Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Maria J. Schreier
Citation: 2013 WI 35
Docket Number: 2012AP000366-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: April 30, 2013

2013 WI 35 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2012AP366-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Maria J. Schreier, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Maria J. Schreier, 
          Respondent.   
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SCHREIER     
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 30, 2013   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
   
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
2013 WI 35
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2012AP366-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Maria J. Schreier, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Maria J. Schreier, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 30, 2013 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report filed by the 
referee, Reserve Judge John B. Murphy, recommending that the 
court suspend Attorney Maria J. Schreier's license to practice 
law in this state for a period of two years for 20 counts of 
No. 
2012AP366-D   
 
2 
 
misconduct.  Because no appeal has been filed, we review the 
referee's report and recommendation pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1 
¶2 
We approve and adopt the referee's findings of fact 
and conclusions of law.  However, we disagree with the referee 
as 
to the appropriate sanction.  We conclude that the 
appropriate discipline for Attorney Schreier's misconduct is a 
30-month suspension of her law license rather than the two-year 
suspension recommended by the referee.  We further conclude that 
conditions must be imposed on any future reinstatement of 
Attorney Schreier's license related to her rehabilitation from 
alcohol and drug addiction.  We agree with the referee that a 
portion of the costs of the proceeding, $1,403.04, should be 
assessed against Attorney Schreier. 
¶3 
Attorney Schreier was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1997.  The most recent address Attorney Schreier 
has on file with the State Bar of Wisconsin is in Montello, 
Wisconsin, but the address she lists on the proceedings in this 
case is in Roslindale, Massachusetts.  Her license to practice 
law in Wisconsin is currently suspended for nonpayment of dues 
and noncompliance with continuing legal education requirements.  
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) states: 
 
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. 
2012AP366-D   
 
3 
 
Her license had been suspended from February 26, 2004, to 
September 29, 2011, for her failure to cooperate with the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation's (OLR) efforts to investigate her. 
¶4 
The misconduct claims in this case stem from the 
following matters: 
• Attorney Schreier's 14 criminal convictions between 
2008 and 2011, listed below, and her failure to report 
them to the OLR and the Wisconsin Supreme Court clerk.   
o Four 
counts 
of 
operating 
while 
under 
the 
influence (two misdemeanors and two felonies). 
o Three 
counts 
of 
misdemeanor 
resisting 
or 
obstructing an officer. 
o Two counts of misdemeanor hit and run.  
o One count of misdemeanor cocaine possession.  
o One count of misdemeanor operating while revoked. 
o One count of misdemeanor bail jumping. 
o One count of felony second-degree recklessly 
endangering safety. 
o One count of misdemeanor disorderly conduct.   
• Attorney Schreier's municipal citation for retail 
theft.  
• Attorney Schreier's non-cooperation with the OLR's 
inquiries into the following three matters:   
o Overdrafts of her trust account totaling $66.37.  
o A client grievance.  
o Police reports that referenced drug paraphernalia 
and cocaine in her residence. 
No. 
2012AP366-D   
 
4 
 
¶5 
It is undisputed that much of the misconduct at issue 
in this case was a by-product of Attorney Schreier's substance 
abuse problems during the time period in question.   
¶6 
The OLR filed a complaint against Attorney Schreier on 
February 21, 2012.  Based on the misconduct described above, the 
OLR's complaint alleged the following 20 claims of misconduct:   
• Three 
counts 
of 
engaging 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.  See 
SCR 20:8.4(c).2 
• Seven counts of committing a criminal act that 
reflects 
adversely 
on 
the 
lawyer's 
honesty, 
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other 
respects.  See SCR 20:8.4(b).3 
• One count of both engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation and 
committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on 
the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a 
lawyer.  See SCR 20:8.4(c) and SCR 20:8.4(b). 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:8.4(c) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation; . . . ." 
3 SCR 20:8.4(b) states 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. 
2012AP366-D   
 
5 
 
• Six counts of failing to timely notify the OLR of 
convictions. 
 
See 
SCR 
21.15(5)4 
enforced 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(f).5   
• Three counts of failing to cooperate with an OLR 
investigation.  See SCRs 22.03(2) and 22.03(6),6 
enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h).7 
                                                 
4 SCR 21.15(5) provides as follows: 
 
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. 
5 SCR 20:8.4(f) says 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; . . . ." 
6 SCRs 22.03(2) and (6) state: 
 
(2) Upon 
commencing 
an 
investigation, 
the 
director shall notify the respondent of the matter 
being investigated unless in the opinion of the 
director the investigation of the matter requires 
otherwise.  The respondent shall fully and fairly 
disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct within 20 days after being served 
by ordinary mail a request for a written response.  
The director may allow additional time to respond.  
Following receipt of the response, the director may 
conduct further investigation and may compel the 
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents, and 
present 
any 
information 
deemed 
relevant 
to 
the 
investigation. 
No. 
2012AP366-D   
 
