Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Benjamin A. Hanes
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2019AP001170-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: December 9, 2020

2020 WI 89 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2019AP001170-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Benjamin A. Hanes, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
v. 
 
Benjamin A. Hanes, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HANES 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 9, 2020   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam. 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2020 WI 89
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2019AP1170-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Benjamin A. Hanes, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
v. 
 
Benjamin A. Hanes, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
DEC 9, 2020 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   We 
review 
the 
report 
and 
the 
supplemental report of Referee Robert E. Kinney, recommending 
that Attorney Benjamin A. Hanes be suspended for a period of two 
years for professional misconduct, and that he should pay the 
full costs of this proceeding, which are $7,704.67 as of March 
17, 2020.  The referee further recommended that we require 
Attorney Hanes to fulfill certain conditions before he can seek 
reinstatement.  
No. 
2019AP1170-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
We 
accept 
in 
part 
the 
referee's 
report, 
as 
supplemented, and we agree with the referee that the seriousness 
of Attorney Hanes' misconduct merits a severe sanction.  We 
suspend Attorney Hanes' license to practice law for a period of 
four years.  We impose modified conditions on Attorney Hanes' 
future reinstatement and we impose the full costs of this 
proceeding on Attorney Hanes.  The Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) did not seek restitution and no restitution is ordered. 
¶3 
Attorney Hanes was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in 2011.  He worked as an assistant district attorney 
or contract assistant district attorney in Waushara, Winnebago, 
and Calumet counties.  Attorney Hanes has not previously been 
the subject of professional discipline.  On October 31, 2017 his 
license to practice law in Wisconsin was administratively 
suspended for failure to pay state bar dues and certify trust 
account information.  On May 22, 2018, his license to practice 
law was further administratively suspended for failure to comply 
with continuing legal education requirements.  Attorney Hanes' 
law license remains suspended. 
¶4 
On 
June 
27, 
2019, 
the 
OLR 
filed 
a 
four-count 
disciplinary complaint against Attorney Hanes based on criminal 
conduct he committed in August 2016 and January 2017.  The OLR's 
complaint alleged that: (1) by engaging in conduct leading to a 
Columbia County misdemeanor criminal conviction for fourth-
degree sexual assault, Attorney Hanes violated Supreme Court 
No. 
2019AP1170-D   
 
3 
 
Rule (SCR) 20:8.4(b) (Count One);1 (2) by failing to notify the 
OLR of his Columbia County misdemeanor criminal conviction, 
Attorney 
Hanes 
violated 
SCR 21.15(5),2 
enforceable 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(f) (Count Two);3 (3) by engaging in conduct leading to 
three Calumet County felony criminal convictions for second-
degree 
recklessly 
endangering 
safety, 
fleeing/eluding 
an 
officer, and bail jumping, Attorney Hanes violated SCR 20:8.4(b) 
(Count Three); and (4) by failing to notify the OLR of his 
Calumet County felony criminal convictions, Attorney Hanes 
violated SCR 21.15(5), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f).  The OLR 
sought a 90-day license suspension. 
¶5 
Referee 
Kinney 
was 
appointed 
and 
conducted 
a 
scheduling conference.  After that conference, the parties 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:8.4(b) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on 
the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in 
other respects." 
2 SCR 21.15(5) provides:   
An attorney found guilty or convicted of any 
crime on or after July 1, 2002, shall notify in 
writing the office of lawyer regulation and the clerk 
of the Supreme Court within 5 days after the finding 
or conviction, whichever first occurs. The notice 
shall include the identity of the attorney, the date 
of finding or conviction, the offenses, and the 
jurisdiction. An attorney's failure to notify the 
office of lawyer regulation and clerk of the supreme 
court of being found guilty or his or her conviction 
is misconduct.  
3 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. 
2019AP1170-D   
 
