Title: Lawyer Regulation System of the State of Wisconsin v. David C. Williams

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2005 WI 15 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
02-3327-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against David C. Williams, Attorney at  
Law: 
 
Lawyer Regulation System of the State of 
Wisconsin, by Ronald R. Smith, Special 
Investigator,  
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
David C. Williams,  
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST WILLIAMS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 23, 2005   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: ROGGENSACK, J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2005 WI 15 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  02-3327-D   
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against David C. Williams, Attorney at  
Law: 
 
Lawyer Regulation System of the State of  
Wisconsin, by Ronald R. Smith, Special  
Investigator,  
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
David C. Williams,  
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 23, 2005 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.    Proceeding dismissed.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney David C. Williams appealed from 
the revised report of the referee, Eugene A. Gasiorkiewicz, 
concluding that attorney Williams violated SCR 20:8.4(g)1 and the 
attorney’s oath, SCR 40.152.  Specifically, the referee concluded 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:8.4(g) provides:  “It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to:  (g) violate the attorney’s oath.” 
2 SCR 40.15 provides:   
 
 
No. 02-3327-D 
 
 
 
 
2
that publishing four letters in a local newspaper constituted 
“offensive personality” in violation of the attorney’s oath.  
While we agree with the referee that certain statements 
contained 
in 
the 
four 
letters 
were 
intemperate 
and 
inappropriate, we conclude that the statements do not meet the 
legal standard of “offensive personality” and thus do not 
                                                                                                                                                             
The oath or affirmation to be taken to qualify for 
admission 
to 
the 
practice 
of 
law 
shall 
be 
in 
substantially the following form:  
I will support the constitution of the United States 
and the constitution of the state of Wisconsin;  
I will maintain the respect due to courts of justice 
and judicial officers;  
I will not counsel or maintain any suit or proceeding 
which shall appear to me to be unjust, or any defense, 
except such as I believe to be honestly debatable under 
the law of the land;  
I will employ, for the purpose of maintaining the 
causes confided to me, such means only as are 
consistent with truth and honor, and will never seek to 
mislead the judge or jury by any artifice or false 
statement of fact or law;  
I will maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate 
the 
secrets 
of 
my 
client 
and 
will 
accept 
no 
compensation in connection with my client's business 
except from my client or with my client's knowledge and 
approval;  
I will abstain from all offensive personality and 
advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation 
of a party or witness, unless required by the justice 
of the cause with which I am charged;  
I will never reject, from any consideration personal to 
myself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed, or 
delay any person's cause for lucre or malice. So help 
me God.  
 
 
 
No. 02-3327-D 
 
 
 
 
3
constitute a violation of the attorney’s oath.  Consequently, we 
dismiss the proceeding. 
¶2 
Attorney Williams was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1973, practices in Lake Geneva and has not 
previously been disciplined.  Attorney Williams was formerly a 
member of the District I Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
Committee. 
¶3 
In May, 1999 a committee of the Lake Geneva City 
Council recommended approval of a proposed transfer of a Class B 
liquor license from D’Agostino’s On The Lake to Su Wings 
Corporation.  
The 
proposed 
transfer 
involved 
D’Agostino’s 
surrendering the liquor license to the city, conditioned on the 
city issuing the license to Su Wings.  In June, 1999 the Lake 
Geneva City Council denied the transfer of the liquor license to 
Su Wings.  Su Wings then retained Attorney Williams’ law firm to 
represent it relative to the city’s denial of the proposed 
liquor license transfer.   
¶4 
D'Agostino's did not apply for renewal of the liquor 
license, so the license lapsed.  Under Wisconsin law, a limited 
number of liquor licenses are available for issuance in each 
municipality.  As a result of the lapse of the liquor license 
issued to D'Agostino's, Lake Geneva city officials believed that 
only one Class B liquor license was available for issuance in 
the city.  In September, 1999, the city awarded a Class B liquor 
license to an establishment owned and operated by then Lake 
Geneva Mayor Spyro Condos and his wife.   
 
