Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. William H. Green

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2023 WI 55 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2022AP1212-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against William H. Green, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
William H. Green, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GREEN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 27, 2023   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
Per curiam. 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2023 WI 55
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2022AP1212-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
 
William H. Green, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
William H. Green, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
JUN 27, 2023 
 
Samuel A. Christensen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.    Attorney’s license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of referee 
Charles H. Barr that the court declare Attorney William H. Green 
in default and suspend his license to practice law in Wisconsin 
for a period of two years for 24 counts of professional 
misconduct that arose out of six separate client matters.  The 
referee also recommended that Attorney Green be required to make 
restitution to two clients and that he be required to comply 
No. 
2022AP1212-D   
 
2 
 
with two bankruptcy court disgorgement orders entered for the 
benefit of other clients.  Finally, the referee recommended that 
Attorney Green be required to pay the full costs of this 
proceeding, which are $707 as of April 11, 2023. 
¶2 
Since no appeal has been filed, we review the 
referee's report pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.17(2).1  
After conducting an independent review of the matter, we agree 
with the referee that, based on Attorney Green's failure to 
answer the complaint filed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR), OLR is entitled to a default judgment.  We also agree 
with the referee that Attorney Green's professional misconduct 
warrants a two-year suspension of his Wisconsin law license.  We 
further agree that Attorney Green should be ordered to make 
restitution, comply with the bankruptcy court disgorgement 
orders, and bear the full costs of this proceeding.  
¶3 
Attorney Green was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1990.  His address on file with the State Bar of 
Wisconsin is in Brown Deer, Wisconsin.  Attorney Green's law 
license has been suspended since December 26, 2021 for non-
cooperation with OLR's investigations into his misconduct.  
¶4 
Attorney Green's disciplinary history consists of a 
2014 private reprimand for failing to properly consult with 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) provides: "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. 
2022AP1212-D   
 
3 
 
clients about a bankruptcy issue, failing to keep the clients 
informed, failing to diligently pursue the matter and not 
holding or reporting fees correctly.  Private Reprimand No. 
2014-9.2  In 2016, Attorney Green was publicly reprimanded for 
professional misconduct in three client matters involving lack 
of competence, failure to pursue resolution of a client's 
matters, and failing to comply with trust account rules.  Public 
Reprimand of William H. Green, No. 2016-8.3   
¶5 
On July 18, 2022, OLR filed the complaint underlying 
this matter.  The first four counts of misconduct alleged in the 
complaint arose out of Attorney Green's representation of M.P., 
who hired Attorney Green in December 2017 to represent him in a 
bankruptcy matter.  M.P. agreed to pay Attorney Green $4,500 for 
the representation and paid Attorney Green $1,140 before the 
bankruptcy petition was filed.  
¶6 
Attorney Green filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition 
for M.P. on December 27, 2017 in United States Bankruptcy Court 
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.  On April 2, 2019, the 
Chapter 13 Trustee moved to dismiss the bankruptcy because M.P. 
had not been making the required payments.  Attorney Green did 
not respond to the Trustee's motion to dismiss or take any other 
action to protect M.P.'s interest.  The bankruptcy court 
dismissed the case on April 29, 2019.  
                                                 
2 No electronic copy is available. 
3 Electronic 
copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/1f14304d736f3742230c29497964
233e33391845.continue?action=detail&detailOffset=2.  
No. 
2022AP1212-D   
 
