winter by letter and telephone.  Ultimately, 
the investigator had Attorney Winter personally served with a 
 
No. 95-0933-D 
 
 
 
4 
notice of hearing and subpoena.  At that hearing, Attorney Winter 
continued to contend that he had never received notice of his 
suspension from practice and asserted that his mother and sister 
occasionally would sign for certified mail delivered to his law 
office but insisted that neither gave him the notices concerning 
his suspension.   
 
The referee concluded that by engaging in the practice of law 
on various occasions while suspended from practice for nonpayment 
of dues, Attorney Winter engaged in the practice of law in 
violation of SCR 20:5.5(a).1  By failing to respond to the Board 
and to the district committee in their investigation, Attorney 
Winter violated SCR 22.07(3).2  As discipline for that misconduct, 
the referee recommended that the court suspend Attorney Winter's 
license to practice law for 90 days.   
 
We adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of 
law.  We impose the recommended license suspension as discipline 
                     
     1  SCR 20:5.5 provides:  Unauthorized practice of law 
 
A lawyer shall not:   
 
. . . 
 
(a)  practice law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates 
the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction; 
     2  SCR 22.07 provides, in pertinent part:  Investigation. 
 
. . . 
 
(3)  The administrator or committee may compel the respondent 
to answer questions, furnish documents and present any information 
deemed relevant to the investigation.  Failure of the respondent 
to answer questions, furnish documents or present relevant 
information is misconduct.  The administrator or a committee may 
compel any other person to produce pertinent books, papers and 
documents under SCR 22.22.   
 
No. 95-0933-D 
 
 
 
5 
for Attorney Winter's professional misconduct.  By his conduct in 
the course of this proceeding, Attorney Winter has established his  
 
No. 95-0933-D 
 
 
 
6 
unwillingness to comply with the court's rules regulating 
attorneys and requiring them to cooperate with the disciplinary 
authorities.   IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Richard 
Lee Winter to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period 
of 90 days, commencing December 4, 1995.    
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this 
order Richard Lee 
Winter 
pay to the 
Board 
of Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility the costs of this proceeding, provided 
that 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 Richard Lee Winter to practice 
law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the 
court.   
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Richard Lee Winter comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.   
 
ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J., did not participate.   
  
 
No. 95-0933-D 
 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
                                                              
 
Case No.: 
 
95-0933-D 
                                                              
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary 
 
 
 
Proceedings Against 
 
 
 
Richard Lee Winter, 
 
 
 
Attorney at Law. 
 
 
 
________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST WINTER 
 
                                                              
 
Opinion Filed:  
November 1, 1995 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
                                                              
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
                                                              
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating: 
BRADLEY, J., did not participate 
                                                              
 
ATTORNEYS: