2018 WI 116

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2018AP497-D

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against David W. Schiltz, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

David W. Schiltz,

 Respondent.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SCHILTZ

OPINION FILED: December 28, 2018

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:

ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT:

COUNTY:

JUDGE:

JUSTICES:

CONCURRED:

DISSENTED:

NOT PARTICIPATING: 

ATTORNEYS:
2018 WI 116

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2018AP497-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against David W. Schiltz, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

David W. Schiltz,

 Respondent.

FILED

DEC 28, 2018

Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license 

suspended. 

¶1 PER CURIAM. We review Referee Dennis J. Flynn's 

recommendation that the court declare Attorney David W. Schiltz 

in default and suspend his Wisconsin law license for a period of 

18 months for professional misconduct in connection with: (1) 

his work on certain client matters; (2) his practice of law 

while his law license was suspended for noncompliance with 

mandatory continuing legal education (CLE) reporting 

requirements; and (3) his failure to disclose his unauthorized 
No. 2018AP497-D 

2

practice of law in his reinstatement petition to the Board of 

Bar Examiners (BBE). The referee also recommended that this 

court order Attorney Schiltz to successfully complete 25 hours 

of continuing legal education (CLE) courses as deemed 

appropriate by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR). Finally, 

the referee recommended that the court order Attorney Schiltz to 

make restitution to a former client and to pay the full costs of 

this proceeding. 

¶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 Schiltz's failure to 

answer the complaint filed by the OLR, the OLR is entitled to a 

default judgment. However, we disagree with the referee that 

Attorney Schiltz's professional misconduct warrants an 18-month 

suspension of his Wisconsin law license. We conclude, instead, 

that a nine-month suspension is warranted. We order Attorney 

Schiltz to make restitution and to successfully complete 25 

hours of CLE courses as deemed appropriate by the OLR. We also 

 

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. 2018AP497-D 

3

find it appropriate to impose the full costs of this proceeding 

on Attorney Schiltz, which are $4,705.70 as of August 27, 2018.

¶3 Attorney Schiltz was admitted to practice law in 

Wisconsin in 1987. He had no disciplinary history prior to the 

filing of this complaint. His law license has been 

administratively suspended for failing to comply with CLE 

reporting requirements since May 31, 2016, and for failing to 

pay annual bar dues and to provide a required trust account 

certification since October 31, 2017.

¶4 On March 15, 2018, the OLR filed the current complaint 

against Attorney Schiltz. On June 25, 2018, the OLR filed an 

amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges a total of 25 

counts of professional misconduct. The following facts are 

taken from the OLR's amended complaint, which, as discussed more 

fully below, Attorney Schiltz has admitted by default.

Practice During Suspension (Count 1)

¶5 On May 31, 2016, the BBE suspended Attorney Schiltz's 

law license due to his failure to comply with CLE reporting 

requirements. During his suspension, Attorney Schiltz continued 

to meet with clients and appear in court, primarily in estate 

matters. The OLR alleged in its amended complaint that this 

conduct gave rise to the following violation:

 Count 1: By continuing to practice law following the May 

31, 2016 suspension of his law license, Attorney Schiltz 
No. 2018AP497-D 

4

violated SCR 22.26(2),2 and SCR 31.10(1),3 enforceable via 

SCR 20:8.4(f).4 

Estate of W.E.S. (Counts 2-3)

¶6 W.E.S. died in May 2015. In December 2015, the 

probate court appointed C.R. as the personal representative of 

W.E.S.'s estate. Because C.R. resided out of state, the court 

appointed Attorney Schiltz as the estate's resident agent. 

¶7 At the time of his death, W.E.S. owned a 50 percent 

interest in certain real property. The property sold in 

February 2016, and Attorney Schiltz acted as the title company's 

disbursement agent for the sale. Attorney Schiltz received the 

$104,766.75 net proceeds of the sale, from which he was to 

disburse 50 percent of the sale proceeds ($52,383.38) to 

W.E.S.'s estate. He did not do so. 

