Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Ryan D. Lister

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2007 WI 55 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2004AP2767-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Ryan D. Lister, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Ryan D. Lister, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST LISTER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 17, 2007   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
December 13, 2006   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the respondent-appellant there were briefs by Timothy 
Osicka and Law Offices of Tim Osicka SC, Weston, and oral 
argument by Timothy Osicka. 
 
For the complainant-respondent there was a brief and oral 
argument by Julie M. Falk, assistant litigation counsel. 
 
 
2007 WI 55
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2004AP2767-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Ryan D. Lister, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Ryan D. Lister, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 17, 2007 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney Ryan D. Lister has appealed 
certain 
legal 
conclusions 
and 
the 
recommended 
discipline 
contained in the referee's report and recommendation.  Having 
concluded 
that 
Attorney Lister had committed professional 
misconduct in 17 of the 18 counts charged in the complaint filed 
by 
the 
Office 
of 
Lawyer 
Regulation 
(OLR), 
the 
referee 
recommended that Attorney Lister's license to practice law in 
this state be suspended for a period of 180 days, that he be 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
2 
 
ordered to pay restitution to client J.A. in the amount of 
$12,189, and that he be assessed the costs of this proceeding. 
¶2 
After 
reviewing 
the 
record 
and 
considering 
the 
arguments of the parties, we adopt the referee's factual 
findings and conclusions of law.  We determine that as a result 
of his professional misconduct Attorney Lister's license to 
practice law in this state should be suspended for a period of 
five months.  We also determine, based upon Attorney Lister's 
concession at oral argument, that he should be required to pay 
restitution in the amount of $12,209 to client J.A.1  Finally, we 
conclude that Attorney Lister should be required to pay the full 
costs of this disciplinary proceeding, which were $10,132.35 as 
of December 14, 2006. 
¶3 
On October 21, 2004, the OLR filed a complaint against 
Attorney Lister alleging 18 separate counts of misconduct 
relating to seven separate grievance investigations.  Attorney 
Lister's answer admitted many of the factual allegations in the 
OLR's complaint, but, with the exception of one count of having 
failed to provide a written response to a grievance, denied that 
he had committed any acts of professional misconduct. 
¶4 
Although Attorney Lister had admitted most of the 
complaint's allegations, the OLR served numerous requests to 
admit, which tracked the allegations of the complaint.  Attorney 
                                                 
1 The restitution amount set forth in the referee's report, 
$12,189, does not correlate to the undisputed amounts of the 
default judgment and the monies paid by J.A. to Attorney Lister, 
which formed the basis of the restitution recommendation.  We 
use the corrected amount. 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
3 
 
Lister's response to these requests likewise tracked his 
responses to the allegations of the complaint, although his 
discovery response did admit at least one paragraph that he had 
previously denied, the impact of which is discussed further 
below. 
¶5 
The 
referee, 
Timothy 
L. 
Vocke, 
conducted 
a 
disciplinary hearing on November 21 and 22, 2005.  The OLR 
presented testimony from four of Attorney Lister's former 
clients, from an opposing counsel and from Attorney Lister, 
adversely.  Attorney Lister presented only his own testimony.  
At the conclusion of the evidence, the referee made oral 
findings of fact on the record, based on Attorney Lister's 
responses to the allegations of the complaint and to the OLR's 
requests to admit, as well as the testimony of the witnesses at 
the evidentiary hearing.  The referee also rendered a legal 
conclusion of professional misconduct as to the one count that 
Attorney Lister had admitted in his answer.  Following the 
production of the transcript of the hearing, the referee 
submitted a written report and recommendation, which set forth 
his conclusions of law as to the remaining counts and his 
recommendation as to the appropriate level of discipline.  
Attorney 
Lister subsequently filed an appeal, challenging 
certain legal conclusions of misconduct and the recommended 
level of discipline. 
¶6 
Before 
addressing 
Attorney 
Lister's 
arguments 
on 
appeal, 
we 
summarize 
the 
referee's 
factual 
findings 
and 
conclusions of law.  Initially, it should be noted that in 1986 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
4 
 
Attorney Lister was publicly reprimanded for neglecting a client 
matter, failing to carry out a contract of employment with a 
client, and misrepresenting to a client that he had taken 
certain actions on the client's behalf.  That is the only prior 
disciplinary action against Attorney Lister since his admission 
to the practice of law in this state in 1976. 
¶7 
Count 1 of the OLR's complaint relates to Attorney 
Lister's representation of J.P.  Attorney Lister represented 
J.P. in a criminal case involving allegations of sexual assault, 
as well as in a divorce proceeding. 
¶8 
On June 11, 2001, an assistant district attorney sent 
Attorney Lister a witness list in the criminal action.  The list 
named J.P.'s son and daughter as potential witnesses. 
¶9 
On August 7, 2001, the circuit court in the divorce 
action held a hearing on a motion filed by Attorney Lister to 
review a court commissioner's decision against allowing J.P.'s 
son and daughter to visit their father while he was in jail.  
During the hearing, opposing counsel stated that he did not 
think it was appropriate to allow visitation while it was 
unclear as to whether the children would potentially be 
witnesses in the criminal case.  In response, Attorney Lister 
said that he had served extensive discovery on the State in the 
criminal case and that "the State of Wisconsin has not listed as 
of this time -- in 01-CF-181 they have not listed the two 
children 
. . . 
as 
witnesses." 
Attorney 
Lister 
repeated 
essentially this same statement twice more.  He never indicated 
that he was unsure of this fact or that his memory might be 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
5 
 
