Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Paul A. Strouse

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2024 WI 10 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2023AP1032-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Paul A. Strouse, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Paul A. Strouse, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST STROUSE  
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 27, 2024   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per curiam.  
  
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2024 WI 10 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2023AP1032-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Paul A. Strouse, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Paul A. Strouse, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 27, 2024 
 
Samuel A. Christensen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review Referee V.L. Bailey-Rihn's 
report recommending that the court declare Attorney Paul A. 
Strouse in default and revoke his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin due to professional misconduct.  The referee also 
recommends that Attorney Strouse pay the full costs associated 
with this proceeding, which are $2,456.45 as of November 28, 
2023. 
No. 
2023AP1032-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Since no appeal has been filed, we review the 
referee's report pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.17(2).1  
After careful review of the matter, we agree with the referee 
that, based on Attorney Strouse's failure to answer the 
complaint filed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), or 
otherwise appear in the proceeding, Attorney Strouse is in 
default.  We also conclude that revocation of Attorney Strouse's 
license 
is 
an 
appropriate 
sanction 
for 
his 
professional 
misconduct.  Finally, we agree with the referee that Attorney 
Strouse should be assessed the full costs of this proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney Strouse was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1991.  The most recent address he furnished to the 
State Bar of Wisconsin is in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 
¶4 
Attorney Strouse's disciplinary history consists of 
three public reprimands and a suspension.  In 2010 he received a 
public reprimand for misconduct that included failing to keep 
clients reasonably informed of the status of their cases; 
failing to respond to a client's requests for information; and 
falsifying a bankruptcy discharge order and failing to clarify 
                                                 
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. 
2023AP1032-D   
 
3 
 
the origin of the falsified document when asked by the court.  
Public Reprimand of Paul A. Strouse, 2010-2.2  
¶5 
In 2011 Attorney Strouse received a second public 
reprimand for his conduct in a bankruptcy matter which included 
a lack of diligence; failure to keep a client reasonably 
informed of the status of the case; failing to respond to the 
client's requests for information; and failing to explain a 
matter to the extent necessary for the client to make informed 
decisions.  Public Reprimand of Paul A. Strouse, 2011-5.3 
¶6 
In 2015 Attorney Strouse received a third public 
reprimand for practicing law while his license was suspended for 
ten days due to noncompliance with  the continuing legal 
education requirement and failing to disclose to the Wisconsin 
Board of Bar Examiners on his reinstatement petition that he had 
filed two bankruptcy petitions during the period of his 
suspension.  Public Reprimand of Paul A. Strouse, 2015-6.4 
¶7 
Attorney Strouse also received a 60-day suspension in 
2015 for his conduct in four bankruptcy matters.  The seven 
counts of misconduct for which he was suspended included failing 
                                                 
2 Electronic 
copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/0f7e60648c388d3d3b4f303b074b
786528431d8c.continue?action=detail&detailOffset=9.  
3 Electronic 
copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/5c5b474d6f7527508222444b5460
4d333d722245.continue?action=detail&detailOffset=15.  
4 Electronic 
copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/35634b8a622960396f0d5e37813c
2b613c1c1b34.continue?action=detail&detailOffset=8.  
No. 
2023AP1032-D   
 
4 
 
to provide a receipt for or properly safeguard property of a 
client or third person; failing to communicate the scope and 
basis for fees; failing to consult with a client regarding the 
means by which objectives of the representation were to be 
pursued; failing to explain matters sufficiently to enable a 
client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; 
and failing to respond to a client's requests for information.  
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Strouse, 2015 WI 83, 364 
Wis. 2d 314, 868 N.W.2d 163. 
¶8 
On June 12, 2023, OLR filed a complaint against 
Attorney Strouse alleging nine counts of misconduct.  The first 
three counts arose out of his use of another attorney's notary 
stamp and his misrepresentations to a court.  
¶9 
In 
2014 
the 
Wisconsin 
Department 
of 
Financial 
Institutions revoked Attorney Strouse's notary commission, which 
he had held since 1992.  The revocation was based on the 
administrative suspension of Attorney Strouse's law license due 
to his failure to comply with mandatory continuing legal 
education reporting requirements.  Attorney Strouse has not held 
a notary commission since 2014. 
¶10 Between approximately January 2017 and October 2020, 
Attorney Thomas R. Napierala's firm, Napierala Law Offices, LLC, 
shared office space in Milwaukee, Wisconsin with Attorney 
Strouse's firm.  During the time they shared office space, 
Attorney Napierala, who held a valid notary commission, often 
notarized documents for Attorney Strouse which related to the 
representation of clients for both firms.  
No. 
2023AP1032-D   
 
