Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Randy J. Netzer

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2014 WI 7 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2011AP2961-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Randy J. Netzer, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Randy J. Netzer, 
          Respondent-Appellant.   
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST NETZER  
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
January 29, 2014 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
October 22, 2013   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
ABRAHAMSON, C.J., BRADLEY, J., dissent. (Opinion 
filed.)   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the respondent-appellant, there were briefs and an oral 
argument by Randy J. Netzer, pro se. 
 
For the Office of Lawyer Regulation, there was a brief by 
Matthew F. Anich, Ashland, and an oral argument by Matthew F. 
Anich.  
 
 
 
2014 WI 7
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2011AP2961-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Randy J. Netzer, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Randy J. Netzer, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
JAN 29, 2014 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney Randy J. Netzer has appealed a 
referee's report finding that he violated SCRs 20:8.4(b) and 
21.15(5).  The referee recommends that Attorney Netzer's license 
to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for 90 days, that 
various conditions be imposed on his license to practice law, 
and that he pay the full costs of the proceeding, which are 
$9,222.21 as of November 5, 2013. 
No. 
2011AP2961-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
We conclude that the referee's findings of fact are 
supported by satisfactory and convincing evidence.  We further 
determine that a 90-day suspension of Attorney Netzer's license 
to practice law is an appropriate sanction for his misconduct, 
and we conclude that conditions should be imposed on Attorney 
Netzer's reinstatement and that he be required to pay the full 
costs of the proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney Netzer was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1984.  He says he has not practiced law to earn a 
living since 1987, although his state bar membership remains 
active. 
¶4 
In 2006, Attorney Netzer received a private reprimand 
for violating SCR 20:8.4(b) by committing acts resulting in his 
conviction for one count of misdemeanor stalking and one count 
of violating a harassment injunction. 
¶5 
In March 2010 Attorney Netzer was charged with one 
count of felony stalking—previous conviction, in violation of 
Wis. Stat. § 940.32(2m)(a), and two misdemeanor counts of 
violating a harassment injunction, in violation of Wis. Stat. 
§ 813.125(4) and (7).  The person allegedly involved in the 
incidents was Attorney Netzer's former girlfriend, K.M.1 
                                                 
1 The stipulation of facts and referee's report refer to 
Attorney Netzer's former girlfriend as "C.M."  However, we note 
the OLR's complaint, the underlying criminal complaint filed 
against Attorney Netzer, and other documents of record state the 
former girlfriend's name is "K.M."  Therefore, "K.M." is used to 
identify the former girlfriend throughout this opinion.  
No. 
2011AP2961-D   
 
3 
 
¶6 
On September 4, 2009, after an approximately 14-month 
relationship, K.M. sent Attorney Netzer an e-mail saying, "It is 
over."  K.M. told Attorney Netzer not to contact her in any way 
and not to send gifts, flowers, or attempt to talk to her in 
person. 
¶7 
On September 5, 2009, Attorney Netzer wrote K.M. an e-
mail saying he wanted to speak to her face-to-face one more 
time.  On September 11, 2009, Attorney Netzer sent K.M. a 
postcard from New York.  K.M. rejected Attorney Netzer's further 
attempts at contact. 
¶8 
On October 4, 2009, K.M. went to the City of La Crosse 
police department and filed a complaint in reference to Attorney 
Netzer possibly stalking her.  K.M. said she had advised her 
employer about her concerns regarding Attorney Netzer, and the 
employer set up surveillance cameras around her workplace.  K.M. 
told police she had made drastic lifestyle changes because of 
Attorney Netzer not complying with her demand that he stay away 
from her.  A City of La Crosse police officer telephoned 
Attorney Netzer, advised him about the complaint, and said if 
his 
conduct 
continued, 
stalking 
charges 
would 
be 
filed.  
Attorney Netzer acknowledged it was wrong to stalk someone and 
he promised not to stalk K.M. 
¶9 
On October 10, 2009, Onalaska police responded to a 
call about a suspicious dark blue Kia Sportage registered to 
Attorney Netzer parked on a road in proximity to K.M.'s 
condominium.  Police located Attorney Netzer running in the 
vicinity, and they arrested him. 
No. 
2011AP2961-D   
 
