Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation, v. Diane R. Caspari

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2016 WI 72 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2016AP617-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Diane R. Caspari, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Diane R. Caspari, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CASPARI 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 19, 2016 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2016 WI 72
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2016AP617-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of the Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Diane R. Caspari, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Diane R. Caspari, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 19, 2016 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a stipulation pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12 between the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Diane R. Caspari.  The stipulation 
provides 
that 
Attorney 
Caspari 
committed 
six 
counts 
of 
professional 
misconduct 
arising 
out 
of 
four 
client 
representations and requests that the court impose a sixty-day 
suspension of Attorney Caspari's license to practice law in this 
state. 
No. 
2016AP617-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
After carefully reviewing this matter, we accept the 
stipulation and impose the requested discipline.  Pursuant to 
the stipulation and because Attorney Caspari has already 
reimbursed the Office of the State Public Defender (SPD) for 
fees she did not earn, we do not order any restitution.  Because 
this matter has been resolved by a stipulation under SCR 22.12 
without the need for the appointment of a referee, we also do 
not impose any costs on Attorney Caspari. 
¶3 
Attorney Caspari was admitted to the practice of law 
in Wisconsin in January 2004.  She maintains a private law 
practice in Milwaukee.   
¶4 
Attorney Caspari has been the subject of professional 
discipline on one prior occasion.  In 2015 she was privately 
reprimanded for her misconduct in two client representations.  
In the first matter, Attorney Caspari failed to file a petition 
for a writ of certiorari on behalf of an incarcerated client 
within the statutory time period, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.  
She also failed to respond to that client's multiple inquiries 
about the status of the matter, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) 
and (a)(4).  Further, she charged that client legal fees for 
preparing the certiorari petition even though she never filed 
it, and she failed to refund those fees upon termination of the 
representation, in violation of SCRs 20:1.5(a) and 20:1.16(d).  
In the second matter, Attorney Caspari again violated SCR 
20:1.4(a)(3) and (a)(4) by failing to respond to the client's 
requests for information about the status of his matter. 
No. 
2016AP617-D   
 
3 
 
¶5 
In the stipulation in the present case, Attorney 
Caspari states that she fully understands the allegations 
against her and her right to contest those allegations.  She 
represents that she also understands her right to consult with 
counsel and the ramifications of the imposition of the requested 
level of discipline.  Finally she affirms that her entry into 
the stipulation is knowing and voluntary and that it was not the 
product of negotiation for any reduction in charges or requested 
level of discipline.  Attorney Caspari admits all of the 
allegations of misconduct and assents to the level of discipline 
requested by the OLR. 
¶6 
The first matter addressed in the stipulation is 
Attorney Caspari's representation of M.W.  The SPD appointed 
Attorney 
Caspari 
in 
July 
2012 
to 
represent 
M.W. 
in 
postconviction proceedings.  Over the next nearly three years, 
Attorney Caspari failed to advance M.W.'s case through the 
postconviction proceedings into an appeal of his conviction.  
She filed multiple motions seeking extensions of time, but then 
often failed to meet the new deadline.  She did not file a 
postconviction motion for over a year.  Even after she filed the 
motion, she did not schedule a hearing date with the circuit 
court for another five months.  In that intervening time period, 
she failed to provide a status report to the court of appeals as 
she was ordered to do.  After the circuit court conducted the 
hearing and denied M.W.'s postconviction motion, Attorney 
No. 
2016AP617-D   
 
4 
 
Caspari failed to ensure that a written order was submitted to 
the circuit court for approximately nine months.1   
¶7 
Once the order was finally submitted, the court of 
appeals extended the deadline for filing a notice of appeal.  
Attorney Caspari, however, failed to file a notice of appeal or 
a further extension motion by the new deadline, causing M.W.'s 
appeal rights to lapse.  When the SPD communicated with her 
about this matter, she stated that she had developed a new 
theory of the defense for appeal and that she was now planning 
to file a second postconviction motion and to request a further 
extension of the deadline for filing an appeal so she could 
pursue the second postconviction motion.  She still failed, 
however, to file any second postconviction motion or to seek a 
further extension of time from the court of appeals. 
¶8 
In May 2015 the court of appeals issued an order 
stating that it could "discern no reason for inaction in this 
matter" and referred the case to the SPD for a response as to 
whether Attorney Caspari should remain counsel for M.W.  The SPD 
filed a response that acknowledged that some of the delay in 
M.W.'s case had been the result of late transcripts and of 
                                                 
