2015 WI 104

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2014AP2086-W

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against

Richard W. Voss, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Richard W. Voss,

 Respondent.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST VOSS

OPINION FILED: December 8, 2015

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT:

COUNTY:

JUDGE:

JUSTICES:

CONCURRED:

DISSENTED:

NOT PARTICIPATING: 

ATTORNEYS:
2015 WI 104

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2014AP2086-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Richard W. Voss, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Richard W. Voss,

 Respondent.

FILED

DEC 8, 2015

Diane M. Fremgen

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license 

suspended. 

¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a stipulation filed by 

Richard W. Voss and the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), 

pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12,1 which sets forth 

 

1 SCR 22.12 (Stipulation) provides:

(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, in which case the supreme 

(continued)
No. 2014AP2086-D 

2

findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding Attorney 

Voss's six counts of professional misconduct. Attorney Voss is 

already under suspension pursuant to the 18-month suspension 

ordered in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Voss, 

2014 WI 75, 356 Wis. 2d 382, 850 N.W.2d 190, which runs until 

February 22, 2016. 

¶2 The parties' stipulation did not contain an agreement 

regarding the appropriate level of discipline to be imposed. 

 

court may approve the stipulation, reject the 

stipulation, or direct the parties to consider 

specific modifications to the stipulation. 

(2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation, 

it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of 

law and impose the stipulated discipline. 

(3) If the supreme court rejects a stipulation, a 

referee shall be appointed and the matter shall 

proceed as a complaint filed without a stipulation. 

(3m) If the supreme court directs the parties to 

consider specific modifications to the stipulation, 

the parties may, within 20 days of the date of the 

order, file a revised stipulation, in which case the 

supreme court may approve the revised stipulation, 

adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law, and 

impose the stipulated discipline. If the parties do 

not file a revised stipulation within 20 days of the 

date of the order, a referee shall be appointed and 

the matter shall proceed as a complaint filed without 

a stipulation. 

(4) A stipulation rejected by the supreme court 

has no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to 

the respondent's defense of the proceeding or the 

prosecution of the complaint. 
No. 2014AP2086-D 

3

The parties agreed to brief the issue of sanctions before the 

referee, James R. Erickson. 

¶3 The referee accepted the stipulation and found, based 

on the stipulation, that the stipulated facts supported a 

conclusion of misconduct on all six counts. The referee 

recommended that the court suspend Attorney Voss for a 60-day

period, consecutive to the 18-month suspension Attorney Voss is 

currently serving. The referee also recommended that the court 

assess the OLR's full costs against Attorney Voss, which total 

$2,801.98 as of July 30, 2015.

¶4 Because no appeal has been filed from the referee's 

report and recommendation, we review the matter pursuant to 

SCR 22.17(2).2 We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of 

law to which the parties have stipulated and as adopted by the 

referee. We agree that the seriousness of Attorney Voss's 

misconduct warrants a 60-day suspension of his license to 

practice law, consecutive to the 18-month suspension he is 

currently serving, together with costs.

¶5 Attorney Voss was admitted to the practice of law in 

Wisconsin in 1976. 

 

2 SCR 22.17(2) provides: 

If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 

shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 

modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 

remand the matter to the referee for additional 

findings; and determine and impose appropriate 

discipline. The court, on its own motion, may order 

the parties to file briefs in the matter.
No. 2014AP2086-D 

4

¶6 Attorney Voss has been disciplined previously for 

misconduct. In 2004, Attorney Voss was privately reprimanded 

for failing to provide competent representation and failing to 

keep a client reasonably informed. Private Reprimand 

No. 2004-24.3 In 2006, Attorney Voss received a public reprimand 

for various trust account violations. Public Reprimand of 

Richard W. Voss, 2006-7. In 2014, Attorney Voss received an 

18-month suspension for his conduct as the court-appointed 

guardian of the person and estate of an individual suffering 

from mental illness. This court determined that Attorney Voss 

committed 11 counts of misconduct by, among other things, 

converting at least $48,791.73 of his client's funds either for 

his own use or to cover expenditures for other client matters, 

committing various trust account violations, and making 

misrepresentations to the circuit court regarding his client's 

assets. Voss, 356 Wis. 2d 382. 

¶7 This disciplinary matter involves six counts of 

misconduct, four of which concern Attorney Voss's work in 

bankruptcy matters, and two of which concern Attorney Voss's 

trust account practices. We take the following facts from the 

parties' stipulation.