4 
 
¶10 On November 6, 2009, a harassment injunction was 
issued against Attorney Netzer.  The circuit court affirmed the 
injunction following a de novo hearing on November 19, 2009.  
The injunction was to remain in effect until November 6, 2013.  
Attorney Netzer was required to have no contact of any kind with 
K.M. 
¶11 On December 31, 2009, Attorney Netzer placed a 
"Happy/Sunshine" ad in the La Crosse Tribune, saying, "Dear 
Muffinz, Thanks for a great 2008.  Please forgive me for 2009.  
Happy New Year 2010.  Love Forever, Koala."  K.M. and Attorney 
Netzer had exchanged these nicknames during their relationship. 
¶12 On January 24, 2010, Attorney Netzer placed an ad in 
the La Crosse Tribune wishing K.M.'s mother a happy birthday.  
The ad was signed with the names of K.M.'s cats. 
¶13 On February 14, 2010, Attorney Netzer placed another 
"Happy/Sunshine" advertisement in the La Crosse Tribune telling 
K.M., "I may no longer be in your heart, but you will always be 
forever the only one in mine.  For you to be happy is all I ever 
have wanted and that is what I wish for you now.  HAPPY 
VALENTINES DAY.  Love, Randy and Kitties. . . ." 
¶14 Attorney Netzer placed each of the newspaper ads by 
calling a telephone number for the Coulee News.  He claimed he 
thought he was placing the ads in the Coulee News newspaper but 
the ads were published in the La Crosse Tribune by mistake.  He 
said he did not realize the mistake until after the ads had been 
published in the La Crosse newspaper. 
No. 
2011AP2961-D   
 
5 
 
¶15 On March 8, 2010, Attorney Netzer was arrested for 
violating the November 6, 2009 harassment injunction.  The 
following day he was criminally charged.  As a condition of a 
$3,000 cash bond, he was required to have no contact with K.M., 
her residence, or her workplace.  He was fitted with a Global 
Positioning System (GPS) to ensure he did not travel to any 
exclusion zones.  He was purportedly told he was excluded from 
the Valley View Mall.   
¶16 On April 2, 2010, the OLR sent Attorney Netzer a 
notice 
of 
formal 
investigation 
requesting 
a 
response 
to 
allegations that his conduct regarding K.M. that resulted in 
criminal charges may have violated the rules of professional 
conduct. 
¶17 A GPS report showed Attorney Netzer had entered the 
Valley View Mall exclusion zone on four occasions on April 19, 
2010.  When Attorney Netzer was arrested for having entered the 
Valley View Mall exclusion zone, he reported he did not know how 
extensive the exclusion zone was. 
¶18 On April 22, 2010, a second criminal complaint was 
filed against Attorney Netzer alleging one count of felony bail 
jumping, 
in 
violation 
of 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§§ 946.49(1)(b) 
and 
939.50(3)(h), for violating the terms of his release. 
¶19 Attorney Netzer responded to the OLR's notice of 
formal investigation on April 24, 2010, and indicated he was 
asserting 
his 
Fifth 
Amendment 
privilege 
against 
self-
incrimination.  Because the criminal cases were ongoing, the OLR 
placed its investigation on hold. 
No. 
2011AP2961-D   
 