4 
 
¶7 
On June 27, 2019, Attorney Green filed a subsequent 
Chapter 7 bankruptcy for M.P.  On September 30, 2019, the Clerk 
of Court notified Attorney Green that M.P. needed to take a 
personal financial management course and file a certificate of 
course completion within 60 days.  M.P. did not take the 
required course and filed no certificate.  On December 3, 2019, 
the bankruptcy court closed M.P.'s Chapter 7 case without a 
discharge.  The bankruptcy court's order stated that M.P. could 
move to reopen the case and file the certificate if he paid the 
full filing fee.  
¶8 
On January 2, 2020, M.P. completed the financial 
management course and filed a certificate with the bankruptcy 
court.  In 2021, M.P. contacted Attorney Green about reopening 
the bankruptcy, and Attorney Green told him the cost to reopen 
the Chapter 7 case and obtain a discharge was $400.  M.P. paid 
Attorney Green the $400 on or about August 4, 2021. 
¶9 
Over the next two months, M.P. called Attorney Green 
multiple times and also sent emails and texts asking about the 
status of his bankruptcy.  Attorney Green failed to respond, and 
he did not move to reopen the bankruptcy.  
¶10 On September 24, 2021, M.P. filed a grievance against 
Attorney Green with OLR.  On October 29, 2021, OLR sent Attorney 
Green a notice of formal investigation and requested a response 
by November 22, 2021. 
¶11 On November 30, 2021, OLR wrote Attorney Green and 
informed him it had not received a response.  OLR provided 
notice that if Attorney Green failed to respond within 20 days 
No. 
2022AP1212-D   
 
5 
 
or otherwise show an inability to provide the requested 
information, or file a motion with this court indicating why his 
license should not be suspended, his license to practice law 
would be automatically suspended.  OLR personally served 
Attorney Green with the November 30th letter on December 6, 
2021.  Attorney Green did not respond.  Effective December 26, 
2021, Attorney Green's law license was automatically suspended 
for his failure to cooperate with OLR's investigation in this 
and other OLR investigative matters.  Attorney Green has not 
subsequently cooperated in the investigation and the suspension 
remains in effect. 
¶12 OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Green's representation of 
M.P.: 
Count 1: By failing to take meaningful action to 
advance [M.P.'s] Chapter 13 and Chapter 7 bankruptcy 
cases 
following 
the 
filing 
of 
the 
petitions, 
[Attorney] Green violated SCR 20:1.3. 4  
Count 2: By failing to respond to [M.P.'s] telephone 
calls, emails and text messages seeking information 
and 
assistance 
regarding 
his 
bankruptcy 
case, 
[Attorney] Green violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4).5  
                                                 
4 SCR 20:1.3 provides: "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
5 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4) provide: "A lawyer shall: (3) 
keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the 
matter; (4) promptly comply with reasonable requests by the 
client for information." 
No. 
2022AP1212-D   
 
6 
 
Count 3: By failing to refund $400 in unearned fees to 
[M.P.], [Attorney] Green violated SCR 20:1.16(d).6   
Count 4: By failing to respond to OLR's October 29, 
2021 notice of formal investigation, [Attorney] Green 
violated 
SCR 
22.03(2),[7] 
enforceable 
via 
SCR 
20:8.4(h).8  
¶13 The next client matter detailed in OLR's complaint 
involved Attorney Green's representation of B.L., who hired him 
to represent her in a bankruptcy matter in 2018.  B.L. agreed to 
pay Attorney Green $4,500 for the representation and paid him 
$1,000 before he filed the bankruptcy petition.  
                                                 
6 SCR 
20:1.16(d) 
provides: 
"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 payments 
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." 
7 SCR 22.03(2) provides: "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 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 present any information deemed relevant to the 
investigation." 
8 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides: "It is professional misconduct to 
fail to cooperate in the investigation of a grievance filed with 
the office of lawyer regulation as required by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 
22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), or SCR 22.04(1)."  
No. 
2022AP1212-D   
 