 

3 The OLR's complaint and the parties' stipulation both cite 

Private Reprimand No. 2004-25, but that matter involved criminal 

conduct by a lawyer, which clearly does not fit the description 

of Attorney Voss's misconduct. Private Reprimand No. 2004-24 

involved violations of SCRs 20:1.1 and 20:1.4(a).
No. 2014AP2086-D 

5

¶8 Attorney Voss was hired to file bankruptcies for his 

clients, J.M. and L.R. In both cases, before doing any work, 

Attorney Voss had the client pay approximately $500 in attorney 

fees and approximately $300 in filing fees. Attorney Voss 

placed these funds into his client trust account. It is 

undisputed that while the funds remained in trust, they remained 

an asset of the client. 

¶9 Attorney Voss, or his staff under his direction, told 

J.M. and L.R. that the firm would file a fee waiver application 

with the appropriate United States Bankruptcy Court. Attorney 

Voss's office would prepare the fee waiver application, along 

with the bankruptcy petition. When drafting these documents, 

Attorney Voss failed to disclose to the bankruptcy court that 

the filing fee had already been paid by the client and that 

Attorney Voss was holding the funds in trust. 

¶10 Attorney Voss, or his staff under his direction, had 

J.M. and L.R. sign the bankruptcy documents under penalty of 

perjury. In signing the bankruptcy documents, J.M. and L.R. 

verified that the documents were accurate, including a statement 

that they could not afford to pay the filing fee, and including 

an asset disclosure that did not disclose the filing fee 

payments held in Attorney Voss's firm's trust account.

¶11 In the J.M. bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy court 

denied the filing fee waiver application on September 25, 2013. 

The court ordered that J.M. pay the filing fee in installments 

beginning on October 25, 2013. Neither Attorney Voss nor his 

staff contacted J.M. to let her know of the denial of her filing 
No. 2014AP2086-D 

6

fee waiver application. J.M. first learned that the bankruptcy 

court had denied her waiver application and that her filing fee 

remained unpaid at the meeting of creditors on October 17, 2013. 

J.M. was upset upon learning this information because she had 

paid the filing fee to Attorney Voss months earlier and had not 

been told of the denial of her filing fee waiver application. 

¶12 On October 25, 2013——the date the first installment of 

J.M.'s filing fee was due——Attorney Voss's secretary paid the 

filing fee in full. Before this date, Attorney Voss's secretary 

had experienced difficulties determining from the bankruptcy 

court's website how much was owed as a filing fee and how to pay 

it. Because Attorney Voss's secretary did not inform him of her 

difficulties in paying the filing fee, Attorney Voss was unaware 

of the problems until he received a letter from the OLR about 

the matter.

¶13 In the L.R. bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy court 

approved L.R.'s filing fee waiver application. When Attorney 

Voss received the notice of the approval, he refunded to L.R. 

the filing fee which was held in trust. 

¶14 Attorney Voss has submitted filing fee waiver 

applications for bankruptcy clients other than J.M. and L.R. 

after having collected filing fees from those other clients. In 

all of those cases, the filing fee held in trust was not 

disclosed as an asset of the debtor in the bankruptcy documents. 

If the bankruptcy court waived the filing fee, Attorney Voss's 

office returned the filing fee to the clients. If the 
No. 2014AP2086-D 

7

bankruptcy court did not waive the filing fees, Attorney Voss's 

office paid the filing fee to the bankruptcy court.

¶15 The remaining conduct at issue concerns Attorney 

Voss's continued inability or unwillingness to comply with the 

trust account rules. Since at least 1986, Attorney Voss has 

used a particular bank account at M&I Bank (n/k/a BMO Harris 

Bank) as his client trust account. Attorney Voss has designated 

this account as his client trust account. However, the account 

is not an Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts (IOLTA) account and 

does not accrue interest to be paid to the Wisconsin Trust 

Account Foundation, Inc. 

¶16 Attorney Voss has long been on notice that he must 

rectify his handling of trust account funds. In 2006, Attorney 

Voss received a public reprimand for misconduct that, in part, 

related to his failure to maintain accurate records of his trust 

account activity and his failure to maintain an IOLTA trust 

account. In 2012, the OLR filed a disciplinary complaint 

seeking to discipline Attorney Voss for misconduct that included 

his failure to maintain an IOLTA trust account; this complaint 

culminated in the 18-month suspension which Attorney Voss is 

currently serving. Attorney Voss continued, throughout these 

prior matters, and throughout the OLR's investigation of the 

present matter, to use the non-IOLTA account at M&I Bank (n/k/a 

BMO Harris Bank) as his client trust account. 