faulty.  The circuit court granted the visitation motion filed 
by Attorney Lister, but subsequently reversed its decision. 
¶10 The referee concluded that these facts showed that 
Attorney Lister had knowingly made a false statement of fact to 
a tribunal, contrary to SCR 20:3.3(a)(1).2  The referee rejected 
Attorney Lister's claim that he had simply made a mistake when 
faced with a question during the heat of the argument in a court 
proceeding, 
stating 
that 
Attorney 
Lister's 
claim 
lacked 
credibility. 
¶11 Count 2 of the complaint related to Attorney Lister's 
representation of M.S., a doctor who retained Attorney Lister to 
represent her in an employment dispute with the Marshfield 
Clinic.  M.S. filed a grievance with the OLR, alleging that 
Attorney Lister had failed to work diligently on her case and 
had failed to communicate with her regarding the status of the 
matter. 
¶12 The OLR sent letters to Attorney Lister in September 
and October 2003, but did not receive any response within the 
time specified.  Attorney Lister ultimately contacted the OLR 
and asked for additional time, promising to respond on at least 
two occasions.  When Attorney Lister did not respond, the OLR 
was forced to file a motion seeking the temporary suspension of 
his license for failure to cooperate with an investigation, 
pursuant to SCR 22.03(4).  After this court issued an order 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) states that a lawyer shall not knowingly 
"make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal." 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
6 
 
directing Attorney Lister to show cause why his license to 
practice law should not be suspended due to his failure to 
cooperate with the OLR's grievance investigation, he finally 
submitted a written response to the grievance.  The OLR then 
withdrew its motion. 
¶13 Based on these facts and Attorney Lister's admission 
of misconduct, the referee found that Attorney Lister had 
violated SCR 22.03(2),3 as alleged in Count 2 of the complaint.4  
¶14 Client J.B. retained Attorney Lister to represent her 
in a pending criminal investigation.  During the investigation, 
which was directed primarily against J.B.'s boyfriend at the 
time, the police searched her home and seized a number of items. 
                                                 
3 SCR 22.03(2) states:  Investigation. 
 
(2) 
Upon 
commencing 
an 
investigation, 
the 
director shall notify the respondent of the matter 
being investigated unless in the opinion of the 
director the investigation of the matter requires 
otherwise.  The respondent shall fully and fairly 
disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct within 20 days after being served 
by ordinary mail a request for a written response.  
The director may allow additional time to respond.  
Following receipt of the response, the director may 
conduct further investigation and may compel the 
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents, and 
present 
any 
information 
deemed 
relevant 
to 
the 
investigation. 
4 A violation of SCR 22.03(2) also constitutes a violation 
of 
SCR 
20:8.4(f), 
which 
states 
that 
it 
is 
professional 
misconduct to "violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme 
court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers." 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
7 
 
¶15 Attorney Lister admitted that he had agreed to assist 
J.B. in retrieving her property and that he had told her that he 
would begin a lawsuit to obtain the return of the seized items.  
The referee, however, found that J.B.'s testimony was confused, 
that the written representation agreement was limited to 
defending her against potential criminal charges, and that 
J.B.'s expectations regarding Attorney Lister's obligation to 
assist her in retrieving her property or pursuing a lawsuit were 
unrealistic in light of the written representation agreement.    
The referee specifically found that there was no representation 
agreement as to either seeking the return of the seized items 
that belonged to her or for a potential claim against a 
municipality. 
¶16 Because the referee found that Attorney Lister had 
been retained for only a limited purpose, which he had 
accomplished, the referee concluded that Attorney Lister had not 
failed to keep J.B. reasonably informed about the status of the 
matter or respond to her requests for information, as required 
by SCR 20:1.4(a).  The referee also noted that although J.B. had 
paid a $500 nonrefundable fee for this representation and 
Attorney Lister had earned that fee, he had refunded the entire 
$500 to J.B.5 
¶17 In connection with Attorney Lister's representation of 
client W.S. in post-divorce matters, her ex-husband filed a 
                                                 
5 The OLR has not appealed the referee's factual findings or 
conclusion of no misconduct on Count 3. 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
8 
 
grievance against him.  The OLR requested a written response 
from Attorney Lister and initially granted him an extension of 
time to respond.  Attorney Lister, however, did not respond by 
the extended deadline.  Indeed, he did not respond even after 
the OLR sent and personally served additional letters requiring 
a written response to the grievance. 
¶18 Attorney Lister subsequently claimed that he had sent 
a response, but it had been misaddressed and returned to him.  
During a voice mail message left by Attorney Lister for the OLR 
staff on March 8, 2002, he promised to send the response again 
with proof of the incorrect address, but did not do so.  When 
the OLR staff called Attorney Lister prior to filing a motion 
for the temporary suspension of his license, he claimed that he 
could not have left a voice mail message on March 8, 2002, 
because he was in the hospital, and he denied that the first 
envelope had been returned.  Ultimately, however, Attorney 
Lister sent the OLR a letter indicating that he had been 
hospitalized only on March 6 and 7, 2002. 
¶19 The referee concluded that these facts supported a 
finding that Attorney Lister had failed to fully and fairly 
disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to alleged 
misconduct within 20 days after service of a request for a 
written response to a grievance as alleged in Count 4, in 
violation of SCR 22.03(2). 
¶20 Counts 5—7 relate to Attorney Lister's representation 
of an auto body business owned by K.F. and L.F. concerning the 
business's 
purchase 
of 
a 
paint 
spray 
booth 
from 
Norad 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
9 
 
