Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Robert W. Horsch

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2020 WI 10 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2019AP1775-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Robert W. Horsch, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Robert W. Horsch, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HORSCH 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 7, 2020   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2020 WI 10
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2019AP1775-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Robert W. Horsch, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Robert W. Horsch, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
FEB 7, 2020 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a stipulation filed pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.121 by the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.12 provides: 
(1) The director may file with the complaint a 
stipulation of the director and the respondent to the 
facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and 
discipline to be imposed.  The supreme court may consider 
the complaint and stipulation without the appointment of 
a referee, in which case the supreme court may approve 
the stipulation, reject the stipulation, or direct the 
parties to consider specific modifications to the 
stipulation. 
No. 
2019AP1775-D   
 
2 
 
(OLR) and Attorney Robert W. Horsch.  In the stipulation, Attorney 
Horsch admits that he violated SCR 20:8.4(b)2 and agrees that a 
three-year suspension of his law license is appropriate.   
¶2 
After careful review of the matter, we accept the 
stipulation.  Because Attorney Horsch entered into a comprehensive 
stipulation prior to the appointment of a referee, we do not 
require him to pay the costs of this proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney Horsch was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2003.  His law license has been suspended since June 
2, 2014 for failure to comply with continuing legal education 
                                                 
(2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation, it 
shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law 
and impose the stipulated discipline.  
(3) If the supreme court rejects a stipulation, a 
referee shall be appointed and the matter shall proceed 
as a complaint filed without a stipulation.  
(3m) If the supreme court directs the parties to 
consider specific modifications to the stipulation, the 
parties may, within 20 days of the date of the order, 
file a revised stipulation, in which case the supreme 
court may approve the revised stipulation, adopt the 
stipulated facts and conclusions of law, and impose the 
stipulated discipline.  If the parties do not file a 
revised stipulation within 20 days of the date of the 
order, a referee shall be appointed and the matter shall 
proceed as a complaint filed without a stipulation.  
(4) A stipulation rejected by the supreme court has 
no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to the 
respondent's 
defense 
of 
the 
proceeding 
or 
the 
prosecution of the complaint.  
2 SCR 20:8.4(b) provides:  "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. 
2019AP1775-D   
 
3 
 
requirements, since October 31, 2014 for failure to pay State Bar 
of Wisconsin dues and certify trust account information, and since 
December 21, 2017 for professional misconduct.  
¶4 
Attorney Horsch's disciplinary history consists of two 
prior matters:  (1) a 2015 private reprimand with consent, for 
engaging in conduct leading to a criminal conviction in violation 
of SCR 20:8.4(b); and practicing law while his license was 
suspended in violation of SCR 22.26(2), enforceable via SCR 
20:8.4(f).  Private Reprimand 2015-5 (electronic copy available at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/002761.html); and (2) a 
60-day suspension of his license to practice law in Wisconsin 
imposed in 2017 for engaging in conduct leading to a criminal 
conviction in violation of SCR 20:8.4(b); failing to report the 
conviction to the court and the OLR in violation of SCR 21.15(5), 
enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f); and failing to respond to the OLR's 
investigative 
letters 
in 
violation 
of 
SCR 22.03(2) 
and 
SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h).  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Horsch, 2017 WI 105, 378 Wis. 2d 554, 905 
N.W.2d 129. 
¶5 
The actions giving rise to this misconduct proceeding 
occurred on May 1, 2018.  Attorney Horsch was driving with five of 
his children as passengers.  He did not secure his two youngest 
children into their car seats.  The two children, 22 months and 
three years old, fell out of the rear doors of the moving van and 
were injured, one seriously.  Attorney Horsch continued to drive, 
unaware the children had fallen from the van.  Other motorists 
witnessed the incident and rescued the two children from the 
No. 
2019AP1775-D   
 
