Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Donald J. Peterson

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2006 WI 41 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2005AP2490-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Donald J. Peterson, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Donald J. Peterson, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PETERSON 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 5, 2006   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2006 WI 41
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2005AP2490-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Donald J. Peterson, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Donald J. Peterson, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 5, 2006 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the stipulation filed by 
Donald J. Peterson and the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), 
pursuant to SCR 22.12,1 wherein Attorney Peterson admits to facts 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.12 provides in part:  Stipulation. 
 
(1)  The director may file with the complaint a 
stipulation of the director and the respondent to the 
facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and 
discipline to be imposed.  The supreme court may 
consider the complaint and stipulation without the 
appointment of a referee.   
No. 
2005AP2490-D   
 
2 
 
and misconduct alleged in the OLR's complaint.  The stipulation 
does not, however, provide for the level of discipline to be 
imposed for the misconduct, and the parties agreed that the 
issue of sanctions would be considered at the disciplinary 
hearing.  Following the disciplinary hearing, the referee, Henry 
A. Field, Jr., recommended that Attorney Peterson's license be 
suspended for 18 months, that he make restitution in the amount 
of $26,237, and be assessed the costs of the proceeding.  The 
OLR filed a statement of costs incurred in the sum of $2757.91 
as of February 15, 2006. 
¶2 
We approve the stipulation and adopt the stipulated 
facts and conclusions of law.  We agree that the seriousness of 
Attorney Peterson's misconduct warrants the suspension of his 
license to practice law.  However, in light of factors discussed 
below, 
we 
determine 
that 
the 
proper 
disposition 
is 
the 
suspension of Attorney Peterson's license to practice law for a 
period of two years, together with restitution and costs. 
¶3 
Attorney Donald Peterson was licensed to practice law 
in Wisconsin and has no previous disciplinary history.  In 
November 2000 Attorney Peterson was employed as an associate by 
the Wilson Law Group, LLC.  In August 2004 Attorney Peterson 
admitted that he had used a controlled substance, cocaine.  He 
entered into an agreement with his law firm wherein he would 
enter counseling and remain drug free preceding work and during 
                                                                                                                                                             
(2)  If the supreme court approves a stipulation, 
it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of 
law and impose the stipulated discipline. 
No. 
2005AP2490-D   
 
3 
 
work hours.  In September 2004 the managing partner of the firm 
learned that Attorney Peterson had tested positive for cocaine 
and was either missing or arriving late for counseling sessions.  
The law firm terminated Attorney Peterson's employment on 
September 30, 2004.  
¶4 
After reviewing Attorney Peterson's client files and 
speaking with a client, the firm learned that its records did 
not reflect a retainer payment that the client had paid for 
legal services.  When confronted with this situation, Attorney 
Peterson acknowledged that the client had paid him directly, and 
admitted other clients made payments not reflected in the firm's 
records.   
¶5 
In a letter to Attorney Peterson, the law firm listed 
a total of $13,230 in fees that its records indicated Attorney 
Peterson diverted to his own use.  By return correspondence, 
Attorney Peterson admitted that he received fees in the 
approximate amount of $13,000 which he did not entirely deposit 
into the appropriate trust accounts, but were directed toward 
his personal and business expenses.  Attorney Peterson also 
admitted that he had "borrowed" a VCR from the law firm.   
¶6 
In December 2004, in conjunction with his admission to 
an in-patient treatment program, Attorney Peterson was diagnosed 
as being cocaine dependent.  Further review of the law firm's 
records revealed that Attorney Peterson wrongfully diverted over 
$26,000 in fees belonging to the firm for his personal use and 
pawned the law firm's VCR without the law firm's consent.   
No. 
2005AP2490-D   
 
4 
 
¶7 
In October 2005 the OLR filed a two-count complaint 
alleging the following misconduct:  Count 1 alleged that 
Attorney Peterson engaged in dishonesty, fraud, deceit or 
misrepresentation, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c),2 by telling clients 
to make their checks payable to him instead of the Wilson Law 
Group, thereby diverting over $26,000 in legal fees to his 
personal use, and pawning the law firm's VCR.  In Count 2 the 
OLR alleged that by using cocaine, a habit that requires 
possession of that controlled substance as proscribed by law, 
Attorney Peterson committed a criminal act reflecting adversely 
on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer, 
contrary to SCR 20:8.4(b).3  The complaint requested that 
Attorney Peterson be found in violation of supreme court rules 
and that his license to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended 
for two years, and that he be required to make restitution and 
pay the costs of the proceedings. 
¶8 
Attorney 
Peterson 
eventually 
entered 
into 
a 
stipulation and no contest plea to the disciplinary complaint.  
He agreed to the complaint's allegations as a factual basis for 
its determination of the misconduct alleged in Counts 1 and 2.  
                                                 
2 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
3 SCR 20:8.4(b) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "commit a criminal act that reflects adversely 
on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer 
in other respects." 
No. 
2005AP2490-D   
 