 

2 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.

3 SCR 31.10(1) provides, in relevant part: "A lawyer shall 

not engage in the practice of law in Wisconsin while his or her 

state bar membership is suspended under this rule."

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. 2018AP497-D 

5

¶8 In August 2016, C.R. retained a lawyer to represent 

him and the estate in an effort to obtain the sale proceeds from 

Attorney Schiltz. The effort was unsuccessful.

¶9 In November 2016, W.E.S.'s estate sued Attorney 

Schiltz and the title company to obtain the owed portion of the 

real estate sale proceeds. Attorney Schiltz did not appear or 

participate in the civil case. In April 2017, the circuit court 

issued a default judgment against Attorney Schiltz for 

$55,875.59, representing the sale proceeds plus attorney fees. 

By early May 2017, Attorney Schiltz had paid $52,383.38 of the 

judgment, which represented the sale proceeds. 

¶10 Although the BBE suspended Attorney Schiltz's law 

license on May 31, 2016, Attorney Schiltz did not inform either 

C.R. or the probate court of his suspension. 

¶11 The OLR alleged in its amended complaint that the 

conduct described above gave rise to the following two 

violations:

 Count 2: By failing to promptly deliver $52,383.38 to 

the estate of W.E.S., Attorney Schiltz violated former 

SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) and current SCR 20:1.15(e)(1).5 

 

5 Former SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) was renumbered as 

SCR 20:1.15(e)(1) effective July 1, 2016. The text of the rule 

was not changed and provides: 

Upon receiving funds or other property in which a 

client has an interest, or in which the lawyer has 

received notice that a 3rd party has an interest 

identified by a lien, court order, judgment, or 

contract, the lawyer shall promptly notify the client 

or 3rd party in writing. Except as stated in this 

(continued)
No. 2018AP497-D 

6

 Count 3: By failing to notify C.R. that his Wisconsin 

law license had been suspended, by failing to advise C.R. 

to seek successor counsel, and by failing to provide 

written notification of his suspension to the probate 

court, Attorney Schiltz violated SCR 22.26(1).6 

Estate of J.S. (Counts 4-8)

 

rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement 

with the client, the lawyer shall promptly deliver to 

the client or 3rd party any funds or other property 

that the client or 3rd party is entitled to receive. 

6 SCR 22.26(1)(a), (b), and (c) provide:

(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.
No. 2018AP497-D 

7

¶12 J.S. died in March 2015 with $3,000 in assets. J.S.'s 

son, W.R.S., hired Attorney Schiltz to assist him with J.S.'s 

affairs. 

¶13 In May 2015, Attorney Schiltz drafted and had W.R.S. 

sign a transfer by affidavit form, seeking to have J.S.'s $3,000 

in assets transferred to W.R.S. Consistent with the form's 

instructions, Attorney Schiltz sent a copy of the form to the 

Estate and Casualty Recovery Section (ECRS) of the Wisconsin 

Department of Health Services. 

¶14 In July 2015, and again in February 2016, the ECRS 

wrote to Attorney Schiltz, asking him to provide information 

that would determine if J.S.'s estate owed any funds to the 

ECRS. Attorney Schiltz did not respond. 

¶15 Between February and May of 2016, W.R.S. called 

Attorney Schiltz 16 times to find out the status of the matter. 

Attorney Schiltz did not respond. 

¶16 In June 2016, Attorney Schiltz told W.R.S. that he had 

taken care of the ECRS claim. This was false. 

¶17 Later in June 2016, the ECRS again wrote to Attorney 

Schiltz seeking documentation and any funds owed. That same 

day, the ECRS contacted W.R.S. directly, who learned that the 

matter had not been resolved. W.R.S. provided the requested 

information to the State.

¶18 In July 2016, W.R.S. filed a grievance with the OLR 

against Attorney Schiltz. Attorney Schiltz did not cooperate 

with the ensuing OLR investigation. On February 13, 2017, this 
No. 2018AP497-D 

8

court temporarily suspended Attorney Schiltz's law license for 

his non-cooperation.

