2016 WI 95

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2015AP1958-D

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Margaret Bach, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Margaret Bach,

 Respondent.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BACH

OPINION FILED: November 29, 2016

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT:

COUNTY:

JUDGE:

JUSTICES:

CONCURRED:

DISSENTED:

NOT PARTICIPATING: 

ATTORNEYS:
2016 WI 95

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2015AP1958-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Margaret Bach, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Margaret Bach,

 Respondent.

FILED

NOV 29, 2016

Diane M. Fremgen

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney publicly 

reprimanded. 

¶1 PER CURIAM. We review the report of Referee James J. 

Winiarski recommending that the court publicly reprimand 

Attorney Margaret Bach for professional misconduct and order her 

to pay the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding, which 

total $14,765.09 as of August 26, 2016. 

¶2 No appeal has been filed from the referee's report and 

recommendation, so we review the matter pursuant to Supreme 
No. 2015AP1958-D 

2

Court Rule (SCR) 22.17(2).1 After considering the referee's 

report and the record in this matter, we agree with the 

referee's determination that the Office of Lawyer Regulation 

(OLR) proved by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence 

that Attorney Bach engaged in some, but not all, of the acts of 

professional misconduct alleged in the OLR's amended complaint. 

We agree that a public reprimand is appropriate and we require 

Attorney Bach to pay the full costs of this proceeding. 

¶3 This court is familiar with the underlying facts

giving rise to this case. It stems from Attorney Bach's efforts 

to advocate on behalf of her adult son, A.B., who is disabled. 

A.B. has a rare medical condition that renders him a danger to 

himself and others. Since approximately 2006, when A.B. turned 

18, Attorney Bach has engaged in extensive litigation regarding 

 

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.

The referee issued his report on August 8, 2016. On 

September 1, 2016, Attorney Bach filed a document entitled 

"Reply Brief to Referee's Report." The rules governing the OLR 

proceedings do not contemplate a "reply" to a referee's report. 

However, there is no indication Attorney Bach intended this 

document be construed as an appeal from the referee's report. 

It is not captioned as an appeal, makes no reference to oral 

argument or briefing, and would have been untimely. See SCR

22.17(1). We declined to construe it as an appeal. We will 

treat the document as a post-hearing brief.
No. 2015AP1958-D 

3

his placement, level and quality of care, payment for that care, 

and guardianship. 

¶4 Initially, Attorney Bach was appointed her son's 

guardian and cared for him at her home. However, in 2009, 

following a series of incidents and acrimonious litigation 

relating to A.B.'s level of care, the court appointed a 

corporate guardian for him. In 2011, the court appointed a new 

guardian, ARC of Greater Milwaukee, n/k/a Life Navigators, and 

appointed Elizabeth Ruthmansdorfer as A.B.'s guardian ad litem. 

Attorney Bach was aggrieved by these appointments and has 

challenged them repeatedly in court.

¶5 On July 5, 2011, Attorney Bach was admitted to 

practice law in Wisconsin. She continued to litigate but, as a 

licensed attorney, she is subject to the Rules of Professional 

Conduct for Attorneys, SCR Ch. 20. 

¶6 On August 31, 2011, Attorney Bach filed a complaint in 

federal court against Milwaukee County and several other 

defendants, naming herself and her son as plaintiffs. Bach v. 

Milwaukee County, E.D. Wis. Case No. 11-C-828. The federal 

court dismissed Attorney Bach's complaint and Attorney Bach 

appealed. On July 24, 2012, the Seventh Circuit Court of 

Appeals dismissed Attorney Bach's appeal. Bach v. Milwaukee 

County, 490 Fed. Appx. 806 (7th Cir. 2012), cert. denied (Feb. 

19, 2013). The Court held that "Life Navigators and 

Ruthmansdorfer are the only persons authorized to act on 

[A.B.'s] behalf." (Emphasis added.)
No. 2015AP1958-D 

4

¶7 Meanwhile, on June 21, 2012, the Milwaukee County 

circuit court judge presiding over A.B.'s guardianship case

denied Attorney Bach's request to access the confidential 

guardianship court file. On July 11, 2012, the court issued a 

written order confirming this ruling. 