5 
 
Attorney Peterson did not retain counsel but verified he 
understood his right to consult with an attorney.   
¶9 
A hearing to determine discipline was held before the 
referee and Attorney Peterson appeared pro se.  The referee 
entered findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with 
the stipulated allegations of the complaint.  With respect to 
discipline, the referee considered that Attorney Peterson had no 
previous disciplinary history, had been cooperative with the OLR 
and 
the 
law 
firm 
in 
establishing 
the 
amount 
of 
money 
misappropriated, and that he voluntarily withdrew from the 
practice of law in October 2004.  The referee acknowledged the 
OLR's argument that the complaint involves serious misconduct of 
misappropriation of over $26,000 in fees, which had belonged to 
the firm, and that the misconduct not only involves elements of 
theft and dishonesty, but also the criminal use of cocaine.  
Based on the aggravating and mitigating factors, the referee 
recommended that Attorney Peterson's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin be suspended for a period of 18 months and that he be 
responsible for restitution to the law firm and the costs of the 
proceeding.  No appeal has been filed. 
¶10 Pursuant to SCR 22.12, if this court approves the 
stipulation it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions 
of law.  Because the stipulation did not provide for the level 
of discipline to be imposed, and a referee was appointed for the 
purpose of recommending discipline, SCR 22.12 does not apply to 
the referee's recommended discipline.   
No. 
2005AP2490-D   
 
6 
 
¶11 Although this court takes into account a referee's 
recommendation as to appropriate discipline, this court does not 
accord the recommendation conclusive or great weight.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 
Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.  It is this court's responsibility 
to determine appropriate discipline to be imposed for attorney 
misconduct.  Id.  In making that determination this court is 
free to impose discipline more or less severe than recommended 
by the referee.  Id. 
¶12 In determining the appropriate level of discipline, 
this court considers the seriousness of the misconduct, as well 
as the need to protect the public, the courts and the legal 
system from a repetition of the misconduct, along with the need 
to impress upon the attorney the seriousness of his misconduct 
and 
to 
deter 
other 
attorneys 
from 
engaging 
in 
similar 
misconduct. 
 
See 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Charlton, 174 Wis. 2d 844, 875-76, 498 N.W.2d 380 (1993).   
¶13 Before 
imposing 
discipline 
more 
severe 
than 
recommended by the referee in attorney disciplinary proceedings, 
this court in the past has at times issued an order to show 
cause to the parties, requesting a response on the propriety of 
the recommended discipline as it relates to the seriousness of 
misconduct for which it is recommended.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Oppitz, 157 Wis. 2d 266, 278 n.2, 459 N.W.2d 
569 (1990).  In several cases, however, this court has increased 
the recommended sanction without first requesting the parties to 
comment either by brief or by order to show cause.  See Widule, 
No. 
2005AP2490-D   
 
7 
 
261 Wis. 2d 45, ¶45 n.10. 
 
In 
the 
Widule 
disciplinary 
proceeding, we did not ask for additional briefing because the 
increased suspension that we imposed was consistent with the 
discipline the OLR initially sought in its complaint.  Id. 
¶14 Pursuant to SCR 22.12, this court approves the 
stipulation, and adopts the stipulated facts and conclusions of 
law.  The matter left for this court's decision, then, is the 
appropriate discipline to impose.  This court concludes that the 
18-month suspension recommended by the referee is not sufficient 
to address the seriousness of Attorney Peterson's misconduct.  
We recognize that Attorney Peterson has no previous history of 
discipline; he eventually cooperated with establishing the 
amount of money misappropriated, and he voluntarily withdrew 
from the practice of law.  Nonetheless, we conclude that his 
theft of over $26,000 in client funds and his criminal use of 
cocaine, as well as pawning the law firm's property, requires a 
more severe discipline to impress upon him and others the 
responsibilities of the legal profession and the ethical 
constraints placed upon its practice.  Because the two-year 
license suspension is consistent with what the OLR initially 
sought in its disciplinary complaint, we do not ask the parties 
to comment by either briefing or responding to an order to show 
cause.  See Widule, 261 Wis. 2d 45, ¶45 n.10.  We agree with the 
referee that the imposition of restitution and costs is 
appropriate. 
No. 
2005AP2490-D   
 
8 
 
¶15 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Donald J. 
Peterson to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period 
of two years, effective the date of this order. 
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 90 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Donald J. Peterson shall provide evidence 
to the Office of Lawyer Regulation that he has fully paid 
restitution to his former law firm in the sum of $26,237, or 
that he has entered into a repayment agreement for the remaining 
amount due.  If evidence is not provided within that time, the 
license of Attorney Donald J. Peterson to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of this 
court. 
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 90 days of the date 
of this order, Attorney Donald J. Peterson shall pay to the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, 
provided that if the costs are not paid within the time 
specified and absent a showing to this court of an inability to 
pay the costs within that time, the license of Attorney Peterson 
to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until 
further order of this court. 
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Peterson comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended, if he has not already done so. 
No. 
2005AP2490-D   
 
 
 
1