2016 WI 69

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2014AP2150-D

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Othman M. Atta, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Othman M. Atta,

 Respondent.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ATTA

OPINION FILED: July 14, 2016

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT:

COUNTY:

JUDGE:

JUSTICES:

CONCURRED:

DISSENTED: BRADLEY, A. W., J. and ABRAHAMSON, J. dissent 

(Opinion filed.

NOT PARTICIPATING: 

ATTORNEYS:
2016 WI 69

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2014AP2150-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Othman M. Atta, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Othman M. Atta,

 Respondent.

FILED

JUL 14, 2016

Diane M. Fremgen

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney publicly 

reprimanded. 

¶1 PER CURIAM. We review the report and recommendation 

of Referee James J. Winiarski approving the stipulation and no 

contest plea filed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and 

Attorney Othman M. Atta. In the stipulation, Attorney Atta pled 

no contest to eight counts of misconduct as alleged in the 

complaint filed by the OLR. The parties jointly recommended 

that the sanction imposed be a public reprimand. The referee 
No. 2014AP2150-D 

2

agreed that a public reprimand was an appropriate sanction. The 

referee also recommended that Attorney Atta be ordered to pay 

the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding, which are 

$9,187.41 as of April 4, 2016. 

¶2 After careful review of the matter, we uphold the 

referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law and agree that 

a public reprimand is an appropriate sanction. We further agree 

that Attorney Atta should bear the full costs of this 

disciplinary proceeding. 

¶3 Attorney Atta was admitted to practice law in 

Wisconsin in 1994 and practices in Milwaukee. He has no prior 

disciplinary record. 

¶4 On September 15, 2014, the OLR filed a complaint 

against Attorney Atta. Attorney Atta filed an answer on October 

14, 2014. The referee was appointed on December 15, 2014. The 

parties' stipulation was filed on February 19, 2016. As part of 

the stipulation, Attorney Atta withdrew his answer to the 

complaint and pled no contest to the eight counts of misconduct 

alleged therein. 

¶5 This matter arose out of Attorney Atta's 

representation of BA-B. In April of 2010, Attorney Atta agreed 

to represent her in a divorce action and also agreed to assist 

her in immigration matters involving her husband, AAN. Both BAB and her husband were born in Jordan. In the spring of 2009, 

the couple had discussed the possibility of divorce and AAN had 

returned to Jordan, received a divorce decree there, and married 

another woman. In seeking Attorney Atta's assistance, BA-B 
No. 2014AP2150-D 

3

sought to protect herself, as well as her young daughter, from 

AAN's actions. 

¶6 Beginning in September 2010, Attorney Atta's 

professional relationship with BA-B became increasingly 

personal, and the two had sexual relations. A consensual sexual 

relationship had not existed between them prior to the time 

their attorney-client relationship began. Between April 2012 

and February 2013, Attorney Atta and BA-B had numerous telephone 

conversations, with a majority of the calls being lengthy and 

after midnight. In one telephone conversation, Attorney Atta

told BA-B he had strong feelings for her, discussed one day 

being married to her, and discussed intimate topics. Attorney 

Atta went to BA-B's house for dinners. Attorney Atta, BA-B, and 

her young daughter would also go out for lunch or dinner 

together at local restaurants. 