¶8 On October 16, 2012, the circuit court issued another 

written order, this time enjoining Attorney Bach:

... from filing, without this Court's prior approval, 

either on her own behalf and/or on [A.B.'s] behalf 

and/or on behalf of any other person purporting to 

represent [A.B.'s] interests, any complaint, petition,

motion, or other request for relief (hereinafter 

'pleading') in this guardianship proceeding, or in any 

other proceeding before any other state or federal 

court or other tribunal (including appellate courts),

regarding [A.B.] and/or regarding any person or entity 

providing care or services to [A.B.] and/or any person 

or entity who serves as a legal representative to

[A.B.], except that Ms. Bach may appeal this Order to 

the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. 

¶9 On April 2, 2013, Attorney Bach filed another

complaint in federal court challenging the circuit court's 

injunction as well as A.B.'s placement and visitation. Attorney 

Bach did not name A.B. as a plaintiff, but requested the court

appoint a guardian ad litem for him. Bach v. Milwaukee County 

Circuit Court, E.D. Wis. Case No. 13-CV-370. On May 31, 2013, 

Attorney Bach amended her complaint, naming A.B. as a plaintiff. 

¶10 In June 2013, in state court, Attorney Bach ordered 

transcripts of certain proceedings in A.B.'s guardianship case 

from court reporters. Later that month, the circuit court

informed Attorney Bach that the court reporters had been 
No. 2015AP1958-D 

5

instructed to cease their work, based on the 2012 June and July 

court orders. 

¶11 In a June 2013 order, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals 

warned Attorney Bach that "[b]eing [A.B.'s] mother does not 

endow her with the right to sidestep, manipulate or disregard 

the rules by which all litigants must play." Margaret B. v. 

County of Milwaukee, No. 2012AP1176, unpublished slip op., ¶7 

(Wis. Ct. App. Jun. 12, 2013).

¶12 On July 31, 2013, Attorney Bach appealed the circuit 

court's ruling regarding transcripts in the guardianship 

proceeding. The court of appeals summarily affirmed, stating:

Proceedings in guardianship cases are confidential by 

statute, and this court has previously upheld 

determinations that, because she is not her son's 

guardian, guardian ad litem, or adversary counsel, 

Bach has no standing in the guardianship case, no 

right to review his confidential legal or medical 

records, and no right to assert any legal claims on 

his behalf.

Bach v. Life Navigators, No. 2013AP1758, unpublished order (Wis. 

Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2014).

¶13 On September 11, 2013, Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph 

dismissed Attorney Bach's federal complaint regarding the state 

court injunction, and A.B.'s placement and guardianship, warning 

Attorney Bach of the court's authority to enter an order 

limiting vexatious litigants' access to the court system. 

Attorney Bach appealed.

¶14 On April 5, 2014, Attorney Bach appealed another order 

in A.B.'s guardianship case. The court of appeals denied her 
No. 2015AP1958-D 

6

petition for a fee waiver on the grounds that Attorney Bach had 

failed to present any arguably meritorious issues for review. 

Bach v. Life Navigators, No. 2014AP1007, unpublished slip op., 

(Wis. Ct. App. Sep. 22, 2014).

¶15 On May 22, 2014, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals 

affirmed Judge Joseph's decision, ruling that Attorney Bach had

"abused the judicial process by filing multiple frivolous suits, 

many of which, like this one, could not succeed unless the court 

were prepared to ignore the outcome of her earlier suits." The 

court also noted that Attorney Bach frequently named judges and 

courts as defendants, despite their absolute immunity. The 

court ordered Attorney Bach to show cause within 14 days why the 

court should not impose sanctions for a frivolous appeal.

¶16 On June 12, 2014, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals 

deemed Attorney Bach's appeal frivolous and fined her $2,000. 