6 
 
¶20 On April 20, 2011, Attorney Netzer pled guilty to two 
misdemeanor counts of violating a harassment injunction.  The 
convictions were based on the two newspaper advertisements taken 
out on December 31, 2009, and February 14, 2010, which violated 
the no-contact injunction issued on November 6, 2009.  The 
felony counts of stalking and the felony count of bail jumping 
in the companion case were dismissed but read-in for sentencing 
purposes.  The circuit court withheld sentence and placed 
Attorney Netzer on two years' probation, with 100 hours of 
community service, a psychological evaluation, and an order that 
he have no contact with K.M. 
¶21 On April 27, 2011, Attorney Netzer wrote to the OLR 
and indicated he had pled guilty to two misdemeanor counts of 
violating an injunction order and that the felony counts of 
stalking and bail jumping had been dismissed.  Attorney Netzer's 
letter notifying the OLR of his convictions was sent two days 
past the deadline established in the supreme court rules.  
Attorney Netzer also did not provide timely written notice to 
the clerk of this court regarding his convictions, although he 
did notify the clerk about two weeks late. 
¶22 The OLR reopened its investigative matter and sent 
Attorney Netzer a supplemental request for information about his 
conviction.  In his response, Attorney Netzer claimed he did not 
intend to violate the harassment injunction.  He admitted he 
sent the "Happy/Sunshine" ads to K.M., and he acknowledged he 
did not send timely notice of his convictions to the OLR and the 
clerk of this court.  He also said his convictions were on 
No. 
2011AP2961-D   
 
7 
 
appeal.  He claimed he never agreed to have the stalking and 
felony bail jumping charges read-in at sentencing. 
¶23 On July 18, 2011, Attorney Netzer filed a motion to 
modify his sentence or, in the alternative, withdraw his plea.  
Attorney Netzer claimed that while he knew the felony charges of 
stalking and bail jumping were dismissed, he did not know they 
were being read-in and considered by the court at the sentencing 
hearing.  By order dated February 12, 2012, the circuit court 
dismissed the felony stalking and bail jumping charges without 
prejudice. 
¶24 The OLR filed a complaint against Attorney Netzer on 
December 27, 2011, alleging two counts of misconduct: 
 
[COUNT ONE] By engaging in the conduct leading to 
and by pleading guilty to two misdemeanor counts of 
violating a harassment injunction . . . and also with 
the felony charges of stalking . . . and felony bail 
jumping . . . being 
read-in 
whereby 
they 
were 
dismissed but were considered by the Court for 
purposes of sentencing, Netzer violated SCR 20:8.4(b).2  
 
[COUNT TWO] By failing to notify the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation and the Clerk of the Supreme Court 
in writing within five (5) days after being found 
guilty 
or 
convicted 
of 
crimes, 
Netzer 
violated 
SCR 21.15(5),3 actionable via SCR 20:8.4(f).4 
                                                 
2 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; . . . ." 
3 SCR 21.15(5) provides: 
 
An attorney found guilty or convicted of any 
crime on or after July 1, 2002, shall notify in 
writing the office of lawyer regulation and the clerk 
of the [s]upreme [c]ourt within 5 days after the 
No. 
2011AP2961-D   
 
8 
 
¶25 Allan Beatty was appointed referee.  In August 2012 
the OLR and Attorney Netzer entered into a stipulation of facts.  
The parties agreed that the referee, without hearing or notice, 
could adopt various paragraphs in the stipulation as his 
findings of fact and conclusions of law.  The parties filed 
briefs with the referee regarding the appropriate sanction. 
¶26 The referee issued his report and recommendation on 
November 1, 2012.  The referee adopted verbatim the content in 
the factual paragraphs of the parties' stipulation.  The referee 
concluded that the allegations in the OLR's complaint had been 
proven by the requisite burden of proof.  Specifically, the 
referee found that Attorney Netzer violated SCRs 20:8.4(b) and 
21.15(5). 
¶27 The referee recommended that Attorney Netzer's license 
be suspended for 90 days and that he pay the full costs of the 
proceeding 
within 
one 
year. 
 