Environmental (Norad).  The dispute was focused initially on the 
fact that Norad refused to deliver the booth because it claimed 
that the body shop was required to pay an additional $3000 due 
to requested upgrades.   
¶21 Attorney Lister did file an action against Norad in 
Marathon County Circuit Court on December 15, 2000.  Although 
Attorney Lister claims he sent the summons and complaint to a 
process server, ESI Associates, for service on Norad, he never 
obtained service. 
¶22 On February 19, 2001, Attorney Lister left a message 
for K.F. and L.F. stating that he would call them after a 
teleconference with a judicial assistant the following morning.  
Attorney Lister did not call about this teleconference, despite 
multiple inquiries by K.F. and L.F. 
¶23 After a scheduling conference on February 27, 2001, 
Attorney Lister told K.F. and L.F. that Norad was switching 
counsel and that he had to file another suit.  On March 7, 2001, 
Attorney Lister informed K.F. and L.F. that he would prepare the 
papers to seek a prejudgment replevin.  On March 8, 2001, he 
said that he would file the paperwork and expected to have a 
replevin order the next day.  On March 14, 2001, Attorney Lister 
stated that the Marathon County judge had signed the order and 
that he had called the Kenosha County sheriff about executing 
the writ.  Attorney Lister, however, never obtained service on 
Norad and did not file any motion for replevin in the first 
action. 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
10 
 
¶24 On March 26, 2001, without dismissing the first 
lawsuit, Attorney Lister filed a second action against Norad.  
He again sent the summons and complaint to ESI Associates for 
service on Norad.  He also filed a motion for a prejudgment 
replevin order in the second lawsuit, which was scheduled to be 
heard on April 9, 2001.  On that date, however, Attorney Lister 
told K.F. and L.F. that he would ask for a court order requiring 
the sheriff to accompany them to execute the replevin order 
allegedly issued in the first action. 
¶25 During the April 9, 2001 hearing on the replevin 
motion in the second action, Attorney Lister informed the court 
that he had orally confirmed service on Norad, but in fact he 
had no documentation of service and Norad had not been served by 
that date.  Norad did not appear for the April 9, 2006 hearing.  
Subsequently, the circuit court granted the motion for an order 
of replevin, with a requirement that K.F. and L.F. post a 
$30,000 surety bond.  The Kenosha County Sheriff's Department 
executed the replevin order, but seized the wrong property from 
Norad. 
¶26 On June 5, 2001, the circuit court dismissed the first 
action with prejudice due to failure to effect service on Norad 
within the required statutory time period. 
¶27 On June 28, 2001, a representative of ESI Associates 
executed an affidavit stating that on June 25, 2001, ESI had 
personally served Norad's counsel with the summons and complaint 
in the second lawsuit.  ESI had not accomplished proper service 
within the statutory time period. 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
11 
 
¶28 On July 27, 2001, Norad filed a motion to dismiss the 
second lawsuit on the ground that the circuit court lacked 
jurisdiction due to inadequate service of process.  Norad also 
sought an order requiring the return of the seized property or 
the forfeiture of the surety bond.  Attorney Lister failed to 
file a brief in opposition to Norad's motion to dismiss.  
According to the referee's findings, there was a factual defense 
to the motion to dismiss, but Attorney Lister simply missed it.  
Attorney Lister also failed to disclose to K.F. and L.F. that 
there was a motion to dismiss pending in the second action. 
¶29 Having concluded that Norad had not been properly 
served in the second action, the circuit court dismissed that 
action on October 30, 2001.  The court ordered K.F. and L.F. to 
return the seized spray booth immediately to Norad and to pay 
Norad's statutory costs.  Attorney Lister did not inform K.F. 
and L.F. of the court's decision. 
¶30 On December 18, 2001, Norad's counsel sent a letter to 
Attorney Lister asking about arrangements for the return of the 
spray booth and the payment of costs.  Attorney Lister did not 
contact K.F. and L.F. about these matters.  In January 2002 K.F. 
and L.F. discovered via a court website that the second action 
had been dismissed.  Until that time, they had continued to 
believe that they would have a jury trial on their claims 
against Norad.  Upon reviewing the case file at the courthouse, 
K.F. and L.F. also learned about the order to return the spray 
booth. 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
12 
 
¶31 K.F. and L.F. then made multiple requests to Attorney 
Lister for their file, but did not receive the file.  On March 
13, 2002, they went to Attorney Lister's office to request the 
file in person.  After additional delay, Attorney Lister did 
deliver their file on March 19, 2002.  Ultimately, K.F. and L.F. 
retained another attorney, who was able to reopen the case and 
proceed with their claims. 
¶32 The referee concluded that Attorney Lister's failure 
to obtain timely service on Norad, his failure to file a brief 
in response to Norad's motion to dismiss, and his failure to 
keep his clients informed of the status of the matter, all of 
which led to the dismissal of the lawsuits, an order requiring 
K.F. and L.F. to return the spray booth to Norad and an adverse 
cost judgment, constituted a failure to provide competent 
representation, in violation of SCR 20:1.1.6  The referee noted 
that Attorney Lister's claims that he has subsequently changed 
office policies concerning scheduling and the routing of copies 
to clients do not constitute a defense against this past 
misconduct.  The referee also concluded that Attorney Lister's 
actions with respect to this matter showed violations of SCR 
20:1.3 
(failure 
to 
"act 
with 
reasonable 
diligence 
and 
promptness") and SCR 20:1.4(a) (failure to "keep a client 
reasonably informed"). 
                                                 
6 SCR 20:1.1 states that "[a] lawyer shall provide competent 
representation to a client.  Competent representation requires 
the 
legal 
knowledge, 
skill, 
thoroughness 
and 
preparation 
reasonably necessary for the representation." 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
13 
 
