Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Brian T. Stevens

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2023 WI 56 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2022AP12-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Brian T. Stevens, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Brian T. Stevens, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST STEVENS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 27, 2023   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
Per curiam. 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2023 WI 56
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2022AP12-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Brian T. Stevens, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Brian T. Stevens, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 27, 2023 
 
Samuel A. Christensen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review referee Sue E. Bischel's 
recommendation that this court suspend Attorney Brian T. 
Stevens' license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of 60 
days and impose conditions on his practice of law thereafter.  
The referee also recommended that Attorney Stevens be required 
to pay restitution to a third party and pay the full costs of 
this proceeding. 
No. 
2022AP12-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Because no appeal has been filed, we review the 
referee's report pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1  In conducting our 
review, we will affirm the referee's findings of fact unless 
they are found to be clearly erroneous, but we will review the 
referee's conclusions of law on a de novo basis.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶ 5, 305 
Wis.2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125. 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. 
¶3 
After our independent review of the record, we approve 
the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law and adopt 
them.  We agree that Attorney Stevens' misconduct merits a 60-
day suspension.  We also agree that certain conditions should be 
placed on Attorney Stevens' license to practice law following 
his suspension, though we define them more narrowly than did the 
referee.  We further agree with the referee's recommendation 
that Attorney Stevens be ordered to pay restitution and the full 
costs of this proceeding. 
¶4 
Attorney Stevens was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1995.  His disciplinary history consists of a 
private reprimand in March 2020 for his lack of diligence and 
                                                 
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. 
2022AP12-D   
 
3 
 
lack of communication with a client, and for failing to timely 
respond to the subsequent investigation by the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR).  Private Reprimand No. 2020-3.2 
¶5 
On January 4, 2022, the OLR filed a complaint against 
Attorney Stevens that alleged six counts of professional 
misconduct.  The OLR's complaint sought a 60-day suspension of 
Attorney Stevens' license to practice law.  Attorney Stevens 
filed an answer stating that he pled no contest to all the 
charges, but disputing that a 60-day suspension would be an 
appropriate sanction.  Attorney Stevens requested an evidentiary 
hearing on sanctions.   
¶6 
Referee Bischel held an evidentiary hearing on October 
22, 2022.  On February 21, 2023, the referee filed a report 
containing her findings of fact and conclusions of law, as well 
as her recommendation for discipline. The referee's report and 
the exhibits received at the evidentiary hearing may be 
summarized as follows. 
¶7 
Attorney Stevens has operated a solo law practice in 
Green Bay since 2010.  Before opening his practice, Attorney 
Stevens had no experience in running a business, maintaining a 
trust account, marketing, tracking hours, or invoicing.  He is a 
self-admitted procrastinator who tends to put off necessary 
tasks, including the proper maintenance of his trust account.   
                                                 
2 Electronic 
copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/33747756407a454038230868267c
21116412201d.continue?action=detail&detailOffset=4.  
No. 
2022AP12-D   
 
4 
 
¶8 
This tendency caused problems during Attorney Stevens' 
representation of R.K.  In 2013, R.K. retained Attorney Stevens 
to represent him regarding injuries he sustained in an accident.  
While that claim was pending, R.K. asked an acquaintance, W.B., 
to lend him money, promising he would repay her when he received 
a settlement in his personal injury matter.  W.B. loaned R.K. 
$4,000 and R.K. agreed to repay her $4,500 if he received 
sufficient funds from his settlement.  
¶9 
Attorney 
Stevens 
drafted 
a 
promissory 
note 
memorializing the agreement between W.B. and R.K.  It included 
the following language:  "If settlement funds sufficient to may 
[sic] repayment are received, such payment shall be through 
trust fund disbursement by Attorney Brian Stevens."  W.B. and 
R.K. signed the note in July 2014.   
¶10 Attorney Stevens also loaned R.K. $700 for living 
expenses while the personal injury case was pending.  The money 
was to be paid out of R.K.'s personal injury settlement funds. 
¶11 Attorney Stevens settled R.K.'s personal injury claim 
with an insurance company for the amount of $85,000.  On August 
4, 2015, R.K. signed a release agreeing to that settlement.  The 
insurance company sent Attorney Stevens a check for the amount 
of settlement funds remaining after the payment of subrogated 
medical expense claims:  $40,687. 
¶12 Attorney Stevens deposited that check in his trust 
account on September 15, 2016.  At that time, Attorney Stevens 
had $450 in his trust account.  Attorney Stevens did not inform 
No. 
2022AP12-D   
 
