Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Stephen M. Compton

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2008 WI 3 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2006AP1036-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Stephen M. Compton, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Stephen M. Compton, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST COMPTON 
  
 
OPINION FILED: 
January 16, 2008   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2008 WI 3
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2006AP1036-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Stephen M. Compton, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Stephen M. Compton, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
JAN 16, 2008 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review referee Kim M. Peterson's 
recommendation that the license of Attorney Stephen M. Compton 
to practice law in this state be suspended for a period of 60 
days due to his professional misconduct. 
¶2 
We conclude that the referee's findings of fact are 
supported by satisfactory and convincing evidence.  We further 
determine that the seriousness of Attorney Compton's misconduct 
warrants the suspension of his license to practice law for 60 
No. 
2006AP1036-D   
 
2 
 
days and that the costs of the proceeding, which are $4,622.69 
as of January 24, 2007, should be assessed against him. 
¶3 
Attorney Compton was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1992.  He was publicly reprimanded in 2002 for 
falsely recording time he had worked on a contingency fee case.  
Public Reprimand of Stephen M. Compton, 2002-6. 
¶4 
When the events giving rise to this disciplinary 
proceeding 
occurred, 
part 
of 
Attorney 
Compton's 
practice 
included representing criminal defendants by appointment of the 
Office of the State Public Defender.   
¶5 
In the fall of 2000 Attorney Compton was appointed to 
represent J.M. in proceedings before the Wisconsin Supreme 
Court. J.M. was ultimately incarcerated at the Dodge County 
Correctional Institution.  In late 2001 or early 2002, while 
incarcerated, 
J.M., 
a former paralegal, informed Attorney 
Compton that he would be interested in doing legal research work 
for Attorney Compton.  In January 2002 Attorney Compton made 
arrangements whereby J.M. would perform legal research for him.  
Attorney Compton forwarded a case file to J.M. at the Dodge 
Correctional Institution without his client's prior knowledge or 
approval.  J.M. performed legal research on this file for 
Attorney Compton.  The referee specifically found that while 
J.M. was incarcerated, Attorney Compton did not have effective 
procedures in place to supervise J.M., to ensure that his 
conduct was compatible with Attorney Compton's professional 
obligations, or to ensure that J.M. would be able to maintain 
No. 
2006AP1036-D   
 
3 
 
the confidentiality of the client matter while working from 
prison. 
¶6 
Upon J.M.'s release from prison in May 2002, Attorney 
Compton hired J.M. as a paralegal.  From May 2002 to July 2002, 
J.M. worked on a number of case files for Attorney Compton.  He 
performed legal research, drafted correspondence, memos and 
pleadings, and met with clients. 
¶7 
The billing policies of the Office of the State Public 
Defender require that an appointed attorney submit bills for 
reimbursement for "reasonable hours" the attorney has spent 
working on client matters to which they have been appointed as 
counsel.  The policies provide further that work done by another 
attorney will not be reimbursed unless specifically approved by 
the Office of the State Public Defender. 
¶8 
Despite this policy, Attorney Compton billed the 
Office of the State Public Defender for approximately 120 hours 
of work for legal services on various client matters when the 
work was actually performed by J.M.  In three cases, Attorney 
Compton falsely certified to the Office of the State Public 
Defender that he had done all the legal work on the cases, when 
in fact J.M. had done much of the work. 
¶9 
J.M.'s work on Office of the State Public Defender 
case files was discovered when successor counsel in one matter 
reviewed a client's file and ascertained that J.M. had performed 
considerable work on the file.  
¶10 In July 2004 the Office of the State Public Defender 
and Attorney Compton entered into a settlement agreement wherein 
No. 
2006AP1036-D   
 
4 
 
Attorney Compton acknowledged wrongfully billing the Office of 
the State Public Defender for work actually performed by J.M.  
He agreed to be decertified from the appointment list maintained 
by the Office of the State Public Defender, and further agreed 
that the Office of the State Public Defender could recoup $4,800 
from bills submitted by Attorney Compton on outstanding cases.  
He self-reported this matter to the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) in August 2004. 
¶11 On May 1, 2006, the OLR issued a complaint alleging 
the misconduct described herein.  On November 1, 2006, the 
parties executed a stipulation and no contest plea.  Attorney 
Compton agreed to withdraw his answer and to permit the referee 
to use the OLR complaint as the factual basis for a finding of 
misconduct. A hearing was held to consider the appropriate 
sanction. 
¶12 The referee concluded that by billing the Office of 
the State Public Defender for 120 hours of work at the appointed 
attorney rate when that work was actually performed by J.M., 
Attorney Compton engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation 
in 
violation 
of 
former 
SCR 
20:8.4(c).1  The referee concluded further that by failing to 
                                                 