¶33 J.A. was a landlord who retained Attorney Lister to 
represent her in connection with a lawsuit filed against her by 
a former tenant concerning J.A.'s failure to return or account 
for the tenant's security deposit, failure to safeguard or 
return the tenant's personal belongings, and constructive 
eviction.  The tenant's complaint sought double damages under 
Wisconsin's landlord/tenant laws.  Although Attorney Lister 
recognized that the tenant had viable claims against J.A., he 
told her that the tenant "didn't have a leg to stand on" with 
the complaint. 
¶34 J.A. also had affirmative claims against the tenant 
because the tenant was approximately $1500 behind in rent 
payments, and had left the apartment in a messy condition, 
requiring J.A. to incur extraordinary cleaning expenses. 
¶35 Attorney Lister failed to file any response to the 
complaint within the required 45-day period.  The tenant 
subsequently moved for a default judgment against J.A.  At that 
point, 
Attorney 
Lister 
filed 
an 
untimely 
answer 
and 
counterclaim, paid a $72 jury fee, and served interrogatories 
and requests for admission on the tenant's counsel. 
¶36 Attorney Lister told J.A. that he required a $500 
retainer.  J.A. paid $200 of that amount initially.  After 
filing the untimely answer, Attorney Lister sent J.A. a bill for 
the balance of his fees. 
¶37 A few days later the circuit court issued a default 
judgment in the amount of $11,637 against J.A.  The tenant's 
counsel docketed the judgment on July 20, 2001.  The tenant 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
14 
 
began calling J.A. about collecting on the judgment.  J.A., in 
turn, called Attorney Lister on multiple occasions to inquire 
about the judgment.  Attorney Lister told J.A. that there was no 
such judgment and that the tenant was lying to her. 
¶38 In September 2001 J.A. sent a check for $372 to 
Attorney 
Lister for the balance on her account.  This 
represented the remaining $300 in fees and the $72 jury fee that 
Attorney Lister had paid to the court when filing the untimely 
answer and counterclaim. 
¶39 Because she remained concerned about the former 
tenant's claims of a judgment against her, J.A. had her daughter 
check the court's records.  The daughter discovered the judgment 
in favor of the tenant. 
¶40 Following the entry of the judgment, the tenant's 
counsel asked Attorney Lister to have his client provide a 
financial disclosure statement.  Attorney Lister did not pass 
this information to his client.  On October 30, 2001, the tenant 
filed a motion for remedial contempt due to J.A.'s failure to 
complete the necessary financial disclosure statement.  The 
circuit court did not find J.A. in contempt, but did issue an 
order requiring her to appear for a supplemental examination.  
Attorney Lister then sent a letter to J.A. asking her to contact 
him about her case, but she did not receive the letter. 
¶41 Attorney Lister ultimately signed an admission of 
service acknowledging that J.A. would appear for a supplemental 
examination.  Attorney Lister did not inform J.A. of this fact.  
On the morning of the supplemental examination, Attorney Lister 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
15 
 
called J.A. and told her that she had to appear at the 
supplemental examination at 10 a.m. and had to bring a copy of 
her income tax return.  Despite the lack of notice, J.A. did 
appear for the supplemental examination, which showed that she 
had no assets with which to satisfy the judgment. 
¶42 After the supplemental examination, Attorney Lister 
told J.A. that he would immediately file a new action raising 
her claims against the tenant.  Attorney Lister, however, took 
no action on J.A.'s behalf after the supplemental examination 
and did not file a new action.  He did not even contact J.A., 
except to return her file to her. 
¶43 When the OLR sent a copy of J.A.'s grievance to 
Attorney Lister, he did not respond within the required 20-day 
time period.  His secretary called the OLR after the expiration 
of that period to request an extension, but Attorney Lister did 
not respond within the extended period.  After additional 
extension requests and still no response by Attorney Lister, the 
OLR filed a motion for a temporary suspension of Attorney 
Lister's license to practice law.  Only after this court issued 
an order to show cause why his license should not be suspended 
did Attorney Lister submit an initial response to the grievance. 
¶44 The OLR determined that Attorney Lister's response was 
not sufficient and asked for a supplemental response on certain 
points.  Attorney Lister again asked for multiple extensions, 
but did not file the supplemental response.  The OLR then had a 
process server personally serve a letter on Attorney Lister 
informing him that if he did not submit a supplemental response 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
16 
 
within five days, the OLR would again move for a temporary 
license suspension.  At that point Attorney Lister finally filed 
the supplemental response. 
¶45 Counts 
8—13 
in 
the 
complaint 
relate 
to 
this 
representation.  The referee concluded that Attorney Lister had 
failed to provide competent representation, in violation of SCR 
20:1.1, and had failed to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.  The referee also 
determined that Attorney Lister had failed to keep his client 
reasonably informed about the status of the matter, contrary to 
SCR 20:1.4(a).  Further, the referee found that Attorney 
Lister's failure to refund the more than $500 that had been 
received from J.A. but had not been earned constituted a 
violation of SCR 20:1.16(d).7  Finally, the referee concluded 
that Attorney Lister's failure to respond to the OLR's initial 
                                                 
7 SCR 
20:1.16(d) 
states: 
 
Declining 
or 
terminating 
representation. 
 
(d) Upon termination of representation, a lawyer 
shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable 
to protect a client's interests, such as giving 
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for 
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and 
property to which the client is entitled and refunding 
any advance payment of fee that has not been earned.  
The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to 
the extent permitted by other law. 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
17 
 
and subsequent requests for a response to the grievance and for 
additional information had violated SCR 22.03(2) and 22.03(6).8  
¶46 Counts 14—18 of the complaint relate to Attorney 
Lister's representation of R.B., who had been involved in a 
boundary dispute and a dispute concerning a survey of his 
property for a number of years and had filed several lawsuits in 
the matter.  In 1998, R.B. hired another attorney to file a 
lawsuit against a surveyor alleging that the surveyor had been 
negligent in conducting a 1993 survey and had improperly moved 
R.B.'s boundary lines.  R.B.'s complaint sought damages, but not 
the return of any real property. 
¶47 R.B. retained Attorney Lister in October 1999 to take 
over the case and paid an initial $2500 retainer.  When the 
surveyor did not appear for trial, a default judgment for over 
$47,000 was entered in favor of R.B.  The surveyor subsequently 
filed a motion to set aside the default judgment, arguing that 
an earlier action on this same subject matter had been dismissed 
with prejudice.  The circuit court vacated the default judgment 
and granted judgment in favor of the surveyor.  The court of 
appeals affirmed. 
                                                 