¶19 Although the BBE suspended Attorney Schiltz's law 

license on May 31, 2016, Attorney Schiltz did not inform either 

W.R.S. or the probate court of his suspension. 

¶20 The OLR alleged in its amended complaint that the 

conduct described above gave rise to the following five 

violations:

 Count 4: By failing to respond to the ECRS's attempts to 

contact him regarding its claim against his client, the 

estate of J.S., between July 2015 and June 2016, Attorney 

Schiltz violated SCR 20:1.3.7 

 Count 5: By failing to respond to W.R.S.'s telephone 

calls between February and May 2016 requesting 

information regarding the status of the probate matter, 

Attorney Schiltz violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(4).8 

 Count 6: By falsely informing W.R.S. that he had 

resolved the ECRS claim against the estate of J.S. when 

he had not done so, Attorney Schiltz violated 

SCR 20:8.4(c).9 

 

7 SCR 20:1.3 provides: "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 

diligence and promptness in representing a client."

8 SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) provides: "A lawyer shall promptly 

comply with reasonable requests by the client for information."

9 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: "It is professional misconduct 

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

deceit or misrepresentation."
No. 2018AP497-D 

9

 Count 7: By failing to notify W.R.S. that his license to 

practice law had been suspended, by failing to advise 

W.R.S. to seek successor counsel, and by failing to 

provide written notification of his suspension to the 

probate court, Attorney Schiltz violated SCR 22.26(1).

 Count 8: By willfully failing to respond timely to the 

OLR's written requests for information, Attorney Schiltz 

violated SCR 22.03(2)10 and SCR 22.03(6),11 enforceable 

via SCR 20:8.4(h).12 

 

10 SCR 22.03(2) provides:

Upon commencing an investigation, the director 

shall notify the respondent of the matter being 

investigated unless in the opinion of the director the 

investigation of the matter requires otherwise. The 

respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts 

and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct 

within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail a 

request for a written response. The director may 

allow additional time to respond. Following receipt 

of the response, the director may conduct further 

investigation and may compel the respondent to answer 

questions, furnish documents, and present any 

information deemed relevant to the investigation.

11 SCR 22.03(6) provides: "In the course of the 

investigation, the respondent's wilful failure to provide 

relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 

documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure 

are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted 

in the grievance."

12 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides: "It is professional misconduct 

for a lawyer to fail to cooperate in the investigation of a 

grievance filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required 

by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), 

or SCR 22.04(1)."
No. 2018AP497-D 

10

Municipal representation (Counts 9-11)

¶21 At the time of his May 31, 2016 suspension for failure 

to comply with CLE reporting requirements, Attorney Schiltz had 

been the attorney for a particular town for several years, 

including acting as municipal prosecutor. Attorney Schiltz did 

not timely inform the town or the town's municipal judge of his 

suspension, nor did he timely advise the town to seek successor 

counsel.

¶22 From June of 2016 through at least April 30, 2017, 

Attorney Schiltz continued to represent the town in municipal 

court and other proceedings.

¶23 In May 2017, the OLR received a grievance against 

Attorney Schiltz concerning his representation of the town while 

his law license was suspended. Attorney Schiltz did not 

cooperate with the OLR's subsequent investigation.

¶24 The OLR alleged in its amended complaint that the 

course of conduct described above gave rise to the following 

three violations:

 Count 9: By continuing until April 30, 2017 to actively 

represent the town following the May 31, 2016 suspension 

of his law license, Attorney Schiltz violated 

SCR 22.26(2) and SCR 31.10(1), enforceable via 

SCR 20:8.4(f).

 Count 10: By failing to notify the town that his license 

to practice law had been suspended, by failing to advise 

the town to seek successor counsel, and by failing to 

provide written notification of his suspension to the 
No. 2018AP497-D 

11

municipal court before which he had matters pending, 

Attorney Schiltz violated SCR 22.26(1).