5 
 
¶11 In approximately October 2020, Attorneys Strouse and 
Napierala ended their office sharing arrangement and moved their 
firms to separate office locations.  Following the move, 
Attorney Napierala could not locate his notary stamp.  During 
OLR's investigation, Attorney Strouse stated that during the 
move from the shared office space, Attorney Napierala's notary 
stamp had been inadvertently packed with Attorney Strouse's 
firm's property and was located when the items were unpacked at 
Attorney Strouse's new office.  
¶12 Attorney 
Strouse 
had 
possession 
of 
Attorney 
Napierala's notary stamp no later than November 9, 2020.  
Between November 9 and December 6, 2020, Attorney Strouse used 
Attorney Napierala's notary stamp to affix Attorney Napierala's 
notary seal on two affidavits without Attorney Napierala's 
authorization or knowledge.  In addition, Attorney Strouse 
affixed or caused his nonlawyer staff to affix Attorney 
Napierala's electronic signature as the notary on the two 
affidavits 
without 
Attorney 
Napierala's 
authorization 
or 
knowledge. 
¶13 On November 9, 2020, Attorney Strouse filed or caused 
his nonlawyer staff to file one of the affidavits with the 
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of 
Wisconsin (Bankruptcy Court).  On December 6, 2020, Attorney 
Strouse filed or caused his nonlawyer staff to file one of the 
affidavits with the Bankruptcy Court in a second case. 
¶14 Between December 10, 2020 and January 8, 2021, 
Attorney Napierala communicated with Attorney Strouse in an 
No. 
2023AP1032-D   
 
6 
 
effort to locate and retrieve Attorney Napierala's notary stamp.  
Attorney Strouse denied having possession of the stamp. 
¶15 On approximately December 10, 2020, Thomas D. Vaitys, 
an attorney whose Wisconsin law license had been revoked and who 
had access to Attorney Strouse's new office space, informed 
Attorney Napierala that Vaitys had found a notary stamp in 
Attorney Strouse's new office space.  
¶16 On December 16, 2020, Attorney Napierala emailed 
Attorney Strouse asking him to send the notary stamp to him as 
soon as possible.  On December 18, 2020, Attorney Strouse 
replied to the email saying, "I do not have your notary seal." 
Attorney Napierala responded by informing Attorney Strouse that 
Vaitys had told Attorney Napierala that Attorney Strouse had the 
notary stamp. Attorney Strouse responded, "Well then, you know 
who has it." 
¶17 Between December 18 and 21, 2020, Attorney Napierala 
attempted to make arrangements with Attorney Strouse to pick up 
the notary stamp or to have someone deliver it to Attorney 
Napierala.  
¶18 On 
December 
21, 
2020, 
Attorney 
Strouse 
emailed 
Attorney Napierala saying, "I do not have your notary seal . . . 
if [Vaitys] has it, then bring it up with him." 
¶19 Between January 3 and 5, 2021, Attorney Strouse 
affixed Attorney Napierala's notary seal and affixed or caused 
his nonlawyer staff to affix Attorney Napierala's electronic 
signature as the notary on three additional affidavits without 
Attorney Napierala's authorization or knowledge.  Attorney 
No. 
2023AP1032-D   
 
7 
 
Strouse filed or caused his nonlawyer staff to file the 
affidavits with the Bankruptcy Court. 
¶20 On January 8, 2021, Attorney Napierala emailed Vaitys 
and copied Attorney Strouse, saying, "I still need to obtain my 
notary seal and I will come and retrieve it."  Attorney Strouse 
did not return the notary stamp to Attorney Napierala. 
¶21 Between February 4, 2021 and March 3, 2021, Attorney 
Strouse 
affixed 
Attorney 
Napierala's 
notary 
seal 
on 
13 
additional affidavits without Attorney Napierala's authorization 
or knowledge.  Attorney Strouse also affixed or caused his 
nonlawyer 
staff 
to 
affix 
Attorney 
Napierala's 
electronic 
signature on the 13 affidavits without Attorney Napierala's 
authorization or knowledge, and Attorney Strouse filed or caused 
his nonlawyer staff to file the 13 affidavits with the 
Bankruptcy Court. 
¶22 On or about March 3, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court's 
Clerk's Office contacted Attorney Napierala regarding his 
purported notarization of the affidavit filed that day in one of 
the cases.  On March 4, 2021, Attorney Napierala emailed 
Attorney Strouse about the Bankruptcy Court's contact regarding 
the affidavit.  Attorney Napierala advised Attorney Strouse that 
Attorney Napierala's notary seal and electronic signature 
appeared on a document filed on March 3, 2021 and that Attorney 
Napierala had not notarized anything that day.  Attorney 
Napierala instructed Attorney Strouse to contact the Bankruptcy 
Court to fix the problem, and he told Attorney Strouse that he 
would pick up the notary seal. 
No. 
2023AP1032-D   
 