¶17 On October 28, 2014, Attorney Bach petitioned this 

court for a writ of mandamus in A.B.'s guardianship case. This 

court denied her petition, ex parte. Bach v. Circuit Court for 

Milwaukee County, No. 2014AP2537, unpublished order (S. Ct. Jan. 

12, 2015).

OLR Complaint

¶18 In September 2015, the OLR filed a disciplinary 

complaint against Attorney Bach, alleging six counts of 

professional misconduct all related to litigation she conducted 

relating to A.B. The OLR amended its complaint in March 2016, 

this time, alleging five counts of misconduct. The OLR sought a 

public reprimand and imposition of costs. 
No. 2015AP1958-D 

7

¶19 The court appointed Referee James J. Winiarski and, 

following briefing, Attorney Bach's submission of extensive 

documentation, and the referee's denial of Bach's request for 

additional time to conduct additional discovery, the referee 

conducted an evidentiary hearing on May 9, 2016. The referee

rendered his report and recommendation on August 8, 2016.

¶20 Supreme Court Rule 22.17(1) provides that within 20 

days after the filing of the referee's report, the director or 

the respondent may file with the supreme court an appeal from 

the referee's report. As noted, Attorney Bach filed a "reply 

brief" but neither party filed a timely appeal. Accordingly, we 

review this matter pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).

¶21 We will affirm a referee's findings of fact unless 

they are found to be clearly erroneous, but we review the 

referee's conclusions of law on a de novo basis. In re 

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 

Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125. 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 The referee made detailed factual findings. There is 

no persuasive showing that any of the referee's findings of fact 

are erroneous.2 Accordingly, we adopt them. 

 

2 We are unpersuaded by the arguments in Attorney Bach's 

September 1, 2016, "reply brief."
No. 2015AP1958-D 

8

¶23 The amended complaint alleged that Attorney Bach 

committed five counts of professional misconduct, alleging 

violations of SCRs 20:3.1 and 20:3.4. Supreme Court Rule 20:3.1 

is entitled "meritorious claims and contentions." Supreme Court 

Rule 20:3.1(a)(1) provides that in representing a client, a 

lawyer shall not knowingly advance a claim or defense that is 

unwarranted under existing law, except that the lawyer may 

advance such claim or defense if it can be supported by good 

faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of 

existing law. Supreme Court Rule 20:3.1(a)(2) provides that a 

lawyer shall not knowingly advance a factual position unless 

there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous. A

Committee Comment published with the rule notes that Wisconsin 

Supreme Court Rules 20:3.1(a)(1) and (2) differ from the ABA 

Model Rules in expressly establishing a subjective test for an 

ethical violation. See also In re Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Osicka, 2009 WI 38, ¶42, 317 Wis. 2d 135, 765 

N.W.2d 775. Supreme Court Rule 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.

Counts One, Two, and Three

¶24 To demonstrate that Attorney Bach committed the 

misconduct alleged in counts one and two of the amended 

complaint, the OLR was required to show that Attorney Bach "in 

fact, knew the claim or factual position [s]he was advancing was 

unwarranted." See also In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
No. 2015AP1958-D 

9

Katerinos, 2010 WI 28, 324 Wis. 2d 12, 782 N.W.2d 398. A

lawyer's knowledge can be inferred under certain circumstances.

See SCR 20:1.0(g).

3

¶25 In Count one of the amended complaint, the OLR alleged 

that "[b]y continuing to make filings in state and federal court 

stating claims that had already been ruled to be without merit 

and from which she had been enjoined, Attorney Bach knowingly 

advanced unwarranted claims." Similarly, in Count two, the OLR 

alleged that "[b]y continuing to make filings in state and 

federal court, including an appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court 

of Appeals that was described by the court as "frivolous,"

Attorney Bach knowingly advanced frivolous factual positions."