6 
 
¶7 
In March 2012, prior to the appointment of a referee, 
Attorney Schreier and the OLR entered into a stipulation 
agreement.  The parties stipulated that Attorney Schreier's 
misconduct gave rise to the counts alleged in the complaint.  
They stipulated to a one-year suspension of Attorney Schreier's 
law license.  The stipulation did not recommend the imposition 
of 
conditions 
upon 
any 
future 
reinstatement 
of 
Attorney 
Schreier's Wisconsin law license.   
¶8 
In a June 28, 2012 order, this court reviewed the 
parties' stipulation and rejected it, explaining: 
After our independent review of the matter, we 
reject the SCR 22.12 stipulation.   We determine that 
the very serious and extensive nature of Attorney 
Schreier's 
professional 
misconduct 
warrants 
considerably more than a one-year suspension of her 
license to practice law in this state.   We further 
determine that in addition to a considerably longer 
license suspension, Attorney Schreier's professional 
misconduct 
requires 
the 
imposition 
of 
conditions 
directed to her rehabilitation from her demonstrated 
substance abuse problems.  We believe that this is a 
necessary 
step 
to 
ensure 
Attorney 
Schreier's 
rehabilitation and to protect the public given that 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
. . .  
 
(6) In the course of the investigation, the 
respondent's 
wilful 
failure 
to 
provide 
relevant 
information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 
documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a 
disclosure are misconduct, regardless of the merits of 
the matters asserted in the grievance. 
7 SCR 20:8.4(h) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "fail to cooperate in the investigation of a grievance 
filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required by 
SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), or 
SCR 22.04(1); . . . ." 
No. 
2012AP366-D   
 
7 
 
the use of controlled substances played a substantial 
role in the misconduct to which Attorney Schreier 
stipulated. 
¶9 
Pursuant to SCR 22.12(3),8 this court ordered the 
appointment of a referee and further ordered that the matter 
proceed as a complaint filed without a stipulation.   
¶10 A referee was appointed and the parties entered into a 
second stipulation.  In the parties' second stipulation, 
Attorney Schreier again admitted to all counts of misconduct 
alleged in the OLR's complaint.  The stipulation also explained 
that Attorney Schreier currently is on probation for her past 
criminal activity, has completed all periods of incarceration, 
has paid all fines and court costs, has paid all of the 
restitution owed to the victims of her criminal vehicular 
operation, and has maintained absolute sobriety from alcohol and 
drugs for over three years.  The parties stipulated to a two-
year license suspension.  Notwithstanding the above-quoted 
language from this court's June 2012 order, the parties' 
stipulation did not recommend the imposition of conditions upon 
any future reinstatement of Attorney Schreier's Wisconsin law 
license.   
¶11 On November 14, 2012, the referee filed a report and 
recommendation based on the parties' second stipulation.  The 
referee issued findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a 
                                                 
8 SCR 22.13(3) states as follows:  "If the supreme court 
rejects the stipulation, a referee shall be appointed and the 
matter 
shall 
proceed 
as 
a 
complaint 
filed 
without 
a 
stipulation." 
No. 
2012AP366-D   
 
8 
 
disciplinary 
recommendation 
consistent 
with 
the 
parties' 
stipulation: 
 
a 
two-year 
suspension, 
with 
no 
conditions 
precedent for reinstatement.  In a later filing, the referee 
recommended, consistent with the OLR's recommendation, that 
Attorney Schreier pay $1,403.04 in costs, which consists of the 
referee's and OLR counsel's fees and costs incurred after this 
court's rejection of the parties' first stipulation.   
¶12 No appeal was filed from the referee's report and 
recommendation, so the court reviews this matter pursuant to 
SCR 22.17(2). 
¶13 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. 
¶14 We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law 
to which the parties have stipulated, and as adopted by the 
referee.  The factual findings are supported by the record, and 
we 
agree 
with 
the 
referee 
that 
those 
factual 
findings 
demonstrate that Attorney Schreier committed each of the 20 
counts of professional misconduct alleged in the complaint. 
¶15 We 
further 
decide, 
contrary 
to 
the 
referee's 
recommendation, 
that 
a 
30-month 
license 
suspension 
is 
appropriate. 
 
Attorney 
Schreier's 
list 
of 
misdeeds 
is 
considerable, and many of them, by themselves, could have led to 
No. 
2012AP366-D   
 