8 
 
¶23 On March 4, 2021, Attorney Napierala sent a letter to 
the Bankruptcy Court advising that he had not notarized the 
affidavit in question that had been filed by Attorney Strouse.  
Attorney Napierala subsequently sent the Bankruptcy Court 
similar letters regarding affidavits filed on March 3, 2021 in 
other cases. 
¶24 On March 8, 2021, Attorney Napierala went to Attorney 
Strouse's new office, and the nonlawyer staff returned Attorney 
Napierala's notary stamp to him. 
¶25 On March 1, 2021, Judge Beth E. Hanan issued an order 
to show cause requiring Attorney Strouse to file a written 
response explaining why the court should not strike the debtors' 
motion to reopen due to an inaccurate affidavit of service.  
Attorney Strouse responded to the order to show cause on March 
17, 2021, saying he had an arrangement with Attorney Napierala 
in which Attorney Napierala would routinely visit Attorney 
Strouse's office to sign affidavits for various Bankruptcy Court 
cases.  Attorney Strouse stated that his "office manager saw 
that the affidavits were already pre-stamped and filed the 
affidavits [in one case] before Attorney Napierala arrived to 
sign them" and that Attorney Napierala's signature was affixed 
electronically.  Attorney Strouse claimed this was a mistake and 
had occurred in multiple cases. 
¶26 On March 17, 2021, Judge Katherine Perhach issued an 
order to show cause requiring Attorney Strouse to appear at a 
hearing on March 23, 2021 to explain why the court should not 
strike the debtors' motion due to the inaccurate affidavit filed 
No. 
2023AP1032-D   
 
9 
 
in one case, and to explain in writing why Attorney Napierala's 
signature and notary stamp appeared on the affidavit. 
¶27 On March 23, 2021, Attorney Strouse filed a letter 
responding to Judge Perhach's order to show cause in which he 
provided the same explanation that he had given to Judge Hanan.  
That same day, Judge Perhach conducted a hearing on the order to 
show cause and questioned Attorney Strouse about the affidavits.  
Attorney Strouse said he had an arrangement with Attorney 
Napierala whereby Attorney Napierala would visit Attorney 
Strouse's office to sign affidavits for Bankruptcy Court cases.  
Attorney Strouse said that Attorney Napierala would come to 
Attorney Strouse's new office to sign and date affidavits to be 
filed with the court.  Attorney Strouse acknowledged that the 
affidavits filed on March 3, 2021 had not been signed by 
Attorney 
Napierala 
and 
that 
Attorney 
Napierala 
had 
not 
authorized affixing his electronic signature to the affidavits.  
Attorney Strouse characterized the filing of the affidavits as a 
mistake by his nonlawyer staff.  He claimed that the affidavits 
filed on March 3, 2021 were the only ones he filed which had 
Attorney Napierala's notary stamp and signature without Attorney 
Napierala's authorization or knowledge.  Attorney Strouse also 
told Judge Perhach that the cases in which affidavits were filed 
on March 3, 2021 were the only ones in which he filed an 
affidavit that was not authorized by the notary to include the 
notary stamp or signature on the affidavit. 
¶28 On 
May 
21, 
2021, 
Attorney 
Napierala 
signed 
a 
Declaration 
denying 
the 
existence 
of 
any 
arrangement 
as 
No. 
2023AP1032-D   
 
10 
 
described by Attorney Strouse in his written responses to the 
court and during the March 23, 2021 hearing.  
¶29 On June 8, 2021, counsel for the United States Trustee 
sent Attorney Strouse a letter inquiring as to whether he had 
filed any other affidavits containing improper notarizations or 
notary signatures between November 1, 2020 and March 3, 2021.  
Attorney Strouse responded on June 27, 2021 and identified 11 
additional affidavits he had filed with improper notary stamps 
or notary signatures.  He failed to disclose two additional 
affidavits which also contained improper notary stamps or 
signatures. 
¶30 On August 27, 2021, counsel for the United States 
Trustee filed a motion for sanctions against Attorney Strouse in 
one of the cases pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § § 105 and 526 and Local 
Rule Bankr. P. 9029(f).  
¶31 On November 18, 2021, Attorney Strouse entered into an 
amended stipulation with the United States Trustee to resolve 
the motion for sanctions.  Attorney Strouse stipulated that, 
without Attorney Napierala's authorization or knowledge, he had 
retained possession of Attorney Napierala's notary stamp from 
October 31, 2020 through March 8, 2021 and had used the notary 
stamp 
and 
affixed 
Attorney 
Napierala's 
signature 
on 
18 
affidavits filed with the Bankruptcy Court.  Attorney Strouse 
further stipulated to making a false representation and false 
verbal and written representations to Judge Perhach.  Attorney 
Strouse acknowledged that his conduct violated 11 U.S.C. § 
526(a)(2). 
No. 
2023AP1032-D   
 