4 
 
submitted a stipulation and no contest plea to the referee.  
Attorney Hanes agreed that the referee could use the complaint 
as an adequate factual basis for a determination of the alleged 
misconduct, on the understanding the referee would recommend the 
level of discipline sought by the OLR director, namely, a 90-day 
suspension of his law license. 
¶6 
The referee conducted a hearing on the proposed 
stipulation on October 29, 2019.  At the hearing, the referee 
noted the absence of underlying information pertaining to the 
criminal convictions and asked Attorney Hanes, "Do you wish to 
share the documentation that's in these criminal files with me?"  
Attorney Hanes declined to share the information.  Attorney 
Hanes attributed his misconduct, in part, to an anxiety disorder 
but 
offered 
no 
additional 
evidence 
to 
substantiate 
that 
statement.  
¶7 
The referee issued a report and recommendation on 
January 22, 2020.  The referee deemed the proposed 90-day 
license suspension grossly inadequate.  The referee expressed 
frustration with the scant factual record before him, which did 
not 
include 
the 
underlying 
criminal 
complaints, 
witness 
statements, 
or 
transcripts 
from 
the 
underlying 
criminal 
proceedings.  After explaining how this underdeveloped record 
hampered his task of making an informed recommendation, the 
referee 
recommended 
a 
two-year 
license 
suspension, 
based 
primarily on In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Evenson, 
2015 WI 38, 361 Wis. 2d 629, 861 N.W.2d 786. 
No. 
2019AP1170-D   
 
5 
 
¶8 
The OLR filed a motion to supplement the record and a 
motion for reconsideration.  The OLR identified no error in the 
referee's report and did not ask the referee to alter his 
recommendation.  Rather, the OLR stated that it had failed, 
inadvertently, to introduce the transcripts of the plea and 
sentencing hearings from Attorney Hanes' two criminal cases.  It 
provided that information and also explained its recommendation 
for a 90-day suspension, citing numerous prior disciplinary 
cases, as support.  
¶9 
After receiving no objection from Attorney Hanes, the 
referee granted the OLR's motion and reopened and supplemented 
the record with the additional information, some of which we 
recount here.  
¶10 According to the record, as supplemented, on August 
26, 2016, Attorney Hanes and others went out for dinner and 
drinks.  Afterward, the group returned to an apartment, where a 
woman in the group fell asleep on a couch.  While she was 
sleeping, Attorney Hanes sexually assaulted her.  After she woke 
up, Attorney Hanes again assaulted her.  The woman left and 
reported the assault to police.  On August 29, 2016, Attorney 
Hanes was charged with one felony count of second-degree sexual 
assault of an unconscious victim and one misdemeanor count of 
fourth-degree sexual assault.  State v. Hanes, Columbia County 
Case No. 2016CF412.   
¶11 On July 20, 2018, Attorney Hanes was convicted of 
misdemeanor fourth-degree sexual assault; the felony count was 
dismissed.  He was sentenced to one-year probation and was 
No. 
2019AP1170-D   
 
6 
 
assessed costs and restitution.  Attorney Hanes was also 
enjoined from contact with the victim.  
¶12 Attorney Hanes failed to report his Columbia County 
criminal conviction to the OLR.  
¶13 Meanwhile, on January 4, 2017, while released on bail 
in the Columbia County case, Attorney Hanes was pulled over by a 
Calumet County sheriff for erratic driving.  Attorney Hanes' 
driver's license was revoked at the time and, during the stop, 
the sheriff noticed items in the vehicle commonly associated 
with drug use.  
¶14 After disobeying the sheriff's command to exit his 
car, Attorney Hanes drove off and a high speed chase ensued.  
When law enforcement finally cornered Attorney Hanes, he tried 
to flee on foot; he was ultimately subdued by a Taser.  At his 
sentencing hearing it was noted that Attorney Hanes: 
[s]werved into oncoming traffic a number of - on a 
number of occasions, blew through a red light - blew 
through two red lights . . ..  
[a]nd then even after the defendant's vehicle was 
partially boxed in, the defendant did still try to 
leave, and that's when the window was shattered, his 
driver's side window was shattered ultimately stopping 
the vehicle . . ..   
Ultimately he was tased on the ground because of his 
level of noncompliance and the inability to get him to 
stop moving and stop fighting. 
¶15 On January 5, 2017, Attorney Hanes was charged with 
second-degree recklessly endangering safety, fleeing/eluding an 
officer, and bail jumping, all felonies.  He was also charged 
with two misdemeanor counts: resisting/obstructing an officer 
No. 
2019AP1170-D   
 