1 Effective July 1, 2007, substantial changes were made to 
the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct for 
Attorneys, SCR Chapter 20.  See Supreme Court Order No. 04-07, 
2007 WI 4, 293 Wis. 2d xv; and Supreme Court Order No. 06-04, 
2007 WI 48, 297 Wis. 2d xlvii.  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. 
No. 
2006AP1036-D   
 
5 
 
adequately supervise J.M. while J.M. was performing legal work 
from prison, Attorney Compton violated SCR 20:5.3(a) and (b), 
which provided in relevant part: 
 
20:5.3 
Responsibilities 
regarding 
nonlawyer 
assistants  
 
With respect to a nonlawyer employed or retained 
by or associated with a lawyer:  
 
(a) A partner in a law firm shall make reasonable 
efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures 
giving reasonable assurance that the person's conduct 
is compatible with the professional obligations of the 
lawyer; 
 
(b) A lawyer having direct supervisory authority 
over the nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to 
ensure that the person's conduct is compatible with 
the professional obligations of the lawyer. 
¶13 Most of the discussion at the disciplinary hearing was 
devoted to the appropriate sanction for Attorney Compton's 
misconduct.  The OLR requested the referee recommend a 90-day 
suspension. Attorney Compton requested the referee recommend a 
public reprimand.   
¶14 The referee noted that it was troubling that Attorney 
Compton had engaged in this misconduct while he was negotiating 
his public reprimand in another disciplinary matter, a time when 
he should have been "extra vigilant."  However, while not 
excusing the ethical violation or the potential harm to clients, 
the referee did note that J.M., a former paralegal, apparently 
                                                                                                                                                             
Former 20:8.4(c) states that it is misconduct for a lawyer 
to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or 
misrepresentation."   
No. 
2006AP1036-D   
 
6 
 
performed competently and obtained "good results" for the 
clients.  Ultimately, the referee concluded that a 60-day 
suspension was warranted, along with the payment of the costs of 
the disciplinary proceeding.  See, e.g., In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Glesner, 2000 WI 18, 233 Wis. 2d 35, 606 
N.W.2d 173, and In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Davison, 
2002 WI 24, 251 Wis. 2d 1, 640 N.W.2d 508.  
¶15 In his appeal, which he has since dismissed, Attorney 
Compton sought to distinguish his situation from Glesner and 
Davison, asserting that he never intended to deceive the Office 
of the State Public Defender and maintaining that his intentions 
were good.  He self-reported the violation and has advised this 
court that he ceased practicing law as of August 1, 2007.  He 
asks the court to impose any suspension retroactive to August 1, 
2007.   
¶16 The matter is submitted to the court for review of the 
referee's report and recommendation pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).2 
¶17 In conducting our review, we will affirm the referee's 
findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Sosnay, 209 Wis. 2d 241, 243, 
562 N.W.2d 137 (1997).  We review the referee's conclusions of 
law de novo.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
                                                 
2 As noted, Attorney Compton initially filed an appeal from 
the referee's report and recommendation and appellate briefs 
were submitted by Attorney Compton and the OLR.  On August 17, 
2007, Attorney Compton filed a letter voluntarily dismissing his 
appeal.  Accordingly, this matter is treated as a review of the 
referee's report pursuant to SCR 22.17(2). 
No. 
2006AP1036-D   
 
7 
 
Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 718.  In 
accordance with our authority to supervise the practice of law 
in this state, we determine the level of discipline that is 
appropriate under the particular circumstances, 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. 
¶18 The referee's findings of fact in this case have not 
been shown to be clearly erroneous, and we adopt them.  We also 
agree with the referee's conclusions of law.  We further agree 
with the referee's recommendation for a 60-day suspension of 
Attorney Compton's license to practice law in Wisconsin.  
Finally, we find it appropriate to require Attorney Compton to 
pay the full costs of this proceeding.  We decline to impose the 
suspension retroactive to August 1, 2007, but, given Attorney 
Compton's assertion that he has ceased the practice of law, the 
suspension is made effective the date of this order. 
¶19 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Stephen M. Compton 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 
days, effective the date of this order. 
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Stephen M. Compton 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 Stephen M. Compton to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
remain suspended until further order of the court. 
No. 
2006AP1036-D   
 
8 
 
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
yet done so, Stephen M. Compton comply with the provisions of 
SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.   
 
No. 
2006AP1036-D   
 
 
 
1