Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Amy Acker
Citation: 2007 WI 117
Docket Number: 2006AP000266-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: September 14, 2007

2007 WI 117 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2006AP266-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Amy Acker, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Amy Acker, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ACKER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
September 14, 2007   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: ZIEGLER, J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2007 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.  2006AP266-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Amy Acker, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Amy Acker, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
SEP 14, 2007 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the referee's report and 
recommendation that the license of Attorney Amy Acker to 
practice law in this state be suspended for a period of 18 
months due to her professional misconduct. 
¶2 
Following 
the 
filing 
of 
a 
complaint 
and 
the 
appointment of Attorney Stanley F. Hack as referee, Attorney 
Acker and the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a 
stipulation and no contest plea.  The stipulation provided that 
No. 
2006AP266-D   
 
2 
 
the referee could use the allegations of the complaint as the 
factual basis for his report.  Accordingly, the referee made 
factual findings in line with the allegations of the complaint 
and determined that Attorney Acker had committed each of the 14 
counts of professional misconduct alleged in the complaint.     
¶3 
The parties did not stipulate to the level of 
discipline.  After conducting an evidentiary hearing and 
considering the arguments of the parties, the referee agreed 
with the OLR's request for an 18-month suspension. 
¶4 
Neither the OLR nor Attorney Acker have appealed from 
the referee's report and recommendation.  Thus, the matter is 
submitted to the court for its review and decision pursuant to 
SCR 22.17(2).1 
¶5 
The referee's factual findings relate to seven estates 
for which Attorney Acker provided representation to the personal 
representative.  For six of the seven estates, the findings of 
misconduct follow a general pattern involving the making of 
misrepresentations to the respective probate courts due to 
apparent delays in closing the estate and the filing of 
falsified closing certificates and other documents. 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) provides: Review; appeal. 
 
(2) If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme 
court shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject 
or modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
No. 
2006AP266-D   
 
3 
 
¶6 
Counts 1 and 2 relate to the estate of L.H.  Attorney 
Acker acted as counsel for the personal representative.  In a 
series of letters and in-court statements, Attorney Acker made 
multiple misrepresentations to the probate court.  In a March 
2000 letter, she told the court that the closing certificate had 
been mailed to her by the State of Wisconsin.  In subsequent 
letters and court proceedings, she made various excuses for not 
closing the estate, including that she was waiting for the 
closing 
certificate, 
that 
she 
had 
misplaced 
the 
closing 
certificate, and that the closing certificate was in her office.  
In a letter received by the probate court on December 23, 2002, 
Attorney Acker informed the court that the estate was complete.  
Attorney Acker has subsequently admitted that her oral and 
written statements to the probate court were false. 
¶7 
In addition, on December 23, 2002, Attorney Acker 
filed a closing certificate that had purportedly been issued by 
the state.  After an inquiry by the Waukesha County Register in 
Probate, the Wisconsin Department of Revenue (DOR) determined 
that the closing certificate had been falsified.  Attorney Acker 
admitted that she had fabricated the closing certificate, which 
was a criminal act violating Wis. Stat. § 943.38 (2005-06).  
¶8 
The referee determined that Attorney Acker's false 
statements to the probate court had violated former SCR 
No. 
2006AP266-D   
 
4 
 
20:3.3(a)(1)2 (effective through June 30, 2007).  The referee 
also concluded that Attorney Acker’s falsification of the 
closing certificate had violated former SCRs 20:8.4(b)3 and 
20:8.4(c).4 
¶9 
Counts 3 and 4 relate to the estate of W.S.  Attorney 
Acker made at least two misrepresentations to the probate court 
in this matter.  On December 10, 2002, she falsely stated that 
the estate would be ready to close after she obtained the 
release of a claim.  On December 12, 2002, Attorney Acker 
submitted a false affidavit in which she averred that she had 
mailed tax returns to the DOR on November 1, 2002. 
¶10 On January 15, 2003, Attorney Acker filed a closing 
certificate that allegedly had been issued on January 6, 2003.  
Attorney Acker, however, did not file the relevant tax returns 
until May 2004.  The DOR again determined that the closing 
                                                 
