Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jeffrey R. Kohler

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2009 WI 24 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2007AP2086-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against ,  Jeffrey R. Kohler, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Jeffrey R. Kohler, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KOHLER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 24, 2009   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: GABLEMAN, J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2009 WI 24
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2007AP2086-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jeffrey R. Kohler, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Jeffrey R. Kohler, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 24, 2009 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   In this disciplinary proceeding, we 
review the report and recommendation of Referee Timothy L. Vocke 
that Attorney Jeffrey R. Kohler be publicly reprimanded for his 
professional misconduct in failing to comply with an opposing 
party's discovery request and with court orders to provide 
discovery, and in making misrepresentations to the court that he 
had complied. 
No. 
2007AP2086-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
In view of the fact that neither Attorney Kohler nor 
the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) has appealed from the 
referee's report and recommendation, our review will proceed 
under SCR 22.17(2).1  In conducting our review, we must affirm 
the referee's findings of fact unless they are found to be 
clearly erroneous.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125.  We 
review the referee's conclusions of law on a de novo basis.  See 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, 
¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 718.  Finally, we determine the 
appropriate level of discipline given the particular facts of 
each case, independent of the referee's recommendation, but 
benefiting from it.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶3 
Attorney Kohler has been licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin since 1984.  The conduct that forms the basis for this 
disciplinary proceeding occurred during the course of Attorney 
Kohler's work as a part-time assistant district attorney for 
Washburn County. 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) provides: Review; appeal. 
 
(2) If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme 
court shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject 
or modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
No. 
2007AP2086-D   
 
3 
 
¶4 
On July 2, 2003, W.C. lodged a complaint against D.G. 
with the Washburn County district attorney's office regarding a 
construction project for which W.C. had hired D.G.  Based on 
W.C.'s allegations, Attorney Kohler issued a criminal complaint 
against D.G. alleging that he had committed felony theft by 
contractor due to his failure to pay a materials supplier with 
funds given to him by W.C.  D.G. retained Attorney Erwin Steiner 
to represent him in the criminal case.  
¶5 
In addition to the criminal case against D.G., the 
materials supplier also initiated a civil action for damages 
against both D.G. and W.C.  D.G. then filed a cross-claim 
against W.C. in that action.  Thus, the issue of who was 
responsible for paying the materials supplier was also being 
litigated in the civil action while the criminal case was 
proceeding.   
¶6 
Washburn County Circuit Court Judge Eugene Harrington 
conducted a preliminary examination in the criminal case on 
August 22, 2003.  At the hearing, the state marked as exhibits 
the proposal D.G. had made to W.C. for the construction project 
and a check ledger for a U.S. Bank account from which W.C. had 
made payments to D.G.  The account was important because it was 
the account into which U.S. Bank had placed the proceeds of a 
construction loan for the building project.  After hearing the 
evidence presented, Judge Harrington concluded that there was 
probable cause to believe that a felony had been committed, and 
bound D.G. over for trial. 
No. 
2007AP2086-D   
 
4 
 
¶7 
On November 20, 2003, Attorney Steiner filed a Demand 
for Discovery and Inspection with the clerk of circuit court and 
served a copy on Attorney Kohler on behalf of the state.  Of 
importance to this proceeding is Request 14 of that discovery 
demand, which requested the state to: 
Furnish the defense with copies, both front and back, 
of all checks, issued by [N.C.] or [W.C.] from US 
Bank, account number [] and copies of all bank 
statements for said account from October 1, 2002 
through October 31, 2003, inclusive, and copies of all 
documents within the possession or control of [N.C.] 
or [W.C.] which relate to the construction of the 
building which is the subject of this action . . . . 
The referee found that the defense had sought these records to 
determine whether W.C. had been acting as his own general 
contractor by paying many of the bills for the construction 
project directly. 
¶8 
At a status conference on December 11, 2003, Judge 
Harrington addressed the status of the defense's discovery 
requests.  He acknowledged that the state may have responded to 
them informally, but he directed the state to file and serve a 
formal response to the requests.  Attorney Kohler promised that 
the state would serve a formal response by the end of the year, 
which the court accepted as an appropriate time.  The court then 
set the matter for a jury trial on March 11, 2004.   
¶9 
On December 23, 2003, Attorney Kohler filed a response 
to the discovery requests.  The response to Request 14 stated 
that the response was "pending."   
No. 
2007AP2086-D   
 