7 
 
¶14 On July 17, 2018, Attorney Green filed a Chapter 13 
bankruptcy petition for B.L. in United States Bankruptcy Court 
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.  Although Attorney Green 
filed a proposed Chapter 13 plan with the petition, he was 
unable to gain confirmation of the plan, and over the next 36 
months he filed eight amendments to the plan.  Attorney Green 
missed multiple filing deadlines in the case, leading the 
Chapter 13 Trustee to ask for dismissal on three occasions.  
B.L. tried to contact Attorney Green multiple times and tried to 
meet with him to discuss the status of her bankruptcy, but 
Attorney Green did not substantively respond to her requests. 
¶15 On March 29, 2021, Attorney Green filed a stipulation 
with one of B.L.'s creditors.  B.L. had not approved the 
stipulation.   
¶16 On April 28, 2021, the bankruptcy judge ordered 
Attorney Green to file an amended plan by May 11, 2021.  He 
failed to do so.  
¶17 On May 4, 2021, B.L. went to Attorney Green's office 
but he would not meet with her.  The following day, B.L. wrote 
directly to the bankruptcy judge indicating that Attorney Green 
was not communicating with her and that she no longer wanted him 
to represent her. 
¶18 On July 13, 2021, the bankruptcy judge held a hearing 
on the Trustee's dismissal motion and B.L.'s letter to the 
bankruptcy court.  The bankruptcy court ordered Attorney Green 
to file a motion to withdraw by July 16, 2021.  Attorney Green 
did not move to withdraw.  On July 23, 2021, the bankruptcy 
No. 
2022AP1212-D   
 
8 
 
court ordered Attorney Green to appear in person on August 5, 
2021 to show cause why the bankruptcy court should not sanction 
him for failing to obey the July 13th order.  Attorney Green 
failed to appear at the August 5th hearing and did not otherwise 
respond.   
¶19 On August 6, 2021, the bankruptcy court terminated 
Attorney Green's representation of B.L. and ordered Attorney 
Green to disgorge $1,000 in fees to B.L. by September 7, 2021.  
The bankruptcy court forwarded the August 6th order to OLR.  
Attorney Green has not paid B.L. the $1,000 reimbursement 
ordered by the bankruptcy court.  
¶20 On September 15, 2021, the bankruptcy court ordered 
Attorney Green to appear in person on October 14, 2021 to show 
cause why the bankruptcy court should not sanction him further.  
On October 14, 2021, Attorney Green wrote to the bankruptcy 
court saying he could not appear due to transportation issues, 
that he lacked $1,000 to pay B.L., and that he had health 
issues. 
¶21 On October 15, 2021, the bankruptcy court entered 
judgment against Attorney Green for $1,000 and barred him from 
filing any new bankruptcy cases in the Eastern District.   
¶22 On October 29, 2021, OLR sent Attorney Green a notice 
of 
formal 
investigation 
regarding 
the 
bankruptcy 
court's 
referral and requested a response by November 22, 2021.  This 
was the same time frame as the notice sent to Attorney Green in 
M.P.'s case.  As with M.P.'s case, Attorney Green failed to 
respond to OLR, and his law license was automatically suspended 
No. 
2022AP1212-D   
 
9 
 
on December 26, 2021.  Attorney Green has not subsequently 
cooperated in the investigation in B.L.'s case, and the 
suspension remains in effect.  
¶23 The 
complaint 
alleged 
the 
following 
counts 
of 
misconduct arising out of Attorney Green's representation of 
B.L.:  
Count 5: By failing to take meaningful action to 
advance [B.L.]'s bankruptcy case over a 36 month 
period, including failing to meet multiple deadlines 
associated with the case and causing the Trustee to 
file multiple motions to dismiss the bankruptcy case, 
[Attorney] Green violated SCR 20:1.3. 
Count 6: By failing to keep [B.L.] reasonably informed 
regarding the status of her case, and by failing to 
respond to [B.L.]'s numerous telephone calls seeking 
information and assistance regarding the bankruptcy 
case, including refusing to meet with [B.L.] on May 4, 
2021, [Attorney] Green violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and 
(4). 
Count 7: By failing to comply with the court's April 
28, 2021, July 13, 2021, July 23, 2021, August 6, 
2021, and September 15, 2021 orders in [B.L.]'s 
bankruptcy 
proceeding, 
[Attorney] 
Green, 
in 
each 
instance, violated SCR 20:3.4(c).9   
Count 8: By failing to refund $1,000 in unearned fees 
to [B.L.], [Attorney] Green violated SCR 20:1.16(d). 
Count 9: By failing to respond to OLR's October 29, 
2021 notice of formal investigation, [Attorney] Green 
violated SCR 22.03(2), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶24 The next client matter detailed in OLR's complaint 
involved Attorney Green's representation of T.B. and J.B. (the 
                                                 