5 
 
W.B. of his receipt of the settlement funds in which she had an 
interest pursuant to the promissory note that he had drafted.   
¶13 On November 6, 2016, Attorney Stevens prepared a 
settlement statement and discussed it with R.K., who agreed with 
the amounts.  On November 10, 2016, Attorney Stevens disbursed 
$28,550 to himself:  $28,000 for his fee and $550 for the 
financial assistance he gave R.K. during his representation.  
The sum of $12,587 remained in the trust account; $450 belonged 
to Attorney Stevens and the remaining balance was from the R.K. 
settlement. 
¶14 On December 23, 2016, Attorney Stevens made a $200 
cash withdrawal from his trust account and deposited it in 
R.K.'s prison account.  The sum of $12,387 remained in the trust 
account; $450 belonged to Attorney Stevens and the remaining 
balance was from the R.K. settlement. 
¶15 On May 4, 2017, Attorney Stevens issued a trust 
account check to R.K. in the amount of $7,087.  The sum of 
$5,300 remained in the trust account; $450 belonged to Attorney 
Stevens and the remaining balance was from the R.K. settlement. 
¶16 On April 6, 2018 and May 16, 2018, Attorney Stevens 
made additional disbursements from his trust account totaling 
$4,500.  Specifically, Attorney Stevens withdrew $3,800 to pay 
his own bills or expenses, and he paid $700 to another client as 
a refund of her retainer, even though he was not holding any 
funds in trust for that client.  Because only $450 of Attorney 
Stevens' trust account balance belonged to him, these two 
disbursements came mostly from R.K.'s funds. 
No. 
2022AP12-D   
 
6 
 
¶17 On June 25, 2018, Attorney Stevens deposited $4,500 of 
his own money in the trust account. On March 21, 2019, Attorney 
Stevens made another deposit of his own funds ($2,464.35) into 
his trust account. 
¶18 On July 12, 2019, Attorney Stevens disbursed $565 from 
his trust account to a client for whom he was not holding any 
funds in trust. On November 5, 2019, Attorney Stevens disbursed 
$1,645 to a different client for whom he was also not holding 
any funds in trust. Attorney Stevens used his own funds for both 
disbursements from his trust account.  
¶19 On January 23, 2020, R.K. filed a grievance with the 
OLR against Attorney Stevens regarding his handling of the 
personal injury settlement funds.   
¶20 On March 15, 2020, Attorney Stevens disbursed $4,500 
to R.K. via a trust account check.  At the evidentiary hearing, 
Attorney Stevens explained that he knew he was holding $4,500 
for W.B. pursuant to the promissory note he had drafted, but 
after making minimal and unsuccessful efforts to find contact 
information for W.B., Attorney Stevens decided to send R.K. the 
money in the hope that doing so would "fix things."  Ultimately, 
Attorney Stevens never disbursed any funds to W.B. as required 
under the promissory note, and W.B. has never received any of 
the funds due under the note. 
¶21 During its investigation, the OLR asked Attorney 
Stevens to produce the internal records he maintained for his 
trust account (e.g. a transaction register or individual client 
ledger). Attorney Stevens did not do so but instead requested 
No. 
2022AP12-D   
 
