2019 WI 30 

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2018AP1397-D 

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Diann P. Burton, Attorney at Law: 

Office of Lawyer Regulation, 

 Complainant, 

 v. 

Diann P. Burton, 

 Respondent. 

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BURTON 

OPINION FILED: March 22, 2019 

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT: 

SOURCE OF APPEAL: 

 COURT: 

 COUNTY: 

 JUDGE: 

 

JUSTICES: 

 CONCURRED: 

 DISSENTED: 

 NOT PARTICIPATING: 

 

ATTORNEYS: 

 
2019 WI 30

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2018AP1397-D 

 

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT 

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Diann P. Burton, Attorney at Law: 

Office of Lawyer Regulation, 

 Complainant, 

 v. 

Diann P. Burton, 

 Respondent. 

FILED 

MAR 22, 2019 

Sheila T. Reiff 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney publicly 

reprimanded. 

¶1 PER CURIAM. We review Referee Kim M. Peterson's 

recommendation that the court declare Attorney Diann P. Burton 

in default and publicly reprimand her for professional 

misconduct in connection with her practice of law while her law 

license was suspended, and her improper use of a firm name for 

her solo practice. The referee also recommended that Attorney 

Burton pay the full costs of this proceeding, which total $533 

as of January 15, 2019. 
No. 2018AP1397-D 

2 

¶2 Because no appeal has been filed, we review the 

referee's report pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.17(2).1 

After conducting our independent review of the matter, we agree 

with the referee that, based on Attorney Burton's failure to 

answer the complaint filed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation 

(OLR), the OLR is entitled to a default judgment. We also agree 

with the referee that Attorney Burton's professional misconduct 

warrants a public reprimand. Finally, we agree with the referee 

that Attorney Burton should be ordered to pay the full costs of 

the proceeding. 

¶3 Attorney Burton was admitted to practice law in 

Wisconsin in 1997. Her law license is currently subject to 

administrative and temporary suspensions. On October 31, 2016, 

Attorney Burton's law license was administratively suspended due 

to her failure to pay mandatory bar dues and her failure to file 

a trust account certification. On May 22, 2018, her law license 

was administratively suspended due to her failure to comply with 

continuing legal education requirements. On July 10, 2018, her 

law license was temporarily suspended due to her failure to 

 

1 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. 2018AP1397-D 

3 

cooperate in an OLR investigation unrelated to the misconduct at 

issue in this case. 

¶4 On July 26, 2018, the OLR filed the current complaint 

against Attorney Burton. The complaint alleges four counts of 

professional wrongdoing. The following facts are taken from the 

OLR's complaint. 

¶5 In August 2014, M.B. and Y.B. hired Attorney Burton to 

file a petition for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and paid her a $1,000 

flat fee for her representation. Attorney Burton continued to 

provide legal advice to M.B. and Y.B. after her law license was 

administratively suspended in October 2016, though she never 

filed a bankruptcy petition on their behalf. 

¶6 In addition, at the time of her administrative license 

suspension in October 2016, Attorney Burton had at least eight 

open bankruptcy cases pending in the United States Bankruptcy 

Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Attorney Burton 

did not notify her clients or the bankruptcy court of the 

suspension of her license and continued as counsel of record in 

the pending cases while her license was suspended. Legal work 

that Burton performed while her law license was suspended 

included: 

• filing a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in February 2017 

on behalf of a client, and representing that client 

through the bankruptcy discharge granted in May of 2017; 

• filing amended Chapter 13 plans; 

• filing responses to and stipulations resolving trustees' 

motions to dismiss; and 
No. 2018AP1397-D 

4 

• filing a petition for voluntary amortization of debts in 

February 2017 on behalf of another client in a Wisconsin 

circuit court. 

¶7 Finally, while operating as a solo practitioner, 

Attorney Burton used a law firm name and letterhead that listed 

several partners, one of whom had a suspended law license. 