7 
 
and operating while revoked.  State v. Hanes, Calumet County 
Case No. 2017CF002. 
¶16 On December 12, 2017, Attorney Hanes was convicted of 
three felonies: second-degree recklessly endangering safety, 
fleeing/eluding 
an 
officer, 
and 
bail 
jumping. 
 
The 
two 
misdemeanor counts were dismissed but read in.  Attorney Hanes 
was sentenced to one year in jail with six months of that time 
stayed, and three years of probation.  He was ordered to pay 
costs and cooperate with the OLR.   
¶17 Attorney Hanes failed to report his Calumet County 
criminal convictions to the OLR.   
¶18 In 
February 
2020, 
after 
receiving 
the 
factual 
background information recounted above, the referee issued a 
supplemental report and recommendation.  Clearly, the referee 
was not mollified by the OLR's motion to supplement the record. 
The referee criticized the OLR's method of trying to "average" 
sanctions imposed in prior cases and expressed skepticism about 
the OLR's claim that it typically files underlying documentation 
when a complaint is predicated on a criminal conviction.  The 
referee maintained his earlier determination that the Evenson 
case, which imposed a 30-month suspension, was the most 
instructive precedent.  
¶19 In 
Evenson, 
the 
lawyer 
approached 
an 
obviously 
intoxicated young woman outside a bar one night.  She agreed to 
leave with the lawyer and he provided her "Molly" (commonly, 
known as "ecstasy") and they had sexual intercourse at his law 
office.  Attorney Evenson then took her to his home where they 
No. 
2019AP1170-D   
 
8 
 
had more alcohol and again engaged in sexual intercourse.  The 
next day, the woman awoke bruised, and had difficulty recalling 
what had happened.  She notified police. 
¶20 Attorney Evenson eventually pled guilty to one count 
of felony delivery of a schedule I drug and two counts of 
fourth-degree sexual assault.  His sentence was stayed, and he 
was placed on probation for three years, with a condition of 
nine months in the county jail.  A disciplinary proceeding 
followed; this court accepted a stipulation and imposed a 30-
month license suspension.  
¶21 The referee acknowledged factual distinctions between 
this case and Evenson, but wrote that it was difficult to 
reconcile "the OLR's recommendation for a three-month suspension 
here with its recommendation for a 30-month suspension in 
Evenson."  The referee reaffirmed his recommendation for a two-
year license suspension and the imposition of full costs.  Given 
evidence of Attorney Hanes' substance abuse, the referee further 
recommended 
that 
"upon 
the 
filing 
of 
a 
petition 
for 
reinstatement, Attorney Hanes should be required to show that he 
has successfully completed an AODA treatment program and has 
maintained complete sobriety for at least the previous one year 
prior to filing his petition."4 
                                                 
4 During his sentencing hearing in the Calumet County case, 
Attorney Hanes acknowledged that he had been required to attend 
an intensive outpatient treatment but did not complete the 
program. 
No. 
2019AP1170-D   
 