 Count 11: By failing to respond timely to the OLR's 

written requests for information, Attorney Schiltz 

violated SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via 

SCR 20:8.4(h).

Limited Liability Partnership Representation (Counts 12-15)

¶25 In March 2015, a condominium association filed a civil 

suit against a limited liability partnership (LLP) and two 

individuals over a dispute regarding management of the 

condominium. Soon after being served, the defendants hired 

Attorney Schiltz to represent them. Related to the 

representation, the LLP gave $3,305 to Attorney Schiltz to be 

held in trust. 

¶26 In August 2016, Attorney Schiltz filed pleadings in 

the case. Over the next few months, Attorney Schiltz appeared 

at multiple scheduling conferences in the case. The court 

scheduled a trial. Attorney Schiltz informed his clients of 

that fact, but told them they did not need to appear.

¶27 In March 2017, Attorney Schiltz failed to appear at a 

summary judgment proceeding. Later in March 2017, neither 

Attorney Schiltz nor his clients appeared at the scheduled court 

trial. As a result of the non-appearance, the circuit court 

granted summary judgment against the defendants in the amount of 

$66,000.

¶28 Attorney Schiltz's clients made numerous attempts to 

contact him both before and after the circuit court's entry of 
No. 2018AP497-D 

12

summary judgment against them. Attorney Schiltz was 

unresponsive, and did not otherwise inform his clients about the 

status of the case.

¶29 Eventually, Attorney Schiltz contacted his clients and 

told them he would move to vacate the judgment. He never did.

¶30 In early May 2017, the defendants hired a different 

lawyer to represent them. The successor counsel moved to 

overturn the judgment. The circuit court eventually reopened 

the case.

¶31 In July 2017, the successor counsel wrote to Attorney 

Schiltz, requesting the $3,305 that Attorney Schiltz was to be 

holding in trust. Attorney Schiltz did not respond or turn over 

the funds.

¶32 During the circuit court proceedings, the circuit 

court informed the OLR of Attorney Schiltz's conduct. Attorney 

Schiltz did not cooperate with the OLR's subsequent 

investigation.

¶33 Although the BBE suspended Attorney Schiltz's law 

license on May 31, 2016, Attorney Schiltz did not inform his 

clients or the circuit court of the suspension, nor did he 

timely advise his clients to seek successor counsel. 

¶34 The OLR alleged in its amended complaint that the 

conduct described above gave rise to the following four 

violations:

 Count 12: By failing to notify his clients that his 

license to practice law had been suspended, by failing to 

advise them to seek successor counsel, and by failing to 
No. 2018AP497-D 

13

provide written notification of his suspension to the 

circuit court presiding over the case, Attorney Schiltz 

violated SCR 22.26(1).

 Count 13: By continuing to actively represent his 

clients following the May 31, 2016 suspension of his law 

license, Attorney Schiltz violated SCR 22.26(2) and 

SCR 31.10(1), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f).

 Count 14: By failing to return the $3,305 to his former 

clients upon their request, Attorney Schiltz violated 

former SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) and current SCR 20:1.15(e)(1).

 Count 15: By failing to respond timely to the OLR's 

written requests for information regarding its 

investigation in this matter, Attorney Schiltz violated 

SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via 

SCR 20:8.4(h).

Estate of M.P.M. (Counts 16-18)

¶35 M.P.M. died in 2016. In February 2016, Attorney 

Schiltz filed an application for informal probate of M.P.M.'s 

estate. The court named R.F. as the estate's personal 

representative. 

¶36 In March 2016, Attorney Schiltz sent R.F. an invoice

showing that he had paid $66.07 to publish a notice to 

creditors. In fact, he had not paid that amount, and had not 

published a notice.

¶37 In March 2017, Attorney Schiltz did not appear at a 

status conference on the estate. R.F. subsequently hired 

replacement counsel.
No. 2018AP497-D 

14

¶38 During the course of the probate matter, the OLR 

received a grievance against Attorney Schiltz regarding his 

handling of the matter. Attorney Schiltz did not cooperate with 

the OLR's subsequent investigation.