¶26 The OLR contends that "Attorney Bach was warned 

several times by judges that her claims were not warranted yet 

she proceeded with federal lawsuits, as well as with state 

actions in defiance of an injunction. She knew the claims she

was advancing were unwarranted . . . [and her] knowledge can be 

inferred from the circumstances, SCR 20:1.0(g)." See OLR's PreHearing Brief, pp. 10-11, (2016). 

¶27 Count three of the amended complaint alleged that 

Attorney Bach violated SCR 20:3.1(a)(3), which provides that a 

lawyer shall not file a suit, assert a position, conduct a 

defense, delay a trial or take other action on behalf of the 

 

3 SCR 20:1.0(g) provides: "Knowingly," "known," or "knows" 

denotes actual knowledge of the fact in question. A person's 

knowledge may be inferred from circumstances.
No. 2015AP1958-D 

10

client when the lawyer knows or when it is obvious that such an 

action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure 

another. Violations of SCR 20:3.1(a)(3) are subject to an 

objective standard. 

¶28 The referee expressed frustration with the OLR's 

amended complaint, noting that "OLR wants me to 'infer' Attorney 

Bach's knowledge (of frivolousness, unwarranted claims, and 

intent to harass adverse parties)." However, while the OLR's 

pre-hearing brief argues that "she knew the claims she was 

advancing were unwarranted" there is no such factual allegation 

in the amended complaint. Merely alleging that Attorney Bach

filed the various actions is not sufficient. The OLR failed to 

allege further that she, subjectively, knew that these actions 

were filed in a frivolous manner, were without merit, that 

Attorney Bach was trying to advance an unwarranted claim, or 

that she sought to harass or maliciously injure another. The 

referee states: "The amended complaint refers to many cases and 

appeals and it is not my job to guess at what particular conduct 

OLR claims violates a particular Supreme Court rule." The 

referee continued:

By alleging multiple fact situations that occurred in both 

state and federal courts and then alleging such collective 

conduct violated three separate Supreme Court rules (Counts 

1-3), some subject to an objective standard and others a 

subjective standard, I am at a loss to determine what 

precise alleged misconduct OLR claims violated which rules. 

I cannot apply an objective or subjective test without 

knowing the precise conduct OLR alleges violated which 

particular Supreme Court rule.
No. 2015AP1958-D 

11

¶29 Moreover, the referee did not agree with the OLR's 

assessment of Attorney Bach's intent. The referee characterized 

Attorney Bach as a new and very inexperienced lawyer with 

overzealous goals, who plunged herself, unprepared, into filing 

federal court actions and subsequent appeals. Her filings were 

not competent; indeed they are often frustratingly inept, but 

the referee correctly notes that the OLR did not allege that she 

violated ethical rules requiring competence. However misguided 

her filings were, the referee concluded that the evidence did 

not support a finding that Attorney Bach filed the various 

actions with the intent of being frivolous or to harass the 

defendants. Accordingly, the referee concluded that the OLR 

failed to prove by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence 

that Attorney Bach committed the misconduct alleged in counts 

one through three.

¶30 We accept the referee's analysis and we dismiss counts 

one, two, and three of the OLR's amended complaint. 

Counts Four and Five

¶31 In Count four of the amended complaint, the OLR 

alleged that by continuing to file lawsuits relating to her son 

and continuing to communicate with her son's health care 

providers in contravention of the injunction issued by the 

Milwaukee County Circuit Court on October 16, 2012, Attorney 
No. 2015AP1958-D 

12

Bach knowingly disobeyed a court order, violating SCR 20:3.4(c).4

In Count five, the OLR alleged that by ordering confidential 

transcripts of guardianship court hearings in contravention of a 

Milwaukee County Circuit Court order, Attorney Bach knowingly 

disobeyed a court order, violating SCR 20:3.4(c).

¶32 The referee agreed that Attorney Bach knowingly 

disobeyed a court order in violation of SCR 20:3.4(c). The 

record evidence supports the referee's findings.