9 
 
¶22 No appeal was filed, so we consider the referee's 
report and supplemental report under SCR 22.17(2).  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, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶23 By order dated June 19, 2020, this court issued an 
order directing the parties to show cause why this court should 
not suspend Attorney Hanes' law license for at least two years 
and impose the full costs of this proceeding upon Attorney 
Hanes.  The OLR filed a response on July 2, 2020, standing by 
its initial recommendation for a 90-day license suspension.  
Attorney Hanes did not respond. 
¶24 There is no showing that the referee's findings of 
fact are clearly erroneous and we adopt them.  We turn to the 
referee's conclusion that Attorney Hanes violated the Supreme 
Court Rules set forth above.  The referee explicitly found that 
the allegations contained in the OLR's complaint constitute an 
adequate 
factual 
basis 
for 
the 
four 
counts 
of 
attorney 
misconduct.   
¶25 A criminal conviction is not per se evidence of 
misconduct.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Johns, 2014 
WI 32, 353 Wis. 2d 746, 847 N.W.2d 179 (holding that lawyer's 
conduct did not violate SCR 20:8.4(b) in light of the record 
No. 
2019AP1170-D   
 
10 
 
evidence 
indicating, 
among 
other 
things, 
the 
exceedingly 
anomalous nature of the lawyer's conduct).  We consider 
independently whether each of the criminal acts committed by 
Attorney 
Hanes 
reflects 
adversely 
on 
his 
honesty, 
trustworthiness, or his "fitness as a lawyer in other respects."  
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Horsch, 2020 WI 10, 390 
Wis. 2d 99, 937 N.W.2d 925.  
¶26 This is a fact-dependent inquiry.  The ABA Comment [2] 
to SCR 20:8.4 provides some guidance as to what crimes reflect 
adversely on fitness as a lawyer.  It states, inter alia: 
Although a lawyer is personally answerable to the 
entire criminal law, a lawyer should be professionally 
answerable only for offenses that indicate [a] lack of 
those 
characteristics 
relevant 
to 
law 
practice.  
Offenses involving violence, dishonesty, breach of 
trust, or serious interference with the administration 
of justice are in that category.  A pattern of 
repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance 
when considered separately, can indicate indifference 
to legal obligation. 
¶27 We have no difficulty concluding that Attorney Hanes' 
criminal acts, which involved sexual contact without consent and 
behavior that "endangered the public and law officers," reflect 
adversely on Attorney Hanes' fitness as a lawyer.  We affirm the 
No. 
2019AP1170-D   
 
11 
 
referee's 
conclusion 
that 
Attorney 
Hanes 
committed 
the 
professional misconduct as alleged in the complaint.5   
                                                 
5 The referee raised certain concerns in his reports.  It is 
clear that the parties expected to conclude this matter swiftly, 
by stipulation.  This goal was hampered by a skeletal complaint, 
a sparse record, and a disciplinary recommendation that the 
referee deemed seriously inadequate.  The referee's irritation 
with this case is palpable.  In the 26 pages that comprise his 
report and supplemental report he describes at length his 
frustration with crafting a sanction with what he considered 
insufficient information.  The referee suggests that the OLR 
should be required to "file copies of the entire criminal 
proceedings, including transcripts of sentencing hearings, in 
all cases where the allegations of professional misconduct are 
based on criminal convictions."  (Emphasis in original).  He 
suggests that our rules fail to provide guidance for considering 
comprehensive stipulations, stating that "it is unclear what the 
job of the referee is."  He raises a litany of questions, such 
as "If the parties agree to everything, as here, may the hearing 
be dispensed with altogether?"; and "But what, then, is the 
proper role of the referee in this situation?"; and "But how is 
this [review] to be accomplished if no hearing has been held, or 
a hearing has been held but only very limited?"; and "Was the 
referee too cautious?"; and "Could and should the referee have 
called the custodian of the criminal files in Columbia and 
Calumet Counties?"  He suggests possible amendments to the 
Supreme Court Rules, see, e.g., Supp. Referee Report at 8, fn. 5 
("the easiest solution would be to amend SCR 22.12 . . . ").  
The terms of a stipulation may guide the manner in which a 
referee conducts a proceeding but the referee's role remains the 
same:  to make factual findings, independent conclusions of law 
regarding alleged misconduct, and an independent recommendation 
as to discipline which may include conditions or restitution, as 
appropriate.  See, e.g., SCR 21.08(3); In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Stern, 2013 WI 46, 347 Wis. 2d 552, 830 
N.W.2d 674; Referee Handbook 2.N.(2).  If a record before the 
referee is inadequate to permit the referee to fulfill all or 
part of this charge, a referee may reject a stipulation, order 
additional briefing, or advise the parties that an evidentiary 
hearing or evidentiary submissions will be required. 
No. 
2019AP1170-D   
 
