Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Bartley G. Mauch

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2007 WI 109 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2006AP2104-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Bartley G. Mauch, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Bartley G. Mauch, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MAUCH 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 24, 2007   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2007 WI 109
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2006AP2104-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Bartley G. Mauch, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Bartley G. Mauch, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 24, 2007 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the referee's report and 
recommendation, 
which 
incorporates 
a 
stipulation 
between 
Attorney Bartley G. Mauch and the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) and a no contest plea by Attorney Mauch to the allegations 
in the OLR's complaint.  The referee recommends that Attorney 
Mauch's license to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for 90 
days for professional misconduct.  In addition to the license 
suspension, the referee recommends that Attorney Mauch pay the 
No. 
2006AP2104-D   
 
2 
 
costs of the proceeding, which are $3934.23 as of April 23, 
2007. 
¶2 
We conclude that the referee's findings of fact are 
supported by satisfactory and convincing evidence.  We also 
agree with the referee's conclusions of law and agree that the 
seriousness of Attorney Mauch's professional misconduct warrants 
a 90-day suspension of his license to practice law in Wisconsin.   
¶3 
Attorney Mauch was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1972 and practices in Praire du Sac.  In 1994 he 
was publicly reprimanded for failing to provide competent 
representation to personal injury clients; failing to abide by 
clients' decisions regarding claims; failing to consult with 
clients about their objectives; failing to act with reasonable 
diligence; failing to keep clients reasonably informed of the 
status of their matters; and failing to cooperate with the 
investigation into his conduct.  In 2003 he was again publicly 
reprimanded for failing to act with appropriate diligence; 
failing to properly communicate with a client; and failing to 
cooperate in an OLR investigation. 
¶4 
On August 29, 2006, the OLR filed a complaint alleging 
ten counts of professional misconduct.  On December 27, 2006, 
the parties entered into a stipulation and no contest plea 
whereby the OLR amended the complaint to delete certain 
allegations and Attorney Mauch withdrew his answer to the 
complaint and pled no contest to the ten counts of misconduct, 
with the exception that he maintained his denial as to a portion 
of the allegation contained in one paragraph of the complaint.  
No. 
2006AP2104-D   
 
3 
 
Attorney Mauch agreed that the referee could use the allegations 
of 
the 
complaint 
as 
an 
adequate 
factual 
basis 
for 
a 
determination of misconduct on the ten counts, but he reserved 
his right to argue the appropriate sanction.   
¶5 
David R. Friedman was appointed referee.  He issued 
his report on April 2, 2007.  The referee found that the OLR had 
met its burden of proof with respect to all ten counts of 
misconduct alleged in the complaint. 
¶6 
The first five counts of misconduct alleged in the 
OLR's complaint involved Attorney Mauch's representation of 
A.L., who retained Attorney Mauch to represent him in certain 
matters involving potential disability insurance litigation.  On 
January 15, 2003, Attorney Mauch filed a summons and complaint 
on A.L.'s behalf.  The trial court issued a 20-day dismissal 
order on April 7, 2003, and on April 27, 2003, it issued an 
order dismissing the case.   
¶7 
On May 30, 2003, Attorney Mauch filed a summons and 
complaint against the same parties defendant, Stanley McDonald 
Agency of Illinois (SMAI) and NCMIC Insurance Co. (NCMIC).  In 
September 2003, counsel for SMAI filed an answer and affirmative 
defense and a motion to dismiss.  On October 24, 2003, counsel 
for NCMIC filed a notice of motion and motion for dismissal for 
lack of jurisdiction.  On November 14, 2003, during a telephone 
scheduling conference, Attorney Mauch advised the court and 
counsel for the defendants that he intended to dismiss the case. 
¶8 
On November 19, 2003, counsel for SMAI forwarded a 
stipulation and order of dismissal to Attorney Mauch.  Attorney 
No. 
2006AP2104-D   
 