8 SCR 22.03(6) states that "[i]n the course of the 
investigation, 
the 
respondent's wilful failure to provide 
relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 
documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure 
are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted 
in the grievance."  A violation of SCR 22.03(6), like a 
violation of SCR 22.03(2), constitutes a violation of SCR 
20:8.4(f). 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
18 
 
¶48 Attorney Lister concluded that the only claim that 
R.B. could still make on the matter was for removal or 
destruction of monuments under Wis. Stat. § 49.74 (2001-02).9  On 
January 21, 2003, Attorney Lister wrote to R.B., enclosing a 
draft complaint and requesting a check in the amount of $464 to 
cover filing fees and service costs.  R.B. sent the check to 
Attorney Lister.  Attorney Lister did not file the action.  
Instead, he later applied the $464 check to R.B.'s past due 
account, without informing R.B. of that fact. 
¶49 R.B. attempted to contact Attorney Lister on multiple 
occasions about his matter, but Attorney Lister did not respond.  
Finally, in May 2003 Attorney Lister called R.B., stated that he 
had forgotten about him, and said that he had gotten everything 
to the courthouse and would send copies of the filings to R.B.10  
Attorney Lister never filed a new action and did not send copies 
of anything to R.B. 
¶50 Although the referee found that Attorney Lister had 
not filed the lawsuit despite receiving the check for filing 
fees, the referee also found that R.B. knew that he had to pay 
another retainer and enter into a new written representation 
                                                 
9 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 2001-02 version unless otherwise indicated. 
10 Attorney 
Lister 
initially 
denied 
this 
May 
2003 
conversation in his answer.  When he responded to the OLR's 
requests to admit, however, he admitted this allegation.  He 
continued 
to 
deny 
other 
allegations 
concerning 
purported 
statements to R.B. about having filed a new action on his 
behalf.   
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
19 
 
agreement with Attorney Lister before he would file the new 
lawsuit.  The referee found that, despite R.B.'s claims of 
having paid an additional $1000 cash retainer to Attorney 
Lister, R.B. paid no such additional retainer and did not 
authorize Attorney Lister to file another lawsuit. 
¶51 In addition, although the OLR's complaint alleged that 
Attorney Lister told R.B. in October 2003 that everything had 
been filed and they were simply waiting for a court date, the 
referee found that this conversation did not occur. 
¶52 The referee also found, pursuant to an admission by 
Attorney Lister, that after R.B. finally checked the court 
records and determined that no new lawsuit had been filed, he 
filed a grievance with the OLR in December 2003 alleging that 
Attorney Lister would not return his telephone calls. 
¶53 As was the case with other grievances, Attorney Lister 
did not respond to the OLR's requests for information.  Finally, 
the OLR filed a motion for temporary suspension and this court 
issued an order requiring Attorney Lister to show cause why his 
license to practice law in this state should not be suspended 
for failing to cooperate with the OLR's investigation. 
¶54 Attorney Lister filed a response with the OLR only 
after receiving the order to show cause.  The OLR then withdrew 
its request for a temporary suspension, but requested additional 
information from Attorney Lister.  Attorney Lister did not 
respond 
to 
the 
OLR's 
repeated 
requests 
for 
additional 
information over the next six weeks, including a letter 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
20 
 
personally served on Attorney Lister.  Attorney Lister finally 
provided the requested information on May 14, 2004. 
¶55 Although the referee found that R.B. was a poor 
witness, that a new lawsuit had not been filed because R.B. had 
not authorized it and had not paid a required additional 
retainer, and that Attorney Lister had not falsely told R.B. in 
October 2003 that everything had been filed, he nonetheless 
concluded that the OLR had proven all of their claims of 
misconduct concerning the R.B. representation.  Specifically, he 
found that Attorney Lister had not acted with reasonable 
diligence and promptness, in violation of SCR 20:1.3, and had 
failed to keep the client reasonably informed about the status 
of the matter, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).  The referee 
further found that Attorney Lister had falsely told R.B. that he 
had filed the paperwork to begin a new lawsuit and was waiting 
for a court date, thereby engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of 
SCR 20:8.4(c).11  Finally, the referee concluded that Attorney 
Lister's repeated failures to provide information to the OLR 
about the subject of the grievance had violated SCR 22.03(2) and 
SCR 22.03(6). 
¶56 With respect to the recommended level of discipline, 
the referee considered a number of mitigating and aggravating 
factors.  On the mitigating side, he stated that Attorney Lister 
                                                 
11 SCR 20:8.4(c) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation." 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
21 
 
now limits his practice to areas where he feels more competent, 
has changed office procedures to ensure clients receive copies 
of 
pleadings 
and 
correspondence, 
has 
cooperated 
in 
the 
disciplinary proceeding by admitting most of the factual 
allegations, was found not to have engaged in misconduct on one 
of the counts alleged in the OLR's complaint, and refunded $500 
to J.B. even though he had in fact earned the fee. 
¶57 The referee, however, found more significant and 
numerous factors on the aggravating side of the ledger.  First, 
the proceeding involves seven different grievances and 17 proven 
counts of misconduct.  Second, there are patterns of misconduct 
that appear throughout the seven representations under review.  
Attorney 
Lister 
often 
provided 
incompetent 
representation, 
failed to communicate adequately with his clients, neglected 
client 
matters, 
and 
failed 
to 
cooperate 
with 
the 
OLR's 
investigations.  Third, these patterns of misconduct are similar 
to the misconduct that required a previous public reprimand of 
Attorney Lister.  In addition, the referee stated that Attorney 
Lister should have known better because he has substantial 
experience as a practicing lawyer.  The referee also noted that 
at least one of the clients had suffered a financial loss 
because of Attorney Lister. 
¶58 In addition, the referee noted that Attorney Lister's 
defense during the disciplinary process indicated a lack of 
remorse and a failure to acknowledge the harm caused by his 
violations of the Supreme Court Rules.  The referee first 
pointed to Attorney Lister's claim that he had failed to 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
22 
 
