2023 WI 56

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2022AP12-D

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Brian T. Stevens, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Brian T. Stevens,

 Respondent.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST STEVENS

OPINION FILED: June 27, 2023 

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT: 

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT: 

COUNTY: 

JUDGE: 

JUSTICES:

Per curiam.

NOT PARTICIPATING:

 

ATTORNEYS:
2023 WI 56

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2022AP12-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Brian T. Stevens, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Brian T. Stevens,

 Respondent.

FILED

JUN 27, 2023

Samuel A. Christensen

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license 

suspended. 

¶1 PER CURIAM. We review referee Sue E. Bischel's 

recommendation that this court suspend Attorney Brian T. 

Stevens' license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of 60 

days and impose conditions on his practice of law thereafter. 

The referee also recommended that Attorney Stevens be required 

to pay restitution to a third party and pay the full costs of 

this proceeding.
No. 2022AP12-D 

2

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

referee's report pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1 In conducting our 

review, we will affirm the referee's findings of fact unless 

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

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

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

Wis.2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125. The court may impose whatever 

sanction it sees fit regardless 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.

¶3 After our independent review of the record, we approve 

the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law and adopt 

them. We agree that Attorney Stevens' misconduct merits a 60-

day suspension. We also agree that certain conditions should be 

placed on Attorney Stevens' license to practice law following 

his suspension, though we define them more narrowly than did the 

referee. We further agree with the referee's recommendation 

that Attorney Stevens be ordered to pay restitution and the full 

costs of this proceeding.

¶4 Attorney Stevens was admitted to practice law in 

Wisconsin in 1995. His disciplinary history consists of a 

 

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. 2022AP12-D 

3

private reprimand in March 2020 for his lack of diligence and 

lack of communication with a client, and for failing to timely 

respond to the subsequent investigation by the Office of Lawyer 

Regulation (OLR). Private Reprimand No. 2020-3.2

¶5 On January 4, 2022, the OLR filed a complaint against 

Attorney Stevens that alleged six counts of professional 

misconduct. The OLR's complaint sought a 60-day suspension of 

Attorney Stevens' license to practice law. Attorney Stevens 

filed an answer stating that he pled no contest to all the 

charges, but disputing that a 60-day suspension would be an 

appropriate sanction. Attorney Stevens requested an evidentiary 

hearing on sanctions. 

¶6 Referee Bischel held an evidentiary hearing on October 

22, 2022. On February 21, 2023, the referee filed a report 

containing her findings of fact and conclusions of law, as well 

as her recommendation for discipline. The referee's report and 

the exhibits received at the evidentiary hearing may be 

summarized as follows.

¶7 Attorney Stevens has operated a solo law practice in 

Green Bay since 2010. Before opening his practice, Attorney 

Stevens had no experience in running a business, maintaining a 

trust account, marketing, tracking hours, or invoicing. He is a 

 

2 Electronic copy available at 

https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/33747756407a454038230868267c

21116412201d.continue?action=detail&detailOffset=4. 
No. 2022AP12-D 

4

self-admitted procrastinator who tends to put off necessary 

tasks, including the proper maintenance of his trust account. 

¶8 This tendency caused problems during Attorney Stevens' 

representation of R.K. In 2013, R.K. retained Attorney Stevens 

to represent him regarding injuries he sustained in an accident. 

While that claim was pending, R.K. asked an acquaintance, W.B., 

to lend him money, promising he would repay her when he received 

a settlement in his personal injury matter. W.B. loaned R.K. 

$4,000 and R.K. agreed to repay her $4,500 if he received 

sufficient funds from his settlement. 

¶9 Attorney Stevens drafted a promissory note 

memorializing the agreement between W.B. and R.K. It included 

the following language: "If settlement funds sufficient to may 

[sic] repayment are received, such payment shall be through 

trust fund disbursement by Attorney Brian Stevens." W.B. and 

R.K. signed the note in July 2014. 

¶10 Attorney Stevens also loaned R.K. $700 for living 

expenses while the personal injury case was pending. The money 

was to be paid out of R.K.'s personal injury settlement funds.

¶11 Attorney Stevens settled R.K.'s personal injury claim 

with an insurance company for the amount of $85,000. On August 

4, 2015, R.K. signed a release agreeing to that settlement. The 

insurance company sent Attorney Stevens a check for the amount 

of settlement funds remaining after the payment of subrogated 

medical expense claims: $40,687.

¶12 Attorney Stevens deposited that check in his trust 

account on September 15, 2016. At that time, Attorney Stevens 
No. 2022AP12-D 

5

had $450 in his trust account. Attorney Stevens did not inform 

W.B. of his receipt of the settlement funds in which she had an 

interest pursuant to the promissory note that he had drafted. 