7 
 
copies of transaction records and cancelled checks from his bank 
in order to reconstruct how he handled his trust account funds. 
¶22 During 
proceedings 
before 
the 
referee, 
Attorney 
Stevens did not contest, and the referee determined, that 
Attorney Stevens' behavior amounted to numerous forms of 
professional misconduct; specifically:   
 Count 1:  Attorney Stevens violated SCR 20:1.8(e)3 by 
providing R.K. financial assistance during the course 
of his representation. 
 Count 2:  Attorney Stevens violated SCR 20:1.15(e)(1)4 
by failing to notify W.B. in writing of his receipt of 
the R.K. settlement funds and failing to promptly 
deliver to W.B. the $4,500 to which she was entitled. 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:1.8(e) provides: "A lawyer shall not provide 
financial assistance to a client in connection with pending or 
contemplated litigation, except that: (1) a lawyer may advance 
court costs and expenses of litigation, the repayment of which 
may be contingent on the outcome of the matter; and (2) a lawyer 
representing an indigent client may pay court costs and expenses 
of litigation on behalf of the client." 
4 SCR 20:1.15 (e)(1) provides: "Upon receiving funds or 
other property in which a client has an interest, or in which a 
lawyer has received notice that a 3rd party has an interest 
identified by a lien, court order, judgment, or contract, the 
lawyer shall promptly notify the client or 3rd party in writing.  
Except as stated in this rule or otherwise permitted by law or 
by agreement with the client, the lawyer shall promptly deliver 
to the client or 3rd party any funds or other property that the 
client or 3rd party is entitled to receive." 
No. 
2022AP12-D   
 
8 
 
 Count 3:  Attorney Stevens violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(1)5 
by failing to hold W.B.'s and/or R.K.'s funds in 
trust. 
 Count 4:  Attorney Stevens violated SCR 20:8.4(c)6 by 
converting W.B.'s and/or R.K.'s funds to his own use 
or for the benefit of third parties. 
 Count 5:  Attorney Stevens violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(3)7 
by commingling his own funds in his client trust 
account. 
 Count 6:  Attorney Stevens violated SCR 20:1.15(g)(1)8 
by failing to maintain and preserve complete records 
of trust account funds. 
                                                 
5 SCR 20:1.15 (b)(1) provides: "A lawyer shall hold in 
trust, separate from the lawyer's own property, that property of 
clients and 3rd parties that is in the lawyer's possession in 
connection with a representation.  All funds of clients and 3rd 
parties paid to a lawyer or law firm in connection with a 
representation shall be deposited in one or more identifiable 
trust accounts." 
6 SCR 20:8.4 (c) provides: "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
7 SCR 20:1.15(b)(3) provides: "No funds belonging to a 
lawyer or law firm, except funds reasonably sufficient to pay 
monthly account service charges, may be deposited or retained in 
a trust account.  Each lawyer or law firm that receives trust 
funds shall maintain at least one draft account, other than the 
trust account, for funds received and disbursed other than in a 
trust capacity, which shall be entitled 'Business Account,' 
'Office Account,' 'Operating Account,' or words of similar 
import."  
No. 
2022AP12-D   
 
9 
 
¶23 In her report, the referee recommended that the court 
suspend Attorney Stevens' license for 60 days (the suspension 
length requested by the OLR), as opposed to the sanction that 
Attorney 
Stevens 
claimed 
was 
appropriate 
in 
post-hearing 
briefing (a public reprimand).  In making this recommendation, 
the 
referee 
considered 
a 
number 
of 
aggravating 
factors, 
including Attorney Stevens' "persistent procrastination and 
failure to perform even the most basic administrative duties for 
many, many years," resulting in administrative "chaos" and 
"massive disorganization" in his office; his tendency to try to 
justify or blame others for decisions he makes that violate his 
professional duties; his seeming inability to understand the 
harm caused by his failure to attend to his professional duties; 
and 
his 
apparent 
belief 
that 
procrastination 
and 
poor 
administrative management are inevitable facets of his practice.   
¶24 The referee considered several cases cited by the OLR 
in support of its request for a 60-day suspension.  The referee 
found one case to be particularly instructive.  In In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Zenor, 2021 WI 77, 399 Wis. 2d 
326, 964 N.W.2d 775, the court imposed a 60-day suspension on an 
attorney with no previous discipline who failed to timely pay 
                                                                                                                                                             