4 
 
roadway.  The children were transported to a hospital, treated, 
and identified.  Police then went to Attorney Horsch's residence 
to speak with him.   
¶6 
The responding officer suspected that Attorney Horsch 
was under the influence of a non-alcoholic intoxicant.  Attorney 
Horsch refused to perform field sobriety tests but submitted to a 
breathalyzer test.  A warrant was obtained, a blood test performed, 
and 
the 
results 
showed 
an 
exceedingly 
high 
level 
of 
dextromethorphan, a controlled substance commonly found in cough 
medicine. 
¶7 
On September 10, 2018, Attorney Horsch was charged with 
eight felonies, including neglecting a child resulting in great 
bodily harm, neglecting a child resulting in harm, knowingly 
operating a motor vehicle while revoked resulting in great bodily 
harm and five counts of operating while intoxicated (OWI) for a 
5th or 6th offense with a passenger under the age of 16.  State v. 
Horsch, Sheboygan County Circuit Court, No. 2018CF289. 
¶8 
On February 5, 2019, he pled guilty to and was convicted 
of one felony count of neglect of a child resulting in great bodily 
harm, and one felony count of operating a motor vehicle while 
intoxicated (5th or 6th offense) with a passenger under the age of 
16.  Two charges (child neglect causing bodily harm and operating 
while revoked) were dismissed but read in.  The four remaining 
charges were dismissed.  Attorney Horsch was sentenced to three 
years and six months prison, and five years of extended 
supervision.   
No. 
2019AP1775-D   
 
5 
 
¶9 
On September 19, 2019, the OLR filed a disciplinary 
complaint alleging that by engaging in the conduct leading to the 
two felony convictions, Attorney Horsch violated SCR 20:8.4(b).  
Supreme Court Rule 20:8.4(b) provides that 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." 
¶10 Attorney Horsch stipulated to the factual allegations in 
the OLR's complaint, to the alleged misconduct, and to a three-
year suspension of his law license.  The stipulation states that 
it did not result from plea-bargaining.  In the stipulation 
Attorney Horsch states that he fully understands the misconduct 
allegations; that he fully understands the ramifications should 
the court impose the stipulated level of discipline; that he fully 
understands his right to contest this matter; that he fully 
understands his right to consult with counsel; that his entry into 
this stipulation is made knowingly and voluntarily; that he has 
read the complaint and the stipulation; and that his entry into 
the stipulation represents his decision not to contest the 
misconduct alleged in the complaint or the level and type of 
discipline sought by the OLR's Director.  Attorney Horsch notes 
that he is incarcerated and is indigent and asks the court to waive 
the costs of this proceeding. 
¶11 We consider this stipulation without the appointment of 
a referee.  SCR 22.12.  We first consider whether the felony 
conviction constitutes a violation of SCR 20:8.4(b).  The question 
is whether the criminal act committed by Attorney Horsch reflects 
No. 
2019AP1775-D   
 
6 
 
adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or his "fitness as a 
lawyer in other respects."  This is a fact dependent inquiry.  
Indeed, in one instance we determined that a lawyer's felony 
conviction for a deadly one-vehicle drunk driving accident did not 
violate SCR 20:8.4(b).  In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against 
Johns, 2014 WI 32, 353 Wis. 2d 746, 847 N.W.2d 179 (holding that 
lawyer's conduct did not violate SCR 20:8.4(b) in light of the 
record evidence indicating the exceedingly anomalous nature of the 
tragic incident with respect to Attorney Johns' overall conduct).   
¶12 By contrast, this was not Attorney Horsch's first 
criminal or disciplinary offense.  A pattern of convictions 
"evinces a serious lack of respect for the law and as such 
relate[s] to [a lawyer's] 'fitness as a lawyer in other respects.'"  
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Brandt, 2009 WI 43, ¶42, 
317 Wis. 2d 266, 766 N.W.2d 194 (discussing a lawyer's multiple 
OWI convictions).  We agree that Attorney Horsch's commission of 
the criminal act in this instance violated SCR 20:8.4(b).   
¶13 The next question is the appropriate sanction for the 
admitted misconduct.  In support of the three-year suspension to 
which the parties stipulated, the OLR emphasizes that Attorney 
Horsch's misconduct was intentional, and that he has been convicted 
four times previously for operating a vehicle while intoxicated.  
The OLR cites several disciplinary cases in support of the three-
year suspension, including In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Evenson, 2015 WI 38, 361 Wis. 2d 629, 861 N.W.2d 786 (imposing 30-
month license suspension based on conviction for one felony count 
of delivery of a controlled substance and two misdemeanor 
No. 
2019AP1775-D   
 
