Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Bill Ginsberg
Citation: 2009 WI 18
Docket Number: 2007AP002351-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: February 16, 2009

2009 WI 18 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2007AP2351-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Bill Ginsberg, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Bill Ginsberg, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GINSBERG 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 16, 2009   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
November 19, 2008   
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the respondent-appellant there were briefs by Stephen 
J. Meyer and Meyer Law Office, Madison. 
 
For the complainant-respondent there was a brief by Thomas 
J. Basting, Sr., retained counsel for the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation, Madison. 
 
 
 
 
2009 WI 18
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This order is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The 
final version will appear in the 
bound volume of the official 
reports.   
 
 
 
No.  2007AP2351-D  
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Bill Ginsberg, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Bill Ginsberg, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 16, 2009 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Court entered the following order on this date: 
 
Attorney Bill Ginsberg has appealed a referee's report 
concluding that Attorney Ginsberg failed to represent his client, 
A.P., in a reasonably diligent manner in violation of SCR 20:1.3 
and recommending this court impose a private reprimand on him 
together with the costs of this proceeding.  
 
We review the referee’s conclusions of law de novo.  We 
conclude that the facts of this case do not support a conclusion 
that Attorney Ginsberg’s conduct violated SCR 20:1.3.  We 
therefore dismiss the complaint.  No costs will be imposed. 
 
Attorney Ginsberg was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin 
in 1982.  He was retained to represent A.P., a commercial truck 
driver who received a speeding ticket in La Crosse County for 
driving 20-24 miles per hour over the posted speed limit.  During 
settlement negotiations, the district attorney orally offered to 
amend the citation to a charge of speeding 16-19 miles per hour 
over the posted speed limit.  In response, Attorney Ginsberg sent 
No.  2007AP2351-D 
 
2 
the district attorney, via facsimile, a proposed stipulation to a 
charge of 14 miles per hour over the speed limit.   
 
The district attorney signed the proposed stipulation and 
forwarded it to the judge who, in turn, accepted the stipulation 
and entered judgment against A.P. for operating a motor vehicle 
14 miles per hour over the posted speed limit.  The judgment 
required A.P. to pay a civil forfeiture.  However, the district 
attorney did not tell Attorney Ginsberg she had signed the 
stipulation, and she did not send him a signed copy of the 
stipulation.  The La Crosse County clerk of circuit court then 
failed to send a signed copy of the stipulation or a notice of 
entry 
of 
judgment 
to 
either 
Attorney 
Ginsberg 
or 
A.P.  
Accordingly, A.P. was unaware that he was required to pay a civil 
forfeiture and, on December 5, 2006, A.P. was advised that his 
commercial license had been suspended for failure to pay that 
forfeiture.  He paid the forfeiture with his credit card. 
Attorney Ginsberg paid the reinstatement fee for A.P.’s driver’s 
license on December 11, 2006.  It is undisputed that A.P. lost 
income the week his license was suspended. 
 
On October 10, 2007, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
filed a complaint against Attorney Ginsberg relating to his 
representation of A.P.  The complaint alleged that he violated 
SCR 20:1.3, which requires a lawyer to act “with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client,” and former 
SCR 20:1.4(a), which required that a lawyer “shall keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly 
comply with reasonable requests for information.”  Following the 
execution of a stipulation regarding certain facts and an 
evidentiary 
hearing, 
the 
referee 
issued 
a 
report 
and 
recommendation concluding that Attorney Ginsberg violated SCR 
20:1.3 but that he did not violate former SCR 20:1.4(a).
1  The 
referee reasoned that “[n]either [the district attorney’s] 
negligence, nor that of the clerk of court, provides an excuse 
for Ginsberg’s lack of diligence in this case.  The consequences 
of his failure to follow up on his unilateral offer created the 
situation that could have been avoided by the exercise of caution 
and care that one would expect from a reasonably prudent and 
competent lawyer.”   
 
Attorney Ginsberg disputes the referee’s conclusion that he 
violated SCR 20:1.3.  Attorney Ginsberg asserts that that he 
acted with reasonable diligence and promptness in this matter.  
He explains that typically if a district attorney rejects a 
proposed stipulation he would receive notice of a trial date or, 
alternatively, the file might remain dormant.  He provided 
evidence, including the expert testimony of Attorney Gerald 
Mowris, that permitting some delay in resolving a traffic case is 
usually in the client’s best interest.   Moreover, the record 
supports his assertion that his failure to receive either notice 
                                                 
1 The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) has not appealed the dismissal 
of the alleged violation of SCR 20:1.4(a). 
No.  2007AP2351-D 
 
2 
that the proposed stipulation had been accepted and executed or 
notice of entry of judgment was exceedingly unusual.  We 
acknowledge the OLR’s point that Attorney Ginsberg could have 
made “one phone call inquiring as to the status of his proposed 
stipulation” or he could have checked the Wisconsin Circuit Court 
Access Program available on the Internet.  Ideally, Attorney 
Ginsberg 
would 
have 
checked 
the 
status 
of 
his 
proposed 
stipulation.  However, given this unusual circumstance in which 
notice of entry of judgment was not provided to either Attorney 
Ginsberg or his client, we decline to hold that Attorney 
Ginsberg’s conduct in this case violated his ethical obligation 
to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a 
client.  We conclude that the OLR has failed to establish by 
clear and substantial evidence that Attorney Ginsberg violated 
SCR 20:1.3.   
 
IT IS ORDERED that the OLR’s complaint is dismissed.  No 
costs will be imposed. 
 
 
No.  2007AP2351-D 
 
2