5 
 
¶10 The court held a pretrial conference on February 17, 
2004.  At that time, Attorney Kohler still had not provided the 
documents sought in Request 14.  The court acknowledged that the 
state had still not complied with the request, but noted that 
the state had promised to provide the requested documents by 
noon on February 27, 2004. 
¶11 On February 26, 2004, Attorney Kohler filed a trial 
exhibit list, with copies of the exhibits attached.  Among the 
exhibits were copies of five checks that W.C. had written to 
D.G.  Three of the five checks had been drawn on the U.S. Bank 
account.  The other two checks had been drawn on other accounts.  
¶12 Attorney Kohler did not provide copies of the other 
checks that had been written against the U.S. Bank account nor 
the bank statements for that account that had been requested in 
Request 14. 
¶13 On March 4, 2004, one week before the scheduled trial 
date, D.G. filed a motion to dismiss the criminal charge against 
him with prejudice due to the state's failure to respond to his 
discovery requests.  In the supporting brief, Attorney Steiner 
pointed out that the state had not disputed its ability to 
obtain the requested bank records from W.C.  
¶14 A hearing was held on the motion on March 10, 2004.  
At that hearing, Attorney Kohler argued for the first time that 
the documents requested in Request 14 were not relevant.  Judge 
Harrington correctly noted that relevance was to be determined 
by the court.  He expressed concern that the state had not 
produced the requested records, but did not grant D.G.'s motion 
No. 
2007AP2086-D   
 
6 
 
to dismiss.  Stating that the failure to comply with the 
discovery request had been unintentional, the court continued 
the trial date until August 17, 2004.   
¶15 During the March 10, 2004, hearing, the attorneys and 
the court had a lengthy discussion about which documents 
Attorney Kohler was to produce.  W.C. was present at the hearing 
and was questioned about his willingness to provide the 
requested documents.  He agreed to provide to Attorney Kohler 
copies of documents from any bank account that related to the 
construction of the building on which D.G. had worked.  Judge 
Harrington specifically told W.C. that he needed to produce a 
copy of a check register for the U.S. Bank account.  Judge 
Harrington expressly ordered that the requested documents be 
produced by the state to Attorney Steiner by April 30, 2004.  He 
directed Attorney Steiner to raise any problems with the state's 
production in a motion to be filed by June 1, 2004. 
¶16 Attorney Kohler did not produce any further documents 
or information by April 30, 2004, or even throughout the month 
of May.  On June 1, 2004, Attorney Steiner filed a renewed 
motion to dismiss the criminal charges with prejudice due to the 
state's 
continuing 
failure 
to 
comply 
with 
its 
discovery 
obligations.  
¶17 On June 14, 2004, Attorney Kohler sent a letter to 
Judge Harrington with a copy to Attorney Steiner.  Attached to 
the letter were three invoices and three checks that referenced 
payments by W.C. directly to subcontractors.  Only one of the 
three checks had been drawn on the U.S. Bank account.  Attorney 
No. 
2007AP2086-D   
 
7 
 
Kohler did not produce any bank statements, check register, or 
copies of other checks relating to the U.S. Bank account.  The 
text of his letter stated, in part, "Here are the items the 
court ordered [W.C.] to produce with regard to this case.  I 
believe the court wanted the originals filed."   
¶18 The circuit court held a hearing on D.G.'s renewed 
motion to dismiss the criminal action on July 22, 2004.  At that 
hearing, Attorney Kohler represented to Judge Harrington that he 
had fully complied with the defense's discovery requests.  
Attorney Kohler also made a demand for a speedy trial on behalf 
of the state.  The court found that the state had not complied 
with all the discovery requests and asked Attorney Kohler why 
the court should not grant the dismissal requested by D.G.  
Attorney Kohler responded that he did not believe the court had 
the authority to dismiss the criminal case as a sanction for the 
state's discovery violations.  Attorney Kohler also stated, "All 
I can say is we have submitted what Mr. Steiner wanted.  Those 
are the items." 
¶19 Judge Harrington took the motion to dismiss under 
advisement, indicating that he wanted to determine whether the 
state had complied with the discovery rules and the court's 
prior order, to look at the remedies available to the court, and 
to "make doubly sure before I take precipitous action in a 
felony file."  The court was forced to remove the August 17, 
2004, trial from the court's calendar.   
¶20 On August 18, 2004, the circuit court issued an oral 
decision on the June 1, 2004, motion to dismiss.  The court 
No. 
2007AP2086-D   
 
