Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Charles J. Chvala
Citation: 2008 WI 117
Docket Number: 2006AP001423-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: September 18, 2008

2008 WI 117 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2006AP1423-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Charles J. Chvala, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Charles J. Chvala, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
REINSTATEMENT OF CHVALA 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
September 18, 2008   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: PROSSER and GABLEMAN, JJ., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2008 WI 117
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2006AP1423-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Charles J. Chvala, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Charles J. Chvala, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
SEP 18, 2008 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.   Reinstatement granted. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee, Kim Peterson, that the petition of Charles J. Chvala 
for the reinstatement of his license to practice law in this 
state be granted.  Because no party has responded to or appealed 
from that report and recommendation, our review proceeds under 
SCR 22.33(3).1   
                                                 
1 SCR 22.33(3) provides that "[i]f no appeal is timely 
filed, the supreme court shall review the referee's report, 
order 
reinstatement, 
with 
or 
without 
conditions, 
deny 
reinstatement, or order the parties to file briefs in the 
matter." 
No. 
2006AP1423-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
After independently reviewing the matter, we determine 
that Attorney Chvala has met his burden to obtain reinstatement 
of his license to practice law in Wisconsin.  We also conclude 
that Attorney Chvala should be required to pay the outstanding 
costs of this reinstatement proceeding, which were $2,091.29 as 
of July 10, 2008. 
¶3 
The standards that apply to all petitions seeking 
reinstatement after a disciplinary suspension/revocation are set 
forth in SCR 22.31(1).2  In particular, the petitioning attorney 
must demonstrate by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence 
that he or she has the moral character necessary to practice law 
in this state, that his or her resumption of the practice of law 
will not be detrimental to the administration of justice or 
subversive of the public interest, and that the attorney has 
                                                 
2 SCR 22.31(1) states: 
The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating, 
by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence, all 
of the following: 
(a) That he or she has the moral character to 
practice law in Wisconsin. 
(b) That his or her resumption of the practice of 
law will not be detrimental to the administration of 
justice or subversive of the public interest. 
(c) That his or her representations in the 
petition, including the representations required by 
SCR 
22.29(4)(a) 
to 
[(4m)] 
and 
22.29(5), 
are 
substantiated. 
(d) That he or she has complied fully with the 
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and 
with the requirements of SCR 22.26. 
No. 
2006AP1423-D   
 
3 
 
complied fully with the terms of the suspension order and SCR 
22.26.  In addition, SCR 22.31(1)(c) incorporates the statements 
that a petition for reinstatement must contain pursuant to SCR 
22.29(4)(a)-(4m).3 
 
Thus, 
the 
petitioning 
attorney 
must 
                                                 
3 SCR 22.29(4)(a) through (4m) provides that a petition for 
reinstatement shall show all of the following: 
(a) 
The 
petitioner 
desires 
to 
have 
the 
petitioner's license reinstated. 
(b) The petitioner has not practiced law during 
the period of suspension or revocation. 
(c) The petitioner has complied fully with the 
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and 
will 
continue 
to 
comply 
with 
them 
until 
the 
petitioner's license is reinstated. 
(d) The petitioner has maintained competence and 
learning in the law by attendance at identified 
educational activities. 
(e) The petitioner's conduct since the suspension 
or revocation has been exemplary and above reproach. 
(f) The petitioner has a proper understanding of 
and attitude toward the standards that are imposed 
upon members of the bar and will act in conformity 
with the standards. 
(g) The petitioner can safely be recommended to 
the legal profession, the courts and the public as a 
person fit to be consulted by others and to represent 
them and otherwise act in matters of trust and 
confidence and in general to aid in the administration 
of justice as a member of the bar and as an officer of 
the courts. 
(h) The petitioner has fully complied with the 
requirements set forth in SCR 22.26. 
(j) The petitioner's proposed use of the license 
if reinstated. 
No. 
2006AP1423-D   
 
