2021 WI 3

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2018AP540-D

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Beth M. Bant, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation, 

 Complainant- Respondent,

 v.

Beth M. Bant,

 Respondent- Appellant

ATTORNEY BANT REINSTATEMENT PROCEEDINGS

Reported at 389 Wis. 2d 446,936 N.W.2d 152

PDC No:2019 WI 107 - Published

OPINION FILED: January 26, 2021 

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT: 

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT: 

COUNTY: 

JUDGE: 

JUSTICES:

Per Curiam. 

NOT PARTICIPATING:

 

ATTORNEYS:
2021 WI 3

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2018AP540-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Beth M. Bant, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation, 

 Complainant-Respondent,

 v.

Beth M. Bant,

 Respondent-Appellant.

FILED

JAN 26, 2021

Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding. Reinstatement granted. 

¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a report filed by Referee 

David A. Piehler recommending that the court reinstate the 

license of Beth M. Bant to practice law in Wisconsin. No appeal 

has been filed from the referee's report and recommendation. 

Accordingly, our review proceeds pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 

(SCR) 22.33(3). Upon careful review of the matter, we adopt the 

referee's findings and conclusions and agree that Attorney 

Bant's petition for reinstatement should be granted. We also 

agree with the referee that the costs of the reinstatement 
No. 2018AP540-D 

2

proceeding, which are $4,149.29 as of November 24, 2020, should 

be paid by Attorney Bant.

¶2 Attorney Bant was admitted to practice law in 

Wisconsin in 2013. Her license to practice law in Wisconsin was 

suspended for six months, effective January 29, 2020, as a 

result of two counts of misconduct arising out of her work as an 

in-house lawyer for a Wisconsin insurance company. Attorney 

Bant made false statements and submitted falsified documents to 

her employer to obtain reimbursement for expenses she allegedly 

incurred in attending a conference that in fact she did not 

attend. She provided falsified documents to her employer when 

questioned about the request for expense reimbursements. See In 

re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bant, 2019 WI 107, 389 

Wis. 2d 446, 936 N.W.2d 152.

¶3 Attorney Bant filed a petition seeking the 

reinstatement of her Wisconsin law license on June 16, 2020. 

She filed an affidavit in support of her petition. The Office 

of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a response on August 20, 2020 

stating that its investigation did not reveal facts that would 

demonstrate Attorney Bant could not meet her burden of proof for 

reinstatement.

¶4 A hearing was held before the referee on October 6, 

2020, in Phillips, Wisconsin. The only witness at the hearing 

was Attorney Bant.

¶5 On November 3, 2020, the referee issued a report 

concluding that Attorney Bant had satisfied her burden of proof 
No. 2018AP540-D 

3

and had met the requirements for reinstatement set forth in 

SCR 22.31.

¶6 The referee found that Attorney Bant fully complied 

with the terms of the order of suspension; she has paid the 

costs of the prior proceeding; and she has made restitution of 

the payments she fraudulent obtained. The referee notes that 

during her suspension, Attorney Bant has done volunteer work 

with 4-H and at community-based residential facilities (CBRF). 

She has sewn COVID masks for a CBRF. She was hired to work on 

the U.S. census.

¶7 The referee said Attorney Bant credibly testified at 

the hearing about the impact that her suspension and related 

proceedings have had on her life and her resolve not to repeat 

that. Attorney Bant stated she underwent a six-month period of 

introspection after being fired from her job during which she 

examined her career choice. She ultimately decided to pursue 

the practice of law in a small town, providing needed legal 

services to a rural area, which areas are traditionally 

underserved. Attorney Bant testified at the hearing that her 

suspension and its surrounding circumstances have given her a 

deeper understanding of the Attorney's Oath and the standards 

imposed on members of the bar, and she has committed to holding 

herself to a high standard of practice.

¶8 The referee noted that Attorney Bant provided written 

recommendations from eight individuals who recommend her 

reinstatement and who opined that her return to the practice of 

law will be beneficial to her clients and the community. 
No. 2018AP540-D 

4

Attorney Bant indicated that she plans to manage her practice to 

avoid pressures that might lead to ethical lapses by not 

practicing in a corporate environment, by carefully screening 

clients, and by declining to represent clients who would ask her 

to act in an unethical fashion. She has undergone training in 

managing her trust account, and has had her staff take such 

training also. She reconciles her trust account more frequently 

than required by the supreme court rules. Her practice includes 

rendering detailed closing statements for real estate 

transactions to show how funds pass through her trust account. 

She limits handling of funds for elderly clients involved in 

Medicaid planning, instead having her clients handle 

transactions themselves. Attorney Dale Onchuck will be 

available to Attorney Bant as a resource if she is allowed to 

resume the practice of law.