8 
 
explicitly found that Attorney Kohler's June 14, 2004, letter 
had "failed to provide the appropriate bank account records."  
It had also "failed to provide copies of all records relating to 
payment concerning the construction process."  The court 
specifically stated that the documents sought by the defense 
were relevant and could produce exculpatory evidence.  The 
court, however, denied the motion to dismiss, and set the matter 
for a further status conference.   
¶21 Despite the court's clear ruling that the requested 
documents were relevant, Attorney Kohler continued to fail to 
produce any further documents or information.  On November 12, 
2004, D.G. filed another motion to dismiss alleging a denial of 
his right to a speedy trial and prosecutorial misconduct.  In 
the supporting brief, Attorney Steiner argued that the state's 
failure to comply with its discovery obligations had caused the 
delay, and that the delay had jeopardized D.G.'s ability to 
defend against the criminal charges because the trial in the 
civil action was scheduled for the end of November.   
¶22 The civil trial did proceed on November 30, 2004, with 
Judge 
Harrington 
presiding. 
 
After 
the 
civil 
trial 
was 
concluded, Judge Harrington held a status conference in the 
criminal case.  He first denied the defense's renewed motion to 
dismiss.  He then stated that because he had presided over the 
civil trial, he would withdraw from the criminal case.   
¶23 On December 15, 2004, Judge Frederick Henderson was 
assigned to preside over the criminal action.  The criminal 
trial was now scheduled for March 10, 2005.   
No. 
2007AP2086-D   
 
9 
 
¶24 On March 4, 2005, D.G. filed another motion to 
dismiss. 
 
Judge 
Henderson 
conducted 
a 
telephone 
hearing 
regarding the motion.  Judge Henderson stated that he understood 
that Judge Harrington had made several orders requiring W.C. and 
the state to provide certain documents, but that Attorney 
Steiner contended that no further documents had been produced.  
When asked if that was correct, Attorney Kohler denied it.  
Attorney Kohler stated that W.C. had "supplied the checks in 
question that were to the subcontractors."  Attorney Steiner, 
however, explained to Judge Henderson that the construction loan 
proceeds had been placed into the U.S. Bank account, and that 
the part of the check register marked at the preliminary hearing 
showed at least 36 checks drawn on that account (although 
Attorney Steiner had so far received a total of only five 
checks).  Nonetheless, later in the hearing Attorney Kohler 
specifically stated that "Mr. Steiner's got all the discovery 
he's going to get."   
¶25 Judge Henderson went through the court's prior orders, 
noting that in an August 18, 2004, order Judge Harrington had 
stated 
that 
D.G. 
was 
entitled 
to 
receive 
the 
requested 
information, and that Judge Harrington had denied the state's 
speedy trial request because to require D.G. to proceed to trial 
without the requested discovery information would have been a 
denial of fundamental fairness.  Attorney Kohler acknowledged 
that he had not provided any further documents after the August 
18, 2004, order.  When asked how he therefore could have 
complied with the court's August 18, 2004, order, Attorney 
No. 
2007AP2086-D   
 
10 
 
Kohler responded, "All I can say is we gave him all the 
subcontractor checks and whenever that was, it was earlier in 
the year, and that's all I know about."  
¶26 Judge Henderson concluded that the state had not met 
its discovery obligations and had not complied with the court's 
orders: 
So how can I conclude any different than the State has 
failed once again for perhaps the fourth time that 
they didn't do what [Judge] Harrington ordered.  What 
[Judge] Harrington ordered was to give these bank 
records to Steiner, put them in the court file so 
there could be a determination as to whether they're 
exculpatory.   
¶27 Ultimately, 
the 
circuit 
court 
dismissed 
the 
information against D.G. with prejudice due to Attorney Kohler's 
disobedience of Judge Harrington's orders.2   
¶28 On the basis of these facts, for which there was no 
genuine dispute, the referee concluded that summary judgment 
should be entered and that the OLR had proven by clear, 
satisfactory, and convincing evidence that Attorney Kohler had 
committed three violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct 
for Attorneys.  First, by failing or refusing to comply with the 
circuit court's orders to provide the discovery items requested 
in Request 14, Attorney Kohler had knowingly disobeyed an 
obligation under the rules of a tribunal, which was not an open 
refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists, 
                                                 
2 Attorney Kohler's answer disputed the OLR's allegation 
that the dismissal had been due to his conduct, but the referee 
found that the OLR's allegation was correct. 
No. 
2007AP2086-D   
 