 
No. 02-3327-D 
 
 
 
 
4
¶5 
On January 7, 2000, Williams filed a claim on behalf 
of Su Wings with the City of Lake Geneva, pursuant to 
Wis. Stat. § 893.80, alleging that the city had unlawfully 
denied the liquor license transfer to Su Wings and had 
unlawfully issued the liquor license to Mayor Condos.  Attorney 
Williams’ claim demanded that Su Wings be awarded the liquor 
license along with $2 million damages.  The text of the claim 
was published in a front-page article in the January 13, 2000 
edition of the Lake Geneva Regional News, a local weekly 
newspaper with a circulation of about 5,500.   
¶6 
In response to the publication of the claim in the 
Regional News and other publicity about the matter, at a 
committee meeting held on February 14, 2000, Lake Geneva 
alderperson Cathleen Ahlgren read a prepared statement in which 
she disputed certain of the allegations made by Williams in the 
claim filed with the city.  Ahlgren’s prepared statement was 
published in a front-page article in the February 17, 2000 
edition of the Regional News.  The committee meeting at which 
Ahlgren made the statement was later televised on the public 
access channel of the local cable television.  
¶7 
Williams provided the Regional News with a copy of a 
letter addressed to Ahlgren, which was published in the paper’s 
February 24, 2000 edition.  Ahlgren did not receive the letter 
until after it had already been published in the newspaper.  In 
the letter, Williams described Ahlgren as being “confused” and 
stated Ahlgren should visit the city clerk’s office to “avoid 
further embarrassment.”  The letter said: 
 
 
No. 02-3327-D 
 
 
 
 
5
Again, it would be my preference to try legal actions 
in court where they belong, and where all witness 
statements must be given under oath.  However, we are 
prepared to try this case in the media if that’s what 
the city prefers.  One advantage of doing so is that 
the city officials make public statements, apparently 
with no advice from legal counsel.  This makes my job 
much easier. 
The letter also contained a list of nine rhetorical questions to 
Ahlgren. 
¶8 
On March 2, 2000 the Regional News published a two-
paragraph 
letter 
to 
the 
editor 
authored 
by 
Lake 
Geneva 
Alderperson Richard Peterson.  The letter said Peterson did not 
want to get into a debate with Attorney Williams but offered the 
suggestions that the letter was too long and that Attorney 
Williams should direct his “criticism and smart remarks toward 
the council” rather than the city clerk’s office. 
¶9 
On March 9, 2000 the Regional News published, in the 
form of a letter to the editor, a letter addressed to 
Alderperson Peterson.  The letter contained the following 
statements: 
• I will number each paragraph so you don’t lose 
your train of thought. 
• It is you and your cronies on the city council 
who cheated my client of his rights in order to 
assist one of your own. 
• I don’t wish to tax your attention span. 
• It is not a legal defense for someone to plead 
that they were “just following orders.”  Both the 
actor and one who ordered him/her are liable. 
¶10 In late March, 2000 the Lake Geneva City Council voted 
unanimously to deny the claim that had been filed by Attorney 
 
 
No. 02-3327-D 
 
 
 
 
6
Williams on behalf of Su Wings.  In late April the Regional News 
published, in a front-page article, the text of a letter from 
Attorney Williams to the Walworth County District Attorney and 
the Wisconsin Department of Revenue requesting enforcement 
action under ch. 125, Wis. Stat., relative to alleged illegal 
liquor sales by Mayor Condos under the license that Attorney 
Williams contended had been unlawfully issued to Mayor Condos 
instead of to Su Wings.  In May, 2000 Williams, as counsel for 
Su Wings, commenced a civil rights action against the City of 
Lake Geneva, Alderperson Ahlgren and Mayor Condos in Walworth 
County Circuit Court.  The complaint demanded a jury trial on 
all issues.  The defendants removed the case to the United 
States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, 
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. 
¶11 On June 12, 2000 the Lake Geneva City Council renewed 
the liquor license that had been issued to Mayor Condos.  On 
June 22, 2000 the Regional News published another letter to the 
editor authored by Attorney Williams.  In this letter, referring 
to an apparent gaffe in videotaping a public meeting and in 
reference to the city clerk Williams said, “Perhaps the ghost of 
Rosemary Woods is now roaming city hall at night!”  Attorney 
Williams also called Mayor Condos “Chairman Condos,” comparing 
him to Chairman Mao of China, and said that erecting a statue or 
posters of Mayor Condos in public parks “might cause Su Wing to 
freak out and run back to China.” 
¶12 In early July, 2000 the Regional News published a 
letter from Attorney Williams demanding the city conduct a 
 
 
No. 02-3327-D 
 
 
 