¶17 In late 2013, the OLR requested a copy of Attorney 

Voss's trust account transaction register for the period of time 

in which he was holding J.M.'s filing fee in trust. Attorney 
No. 2014AP2086-D 

8

Voss provided to the OLR a list of deposits and a separate list 

of disbursements, which did not separately or collectively meet 

the requirements for compliant trust account documents.

¶18 On the basis of these facts, the parties stipulated, 

and the referee concluded, that Attorney Voss committed the 

following acts of misconduct: 

 Count One: By filing or causing his staff to file 

applications for filing fee waivers with the United 

States Bankruptcy Courts on behalf of clients that 

failed to disclose the amounts being held by Attorney 

Voss on behalf of the clients for payment of their 

filing fees, and thereby failing to comply with 

applicable Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, 

Attorney Voss violated SCR 20:3.4(c).4

 Count Two: By filing or causing his staff to file on 

behalf of clients applications for filing fee waivers 

with United States Bankruptcy Courts that failed to 

disclose the funds being held in trust by Attorney 

Voss on behalf of the clients for payment of their 

filing fees, Attorney Voss violated SCR 20:8.4(c).5

 

4 SCR 20:3.4 (c) provides that a lawyer shall not "knowingly 

disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except for 

an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation 

exists."

5 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct 

for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 

deceit or misrepresentation."
No. 2014AP2086-D 

9

 Count Three: By failing to adequately supervise his 

staff so as to ensure that documents prepared and 

filed by his staff on behalf of clients conformed in 

all respects with applicable law and court rules and 

were in all respects accurate, Attorney Voss violated 

SCR 20:5.3(a) and (b).

6

 Count Four: By failing to take reasonable steps to 

ensure his staff timely informed him and/or clients of 

case developments, including the payment status of 

filing fees, Attorney Voss violated SCR 20:5.3(a) and 

(b).

 Count Five: By (i) failing to maintain a pooled 

interest bearing account; (ii) failing to participate 

in the Interest on Trust Accounts Program; and (iii) 

depositing client and third party funds that are 

nominal in amount and/or intended to be held for a 

 

6 SCR 20:5.3(a) and (b) provide that, with respect to a 

nonlawyer employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer,

(a) a partner, and a lawyer who individually or 

together with other lawyers possesses comparable 

managerial authority in a law firm shall make 

reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in 

effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the 

person's conduct is compatible with the professional 

obligations of the lawyer; 

(b) a lawyer having direct supervisory authority 

over the nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to 

ensure that the person's conduct is compatible with 

the professional obligations of the lawyer[.]
No. 2014AP2086-D 

10

short period of time in a non-interest-bearing 

account, Attorney Voss violated SCR 13.047 and 

SCR 20.15(c)(l).8

 Count Six: By failing to provide the OLR with a copy 

of his trust account transaction register for the 

period requested of him by the OLR, Attorney Voss 

violated SCR 20:1.15(e)(7).

9 In the alternative, by 

failing to maintain a compliant transaction register 

 

7 SCR 13.04 provides, as relevant here, that "an attorney 

shall participate in the [Interest on Trust Accounts] program as 

provided in SCR 20:1.15[.]"

8 SCR 20:1.15(c)(1) provides: 

A lawyer or law firm who receives client or 3rdparty funds that the lawyer or law firm determines to 

be nominal in amount or that are expected to be held 

for a short period of time such that the funds cannot 

earn income for the benefit of the client or 3rd party 

in excess of the costs to secure that income, shall 

maintain a pooled interest-bearing or dividend-paying 

draft trust account in an IOLTA participating 

institution.

9 SCR 20:1.15(e)(7) provides: 

All trust account records have public aspects 

related to a lawyer's fitness to practice. Upon 

request of the office of lawyer regulation, or upon 

direction of the supreme court, the records shall be 

submitted to the office of lawyer regulation for its 

inspection, audit, use, and evidence under any 

conditions to protect the privilege of clients that 

the court may provide. The records, or an audit of the 

records, shall be produced at any disciplinary 

proceeding involving the lawyer, whenever material. 