7 
 
convictions for fourth-degree sexual assault, where the lawyer had 
one prior public reprimand); In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Moore, 2013 WI 96, 351 Wis. 2d 332, 839 N.W.2d 605 
(imposing three-year license suspension for mishandling of a 
guardianship matter, and lawyer's conviction of misdemeanor 
possession of a controlled substance (THC) and drug paraphernalia 
where the lawyer had no prior disciplinary history); In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Woodmansee, 147 Wis. 2d 837, 434 
N.W.2d 94 (1989) (imposing three-year license suspension for 
conviction for fourth-degree sexual assault of a client where 
lawyer had no prior disciplinary history); and In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Stokes, 2012 WI 105, 343 Wis. 2d 561, 818 
N.W.2d 924 (revoking law license for conviction of one count of 
felony theft for overbilling the State Public Defender's office of 
over $19,000 in fees where lawyer had two prior reprimands). 
¶14 We have some concerns that the three-year suspension to 
which the parties stipulated is overly long, even considering that 
the discipline imposed in lawyer misconduct cases is generally 
progressive.  See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Nussberger, 2006 WI 111, ¶27, 296 Wis. 2d 47, 719 N.W.2d 501.  
While the cases cited by the OLR bear some resemblance to this 
case, each also involves some conduct that is quite distinct from 
what occurred here.  This is not a case in which the attorney 
abused his professional status as a lawyer in committing a criminal 
act.  Attorney Horsch violated no practice norms, harmed no 
clients, and did not benefit from his misconduct.  He has been 
arrested, convicted, sentenced, and is incarcerated for his 
No. 
2019AP1775-D   
 
8 
 
actions.  The OLR does not cite to the Johns case, which has some 
parallels: both involved a lawyer driving under the influence, 
with family in the vehicle, and with a tragic result.  No 
suspension was imposed in that case.  Johns, 353 Wis. 2d 746.  We 
also find instructive In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Brandt, 2012 WI 8, 338 Wis. 2d 524, 808 N.W.2d 687, where we 
imposed a four-month suspension on Attorney Brandt, consistent 
with the parties' stipulation, after he received a felony 
conviction in Minnesota of first-degree driving while intoxicated 
within ten years of the first of three or more qualified prior 
impaired driving incidents.  
¶15 However, we recognize that the three-year suspension to 
which the parties stipulated correlates roughly with the prison 
sentence imposed on Attorney Horsch.  A lengthy suspension is 
appropriate to ensure that Attorney Horsch is precluded from 
practicing law while incarcerated for a criminal conviction.  See, 
e.g., In re Paine, 625 S.E.2d 768 (Ga. 2006) (suspending attorney 
from the practice of law until his probation on a felony conviction 
is terminated).  So, despite our concern that a three-year 
suspension is excessive given the nature of the admitted 
misconduct, we accept the parties' stipulation.    
¶16 Considering all of the above, we accept the stipulation, 
adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law, and we suspend 
Attorney Horsch's law license for a period of three years.  Because 
this matter has been resolved by stipulation without the 
appointment of a referee and the OLR has not sought the imposition 
of any costs, we impose no costs. Therefore,  
No. 
2019AP1775-D   
 
9 
 
¶17 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Robert W. Horsch to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of three years, 
effective the date of this order.  
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if he has not already done 
so, Robert W. Horsch shall comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 
regarding the duties of a person whose license to practice law in 
Wisconsin has been suspended. 
 
 
No. 
2019AP1775-D   
 
 
 
1