9 SCR 20:3.4(c) provides: "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." 
No. 
2022AP1212-D   
 
10 
 
Bs), who hired Attorney Green to represent them in a bankruptcy 
matter in 2019.  The Bs agreed to pay Attorney Green $4,000 for 
the representation and paid him $1,573 prior to filing a 
bankruptcy petition.  
¶25 On November 16, 2019, Attorney Green filed a Chapter 
13 bankruptcy petition on behalf of the Bs in United States 
Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.  The 
Bank of New York Mellon (Mellon) was the Trustee for the holders 
of a second mortgage on the Bs' home.  On June 2, 2020, the Bs 
and Mellon agreed to lift the automatic stay on Mellon's claims 
to the home. 
¶26 On September 1, 2020, the bankruptcy court confirmed 
the Bs' Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition and plan.  As part of the 
plan, the Bs were required to make monthly payments and provide 
tax returns to the bankruptcy Trustee.  In the first half of 
2021, the Bs gave their 2020 tax returns to Attorney Green, but 
he did not forward them to the Trustee.  
¶27 In March 2021, Mellon filed a foreclosure action 
against the Bs in Milwaukee County circuit court.  The Bs 
notified Attorney Green of the foreclosure action and repeatedly 
called, texted, and emailed him over the next few months.  
Attorney Green did not respond to the Bs' efforts to contact 
him.   
¶28 On June 26, 2021, the circuit court in the foreclosure 
case scheduled a hearing on a default motion against the Bs for 
July 26, 2021.  On July 21, 2021, Attorney Green entered an 
appearance in the foreclosure case.  Attorney Green appeared at 
No. 
2022AP1212-D   
 
11 
 
the hearing on Mellon's default motion on July 26, 2021.  The 
circuit court granted the default and set another hearing for 
August 9, 2021 to address the foreclosure judgment motion.  
Attorney Green failed to appear at the scheduled hearing on 
August 9, 2021, and the circuit court granted a foreclosure 
judgment against the Bs. 
¶29 On September 21, 2021, the Bs filed a grievance with 
OLR claiming that since March 2021 Attorney Green had not 
responded to their numerous phone calls and emails and, because 
of the foreclosure judgment, they were no longer able to work on 
a payment plan with Mellon.   
¶30 On September 29, 2021, the bankruptcy Trustee moved to 
dismiss the bankruptcy because the Bs had not made the required 
payments and had failed to provide tax returns to the Trustee.  
Attorney Green failed to respond to the Trustee's motion to 
dismiss or take any other steps to advance the Bs' bankruptcy.  
¶31 On October 27, 2021, the bankruptcy court dismissed 
the Bs' case.  Attorney Green had received $521.59 toward his 
fees through the Chapter 13 plan. 
¶32 On November 24, 2021, the Bs filed a new Chapter 13 
bankruptcy petition with new counsel.  On December 3, 2021, the 
bankruptcy court ordered Attorney Green to appear in person on 
January 5, 2022 and show cause why his attorney's fees should 
not be disgorged and why other sanctions should not be imposed 
on him.  Attorney Green failed to respond to the bankruptcy 
court order or appear on January 5, 2022.  
No. 
2022AP1212-D   
 