11 
 
¶32 On December 23, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court entered an 
order approving the amended stipulation and suspending Attorney 
Strouse's practice before the Bankruptcy Court for a period of 
not less than one year, effective January 1, 2022.  The 
Bankruptcy Court also imposed conditions on Attorney Strouse's 
practice before the court in the event he resumed practice 
following the suspension. 
¶33 OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Strouse's use of Attorney 
Napierala's notary stamp and his practice before the Bankruptcy 
Court: 
Count One:  By retaining [Attorney] Napierala's notary 
stamp without [Attorney] Napierala's permission; by 
using [Attorney] Napierala's notary stamp to affix 
[Attorney] 
Napierala's 
notary 
seal 
to 
documents 
without 
[Attorney] 
Napierala's 
authorization 
or 
knowledge; by affixing or causing his nonlawyer staff 
to affix [Attorney] Napierala's signature to documents 
as 
the 
notary 
without 
[Attorney] 
Napierala's 
authorization or knowledge; by misrepresenting to 
[Attorney] Napierala that he did not have possession 
of [Attorney] Napierala's notary stamp; and by failing 
to disclose to the United States Trustee all of the 
affidavits that [Attorney] Strouse had filed with 
false 
notarizations 
in 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Court, 
[Attorney] Strouse, in each instance, violated SCR 
20:8.4(c).5 
Count Two:  By filing or causing his nonlawyer staff 
to file at least 18 affidavits with the Bankruptcy 
Court containing false statements that each affidavit 
had been sworn before [Attorney] Napierala and that 
[Attorney] Napierala had affixed his notary stamp and 
                                                 
5 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
No. 
2023AP1032-D   
 
12 
 
signature, 
[Attorney] 
Strouse, 
in 
each 
instance, 
violated 11 U.S.C. § 526(a)(2) and SCR 20:3.4(c).6 
Count Three:  By misrepresenting to the Bankruptcy 
Court that [Attorney] Strouse had an arrangement with 
[Attorney] Napierala from October 31, 2020 to March 3, 
2021 for [Attorney] Napierala to provide notarial 
services and that [Attorney] Napierala regularly came 
to 
[Attorney] 
Strouse's 
new 
office 
to 
notarize 
documents; that the affidavits [Attorney] Strouse 
filed with the Bankruptcy Court on March 3, 2021 had 
been pre-stamped with [Attorney] Napierala's notary 
stamp and his signature was electronically affixed as 
part of the arrangement; that the affidavits filed on 
March 3, 2021 were filed in error by [Attorney] 
Strouse's nonlawyer staff who thought that [Attorney] 
Napierala had notarized the affidavits filed on March 
3, 2021; and that the affidavits filed on March 3, 
2021 by [Attorney] Strouse were the only ones to be 
filed bearing [Attorney] Napierala's notary stamp and 
signature without [Attorney] Napierala's authorization 
or knowledge, [Attorney] Strouse, in each instance, 
violated SCR 20:3.3(a)(1).7  
¶34 OLR's complaint against Attorney Strouse also alleged 
three counts of misconduct arising out of his representation of 
R.C., who hired Attorney Strouse in September 2019 to represent 
her regarding claims against her former employer. 
¶35 On June 9, 2020, Attorney Strouse timely filed R.C.'s 
charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission (EEOC).  On February 4, 2021, the EEOC issued R.C. a 
                                                 
6 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." 
7 SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) provides:  "A lawyer shall not knowingly 
make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to 
correct a false statement of material fact or law previously 
made to the tribunal by the lawyer." 
No. 
2023AP1032-D   
 