In 
addition, 
the 
referee 
recommended that the following conditions be placed on Attorney 
Netzer's license to practice law: 
                                                                                                                                                             
finding or conviction, whichever first occurs. The 
notice shall include the identity of the attorney, the 
date of finding or conviction, the offenses, and the 
jurisdiction.  An attorney’s failure to notify the 
office of lawyer regulation and clerk of the supreme 
court of being found guilty or his or her conviction 
is misconduct. 
4 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme 
court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers; . . . ." 
No. 
2011AP2961-D   
 
9 
 
 
1. 
Cooperate 
with 
an 
OLR 
SCR 
21.03(9)(b) 
referral to the State of Wisconsin Lawyer Assistance 
Program (WisLAP); 
 
2. 
Undergo a psychological evaluation by a 
professional selected by the WisLAP Coordinator; 
 
3. 
Sign reciprocal releases of confidentiality 
complying 
with 
the 
federal 
Health 
Insurance 
Portability and Accountability Act and all other 
applicable federal and state laws for each treatment 
provider who is providing or has provided mental 
health related treatment or services during and since 
2009, so that such treatment providers may share 
pertinent information with the WisLAP Coordinator.  In 
addition, the releases shall also authorize disclosure 
to 
the 
professional 
selected 
to 
conduct 
the 
psychological evaluation and to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation; 
 
4. 
Comply with all treatment recommendations in 
the report of the psychological evaluation ordered 
above; 
 
5. 
Submit to monitoring by a person selected by 
the 
WisLAP 
Coordinator; 
to 
cooperate 
with 
the 
monitoring 
conditions 
and 
reporting 
requirements 
determined 
to 
be 
appropriate 
by 
the 
WisLAP 
Coordinator; and to comply with all obligations under 
the WisLAP Monitoring Program Policies; all for a 
period not to exceed five years from the date of the 
Court's order of discipline; 
 
6. 
Pay the costs associated with his compliance 
with these conditions.  Neither OLR nor WisLAP will be 
responsible for any such costs. 
¶28 The referee said he has serious concerns about 
Attorney Netzer's fitness to practice law and that the nature of 
the offenses for which he was convicted, arising out of his 
relationships with two separate women, raise questions about his 
mental health.  The referee noted that when Attorney Netzer 
entered his pleas to the two misdemeanor counts of violating a 
No. 
2011AP2961-D   
 
10 
 
harassment injunction, he participated in a thorough plea 
colloquy which covered the two read-in offenses for stalking and 
bail 
jumping. 
 
The 
referee 
noted 
that 
Attorney 
Netzer 
subsequently was successful in getting both read-in counts 
dismissed so no admission to the facts forming the bases for 
those counts may be considered by a court.  The referee said 
that as an attorney, Attorney Netzer should have had the 
knowledge necessary to understand what a read-in was at his plea 
and sentencing hearing. 
¶29 The referee noted that in his sanctions brief Attorney 
Netzer said that he wants to take full responsibility for his 
actions, but there appears to be a pattern to the contrary given 
that Attorney Netzer is now trying to distance himself from the 
stipulation of facts that he signed.  The referee said: 
As 
his 
submissions 
in 
this 
disciplinary 
matter 
demonstrate, Attorney Netzer has gone to great length 
to minimize his criminal convictions and his Supreme 
Court 
Rule 
violations. 
 
There 
is 
a 
delusional 
dimension 
to 
Attorney 
Netzer's 
explanations 
and 
statements in this matter that underscore the need for 
a psychological evaluation and subsequent progress in 
treatment 
before 
Attorney 
Netzer 
will 
have 
the 
psychological fitness to practice law. 
¶30 Attorney 
Netzer 
appealed, 
raising 
the 
following 
issues: 
 
1. 
Was it premature for the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR) to prosecute this case before the 
case was resolved at the trial court level? 
 