¶13 On November 6, 2016, Attorney Stevens prepared a 

settlement statement and discussed it with R.K., who agreed with 

the amounts. On November 10, 2016, Attorney Stevens disbursed 

$28,550 to himself: $28,000 for his fee and $550 for the 

financial assistance he gave R.K. during his representation. 

The sum of $12,587 remained in the trust account; $450 belonged 

to Attorney Stevens and the remaining balance was from the R.K. 

settlement.

¶14 On December 23, 2016, Attorney Stevens made a $200 

cash withdrawal from his trust account and deposited it in 

R.K.'s prison account. The sum of $12,387 remained in the trust 

account; $450 belonged to Attorney Stevens and the remaining 

balance was from the R.K. settlement.

¶15 On May 4, 2017, Attorney Stevens issued a trust 

account check to R.K. in the amount of $7,087. The sum of 

$5,300 remained in the trust account; $450 belonged to Attorney 

Stevens and the remaining balance was from the R.K. settlement.

¶16 On April 6, 2018 and May 16, 2018, Attorney Stevens 

made additional disbursements from his trust account totaling 

$4,500. Specifically, Attorney Stevens withdrew $3,800 to pay 

his own bills or expenses, and he paid $700 to another client as 

a refund of her retainer, even though he was not holding any 

funds in trust for that client. Because only $450 of Attorney 
No. 2022AP12-D 

6

Stevens' trust account balance belonged to him, these two 

disbursements came mostly from R.K.'s funds.

¶17 On June 25, 2018, Attorney Stevens deposited $4,500 of 

his own money in the trust account. On March 21, 2019, Attorney 

Stevens made another deposit of his own funds ($2,464.35) into 

his trust account.

¶18 On July 12, 2019, Attorney Stevens disbursed $565 from 

his trust account to a client for whom he was not holding any 

funds in trust. On November 5, 2019, Attorney Stevens disbursed 

$1,645 to a different client for whom he was also not holding 

any funds in trust. Attorney Stevens used his own funds for both 

disbursements from his trust account. 

¶19 On January 23, 2020, R.K. filed a grievance with the 

OLR against Attorney Stevens regarding his handling of the 

personal injury settlement funds. 

¶20 On March 15, 2020, Attorney Stevens disbursed $4,500 

to R.K. via a trust account check. At the evidentiary hearing, 

Attorney Stevens explained that he knew he was holding $4,500 

for W.B. pursuant to the promissory note he had drafted, but

after making minimal and unsuccessful efforts to find contact 

information for W.B., Attorney Stevens decided to send R.K. the 

money in the hope that doing so would "fix things." Ultimately, 

Attorney Stevens never disbursed any funds to W.B. as required 

under the promissory note, and W.B. has never received any of 

the funds due under the note.

¶21 During its investigation, the OLR asked Attorney 

Stevens to produce the internal records he maintained for his 
No. 2022AP12-D 

7

trust account (e.g. a transaction register or individual client 

ledger). Attorney Stevens did not do so but instead requested 

copies of transaction records and cancelled checks from his bank 

in order to reconstruct how he handled his trust account funds.

¶22 During proceedings before the referee, Attorney 

Stevens did not contest, and the referee determined, that 

Attorney Stevens' behavior amounted to numerous forms of 

professional misconduct; specifically: 

 Count 1: Attorney Stevens violated SCR 20:1.8(e)3 by 

providing R.K. financial assistance during the course 

of his representation.

 Count 2: Attorney Stevens violated SCR 20:1.15(e)(1)4

by failing to notify W.B. in writing of his receipt of 

the R.K. settlement funds and failing to promptly 

deliver to W.B. the $4,500 to which she was entitled.

 

3 SCR 20:1.8(e) provides: "A lawyer shall not provide 

financial assistance to a client in connection with pending or 

contemplated litigation, except that: (1) a lawyer may advance 

court costs and expenses of litigation, the repayment of which 

may be contingent on the outcome of the matter; and (2) a lawyer 

representing an indigent client may pay court costs and expenses 

of litigation on behalf of the client."

4 SCR 20:1.15 (e)(1) provides: "Upon receiving funds or 

other property in which a client has an interest, or in which a 

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 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."
No. 2022AP12-D 

8

 Count 3: Attorney Stevens violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(1)5

by failing to hold W.B.'s and/or R.K.'s funds in 

trust.

 Count 4: Attorney Stevens violated SCR 20:8.4(c)6 by 

converting W.B.'s and/or R.K.'s funds to his own use 

or for the benefit of third parties.

 Count 5: Attorney Stevens violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(3)7

by commingling his own funds in his client trust 

account.

