Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Brian B. Burke
Citation: 2007 WI 46
Docket Number: 2006AP000432-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: May 2, 2007

2007 WI 46 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2006AP432-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Brian B. Burke, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Brian B. Burke, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BURKE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 2, 2007   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: PROSSER, J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2007 WI 46
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2006AP432-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Brian B. Burke, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Brian B. Burke, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 2, 2007 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that Attorney Brian B. Burke's license to practice law 
in Wisconsin be suspended due to professional misconduct for two 
years retroactive to January 3, 2005, and that Attorney Burke 
pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding.  The referee also 
recommended that Attorney Burke be required to obtain a minimum 
of 15 continuing legal education (CLE) ethics credits relating 
to honesty.  Attorney Burke's misconduct consisted of committing 
No. 
2006AP432-D   
 
2 
 
criminal 
acts 
that 
reflect 
adversely 
on 
his 
honesty, 
trustworthiness and fitness as a lawyer.  No appeal has been 
filed. 
¶2 
We 
approve 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and adopt them.  We agree with the referee 
that the seriousness of Attorney Burke's misconduct warrants a 
two year suspension of his license to practice law in Wisconsin, 
along with the imposition of the costs of this disciplinary 
proceeding and the requirement that 15 CLE ethics credits 
relating to honesty be completed.  We depart from the referee's 
recommendation with respect to the effective date of the 
suspension and order the suspension to be retroactive to January 
3, 2006, the date this court summarily suspended Attorney 
Burke's law license.    
¶3 
Attorney Burke was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1981.  He has not been subject to any previous 
disciplinary proceedings.  He has served as an elected Wisconsin 
state senator.  
¶4 
A criminal prosecution was filed against Attorney 
Burke in Dane County Circuit Court.  The charges involved 
allegations that between December 2000 and April 2002, Attorney 
Burke, 
while 
serving 
in 
public 
office 
as 
a 
senator, 
intentionally supervised and oversaw extensive work of state 
employees performing acts to further his campaign for attorney 
general using resources of the state of Wisconsin over which 
Attorney Burke had authority to control in his public office. 
No. 
2006AP432-D   
 
3 
 
¶5 
On April 18, 2003, an amended criminal complaint 
charged Attorney Burke with misconduct in public office as party 
to the crime in Counts 1—14; with fraudulent concealment of a 
public record as party to the crime in Counts 15 and 17; with 
withholding a subpoenaed document in Count 16, and with 
alteration of documents subject to subpoena as party to the 
crime in Count 18.1   
¶6 
On October 5, 2005, pursuant to a plea agreement with 
the State, Attorney Burke entered a guilty plea to Count 1, 
misconduct in public office, in violation of Wis. Stat. 
§§ 939.05 and 946.12(3) (2001-02),2 a Class E felony.  He also 
pled guilty to Count 16, obstructing an officer, in violation of 
Wis. Stat. § 946.41(1), as amended to a Class A misdemeanor.   
¶7 
In addition, Attorney Burke and the State agreed that 
Counts 7—14 be amended to a single charge of intentional misuse 
of public office.  This single count was then dismissed and 
"read in" for sentencing purposes.  The circuit court dismissed 
the remaining counts.  On November 30, 2005, Attorney Burke was 
sentenced to six months in jail.  The court authorized a payment 
plan with respect to a forfeiture/fine. 
                                                 
1 On July 27, 2004, the Dane County Circuit Court dismissed 
Counts 2—6 pursuant to motions.  On August 13, 2004, an amended 
information was filed recharging Counts 2—6 as misdemeanors.  
Counts 2—6 were dismissed by the Dane County Circuit Court on 
December 22, 2004.   
2 All further references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 2001-02 version unless otherwise noted.  
No. 
2006AP432-D   
 
4 
 
¶8 
On January 3, 2006, upon stipulation, this court 
summarily suspended Attorney Burke's law license pursuant to SCR 
22.20.  Attorney Burke claims to have voluntarily refrained from 
practicing law from July or August of 2002 through the time of 
his summary suspension.   
¶9 
On February 22, 2006, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a disciplinary complaint alleging two counts of 
misconduct.  Count 1 alleged that by intentionally hiring, 
retaining, and supervising state employees to work on his 
campaign for the office of Wisconsin Attorney General during 
times when they were compensated as state employees, or using 
state resources or both, contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 939.05 and 
946.12(3), Attorney Burke committed criminal acts that reflect 
adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness and fitness as a 
lawyer, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(b).3   
¶10 Count 
2 
of 
the 
OLR 
complaint 
alleged 
that 
by 
intentionally withholding a document, knowing that the document 
had been subpoenaed by the Dane County Circuit Court at the 
request of the Dane County District Attorney, contrary to Wis. 
Stat. § 946.41(1), Attorney Burke committed a criminal act that 
reflects adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness and fitness 
as a lawyer, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(b).  The complaint 
sought a suspension of Attorney Burke's license for a period of 
                                                 