8 SCR 20:1.15 (g)(1) provides: "A lawyer shall maintain and 
preserve complete records of trust account funds, all deposits 
and disbursements, and other trust property and shall preserve 
those records for at least six years after the date of 
termination of the representation.  Electronic records shall be 
backed up by an appropriate storage device.  The office of 
lawyer regulation shall publish guidelines for trust account 
record keeping." 
No. 
2022AP12-D   
 
10 
 
settlement funds to two entities owed money by her client for 
services related to the dispute; the attorney allowed more than 
five years to elapse before paying the entities' claims.  The 
attorney also converted funds in her trust account for her own 
use and failed to respond to the client's requests for 
information.  Given the 60-day suspension imposed in Zenor, and 
given the need to "sufficiently motivate [Attorney] Stevens to 
make the difficult changes he needs to make to prevent further 
violations," the referee agreed with the OLR's recommendation 
that a 60-day suspension was appropriate. 
¶25 The referee also recommended that this court impose a 
variety of conditions on Attorney Stevens' practice of law; 
namely, that he be required to "participate in individual 
counseling, fully cooperate with a mentor, participate in any 
and all available education pertaining to Supreme Court Rules, 
and provide complete and accurate trust account records to OLR 
on a quarterly basis."  The referee explained that Attorney 
Stevens' "procrastination and anxiety over his inability to 
manage his business are at the root of his past behavior and 
will continue to impact his professional responsibilities if 
left unattended."  "[A]bsent a great deal of intervention," the 
referee wrote, "there is a high likelihood [Attorney] Stevens 
will continue to violate the [rules of professional conduct]."   
¶26 Finally, the referee recommended that the court impose 
the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding on Attorney 
Stevens, and order him to pay $4,500 in restitution to W.B., as 
No. 
2022AP12-D   
 
11 
 
that amount "is more than 6 years overdue and should be paid 
promptly."   
¶27 Attorney Stevens did not appeal from the referee's 
report and recommendation.  Thus, we proceed with our review of 
the matter pursuant to SCR 22.17(2). 
¶28 There is no showing that any of the referee's findings 
of fact——derived from the OLR's complaint, Attorney Stevens' 
answer, and the evidentiary hearing——are clearly erroneous, so 
we adopt them.  We also agree with the referee's legal 
conclusions that Attorney Stevens violated the Supreme Court 
Rules noted above. 
¶29 The only issue in dispute before the referee concerned 
the appropriate sanction for Attorney Stevens' misconduct.  We 
agree with the referee that a 60-day suspension is in order.  
Attorney Stevens has already received a private reprimand for 
lack of diligence and lack of communication with a client.  A 
60-day suspension for similar unprofessional conduct is a 
reasonable next step in the progressive discipline process, and 
one that is readily supported by precedent.  See Zenor, 399 Wis. 
2d 326 (discussed above); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Sarbacker, 2017 WI 86, 377 Wis. 2d 484, 901 N.W.2d 373 (attorney 
with two previous private reprimands suspended for 60 days based 
on 
six 
counts 
of 
misconduct, 
including 
failing 
to 
hold 
garnishment funds belonging to clients in a trust account and 
misappropriating approximately $2,000 of those funds); In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bartz, 2015 WI 61, 362 Wis. 2d 
752, 864 N.W.2d 881 (attorney with previous private reprimand 
No. 
2022AP12-D   
 