¶7 Attorney Atta's personal communications, interactions, 

and personal relationship with his client while he continued to 

represent her in her divorce action created a conflict of 

interest on Attorney Atta's part. In March 2013, near the end 

of the divorce proceeding, AAN accused Attorney Atta of having a 

romantic relationship with BA-B. On March 11, 2013, AAN's 

attorney emailed Attorney Atta expressing concern that his 

client was claiming Attorney Atta had some sort of relationship 

with AB-B. Attorney Atta responded to the email by denying that 

such a relationship existed and claimed that AAN and his new 

wife were spreading false rumors.
No. 2014AP2150-D 

4

¶8 On March 12, 2013, the circuit court held a final, 

stipulated hearing in the divorce case. Prior to the hearing, 

AAN's attorney met with Attorney Atta and the judge in chambers 

to discuss the concerns raised by AAN. The court asked the 

parties to state their concerns on the record. AAN's attorney 

expressed concern that there was a romantic relationship between 

Attorney Atta and BA-B. Attorney Atta responded by saying that 

the allegations were "entirely without merit" and he accused AAN 

and his new wife of "going around the community trying to 

badmouth me, badmouthing my client, alleging that we are 

sleeping together, alleging that my client is sleeping with 

other men, and so forth." At the hearing, the circuit court 

accepted the terms of the stipulation on all issues, granted the 

divorce, and ordered Attorney Atta to submit proposed findings 

of fact, conclusions of law, and a judgment to the court within 

30 days.

¶9 Attorney Atta and BA-B continued to speak after the 

divorce hearing, but by May 2013, their relationship had 

deteriorated. By the end of May 2013, Attorney Atta had not yet 

filed the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 

judgment with the court. On May 24, 2013, BA-B sent Attorney 

Atta an email expressing concern that the final divorce papers 

had not yet been prepared. On May 28, BA-B wrote to the court 

asking for assistance in having the paperwork completed. On May 

31, 2013, AAN's attorney emailed Attorney Atta asking him to 

advise of the status of the matter. Attorney Atta did not 

respond for over two weeks. 
No. 2014AP2150-D 

5

¶10 On June 16, 2013, Attorney Atta responded to AAN's 

attorney's email, saying he would drop off the proposed 

documents the next day. On June 18, 2013, Attorney Atta 

forwarded his proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 

judgment, apologizing for the delay. Attorney Atta emailed BA-B 

the proposed documents on July 1, explaining the changes made 

and advising her on outstanding issues, including past due child 

support and credit card debt. Without BA-B's consent, Attorney 

Atta copied his email, including the findings of fact, 

conclusions of law, and judgment, to his brother, Ihsan Atta. 

BA-B had met with and been in contact with Attorney Atta's 

brother. On July 1, 2013, after incorporating subsequent 

language changes proposed by both attorneys, Attorney Atta sent 

the final proposed documents to the court. The court signed the 

documents and submitted them for filing on July 16, 2013. 

¶11 On August 8, 2013, BA-B filed a telephonic grievance 

against Attorney Atta, alleging that he intentionally delayed 

filing the divorce documents after she terminated their 

relationship. BA-B was also upset that Attorney Atta had copied 

his brother with the divorce papers, and she asserted that 

Attorney Atta had taken advantage of her by engaging in a sexual 

relationship with her while she was in an emotional stage in her 

life.

¶12 On October 5, 2013, the OLR sent Atta a formal notice 

of investigation asking him to respond to BA-B's allegations. 

Attorney Atta responded on December 16, 2013, claiming the 

allegations were completely false. He denied he and BA-B had a 
No. 2014AP2150-D 

6

sexual relationship and stated that BA-B wanted to marry him and 

told him if he did not agree to the marriage she would file 

false accusations against him. As to the late night phone 

calls, Attorney Atta said he regularly conducted business 

outside of regular business hours and he knew BA-B stayed up 

late. Attorney Atta admitted that he met BA-B for coffee, 

lunch, and dinner, but said he would do that with any client. 

On April 1, 2014, the OLR requested supplemental information 

from Attorney Atta regarding the grievance. Attorney Atta 

failed to timely respond.

¶13 The referee's March 15, 2016 report and recommendation 

found that the OLR met its burden of proof with respect to the 

following counts of misconduct: 

[Count One:] By representing [BA-B] during her 

divorce matter while simultaneously engaging in a 

romantic relationship with her, [Attorney] Atta 

violated SCR 20:1.7(a)(2).

1

[Count Two:] By failing to withdraw from 

representation of [BA-B] in a divorce proceeding 

following engagement in a romantic relationship with 

his client, giving rise to a conflict of interest, 

[Attorney] Atta violated SCR 20:1.16(a).

2

 

1 SCR 20:l.7(a)(2) provides: "Except as provided in par. 

(b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation 

involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent

conflict of interest exists if: . . . (2) there is a significant 

risk that the representation of one or more clients will be

materially limited by . . . a personal interest of the lawyer."

