Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Matthew C. Siderits

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2013 WI 2 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2011AP259-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
Matthew C. Siderits, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Matthew C. Siderits, 
          Respondent-Appellant.   
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SIDERITS     
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
January 4, 2013   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
October 5, 2012   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
ABRAHAMSON, C.J. dissenting.   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the respondent-appellant, there were briefs filed by 
Raymond 
Dall'Osto, 
Gimbel, 
Reilly, 
Guerin 
& 
Brown, 
LLP, 
Milwaukee, and oral argument by Raymond Dall’Osto. 
  
For the Office of Lawyer Regulation, there was a brief by 
Anne MacArthur, Anne MacArthur Law LLC, Madison, and oral 
argument by Anne MacArthur. 
 
 
 
2013 WI 2
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2011AP259-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Matthew C. Siderits, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Matthew C. Siderits, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
JAN 4, 2013 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   In this disciplinary proceeding, the 
referee concluded that the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) had 
proven violations on all five counts contained in the complaint 
filed by the OLR.  Based on those violations, the referee 
recommended that Attorney Matthew C. Siderits' license to 
practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for 18 months.  Attorney 
Siderits appeals from the referee's report and recommendation. 
No. 
2011AP259-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
After independently reviewing the record, we determine 
that the facts as found by the referee demonstrate violations of 
the Rules of Professional Conduct for all five counts alleged by 
the OLR.  We conclude that Attorney Siderits' professional 
misconduct requires a 12-month suspension of his license to 
practice law in this state.  We further conclude that Attorney 
Siderits should be required to pay the full costs of this 
proceeding, which were $18,916.68 as of October 22, 2012.   
¶3 
On February 7, 2011, the OLR filed a five-count 
complaint against Attorney Siderits.  This court appointed 
Attorney James W. Mohr, Jr. as referee.  The referee held an 
evidentiary hearing on October 24 and October 25, 2011.  Both 
parties submitted post-hearing briefs. 
¶4 
The referee submitted a report containing his findings 
of 
fact, 
conclusions 
of 
law, 
and 
a 
recommendation 
for 
discipline.  The findings of fact and conclusions of law are 
summarized below. 
¶5 
When reviewing the referee's report, 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. 
¶6 
Attorney Siderits was admitted to the practice of law 
in Wisconsin in 1996.  A Milwaukee firm named Otjen, Van Ert, & 
Weir ("the Firm") hired Attorney Siderits upon his graduation 
from law school and made him a shareholder on January 1, 2004.  
No. 
2011AP259-D   
 
3 
 
Attorney Siderits was also the Treasurer of the Firm, worked 
with the Firm's bookkeeper, and as Treasurer was responsible for 
approving all final compensation distributions to shareholders 
of the Firm.  Attorney Siderits worked primarily in the area of 
workers compensation defense.  He remained Treasurer up until 
the Firm terminated his employment in June 2009. 
¶7 
The Firm had a compensation system for shareholders 
which provided for a bonus if a shareholder's billings exceeded 
1,800 hours for that year.  Lawyers at the Firm typically 
entered their billable hours in one of two ways.  Some members 
of the Firm filled out daily "time sheets" and their assistants 
entered the billable hours into the Firm's computerized billing 
system.  Other lawyers chose to enter their billable time 
directly into the Firm's computerized billing system.  Toward 
the end of each calendar year, the shareholders met to review 
each shareholder's billable hours as recorded in the Firm's 
computerized billing system to determine whether the partner was 
likely to meet the 1,800 hour bonus target.  The Firm closed its 
books for recording billable time at the end of December.  Once 
the books were closed, the Firm's partnership determined which 
partners were entitled to receive the bonus and distributed any 
bonuses just after the New Year.  As Treasurer of the Firm, 
Attorney Siderits reviewed each of the computations and signed 
off on the final distributions.  As a shareholder, Attorney 
Siderits participated in each of these year-end meetings and in 
bonus distributions for each year he was a partner from 2004 
through his termination in 2009. 
No. 
2011AP259-D   
 