4 
 
Mauch did not discuss or provide a copy of the stipulation and 
order of dismissal to A.L.  Attorney Mauch failed to sign and 
return the stipulation and order.   
¶9 
On January 7, 2004, counsel for NCMIC filed a notice 
of motion and motion for dismissal.  Attorney Mauch was advised 
the motion would be heard on February 2, 2004.  Attorney Mauch 
took no action with regard to the motion to dismiss, nor did he 
discuss it with A.L.  
¶10 Sometime before February 2, 2004, Attorney Mauch 
provided a signed stipulation and order of dismissal to counsel 
for SMAI.  He did not discuss with or advise A.L. that he had 
signed the stipulation.  On February 2, 2004, a hearing was held 
regarding NCMIC's motion to dismiss.  Neither Attorney Mauch nor 
A.L. appeared at the hearing.  The trial court ordered the 
action dismissed.   
¶11 On February 23, 2004, a stipulation and order of 
dismissal was filed on behalf of SMAI.  On February 25, 2004, 
counsel for NCMIC filed an affidavit in support of their request 
for costs and a draft order of dismissal and for costs.  The 
trial court entered the order of dismissal.  Attorney Mauch 
failed to advise A.L. of the motion for costs, and he did not 
file any documents opposing either defendant's motion to dismiss 
or in opposition to NCMIC's motion for costs.  
¶12 On March 8, 2004, the trial court entered judgment 
against A.L. in favor of NCMIC for $2647 costs.  Attorney Mauch 
never advised A.L. that a judgment had been entered against him.  
Sometime after the dismissal of the case, Attorney Mauch told 
No. 
2006AP2104-D   
 
5 
 
A.L. he had "settled" the case on A.L.'s behalf for $60,000, to 
be paid in installments, with Attorney Mauch retaining $5000 as 
his fee.  Attorney Mauch issued four checks to A.L. from his 
personal checking account, which were purportedly a part of the 
settlement of the lawsuit.  The checks totaled $34,750.  
¶13 Between February 2002 and March 2006, A.L. made 
repeated 
efforts 
to 
contact 
Attorney 
Mauch 
requesting 
information about the status of the case, including a specific 
request for information about the check for $14,750 that 
Attorney Mauch delivered to A.L. in early July 2005.  Attorney 
Mauch did not respond to A.L.'s inquiries. 
¶14 The OLR's complaint alleged, and the referee found, 
that by telling the court on November 14, 2003, that he intended 
to dismiss A.L.'s case without first discussing with A.L. 
whether it should be dismissed, by signing the stipulation and 
order of dismissal without first discussing it with A.L., and 
without allowing A.L. to decide whether to take the action 
proposed or to proceed with the case, Attorney Mauch violated 
SCR 20:1.2(a).1   
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.2(a) provides:  Scope of representation. 
 
(a) A lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions 
concerning the objectives of representation, subject 
to paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), and shall consult with 
the client as to the means by which they are to be 
pursued.  A lawyer shall inform a client of all offers 
of settlement and abide by a client's decision whether 
to accept an offer of settlement of a matter.  In a 
criminal case or any proceeding that could result in 
deprivation of liberty, the lawyer shall abide by the 
client's decision, after consultation with the lawyer, 
No. 
2006AP2104-D   
 
6 
 
¶15 The OLR's complaint also alleged, and the referee 
found, that by failing to take any action whatsoever with regard 
to the first case between the date the complaint was filed and 
the date the case was dismissed, and by failing to take any 
action with regard to the second case between filing the 
complaint on May 30, 2003, and the telephone scheduling 
conference on November 14, 2003, Attorney Mauch violated SCR 
20:1.3.2   
¶16 The complaint further alleged, and the referee found, 
that by failing to keep A.L. advised as to developments in both 
lawsuits, by failing to promptly respond to A.L.'s reasonable 
requests for information regarding the $14,750 check Attorney 
Mauch delivered to A.L. in July 2005, and by failing to provide 
accurate information to A.L. regarding the status of his matters 
at various times between February 2002 and March 2006, Attorney 
Mauch violated SCR 20:1.4(a).3 
¶17 The complaint also alleged, and the referee found, 
that by failing to advise A.L. of the pending motions, by 
failing to advise him of the dismissal of both cases and the 
judgment entered against him in the second case, by falsely 
                                                                                                                                                             
as to a plea to be entered, whether to waive jury 
trial and whether the client will testify. 
2 SCR 20:1.3 provides that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
3 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides that "[a] lawyer shall keep a 
client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and 
promptly comply with reasonable requests for information." 
No. 
2006AP2104-D   
 