¶39 Although the BBE suspended Attorney Schiltz's law 

license on May 31, 2016, Attorney Schiltz did not inform R.F. or 

the probate court of his suspension.

¶40 The OLR alleged in its amended complaint that the

course of conduct described above gave rise to the following 

three violations:

 Count 16: By sending an invoice showing charges 

totaling $66.07 for the publication of notice to 

creditors, which notice Attorney Schiltz never submitted

for publication, Attorney Schiltz violated SCR 20:8.4(c).

 Count 17: By failing to notify R.F. that his license to 

practice law had been suspended, by failing to advise 

R.F. to seek successor counsel, and by failing to provide 

written notification of his suspension to the probate 

court, Attorney Schiltz violated SCR 22.26(1).

 Count 18: By failing to respond timely to the OLR's 

written requests for information regarding its 

investigation, Attorney Schiltz violated SCR 22.03(2) and 

SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h).

Matter of R.W. (Counts 19-22)

¶41 In November of 2014, R.W. purchased a house. As part 

of the closing, the seller's attorney held a portion of the sale 

proceeds in escrow for repairs.
No. 2018AP497-D 

15

¶42 In approximately January 2015, R.W. hired Attorney 

Schiltz to represent him in resolving the repair issues. In 

April 2016, the seller's attorney filed a declaratory judgment 

action concerning the sale and the escrowed funds. Attorney 

Schiltz continued to represent R.W.'s interests, but did not 

enter an appearance in the declaratory judgment case.

¶43 In August 2016, an involuntary plaintiff in the matter 

filed for default judgment against R.W. Attorney Schiltz later 

sent an email to the seller's attorney and the involuntary 

plaintiff's attorney in which Attorney Schiltz stated that he 

represented R.W. He did not inform them that his law license 

was suspended.

¶44 The circuit court held a default hearing in the 

declaratory judgment case. Neither R.W. nor Attorney Schiltz 

appeared. The court granted the default judgment.

¶45 In September 2016, another involuntary plaintiff 

sought and received a default judgment against R.W. Neither 

R.W. nor Attorney Schiltz appeared for that hearing.

¶46 In November 2016, the court issued a declaratory 

judgment and closed the case. 

¶47 In August 2017, R.W. filed a grievance with the OLR 

against Attorney Schiltz. Attorney Schiltz did not cooperate 

with the OLR's subsequent investigation.

¶48 Although the BBE suspended Attorney Schiltz's law 

license on May 31, 2016, Attorney Schiltz did not inform R.W. of 

his suspension.
No. 2018AP497-D 

16

¶49 The OLR alleged in its amended complaint that the 

conduct described above gave rise to the following four 

violations:

 Count 19: By continuing to represent R.W. following the 

May 31, 2016 suspension of his law license for failing 

to comply with CLE requirements, Attorney Schiltz 

violated SCR 22.26(2), and SCR 31.10(1), enforceable via 

SCR 20:8.4(f).

 Count 20: By failing to notify R.W. that his license to 

practice law had been suspended and by failing to advise 

R.W. to seek successor counsel, Attorney Schiltz violated 

SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b). 

 Count 21: By failing to inform the seller's counsel and 

the involuntary plaintiff's counsel of his law license 

suspension, Attorney Schiltz violated SCR 22.26(1)(c). 

 Count 22: By willfully failing to respond timely to the 

OLR's written requests for information, Attorney Schiltz 

violated SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via 

SCR 20:8.4(h).

Matter of P.S. and K.S. 

¶50 In approximately September 2016, P.S. and K.S. hired 

Attorney Schiltz to represent them in a proposed land purchase. 

Attorney Schiltz did not inform P.S. and K.S. of his May 31, 

2016 suspension by the BBE.

¶51 P.S. and K.S. and the property's sellers agreed to 

have Attorney Schiltz represent both groups. Attorney Schiltz 
No. 2018AP497-D 

17

advised P.S. and K.S. that he would provide the legal services 

required before and during the closing.