1 The circuit court did initially direct the counsel for the 
state to prepare and submit a proposed order.  Attorney Caspari, 
however, never followed up when that attorney did not file a 
proposed order, which delayed the filing of a notice of appeal 
on M.W.'s behalf.  Ultimately, the court of appeals had to issue 
an order to Attorney Caspari either to request the prosecutor to 
prepare the order or to submit a proposed order herself.  Only 
after this order from the court of appeals did Attorney Caspari 
submit a proposed order to the circuit court. 
No. 
2016AP617-D   
 
5 
 
needed investigation, but also concluded that Attorney Caspari 
had not acted with diligence or competence and had not 
communicated properly with M.W.  The SPD further stated that it 
would appoint new counsel for M.W.  Attorney Caspari also filed 
a response admitting that her conduct had "unreasonably and 
improperly held up [M.W.'s] appeal."  As a result of the 
responses, the court of appeals discharged Attorney Caspari from 
her representation of M.W. and directed the SPD to appoint new 
counsel. 
¶9 
Attorney Caspari stipulates that her conduct in 
failing to pursue postconviction or appellate relief for M.W. in 
a timely manner constitutes a violation of SCR 20:1.3.2 
¶10 The second matter stems from Attorney 
Caspari's 
appointment to represent M.W.3 in a criminal case pending against 
him in the circuit court.  After M.W. was found guilty and 
sentenced, the SPD appointed Attorney Diane Erickson in May 2014 
to represent M.W. in postconviction proceedings and on appeal.  
Attorney Erickson made several requests to Attorney Caspari for 
her complete file on M.W.'s case.  Eventually, Attorney Caspari 
produced only some of the materials requested by Attorney 
Erickson.  Various materials that should have been in the file 
were missing, including various items of discovery.  Attorney 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.3 provides:  "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
3 This is a different M.W. than the individual who was the 
subject of the postconviction motion described in the previous 
matter. 
No. 
2016AP617-D   
 
6 
 
Erickson was forced to obtain some of these items from the 
investigator who had worked on M.W.'s case and to reconstruct 
other parts of the discovery and case file from the files of the 
police department and the district attorney's office.  The 
failure of Attorney Caspari to provide a complete file and the 
time and effort required to reconstruct the file resulted in 
substantial delays to M.W.'s postconviction proceedings and 
appeal.   
¶11 As a result of M.W.'s allegations and the OLR's review 
of M.W.'s criminal case file during its investigation, it became 
evident that Attorney Caspari had billed the SPD and had 
received payment for several jail visits to M.W. that did not 
occur.  Attorney Caspari failed to correct her invoices to the 
SPD and did not refund the payments for those entries for years 
until February 2016, just prior to the filing of the OLR's 
complaint in this disciplinary proceeding.  In addition, 
Attorney Caspari billed the SPD for a visit to M.W.'s mother and 
brother.  Attorney Caspari acknowledged, however, that she 
merely went to the mother's house, knocked on the door a couple 
of times without receiving a response, waited for a while, then 
placed her business card in the door, and left. 
¶12 In the stipulation, Attorney Caspari agrees that her 
failure to deliver her case file for M.W. to successor counsel 
constituted a violation of SCR 20:1.16(d).4  She also agrees that 
                                                 
4 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides:   
(continued) 
No. 
2016AP617-D   
 
7 
 
her submission of invoices containing charges for tasks that she 
did not actually perform and her failure to correct her invoices 
or refund those fees for years constituted a violation of SCR 
20:8.4(c).5 
¶13 Count 4 of the stipulation relates to Attorney 
Caspari's appointment in 2014 to represent I.W. in a criminal 
case in the Racine County circuit court.  On the day that I.W.'s 
trial was to start, the circuit court judge asked Attorney 
Caspari and the prosecutor whether there had been a negotiated 
resolution to the charges against I.W.  Attorney Caspari 
responded that there was no negotiated resolution and asked for 
an adjournment of the trial "due to the fact that we have a 
material witness, an important witness for our case, unknown to 
me left the state on Friday."  The judge asked Attorney Caspari 
whether the witness had been under subpoena, and Attorney 
Caspari responded, "Yes."  The witness referenced by Attorney 
Caspari was I.W.'s mother, who had not been subpoenaed.  
                                                                                                                                                             
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall 
take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to 
protect 
a 
client's 
interests, 
such 
as 
giving 
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for 
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and 
property to which the client is entitled and refunding 
any advance payment of fee or expense that has not 
been earned or incurred.  The lawyer may retain papers 
relating to the client to the extent permitted by 
other law. 
5 20:8.4(c) provides: "It is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to: . . . . engage in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." 
No. 
2016AP617-D   
 
8 
 
Moreover, as evidenced by a subsequent email she sent to an SPD 
director, Attorney Caspari had known prior to the trial date 
that I.W.'s mother had intended to leave the state.  Thus, her 
statements to the circuit court had been false.   
¶14 In Count 4 of the stipulation, Attorney Caspari admits 
that her false statements to the circuit court, which she failed 
to correct, violated SCR 20:3.3(a)(1).6 
¶15 The final matter addressed in the stipulation is 
Attorney Caspari's representation of A.H. in postconviction 
proceedings.  Attorney Caspari was appointed to serve as A.H.'s 
postconviction 
counsel 
in 
January 
2013. 
 