7 
 
advising A.L. that the cases had been settled and then making 
payments to A.L. in an effort to deceive him into believing the 
payments were part of a settlement, and by generally failing to 
explain to A.L. the ramifications of various developments in his 
cases, Attorney Mauch violated SCR 20:1.4(b).4 
¶18 The OLR's complaint also alleged, and the referee 
found, that by providing false information to A.L. regarding the 
outcome of the second case and by engaging in a course of 
conduct intended to cause A.L. to believe the case had been 
settled and that A.L. was receiving payments from the defendants 
pursuant to that settlement, Attorney Mauch violated SCR 
20:8.4(c).5   
¶19 The OLR's complaint also alleged that on February 4, 
2005, the OLR's staff received a notice from M&I Bank that there 
had been an overdraft on Attorney Mauch's IOLTA trust account at 
the bank.  The OLR opened an investigation of the overdraft and 
received records and information from Attorney Mauch as well as 
bank statements and transaction information from the bank.  As a 
result of the investigation and based on admissions made by 
Attorney Mauch, the complaint alleged, and the referee agreed, 
                                                 
4 SCR 20:1.4(b) provides that "[a] lawyer shall explain a 
matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client 
to make informed decisions regarding the representation." 
5 SCR 20:8.4(c) states that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
No. 
2006AP2104-D   
 
8 
 
that 
Attorney 
Mauch 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.15(b)(3),6 
SCR 
20:1.15(f)(1)a.,7 and SCR 20:1.15(h)(1) and (8).8   
                                                 
6 SCR 20:1.15(b)(3) states that "[n]o funds belonging to the 
lawyer or law firm, except funds reasonably sufficient to pay 
monthly account service charges, may be deposited or retained in 
a trust account." 
7 SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)a. provides:  Record-keeping requirements 
for trust accounts. 
(1) Demand accounts.  Complete records of a trust 
account that is a demand account shall include a 
transaction register; individual client ledgers; a 
ledger for account fees and charges, if law firm funds 
are held in the account pursuant to sub. (b)(3); 
deposit 
records; 
disbursement 
records; 
monthly 
statements; and reconciliation reports, subject to all 
of the following: 
 
a. 
Transaction 
register. 
 
The 
transaction 
register shall contain a chronological record of all 
account transactions, and shall include all of the 
following: 
 
 
1. the date, source, and amount of all 
deposits; 
 
 
2. the date, check or transaction number, 
payee and amount of all disbursements, whether by 
check, wire transfer, or other means; 
 
 
3. the date and amount of every other 
deposit or deduction of whatever nature; 
 
 
4. the identity of the client for whom funds 
were deposited or disbursed; and 
 
 
5. the balance in the account after each 
transaction. 
8 SCR 20:1.15(h)(1) and (8) provide:  Dishonored instrument 
notification; (Overdraft notices). 
 
All demand trust accounts and demand fiduciary 
accounts are subject to the following provisions on 
dishonored instrument notification: 
No. 
2006AP2104-D   
 
9 
 
¶20 The OLR's complaint also alleged that on March 14, 
2005, the OLR staff sent Attorney Mauch a letter providing him 
with a copy of the M&I Bank overdraft notice, notified Attorney 
Mauch that the OLR had opened an investigation, and requested 
records and information relevant to the investigation.  The 
letter informed Attorney Mauch that he was required to respond 
by April 4, 2005.  He failed to do so. 
¶21 On May 4, 2005, the OLR staff sent Attorney Mauch a 
second letter requesting that he respond by May 16, 2005.  He 
again failed to timely respond.  On June 2, 2005, Attorney Mauch 
purported to respond to the OLR's two letters.  However, 
Attorney Mauch's letter failed to respond to the questions posed 
in the OLR's March 14, 2005 letter, except for acknowledging 
that he had not yet filed an overdraft reporting agreement and 
promising he would do so. 
¶22 By 
letter 
dated 
June 
25, 
2005, 
Attorney 
Mauch 
purported to respond to the OLR's request for information and 
records relating to the January 2005 overdraft.  Attorney Mauch 
falsely asserted that the overdraft did not relate to a 
settlement or payment due to his client but that the advance was 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
(1) Overdraft reporting agreement.  A lawyer 
shall maintain demand trust accounts only in a 
financial institution that has agreed to provide an 
overdraft report to the office of lawyer regulation 
under SCR 20:1.15(h)(3). 
 