cooperate with the OLR simply because he was too embarrassed and 
too proud to do so.  The referee also based this conclusion, 
however, on the fact that during the proceedings before the 
referee, Attorney Lister's counsel had moved (unsuccessfully) to 
disqualify Attorney Julie Falk of the OLR because she had 
previously worked for a firm that had been adverse to Attorney 
Lister in a contentious piece of litigation.  The referee also 
found 
a 
lack 
of 
remorse from comments made during the 
disciplinary hearing, where Attorney Lister and his counsel 
asserted that Attorney Falk had made an incorrect factual 
statement during the heat of a hearing, just as Attorney Lister 
claimed to have done in the J.P. matter. 
¶59 In the end, the referee recommended that this court 
suspend Attorney Lister's license to practice law in this state 
for 180 days.  The referee concluded that a suspension was 
warranted, but not a suspension of six months or more that would 
require a formal petition for reinstatement.  See SCR 22.28(3).12 
¶60 Attorney Lister's appeal challenges only the referee's 
conclusions of law with respect to Count 1 (knowingly false 
statement to tribunal), Count 16 (misrepresentation to client 
R.B.) and Count 18 (willful failure to provide information to 
OLR 
during 
grievance 
investigation), 
and 
the 
referee's 
recommended level of discipline.  Thus, we accept the referee's 
                                                 
12 SCR 22.28(3) states the "[t]he license of an attorney 
that is revoked or suspended for misconduct for six months or 
more shall be reinstated pursuant to the procedure set forth in 
SCR 22.29 to 22.33 and only by order of the supreme court." 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
23 
 
findings of fact and his conclusions of law with respect to all 
of the other counts of misconduct. 
¶61 Attorney Lister's first argument is that the referee 
erred in finding a violation of SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) in the J.P. 
matter.  As noted above, SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) provides that "[a] 
lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law 
to a tribunal."  Attorney Lister claims that the OLR failed to 
prove by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence that 
Attorney Lister knew his client's children had been listed as 
potential witnesses in the criminal action when he stated that 
they had not been so listed during a hearing on visitation in 
the divorce action.  Attorney Lister claims that he was simply 
under a mistaken impression at that time, which does not 
constitute a knowing violation of the rule.  He claims that he 
had not planned to argue at the visitation hearing concerning 
the "extensive" discovery in the criminal matter and was caught 
off guard by the statements of opposing counsel.  While he 
admits that his statement was false, he argues that the 
referee's findings of fact do not support the legal conclusion 
of a false statement knowingly made to a tribunal. 
¶62 In support of the referee's conclusion, the OLR points 
to the fact that the hearing was concerning whether J.P.'s 
children should be allowed to visit him while he was in jail 
awaiting trial and Attorney Lister was aware of statements 
allegedly made by J.P. to his son about the criminal charges, 
making the children's status in the criminal matter a likely 
topic of discussion.  Moreover, the State's witness list in the 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
24 
 
criminal case sent to Attorney Lister a couple of months earlier 
had clearly named the children as potential witnesses.  Further, 
the OLR emphasizes that Attorney Lister made an emphatic 
statement about having served "extensive discovery" on the State 
and the State not having listed the children as witnesses as of 
the date of the visitation hearing.  The OLR points out that 
Attorney Lister repeated this contention multiple times and 
never indicated that he might be unsure of the fact because of 
the volume of paper in the criminal proceeding.  Finally, the 
OLR notes that Attorney Lister's claim of a mistaken impression 
was deemed not credible by the referee. 
¶63 Although we recognize that attorneys are human beings 
and sometimes make mistakes while making arguments in court, we 
agree with the referee's conclusion that there is sufficient 
evidence here to conclude that Attorney Lister knowingly made a 
false statement of fact to the court in violation of SCR 
20:3.3(a)(1).  The comment to that rule states in part that "an 
assertion purporting to be on the lawyer's own knowledge, . . . 
may properly be made only when the lawyer knows the assertion is 
true or believes it to be true on the basis of a reasonably 
diligent inquiry."  This explains the rule's concept of 
"knowingly" with respect to statements made to a tribunal.   
¶64 Here, Attorney Lister made his statements not in 
response to a question by the court that caught him off guard, 
but as an affirmative, unsolicited argument in response to 
opposing counsel's suggestion that it might be better to delay 
allowing visitation until the children's relation to the 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
25 
 
criminal case was clarified.  Attorney Lister emphasized that he 
had served "extensive discovery" on the State to bolster his 
subsequent assertion that the children had not in fact been 
listed as witnesses.  He repeated his assertion multiple times.  
Although he now claims that there was a considerable amount of 
document production in the criminal matter, he never indicated 
to the court that he was unsure of his answer because of that 
fact.  There is no indication that he ever checked the criminal 
file after the hearing to see if he had spoken in error.  
Instead he made a flat assertion purportedly based on his own 
knowledge that he did not condition in any respect.  Moreover, 
the referee specifically stated that he found Attorney Lister's 
claim of a mistake made in the heat of battle to be not 
credible.  Under these particular facts, we conclude that the 
record supports the referee's conclusion that Attorney Lister 
violated SCR 20:3.3(a)(1). 
¶65 Next, Attorney Lister argues that the referee erred in 
concluding that Attorney Lister had violated SCR 20:8.4(c) by 
falsely telling R.B. that the new summons and complaint had been 
filed, as alleged in Count 16 of the OLR's complaint.  Attorney 
Lister relies primarily on the referee's factual findings during 
the disciplinary hearing that R.B. was not a reasonable client 
or credible witness and that a new lawsuit had not been filed 
because R.B. knew he had to sign a new written retainer 
agreement and pay a new retainer, but never did so.  Thus, 
Attorney Lister argues that since the referee found that 
Attorney Lister was correct in asserting that there was never 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
26 
 