4 
 
demonstrate 
that 
the 
required 
representations 
in 
the 
reinstatement petition are substantiated. 
¶4 
Attorney Chvala was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in January 1979.  In addition to practicing law, for a 
number of years he served as a state senator, becoming minority 
leader and then majority leader in the senate. 
¶5 
On May 2, 2007, based on a stipulation between 
Attorney Chvala and the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), this 
court suspended Attorney Chvala's license to practice law for a 
period of two years, retroactive to April 10, 2006, which was 
the date on which Attorney Chvala's license had been summarily 
suspended.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Chvala, 2007 
WI 47, ¶15, 300 Wis. 2d 206, 730 N.W.2d 648.  Attorney Chvala's 
suspension resulted from his criminal convictions, based on his 
guilty 
pleas 
under 
a 
plea 
agreement, 
for 
two 
felonies:  
misconduct in public office and being party to the crime of 
making campaign contributions in excess of lawful limits.  In 
addition, six other felony counts were dismissed and read in for 
sentencing purposes while the remaining counts were simply 
                                                                                                                                                             
(k) A full description of all of the petitioner's 
business activities during the period of suspension or 
revocation. 
(4m) The petitioner has made restitution to or 
settled all claims of persons injured or harmed by 
petitioner's misconduct, including reimbursement to 
the Wisconsin lawyers' fund for client protection for 
all payments made from that fund, or, if not, the 
petitioner's explanation of the failure or inability 
to do so. 
No. 
2006AP1423-D   
 
5 
 
dismissed on the prosecutor's motion.  See State v. Straszkowki, 
2008 WI 65, ___ Wis. 2d ___, 750 N.W.2d 835 (discussing effect 
of "read-in charges").  The circuit court withheld sentence and 
placed Attorney Chvala on probation for a period of two years, 
with the condition that he spend nine months in the county jail 
with work-release privileges.   
¶6 
On January 10, 2008, Attorney Chvala filed a petition 
seeking the reinstatement of his license to practice law.  As 
required by SCR 22.29, the petition stated, among other things, 
that 
Attorney 
Chvala 
had 
not 
practiced 
law 
during 
his 
suspension, that he had otherwise complied with the terms of the 
suspension order, that he had maintained competence in the law 
by attending 32 hours of continuing legal education (including 
four hours regarding legal ethics) in 2007, that he had been 
successfully released from probation on December 15, 2007, and 
that he had paid all fines and costs imposed on him in the prior 
criminal proceeding.  The petition averred that during the 
period of suspension, Attorney Chvala had worked on developing 
commercial real estate projects, had managed other business 
projects, had acted as a commercial real estate broker until 
August 1, 2007, and had performed marketing consulting services.  
The petition further stated that Attorney Chvala intended, if 
reinstated, to engage in the general practice of law as he had 
done prior to the suspension of his license. 
¶7 
The Board of Bar Examiners (BBE) and the OLR both 
submitted 
memoranda 
prior 
to 
the 
reinstatement 
hearing 
supporting reinstatement on the basis of the facts known to 
No. 
2006AP1423-D   
 
6 
 
them.  The OLR's pre-hearing memorandum, which was quite 
lengthy, described the results of its investigation concerning 
the petition for reinstatement.  The OLR noted that it had 
obtained from Attorney Chvala the names of five references, each 
of whom was an attorney, and that each of the references had 
given a favorable recommendation in support of Attorney Chvala's 
reinstatement.  One reference stated that he had observed 
Attorney Chvala strictly complying with the terms of his 
suspension, including telling individuals that he could no 
longer practice law and suggesting that they consult a licensed 
attorney.  Another reference also indicated that Attorney Chvala 
had sent individuals to consult with him since Attorney Chvala 
could not represent them.  The OLR concluded that based on the 
information it had obtained during its investigation, Attorney 
Chvala had satisfied the requirements for reinstatement. 
¶8 
Attorney Kim Peterson was appointed referee in this 
matter.  Referee Peterson held a reinstatement hearing on May 
23, 2008.   
¶9 
The referee subsequently issued a report recommending 
that Attorney Chvala's license to practice law in this state be 
reinstated.  The referee found that Attorney Chvala had proven 
each 
of 
the 
requirements 
for 
reinstatement 
by 
clear, 
satisfactory, and convincing evidence.  For example, the referee 
determined that Attorney Chvala had complied with the terms of 
his suspension and the provisions of SCR 22.26, which impose 
certain obligations upon an attorney in connection with a 
suspension or revocation.  She also concluded that he had 
No. 
2006AP1423-D   
 