13 
 
notice of right to sue her former employer.  R.C. received the 
notice on February 4, 2021 and had 90 days, or until May 4, 
2021, to file a complaint with the court. 
¶36 On May 3, 2021, Attorney Strouse timely filed a 
complaint in United States District Court for the Eastern 
District of Wisconsin against R.C.'s former employer alleging 
that the employer had discriminated and retaliated against R.C. 
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 
U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), as amended by the Civil Rights 
Act of 1991 (Title VII). 
¶37 After filing R.C.'s complaint on May 3, 2021, Attorney 
Strouse failed to timely serve the defendant employer. 
¶38 On September 23, 2021, Attorney Strouse filed a notice 
of voluntary dismissal.  The court dismissed the case the same 
day.  Attorney Strouse failed to obtain R.C.'s permission to 
file the notice of voluntary dismissal.  Attorney Strouse 
incorrectly believed that R.C. had until September 9, 2022 to 
refile the case, but the statute of limitations on R.C.'s claims 
expired on May 4, 2021.  
¶39 Attorney Strouse acknowledged that personal and health 
problems impacted his representation of R.C.  No later than 
April 
26, 
2021, 
Attorney 
Strouse 
asserted 
that 
his 
representation of another client was also materially impaired by 
his personal and health issues.  Attorney Strouse did not notify 
R.C. that his personal or health problems were impacting his 
representation of her, nor did he file a motion to withdraw from 
the representation.  
No. 
2023AP1032-D   
 
14 
 
¶40 OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Strouse's representation of 
R.C.: 
Count Four:  By failing to act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in furtherance of [R.C.'s] 
interests related to her Title VII claims, [Attorney] 
Strouse violated SCR 20:1.3.8 
Count 
Five: 
 
By 
failing 
to 
provide 
competent 
representation to [R.C.], including by failing to take 
reasonable steps before filing a notice of voluntary 
dismissal to research and understand the effect a 
[voluntary] dismissal could have on her claims, 
[Attorney] Strouse violated SCR 20:1.1.9 
Count Six:  By failing to file a motion to withdraw 
from his representation of [R.C.] when his personal 
and health concerns were impairing his ability to 
represent 
her, 
[Attorney] 
Strouse 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.16(a)(2).10 
¶41 The final three counts of misconduct alleged in OLR's 
complaint arose out of Attorney Strouse's representation of J.H. 
and Attorney Strouse's association with Thomas D. Vaitys.  
Vaitys' license to practice law in Wisconsin was suspended in 
October 2018 due to his failure to pay State Bar dues or file a 
                                                 
8 SCR 20:1.3 provides:  "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
9 SCR 20:1.1 provides:  "A lawyer shall provide competent 
representation to a client.  Competent representation requires 
the 
legal 
knowledge, 
skill, 
thoroughness 
and 
preparation 
reasonably necessary for the representation." 
10 SCR 20:1.16(a)(2) provides:  "Except as stated in par. 
(c), 
a 
lawyer 
shall 
not 
represent 
a 
client 
or, 
where 
representation 
has 
commenced, 
shall 
withdraw 
from 
the 
representation of a client if the client persists in a course of 
action 
involving 
the 
lawyer's 
services 
that 
the 
lawyer 
reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent." 
No. 
2023AP1032-D   
 
15 
 
trust account certification certificate.  Vaitys' license was 
not reinstated.  On August 22, 2019, this court revoked Vaitys' 
license to practice law in Wisconsin due to misconduct in 
unrelated matters.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Vaitys, 2019 WI 85, 388 Wis. 2d 259, 932 N.W.2d 400.  Vaitys 
will not be eligible to file a petition for reinstatement of his 
law license until August 22, 2024.  See SCR 22.29(2).  
¶42 Attorney Strouse knew that Vaitys' license to practice 
law was suspended or revoked. 
¶43 Beginning in late 2018 or early 2019, Attorney Strouse 
provided office space, office equipment, and other assistance to 
two 
entities 
with 
which 
Vaitys 
was 
associated, 
Justice 
Wisconsin, Inc. and Third Ward Consultants, Inc.  Attorney 
Napierala and Attorney Strouse each paid Third Ward $750 every 
two weeks for services provided by Vaitys.  After Attorneys 
Strouse and Napierala severed their office sharing arrangement 
in October of 2020, Attorney Strouse began paying Third Ward 
$3,000 a month for services rendered by Vaitys. 
¶44 Attorney Strouse has admitted that Vaitys, either 
directly or through Third Ward, engaged in law work activities 
for Attorney Strouse's firm that are customarily performed by 
paralegal personnel, including legal research, interviewing 
clients, preparing discovery responses, and assisting in the 
preparation of complaints, motions, and other pleadings.  Vaitys 
occasionally met alone with clients, especially when Attorneys 
Strouse and Napierala were unavailable. 
No. 
2023AP1032-D   
 