 Count 6: Attorney Stevens violated SCR 20:1.15(g)(1)8

by failing to maintain and preserve complete records 

of trust account funds.

 

5 SCR 20:1.15 (b)(1) provides: "A lawyer shall hold in 

trust, separate from the lawyer's own property, that property of 

clients and 3rd parties that is in the lawyer's possession in 

connection with a representation. All funds of clients and 3rd 

parties paid to a lawyer or law firm in connection with a 

representation shall be deposited in one or more identifiable 

trust accounts."

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

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

deceit or misrepresentation."

7 SCR 20:1.15(b)(3) provides: "No funds belonging to a 

lawyer or law firm, except funds reasonably sufficient to pay 

monthly account service charges, may be deposited or retained in 

a trust account. Each lawyer or law firm that receives trust 

funds shall maintain at least one draft account, other than the 

trust account, for funds received and disbursed other than in a 

trust capacity, which shall be entitled 'Business Account,' 

'Office Account,' 'Operating Account,' or words of similar 

import." 
No. 2022AP12-D 

9

¶23 In her report, the referee recommended that the court 

suspend Attorney Stevens' license for 60 days (the suspension 

length requested by the OLR), as opposed to the sanction that 

Attorney Stevens claimed was appropriate in post-hearing 

briefing (a public reprimand). In making this recommendation, 

the referee considered a number of aggravating factors, 

including Attorney Stevens' "persistent procrastination and 

failure to perform even the most basic administrative duties for 

many, many years," resulting in administrative "chaos" and 

"massive disorganization" in his office; his tendency to try to 

justify or blame others for decisions he makes that violate his 

professional duties; his seeming inability to understand the 

harm caused by his failure to attend to his professional duties;

and his apparent belief that procrastination and poor 

administrative management are inevitable facets of his practice. 

¶24 The referee considered several cases cited by the OLR 

in support of its request for a 60-day suspension. The referee 

found one case to be particularly instructive. In In re

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Zenor, 2021 WI 77, 399 Wis. 2d 

326, 964 N.W.2d 775, the court imposed a 60-day suspension on an 

 

8 SCR 20:1.15 (g)(1) provides: "A lawyer shall maintain and 

preserve complete records of trust account funds, all deposits 

and disbursements, and other trust property and shall preserve 

those records for at least six years after the date of 

termination of the representation. Electronic records shall be 

backed up by an appropriate storage device. The office of 

lawyer regulation shall publish guidelines for trust account 

record keeping."
No. 2022AP12-D 

10

attorney with no previous discipline who failed to timely pay 

settlement funds to two entities owed money by her client for 

services related to the dispute; the attorney allowed more than 

five years to elapse before paying the entities' claims. The 

attorney also converted funds in her trust account for her own 

use and failed to respond to the client's requests for 

information. Given the 60-day suspension imposed in Zenor, and 

given the need to "sufficiently motivate [Attorney] Stevens to 

make the difficult changes he needs to make to prevent further 

violations," the referee agreed with the OLR's recommendation 

that a 60-day suspension was appropriate.

¶25 The referee also recommended that this court impose a 

variety of conditions on Attorney Stevens' practice of law; 

namely, that he be required to "participate in individual 

counseling, fully cooperate with a mentor, participate in any 

and all available education pertaining to Supreme Court Rules, 

and provide complete and accurate trust account records to OLR 

on a quarterly basis." The referee explained that Attorney 

Stevens' "procrastination and anxiety over his inability to 

manage his business are at the root of his past behavior and 

will continue to impact his professional responsibilities if 

left unattended." "[A]bsent a great deal of intervention," the 

referee wrote, "there is a high likelihood [Attorney] Stevens 

will continue to violate the [rules of professional conduct]." 

¶26 Finally, the referee recommended that the court impose 

the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding on Attorney 

Stevens, and order him to pay $4,500 in restitution to W.B., as 
No. 2022AP12-D 

11

that amount "is more than 6 years overdue and should be paid 

promptly."

¶27 Attorney Stevens 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).

¶28 There is no showing that any of the referee's findings 

of fact——derived from the OLR's complaint, Attorney Stevens' 

answer, and the evidentiary hearing——are clearly erroneous, so 

we adopt them. We also agree with the referee's legal 

conclusions that Attorney Stevens violated the Supreme Court 

Rules noted above.

¶29 The only issue in dispute before the referee concerned 

the appropriate sanction for Attorney Stevens' misconduct. We 

agree with the referee that a 60-day suspension is in order. 