¶52 Attorney Schiltz collected fees from the sellers for 

the closing, and from P.S. and K.S. to prepare a quit claim 

deed. In March 2017, Attorney Schiltz filed a quit claim deed 

that listed the wrong lot numbers.

¶53 In October 2017, P.S. and K.S. filed a grievance with 

the OLR against Attorney Schiltz. Attorney Schiltz did not 

cooperate with the OLR's subsequent investigation.

¶54 The OLR alleged in its amended complaint that the 

conduct described above gave rise to the following two 

violations:

 Count 23: By representing P.S. and K.S. and the sellers 

in a real estate transaction following the May 31, 2016 

suspension of his law license for failing to comply with 

CLE requirements, Attorney Schiltz violated SCR 22.26(2), 

and SCR 31.10(1), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f).

 Count 24: By willfully failing to respond timely to the 

OLR's written requests for information regarding this 

investigation, Attorney Schiltz violated SCR 22.03(2) and 

SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h).

Misrepresentation to BBE (Count 25)

¶55 On October 6, 2016, Attorney Schiltz filed a petition 

for reinstatement with the BBE. In it, Attorney Schiltz stated, 

"I have not practiced law during the time of my suspension." 

This statement was false.
No. 2018AP497-D 

18

¶56 On October 7, 2016, the BBE wrote to Attorney Schiltz, 

informing him that his petition was insufficient in several 

respects. Attorney Schiltz did not amend his petition, and the 

BBE's suspension remains in effect.

¶57 The OLR alleged in its amended complaint that the 

conduct described above gave rise to the following violation:

 Count 25: Given that Attorney Schiltz continued to 

actively represent clients between the date he was 

suspended, May 31, 2016, and October 6, 2016, by filing 

on October 6, 2016 a petition for reinstatement with the 

BBE that included a false representation, Attorney 

Schiltz violated SCR 20:8.4(c).

¶58 In April 2018, the OLR personally served the complaint 

and an order to answer on Attorney Schiltz. Attorney Schiltz 

failed to file an answer. In June 2018, the OLR served Attorney 

Schiltz with an amended complaint via mail to both the address 

he had provided to the State Bar and the address at which he had 

been personally served with the original complaint.13 Again, 

Attorney Schiltz failed to file an answer. Attorney Schiltz 

also failed to appear at a July 2018 telephonic scheduling 

conference held by the referee, of which the referee had 

 

13 Both mailings were returned by the postal service as 

undeliverable.
No. 2018AP497-D 

19

attempted to notify Attorney Schiltz by a letter notice sent via 

mail and email and by phone.14 

¶59 The OLR moved for a default judgment. The referee 

issued a report recommending that this court grant the OLR's 

motion.15 In so doing, the referee deemed the allegations in the 

OLR's complaint to be established. 

¶60 In its amended complaint, the OLR sought a six-month 

suspension of Attorney Schiltz's law license. In a brief in 

support of its default judgment motion, the OLR argued that a 

six-month suspension was consistent with In re Disciplinary 

Proceedings Against Scanlan, 2006 WI 38, 290 Wis. 2d 30, 712 

N.W.2d 877 (six-month suspension for 21 counts of misconduct 

including practicing law while suspended, failing to provide 

notice to clients and courts concerning the suspension, failing 

to provide competent representation, trust account violations, 

and failing to timely respond to an OLR investigation; lawyer 

 

14 The referee mailed the letter notice to the address 

Attorney Schiltz provided to the State Bar and to the address at 

which he had been personally served with the original complaint. 

Both mailings were returned by the postal service as 

undeliverable. The referee also emailed the letter notice to 

the email address Attorney Schiltz had provided to the State 

Bar. The email was returned as undeliverable. The referee also 

attempted to telephone Attorney Schiltz regarding the scheduling 

conference at the phone number Attorney Schiltz had provided to 

the State Bar. The calls went unanswered.