2. 
Was the stipulation of facts drafted by OLR 
in this case appropriate? 
No. 
2011AP2961-D   
 
11 
 
 
3. 
Was the Report and Recommendation of Referee 
in this case faulty or defective? 
 
4. 
If the stipulation of facts filed in this 
case is deemed acceptable and if the Report and 
Recommendation of Referee is not deemed faulty or 
defective, 
is 
the 
recommended 
sanction 
disproportionate or excessive? 
¶31 Attorney Netzer asserts it was premature for the OLR 
to prosecute this case before his criminal case was fully 
resolved at the trial court level, which he says did not occur 
until February 2012 when the circuit court dismissed without 
prejudice the stalking and bail jumping offenses. 
¶32 Attorney Netzer also argues that the stipulation of 
facts, which he says was drafted by the OLR, was not 
"appropriate."  He acknowledges that at least some of the 
paragraphs in the stipulation of facts do "have an element of 
truth," but he says the paragraphs "fail to tell the rest of the 
story." 
¶33 Attorney Netzer argues that the referee's report and 
recommendation was "faulty or defective."  He complains about 
the representation provided by the attorney he hired to 
represent him in his criminal case.   
¶34 Attorney Netzer says if the stipulation of facts filed 
in this case is deemed acceptable and if the referee's report 
and recommendation is not deemed faulty or defective, the 
recommended 
90-day 
sanction 
is 
still 
disproportionate 
or 
excessive.  Attorney Netzer says he is remorseful for his 
actions and wishes they could be undone.  He says he has been 
No. 
2011AP2961-D   
 
12 
 
undergoing counseling and feels that is a satisfactory way to 
deal with the issues underlying this case. 
¶35 Attorney Netzer also requests that the court either 
waive the costs of this action or at least reduce them. 
¶36 The OLR argues it did not prematurely file its 
complaint given that the complaint was filed approximately eight 
months after Attorney Netzer had informed the OLR about his 
criminal convictions.  The OLR says Attorney Netzer cites no 
authority for the proposition that the OLR is prohibited from 
commencing a disciplinary proceeding against an attorney when a 
criminal case has not been fully resolved, and it says 
prohibiting it from proceeding with a disciplinary case as 
Attorney Netzer suggests would be contrary to the public 
interest and the good of the profession. 
¶37 The OLR goes on to say an attorney does not have to be 
convicted of a crime before being found to have violated a 
supreme court rule.  The OLR also says that having failed to 
make a motion or objection to the referee as to the date the 
disciplinary proceeding was commenced, Attorney Netzer should be 
found to have forfeited or waived his right to raise that issue 
on appeal.   
¶38 The OLR argues that the language in the stipulation of 
facts is binding on Attorney Netzer.  The OLR says as an 
experienced attorney, Attorney Netzer knew he was not required 
to enter into a stipulation of facts and that he had the right 
to a full hearing before a referee.  The OLR says when Attorney 
Netzer's sanctions brief backed away from the stipulation of 
No. 
2011AP2961-D   
 
13 
 
facts he had previously signed, the OLR responded by saying that 
if Attorney Netzer was having second thoughts about the 
stipulation, his remedy was to move the referee to relieve him 
from the stipulation of facts and to schedule a hearing on the 
contested issues.  The OLR points out that Attorney Netzer never 
did that.   
¶39 The OLR says the findings of fact in the referee's 
report adopt verbatim the contents of the stipulation of facts 
signed by the parties.  It says Attorney Netzer fails to explain 
how any of the referee's findings of fact could possibly be 
erroneous.   
¶40 The OLR also asserts that the referee's recommended 
sanction is appropriate.  It points out that in 2006, Attorney 
Netzer 
was 
privately 
reprimanded 
for 
misconduct 
that 
is 
"disturbingly similar to the facts in the current disciplinary 
proceeding."  The OLR says while Attorney Netzer may feel the 
counseling 
he 
has 
been 
undergoing 
is 
satisfactory, 
the 
conditions on his license recommended by the referee are more 
likely to achieve the desired result.  
¶41 As to the issue of costs, the OLR points out that this 
court customarily assesses full costs against the respondent 
attorney, and unsupported statements that an attorney cannot 
afford to pay costs are not a sufficient basis on which to 
excuse the attorney from payment.  The OLR also notes that if an 
attorney cannot pay the full costs immediately, an agreement may 
be reached to enable the attorney to pay the costs over time. 
No. 
2011AP2961-D   
 