16 
 
¶45 Attorney Strouse provided Vaitys with access to one or 
more of his firm's email accounts.  Vaitys responded to emails 
from Attorney Strouse's firm's email account on behalf of 
Attorney Strouse or the firm, without identifying himself as the 
drafter or sender of the email. 
¶46 In an email exchange from April 2021, Attorney 
Napierala responded to an email that appeared to have been sent 
from Attorney Strouse by asking whether the email had been sent 
by "T" or "P," meaning Tom Vaitys or Paul Strouse. 
¶47 Vaitys drafted all of the complaints Attorney Strouse 
filed on behalf of clients alleging violations of the Fair 
Credit Reporting Act.  Vaitys saved the complaints on his 
computer and not on a computer networked with the Strouse firm's 
computers. 
¶48 On September 19, 2019, J.H. hired Attorney Strouse to 
represent him in a civil case J.H. had filed pro se in the 
United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
Wisconsin.  The suit was against the City of Racine, the Racine 
Police Department, and twelve individual Police Department 
employees.  J.H. met with Attorney Strouse and Vaitys about the 
case every three to four months.  J.H. believed that Vaitys was 
an attorney working on his case with Attorney Strouse.  
¶49 Attorney Strouse never mentioned to J.H. that Vaitys' 
license to practice law was suspended or revoked.  Attorney 
Strouse was not aware of how Vaitys identified himself to any of 
Attorney Strouse's clients, and Attorney Strouse did not recall 
"ever having to explain to a client Mr. Vaitys' title or role." 
No. 
2023AP1032-D   
 
17 
 
¶50 J.H. also attended meetings with Vaitys alone, in 
which Vaitys provided legal advice to J.H. and engaged in 
substantive discussions of evidence, claims, and legal issues 
related to J.H.'s case.  On one occasion, Vaitys met with J.H. 
to review all of J.H.'s exhibits and evidence, including search 
warrants, affidavits, and video footage.  Vaitys told J.H. that 
J.H. had suffered an unreasonable search and seizure under the 
Fourth Amendment and that the police officers' actions were 
unreasonable based on their use of flash grenades when executing 
the search warrant. 
¶51 Vaitys primarily drafted J.H.'s first and second 
amended complaints and worked with J.H. to revise and finalize 
the first amended complaint. 
¶52 During the time that Attorney Strouse represented 
J.H., Attorney Strouse often fell asleep in meetings or slept in 
his office during the day.  If Vaitys was also present for a 
meeting, he would continue the meeting with J.H. by himself.  
¶53 J.H. often had to call or email Attorney Strouse 
several times before he would get a response.  When J.H. went to 
the office to meet with Attorney Strouse, he would often end up 
meeting with Vaitys or a nonlawyer staff member who was working 
with Attorney Strouse. 
¶54 After a September 2021 scheduling conference in J.H.'s 
case, Attorney Strouse failed to respond or have any staff 
respond to calls and emails from J.H. asking for information 
about the case.  Attorney Strouse has admitted that he failed to 
No. 
2023AP1032-D   
 
18 
 
respond to J.H.'s requests for information and to take other 
actions on J.H.'s behalf. 
¶55 On January 28, 2022, J.H. filed a document with the 
court in which he asserted that Attorney Strouse had "become 
non-communicative" with J.H.; had failed to respond to J.H.'s 
attempts to contact Attorney Strouse; and had refused to comply 
with J.H.'s reasonable requests for information related to his 
case. 
¶56 On January 28, 2022, Attorney Strouse filed a motion 
to withdraw from representing J.H.  In the motion, Attorney 
Strouse cited SCR 20:1.16(a)(2) and asserted that his physical 
and mental condition had materially impaired his representation 
of J.H. and that he was no longer capable of representing J.H.  
Attorney Strouse referred to a number of personal, medical, and 
financial difficulties that occurred between December 2019 and 
January 28, 2022, including that he was being treated for severe 
depression and anxiety. 
¶57 The 
court 
granted 
Attorney 
Strouse's 
motion 
to 
withdraw on February 9, 2022. 
¶58 OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Strouse's representation of 
J.H. and his association with Vaitys: 
Count Seven:  By assisting, facilitating, or allowing 
Thomas Vaitys to practice law and/or perform law work 
activities at a time when Vaitys' license to practice 
law was suspended or revoked, [Attorney] Strouse 
No. 
2023AP1032-D   
 
19 
 
violated SCR 20:8.4(a),11 via SCR 22.26(2)12 and/or SCR 
20:5.5(a)(2).13 
Count Eight:  By failing to respond to [J.H.'s] 
reasonable 
requests 
for 
information, 
[Attorney] 
Strouse violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(4).14 
Count Nine:  If [Attorney] Strouse's mental or 
physical condition materially impaired his ability to 
represent [J.H.], by failing to timely file a motion 
to 
withdraw 
from 
his 
representation 
of 
[J.H.], 
[Attorney] Strouse violated SCR 20:1.16(a)(2). 
¶59 Attorney Strouse did not file an answer to OLR's 
complaint.  OLR filed a motion for default judgment on August 
29, 2023.  Attorney Strouse failed to respond to the motion.  
The referee requested input on a hearing date for the default 
judgment motion.  Attorney Strouse indicated, via email, that he 
was available on October 9, 2023.  The referee set a briefing 
schedule on the motion.  Attorney Strouse failed to file a 
timely brief in opposition to the motion, and he failed to 
                                                 