3 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." 
No. 
2006AP432-D   
 
5 
 
two years, retroactive to January 3, 2006, and sought the 
assessment of costs of the disciplinary proceedings pursuant to 
SCR 22.24.4   
¶11 Dennis J. Flynn was appointed referee on June 6, 2006.   
On August 14, 2006, the parties filed a stipulation of facts.  
The referee accepted the facts as set forth in the stipulation.  
The referee filed his report and recommendation on November 22, 
2006.  The report concluded that the record conclusively 
established the counts alleged in the complaint.  The referee 
recommended 
Attorney 
Burke's 
license 
to 
practice 
law 
be 
suspended retroactively to January 3, 2005, and that the costs 
of the disciplinary proceeding be assessed against him.   
¶12 The referee's reason for recommending the suspension 
be retroactive to January 2005 was that Attorney Burke had 
voluntarily not practiced law since the summer of 2002.  In 
recommending a two year suspension, the referee found both 
mitigating and aggravating factors.  Mitigating factors were:  
(1) Attorney Burke had not been the subject of previous 
discipline; (2) he had been involved with distinction in public 
office for two decades; (3) his misconduct did not directly 
relate to the practice of law; (4) he has received a substantial 
                                                 
4 The parties had filed a stipulation pursuant to SCR 22.12.  
In a May 15, 2006 order, this court found that the stipulation 
did not comport with SCR 22.12(1) because it failed to stipulate 
to conclusions of law regarding the misconduct alleged in the 
OLR complaint.  Therefore, this court did not approve the 
stipulation and the matter proceeded as a complaint filed 
without a stipulation. 
No. 
2006AP432-D   
 
6 
 
penalty from the criminal convictions including jail, fines and 
restitution; (5) Attorney Burke is barred from certain political 
careers as a result of his criminal convictions; (6) Attorney 
Burke has been unemployed for a lengthy period of time; and (7) 
Attorney Burke has demonstrated remorse and cooperation since 
the resolution of criminal charges.   
¶13 The referee noted the following aggravating factors:  
(1) the crime of misconduct in office involved the use of state 
resources for personal gain; (2) the crime of obstructing an 
officer involved intentional efforts to mislead and cover up 
facts in a criminal investigation; (3) the misconduct involved 
dishonesty and violation of public trust; and (4) the misconduct 
furthered efforts to obtain a public office that could only be 
held by a Wisconsin licensed attorney.5 
¶14 The matter is now before this court to review the 
referee's report and recommendation.  No appeal has been filed, 
although Attorney Burke has filed an objection to the imposition 
of full costs.   
¶15 This court concludes that the record supports the 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law.  They are 
                                                 
5 On November 30, 2006, the OLR moved to reconsider the 
retroactivity portion of the recommended license suspension.   
The OLR disagreed that Attorney Burke's voluntary cessation from 
legal practice was by virtue of an agreement with the OLR.  It 
pointed out that, in response to the OLR's motion and Attorney 
Burke's stipulation, this court summarily suspended Attorney 
Burke's license pursuant to SCR 22.20 on January 3, 2006.  
Attorney Burke opposed the OLR's motion for reconsideration.  On 
December 26, 2006, the referee filed a decision denying the 
OLR's reconsideration motion. 
No. 
2006AP432-D   
 
7 
 
unchallenged and this court adopts them.  In evaluating the 
appropriate discipline, which this court does independently of 
the 
referee's 
recommendation, 
this 
court 
considers 
the 
seriousness of the misconduct, the need to protect the public, 
the courts and legal system from repetition of misconduct, and 
the need to deter other attorneys from engaging in similar 
misconduct.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Arthur, 
2005 WI 40, ¶78, 279 Wis. 2d 583, 694 N.W.2d 910. 
¶16 Attorney Burke's misconduct involving dishonesty and 
violation of the public trust reflects serious infractions of 
Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct.  This court 
concludes that a two year license suspension is necessary to 
achieve the objectives of lawyer discipline.  However, we depart 
from the referee's reasoning with respect to the effective date 
of the license suspension.  Consistent with this court's past 
practices, we conclude that Attorney Burke's license suspension 
shall be retroactive to the date we summarily suspended his 
license on January 3, 2006.   
¶17 We reject Attorney Burke's challenge to the imposition 
of the costs of the disciplinary proceeding.  On December 11, 
2006, the OLR filed a statement of costs totaling $11,081.49.  
Attorney Burke requested that less than the full amount of costs 
be assessed based on principles of equity, fairness and his 
financial circumstances.  This court concludes that Attorney 
Burke's financial circumstances do not override the principles 
of equity and fairness, which require the assessment of the 
entire costs against Attorney Burke.  
No. 
2006AP432-D   
 
8 
 
¶18 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Brian B. Burke to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for two years, effective 
retroactive to January 3, 2006. 
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Brian B. Burke 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 Attorney Burke to practice law shall remain suspended 
pending further order of the court. 
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Burke shall 
complete 15 hours of continuing legal education ethics credits.     
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent he has not 
done so, Brian B. Burke 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. 
¶22 DAVID T. PROSSER, J., did not participate.    
No. 
2006AP432-D   
 
 
 
1