 
7
hearing on a verified complaint which Attorney Williams had 
filed in 
his 
capacity as 
a city 
resident, 
pursuant to 
Wis. Stat. § 125.12(2), seeking revocation or suspension of the 
liquor license issued to Mayor Condos.  The city’s finance 
committee held a hearing on the complaint and recommended that 
the city council reject it.  The city council dismissed the 
complaint in September, 2000.  In November Attorney Williams 
filed a civil action seeking judicial review of the city’s 
decision. 
¶13 In January, 2001 the Federal District Court remanded 
Su Wing’s civil action to the Walworth County Circuit Court.  On 
January 31, 2001 the Regional News published a letter to the 
editor authored by Attorney Williams in which he compared Lake 
Geneva to Chicago, “reputed to be the most corrupt city in the 
country” and said even in Chicago “Mayor Daley could not violate 
state statutes and have his cronies award him a liquor license 
to the detriment of others not so connected without being 
denounced.”  
¶14 In June of 2001 the City of Lake Geneva granted a 
liquor license to Su Wings after it was determined that 
additional liquor licenses were available due to an increase in 
the city’s population.  That same month Attorney Williams’ 
appeal of the dismissal of the Wis. Stat. § 125.12(2) action was 
dismissed by the Walworth County Circuit Court.  The court of 
appeals subsequently reversed and remanded, concluding that the 
liquor license issued to Mayor Condos and his wife was void.  
 
 
No. 02-3327-D 
 
 
 
 
8
See Williams v. City of Lake Geneva, 2002 WI App 95, 253 Wis. 2d 
618, 643 N.W.2d 864. 
¶15 In April, 2001 the director of the OLR sent Attorney 
Williams a letter notifying him that a grievance had been filed 
against him.  Because Attorney Williams was a member of the 
District I OLR Committee, the investigation proceeded under SCR 
22.25, which governs misconduct and malfeasance allegations 
against Lawyer Regulation System (LRS) participants.  Attorney 
Williams 
subsequently 
resigned 
from 
the 
District 
I 
OLR 
Committee. 
¶16 In December, 2002 the LRS filed an order to answer and 
complaint alleging that various letters written by Attorney 
Williams and published in the Regional News violated SCR 20:3.6.3  
                                                 
3 SCR 20:3.6 provides:  
(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated 
in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall 
not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable 
person would expect to be disseminated by means of 
public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably 
should know that it will have a substantial likelihood 
of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding 
in the matter.  
(b) 
A 
statement 
referred 
to 
in 
paragraph 
(a) 
ordinarily is likely to have such an effect when it 
refers to a civil matter triable to a jury, a criminal 
matter, or any other proceeding that could result in 
deprivation of liberty, and the statement relates to:  
(1) the character, credibility, reputation or 
criminal record of a party, suspect in a criminal 
investigation or witness, or the identity of a 
witness, or the expected testimony of a party or 
witness;  
 
 
No. 02-3327-D 
 
 
 
 
9
                                                                                                                                                             
(2) in a criminal case or proceeding that could 
result in deprivation of liberty, the possibility of a 
plea of guilty to the offense or the existence or 
contents of any confession, admission, or statement 
given by a defendant or suspect or that person's 
refusal or failure to make a statement;  
(3) the performance or results of any examination 
or test or the refusal or failure of a person to 
submit to an examination or test, or the identity or 
nature of physical evidence expected to be presented;  
(4) any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a 
defendant or suspect in a criminal case or proceeding 
that could result in deprivation of liberty;  
(5) information the lawyer knows or reasonably 
should know is likely to be inadmissible as evidence 
in a trial and would if disclosed create a substantial 
risk of prejudicing an impartial trial; or  
(6) the fact that a defendant has been charged 
with a crime, unless there is included therein a 
statement explaining that the charge is merely an 
accusation and that the defendant is presumed innocent 
until and unless proven guilty.  
(c) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) and (b)(1-5), a 
lawyer may state all of the following:  
(1) the claim; offense or defense involved and, 
except when prohibited by law, the identity of the 
persons involved;  
(2) the information contained in a public record;  
(3) that an investigation of the matter is in 
progress; 
(4) the scheduling or result of any step in 
litigation;  
(5) 
a 
request 
for 
assistance 
in 
obtaining 
evidence and information necessary thereto;  
(6) a warning of danger concerning the behavior 
of a person involved, when there is reason to believe 
 