15 The referee mailed his report to the address Attorney 

Schiltz had provided to the State Bar and to the address at 

which he had been personally served with the original complaint. 

Both mailings were returned by the postal service as 

undeliverable. 
No. 2018AP497-D 

20

had no previous discipline), and In re Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Baratki, 2017 WI 89, 378 Wis. 2d 1, 902 N.W.2d 250 (sixmonth suspension for nine counts of misconduct including 

practicing law while suspended, making sexual comments to 

client, failing to act with reasonable diligence, and failing to 

cooperate with disciplinary investigation; lawyer had been 

privately reprimanded twice before).

¶61 The referee recommended a significantly longer 

suspension of Attorney Schiltz's Wisconsin law license: 18 

months. The referee cited no precedent to support his suggested 

tripling of the suspension sought by the OLR, nor did he discuss

the cases cited by the OLR in its brief in support of default 

judgment. The referee noted that no mitigating factors existed 

to diminish the seriousness of Attorney Schiltz's misconduct, 

and that Attorney Schiltz's actions "do not reflect respect for 

the rule of law or basic honesty." The referee additionally 

recommended that this court require Attorney Schiltz "to 

complete 25 hours of CLE credit courses in areas that are 

approved in advance by OLR. The courses should include ethics 

and trust account matters." Finally, the referee recommended 

that this court order Attorney Schiltz to pay the full costs of 

this proceeding, as well as $3,305 in restitution to the LLP

referenced earlier. 

¶62 Attorney Schiltz did not appeal from the referee's 

report and recommendation. Thus, we proceed with our review of 

the matter pursuant to SCR 22.17(2). We review a referee's 

findings of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard. See
No. 2018AP497-D 

21

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.

¶63 We agree with the referee that Attorney Schiltz should 

be declared in default. Although the OLR effected personal 

service of its original complaint and mailed the amended 

complaint to both Attorney Schiltz's office address registered 

with the State Bar and the address at which he was served with 

the original complaint, he failed to appear or present a 

defense. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to declare him in 

default. In addition, the referee properly relied on the 

allegations of the complaint, which were deemed admitted. See

In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Coplien, 2010 WI 109, 

¶¶10–11, 329 Wis. 2d 311, 788 N.W.2d 376. We therefore accept 

the referee's findings of fact based on the allegations of the 

amended complaint. We also agree with the referee that those 

findings of fact adequately support the legal conclusions of 

professional misconduct with respect to all counts of misconduct 

alleged in the complaint.

¶64 However, we disagree with the referee's recommendation 

that this court should impose an 18-month license suspension. 

As noted above, it is ultimately this court's responsibility, 

rather than the referee's, to determine the appropriate level of 

discipline. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Reitz, 
No. 2018AP497-D 

22

2005 WI 39, ¶74, 279 Wis. 2d 550, 694 N.W.2d 894. We owe no 

deference to the referee's recommended sanctions. See In re 

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶37, 248 

Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 718. In considering the appropriate 

sanction, this court seeks to impress upon the attorney the 

seriousness of the misconduct, to deter other attorneys from 

engaging in similar misconduct, and to protect the public, the 

courts, and the legal system from a repetition of the 

misconduct. See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 

Grogan, 2011 WI 7, ¶17, 331 Wis. 2d 341, 795 N.W.2d 745.