Failure to produce the records constitutes 

unprofessional conduct and grounds for disciplinary 

action.
No. 2014AP2086-D 

11

for the period requested, Attorney Voss violated 

SCR 20:1.15(f)(l)a.10

¶19 The parties briefed the issue of sanctions before the 

referee. The OLR encouraged the referee to recommend a 

six-month license suspension of Attorney Voss's Wisconsin law 

license, to run consecutive to his present suspension. Attorney 

Voss encouraged the referee to recommend a less-than-six-month 

suspension, to run concurrent to his present suspension.

¶20 In his report, the referee recommended that the court 

impose a 60-day license suspension, to run consecutive to 

Attorney Voss's present suspension. The referee wrote that a 

six-month period of suspension following Attorney Voss's 

18-month suspension, as the OLR requested, was unnecessary to 

 

10 SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)a. provides that complete records of a 

trust account that is a draft account shall include a 

transaction register. Specifically:

The transaction register shall contain a 

chronological record of all account transactions, and 

shall include all of the following: 

1. the date, source, and amount of all deposits; 

2. the date, check or transaction number, payee 

and amount of all disbursements, whether by check, 

wire transfer, or other means; 

3. the date and amount of every other deposit or 

deduction of whatever nature; 

4. the identity of the client for whom funds were 

deposited or disbursed; and 

5. the balance in the account after each 

transaction
No. 2014AP2086-D 

12

meet the goals of Wisconsin's disciplinary system——especially 

since, in the referee's view, Attorney Voss's misconduct has

"more to do with sloppy office supervision and inadequate staff 

and self-training than it has to do with intentional 

professional misconduct."

¶21 Because no appeal was filed from the referee's report 

and recommendation, our review proceeds pursuant to 

SCR 22.17(2). When reviewing a report and recommendation in an 

attorney disciplinary proceeding, we affirm a referee's findings 

of fact unless they are found to be clearly erroneous. In re 

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 

305 Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125. We review the referee's 

conclusions of law, however, on a de novo basis. Id. Finally, 

we determine the appropriate level of discipline given the 

particular facts of each case, independent of the referee's 

recommendation but benefitting from it. In re Disciplinary 

Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 

660 N.W.2d 686.

¶22 We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law 

to which the parties have stipulated and as adopted by the 

referee. We agree with the referee that the stipulated facts 

demonstrate that Attorney Voss committed each of the six counts 

of misconduct alleged in the OLR's complaint.

¶23 We further agree with the referee that Attorney Voss's 

misconduct warrants a 60-day suspension of his Wisconsin law 

license. In imposing a 60-day suspension in lieu of a lengthier 

suspension, we note particularly the referee's determination 
No. 2014AP2086-D 

13

that Attorney Voss's mistakes were more a result of slipshod 

practices, as Attorney Voss claimed, than flagrant misconduct, 

as the OLR claimed——a determination from which the OLR has not 

appealed. Even given that the events in this case were merely 

the result of sloppy lawyering, however, we have no difficulty 

justifying a 60-day suspension. See, e.g., In re Disciplinary 

Proceedings Against McKloskey, 2009 WI 65, 318 Wis. 2d 602, 

768 N.W.2d 10 (60-day suspension for sloppy and careless trust 

account procedures and failure to keep a client informed).

¶24 We further agree with the referee that the 60-day

suspension should run consecutive to Attorney Voss's present 

18-month suspension. We were concerned enough with Attorney 

Voss's practice habits to impose a lengthy 18-month suspension. 

Were we aware of the facts presented here, which further call 

into question Attorney Voss's trust accounting practices and 

forthrightness with courts and clients, we are confident we 

would have imposed an even longer suspension. A consecutively 

imposed suspension is therefore in order. See In re 

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Woodard, 190 Wis. 2d 487, 488, 

526 N.W.2d 510 (1995). 

¶25 We note that Attorney Voss has filed no objection to 

the costs requested by the OLR, which total $2,801.98 as of 

July 30, 2015. We therefore impose them.

¶26 Finally, we note that the OLR did not seek restitution 

in this case. None is ordered. 

¶27 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Richard W. Voss to 

practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
No. 2014AP2086-D 

14

to run consecutive to the discipline imposed in In re 

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Voss, 2014 WI 75, 

356 Wis. 2d 382, 850 N.W.2d 190. 

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

of this order, Richard W. Voss shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 

Regulation the costs of this proceeding.

¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 

conditions of this decision is required for reinstatement. See

SCR 22.28(2).
No. 2014AP2086-D 

1