any agreement to file a new lawsuit, the referee should not have 
found that Attorney Lister lied about having filed the lawsuit. 
¶66 Although we recognize that the referee stated that 
R.B. was "not a reasonable client, in general" and was "not a 
good witness," Attorney Lister's argument on this point ignores 
the fact that in response to a request to admit he conceded that 
in May 2003 he had "called [R.B.], informed him that he had 
forgotten about him, that Lister had gotten everything down to 
the courthouse, and would copy [R.B.] with the documents."  
Attorney Lister also admitted that he had not sent R.B. any 
copies of the documents allegedly filed at the courthouse.  
¶67 This admission was the basis for the referee's 
conclusion of a violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).  Although Attorney 
Lister had denied this same allegation in his answer to the 
OLR's complaint, for whatever reason he admitted it in his 
subsequent responses to the OLR's requests for admission.  While 
we do not think repetitious requests to admit should be used in 
order to catch an adverse party in a mistaken admission, 
Attorney Lister never claimed that his admission had been a 
mistake and never moved to withdraw the admission before the 
referee.  He did not do so even after the referee made a finding 
of fact based on his admission at the conclusion of the 
evidentiary hearing and made the other findings of fact about 
R.B.'s unreasonable expectations on which Attorney Lister now 
relies.  Attorney Lister did not even seek to have the admission 
withdrawn when the referee concluded in his written report that 
Attorney Lister had violated SCR 20:8.4(c).  At that point, 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
27 
 
given the referee's explicit finding that Attorney Lister had 
not had the October 2003 conversation with R.B., Attorney Lister 
should have recognized that the basis for the referee's 
conclusion that he had misrepresented having filed a new lawsuit 
to R.B. was his admission concerning the May 2003 statements.  
Nonetheless, Attorney Lister filed nothing to indicate to the 
referee that the factual basis for the SCR 20:8.4(c) violation 
was a mistake on his part.  
¶68 Indeed, although Attorney Lister's briefs in this 
court attempted to undermine the referee's legal conclusion of a 
violation due to the referee's comments about R.B. not being a 
good witness, Attorney Lister never stated that his admission to 
the May 2003 conversation was a mistake.  It was not until the 
court at oral argument asked Attorney Lister's counsel about the 
initial denial and subsequent admission of the May 2003 
statements that counsel claimed that the admission had been a 
mistake.  Counsel did not raise this issue on his own. 
¶69 Attorney 
disciplinary 
proceedings 
are 
generally 
governed by the rules of civil procedure.  See SCR 22.16(1).13  
The referee acts as the trial court and we perform our usual 
                                                 
13 SCR 22.16(1) states: Proceedings before a referee. 
 
(1) The referee has the powers of a judge trying 
a civil action and shall conduct the hearing as the 
trial of a civil action to the court.  The rules of 
civil procedure and evidence shall be followed.  The 
referee shall obtain the services of a court reporter 
to make a verbatim record of the proceedings, as 
provided in SCR 71.01 to 71.03. 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
28 
 
role as a reviewing court, with the exception that we determine 
the proper level of discipline independently of the referee. 
¶70 Even if his admission of the May 2003 conversation was 
a mistake, Attorney Lister has foregone any opportunity to avoid 
the effect of that admission in this proceeding.  Under Wis. 
Stat. § (Rule) 804.11, any matter that is admitted in response 
to a request to admit is conclusively established in the 
proceeding unless the trial court (here the referee) on motion 
permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission.  The trial 
court may permit withdrawal "when the presentation of the merits 
of the action will be subserved thereby and the party who 
obtained 
the 
admission 
fails 
to 
satisfy 
the 
court 
that 
withdrawal or amendment will prejudice the party in maintaining 
the action or defense on the merits."  Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 
804.11(2).  This determination is committed to the sound 
discretion of the trial court and this court's role (or that of 
the court of appeals in a civil action) is to review the lower 
court's ruling to determine if it properly exercised its 
discretion.  See Schmid v. Olson, 111 Wis. 2d 228, 237, 330 
N.W.2d 547 (1983). 
¶71 Here, Attorney Lister never asked the referee to 
exercise his discretion and allow the withdrawal of the 
admission.  Thus, we have no determination to review. 
¶72 Moreover, Attorney Lister's argument on this point is 
that the conclusion of a violation of SCR 20:8.4(c) on the basis 
of the finding of the May 2003 statements is in conflict with 
the referee's statements that R.B. was "not a good witness" and 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
29 
 