4 
 
¶8 
Attorney Siderits knew that his eligibility for a 
bonus hinged on recording 1,800 billable hours in the Firm's 
computerized billing program.  His actions in 2004 illustrate 
his attentiveness toward the 1,800 hour bonus target.  That 
year, Attorney Siderits' first year as a partner, his total 
billings fell slightly short of 1,800 hours.  Attorney Siderits 
nevertheless asked the Firm to allow him to participate in the 
bonus pool because he had spent a considerable amount of time 
working on the Firm's computer system.  The members of the Firm 
agreed and credited him an additional 44 hours of "firm" time 
for his computer work, thus bringing his total hours in excess 
of 1,800 for 2004, and allowing him to participate in the bonus 
program for that year.  
¶9 
In both 2007 and 2008, Attorney Siderits allegedly 
recorded in excess of 1,800 hours (1,803.3 hours in 2007 and 
1806.3 hours in 2008).  Because his recorded billable hours 
exceeded 1,800 hours, Attorney Siderits participated in the 
bonus system in 2007 and 2008, earning an additional $23,451.12 
bonus in early 2008 for his 2007 billings and $23,526.92 in 
early 2009 for his 2008 billings.  Combined, these bonuses 
totaled $46,978.04. 
¶10 After the Firm paid Attorney Siderits each of the 
bonuses, but before the Firm mailed his bills to his clients, 
Attorney Siderits reduced, or "wrote-down," certain of his 
billable hours for the years for which the bonuses were paid.  
In early 2008 Attorney Siderits wrote-down 29.2 hours of time 
from his 2007 billings without notifying the Firm.  These write-
No. 
2011AP259-D   
 
5 
 
downs caused Attorney Siderits' 2007 billables to drop about 25 
hours below the 1,800 level.  In early 2009 Attorney Siderits 
wrote-down 231.9 hours from his 2008 billings, again without 
notifying the Firm.  These write-downs caused Attorney Siderits' 
2008 billables to drop below 1,600 hours.  
¶11 As mentioned, Attorney Siderits made his biggest 
write-downs in early 2009, from his 2008 billings.  Many of the 
write-downs were for a case identified in the record as Matter 
"A"——a brief in a workers compensation matter that Attorney 
Siderits mailed to the Labor and Industry Review Commission 
(LIRC) on January 9, 2009.  Although the brief spanned only 17 
pages, Attorney Siderits billed a total of 140 hours on this 
brief in 2008.  Of that amount, Attorney Siderits billed 105.7 
hours in November and December 2008——even though the brief was 
not due until January 9, 2009; even though the case already had 
been briefed once before to an administrative law judge (ALJ); 
and even though Attorney Siderits took a significant portion of 
the final brief directly from a memorandum prepared by an 
associate, who billed separately.  Attorney Siderits recorded 
9.1 hours on the brief on Christmas Eve day 2008.  In February 
and March of 2009, Attorney Siderits deleted all 105.7 hours 
that he had billed on the brief in November and December. 
¶12 Attorney 
Siderits made similar changes to other 
matters billed in 2008, identified in the record as Matters "B" 
through "J."  For example, Matter "H" had a time entry of 80 
hours entered into the system on December 10, 2008, for work 
No. 
2011AP259-D   
 
6 
 
allegedly performed over ten months earlier, on January 23, 
2008, virtually all of which was deleted on January 30, 2009.  
¶13 The total of all time entered by Attorney Siderits 
into the billing system in the last three months of 2008 was 
239.6 hours; the total amount of time deleted in the first three 
months of 2009 was 231.9 hours.  Thus, only 7.7 hours of all 
hours that Attorney Siderits recorded in the last three months 
of 2008 were actually charged to a client.   
¶14 Attorney Siderits engaged in similar, but not as 
extensive, write-downs for billings in 2007.  He entered 1,803.3 
hours himself into the billing system for 2007, but after his 
write-downs, his actual cumulative total for that year was 
1.774.1 hours. 
¶15 It is undisputed that Attorney Siderits personally 
entered all of these charges directly into the Firm's computer 
system (that is, he did not work through his assistant or the 
bookkeeper) and that he likewise deleted all of these time 
charges himself, again without notifying his assistant or the 
bookkeeper.  This was not the typical manner of editing bills at 
the Firm.  The Firm's bookkeeper testified that the normal 
practice at the Firm was for her to generate written "pre-bills" 
at the first of each month and pass them out to the attorneys.  
The attorneys would then edit and return them to her.  She would 
make any necessary changes and produce the final bill.  She said 
that Attorney Siderits was always very prompt in returning the 
written pre-bills with any changes.  She was not aware that 
Attorney Siderits was revising bills himself within the system.  
No. 
2011AP259-D   
 
7 
 
¶16 In 2009 the Firm discovered Attorney Siderits' 2007 
and 2008 billing conduct and terminated him.  He forfeited his 
interest in the Firm's profit sharing plan.  He also repaid the 
Firm a total of $60,000 to compensate the Firm for the bonuses 
to which he was not entitled and for other unspecified damages 
claimed by the Firm.   
¶17 This 
proceeding 
followed. 
 