11 
 
in violation of SCR 20:3.4(c).3  Second, the referee concluded 
that Attorney Kohler had violated SCR 20:3.4(d)4 by failing to 
make a reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally 
proper discovery request by an opposing party.  Third, the 
referee concluded that by representing to Judge Henderson during 
the March 8, 2005, telephone hearing that he had fully complied 
with Judge Harrington's prior discovery orders, Attorney Kohler 
had knowingly made a false statement of fact or law to a 
tribunal, in violation of former SCR 20:3.3(a)(1).5   
¶29 Following the referee's pronouncement of his findings 
of fact and conclusions of law, Attorney Kohler and the OLR 
jointly requested that the referee recommend a public reprimand, 
which was the level of discipline originally requested by the 
                                                 
3 Effective July 1, 2007, substantial changes were made to 
the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct for 
Attorneys, SCR Chapter 20.  See S. Ct. Order 04-07, 2007 WI 4, 
293 Wis. 2d xv, 726 N.W.2d Ct.R-45 (eff. July 1, 2007); and 
S. Ct. 
Order 
06-04, 
2007 
WI 
48, 
297 
Wis. 2d xv, 
730 
N.W.2d Ct.R.-29 (eff. July 1, 2007).  Because the conduct 
underlying this case arose prior to July 1, 2007, unless 
otherwise indicated, all references to the supreme court rules 
will be to those in effect prior to July 1, 2007. 
SCR 20:3.4(c) states that a lawyer shall not "knowingly 
disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for 
an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation 
exists." 
4 SCR 20:3.4(d) provides a lawyer shall not, "in pretrial 
procedure, . . . fail to make reasonably diligent effort to 
comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing 
party." 
5 Former SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) states "[a] lawyer shall not 
knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal." 
No. 
2007AP2086-D   
 
12 
 
OLR.  The referee agreed that a public reprimand would be an 
appropriate level of discipline in this case.  He acknowledged 
that Attorney Kohler had never before been the subject of 
professional discipline and that Attorney Kohler's honest 
admissions to nearly all of the OLR's allegations had reduced 
the time and expense needed for the proceeding.  
¶30 During the teleconference at which he announced his 
findings of fact and conclusions of law, however, the referee 
made some rather strong comments about Attorney Kohler's 
professional misconduct.  The referee saw absolutely no reason 
for 
Attorney 
Kohler's 
failure 
to 
provide 
the 
requested 
discovery.  He noted that a prosecutor, as a minister of 
justice, has a duty not just to seek a conviction of the guilty, 
but to be fair to each defendant and to obey an order issued by 
a court.  The referee described Attorney Kohler's disobedience 
of the circuit court's orders as "extremely egregious conduct," 
and indicated that there was evidence of a "deliberate decision 
to disobey."  
¶31 After our independent review of the matter, we 
conclude that the referee's findings of fact are not clearly 
erroneous, and we adopt them.  We also agree with the referee 
that the facts as found convincingly demonstrate that Attorney 
Kohler violated the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys, 
as alleged in the three counts in the OLR's complaint. 
¶32 Because of concerns about the appropriate level of 
discipline, this court directed the parties to file memoranda 
explaining the factual and legal bases for the stipulated 
No. 
2007AP2086-D   
 
13 
 
request for a public reprimand.  Both parties filed memoranda 
that continued to assert that a public reprimand was appropriate 
in this case.  The OLR's memorandum set forth the legal 
authorities and the factors present in this case that the OLR 
director had considered in deciding to request a public 
reprimand.  We have considered those responses, as well as our 
own prior disciplinary decisions. 
¶33 There is support in our prior decisions for either a 
public reprimand or a 60-day suspension in the present case.  
The two most analogous prior cases involving prosecutors appear 
to be In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Sanders, 173 Wis. 
2d 
609, 
494 
N.W.2d 430 (1993), and In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Zapf, 126 Wis. 2d 123, 375 N.W.2d 654 
(1985).  In Zapf, despite a discovery demand by the defense, a 
district attorney in a murder case failed to disclose the 
statement of a witness who heard the defendant make an 
incriminating statement.  Attorney Zapf then elicited the 
defendant's incriminating statement from the witness at trial.  
The referee found that Attorney Zapf had intentionally failed to 
disclose the witness' statement and had planned to use the 
statement at trial.  Moreover, this failure to comply with 
discovery obligations was not a first occurrence for Attorney 
Zapf.  Although he had not been disciplined for two prior 
discovery lapses, he had been admonished by the court for those 
lapses in the court's decision on the merits of the case.  In a 
second part of the disciplinary case, Attorney Zapf had 
improperly sent to a criminal defendant copies of correspondence 
No. 
2007AP2086-D   
 