¶8 The OLR's complaint alleged the following four counts 

of misconduct arising out of the matters described above: 

• By practicing law while her license was suspended, 

Attorney Burton violated SCR 10.03(6)2 and SCR 22.26(2),3

enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f)4 (Count 1). 

 

2 SCR 10.03(6) provides: 

If the annual dues or assessments of any member 

remain unpaid 120 days after the payment is due, the 

membership of the member may be suspended in the 

manner provided in the bylaws; and no person whose 

membership is so suspended for nonpayment of dues or 

assessments may practice law during the period of the 

suspension. 

3 SCR 22.26(2) provides: 

An attorney whose license to practice law is 

suspended or revoked or who is suspended from the 

practice of law may not engage in this state in the 

practice of law or in any law work activity 

customarily done by law students, law clerks, or other 

paralegal personnel, except that the attorney may 

engage in law related work in this state for a 

commercial employer itself not engaged in the practice 

of law. 

4 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides: "It is professional misconduct 

for a lawyer to violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme 

court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 

lawyers." 
No. 2018AP1397-D 

5 

• By failing to provide proper written notice of the 

suspension of her law license to clients and to courts 

before which she had pending matters, Attorney Burton 

violated SCR 22.26(l),5 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f) 

(Count 2). 

 

5 SCR 22.26(1) provides: 

(1) On or before the effective date of license 

suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 

suspended or revoked shall do all of the following: 

(a) Notify by certified mail all clients being 

represented in pending matters of the suspension or 

revocation and of the attorney's consequent inability 

to act as an attorney following the effective date of 

the suspension or revocation. 

(b) Advise the clients to seek legal advice of 

their choice elsewhere. 

(c) Promptly provide written notification to the 

court or administrative agency and the attorney for 

each party in a matter pending before a court or 

administrative agency of the suspension or revocation 

and of the attorney's consequent inability to act as 

an attorney following the effective date of the 

suspension or revocation. The notice shall identify 

the successor attorney of the attorney's client or, if 

there is none at the time notice is given, shall state 

the client's place of residence. 

(d) Within the first 15 days after the effective 

date of suspension or revocation, make all 

arrangements for the temporary or permanent closing or 

winding up of the attorney's practice. The attorney 

may assist in having others take over clients' work in 

progress. 

(e) Within 25 days after the effective date of 

suspension or revocation, file with the director an 

affidavit showing all of the following: 

(continued) 
No. 2018AP1397-D 

6 

• By using a law firm name that listed several partners 

despite operating as a solo practitioner, Attorney Burton 

violated SCR 20:7.5(d)6 (Count 3). 

• By using the name of a suspended attorney in her firm 

name and letterhead, Attorney Burton violated 

SCR 22.27(l),7 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f) (Count 4). 

¶9 According to the OLR's motion for default, to which 

Attorney Burton did not respond, the OLR made multiple attempts 

to serve Attorney Burton with the complaint and an order to 

answer. Specifically, in August and September 2018, a process 

 

(i) Full compliance with the provisions of the 

suspension or revocation order and with the rules and 

procedures regarding the closing of the attorney's 

practice. 

(ii) A list of all jurisdictions, including 

state, federal and administrative bodies, before which 

the attorney is admitted to practice. 

(iii) A list of clients in all pending matters 

and a list of all matters pending before any court or 

administrative agency, together with the case number 

of each matter. 

(f) Maintain records of the various steps taken 

under this rule in order that, in any subsequent 

proceeding instituted by or against the attorney, 

proof of compliance with the rule and with the 

suspension or revocation order is available. 

6 SCR 20:7.5(d) provides: "Lawyers may state or imply that 

they practice in a partnership or other organization only when 

that is the fact." 

7 SCR 22.27(1) provides: An attorney may not use in a firm 

name, letterhead or other written form the name of an attorney 

whose license is suspended or revoked. 
No. 2018AP1397-D 

7 

server retained by the OLR tried to personally serve Attorney 

Burton with the complaint and order to answer at the home 

address that Attorney Burton had provided to the OLR during its 

investigation, as well as her office address on file with the 

State Bar. These attempts were unsuccessful. In October 2018, 

the OLR mailed the complaint and order to answer to Attorney 

Burton's home address and her office address on file with the 

State Bar, via certified mail. See SCR 22.13(1).8 

¶10 Attorney Burton failed to file an answer. In November 

2018, the OLR filed a default motion. 