Attorney Stevens has already received a private reprimand for

lack of diligence and lack of communication with a client. A 

60-day suspension for similar unprofessional conduct is a 

reasonable next step in the progressive discipline process, and 

one that is readily supported by precedent. See Zenor, 399 Wis. 

2d 326 (discussed above); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 

Sarbacker, 2017 WI 86, 377 Wis. 2d 484, 901 N.W.2d 373 (attorney 

with two previous private reprimands suspended for 60 days based 

on six counts of misconduct, including failing to hold 

garnishment funds belonging to clients in a trust account and 

misappropriating approximately $2,000 of those funds); In re 

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bartz, 2015 WI 61, 362 Wis. 2d

752, 864 N.W.2d 881 (attorney with previous private reprimand 
No. 2022AP12-D 

12

suspended for 60 days based on five counts of misconduct, 

including failing to disburse settlement funds and failing to 

cooperate with an OLR investigation). 

¶30 Like the referee, we believe that Attorney Stevens 

needs training to help ensure that he will comply with his 

professional duties when he resumes his law practice. See SCR 

21.16(1m)(d) (professional discipline may include the imposition 

of conditions on the attorney's continued practice of law). 

Worryingly, the referee found that Attorney Stevens "does not 

correlate his failure to handle the 'business' aspects of his 

practice with the requirement he understand and follow the Rules 

of Professional Responsibility." To aid Attorney Stevens' 

understanding that he is ethically obligated to manage entrusted 

funds properly, we require that, before resuming practice, 

Attorney Stevens must attend a minimum of seven hours of 

continuing legal education in trust account management and law 

practice management, to be approved and monitored by the OLR for 

compliance. 

¶31 Given the referee's stated concerns about Attorney 

Stevens' persistent pattern of procrastination, we are also 

convinced that more is needed than a few hours of instruction to 

ensure that he manages entrusted funds correctly. Like the 

referee, we believe that Attorney Stevens would benefit from a 

level of supervision that has been absent in his solo practice. 

We therefore require that, before resuming practice, Attorney 

Stevens must identify an attorney approved by the OLR who will 

monitor his practice of law for a period of two years after he 
No. 2022AP12-D 

13

resumes practice, unless he is either employed by a law firm or 

practicing with another attorney aware of his disciplinary 

history. Attorney Stevens must pay any reasonable costs 

associated with such monitoring. We also require Attorney 

Stevens to furnish quarterly reports to the OLR of activities in 

his trust account for a period of two years after resuming 

practice, including furnishing any and all trust, fiduciary,

and/or business account records requested by the OLR.9

¶32 Finally, we turn to the subject of costs and 

restitution. It is this court's general practice to assess the 

full costs of a disciplinary proceeding against the attorney 

being disciplined. SCR 22.24(1m). Attorney Stevens has filed no 

objection to the costs requested by the OLR, which total 

$8,366.07 as of March 13, 2023. We therefore impose them. 

Attorney Stevens likewise has made no objection to the referee's 

recommendation that he pay $4,500 to W.B. consistent with the 

terms of the promissory note he drafted. We therefore order 

this restitution payment.

¶33 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Brian T. Stevens to 

practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 

effective August 8, 2023. 

¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, before resuming practice, 

Brian T. Stevens shall attend a minimum of seven hours of 

 

9 Regarding the referee's recommendation that this court 

order Attorney Stevens to participate in individual counseling, 

we decline to do so, with the belief that the conditions imposed 

herein will be sufficient to help Attorney Stevens fulfill his 

professional duties.
No. 2022AP12-D 

14

continuing legal education concerning the subjects of trust 

account management and law practice management, to be approved 

by the Office of Lawyer Regulation. 

¶35 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, before resuming practice, 

Brian T. Stevens must identify an attorney approved by the OLR 

who will monitor his practice of law for a period of two years 

after he resumes practice, unless he is either employed by a law 

firm or practicing with another attorney aware of his 

disciplinary history. Attorney Stevens shall be responsible for 

any reasonable costs associated with such monitoring.

¶36 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Brian T. Stevens shall 

furnish quarterly reports to the Office of Lawyer Regulation of 

activities in his trust account for a period of two years after 

resuming practice, including furnishing any and all trust, 

fiduciary, and/or business account records requested by the 

Office of Lawyer Regulation.

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

of this order, Brian T. Stevens shall pay restitution of $4,500

to W.B.

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

of this order, Brian T. Stevens shall pay to the Office of 

Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 

$8,366.07 as of March 13, 2023. 

¶39 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that payment of restitution is 

to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer 

Regulation. 
No. 2022AP12-D 

15

¶40 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Brian T. Stevens shall 

comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 

an attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended. 

¶41 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 

conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See SCR 

22.28(2).
No. 2022AP12-D 

1