9 
 
a significant suspension.  For example, though there are no 
exact matches to the facts of this case, prior cases involving 
drug use have warranted substantial suspensions.  See, e.g., In 
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Compton, 2010 WI 112, 329 
Wis. 2d 318, 787 N.W.2d 831 (two-year suspension based on 
convictions for felony possession of heroin and felony bail 
jumping, with misdemeanor charges for possession of cocaine and 
possession of drug paraphernalia dismissed and read-in for 
sentencing); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Broadnax, 
225 Wis. 2d 440, 591 N.W.2d 855 (1999) (two-year suspension for 
using 
cocaine 
while 
subject 
to 
order 
not 
to 
do 
so, 
misappropriating slightly less than $1,000 from his former law 
firm, and stealing several compact discs from an employee of his 
former law firm).  In addition, this court has imposed 
significant discipline for past criminal convictions.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Soldon, 2010 WI 27, 324 
Wis. 2d 4, 782 N.W.2d 81 (six-month suspension after misdemeanor 
convictions of retail theft and felony conviction of fleeing a 
law enforcement officer); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
George, 2008 WI 21, 308 Wis. 2d 50, 746 N.W.2d 236 (suspension 
of four years and three months after federal conviction of 
conspiracy to commit offenses against federal programs in 
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371); In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Burke, 2007 WI 46, 300 Wis. 2d 198, 730 N.W.2d 651 (two-
year suspension after felony conviction of misconduct in public 
office and misdemeanor conviction of obstructing an officer); In 
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gral, 2007 WI 22, 299 
No. 
2012AP366-D   
 
10 
 
Wis. 2d 160, 727 N.W.2d 495 (three-year suspension after federal 
conviction of mail fraud); In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Sostarich, 2005 WI 97, 282 Wis. 2d 712, 698 N.W.2d 711 
(18-month suspension after conviction of conspiracy to commit 
offenses involving federal program funds). 
¶16 While all of Attorney Schreier's criminal convictions 
are troublesome, one is particularly so:  Attorney Schreier's 
conviction for second-degree reckless endangerment contrary to 
Wis. Stat. § 941.30(2), a Class G felony.  By definition, this 
conviction was based on conduct that Attorney Schreier knew 
created an unreasonable and substantial risk of great bodily 
harm.  See Wis JI-Criminal 1347; Wis. Stat. § 939.24(1).  By any 
measure, that is a serious crime.  Combining that felony with 
Attorney Schreier's long list of other convictions, it becomes 
clear that for several years, Attorney Schreier had a habitual 
disregard for the law and her obligations as an attorney.  A 
two-year suspension risks unduly depreciating the seriousness of 
Attorney 
Schreier's 
professional 
misconduct. 
 
A 
30-month 
suspension is more appropriate.   
¶17 We turn now to the issue of conditions.  There is no 
dispute that much of Attorney Schreier's misconduct at issue in 
this case was a by-product of substance abuse problems.  There 
also 
is 
no 
dispute 
that 
Attorney 
Schreier 
has 
made 
rehabilitative 
strides 
through 
her 
personal 
efforts 
in 
Massachusetts, 
where 
she 
currently 
resides. 
 
The 
record 
indicates, for example, that she has received treatment for her 
substance abuse issues, that she does volunteer work, and that 
No. 
2012AP366-D   
 
11 
 
she has entered into an agreement with the Massachusetts Lawyers 
Concerned for Lawyers program——a program which we understand 
provides services for lawyers dealing with substance abuse 
issues.  However, given the apparent severity of Attorney 
Schreier's previous substance abuse issues, and in order to 
ensure that Attorney Schreier does not lapse into a repetition 
of the misconduct that led to the instant suspension, we order 
that Attorney Schreier must demonstrate compliance with the 
following 
requirements 
as 
a 
condition 
of 
any 
future 
reinstatement of her Wisconsin law license: 
• Compliance with all treatment recommendations of any 
substance abuse treatment provider; 
• 
Abstinence from all alcohol and other mood-altering 
substances; 
• 
Abstinence 
from 
over-the-counter 
medications 
that 
contain alcohol or mood-altering substances; and 
• 
Regular participation in a community-based support group 
such 
as 
Alcoholics 
Anonymous, 
including 
obtaining 
documentation of attendance. 
¶18 Finally, we turn to the issue of costs.  Both the OLR 
and the referee recommend that Attorney Schreier pay $1,403.04 
in costs, which represents the referee's and the OLR counsel's 
costs after this court's rejection of the parties' first 
stipulation.  We agree with the OLR and the referee that, on the 
facts of this particular case, this court's rejection of the 
parties' first stipulation was an extraordinary circumstance 
justifying a reduction in costs.  See SCR 22.24(1m). 
No. 
2012AP366-D   
 
12 
 
¶19 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Maria J. Schreier to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 30 
months, effective the date of this order. 
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of any 
future 
reinstatement 
of 
her 
license 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin, Maria J. Schreier must demonstrate compliance with 
the following requirements: 
A) 
Compliance with all treatment recommendations of any 
substance abuse treatment provider; 
B) 
Abstinence from all alcohol and other mood-altering 
substances; 
C) 
Abstinence 
from 
over-the-counter 
medications 
that 
contain alcohol or mood-altering substances; and 
D) 
Regular participation in a community-based support 
group 
such 
as 
Alcoholics 
Anonymous, 
including 
obtaining 
documentation of attendance. 
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Maria J. Schreier shall pay $1,403.04 in costs to 
the Office of Lawyer Regulation. 
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent she has not 
already done so, Maria J. Schreier 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. 
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this decision is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.29(4)(c).