Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Joseph L. Sommers

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2009 WI 17 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2006AP2851-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Joseph L. Sommers, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Joseph L. Sommers, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SOMMERS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 16, 2009   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
December 16, 2008   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: ZIEGLER and GABLEMAN, JJ., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the complainant-appellant there were briefs by Thomas 
J. 
Basting, 
Sr., 
special 
counsel 
for 
Office 
of 
Lawyer 
Regulation, and Julie M Falk and the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation, Madison, and oral argument by Thomas J. Basting, Sr. 
 
For the respondent-respondent there was a brief by Joseph 
L. Sommers, Oregon, and oral argument by Joseph L. Sommers. 
 
 
 
 
2009 WI 17
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This order is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The 
final version will appear in the 
bound volume of the official 
reports.   
 
 
 
No.  2006AP2851-D  
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
 
Against Joseph L. Sommers, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Joseph L. Sommers, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 16, 2009 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Court entered the following order on this date: 
 
On June 16, 2008, this court granted the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation’s (OLR) request for leave to appeal a non-final order 
issued by Referee Stanley Hack in this pending attorney 
disciplinary matter.  The OLR asked this court to resolve the 
following issue: 
Can a referee in a disciplinary proceeding 
order the OLR to provide him with full access 
to OLR’s internal files or should access be 
denied pursuant to SCR 22.40, privilege and 
the work product doctrine? 
 
We conclude that under the facts presented to this court, the 
referee’s order is overbroad.  We therefore quash the order and 
remand the matter to the referee for further proceedings.   
No.  2006AP2851-D 
2 
 
On November 17, 2006, the OLR filed a complaint alleging 
Attorney 
Sommers 
committed 
three 
counts 
of 
professional 
misconduct in connection with the matter of State v. Raisbeck.  
Attorney Sommers represented the defendant, Adam Raisbeck, who 
was charged——and subsequently acquitted——of negligent homicide by 
operation of a motor vehicle.  The state was initially 
represented by Assistant District Attorney Paul M. Humphrey.  
Disciplinary charges were subsequently filed against Attorney 
Humphrey
1 as well.  Both disciplinary matters are still pending.  
Attorney Sommers filed an answer refuting the allegations of 
misconduct.  He also filed a counterclaim challenging the OLR’s 
handling of his disciplinary matter and the matter of OLR v. 
Humphrey.   
 
On February 29, 2008, the referee dismissed Attorney 
Sommers’ counterclaim but ruled that Attorney Sommers could 
present the substance of his arguments regarding alleged OLR 
misconduct as an affirmative defense.  Although the parties 
dispute some of the specifics and the exact resolution of various 
motions, it is undisputed that Attorney Sommers proceeded to 
conduct depositions of the OLR director and OLR staff members and 
requested the OLR produce its investigative files.  OLR declined 
to produce its files.  An oral request for the files was made 
before the referee, and the referee directed the parties to brief 
whether 
the 
OLR’s 
investigative 
files 
are 
confidential.  
Following submission of written briefs, the referee issued an 
order on May 14, 2008, directing the OLR permit him to conduct an 
in camera review of the OLR’s investigative files.  That order 
provides, in relevant part, as follows: 
The referee determined that he should have an 
in camera review of the files prior to any 
decision being made on the Respondent’s 
motion because, among other matters, that 
there is some confusion as to whether all of 
the Respondent’s filings with OLR prior to 
the complaint were contained in his file (vs. 
the related Paul Humphrey file), whether 
these materials were turned over to the 
Preliminary 
Review 
Committee, 
what 
was 
considered in connection with the complaint 
and some issues in connection with the last 
counts of the complaint.  . . .  
IT IS ORDERED that the Referee have immediate 
access in camera to the investigation files 
of the OLR in this matter. 
                                                 
1 OLR v. Humphrey, 2006AP2842-D. 
No.  2006AP2851-D 
3 
The OLR sought and was granted leave to appeal this order.
2  Oral 
argument was conducted on December 16, 2008. 
 
The OLR advances three primary arguments in support of its 
assertion that a referee is not empowered to order the OLR to 
provide a referee with full access to OLR’s internal files.  The 
OLR asserts that: (1) SCR 22.40 (Confidentiality) precludes 
disclosure of the OLR’s internal files; (2) Attorney Sommers 
failed to conduct discovery in accordance with governing 
procedural rules; and (3) work product and privilege preclude 
such disclosure.   
 
SCR 22.40(1) provides:  Confidentiality. 
Prior to the filing of a misconduct 
complaint, medical incapacity petition, or 
petition for temporary license suspension, 
all 
papers, 
files, 
transcripts, 
and 
communications in any matter involving the 
office of lawyer regulation are to be held in 
confidence by the director and staff of the 
office of lawyer regulation, the members of 
the 
district 
committees, 
special 
investigators, the members of the special 
preliminary review panel, and the members of 
the preliminary review committee. Following 
the filing of a complaint or petition, the 
proceeding and all papers filed in it are 
public, 
except 
where 
expressly 
provided 
otherwise in this chapter or by law. 
 