14 
 
¶42 This court will adopt a referee's findings of fact 
unless they are clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law are 
reviewed de novo.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  The 
court may impose whatever sanction it sees fit regardless of the 
referee's recommendation.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.   
¶43 The referee's findings of fact have not been shown to 
be clearly erroneous, and we adopt them.  We also adopt the 
conclusions of law that flow from those findings of fact.  We 
specifically reject Attorney Netzer's claim that the OLR filed 
its complaint prematurely before the criminal case was resolved 
in the trial court.   
¶44 Attorney Netzer pled guilty to the two misdemeanor 
counts in April of 2011.  The OLR's complaint was not filed 
until eight months later.  At that time the only proceeding 
pending in the circuit court was Attorney Netzer's motion to 
modify his sentence or, in the alternative, withdraw his plea.  
In February of 2012, approximately six weeks after the filing of 
the OLR's complaint, the circuit court dismissed the felony 
stalking and bail jumping charges——which had been dismissed at 
the time the plea was entered.   
¶45 Attorney Netzer has failed to cite any authority for 
his claim that the OLR should have been required to wait until 
after the circuit court had ruled on his postconviction motion 
before filing its complaint, nor has he explained how the result 
of this proceeding would have been different if the OLR's 
No. 
2011AP2961-D   
 
15 
 
complaint had been filed in February of 2012 rather than 
December of 2011.  In addition, as the OLR points out, Attorney 
Netzer never raised this issue before the referee and could be 
deemed to have forfeited or waived his right to raise the issue 
on appeal.   
¶46 We also reject Attorney Netzer's criticisms about and 
attempt to repudiate the stipulation of facts which he signed in 
August of 2012.  Attorney Netzer was not required to enter into 
a stipulation of facts but chose, presumably at least in part, 
to simplify the proceeding and reduce the ultimate costs.  As 
the OLR points out, if Attorney Netzer later had second thoughts 
about the stipulation of facts, he could have moved the referee 
to relieve him from the stipulation of facts and could have 
asked for a full evidentiary hearing on the contested issues.  
Since he chose not to do so, he should be bound by the 
stipulation of facts.  Having accepted the findings of fact and 
conclusions of law set forth in the referee's report, we reject 
Attorney Netzer's claim that the referee's report was "faulty or 
defective."   
¶47 Turning to the appropriate sanction, we note that the 
conduct at issue here is strikingly similar to the conduct that 
resulted in Attorney Netzer's 2006 private reprimand.  As in the 
previous case, Attorney Netzer tries to minimize his conduct, 
claiming he never intended his actions to cause K.M. any 
distress, and that in fact all he cared about was K.M.'s 
happiness and well-being.  As in the 2006 case, Attorney Netzer 
again argues that his criminal attorney forced him into entering 
No. 
2011AP2961-D   
 
16 
 
pleas, that he is very sorry for his actions, and that he is 
entitled to this court's leniency. 
¶48 We deem the SCR 21.15(5) violation is de minimus since 
Attorney Netzer did notify the OLR and the clerk of this court 
about his conviction, albeit the notification was slightly 
tardy.   
¶49 The SCR 20:8.4(b) violation is not de minimus.  This 
court found in 2006 that Attorney Netzer's two prior misdemeanor 
convictions, 
which 
arose 
out 
his 
violating 
a 
harassment 
injunction filed by a previous girlfriend, reflected adversely 
upon his trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other 
respects.  The same analysis holds true in this case.  This 
court has long adhered to the concept of progressive discipline 
in attorney regulatory cases.  It does not appear that the 2006 
private reprimand had the impact we intended on Attorney Netzer 
since he repeated the same conduct here.  For that reason, we 
agree with the referee that a 90-day suspension of Attorney 
Netzer's license to practice law in Wisconsin is appropriate. 
¶50 We also agree with the referee that it is appropriate 
to impose certain conditions in this case.  While the referee 
recommended various conditions be placed on Attorney Netzer's 
license to practice law, we find it more appropriate to impose 
conditions on the reinstatement of Attorney Netzer's license in 
order to ensure that the conduct that occurred in this case, as 
well as the conduct underlying the 2006 private reprimand, does 
not recur.   
No. 
2011AP2961-D   
 