¶9 The referee found that Attorney Bant's behavior during 

the period of her suspension has been exemplary. He found that 

Attorney Bant has met her burden to show that she is of good 

moral character. The referee went on to say: 

The remaining questions, remedying the causes of the 

misbehavior, protecting the administration of justice 

and the public interest, and the ability of the 

Petitioner to be safely recommended to the legal 

profession, the courts and the public as fit to be 

consulted by and to represent others in matters of 

trust and confidence, and to aid in the administration 

of justice, are interrelated. I don't believe we will 

ever be able to understand or explain the misbehavior 

that led to the court's discipline. It was not 

rational, particularly considering the significant 

financial and emotional cost for Ms. Bant compared to 

the amount involved in the misconduct. While the cost 
No. 2018AP540-D 

5

to Ms. Bant was only learned after the fact, she 

testified credibly that the process of discipline and 

her suspension have impressed upon her the need to 

scrupulously adhere to the rules of professional 

responsibility. Ms. Bant became visibly emotional 

twice during the hearing while describing the effect 

the discipline has had on her and her family. I find 

those displays of emotion were genuine, and 

demonstrate remorse, . . .. She also credibly 

testified about her commitment to avoid further 

misconduct. She testified that she would hold herself 

to a high standard in the future. . . .

Ms. Bant wishes to resume her practice of law in 

Phillips, involving in large measure dealing with the 

elderly, a vulnerable population. She also plans to 

handle real estate transactions, which involve 

handling large sums of money.

¶10 The referee noted that Attorney Bant has indicated 

that Attorney Onchuck will be available to consult with her. 

The referee said that Attorney Onchuck has had an opportunity to 

observe how Attorney Bant interacts with clients after her 

misconduct but prior to her suspension, and the referee found 

Attorney Onchuck's comments helpful and persuasive. The referee 

noted that the State Bar of Wisconsin has publicized the need 

for attorneys in rural areas, and transactional and elder law 

attorneys are said to be a particular need. The referee 

concluded, 

With her added ethical education through her numerous 

[continuing legal education] credits, with her stated 

commitment to adhere to the highest standards of 

practice, and with the safeguards and policies she 

plans to institute should her license to practice law 

be reinstated, I believe Ms. Bant can safely be 

recommended to the courts and the public as fit to 

practice law as she intends.
No. 2018AP540-D 

6

¶11 When we review a referee's report and recommendation, 

we will adopt the referee's findings of fact unless they are 

clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 

See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 

14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747. 

¶12 Supreme Court Rule 22.29(4) provides that a petition 

for reinstatement must show all the following:

(a) The petitioner desires to have the petitioner's 

license reinstated. 

(b) The petitioner has not practiced law during the 

period of suspension or revocation. 

(c) The petitioner has complied fully with the terms 

of the order of suspension or revocation and will 

continue to comply with them until the petitioner's 

license is reinstated. 

(d) The petitioner has maintained competence and 

learning in the law by attendance at identified 

educational activities. 

(e) The petitioner's conduct since the suspension or 

revocation has been exemplary and above reproach. 

(f) The petitioner has a proper understanding of and 

attitude toward the standards that are imposed upon 

members of the bar and will act in conformity with the 

standards. 

(g) The petitioner can safely be recommended to the 

legal profession, the courts and the public as a 

person fit to be consulted by others and to represent 

them and otherwise act in matters of trust and 

confidence and in general to aid in the administration 

of justice as a member of the bar and as an officer of 

the courts. 

(h) The petitioner has fully complied with the 

requirements set forth in SCR 22.26. 
No. 2018AP540-D 

7

(j) The petitioner's proposed use of the license if 

reinstated. 

(k) A full description of all of the petitioner's 

business activities during the period of suspension or 

revocation.

¶13 Supreme Court Rule 22.31(1)(c) provides that an 

attorney seeking reinstatement has the burden of demonstrating 

all of the above requirements by clear, satisfactory, and 

convincing evidence. Supreme Court Rule 22.31(1) also provides 

that an attorney seeking reinstatement must show by clear, 

satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he or she has the 

moral character to practice law; that his or her resumption of 

the practice of law will not be detrimental to the 

administration of justice or subversive to the public interest; 

and that he or she has complied with SCR 22.26 and the terms of 

the underlying disciplinary order. See SCR 22.31(1)(a), (b), 

and (d). 

¶14 Upon review of the record, we agree that Attorney Bant 

has established by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence 

that she has satisfied all the criteria necessary for 

reinstatement. Accordingly, we adopt the referee's findings of 

fact and conclusions of law and we accept the referee's 

recommendation to reinstate Attorney Bant's license to practice 

law in Wisconsin. As is our usual custom, we also find it 

appropriate to assess the full costs of the proceeding, which 

are $4,149.29 against Attorney Bant.
No. 2018AP540-D 

8

¶15 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Beth M. Bant to 

practice law in Wisconsin is reinstated, effective the date of 

this order.

¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 

of this order, Beth M. Bant shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 

Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $4,149.29 as 

of November 24, 2020.
No. 2018AP540-D 

1