12 
 
¶28 We turn to the recommended sanction.  We firmly agree 
with the referee that the proposed 90-day suspension was too 
low; indeed, we are surprised that the OLR continues to defend 
its recommendation.  A suspension of such brevity would unduly 
depreciate the seriousness of Attorney Hanes' misconduct, namely 
convictions for 
sexual assault and recklessly endangering 
safety, which caused harm to the victim and put the lives of law 
enforcement personnel and the public at risk.  We also agree 
with the referee's assessment of the aggravating and mitigating 
factors, including the referee's determination that Attorney 
Hanes' anxiety is not a mitigating factor in this case, given 
the absence of evidence sufficient to find a causal connection 
between any medical condition and the misconduct.6  In re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Morse, 
2019 
WI 
53, 
386 
Wis. 2d 654, 927 N.W.2d 543.  On consideration of the record, 
the report, and the OLR's response to our order to show cause, 
we have determined that a four-year suspension is appropriate.    
¶29 The Evenson case, imposing a 30-month suspension, 
provides the most instructive precedent.  Attorney Evenson's 
misconduct stemmed from his conviction for, inter alia, fourth-
degree sexual assault of a vulnerable individual who was not his 
client. Other caselaw confirms that severe sanctions are 
appropriate when attorneys engage in predatory sexual misconduct 
                                                 
6 We agree, further, that the evidence of substance abuse 
merits the imposition on certain conditions should Attorney 
Hanes seek reinstatement of his law license.  We have modified 
the proposed conditions to include the involvement of the 
Wisconsin Lawyers Assistance Program. 
No. 
2019AP1170-D   
 
13 
 
against a vulnerable individual.  In In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Voss, 2011 WI 2, 331 Wis. 2d 1, 795 
N.W.2d 415, the OLR filed a disciplinary complaint against an 
attorney accused of engaging in sexual relations with a female 
client who had an extensive and severe history of various 
psychiatric disorders and alcohol dependency; she was the 
subject of a series of emergency detentions and chapter 51 
commitments.  The client eventually told her case worker that 
Attorney Voss had sexually assaulted her.  When the matter was 
reported, Attorney Voss sought to persuade his client, her 
family, and two circuit court judges not to pursue criminal 
charges, disclosing embarrassing personal information about the 
client.  Ultimately, no criminal charges were filed but the 
referee concluded Attorney Voss had committed five counts of 
professional misconduct and recommended a one-year license 
suspension.   
¶30 We suspended Attorney Voss for four years and eight 
months, imposed a no contact order, and ordered the entire file 
and record in this matter remain confidential and sealed.  We 
said:  "Although we ultimately chose not to revoke his license 
to practice law, a lengthy suspension is required to effectuate 
the purposes of Wisconsin's attorney regulatory system.  A 
lesser sanction would unduly depreciate the seriousness of 
Attorney Voss's misconduct."  Id., ¶¶33-34, 39 (citing In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Woodmansee, 147 Wis. 2d 837, 
434 N.W.2d 94 (1989) (imposing three-year suspension upon lawyer 
who engaged in coercive sexual behavior with a vulnerable 
No. 
2019AP1170-D   
 