 
No. 02-3327-D 
 
 
 
 
10
The 
complaint 
also 
alleged 
that 
publishing 
the 
letters 
constituted 
“offensive 
personality” 
in 
violation 
of 
the 
attorney’s oath. 
¶17 An evidentiary hearing was conducted in January, 2004.  
The referee issued a report in April, 2004, which was amended on 
May 4, 2004.  The referee concluded that the letters written by 
Attorney Williams and published in the Regional News did not 
violate SCR 20:3.6.  The referee did conclude, however, that the 
                                                                                                                                                             
that there exists the likelihood of substantial harm 
to an individual or to the public interest; and  
(7) 
in 
a 
criminal 
case, 
in 
addition 
to 
subparagraphs (1) through (6):  
(i) the identity, residence, occupation and 
family status of the accused;  
(ii) 
if 
the 
accused 
has 
not 
been 
apprehended, 
information 
necessary 
to 
aid 
in 
apprehension of that person;  
(iii) the fact, time and place of arrest; 
and  
(iv) 
the 
identity 
of 
investigating 
and 
arresting officers or agencies and the length of the 
investigation.  
(d)  Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may make 
a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is 
required to protect a client from the substantial 
likelihood of undue prejudicial effect of recent 
publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer's 
client. A statement made pursuant to this paragraph 
shall be limited to information that is necessary to 
mitigate the recent adverse publicity. 
(e)  A lawyer associated in a firm or government 
agency with a lawyer subject to paragraph (a) shall 
not make a statement that is prohibited by paragraph 
(a). 
 
 
 
No. 02-3327-D 
 
 
 
 
11
letters published on February 24, 2000, March 9, 2000, June 22, 
2000 and January 31, 2001 violated SCR 20:8.4(g) and the 
attorney’s oath, SCR 40.15.  The referee noted that in State v. 
Eisenberg, 48 Wis. 2d 364, 380-81, 180 N.W.2d 529 (1970) this 
court said: 
License to practice law in this state is granted on 
implied understanding that an attorney shall at all 
times demean himself in proper manner and refrain from 
such practices which bring disrepute upon himself, the 
profession and the courts.  This implied understanding 
is also affirmed by the Oath taken by the attorney on 
admission to practice. 
¶18 The referee also noted that in State v. Postorino, 53 
Wis. 2d 412, 419, 193 N.W.2d 1 (1972) this court said, “[a] 
lawyer is a professional man twenty-four hours a day, not eight 
hours, five days a week.”  The referee concluded: 
SCR chapter 10 contains a preamble of a lawyer’s 
responsibilities.  The initial paragraph of that 
preamble reads in part as follows:  “A lawyer is ... 
an officer of the legal system and a public citizen 
having special responsibility for the quality of 
justice.”  The preamble further states that “A lawyer 
should demonstrate respect for the legal system and 
for those who serve it, including judges, other 
lawyers and public officials.”  Regardless of his 
personal feelings toward Mayor Condos and Cathleen 
Ahlgren they were “public officials” who did not 
deserve to be belittled by Respondent.  He cannot hide 
behind his duties to Su Wing to justify his sarcastic 
and critical tone toward adverse parties in the above-
referenced letters. 
¶19 The referee recommended that Attorney Williams be 
privately reprimanded. 
¶20 A referee’s findings of fact are to be affirmed unless 
they are clearly erroneous.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Sosnay, 209 Wis. 2d 241, 243, 562 N.W.2d 137 (1997).  
 
 
No. 02-3327-D 
 
 
 
 
12
Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Carroll, 2000 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 
636 N.W.2d 718.  Although the referee’s findings of fact have 
not been shown to be clearly erroneous and we therefore affirm 
them, we disagree with the referee’s legal conclusion that 
Attorney Williams violated the offensive personality component 
of the attorney’s oath by virtue of the letters published in the 
Regional News. 
¶21 This court has previously held that the “offensive 
personality” component of the attorney’s oath may be violated by 
conduct that occurs out of court as well as by in-court conduct.  
For example, this court found a violation of the attorney’s oath 
in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Johann, 216 Wis. 2d 
118, 574 N.W.2d 218 (1998).  In that case the attorney 
distributed a printed handout strongly critical of the man who 
was her child’s father and the man’s wife.  The handout included 
a picture of the father containing a caption with his name and 
the term “Accused Serial Rapist.”  The handout urged a boycott 
of the law firm where the man’s wife practiced and accused her 
of having cooperated with the man in depriving Attorney Johann 
of thousands of dollars in income by their allegedly benefiting 
from books Attorney Johann asserted she had written.   
¶22 In In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Blask, 216 
Wis. 2d 129, 573 N.W.2d 835 (1998), while serving as Lincoln 
County District Attorney, Blask engaged in a loud confrontation 
with a 67-year-old man leaving the register in probate’s office, 
physically placed his hands on the man, attempted to search him, 
 