(8) Lawyer compliance.  Every lawyer practicing 
or admitted to practice in Wisconsin shall comply with 
the reporting and production requirements of SCR 
20:1.15(h). 
No. 
2006AP2104-D   
 
10 
 
on a "contract case."  In fact, both checks in question were 
payments to A.L. in furtherance of Attorney Mauch's scheme to 
deceive A.L. into believing his case had been settled and the 
checks represented settlement payments from the defendants, when 
in fact the source of the checks were funds belonging to 
Attorney Mauch. 
¶23 Attorney 
Mauch further provided a client ledger 
attached to his June 25, 2005 letter to the OLR, which 
misrepresented the source or purpose of the payments made to 
A.L. which intended to mislead the OLR staff as to the nature, 
extent, 
and 
activity 
with 
regard 
to 
Attorney 
Mauch's 
representation of A.L.  In all of his communications with the 
OLR, Attorney Mauch failed to disclose the existence of a check 
in the amount of $14,750 delivered to A.L. in early July 2005.   
¶24 The OLR's complaint alleged, and the referee found, 
that by failing to timely provide the OLR staff with the 
information requested in its letters, Attorney Mauch violated 
SCR 22.03(2) and (6)9 via SCR 20:8.4(f).10  The OLR's complaint 
                                                 
9 SCR 22.03(2) and (6) provide:  Investigation. 
 
(2) 
Upon 
commencing 
an 
investigation, 
the 
director shall notify the respondent of the matter 
being investigated unless in the opinion of the 
director the investigation of the matter requires 
otherwise.  The respondent shall fully and fairly 
disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct within 20 days after being served 
by ordinary mail a request for a written response.  
The director may allow additional time to respond.  
Following receipt of the response, the director may 
conduct further investigation and may compel the 
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents, and 
No. 
2006AP2104-D   
 
11 
 
also alleged, and the referee found, that by falsely advising 
the OLR that the overdraft under investigation did not relate to 
a settlement, by providing a so-called "client ledger" which 
misrepresented the source and purpose of the payments made to 
A.L. and which attempted to mislead the OLR as to the nature, 
extent, 
and 
activity 
with 
regard 
to 
Attorney 
Mauch's 
representation of A.L., Attorney Mauch violated SCR 22.03(6) via 
SCR 20:8.4(f).  
¶25 The OLR's complaint had asked that Attorney Mauch's 
license to practice law be suspended for five months.  Attorney 
Mauch suggested that a 60-day suspension was appropriate.  In 
discussing the appropriate sanction, the referee noted that this 
court has frequently followed the concept of progressive 
discipline, especially in cases involving a pattern of similar 
misconduct.  The referee said Attorney Mauch's violations in 
this case were consistent with the conduct that led to his two 
prior public reprimands.  The referee noted that Attorney 
Mauch's problems seemed to occur when he handled civil matters 
                                                                                                                                                             
present 
any 
information 
deemed 
relevant 
to 
the 
investigation. 
 
(6) In the course of the investigation, the 
respondent's 
wilful 
failure 
to 
provide 
relevant 
information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 
documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a 
disclosure are misconduct, regardless of the merits of 
the matters asserted in the grievance. 
10 SCR 20:8.4(f) states 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. 
2006AP2104-D   
 
12 
 
rather than criminal matters.  The referee noted that while 
Attorney Mauch viewed his criminal defendants as clients, he 
apparently viewed his civil clients, including A.L., as friends.  
The referee said: 
 
The inability to differentiate between criminal 
and private clients is one of the reasons for his 
conduct.  He could not bear to let down his friend.  
So he engaged in [a] course of conduct designed to 
hide his actions.  The discipline imposed has to be 
sufficient to deter future deceitful conduct. 
¶26 The referee concluded that an appropriate sanction 
would be the suspension of Attorney Mauch's license to practice 
law in Wisconsin for a period of 90 days.  The referee also 
recommended that Attorney Mauch pay the costs of the proceeding. 
¶27 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. 
¶28 We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and determine that a 90-day suspension is the 
appropriate 
discipline 
for 
Attorney 
Mauch's 
professional 
misconduct.  Attorney Mauch's handling of A.L.'s case, and 
particularly his deceiving A.L. into believing that the case had 
been settled when in fact it had been dismissed, is a serious 
failing that warrants a 90-day suspension.  We further agree 
No. 
2006AP2104-D   
 
13 
 
with the referee that Attorney Mauch should pay the full costs 
of the proceeding.   
¶29 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Bartley G. Mauch to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 90 days, 
effective August 31, 2007. 
¶30 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bartley G. Mauch comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
¶31 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Bartley G. Mauch 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 Bartley G. Mauch to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
remain suspended until further order of the court. 
 
No. 
2006AP2104-D   
 
 
 
1