Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Charles J. Hausmann
Citation: 2007 WI 54
Docket Number: 2004AP000156-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: May 17, 2007

2007 WI 54 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2004AP156-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Charles J. Hausmann, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Charles J. Hausmann, 
          Respondent.   
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HAUSMANN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 17, 2007   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2007 WI 54
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2004AP156-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Charles J. Hausmann, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Charles J. Hausmann, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
MAY 17, 2007 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.   Reinstatement granted. 
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   We 
review 
a 
referee's 
report 
recommending that Charles Hausmann's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin be reinstated.  
¶2 
We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and agree that Attorney Hausmann's license to 
practice law should be reinstated.  We direct Attorney Hausmann 
to pay the costs of the reinstatement proceeding, which total 
$4051.43 as of December 7, 2006. 
No. 
2004AP156-D   
 
2 
 
¶3 
Attorney Hausmann was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1971.  Before the matter giving rise to this 
reinstatement proceeding he had no prior disciplinary history.   
¶4 
Attorney 
Hausmann's license to practice law was 
suspended for one year, effective August 30, 2005, in the wake 
of a federal conviction for conspiracy to commit mail and wire 
fraud in connection with a "kickback scheme" involving a 
referral and billing arrangement with chiropractor Scott Rise, 
who was also prosecuted.1  
¶5 
In the criminal proceeding, Attorney Hausmann was 
sentenced to two months of imprisonment, 16 months of supervised 
release, and 40 hours of community service.  He was also fined 
$10,000 and he and Rise were ordered to pay restitution to the 
clients in the amount of $77,062.87, jointly and severally.  
Subsequently, with the assistance of his law firm, Hausmann-
McNally, S.C., Hausmann paid the restitution in full. 
¶6 
In the disciplinary proceeding, this court accepted a 
stipulation that Attorney Hausmann had committed two counts of 
professional 
misconduct 
violating 
SCR 
20:1.7(b)2 
and 
SCR 
                                                 
1 Rise was convicted in federal court following a jury trial 
on the conspiracy charge.  Both he and Attorney Hausmann 
appealed and their appeals were consolidated.  On September 22, 
2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 
affirmed both convictions.  United States v. Hausmann, 345 F.3d 
952 (7th Cir. 2003). 
2 SCR 20:1.7(b) provides in pertinent part:  Conflict of 
interest: general rule.  
(b) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the 
representation 
of that client may be materially 
limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another 
No. 
2004AP156-D   
 
3 
 
20:8.4(b).3  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hausmann, 
2005 WI 131, 285 Wis. 2d 608, 699 N.W.2d 923.  Attorney Hausmann 
was ordered to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings 
which totaled $14,431.78.  Id., ¶3  
¶7 
Attorney Hausmann now seeks reinstatement of his 
license to practice law in Wisconsin.  Richard Esenberg was 
appointed referee in the matter and conducted a formal hearing 
on the reinstatement petition.  The referee filed his report and 
recommendation on November 20, 2006.  The Board of Bar Examiners 
(BBE) joins in that favorable recommendation and the Office of 
Lawyer 
Regulation 
(OLR) 
does 
not 
oppose 
the 
referee's 
recommendation. 
¶8 
SCR 22.31(1) provides the standard for reinstatement 
of 
a 
law 
license. 
 
The 
petitioner 
has 
the 
burden 
of 
demonstrating "by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence" 
that the lawyer has the moral character to practice law, that 
the lawyer's resumption of the practice of law will not be 
detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of 
                                                                                                                                                             
client or to a third person, or by the lawyer's own 
interests, unless: 
(1) the 
lawyer 
reasonably 
believes 
the 
representation will not be adversely affected; and 
 
(2) the 
client 
consents 
in 
writing 
after 
consultation. . . . 
3 SCR 20:8.4(b) provides that 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." 
No. 
2004AP156-D   
 
4 
 
the public interest, and that the lawyer has complied with SCR 
22.26 and the terms of the suspension.  In addition, SCR 
22.29(4) sets forth related requirements that a petition for 
reinstatement must show.  All of these additional requirements 
are effectively incorporated into SCR 22.31(1). 
¶9 
At the reinstatement hearing, Attorney Hausmann called 
three witnesses who testified in support of his petition for 
reinstatement and he offered numerous supportive letters and 
testimonials.  The OLR opposed the reinstatement petition in 
proceedings before the referee, but did not appeal the referee's 
recommendation for reinstatement. 
¶10 The referee in this case concluded that Attorney 
Hausmann had met all of the criteria for reinstatement and that 
he had met his burden of demonstrating that his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin should be reinstated.  The referee 
particularly noted that Attorney Hausmann performed extensive 
community service work during the period of his suspension.  The 
referee did note that the OLR questioned whether Attorney 
Hausmann had met the requirements of SCR 22.29(4)(f)4 and SCR 
22.29(4)(g).5  At the hearing on the petition for reinstatement 
                                                 
4 SCR 22.29(4)(f) queries whether "[t]he 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." 
5 SCR 22.29(4)(g) queries whether:  
(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 
No. 
2004AP156-D   
 
5 
 
OLR 
suggested 
that 
Attorney 
Hausmann 
has 
"yet 
to 
fully 
acknowledge the nature and severity of the misconduct in which 
he engaged."  As the referee observed, this concern derives at 
least in part from Attorney Hausmann's position during the 
criminal proceeding and in the prior disciplinary proceeding 
that the kickback scheme did not actually harm anyone.   
¶11 The referee, however, expressed reluctance to place 
great weight on arguments made in a lawyer's own defense in a 
criminal prosecution.  The referee considered this issue 
carefully, 
analyzing 
Attorney 
Hausmann's 
testimony 
and 
concluding that Attorney Hausmann had adequately demonstrated 
that he understood the various levels of harm arising from his 
conduct.  On balance, the referee concluded, that Attorney 
Hausmann "has demonstrated a proper understanding of and 
attitude toward the standards that are imposed upon members of 
the bar and will act in conformity with them."   
¶12 The 
referee 
also 
evaluated 
Attorney 
Hausmann's 
fulfillment of the requirement that he pay restitution, in light 
of the fact that Attorney Hausmann's law firm assisted with the 
restitution payment.  See SCR 22.29(4m).6  The referee noted that 
                                                                                                                                                             
confidence and in general to aid in the administration 
of justice as a member of the bar and as an officer of 
the courts. 
6 SCR 22.29(4m) states that "[t]he 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. 
2004AP156-D   
 
6 
 
Attorney Hausmann clearly expressed his intent and desire to 
reimburse the firm in total. 
¶13 Upon review of the record we agree that Attorney 
Hausmann has established by clear, satisfactory, and convincing 
evidence that he has satisfied all the criteria necessary for 
reinstatement.  Accordingly, we adopt the referee's findings of 
fact and conclusions of law and we accept the referee's 
recommendation to reinstate Attorney Hausmann's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin.  We further direct Attorney Hausmann 
to pay the costs of the reinstatement proceeding. 
¶14 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement of 
the license of Charles J. Hausmann to practice law in Wisconsin 
is granted, effective the date of this order. 
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within six months of the 
date of this order Charles J. Hausmann 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. Hausmann to practice law in Wisconsin 
shall be suspended until further order of the court. 
No. 
2004AP156-D   
 
 
 
1