11 SCR 20:8.4(a) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to violate or attempt to violate the Rules of 
Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do 
so, or do so through the acts of another." 
12 SCR 22.26(2) provides:  "An attorney whose license to 
practice law is suspended or revoked or who is suspended from 
the practice of law may not engage in this state in the practice 
of law or in any law work activity customarily done by law 
students, law clerks, or other paralegal personnel, except that 
the attorney may engage in law related work in this state for a 
commercial employer itself not engaged in the practice of law." 
13 SCR 20:5.5(a)(2) provides:  "A lawyer shall not assist 
another in practicing law in a jurisdiction where doing so 
violates the regulation of the legal profession in that 
jurisdiction." 
14 SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) provides:  "A lawyer shall promptly 
comply with reasonable requests by the client for information." 
No. 
2023AP1032-D   
 
20 
 
appear at the October 9, 2023 hearing.  The referee recommended 
that this court find Attorney Strouse in default.  The referee 
asked the parties for briefing on the appropriate sanction for 
Attorney Strouse's misconduct.  OLR submitted a sanctions brief.  
Attorney Strouse did not submit a sanctions brief. 
¶60 On November 13, 2023, the referee issued a report and 
recommendation reiterating that Attorney Strouse should be 
declared in default; finding that the allegations in OLR's 
complaint were true; and finding that the OLR had met its burden 
of proof as to all counts of misconduct alleged in the 
complaint. 
¶61 As to the appropriate sanction, the referee agreed 
with OLR that Attorney Strouse's misconduct warrants the most 
severe sanction available, the revocation of Attorney Strouse's 
license to practice law.  In making this recommendation, the 
referee noted that the factors to be considered in imposing 
discipline include the seriousness, nature and extent of the 
misconduct; the level of discipline needed to protect the 
public, the courts and the legal system from repetition of the 
attorney's misconduct; the need to impress upon the attorney the 
seriousness of the misconduct; and the need to deter other 
attorneys 
from 
committing 
similar 
conduct. 
The 
referee 
explained: 
From failing to obtain proper notarized affidavits, to 
then 
lying 
about 
the 
circumstances 
about 
the 
affidavits, to not informing a client that their claim 
has been dismissed, Strouse has not provided the level 
of conduct necessary to be an attorney licensed in 
this 
state. 
 
Strouse 
also 
willingly 
allowed 
a 
No. 
2023AP1032-D   
 
21 
 
disbarred 
attorney 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
direct 
contradiction of the relevant statutes prohibiting 
such conduct and failed to keep a client informed of 
his case.  Strouse also has an extensive prior record 
of disciplinary proceedings including three public 
reprimands and a 60-day license suspension. 
In short, Strouse has failed to conform to his 
obligations to clients, tribunals and OLR.  After 
three public reprimands and one 60-day suspension for 
much the same type of behavior, Strouse has not 
changed his behavior. 
¶62 The referee went on to say that although the case 
might 
present 
some 
mitigating 
factors 
based 
on 
Attorney 
Strouse's alleged mental or physical disability, Attorney 
Strouse failed to prove a causal connection between the 
misconduct and his alleged medical condition, so the referee was 
unable to determine if that factor would support a reduction in 
the severity of the sanction.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Davig, 2018 WI 114, ¶40, 385 Wis. 2d 49, 922 N.W.2d 498.  
The referee found that Attorney Strouse's overwhelming lack of 
candor to the Bankruptcy Court and OLR, along with his previous 
discipline, weighed heavily in favor of revocation.  The referee 
also found that it was appropriate for Attorney Strouse to be 
assessed the full costs of the proceeding. 
¶63 Attorney Strouse did not appeal from the referee's 
report and recommendation, so we proceed with our review of the 
matter pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).  We review a referee's findings 
of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard.  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 de novo.  Id.  We determine the appropriate level of 
No. 
2023AP1032-D   
 
22 
 
discipline independent of the referee's recommendation.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 
Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶64 We agree with the referee that Attorney Strouse should 
be declared in default.  In addition, we find that the referee 
properly relied on the allegations of the complaint, which were 
deemed admitted by Attorney Strouse's failure to answer.  We 
thus agree with the referee that the factual allegations of 
OLR's complaint may be taken as true and that they prove by 
clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that Attorney 
Strouse committed all of the counts of misconduct alleged in the 
complaint. 
¶65 We also agree with the referee that given the nature 
of the misconduct at issue, as well as Attorney Strouse's prior 
disciplinary record, the appropriate discipline in this case is 
to revoke Attorney Strouse's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin. 
 