12 
 
¶33 On January 6, 2022, the bankruptcy court ordered 
Attorney Green to disgorge $2,094.59 in fees and pay that amount 
to the Bs.  Attorney Green has not paid any part of the ordered 
amount to the Bs. 
¶34 On October 30, 2021, OLR sent Attorney Green a notice 
of formal investigation in the Bs' matter and requested a 
response on or before November 22, 2021.  As with the other 
notices of formal investigation, Attorney Green failed to 
respond, and effective December 26, 2021, his Wisconsin law 
license was automatically suspended for failure to cooperate 
with OLR's investigation.  Attorney Green has not subsequently 
cooperated in the investigation of the Bs' grievance, and the 
suspension remains in effect. 
¶35 OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Green's representation of 
the Bs: 
Count 10: By failing to appear at the hearing on 
Mellon's motion for default judgment and foreclosure, 
resulting in a judgment of foreclosure, and, in 
addition, by failing to take any action to respond to 
the Trustee's motion to dismiss the bankruptcy action, 
resulting in the dismissal of the [Bs]' bankruptcy 
proceeding, [Attorney] Green violated SCR 20:1.3.  
Count 11: By failing to keep the [Bs] reasonably 
informed regarding the status of their cases, and by 
failing to respond to the [Bs]' numerous telephone 
calls, emails and texts requesting information and 
assistance regarding both the foreclosure action and 
the bankruptcy case, [Attorney] Green violated SCR 
20:1.4(a)(3) and (4).  
Count 12: By failing to comply with the court's 
December 
3, 
2021 
and 
January 
6, 
2022 
orders, 
No. 
2022AP1212-D   
 
13 
 
[Attorney] Green, in each instance, violated SCR 
20:3.4(c). 
Count 13: By failing to refund unearned fees to the 
[Bs], [Attorney] Green violated SCR 20:1.16(d). 
Count 14: By failing to respond to the OLR's October 
30, 2021 notice of formal investigation, [Attorney] 
Green violated SCR 22.03(2), enforceable via SCR 
20:8.4(h). 
¶36 OLR's complaint also alleged that Attorney Green 
engaged in professional misconduct in his representation of 
K.M., who hired him in November 2019 to file a termination of 
parental rights case with step-parent adoption of her son.  K.M. 
agreed to pay Attorney Green $4,000 for the representation.  She 
paid him $2,000 in November 2019 and then paid $150 per month 
toward the remaining $2,000.  By January 2021, Attorney Green 
had received full payment. 
¶37 Attorney Green took no action on K.M.'s behalf.  K.M. 
tried to contact Attorney Green through phone calls, emails, and 
texts, but Attorney Green never substantively responded.   
¶38 On October 19, 2021, K.M. filed a grievance against 
Attorney Green with OLR.  On October 29, 2021, K.M. emailed 
Attorney Green and requested a full refund of the $4,000 
attorney's fees she had paid.  Attorney Green failed to respond.   
¶39 On November 22, 2021, OLR sent Attorney Green a notice 
of formal investigation and requested a response by December 15, 
2021. As with the previous notices of formal investigation, 
Attorney Green failed to respond.  Effective January 8, 2022, 
his law license was automatically suspended for his failure to 
cooperate with OLR's investigation in the matter.  Attorney 
No. 
2022AP1212-D   
 
14 
 
Green has not subsequently cooperated in the investigation of 
K.M.'s grievance, and the suspension remains in effect.   
¶40 The 
complaint 
alleged 
the 
following 
counts 
of 
misconduct arising out of Attorney Green's representation of 
K.M.: 
Count 15: By failing to take any action on [K.M.]'s 
behalf to file a termination of parental rights and 
step-parent adoption case, [Attorney] Green violated 
SCR 20:1.3. 
Count 16: By failing to keep [K.M.] reasonably 
informed regarding the status of her case, and by 
failing to respond to [K.M.]'s numerous telephone 
calls and emails requesting information regarding the 
case, [Attorney] Green violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and 
(4). 
Count 17: By failing to respond to [K.M.]'s request 
for 
a 
refund, 
[Attorney] 
Green 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.5(b)(3).10  
Count 18: By failing to refund unearned fees to 
[K.M.], [Attorney] Green violated SCR 20:1.16(d). 
Count 19: By failing to respond to OLR's notice of 
formal 
investigation 
dated 
November 
22, 
2021, 
[Attorney] Green violated SCR 22.03(2), enforceable 
via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶41 OLR's complaint further alleged that Attorney Green 
committed 
professional 
misconduct 
with 
respect 
to 
his 
representation of J.W., Jr., who hired Attorney Green to 
represent him in a bankruptcy matter in 2020.  J.W. agreed to 
                                                 