¶65 Under the unique circumstances of this case, we 

conclude that a nine-month suspension is appropriate. In 

imposing this suspension, we agree with the referee's view that 

the six-month suspension requested by the OLR in its amended 

complaint is insufficient. Although the OLR correctly noted in 

briefing to the referee that we imposed a six-month suspension 

in Scanlan and Baratki, both of these cases have distinguishing 

features. Unlike the present case, where no mitigating factors 

appear present, Scanlan featured a respondent-lawyer who was 

remorseful and ultimately cooperative with the disciplinary 

process, and who suffered significant mental health and personal 

problems at the time of his misconduct. Scanlan, 290 

Wis. 2d 30, ¶73. Additionally, the present case involves nearly 

three times as many misconduct counts as did Baratki (25 counts 

here versus nine in Baratki). On the instant facts, then, we 

agree with the referee that something more than a six-month 

suspension is required.
No. 2018AP497-D 

23

¶66 But given that Attorney Schiltz has no disciplinary 

history, the referee's recommended 18-month suspension seems 

high. We find In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Vance, 

2016 WI 89, 372 Wis. 2d 39, 886 N.W.2d 583 instructive. Like 

Attorney Schiltz, the respondent-lawyer in Vance had no 

disciplinary history. Also like Attorney Schiltz, the 

respondent-lawyer in Vance committed a considerable number of 

misconduct counts (21 counts, versus Attorney Schiltz's 25 

counts). Also like Attorney Schiltz, this misconduct included 

failing to inform multiple clients, opposing counsel, and courts 

of a license suspension; continuing to practice law after a 

license suspension; inattentiveness to client matters; and 

failing to cooperate with OLR investigations. We concluded that 

a nine-month suspension was "clearly deserved" in Vance, as the 

respondent-lawyer's actions showed "a total disregard of his 

clients' needs and objectives, as well as of his obligations as 

an attorney in this state." Id., ¶38. We hold that the same 

length of suspension is appropriate here, for the same core 

reasons. See also In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Marx, 

2016 WI 75, 371 Wis. 2d 591, 882 N.W.2d 863 (nine-month 

suspension for 22 counts of misconduct including practicing law 

while suspended, mismanaging trust account matters, failing to 

communicate with a client, and failing to cooperate with an OLR 

investigation; lawyer had no disciplinary history).

¶67 We move next to the referee's recommendation that we 

require Attorney Schiltz to complete 25 hours of CLE courses as 
No. 2018AP497-D 

24

deemed appropriate by the OLR, to include courses on ethics and 

trust account matters. We agree with this recommendation. 

¶68 As is our normal practice, we also find it appropriate 

to impose the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding, which 

are $4,705.70 as of August 27, 2018, on Attorney Schiltz. See

SCR 22.24(1m).

¶69 Finally, turning to the issue of restitution, the OLR 

alleged, and the referee agreed, that this court should order 

Attorney Schiltz to pay restitution in the amount of $3,305 to 

the LLP that had given Attorney Schiltz that sum to be held in 

trust. As explained above, Attorney Schiltz failed to return 

that sum to the LLP upon its request. Attorney Schiltz had 

multiple opportunities to object to this restitution amount 

before both the referee and this court. He has not done so. 

Thus, we determine that Attorney Schiltz should be ordered to 

pay restitution as the OLR requested and the referee 

recommended.

¶70 IT IS ORDERED that the license of David W. Schiltz to 

practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of nine 

months, effective the date of this order.

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

of this order, David W. Schiltz shall pay restitution to the 

above-referenced LLP in the amount of $3,305.

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

of this order, David W. Schiltz shall pay to the Office of 

Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 

$4,705.70 as of August 27, 2018.
No. 2018AP497-D 

25

¶73 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution is to be 

completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer 

Regulation.

¶74 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of his 

reinstatement, David W. Schiltz shall successfully complete 25 

hours of CLE courses as deemed appropriate by the Office of 

Lawyer Regulation, to include courses on ethics and trust 

account matters. 

¶75 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the February 13, 2017, 

temporary suspension of David W. Schiltz's license to practice 

law in Wisconsin, due to his willful failure to cooperate with 

the Office of Lawyer Regulation's investigation in this matter, 

is lifted.

¶76 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the administrative 

suspension of David W. Schiltz's license to practice law in 

Wisconsin for failing to comply with CLE reporting requirements, 

and for failing to pay annual bar dues and to provide a required 

trust account certification, will remain in effect until each 

reason for the administrative suspension has been rectified 

pursuant to SCR 22.28(1).

¶77 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that David W. Schiltz shall 

comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 

a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 

suspended.

¶78 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 

conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See

SCR 22.28(3).
No. 2018AP497-D 

1