¶33 Indeed, Attorney Bach acknowledged at the hearing 

that she intentionally violated the injunction. She testified 

that she followed her parents' vehicle when she knew they were

going to see her son, and, upon discovering her son's location, 

she had further contact with her son and his health care 

providers in violation of the injunction. Similarly, despite 

circuit court's orders denying her access to her son's 

confidential court files, Attorney Bach ordered transcripts of 

certain proceedings without prior court approval. The record 

supports the referee's finding, that after the injunction and

without prior court approval, Attorney Bach communicated with 

her son's health care providers and aides; surreptitiously 

followed her parents' vehicle to determine her son's location; 

visited her son in an unauthorized manner; communicated with her 

son's attendants and aides; had unauthorized visitation with her 

 

4 SCR 20:3.4(c) provides: "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." 
No. 2015AP1958-D 

13

son, and filed documents in court, all in violation of a court 

order. We accept the referee's conclusion that Attorney Bach 

knowingly disobeyed a court order in violation of SCR 20:3.4(c), 

as alleged in counts four and five of the amended complaint. 

¶34 We next consider the appropriate discipline for 

Attorney Bach's misconduct. The referee properly considered 

relevant factors, including, (1) the seriousness, nature and 

extent of the misconduct; (2) the level of discipline needed to 

protect the public, the courts and the legal system from 

repetition of the attorney's misconduct; (3) the need to impress 

upon the attorney the seriousness of the misconduct; and (4) the 

need to deter other attorneys from committing similar 

misconduct, In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hammis, 2011 

WI 3, ¶39, 331 Wis. 2d 19, 793 N.W.2d 884; see also In re 

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Grogan, 2011 WI 7, ¶15, 331 

Wis. 2d 341, 795 N.W.2d 745 (recognizing the ABA Standards as a 

guidepost). 

¶35 The referee remained mindful that Attorney Bach's 

misconduct all relates to her efforts on behalf of her child. 

Indeed, the referee deemed Attorney Bach's "actions as the 

biological and loving mother" a mitigating factor in assessing 

appropriate discipline.

¶36 The referee did not condone Attorney Bach's conduct. 

Nor do we. Attorney Bach's deliberate violation of court orders 

is serious professional misconduct that requires a public 

reprimand. Indeed, we take this opportunity to caution Attorney 

Bach. Although, we affirm the referee's conclusion that the OLR 
No. 2015AP1958-D 

14

failed to prove she violated SCR 20:3.1(a)(1), (2), and (3) as 

alleged in counts one, two, and three of the amended complaint, 

this conclusion reflects a failure in the pleadings, rather than 

an exoneration of her conduct. We are very familiar with 

Attorney Bach's filings. We recognize that her fervent advocacy 

stems from concern for her child. However, we must caution 

Attorney Bach that this court's tolerance for her persistent 

refusal to respect and follow rules of court procedure is 

wearing thin.

¶37 The referee explicitly recommends that we impose all 

of the costs of this disciplinary proceeding, noting that the 

"counts for which I have recommended dismissal do not justify 

reduction in her responsibility for full costs." In re

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Polich, 2005 WI 36, ¶¶29-30,

279 Wis. 2d 266, 694 N.W.2d 367 (holding that even when a 

respondent prevails on a number of counts, it is still the 

court's policy to assess full costs). We agree with the 

referee: nothing about this case warrants deviating from our

general policy of imposing all costs upon the respondent. See 

SCR 22.12. Attorney Bach is ordered to pay the full costs of 

the proceeding. 

¶38 Consistent with the referee's recommendation and as is 

standard procedure, Attorney Bach may contact the OLR to request 

a payment plan that will enable Attorney Bach to pay the costs 

of this proceeding in a manner consistent with her financial 

ability. We accept the OLR's statement that restitution is not 

warranted in this matter. 
No. 2015AP1958-D 

15

¶39 IT IS ORDERED that counts one, two, and three of the 

amended complaint are dismissed.

¶40 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Margaret Bach is publicly 

reprimanded for her professional misconduct. 

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

of this order, Margaret Bach shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 

Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $14,765.09.

¶42 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 order.
No. 2015AP1958-D 

1