The 
OLR's 
complaint 
contained the following counts: 
• 
Count One alleged that Attorney Siderits' purported 
misrepresentation 
of 
billable 
hours 
for 
2007 
violated 
SCR 20:8.4(c).1 
• 
Count Two alleged that the same misrepresentation in 
2008 violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
• 
Count Three alleged that by making changes in the 
Firm's accounting system and deleting billable time without 
advising any other members of the Firm, Attorney Siderits 
violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
• 
Count Four alleged that by failing to disclose that 
the write-downs rendered him ineligible for the bonuses in 2007 
and 2008, Attorney Siderits violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
• 
Count 
Five 
alleged 
that 
by 
misrepresenting 
his 
billable time in order to receive $46,978.04 in bonuses to which 
he was not entitled, and by circumventing the Firm's bookkeeper 
to prevent disclosure of his conduct, Attorney Siderits violated 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:8.4(c) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation; . . . ." 
No. 
2011AP259-D   
 
8 
 
his fiduciary duty owed to his Firm and his duty of honesty in 
his professional dealings with the Firm in violation of 
SCR 20:8.4(f).2 
¶18 In his answer to the OLR's complaint, Attorney 
Siderits made several admissions.  He admitted that he was an 
officer and shareholder of the Firm.  He admitted that the 
amounts he billed in the Firm's computer system for 2007 and 
2008 were as described above.  He admitted that the Firm's bonus 
system worked as described above.  He admitted that he did not 
advise any of the other shareholders in the Firm that he had 
written down his time.  He admitted that the Firm discharged him 
for allegedly being paid compensation for which he may not have 
been entitled.  He admitted that attorneys have a fiduciary duty 
to their law firms and a duty of honesty in the professional 
dealings with their law firms. 
¶19 Attorney Siderits denied any allegations of wrongdoing 
in his answer.  He claimed that, at the time he made the write-
downs, he did not know that he thereby became ineligible for the 
bonuses.  He denied that his actions constituted misconduct.  He 
noted that no clients of the Firm, or the Firm itself, suffered 
any financial loss and that he and the Firm have entered into a 
settlement agreement resolving all disputes between them.  He 
alleged that this case was merely a matter of a contractual 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme 
court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers; . . . ." 
No. 
2011AP259-D   
 
9 
 
dispute with the Firm over compensation and should not be viewed 
as an ethical issue. 
¶20 Attorney 
Siderits 
testified 
at 
the 
ensuing 
disciplinary hearing before the referee.  Attorney Siderits 
admitted that he did not actually bill 1,800 hours in either 
2007 or 2008.  He also admitted that he was not entitled to 
receive the bonuses in question, but contended he did not know, 
at the time he wrote-down the time in the computer system, that 
the effect would be to disqualify him from the bonuses.  He also 
admitted that he never told anyone else in the Firm that he 
wrote-down his time for either 2007 or 2008.  He admitted that 
he entered all of the write-downs directly into the computer 
system so that neither his assistant nor the bookkeeper was 
aware of the write-downs.  He agreed that he wrote-down about 29 
hours in 2007 and about 230 hours in 2008.  He claimed it took 
him 140 hours to produce the 17-page brief in Matter "A" even 
though, in his estimation, an average brief to LIRC normally 
would take about 20 to 25 hours.  He denied inflating his time 
when billing Matter "A" and claimed that the case involved an 
unusually difficult workers compensation defense claim and that 
he was under pressure from his client to win.  Attorney Siderits 
could not explain why many of the hours he entered in 2008 were 
entered well after the claimed date of service.  
¶21 The referee was not persuaded by Attorney Siderits' 
defense.  He wrote in his report: 
 
The issue in this case really wasn't about the 
facts of the write downs.  They were undisputed.  The 
No. 
2011AP259-D   
 
10 
 
issue is whether they were intentional and whether OLR 
has met its burden of proof that Siderits engaged in 
conduct 
"involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation."  Siderits argues that he, and all 
attorneys, are justified in writing down time on their 
bills, and in the exercise of that right, he simply 
did not realize that he fell below the 1,800 hour 
threshold for the bonus payments which he received.  
 