When 
an 
SPD 
representative subsequently spoke with Attorney Caspari about 
the status of A.H.'s case, she confirmed that she had received 
the final transcript in the case on April 13, 2013, which 
established a deadline of June 11, 2013, for Attorney Caspari to 
file either a postconviction motion or a notice of appeal on 
A.H.'s behalf.  Attorney Caspari, however, failed to file either 
a postconviction motion or a notice of appeal.  She also did not 
file a motion for an extension of the deadline, thereby allowing 
A.H.'s appeal rights to lapse.  Attorney Caspari did not inform 
A.H. that she had failed to meet the deadline.  Ultimately, the 
SPD appointed another attorney as successor counsel for A.H. and 
successfully moved the court of appeals to extend the deadline 
                                                 
6 SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) provides:  "A lawyer shall not knowingly: 
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail 
to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously 
made to the tribunal by the lawyer. . . ." 
No. 
2016AP617-D   
 
9 
 
for A.H. to file a postconviction motion, thereby reinstating 
his appeal rights. 
¶16 Attorney Caspari stipulates that her failure to pursue 
postconviction or appellate relief on A.H.'s behalf in a timely 
manner constituted a lack of diligence, in violation of SCR 
20:1.3.  She also stipulates that her failure to inform A.H. 
that she had allowed his postconviction and appellate rights to 
lapse constituted a violation of SCR 20:1.4(a)(3).7 
¶17 The stipulation requests that the court suspend 
Attorney Caspari's license to practice law in Wisconsin for a 
period of 60 days, which is the level of discipline initially 
sought by the OLR.  In its memorandum in support of the 
stipulation, the OLR points to two prior decisions in which this 
court imposed 60-day suspensions for analogous conduct.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Callahan, 2016 WI 8, 366 Wis. 
2d 
503, 
874 
N.W.2d 
98 
(imposing 
60-day 
suspension 
for 
professional 
misconduct 
that 
included 
failing 
to 
perform 
necessary work, advancing a settlement offer not authorized by 
client, misrepresenting settlement authority, and failing to 
keep client informed of status of her matter);  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Fitzgerald, 2008 WI 101, 314 
Wis. 2d 7, 752 N.W.2d 879 (accepting stipulation for 60-day 
suspension for misconduct that included appearing in court on 
behalf of clients during license suspension, billing the SPD for 
                                                 
7 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides that a lawyer shall "keep the 
client reasonably informed about the status of the matter." 
No. 
2016AP617-D   
 
10 
 
court appearances during license suspension, misleading a county 
clerk about the status of her license, and failing to cooperate 
with the OLR's investigation).  The OLR further notes that there 
are 
both 
aggravating 
and 
mitigating 
factors 
here. 
 
The 
aggravating factors include the fact that Attorney Caspari has 
been privately reprimanded on a previous occasion, some evidence 
of a dishonest motive, multiple offenses, and two patterns of 
misconduct.  On the mitigating side of the ledger are the fact 
that the overcharge to the SPD was a small amount and was 
ultimately repaid, Attorney Caspari's cooperation with the OLR's 
investigation, and her prompt entry into a comprehensive 
stipulation that admits her misconduct and resolves this 
disciplinary proceeding.  Thus, the OLR believes that a 60-day 
suspension, consistent with Callahan and Fitzgerald, would be an 
appropriate level of discipline in this matter. 
¶18 After carefully reviewing this matter, we accept the 
stipulation and impose the requested 60-day suspension.  In 
light of the fact that Attorney Caspari has recently refunded 
the overcharges to the SPD, we do not impose any restitution 
obligation.  Finally, given the filing of a stipulation at the 
outset of this proceeding that avoided litigation costs and the 
need to appoint a referee, we do not impose any costs on 
Attorney Caspari. 
¶19 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Diane R. Caspari to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective August 8, 2016. 
No. 
2016AP617-D   
 
11 
 
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Diane R. Caspari shall 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
No. 
2016AP617-D   
 
 
 
1