2 SCR 20:1.16(a) provides: "Except as stated in par. (c), a 

lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has 

commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client 

if: (1) the representation will result in violation of the Rules 

of Professional Conduct or other law . . . ."
No. 2014AP2150-D 

7

[Count Three:] By having sexual relations with a 

client while representing her in a divorce action, 

when no sexual relationship existed prior to the 

representation, [Attorney] Atta violated SCR

20:1.8(j).

3

[Count Four:] By failing to inform the tribunal in a 

divorce proceeding of the fact of his relationship 

with [BA-B] and falsely denying such a relationship 

existed, [Attorney] Atta violated SCR 20:3.3(a)(1).

4

[Count Five:] By informing [AAN's attorney] that he 

did not have a romantic relationship with [BA-B], 

after [AAN's attorney] specifically asked [Attorney] 

Atta whether he had a romantic relationship (both in 

email correspondence and in a meeting with the 

presiding judge, Atta violated SCR 20:4.l(a)(1).

5

[Count Six:] By emailing the proposed Findings of 

Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment to [Attorney 

Atta's brother], along with other information 

pertaining to the representation of [BA-B], without 

[BA-B's] consent, [Attorney] Atta violated SCR 

20:1.6(a).

6

 

3 SCR 20:1.8(j) provides: "A lawyer shall not have sexual 

relations with a current client unless a consensual sexual 

relationship existed between them when the client-lawyer 

relationship commenced."

4 SCR 20:3.3(a)(l) provides: "A lawyer shall not knowingly 

(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail 

to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously 

made to the tribunal by the lawyer."

5 SCR 20:4.l(a)(l) provides: "In the course of representing 

a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false 

statement of material fact or law to a 3rd person . . . ."

6 SCR 20:l.6(a) provides: "A lawyer shall not reveal 

information relating to the representation of a client unless 

the client gives informed consent, except for disclosures that 

are impliedly authorized in order to carry out the 

representation, and except as stated in pars. (b) and (c)."
No. 2014AP2150-D 

8

[Count Seven:] By failing to provide truthful 

information to OLR in connection with an 

investigation, and specifically denying the existence 

of a romantic relationship with his client, [Attorney] 

Atta violated SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6), enforced 

via SCR 20:8.4(h).

7

[Count Eight:] By failing to timely respond to OLR's 

April l, 2014 request for supplemental information, 

Atta violated SCR 22.03(6), enforced via 20:8.4(h).

¶14 The referee noted that before the parties reached a 

stipulation, BA-B filed a civil suit against Attorney Atta in 

Milwaukee County Circuit Court alleging a sexually inappropriate 

relationship between her and Attorney Atta while he was 

representing her in her divorce action. The referee also noted 

that he did not have the opportunity to meet or hear from 

Attorney Atta during the course of this case, and the referee's 

report and recommendation were based entirely on the written 

file and the parties' stipulation and Attorney Atta's no contest 

plea. 

¶15 The referee found it significant that Attorney Atta 

denied having any sexual or inappropriate contact with BA-B 

until the no contest plea and stipulation were entered. The 

referee noted that Attorney Atta denied the allegations during 

the course of the OLR's investigation of the grievance; in open 

 

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

a lawyer to . . . (h) 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), 

22.03(6) or SCR 22.04(1) . . . ."
No. 2014AP2150-D 

9

court during his representation of the grievant in the divorce 

case; in his answer to the OLR's complaint; and to opposing 

counsel during the course of the divorce action. 

¶16 The referee went on to say that Attorney Atta's 

admitted misconduct was not limited to an inappropriate sexual 

relationship with a client. The referee said Attorney Atta also 

admitted that the relationship with his client gave rise to a 

conflict of interest, and he admitted failing to inform the 

tribunal in the divorce proceeding about his relationship with 

BA-B. Further, Attorney Atta admitted he was not truthful when 

asked by opposing counsel in the divorce case as to whether he 

was involved in an inappropriate relationship with BA-B. 