that the October 2003 conversation did not occur.  Even if the 
October 2003 conversation did not occur and Attorney Lister 
ultimately demanded the payment of an additional retainer before 
filing the new action on R.B.'s behalf, that does not mean that 
Attorney Lister could not have falsely told R.B. in May 2003 
that he had taken care of filing the new action in order to 
appease R.B.'s calls for progress on his matter. 
¶73 Under these facts, we conclude that Attorney Lister's 
challenge to the conclusion of misconduct on Count 16 must fail.  
Attorney Lister's admission to the May 2003 conversation 
conclusively establishes in this disciplinary proceeding the 
factual predicate for the referee's legal conclusion of a 
violation of SCR 20:8.4(c). 
¶74 Attorney Lister next argues that the referee erred in 
concluding that he had violated SCR 22.03(6) by willfully 
failing to provide relevant information and documents to the OLR 
during the investigation of the R.B. grievance.  He asserts that 
although he did not provide the requested information in a 
timely manner, he ultimately did provide all of the requested 
information.   
¶75 Attorney Lister's argument is without merit.  SCR 
22.03(6) states that an attorney's willful failure to provide 
relevant information to the OLR, to answer the OLR's questions 
fully, 
or 
to 
furnish 
documents 
to 
the 
OLR 
constitutes 
misconduct.  Attorney Lister's argument is that an attorney can 
willfully choose not to provide the requested information for as 
long as the attorney wants, just as long as the attorney 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
30 
 
ultimately decides to provide the information.  That undercuts 
the plain language of the rule and the need for the OLR to 
proceed with its investigations in an efficient manner.  In the 
present case, Attorney Lister routinely delayed for months 
providing the information requested by the OLR.  When the OLR 
requested 
additional 
information 
in 
the 
R.B. 
grievance 
investigation, after Attorney Lister had already received an 
order to show cause why his license should not be temporarily 
suspended for failure to cooperate with the OLR, he continued 
his pattern of delay.  He asked for extensions of time to 
respond, but never responded by the extended dates he had 
requested.  Only when faced with the possibility of another 
motion for a temporary suspension of his license did he provide 
the 
requested 
information. 
 
The 
referee 
was 
correct 
in 
concluding that this conduct constituted a willful failure to 
provide information, in violation of SCR 22.03(6). 
¶76 Attorney Lister also argues that he should not receive 
a suspension for the violations of SCR 22.03(2) because the OLR 
sought the temporary suspension of his license and subsequently 
withdrew its motion because of Attorney Lister's belated 
response to the OLR's grievance investigation.  This argument is 
also without merit.  The fact that the OLR concluded that it did 
not require a temporary suspension to induce Attorney Lister's 
cooperation does not mean that he should be absolved of his 
violations of SCR 22.03(2).  As with his previous argument, this 
interpretation of the rules would encourage attorneys to delay 
responding to the OLR because they could avoid any penalties for 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
31 
 
their delay so long as the attorney responded before a temporary 
suspension was imposed.  This is contrary to the rule's 
requirement that attorneys must respond to the OLR's initial 
request for information within 20 days. 
¶77 Turning to the level of discipline, we determine that 
a 
five-month 
suspension 
of 
Attorney 
Lister's 
license 
is 
appropriate discipline.  In this regard, we note that we 
generally have not issued 180-day license suspensions.  The next 
more serious sanction after a five-month suspension is a six-
month 
suspension, 
which requires the formal reinstatement 
petition and procedure set forth in SCR 22.29—.33.  When the 
facts have warranted a six-month suspension, we have imposed 
that discipline, regardless of the accompanying need for a 
formal reinstatement proceeding.  See, e.g., In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Scanlan, 2006 WI 38, ¶¶72-74, 290 Wis. 2d 
30, 712 N.W.2d 877. 
¶78 Here, it cannot be denied that Attorney Lister's 
misconduct, as proven during this proceeding, is serious.  The 
evidence shows a disturbing pattern of failing to act diligently 
on his clients' behalf and of failing to communicate with them 
about the status of their matters.  It also shows a failure by 
Attorney Lister to recognize that an attorney is obligated to 
cooperate with an OLR investigation in a timely fashion.  
Ultimately, however, the OLR has not disputed Attorney Lister's 
claim that he did provide, albeit in a tardy manner, all of the 
information the OLR requested.  Moreover, although Attorney 
Lister has a prior reprimand for similar conduct, that reprimand 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
32 
 
occurred over 20 years ago and is the only discipline imposed on 
Attorney Lister during 30 years of practice. 
¶79 Having considered all of the facts, we conclude that a 
five-month suspension is an appropriate level of discipline to 
impress 
upon 
Attorney 
Lister 
the 
serious 
nature 
of 
his 
misconduct 
and 
his 
need to conform his conduct to his 
obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct.   
¶80 With respect to restitution, the referee recommended 
that Attorney Lister be ordered to pay restitution to client 
J.A. equal to the default judgment entered against her plus the 
amount of money J.A. paid to Attorney Lister.  At oral argument, 
Attorney Lister conceded that he should pay restitution to J.A. 
for those amounts.  Thus, we determine the amount of restitution 
to J.A. should be $12,209, which is the sum of the $11,637 
default judgment and the $572 in payments that J.A. made to 
Attorney Lister. 
¶81 We also determine that Attorney Lister should bear the 
full costs of this disciplinary proceeding.  In this regard, 
Attorney Lister acknowledged at oral argument that his delay in 
responding 
to 
the 
OLR's 
requests 
for 
information, 
which 
necessitated the OLR's motions for the temporary suspension of 
his license, had increased the total costs of this proceeding. 
¶82 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Ryan D. Lister to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of five 
months, effective June 15, 2007. 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
33 
 
¶83 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Lister comply with 
the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person 
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
¶84 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Attorney Lister shall pay restitution to J.A. in 
the amount of $12,209.  If restitution to J.A. is not paid 
within the time specified and absent a showing to this court of 
his inability to pay the restitution amount within that time, 
the license of Attorney Lister to practice law in Wisconsin 
shall remain suspended until further order of this court. 
¶85 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Attorney Lister shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If the costs are not 
paid within the time specified and absent a showing to this 
court of his inability to pay those costs within that time, the 
license of Attorney Lister to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
remain suspended until further order of this court. 
¶86 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that restitution to client J.A. 
is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation. 
 
No. 
2004AP2767-D   
 
 
 
1