10 SCR 20:1.5(b)(3) provides: "A lawyer shall promptly 
respond to a client's request for information concerning fees 
and expenses." 
No. 
2022AP1212-D   
 
15 
 
pay Attorney Green $4,500 for the representation and paid him 
$1,000 prior to the filing.   
¶42 On May 29, 2020, Attorney Green filed a Chapter 13 
bankruptcy petition on J.W.'s behalf in United States Bankruptcy 
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.  Attorney Green 
filed multiple amendments to the original Chapter 13 plan, all 
of which drew objections from the Trustee and/or creditors. 
¶43 On July 20, 2020, the bankruptcy court ordered J.W. to 
give the Trustee specific documents and file an amended plan 
addressing specific issues.  Attorney Green failed to file an 
amended plan or give the requested documents to the trustee. 
¶44 On September 2, 2020, the Trustee moved to dismiss the 
bankruptcy for failure to comply with the July 20th order.  On 
September 29, 2020, the bankruptcy court denied the Trustee's 
motion 
to 
dismiss, 
but 
re-ordered 
J.W. 
to 
provide 
the 
documentation and make changes to the bankruptcy plan.   
¶45 On November 4, 2020, the Trustee filed another motion 
to dismiss because J.W. had failed to make payments as required 
under the proposed plan.  On December 4, 2020, the bankruptcy 
court dismissed J.W.'s bankruptcy proceeding. 
¶46  On February 23, 2021, Attorney Green filed a new 
Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition on behalf of J.W.  This proposed 
bankruptcy plan was substantively the same as the one in the 
earlier case that had failed to win confirmation.  On March 26, 
2021, the Trustee moved to dismiss J.W.'s new bankruptcy plan, 
alleging the filing was not in good faith due to the plan's 
similarity to the prior one and due to J.W.'s failure to make 
No. 
2022AP1212-D   
 
16 
 
payments or attend the scheduled meeting with creditors.  
Attorney Green failed to respond to this motion.  On April 20, 
2021, the bankruptcy court granted the Trustee's motion and 
dismissed J.W.'s second petition. 
¶47 On September 9, 2021, J.W. filed a grievance against 
Attorney Green with OLR.  On October 28, 2021, OLR sent Attorney 
Green a notice of formal investigation.  As with the previous 
notices of formal investigation, Attorney Green failed to 
respond, and effective December 26, 2021, his law license was 
automatically suspended.  Attorney Green has not subsequently 
cooperated in the investigation into J.W.'s grievance, and the 
suspension remains in effect. 
¶48 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct arising out of Attorney Green's representation of 
J.W.:       
Count 20: By failing to take meaningful action to 
advance [J.W.]'s bankruptcy case following the filing 
of two petitions, [Attorney] Green violated SCR 
20:1.3. 
Count 21: By failing to comply with the court's July 
20, 2020 and September 29, 2020 orders in [J.W.]'s 
bankruptcy 
proceeding, 
[Attorney] 
Green, 
in 
each 
instance, violated SCR 20:3.4(c). 
Count 22: By failing to respond to OLR's October 28, 
2021 notice of formal investigation, [Attorney] Green 
violated SCR 22.03(2), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶49 The final client matter detailed in OLR's complaint 
concerned Attorney Green's representation of J.V. J.V. hired 
Attorney Green in August 2021 to represent her in a pending 
divorce action as well as in a juvenile proceeding.  In 
No. 
2022AP1212-D   
 