In my opinion, that position simply does not 
square with reality.  If there had been an occasional 
write down here or there, and if they had been 
minimal, I do not think this matter would ever have 
been charged.  The size of the write downs, the number 
of write downs, and their timing, all point to the 
obvious conclusion that Siderits was manipulating his 
billing records for the sole purpose of achieving a 
bonus.  That conclusion is inescapable.  To ignore the 
numerous 
and 
substantial 
transactions 
put 
into 
evidence is impossibly unrealistic.  
¶22 The referee believed the most damning evidence of 
wrongdoing was Attorney Siderits' time-recording for 2008.  
Focusing on Attorney Siderits' billings for Matter "A," the 
referee wrote: 
[I]t is inconceivable to me that an experienced 
attorney could expect anyone to believe that he spent 
140 hours on a relatively straightforward brief; 
especially since the matter had been fully briefed 
previously and the new brief was substantially based 
on the work of an associate.  His protestations to the 
contrary are simply not credible. Furthermore, his 
time on that brief was entered late in the year, at 
times one would not normally expect an attorney to be 
working on the brief, in large quantities, and entered 
days and weeks after the work was allegedly performed.  
The same amounts were then routinely deleted following 
the end of the year, without following the normal 
procedure of deleting them on the paper pre-bills.  
Siderits entered the computer system himself, telling 
no one, and deleted all of the time that he entered.  
The time he ultimately billed the client was within 
the realm of reason, and consistent with what two 
other attorneys testified should be the time for such 
No. 
2011AP259-D   
 
11 
 
a brief.  He never discussed with his partners any of 
the massive write downs that he did on Matter "A."  
¶23 The referee wrote that this same pattern existed for 
Attorney Siderits' other write-downs for 2008:   
Again, these were time entries, made after the fact 
and then written down after the bonus was paid, 
bypassing the traditional system of working through 
the bookkeeper.  This clandestine course of conduct 
leads to no other reasonable conclusion but that 
Siderits was inflating time to barely get himself over 
the 1,800 hour mark, knowing that the time would never 
be billed to clients. 
¶24 The referee also wrote that while Attorney Siderits' 
write-downs for 2007 were lesser in scope, "viewed from the 
perspective of what was done in 2008, the same conclusion [of 
misconduct] is inescapable."  Although in 2007 Attorney Siderits 
was closer to achieving the 1,800 billable hour goal, and 
therefore he did not have to inflate and write-down as much 
time, he engaged in precisely the same conduct to achieve the 
same result.  The referee wrote, "I might have difficulty 
finding a pattern of dishonesty based upon 2007 alone.  However, 
when viewed from the perspective of what happened in 2008, the 
same conclusion about 2007 becomes perfectly obvious."   
¶25 The 
referee 
ultimately 
determined 
that 
Attorney 
Siderits committed all five counts of alleged misconduct.  With 
respect to the discipline to be imposed, the referee found the 
following aggravating factors to be present:  a dishonest or 
selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, and a refusal to 
acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct.  The referee 
found the following mitigating factors to be present:  the 
No. 
2011AP259-D   
 
12 
 
absence of a prior disciplinary record, a timely good faith 
effort to make restitution or to rectify the consequences of 
misconduct, a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary 
proceedings, and good character or reputation.  The referee 
ultimately recommended an 18-month suspension.  He did not 
comment on costs.  He did not recommend restitution, nor did the 
OLR request it, in light of Attorney Siderits' $60,000 payment 
to the Firm following his termination. 
¶26 Attorney Siderits appeals from the referee's report 
and 
recommendation. 
 