7 
 
satisfied 
the 
requirements 
of 
SCR 
22.29(4)(a)-(4m). 
 
In 
particular, the referee concluded that Attorney Chvala had 
demonstrated that he has the moral character to practice law in 
this state and that his resumption of the practice of law will 
not 
be 
detrimental 
to 
the 
administration 
of 
justice 
or 
subversive of the public interest.  See SCR 22.31(1). 
¶10 The 
referee commented that, like many attorneys 
seeking reinstatement, Attorney Chvala had been able to present 
multiple recommendations from respected attorneys and public 
figures. 
 
These 
individuals 
described 
numerous 
desirable 
character traits that support the conclusion that Attorney 
Chvala would be a good attorney and would work for the public 
good.  What the referee found important was that, despite 
Attorney Chvala's high profile as a former legislator and the 
public attention that surrounded his criminal case, no one 
either appeared at the reinstatement hearing or submitted a 
letter to oppose his reinstatement.  Indeed, during the OLR's 
own investigation concerning the reinstatement petition, no one 
argued against the reinstatement of Attorney Chvala's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin.   
¶11 The referee further stated that Attorney Chvala had 
expressed remorse for his past conduct.  He had indicated that 
he had considered his past behavior, examined his shortcomings, 
and had made efforts to minimize those traits that had led to 
his professional misconduct.  The referee stated that she was 
confident that Attorney Chvala had learned from the events of 
the past few years so that he will proceed in the practice of 
No. 
2006AP1423-D   
 
8 
 
law with an appropriate respect for and understanding of the 
ethical standards that all Wisconsin attorneys must meet. 
¶12 Having 
independently 
considered 
the 
matter, 
we 
determine that the referee's findings of fact are not clearly 
erroneous.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll, 
2004 WI 19, ¶9, 269 Wis. 2d 172, 675 N.W.2d 792 (referee's 
factual findings affirmed unless clearly erroneous).  We also 
agree with the referee that based upon those factual findings, 
Attorney Chvala has satisfied the legal requirements for the 
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin.  Id. 
(referee's conclusions of law reviewed on a de novo basis).  We 
note that Attorney Chvala had practiced law for more than 20 
years 
without 
ever 
having 
been 
subject 
to 
professional 
discipline prior to his current suspension.  In addition, 
although Attorney Chvala's professional misconduct arose in the 
course of his work as a state senator and was a serious breach 
of the public trust, it did not directly relate to his work as a 
practicing lawyer representing clients.  Based on the referee's 
findings of fact, we have no reason to believe that Attorney 
Chvala 
will 
not 
comport 
himself 
in 
accordance 
with 
his 
professional obligations as an attorney, and we therefore grant 
Attorney Chvala's petition for reinstatement.  We further 
determine that Attorney Chvala should be required to pay the 
full costs of this reinstatement proceeding. 
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that Charles J. Chvala's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin is reinstated effective the date of 
this order. 
No. 
2006AP1423-D   
 
9 
 
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Charles J. Chvala shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If the costs 
are not paid within the time specified, and absent a showing to 
this court of his inability to pay the costs within that time, 
the license of Charles J. Chvala to practice law in Wisconsin 
shall be suspended until further order of the court. 
¶15 DAVID T. PROSSER, J., and MICHAEL J. GABLEMAN, J., did 
not participate. 
 
 
No. 
2006AP1423-D   
 
 
 
1