Attorney Atta also mailed copies of the proposed divorce 

documents to his brother without the permission of the grievant, 

and he failed to cooperate and be truthful with the OLR during 

the course of its investigation. The referee said although the 

relationship with BA-B was apparently mutual for an extended 

period of time, Attorney Atta should have recognized that he 

could not provide objective legal services and advice to BA-B 

when their relationship had become so personal in nature. 

¶17 The referee went on to note that Attorney Atta did 

ultimately agree to the no contest plea and the factual basis 

for it. The referee further noted that Attorney Atta has no 

prior disciplinary history in his over 20 years of practicing 

law. The referee said public reprimands have been imposed for 

inappropriate sexual relationships with clients, and some 

attorneys have even received private reprimands for having 
No. 2014AP2150-D 

10

sexual relationships with their clients. After review of prior 

cases and factoring in both aggravating and mitigating factors, 

the referee recommended that Attorney Atta be publicly 

reprimanded and that he pay the full costs of the proceeding. 

¶18 This court will adopt a referee's findings of fact 

unless they are clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are 

reviewed de novo. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 

Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747. 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, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 

N.W.2d 686.

¶19 We adopt the referee's findings of fact and 

conclusions of law that Attorney Atta violated the supreme court 

rules as alleged in the eight counts set forth above. We also 

agree with the referee that a public reprimand is an appropriate 

sanction for Attorney Atta's misconduct. We note that the 

misconduct at issue in this case is similar to that in In re 

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ruppelt, 2014 WI 53, 354 

Wis. 2d 738, 850 N.W.2d 1. Like Attorney Atta, Attorney Ruppelt 

began a sexual relationship with a client during the course of 

representing her. Like Attorney Atta, Attorney Ruppelt falsely 

denied that he was involved in a romantic relationship with his 

client, both when confronted by his partners and in his initial 

responses to the OLR's investigation. As in this case, Attorney 

Ruppelt ultimately entered into a stipulation and no contest 

plea whereby he admitted the misconduct. As in Ruppelt, we 
No. 2014AP2150-D 

11

conclude that a public reprimand is an appropriate sanction. We 

further agree with the referee that Attorney Atta should bear 

the full costs of this proceeding. 

¶20 IT IS ORDERED that Othman M. Atta is publicly 

reprimanded for professional misconduct.

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

of this order, Othman M. Atta shall pay the Office of Lawyer 

Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $9,187.41.

¶22 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. 
No. 2014AP2150-D.awb

1

¶23 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J. (dissenting). Attorney Othman 

M. Atta entered into a stipulation which provides he is not 

contesting the eight counts of misconduct. The misconduct 

centers on Attorney Atta's consensual sexual involvement with a 

client that arose during the course of the representation in 

divorce and immigration matters. The underpinnings of this 

prohibition are rooted in concerns about conflicts of interest 

and breach of fiduciary rules. Such concerns address the 

essence of the professional relationship.

¶24 Truth telling also lies at the heart of the 

profession——especially truth telling to a tribunal. Attorney 

Atta's misconduct included making false statements to a tribunal 

by advising the circuit court that the allegations of a romantic 

relationship with his client were "entirely without merit" in 

violation of SCR 20:3.3(a)(1). Additionally his misconduct 

includes making false statements to the Office of Lawyer 

Regulation in violation of SCR 22.03(6), and to opposing counsel 

in violation of SCR 20:4.1(a)(1). 

¶25 I have written in the past, and I do again today, 

because the court appears to be too lenient for violations of 

this nature that undermine the trust relationship and 

truthfulness required of an attorney. See In re Disciplinary 

Proceedings Against Ruppelt, 2014 WI 53, ¶32, 354 Wis. 2d 738, 

850 N.W.2d 1 (Ann Walsh Bradley, J., dissenting).

¶26 Because I conclude that the violations warrant more 

than a public reprimand, I respectfully dissent. 
No. 2014AP2150-D.awb

2

¶27 I am authorized to state that Justice SHIRLEY S. 

ABRAHAMSON joins this dissent.
No. 2014AP2150-D.awb

1