17 
 
¶51 We note that in the criminal case, the circuit court 
ordered Attorney Netzer to undergo a psychological evaluation.  
We find it appropriate to order that the reinstatement of 
Attorney Netzer's license to practice law shall be conditioned 
upon his obtaining a mental health evaluation in which the 
evaluator states, to a reasonable degree of professional 
certainty, that Attorney Netzer is capable of discharging the 
duties of a person licensed to practice law in this state.  We 
further conclude that as a condition of reinstatement, Attorney 
Netzer must be required to execute medical record releases 
authorizing the OLR to review his medical records for a period 
of three years.  Once Attorney Netzer has complied with these 
conditions and the other conditions generally required for 
reinstatement after a suspension of less than six months, his 
license can be reinstated. 
¶52 Finally, we find it appropriate to impose the full 
costs of the proceeding upon Attorney Netzer.  It is the court's 
general policy upon a finding of misconduct to impose all costs 
on the respondent attorney.  See SCR 22.24(1m).  Since this case 
presents no extraordinary circumstances, we conclude that 
Attorney Netzer should be required to pay the full costs of this 
proceeding. 
¶53 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Randy J. Netzer to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 90 days, 
effective March 5, 2014. 
¶54 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of the 
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin, 
No. 
2011AP2961-D   
 
18 
 
Randy J. Netzer shall take the following actions:  (1) obtain a 
satisfactory mental health evaluation, at his own expense, in 
which 
the 
evaluator 
states, 
to 
a 
reasonable 
degree 
of 
professional certainty, that Randy J. Netzer is capable of 
discharging the duties of a person licensed to practice law in 
this state; (2) provide a copy of that evaluation to the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation; and (3) execute medical record releases 
authorizing the Office of Lawyer Regulation for a period of 
three years to review his medical and mental health records and 
to speak with medical or mental health providers. 
¶55 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Randy J. Netzer 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. 
¶56 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Randy J. Netzer shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $9,222.21, as 
of November 5, 2013. 
¶57 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2). 
 
No.  2011AP2961-D.ssa 
 
1 
 
¶58 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.   (dissenting).  Supreme 
court 
rule 
21.16(1m)(f) 
authorizes 
this 
court 
to 
impose 
conditions on an attorney seeking license reinstatement.  The 
conditions should be stated in such a way that they can be 
easily understood by the respondent attorney and the OLR and 
easily administered. 
¶59 I conclude, however, that a six-month suspension with 
conditions should be imposed in the present case.  Such a 
sanction is not only appropriate under the circumstances of the 
present case but has the advantage that reinstatement must be by 
order of this court after prescribed proceedings, not merely by 
affidavit of the attorney of compliance and the director's 
notification of compliance.  See SCR 22.28(3), 22.29-22.33. 
¶60 Before the court will reinstate an attorney after a 
suspension of six months or more, the attorney must show the 
court that he "can safely be recommended to the legal 
profession, the courts and the public as a person fit to be 
consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise act in 
matters of trust and confidence and in general to aid in the 
administration of justice as a member of the bar and as an 
officer of the courts."  SCR 22.29(4)(g).  Court review of 
reinstatement of the attorney under this standard is, in my 
opinion, important in the present case. 
¶61 For the reasons set forth, I dissent.   
¶62 I am authorized to state that Justice ANN WALSH 
BRADLEY joins this dissent. 
 
No.  2011AP2961-D.ssa 
 
 
 
1