2 Effective July 1, 2007, substantial changes were made to 
the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct for 
Attorneys, SCR Chapter 20. See Supreme Court Order No. 04-07, 
2007 WI 4, 293 Wis. 2d xv; and Supreme Court Order No. 06-04, 
2007 WI 48, 297 Wis. 2d xlvii. Since the conduct underlying this 
case arose prior to July 1, 2007, all references to the supreme 
court rules will be to those in effect prior to July 1, 2007. 
Former SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) provides that a lawyer shall not 
knowingly "make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal." 
3 Former SCR 20:8.4(b) states 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." 
4 Former SCR 20:8.4(c) states that it is professional 
misconduct for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." 
No. 
2006AP266-D   
 
5 
 
certificate had been falsified.  Attorney Acker subsequently 
admitted that she had forged the document. 
¶11 The referee concluded that Attorney Acker's conduct 
regarding the W.S. estate had violated former SCR 20:3.3(a)(1), 
as well as former SCRs 20:8.4(b) and 20:8.4(c). 
¶12 Counts 5 and 6 relate to the estate of V.G.  Beginning 
in October 2000, Attorney Acker represented the personal 
representative for the estate.  Attorney Acker again made 
misrepresentations to the probate court about having filed tax 
returns with the DOR, about having received a tax refund, and 
about the estate being ready to be closed.  On January 15, 2003, 
Attorney Acker filed a closing certificate that appeared to have 
been issued on December 26, 2002.  The certificate, however, had 
been fabricated by Attorney Acker, who did not file the 
pertinent tax returns until May 2004.  The referee concluded 
that 
Attorney 
Acker's 
conduct 
had 
violated 
former 
SCRs 
20:3.3(a)(1), 20:8.4(b), and 20:8.4(c). 
¶13 Attorney Acker also served as the attorney for the 
personal representative of the estate of H.S.  Attorney Acker 
made a number of misrepresentations to the probate court about 
the completion of the estate, including a representation on 
September 26, 2003, that the closing papers were done and would 
be filed on the following Monday, and a representation on 
October 1, 2003, that the estate was ready to be closed, but the 
original closing certificate had become stuck in her copying 
machine.  On October 2, 2003, Attorney Acker filed a closing 
certificate purportedly issued on August 26, 2003, that she had 
No. 
2006AP266-D   
 
6 
 
fabricated.  Attorney Acker did not file the relevant tax 
returns until July 7, 2004.  Attorney Acker's actions violated 
former SCRs 20:3.3(a)(1), 20:8.4(b) and 20:8.4(c). 
¶14 In the summer and fall of 2002, while representing the 
personal representative of the estate of C.L., Attorney Acker 
made a series of misrepresentations to the probate court, 
including that the closing certificate should be in the mail, 
that she had to submit an amended tax return, that all 
distributions had been made, and that the estate was ready to 
close.  In addition, on December 23, 2002, Attorney Acker 
submitted a receipt purportedly signed by R.D., although R.D. 
had died on March 27, 2001.  Attorney Acker also filed a closing 
certificate on December 23, 2002, although Attorney Acker still 
had not filed the fiduciary tax returns as of September 2004.  
Attorney Acker admitted that she had fabricated the closing 
certificate 
and 
had 
forged 
R.D.'s 
name 
on 
the 
receipt.  
According to the referee, Attorney Acker's conduct in the C.L. 
estate 
violated 
former 
SCRs 
20:3.3(a)(1), 
20:8.4(b), 
and 
20:8.4(c). 
¶15 Attorney Acker also acted as the attorney for the 
personal representative of the estate of S.C.  Attorney Acker 
misrepresented to the probate court that she had filed the 
original closing certificate on June 16, 2003, and falsely 
alleged that the court must have lost it.  On February 19, 2004, 
she filed what she claimed were copies of the original closing 
certificate and her June 16, 2003, transmittal letter.  Attorney 
Acker has admitted that these representations were false and 
No. 
2006AP266-D   
 