14 
 
in which he disparaged defense counsel's handling of the case, 
in violation of a rule against communicating with a party the 
lawyer knows to be represented by counsel.  For the failure to 
provide the witness statement and the improper communication 
with a represented party, we imposed a public reprimand. 
¶34 In Sanders, an assistant district attorney made 
multiple misrepresentations to a judge, a court scheduling 
clerk, and opposing counsel in two separate cases.  In the first 
case, Attorney Sanders falsely represented to the scheduling 
clerk that a case had been settled so that the clerk would 
remove it from a trial schedule.  When the trial judge in that 
case learned of the deception, he dismissed the charges against 
the defendant.  In a second and unrelated case, Attorney Sanders 
made misrepresentations to defense counsel and to a circuit 
court regarding the local jail's policy on work release and 
regarding 
statements 
by 
jail 
personnel 
concerning 
the 
suitability of a particular defendant for work release.  The 
misrepresentations in the second case were made approximately 
nine months after the false statement to the scheduling clerk in 
the first case.  Attorney Sanders had not previously been the 
subject of professional discipline.  Ultimately, this court 
suspended the license of Attorney Sanders to practice law in 
this state for a period of 60 days. 
¶35 Although there are certainly similarities between the 
Sanders case and the present case, including the making of a 
false statement to a trial judge and the dismissal of a criminal 
case because of a prosecutor's misconduct, we ultimately believe 
No. 
2007AP2086-D   
 
15 
 
that Attorney Kohler's misconduct warrants the imposition of a 
public reprimand.  It appears that, as in Zapf, the core of 
Attorney Kohler's misconduct arose from his failure to comply 
with discovery obligations.  Unlike the situation in Sanders, 
Attorney Kohler's misrepresentation was an attempt to justify 
his production of only some of the discovery items requested by 
the defense.  Further, Attorney Sanders lied to court personnel 
in two different cases, separated in time.  This indicates a 
pattern of similar misconduct.  With Attorney Kohler, although 
it occurred on more than one occasion, all of Attorney Kohler's 
misconduct occurred in one case with respect to one issue. 
¶36 In addition, we believe that a public reprimand will 
be sufficient to deter Attorney Kohler and other attorneys from 
similar misconduct.  In his response regarding the appropriate 
level of discipline, Attorney Kohler noted that he has never 
been the subject of professional discipline in the more than two 
decades he has been practicing law.  Moreover, he has practiced 
during that entire time in the same community.  His practice 
therefore depends on the reputation he has developed over that 
lengthy period of time.  A public reprimand will therefore have 
a significant effect on his reputation and practice and should 
serve to prevent him from engaging in similar conduct in the 
future. 
¶37 Although we determine that a suspension is not 
necessary to protect the public and the judicial system in this 
instance, that result should not be interpreted as indicating 
that this court is not troubled by Attorney Kohler's misconduct.  
No. 
2007AP2086-D   
 
16 
 
His continuing refusal to obey the circuit court's discovery 
orders, even if he disagreed with them, constitutes a serious 
violation of an attorney's professional obligations.  No 
attorney, whether prosecutor, criminal defense counsel, or civil 
attorney, has the option to disregard an order of a court, no 
matter how much the attorney disagrees with the order and no 
matter whether the order addresses discovery obligations or 
other matters.  Our system of justice simply would not function 
if attorneys could overrule courts.  
¶38 Similarly, no attorney, whether prosecutor, criminal 
defense counsel, or civil attorney, may distort the truth when 
presenting argument to a court.  As we noted in another case in 
which an attorney had made misrepresentations to this court, "an 
attorney's duty of candor toward the tribunal is central to the 
truth-seeking function of any court."  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Kalal, 2002 WI 45, ¶1, 252 Wis. 2d 261, 643 
N.W.2d 466.  All courts have a right to expect that the 
attorneys appearing before them, regardless of the zeal they 
have for their client's cause, will adhere to the fundamental 
duty imposed on them as officers of the court to speak honestly.  
Attorney Kohler's misrepresentation about his compliance with 
the circuit court's prior discovery orders is a serious breach 
of his obligations as an officer of the court. 
¶39 In summary, we determine that Attorney Kohler should 
be publicly reprimanded for his professional misconduct in this 
proceeding.  We also conclude that he should be required to pay 
No. 
2007AP2086-D   
 
17 
 
the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding, which were 
$6,287.43 as of March 7, 2008. 
¶40 IT IS ORDERED that Jeffrey R. Kohler is publicly 
reprimanded for his professional misconduct. 
¶41 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Jeffrey R. Kohler pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  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 Jeffrey R. Kohler to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
be suspended until further order of the court. 
¶42 MICHAEL J. GABLEMAN, J., did not participate. 
 
No. 
2007AP2086-D   
 
 
 
1