12 
 
suspended for 60 days based on five counts of misconduct, 
including failing to disburse settlement funds and failing to 
cooperate with an OLR investigation).   
¶30 Like the referee, we believe that Attorney Stevens 
needs training to help ensure that he will comply with his 
professional duties when he resumes his law practice.  See SCR 
21.16(1m)(d) (professional discipline may include the imposition 
of conditions on the attorney's continued practice of law).  
Worryingly, the referee found that Attorney Stevens "does not 
correlate his failure to handle the 'business' aspects of his 
practice with the requirement he understand and follow the Rules 
of Professional Responsibility."  To aid Attorney Stevens' 
understanding that he is ethically obligated to manage entrusted 
funds properly, we require that, before resuming practice, 
Attorney Stevens must attend a minimum of seven hours of 
continuing legal education in trust account management and law 
practice management, to be approved and monitored by the OLR for 
compliance.   
¶31 Given the referee's stated concerns about Attorney 
Stevens' persistent pattern of procrastination, we are also 
convinced that more is needed than a few hours of instruction to 
ensure that he manages entrusted funds correctly.  Like the 
referee, we believe that Attorney Stevens would benefit from a 
level of supervision that has been absent in his solo practice.  
We therefore require that, before resuming practice, Attorney 
Stevens must identify an attorney approved by the OLR who will 
monitor his practice of law for a period of two years after he 
No. 
2022AP12-D   
 
13 
 
resumes practice, unless he is either employed by a law firm or 
practicing with another attorney aware of his disciplinary 
history.  Attorney Stevens must pay any reasonable costs 
associated with such monitoring.  We also require Attorney 
Stevens to furnish quarterly reports to the OLR of activities in 
his trust account for a period of two years after resuming 
practice, including furnishing any and all trust, fiduciary, 
and/or business account records requested by the OLR.9 
¶32 Finally, 
we 
turn 
to 
the 
subject 
of 
costs 
and 
restitution.  It is this court's general practice to assess the 
full costs of a disciplinary proceeding against the attorney 
being disciplined. SCR 22.24(1m).  Attorney Stevens has filed no 
objection to the costs requested by the OLR, which total 
$8,366.07 as of March 13, 2023.  We therefore impose them.  
Attorney Stevens likewise has made no objection to the referee's 
recommendation that he pay $4,500 to W.B. consistent with the 
terms of the promissory note he drafted.  We therefore order 
this restitution payment. 
¶33 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Brian T. Stevens to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective August 8, 2023.   
                                                 
9 Regarding the referee's recommendation that this court 
order Attorney Stevens to participate in individual counseling, 
we 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (Continued) 
decline to do so, with the belief that the conditions imposed 
herein will be sufficient to help Attorney Stevens fulfill his 
professional duties. 
No. 
2022AP12-D   
 
14 
 
¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, before resuming practice, 
Brian T. Stevens shall attend a minimum of seven hours of 
continuing legal education concerning the subjects of trust 
account management and law practice management, to be approved 
by the Office of Lawyer Regulation.   
¶35 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, before resuming practice, 
Brian T. Stevens must identify an attorney approved by the OLR 
who will monitor his practice of law for a period of two years 
after he resumes practice, unless he is either employed by a law 
firm 
or 
practicing 
with 
another 
attorney 
aware 
of 
his 
disciplinary history.  Attorney Stevens shall be responsible for 
any reasonable costs associated with such monitoring. 
¶36 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Brian T. Stevens shall 
furnish quarterly reports to the Office of Lawyer Regulation of 
activities in his trust account for a period of two years after 
resuming practice, including furnishing any and all trust, 
fiduciary, and/or business account records requested by the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation. 
¶37 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Brian T. Stevens shall pay restitution of $4,500 
to W.B. 
¶38 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Brian T. Stevens shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$8,366.07 as of March 13, 2023.   
No. 
2022AP12-D   
 
15 
 
¶39 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that payment of restitution is 
to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation.  
¶40 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Brian T. Stevens shall 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
an attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended.  
¶41 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See SCR 
22.28(2). 
No. 
2022AP12-D   
 
 
 
1