7 
 
that the state had never issued a closing certificate.  The 
referee again found violations of former SCRs 20:3.3(a)(1), 
20:8.4(b), and 20:8.4(c). 
¶16 The seventh and final estate matter at issue in this 
disciplinary proceeding involved the estate of J.S.  Attorney 
Acker failed to respond to the June 30, 2003, claim of the 
Wisconsin Estate Recovery Program (the Program) for the recovery 
of $47,928.92 in Medicare benefits that the state had paid on 
behalf of J.S. during her lifetime.  The referee concluded that 
Attorney 
Acker's 
failure 
to 
respond 
to 
this 
claim 
had 
constituted a failure to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness, contrary to former SCR 20:1.3.5  Attorney Acker also 
failed to provide a timely response to questions from the 
personal representative about the status of certain assets and 
the delay in completing the estate.  The referee determined that 
this conduct had constituted a violation of former SCR 20:1.4(a)6 
(effective through June 30, 2007). 
¶17 With respect to the level of discipline, the OLR 
sought an 18-month suspension and Attorney Acker requested 
either a public reprimand or a stayed six-month suspension.  The 
referee acknowledged a series of letters from clients and other 
attorneys submitted in support of Attorney Acker, showing her to 
                                                 
5 Former SCR 20:1.3 states that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
6 Former SCR 20:1.4(a) states that "[a] lawyer shall keep a 
client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and 
promptly comply with reasonable requests for information." 
No. 
2006AP266-D   
 
8 
 
be a "serious competent attorney functioning at a high level."  
The referee also stated that Attorney Acker had no prior 
disciplinary history, had not acted out of selfish motive, had 
made full disclosure to the OLR, and had exhibited good 
character and remorse.  The referee further noted that Attorney 
Acker had submitted evidence of personal problems, but did not 
give much emphasis to them. 
¶18 Despite the favorable factors for Attorney Acker, the 
referee indicated that given the length of time over which the 
misconduct had occurred and the number of matters involved, it 
was difficult to accept any explanation from Attorney Acker for 
her misconduct.  In light of the pattern of misconduct, the 
referee agreed with the OLR's requested level of discipline, and 
recommended that the court suspend Attorney Acker's license to 
practice law in this state for a period of 18 months.  The 
referee also recommended that the court impose the full costs of 
this proceeding, which were $6863.02, as of January 17, 2007. 
¶19 After having independently reviewed the record, we 
adopt the referee's findings of fact.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Sosnay, 209 Wis. 2d 241, 243, 562 N.W.2d 137 
(1997) (referee's findings of fact affirmed unless clearly 
erroneous).  We also agree with the referee that those factual 
findings demonstrate that Attorney Acker committed each of the 
14 counts of professional misconduct alleged in the complaint.  
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, 
¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 718 (referee's conclusions of 
law reviewed on de novo basis).   
No. 
2006AP266-D   
 
9 
 
¶20 With respect to the discipline to be imposed, we 
determine 
the 
appropriate 
level 
of 
discipline 
given 
the 
particular facts of each case, independent of the referee's 
recommendation, but benefiting from it.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 
N.W.2d 686.  In the present case we conclude that an 18-month 
suspension of Attorney Acker's license to practice law in this 
state, as recommended by the referee, is an appropriate quantum 
of discipline to protect the public and to deter similar 
misconduct in the future by Attorney Acker or other Wisconsin 
attorneys.  Attorney Acker's pattern of misrepresentations to 
the probate courts and her repeated falsification of documents 
filed with those courts strike at the integrity of the judicial 
system and the practice of law in this state.  Although we 
recognize the lack of any prior discipline and the various 
documents filed on Attorney Acker's behalf that depict an 
otherwise competent and dedicated attorney, it would unduly 
depreciate the seriousness of her professional misconduct to 
impose a lesser amount of discipline. 
¶21 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Amy Acker 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 18 
months, effective September 14, 2007. 
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Attorney Amy Acker 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 her inability to pay those costs within that time, 
No. 
2006AP266-D   
 
10 
 
the license of Attorney Acker to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
remain suspended until further order of the court. 
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if she has not already done 
so, Attorney Amy Acker shall comply with the provisions of SCR 
22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
¶24 ANNETTE K. ZIEGLER, J., did not participate. 
 
No. 
2006AP266-D   
 
 
 
1