He 
first 
disputes 
the 
referee's 
determinations that he violated SCR 20:8.4(c) by engaging in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation, and that he violated SCR 20:8.4(f) by 
breaching the conduct rule set forth in precedent describing a 
lawyer's fiduciary duty to his law firm and his duty of honesty 
in his professional dealings with it.  See, e.g., In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Shea, 190 Wis. 2d 560, 527 
N.W.2d 314 (1995).  Attorney Siderits argues that he is innocent 
of such misconduct because the Firm lacked a written policy 
limiting his ability to write-down his bills.    
¶27 We disagree.  As the referee recognized, this case 
does not turn on the bare fact that Attorney Siderits wrote-down 
his time; if Attorney Siderits had made occasional, modest 
write-downs which did not affect his eligibility for a bonus, 
this misconduct case would not exist.  At issue here is whether 
Attorney Siderits was manipulating his billing records for the 
sole purpose of achieving a bonus.  The answer to this question, 
No. 
2011AP259-D   
 
13 
 
according to the referee, is an unequivocal yes; the referee 
determined that Attorney Siderits' arguments to the contrary 
were not credible——a determination which we will not disturb.  
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Arthur, 2005 WI 40, 
¶53, 279 Wis. 2d 583, 694 N.W.2d 910.  It is obvious that with 
or without a written Firm policy, misappropriating Firm funds 
through billing sleight of hand is inimical to the best 
interests of the Firm, the public, and the profession, and, as 
such, constitutes misconduct. 
¶28 Attorney Siderits next argues that his due process 
rights have been violated by this proceeding in two respects.  
First, he claims that in the absence of a formal Firm policy 
governing write-downs, he reasonably could not have known his 
actions to be wrong.  Second, he argues that he was unaware of 
such cases as In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Shea, 190 
Wis. 2d 560, 527 N.W.2d 314 (1995), which holds that a lawyer 
has a fiduciary duty to his law firm, or In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against 
Casey, 174 Wis. 2d 341, 496 N.W.2d 94 
(1993), 
in 
which 
this 
court 
pledged 
to 
treat 
lawyers' 
misappropriation 
of 
law 
firm 
funds 
no 
differently 
than 
misappropriation of client funds.   
¶29 We reject these arguments.  We already have commented 
on the absolving effect of the absence of a formal Firm policy 
governing write-downs:  none.  Once again, this case does not 
turn on the bare fact that Attorney Siderits wrote-down his 
time; this case is about Attorney Siderits abusing his write-
down discretion and lying to his law partners in order to 
No. 
2011AP259-D   
 
14 
 
collect almost $47,000 in bonuses to which he was not entitled.  
Attorney Siderits cannot seriously contend that firms must have 
a written policy forbidding stealing and lying before a 
misconduct charge for one of these actions can be sustained.  As 
to 
Attorney 
Siderits' 
ignorance-of-the-law 
defense, 
we 
emphatically reject it.  To allow an ignorance-of-the-law excuse 
in lawyer ethics cases would encourage and reward indifference 
to the ethics code and the cases interpreting it, a pernicious 
outcome.  In any event, the injunction against stealing from 
one's own law firm is not an abstract one, and this court has 
stated 
it 
clearly 
and 
repeatedly. 
 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Russell, 
216 
Wis. 2d 488, 
489, 
574 
N.W.2d 247 (1998) ("We treat a lawyer's misappropriation of law 
firm funds as we do misappropriation of funds belonging to a 
client") (citing Casey); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Olson, 216 Wis. 2d 483, 484, 574 N.W.2d 245 (1998) ("We have 
stated on prior occasion that a lawyer's misappropriation of 
funds belonging to a law firm where that lawyer is employed is 
to be treated no differently than misappropriation of funds 
belonging to the lawyer's client") (citing Casey).  Attorney 
Siderits should have known better. 
¶30 Attorney Siderits also challenges the recommended 
sanction.  He claims that the referee, in recommending an 18-
month suspension, was laboring under the misimpression that an 
18-month suspension was the mandatory minimum suspension under 
our case law for the misconduct at issue here.  He claims that 
No. 
2011AP259-D   
 