Attorney 
Strouse's 
misconduct 
is 
disturbing.  
Knowing that his notary commission had been revoked, he 
appropriated Attorney Napierala's notary seal and, for a period 
of several months, applied the notary seal and affixed Attorney 
Napierala's electronic signature to multiple documents and filed 
the documents with the Bankruptcy Court.  When confronted by 
Attorney Napierala, Attorney Strouse lied and said he did not 
have the notary seal.  When confronted by the Bankruptcy Court, 
he lied again, concocted a bogus story, and claimed Attorney 
Napierala had in fact notarized the documents in question. 
No. 
2023AP1032-D   
 
23 
 
¶66 Attorney 
Strouse 
failed 
to 
provide 
competent 
representation to R.C. and authorized the voluntary dismissal of 
her claim without her permission and without understanding that 
the claim could not be re-filed because the statute of 
limitations had already run. 
¶67 Attorney Strouse's association with Vaitys was also 
highly problematic.  Attorney Strouse knew that Vaitys' license 
to practice law had been revoked, yet he allowed Vaitys to 
perform legal work, including drafting pleadings and conducting 
independent meetings with Attorney Strouse's clients.  
¶68 "Revocation of an attorney's license to practice law 
is the most severe sanction this court can impose.  It is 
reserved for the most egregious cases."  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Cooper, 2013 WI 97, ¶34, 351 Wis. 2d 350, 
839 N.W.2d 857.  This case fits that description.  Although no 
two 
disciplinary 
cases 
are 
precisely 
the 
same, 
we 
have 
previously revoked attorneys' licenses for somewhat analogous 
conduct.  For example, in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Petros, 2021 WI 55, 397 Wis. 2d 447, 960 N.W.2d 426, we revoked 
the license of an attorney who had engaged in sixteen counts of 
misconduct that included knowingly making a false statement of 
fact or law to a tribunal and engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.  Like Attorney 
Strouse, Attorney Petros had been the subject of several earlier 
disciplinary proceedings.  As we said in Petros, Attorney 
Strouse "appears uninterested in honest, responsible advocacy, 
and tends to dodge . . . when called to account for his actions.  
No. 
2023AP1032-D   
 
24 
 
Our profession has no place for persons who cannot be counted on 
to follow the basic standards and procedures set forth in our 
ethical rules."  Petros, 2021 WI 55, ¶29.  Any sanction short of 
revocation would unduly depreciate the gravity of Attorney 
Strouse's misconduct.  We also agree with the referee that, as 
is our usual custom, Attorney Strouse should be assessed the 
full costs of this proceeding. 
¶69 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Paul A. Strouse to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective April 2, 2024. 
¶70 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Paul A. Strouse shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $2,456.45. 
¶71  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Paul A. Strouse shall 
comply with the requirements of SCR 22.26 pertaining to the 
duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin 
has been revoked. 
 
 
 
No.  2023AP1032-D.akz 
 
1 
 
 
¶72 ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, C.J.   (concurring).  I 
concur in the court's order revoking Attorney Strouse's license 
to practice law in Wisconsin.  I write separately to point out 
that in Wisconsin the "revocation" of an attorney's law license 
is not truly revocation because the attorney may petition for 
readmittance after a period of five years.  See SCR 22.29(2).  I 
believe that when it comes to lawyer discipline, courts should 
say what they mean and mean what they say.  We should not be 
creating false perceptions to both the public and to the lawyer 
seeking to practice law again.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Moodie, 2020 WI 39, 391 Wis. 2d 196, 942 
N.W.2d 302 (Ziegler, J., dissenting).  And, as I stated in my 
dissent to this court's order denying Rule Petition 19-10, In 
the Matter of Amending Supreme Court Rules Pertaining to 
Permanent Revocation of a License to Practice Law in Attorney 
Disciplinary Proceedings, I believe there may be rare and 
unusual cases that would warrant the permanent revocation of an 
attorney's license to practice law.  See S. Ct. Order 19-10 
(issued Dec. 18, 2019) (Ziegler, J., dissenting). 
¶73 I am authorized to state that Justices REBECCA GRASSL 
BRADLEY, BRIAN HAGEDORN, and JILL J. KAROFSKY join this 
concurrence. 
 
 
 
No.  2023AP1032-D.akz 
 
 
 
1