(Emphasis added).  We are not persuaded by Attorney Sommers’ 
argument that the word “proceeding” in SCR 22.40 means that upon 
the filing of a public complaint all documents prepared, 
gathered, or otherwise a part of the “proceeding,” including the 
OLR’s investigative files, become public.  The OLR correctly 
asserts that “proceeding” refers to the lawsuit that commences 
upon the filing of the public complaint.  SCR 22.11(1).  As such, 
in SCR 22.40 the phrase “all papers filed in it” refers to the 
documents that are filed in the public attorney disciplinary 
proceeding.   
 
                                                 
2 On May 28, 2008, the OLR filed two documents: (1) Petition 
for Leave to Appeal Order of Referee, and (2) Petition for 
Supervisory Writ, OLR v. Stanley Hack.  The OLR explained that 
these documents were alternative procedural vehicles.  This court 
granted the request for leave to appeal a non-final order and 
dismissed the writ.  Attorney Sommers then filed his own request 
for leave to appeal, asking the court to take review of the 
question whether he may advance a counterclaim in a pending OLR 
prosecution.  The court denied this request for leave to appeal. 
No.  2006AP2851-D 
4 
However, we are similarly not persuaded by the OLR’s 
argument that all of its files are per se confidential or 
privileged or otherwise immune from disclosure in an OLR 
proceeding.  We can envision circumstances in which it might be 
appropriate for a referee to conduct an in camera review of 
evidence in the possession of the OLR.  The difficulty here is 
that typically, when an in camera review is conducted by a court, 
the focus is highly specific.  Here, by contrast, the referee’s 
order directs the OLR to provide him with full access to “the 
investigation files of the OLR in this matter.”    
 
The May 14 order is extremely broad in its potential scope.  
Indeed, it appears 
that it may encompass not only the 
investigative files pertaining to Attorney Sommers but also the 
investigative files pertaining to Attorney Paul Humphrey, the 
respondent in a separate, albeit factually-related, proceeding. 
 
It is apparent from the record, the referee’s order, and 
Attorney Sommers’ arguments to the court that Attorney Sommers 
questions whether the OLR provided the Preliminary Review 
Committee (PRC) with all relevant evidence related to the 
allegations of misconduct against him and against Attorney 
Humphrey.  Much of the evidence in question appears to be 
documentary evidence that Attorney Sommers himself provided to 
the OLR.  See Sommers brief at 6-7, 10.   Attorney Sommers wishes 
to know if the PRC was provided with this material.  He notes 
that SCR 22.06(1) provides that “[t]he director shall submit 
investigative reports, including all relevant exculpatory and 
inculpatory information obtained and appendices and exhibits, if 
any, pursuant to SCR 22.05(1)(d) to the chairperson of the 
preliminary review committee.”  As the referee’s order implies, 
there is also some concern that certain documents may have been 
misfiled in the Humphrey file.  Attorney Sommers also suggests 
that the OLR may have intentionally or negligently failed to 
include certain documents or evidence in the materials submitted 
to the PRC, particularly pertaining to the third count of the 
complaint against him.  Essentially, he argues that he has the 
right not to be accused in bad faith, that a failure by the OLR 
to have complied with SCR 22.06 would evidence bad faith, and 
that only by reviewing the OLR’s files can he assess the state of 
the record evidence the PRC used to determine cause to proceed.   
 
However, it does not appear that a specific, narrowly-
tailored written discovery request was made for a copy of the 
documents the OLR provided to the PRC.  SCR 22.16(1) provides 
that proceedings before a referee shall follow the rules of civil 
procedure.  While we recognize that discovery in disciplinary 
matters may be conducted more informally than in circuit court 
proceedings, here, it appears that Attorney Sommers did not file 
any formal written motions or discovery requests requesting 
access to the OLR investigative files.  It appears that the 
respondent’s discovery demands were often delivered orally rather 
than committed to writing.  We cannot know, and we decline to 
speculate how the OLR would have responded to specific discovery 
No.  2006AP2851-D 
5 
requests.  However, we are simply not persuaded that the referee 
should have unfettered access to the OLR’s files in this matter 
to search for documents that might have been obtained though 
normal discovery practices.   
 
Our decision to quash the referee’s order in this highly 
fact-specific matter is bolstered by the fact that it appears the 
disciplinary record contains the documentary evidence Attorney 
Sommers asserts he provided to the OLR and which he believes 
should exonerate him from the charges of the disciplinary 
complaint.  The referee may factor this evidence into his 
consideration of whether the OLR has sustained its burden of 
proof with respect to the charges filed against Attorney Sommers 
in the disciplinary complaint.  
 
IT IS ORDERED that the referee’s order dated May 14, 2008, 
is quashed.  The matter is remanded to the referee for further 
proceedings. 
 
Annette Kingsland Ziegler, J., and Michael J. Gableman, J., did 
not participate. 
 
 
 
No.  2006AP2851-D 
6