14 
 
client, 
resulting 
in 
conviction 
for 
fourth-degree 
sexual 
assault). 
¶31 The cases cited by the OLR do not persuade us that a 
lesser sanction is merited.  We note that aside from Evenson, 
few of those cases involved sexual assault, and 
In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Strigenz, 185 Wis. 2d  370, 517 
N.W.2d 190 
(1994) 
(imposing 
one-year 
suspension 
for 
non-
consensual sexual contact with a vulnerable victim, resulting in 
a conviction for fourth-degree sexual assault) dates from 1994.  
As the New Jersey Supreme Court observed when rendering a 
disciplinary decision against an attorney who committed sexual 
misconduct: 
We have traveled a far way from tolerance of sexual 
misconduct in the workplace and in our profession. We 
recognize 
the 
psychological 
damage 
that 
can 
be 
inflicted on the victims of sexual abuse, who silently 
suffer and do not complain because they feel powerless 
to do so.  The sexual abuse of a client is 
unacceptable in any profession and in any business 
setting, and cannot be tolerated in our profession, 
which holds as sacred the dignity of the individual.  
 . . .    
Attorneys who commit sexual crimes against their 
clients 
take 
from 
their 
victims 
something 
more 
profound than money or goods; they take from their 
victims their dignity and psychological well-being. 
Such 
conduct 
is 
grossly 
incompatible 
with 
the 
standards of professionalism expected of attorneys. 
In Re Gallo, 178 N.J. 115 (2003) (imposing three-year suspension 
on attorney found guilty of various sexual crimes with four 
different client-victims).  We acknowledge that the individual 
Attorney Hanes sexually assaulted was not his client, a 
No. 
2019AP1170-D   
 
15 
 
distinction 
that 
is 
relevant 
because 
a 
lawyer-client 
relationship 
implicates 
additional 
ethical 
concerns. 
Nonetheless, his conduct – which included not only sexual 
assault but a separate incident of criminally reckless conduct 
that jeopardized the lives of law enforcement officers and the 
public - is "grossly incompatible with the standards of 
professionalism expected of attorneys."  Id.  The seriousness of 
Attorney Hanes' misconduct merits a four-year suspension.    
¶32  Finally, we consider whether we should impose the full 
costs of this proceeding on Attorney Hanes.  We have considered 
the matter and have determined that it is appropriate to impose 
the full costs of this proceeding on Attorney Hanes. 
¶33 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Benjamin A. Hanes to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of four 
years, effective the date of this order. 
¶34 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
Benjamin 
A. 
Hanes' 
administrative suspensions for failure to pay State Bar dues, 
noncompliance with continuing legal education requirements, and 
failure to submit the required trust account certification to 
the State Bar shall remain in effect until the reason for each 
such suspension has been rectified. 
¶35 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Benjamin A. Hanes shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the full costs of this proceeding, which are 
$7,704.67 as of March 17, 2020. 
¶36 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent that he has 
not already done so, Benjamin A. Hanes shall comply with the 
No. 
2019AP1170-D   
 
16 
 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
¶37 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any future reinstatement of 
Benjamin A. Hanes' law license will be conditioned upon: 
 Providing evidence and documentation to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation, demonstrating that, at least one 
year prior to his petition for reinstatement Benjamin 
A. Hanes participated, at his own expense, in an 
alcohol and other drug abuse and mental health 
assessment by a Wisconsin Lawyers Assistance Program 
approved provider.   
 Providing evidence demonstrating that he has complied 
and remains compliant with any specific written 
recommendations for treatment or maintenance as a 
result of that assessment, including compliance with 
all 
monitoring 
requirements, 
if 
any, 
deemed 
appropriate 
by 
the 
Wisconsin 
Lawyers 
Assistance 
Program or other monitor designated by the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation, which may include the requirement 
to refrain from the consumption of alcohol and any 
mood-altering drugs without a valid prescription while 
subject to monitoring. 
 Providing signed medical releases of confidentiality 
for each treatment provider who is providing or has 
provided to Benjamin A. Hanes within the last two 
years any treatment, assessment, or services related 
No. 
2019AP1170-D   
 
17 
 
to alcohol or substance abuse, such releases to remain 
in effect for two years from the date of signature.  
 Acknowledging that any future reinstatement may be 
subject to further conditions, including monitoring. 
 
No. 
2019AP1170-D   
 
 
 
1