15 
 
if any sanction is necessary, it should either be a public 
reprimand or a two- to six-month suspension.   
¶31 We disagree on both counts.  The referee clearly, and 
correctly, believed that an 18-month suspension was within the 
wide range of sanctions imposed in previous, arguably similar 
misappropriation cases.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Peterson, 2006 WI 41, 290 Wis. 2d 74, 713 N.W.2d 101 (two-year 
license suspension justified when lawyer misappropriated over 
$26,000 in client funds, pawned law firm property, and admitted 
to criminal use of cocaine); In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Schaller, 2006 WI 40, 290 Wis. 2d 65, 713 N.W.2d 105 
(two-year license suspension justified when lawyer improperly 
converted at least $4,290.85 from payments made by various 
clients, failed to report those funds as income on his federal 
and state income tax returns, and engaged in the practice of law 
while his license was suspended); In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Shea, 190 Wis. 2d 560, 527 N.W.2d 314 (1995) (six-month 
license suspension justified when lawyer kept a $75,000 legal 
fee which should have been turned over to his law firm, 
misrepresented to his partners that he had not sent a client an 
invoice for services and had not been paid, and misrepresented 
the quality of work of another attorney in the firm for purposes 
of his own financial gain); In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Curran, 180 Wis. 2d 540, 509 N.W.2d 429 (1994) (two-year 
suspension justified when lawyer paid himself $56,000 in 
management fees related to an office building owned by law firm 
partners without informing partners of fees, and diverted over 
No. 
2011AP259-D   
 
16 
 
$90,000 in client payments to his own personal account); In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Casey, 174 Wis. 2d 341, 496 
N.W.2d 94 
(1993) (60-day suspension justified when lawyer 
misappropriated three client retainers, totaling $2,300, rather 
than turning them over to his firm); In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Kerzisnik, 167 Wis. 2d 713, 482 N.W.2d 897 
(1992) (license revocation justified when lawyer misappropriated 
over $10,000 by improperly converting airline tickets paid for 
by his law firm and billed to its clients, diverting client and 
settlement funds intended to pay for law firm services, and 
attempting to charge clients for expenses not incurred and for 
legal work not performed). 
¶32 Although it is difficult to compare disciplinary cases 
because of the unique facts of each, it is clear that the 
sanctions Attorney Siderits seeks——either a public reprimand or 
a two- to six-month suspension——would be inadequate.  We must 
impose the discipline needed to protect the public, the courts, 
and the legal system from Attorney Siderits' repetition of 
misconduct, 
to 
impress 
upon 
him 
the 
seriousness 
of 
his 
misconduct, and to deter other attorneys from engaging in 
similar misconduct.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Arthur, 2005 WI 40, ¶78, 279 Wis. 2d 583, 694 N.W.2d 910.  
Considering these factors, we conclude that more than a 
reprimand or minimal license suspension is required, especially 
in light of the seriousness of Attorney Siderits' misconduct, 
the pattern of misconduct he displayed, and his adherence to an 
No. 
2011AP259-D   
 
17 
 
exculpatory explanation for his actions that his law partners, 
the referee, and this court all found implausible.   
¶33 However, given the unique circumstances of this case, 
and acknowledging that the imposition of discipline in attorney 
disciplinary cases is not an exact science, we believe that the 
recommended 18-month license suspension is not quite necessary.  
We conclude that a 12-month license suspension is sufficient to 
advance the objectives of lawyer discipline.  This is so due to 
the number of mitigating factors that appear in the record.  
Attorney Siderits has no previous disciplinary history.  He lost 
his job with the Firm.  He paid $60,000 to the Firm to 
compensate for the bonuses to which he was not entitled and for 
other unspecified damages claimed by the Firm.  He forfeited his 
interest in the Firm's profit sharing plan.  As explained below, 
these disciplinary proceedings have been costly to Attorney 
Siderits.  We are persuaded that, given these particular 
circumstances, Attorney Siderits understands the seriousness 
with which this court views his conduct, and he will not likely 
repeat it. 
¶34 Finally, we address the issue of costs, which total 
$18,916.68 as of October 22, 2012.  Attorney Siderits has made 
no objection to their full imposition.  Supreme court rule 
22.24(1m) provides that it is this court's general policy upon a 
finding of misconduct to impose all costs upon the respondent.  
We follow that policy here. 
No. 
2011AP259-D   
 
18 
 
¶35 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Matthew C. Siderits 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of one 
year, effective February 4, 2013.   
¶36 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Matthew C. Siderits shall 
comply with the requirements of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties 
of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
¶37 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Matthew C. Siderits shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.   
¶38 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.29(4)(c). 
 
No.  2011AP259-D.ssa 
 
1 
 
 
¶39 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.   (dissenting).  I agree 
with the referee's recommendation of an 18-month suspension of 
Attorney 
Siderits' 
law license as appropriate discipline.  
Accordingly, I dissent. 
 
 
No.  2011AP259-D.ssa 
 
 
 
1