17 
 
September 2021, Attorney Green stopped responding to J.V.'s 
requests for information and advice.  
¶50 On October 7, 2021, Attorney Green moved to withdraw 
in the juvenile case, claiming health issues.  J.V. was unable 
to obtain a copy of her file from Attorney Green or gain access 
to electronic court filings in her cases. 
¶51 On October 12, 2021, J.V. filed a grievance against 
Attorney Green with OLR.  On November 5, 2021, OLR sent Attorney 
Green a notice of formal investigation.  As with the previously 
detailed notices of formal investigation, Attorney Green failed 
to respond, and effective January 2, 2022, his law license was 
automatically suspended.  Attorney Green has not subsequently 
cooperated in OLR's investigation into J.V.'s grievance, and the 
suspension remains in effect. 
¶52 The 
complaint 
alleged 
the 
following 
counts 
of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Green's representation of 
J.V.:  
Count 23: By failing to promptly return [J.V.]'s file, 
[Attorney] Green violated SCR 20:1.16(d). 
Count 24: By failing to respond to OLR's notice of 
formal 
investigation 
dated 
November 
5, 
2021, 
[Attorney] Green violated SCR 22.03(2), enforceable 
via SCR 20:8.4(h).  
¶53 After OLR made several unsuccessful attempts to serve 
Attorney Green personally with the complaint and order to 
answer, he was served by certified mail by sending an 
authenticated copy of the complaint and order to answer to the 
most recent address on file with the State Bar on August 8, 
No. 
2022AP1212-D   
 
18 
 
2022.  His answer or other response to the complaint was due 
October 16, 2022.  A telephonic scheduling conference was held 
on October 20, 2022.  Only counsel for OLR appeared, and counsel 
expressed OLR's intention to file a motion for default judgment.  
OLR's counsel represented that to the best of his knowledge, 
based on OLR's investigation, Attorney Green was not then 
engaged in and appeared to have abandoned the practice of law.  
The referee adjourned the scheduling conference pending OLR's 
filing of a motion for default judgment. 
¶54 OLR filed its motion for default judgment on December 
15, 2022.  Pursuant to the notice, a telephonic hearing on the 
motion was held on January 20, 2023.  Again, only counsel for 
OLR appeared at the hearing.  On January 23, 2023, the referee 
issued an order finding that OLR had complied with the 
requirements for substituted service under SCR 22.13(1),11 that 
no answer or any other response to the complaint had been served 
or filed by Attorney Green or on his behalf, that the time for 
doing so had expired, and that Attorney Green was therefore in 
default.  Notwithstanding the finding of default, the referee's 
January 23, 2023 order provided that if Attorney Green served 
and filed a response to the complaint within 30 days, the 
                                                 
11 SCR 22.13(1) provides: "The complaint and order to answer 
shall be served upon the respondent in the same manner as a 
summons under section 801.11(1) of the statutes. If, with 
reasonable diligence, the respondent cannot be served under 
section 801.11(1)(a) or (b) of the statutes, service may be made 
by sending by certified mail an authenticated copy of the 
complaint and order to answer to the most recent address 
furnished by the respondent to the state bar." 
No. 
2022AP1212-D   
 
19 
 
referee would rescind the finding of default.  No answer or 
other response to the complaint has been filed. 
¶55 On March 22, 2023, the referee issued a report and a 
recommendation recommending that this court grant the OLR's 
motion for default judgment.  The referee found that OLR 
complied with SCR 22.13(1) and properly served the complaint and 
order to answer on Attorney Green.  The referee found that the 
OLR made reasonable and good faith attempts, above and beyond 
the attempts necessary to satisfy the requirements of SCR 
22.13(1), to provide Attorney Green with actual knowledge of the 
proceeding and that further attempts to contact him would be 
futile.   
¶56 The referee deemed all of the allegations in OLR's 
complaint established.  The referee found that OLR had met its 
burden of proof with respect to all of the counts of 
professional misconduct alleged in the complaint. 
¶57 With respect to the appropriate sanction, the referee 
noted that because Attorney Green has previously received both a 
private reprimand and a public reprimand, the doctrine of 
progressive discipline strongly suggests the appropriateness of 
a suspension, particularly since the nature of the misconduct in 
this case bears substantial similarity to the misconduct that 
resulted in the two reprimands.  The referee found that, in 
significant 
respects, 
this 
case 
was 
similar 
to 
In 
re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Rostollan, 2018 WI 38, 381 
Wis.2d 5, 911 N.W.2d 112, in which this court imposed a two-year 
license suspension.  Attorney Rostollan was found to have 
No. 
2022AP1212-D   
 