¶11 In her ensuing report, the referee recommended that 

the court find Attorney Burton in default. The referee accepted 

the allegations of the complaint as the findings of fact in the 

case and concluded that those facts established that Attorney 

Burton had committed professional misconduct as set forth in the 

four counts of the complaint. As requested by the OLR, the 

referee recommended that Attorney Burton be publicly reprimanded 

for her misconduct and that she be ordered to pay the costs of 

the proceeding. 

 

8 SCR 22.13(1) provides: 

The complaint and the order to answer shall be 

served upon the respondent in the same manner as a 

summons under section 801.11(1) of the statutes. If, 

with reasonable diligence, the respondent cannot be 

served under section 801.11(1)(a) or (b) of the 

statutes, service may be made by sending by certified 

mail an authenticated copy of the complaint and order 

to answer to the most recent address furnished by the 

respondent to the state bar. 
No. 2018AP1397-D 

8 

¶12 Because Attorney Burton has not filed an appeal, this 

matter is submitted to the court for its review pursuant to 

SCR 22.17(2). We review a referee's findings of fact subject to 

the clearly erroneous standard. See In re Disciplinary 

Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 

675 N.W.2d 747. We review the referee's conclusions of law 

de novo. Id. We determine the appropriate level of discipline 

independent of the referee's recommendation. See In re 

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 

Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 

¶13 We agree with the referee that Attorney Burton should 

be declared in default. Attorney Burton was given the 

opportunity to file an answer and present a defense to the OLR's 

complaint. She failed to do so, and thus may appropriately be 

declared in default. We also accept the referee's findings of 

fact based on the allegations of the complaint, and agree with 

the referee that those findings support a determination of 

misconduct on the four counts alleged in the OLR's complaint. 

¶14 We also agree with the referee that a public reprimand 

is an appropriate sanction for Attorney Burton's misconduct. 

Although no two disciplinary proceedings are identical, a public 

reprimand is generally consistent with our precedent. See In re 

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Willihnganz, 2017 WI 4, 373 

Wis. 2d 44, 889 N.W.2d 637 (publicly reprimanding a respondentlawyer with a disciplinary history for, among other things, 

practicing law after his law license was administratively 

suspended); see also In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
No. 2018AP1397-D 

9 

Weigel, 2012 WI 71, 342 Wis. 2d 129, 817 N.W.2d 835 (publicly 

reprimanding the respondent-lawyer for, among other things, 

continuing to use another attorney's name in a firm name after 

that attorney's employment at the firm had ended). We also 

believe that a public reprimand will be sufficient to deter 

Attorney Burton and other attorneys from similar misconduct. 

¶15 As to the issue of costs, it is our general practice 

to impose full costs on attorneys who are found to have 

committed misconduct. See SCR 22.24(1m). There is no reason to 

depart from that practice here. We therefore impose full costs. 

¶16 Finally, we note that no restitution was sought and 

none is ordered in this proceeding. 

¶17 IT IS ORDERED that Diann P. Burton is publicly 

reprimanded for her professional misconduct. 

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

of this order, Diann P. Burton shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 

Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 

¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the director of the Office 

of Lawyer Regulation shall advise the court if there has not 

been full compliance with all conditions of this decision. 

¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of Diann P. 

Burton to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain temporarily 

suspended pursuant to this court's July 10, 2018 order. 

¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the administrative 

suspension of Diann P. Burton's license to practice law in 

Wisconsin, due to her failure to pay mandatory bar dues, failure 

to file a trust account certification, and failure to comply 
No. 2018AP1397-D 

10 

with continuing legal education requirements, will remain in 

effect until each reason for the administrative suspension has 

been rectified, pursuant to SCR 22.28(1). 
No. 2018AP1397-D 

1