 
No. 02-3327-D 
 
 
 
 
13
and pushed him backwards with a clenched fist, bending the 
frames of the eye glasses that were in the man’s pocket.  Blask 
also pinned the man’s arms to a table, grabbed his jacket collar 
and released him only when a sheriff’s deputy appeared in 
response to a call for assistance.  In a separate incident, 
following a high school basketball game he attended in Merrill, 
Blask approached one of the game’s referees and expressed 
significant displeasure with his officiating, then shoved or 
pushed the referee into a wall.  The referee in that case 
concluded, 
and 
this 
court 
agreed, 
that 
by 
his 
physical 
altercations Blask engaged in offensive personality in violation 
of the attorney’s oath, SCR 40.15 and SCR 20:8.4(g).   
¶23 In In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ray, 2002 WI 
116, 256 Wis. 2d 19, 651 N.W.2d 727, while representing a father 
seeking to reestablish joint custody of his children, Attorney 
Ray began yelling at the sister of her client’s former wife 
about hiding the children while they had been in the state.  
Attorney Ray threatened the woman that she would go to jail for 
interference with a child custody order or for conspiracy to 
kidnap, and she made similar threats against a friend of the 
sister.  On several other occasions Attorney Ray engaged in 
similarly abusive telephone conversations with the sister and 
the children’s grandmother.  Again, the referee concluded, and 
this court agreed, that this conduct violated SCR 40.15 and SCR 
20:8.4(g).   
¶24 The conduct at issue in the instant case was not as 
egregious as the conduct found to have violated the “offensive 
 
 
No. 02-3327-D 
 
 
 
 
14
personality” component of the attorney’s oath in Johann, Blask 
or Ray, nor did it bring disrepute on Attorney Williams, the 
legal profession or the courts, as did the conduct in Eisenberg.   
The conduct at issue here consisted entirely of letters written 
by Attorney Williams and published in the Lake Geneva Regional 
News.4  We agree with the referee that some of the statements in 
the 
letters 
written 
by 
Attorney 
Williams 
were 
acidic, 
argumentative, arrogant and condescending.  While we do not 
condone either the tone or the content of the letters, we do not 
find that the letters constituted “offensive personality” in 
violation of the attorney’s oath.  In reaching this conclusion 
we find the referee’s finding of fact 87 to carry particular 
weight: 
Respondent’s primary intent in writing the letters 
complained of in this matter was to protect the 
personal and business reputation of his client. 
Although Attorney Williams perhaps used more oratorical flourish 
than was prudent, the record supports the referee’s finding that 
his conduct was motivated by the desire to protect his client.  
Under the circumstances we cannot conclude, as a matter of law, 
that 
the 
letters 
constituted 
“offensive 
personality” 
in 
violation of the attorney’s oath.   
¶25 Attorney Williams also argued in his briefs that the 
referee was incorrect in interpreting the Supreme Court Rules to 
mean that participants in the LRS do not have the same rights as 
                                                 
4 In his brief Attorney Williams raised a First Amendment 
argument but failed to develop it.  We therefore decline to 
reach the question of whether, or to what extent, the letters at 
issue might be entitled to First Amendment protection. 
 
 
No. 02-3327-D 
 
 
 
 
15
non-LRS participants to receive a copy of the investigative 
report and submit 
a written response 
thereto. 
 In the 
alternative Attorney Williams argued that if the referee was 
correct in this interpretation of the Supreme Court Rules, then 
the rules violate equal protection under both the Wisconsin and 
Federal Constitutions.  In light of our conclusion that Attorney 
Williams did not violate any Supreme Court Rules, we decline to 
reach these issues. 
¶26 IT IS ORDERED that the disciplinary proceeding is 
dismissed without costs.  
¶27 PATIENCE D. ROGGENSACK, J., did not participate.