20 
 
committed 21 counts of professional misconduct involving three 
clients.  He had no prior disciplinary history.  Like Attorney 
Green, Attorney Rostollan was also found to be in default, and 
at the time the case reached this court, Attorney Rostollan's 
license had also been temporarily suspended for his failure to 
cooperate in an OLR investigation. 
¶58 The referee said the scope of misconduct in Rostollan 
and the instant case was roughly comparable.  The referee said 
given that Attorney Green has been previously disciplined, and 
Attorney Rostollan had not been, the suspension imposed here 
should be no shorter than the suspension imposed in Rostollan.  
The referee reasoned that the progression from a public 
reprimand to a two-year suspension was significant and would 
properly reflect the scope and gravity of Attorney Green's 
misconduct.  The referee believed that a two-year suspension 
would also serve to deter other attorneys from engaging in 
similar misconduct. 
¶59 The referee further recommended that Attorney Green be 
ordered to pay restitution of $400 to M.P. and $4,000 to K.M., 
and that he also be ordered to comply with the two bankruptcy 
court disgorgement orders, one for the benefit of B.L. in the 
amount of $1,000 and the other for the benefit of the Bs in the 
amount of $2,094.59.  Finally, the referee recommended that 
Attorney Green be required to pay the full costs of this 
proceeding.  
¶60 We review a referee's findings of fact subject to the 
clearly erroneous standard.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
No. 
2022AP1212-D   
 
21 
 
Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis.2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 
747.  We review the referee's conclusions of law de novo.  Id.  
We determine the appropriate level of discipline independent 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.   
¶61 In light of Attorney Green's failure to appear or 
participate in this case, we agree with the referee that 
Attorney Green should be declared in default.  We also find that 
the referee properly relied on the allegations of the complaint, 
which were deemed admitted.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Roitburd, 2016 WI 12, ¶19, 368 Wis.2d 595, 882 N.W.2d 
317.   
¶62 We agree with the referee that the allegations in 
OLR's complaint have been established and that Attorney Green 
engaged in the 24 counts of misconduct alleged in the complaint.  
We also agree that a two-year suspension of Attorney Green's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin is an appropriate sanction 
for the misconduct.  Although no two disciplinary proceedings 
are alike, we agree with the referee that this case is 
substantially similar to Rostollan.  We agree that a two-year 
license suspension is required to impress on Attorney Green the 
seriousness 
of 
his 
extensive 
misconduct 
and 
deter 
other 
attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct in the future. 
¶63 We also accept the referee's recommendation that 
Attorney Green be required to make restitution to M.P. and K.M. 
and that he also be required to comply with the two bankruptcy 
No. 
2022AP1212-D   
 
22 
 
court disgorgement orders.  Finally, we agree, consistent with 
our standard practice, that Attorney Green should bear the full 
costs of this proceedings which are $707 as of April 11, 2023. 
¶64 IT IS ORDERED that the license of William H. Green to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of two 
years, effective the date of this order. 
¶65 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, William H. Green 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. 
¶66 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, William H. Green shall pay restitution to M.P. in 
the amount of $400 and to K.M. in the amount of $4,000.  
¶67 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that William H. Green shall 
comply with the bankruptcy court disgorgement orders requiring 
him to disgorge $1,000 in fees to B.L. and to disgorge $2,094.59 
in fees to the Bs. 
¶68 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, William H. Green shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
¶69 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution is to be 
completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation. 
¶70 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See SCR 
22.29(4)(c). 
No. 
2022AP1212-D   
 
23 
 
¶71 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the temporary suspensions 
of William H. Green's license to practice law issued on December 
26, 2021, January 2, 2022, and January 8, 2022 are hereby 
lifted. 
¶72 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
any 
administrative 
suspension of William H. Green's license to practice law due to 
his failure to pay mandatory bar dues and failure to comply with 
continuing legal education requirements remains in effect.      
No. 
2022AP1212-D   
 
 
 
1