Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Ryan D Lister
Citation: 2015 WI 8
Docket Number: 2013AP000746-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: January 28, 2015

2015 WI 8 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2013AP746-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
Ryan D. Lister, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Ryan D Lister, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST LISTER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
January 28, 2015 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the respondent-appellant, there was a brief by Ryan 
Lister, Wausau. 
 
 
For the complainant-respondent, there was a brief by Robert 
G. Krohn and Roethe Pope Roethe LLP, Edgerton. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2015 WI 8
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2013AP746-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Ryan D. Lister, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Ryan D Lister, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
JAN 28, 2015 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney Ryan D. Lister appeals a report 
rendered 
by 
the 
Honorable 
Robert 
E. 
Kinney, 
referee, 
recommending revocation of Attorney Lister's license to practice 
law in Wisconsin, imposition of costs, and restitution to the 
following:  Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection in the 
amount of $8,548.89; D.W. in the amount of $3,151.11; and A.B. 
in the amount of $100.00.  The referee found that Attorney 
Lister committed 34 of the 39 charged counts of misconduct.  
No. 
2013AP746-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
We have considered Attorney Lister's arguments on 
appeal and find them unavailing.  We approve the referee's 
findings of fact and conclusions of law.  The referee's 
reasoning 
with 
respect 
to 
discipline 
and 
restitution 
is 
persuasive and we conclude that revocation of Attorney Lister's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin is appropriate in view of 
his extensive pattern of misconduct.  We further agree with the 
referee that Attorney Lister shall bear the costs of this 
disciplinary proceeding, which are $28,200.86 as of December 18, 
2014, and shall pay the restitution recommended herein. 
¶3 
Attorney Lister was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1976 and has practiced in the Wausau area.  In 
1986, 
Attorney 
Lister 
was 
publicly 
reprimanded 
for 
unprofessional conduct which consisted of:  neglect of a 
client's legal matters, in violation of former Supreme Court 
Rule (SCR) 20.32(3); failure to carry out a contract of 
employment 
with 
a 
client, 
in 
violation 
of 
former 
SCR 20.35(1)(b); and conduct constituting misrepresentation, in 
violation 
of 
former 
SCR 20.04(4). 
 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Lister, 
127 Wis. 2d 453, 
380 N.W.2d 370 
(1986).   
¶4 
Effective June 15, 2007, Attorney Lister's law license 
was suspended for five months for 17 counts of misconduct 
involving seven separate grievance investigations.  The rules he 
violated 
relate 
to 
competence 
(SCR 20:1.1), 
diligence 
(SCR 20:1.3), keeping a client informed (SCR 20:1.4(a)), failure 
to cooperate with an investigation (SCR 22.03(2) and (6)), false 
No. 
2013AP746-D   
 
3 
 
statements to a tribunal (SCR 20:3.3(a)(l)), failure to refund 
advance fee payments (SCR 20:1.16(d)), and dishonesty and/or 
misrepresentation 
(SCR 20:8.4(c)). 
 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Lister, 
2007 WI 55, 
300 Wis. 2d 326, 
731 N.W.2d 254.  
¶5 
Effective October 4, 2010, Attorney Lister's law 
license was suspended for 60 days for four counts of misconduct 
involving one grievant.  The rules he violated relate to 
diligence 
(SCR 20:1.3), 
keeping 
a 
client 
informed 
(SCR 20:1.4(a)), failure to forward the client's file to 
successor 
counsel 
and 
refund 
advance 
fee 
payments 
(SCR 20:1.16(d)), and failure to cooperate with an investigation 
(SCRs 21.15(4), 22.03(2), and 22.04(1)).  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Lister, 
2010 WI 108, 
329 Wis. 2d 289, 
787 N.W.2d 820. 
¶6 
In 2012, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) was 
required to seek enforcement of this court's previous orders 
based on Attorney Lister's knowing and intentional failure to 
obey orders to make restitution payments to an injured client.  
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Lister, 2012 WI 102, 
343 Wis. 2d 532, 817 N.W.2d 867. 
¶7 
That brings us to the matter now before this court.  
On April 2, 2013, the OLR filed a complaint against Attorney 
Lister, as amended September 19, 2013, alleging 39 ethical 
violations related to multiple client matters.  This court 
appointed Referee Kinney, who presided over the disciplinary 
proceeding and conducted an evidentiary hearing on January 20 
No. 
2013AP746-D   
 
4 
 
and 21, 2014.  Following the hearing, the OLR moved for and the 
referee granted dismissal of four of the alleged counts (Counts 
1, 3, 12, and 29), so they are not discussed in this opinion. 
¶8 
On June 13, 2014, the referee filed a report and 
recommendation, finding violations of all but one of the 
remaining counts and recommending that this court revoke 
Attorney Lister's license to practice law.   
¶9 
Shortly after the report was filed, Attorney Lister 
filed a motion to supplement the record and for reconsideration, 
citing incidents that occurred after the evidentiary hearing.  
The referee denied Attorney Lister's motion on July 2, 2014.  
This appeal followed. 
¶10 We first consider Attorney Lister's appeal from the 
referee's 
decision 
denying 
Attorney 
Lister's 
request 
to 
supplement the record and for reconsideration.  The pending 
complaint contains allegations relating to Attorney Lister's 
representation of J.T., alleging, inter alia, that Attorney 
Lister and J.T. commenced a sexual relationship while J.T. was 
his client.  Attorney Lister acknowledges that he had a serious 
relationship with J.T., but he disputes that it commenced when 
she was a client.  At the time of the January 2014 evidentiary 
hearing, the relationship had ended and it is clear that 
relations 
between 
the 
two 
had 
soured. 
 
J.T. 
testified 
extensively against Attorney Lister.  Attorney Lister strongly 
challenged J.T.'s credibility, claiming that after the parties 
separated, J.T. subjected him to harassing behavior. 
No. 
2013AP746-D   
 
5 
 
¶11 Shortly after the referee's report issued, Attorney 
Lister filed the motion claiming an incident had occurred in 
which J.T. "made serious, false criminal allegations against 
[Lister]" eliciting a police call.  Attorney Lister asserts that 
the allegation was completely false and was intended only to 
harass him.  Attorney Lister sought to reopen the disciplinary 
matter and supplement the record with this evidence on the 
grounds that it bears on J.T.'s credibility.  Attorney Lister 
also sought reconsideration, advising the referee that another 
former client, A.P., had, since the date of the evidentiary 
hearing, entered a "no contest" plea in a criminal matter, a 
fact Attorney Lister deemed relevant to A.P.'s credibility.  The 
referee denied the motion, citing the need for finality in this 
litigation.  
¶12 Attorney Lister appeals, contending that the referee's 
decision was an erroneous exercise of discretion.  We disagree.  
The referee was well aware when he rendered his report that 
Attorney 
Lister 
and 
J.T. 
had 
a 
contentious 
relationship 
following their break-up.  The referee was also well aware that 
the cornerstone of Attorney Lister's defense to the allegations 
involving J.T. was his challenge to J.T.'s credibility.  The 
alleged incident with J.T. occurred months after the evidentiary 
hearing ended and after the referee filed his report and 
recommendation.  Moreover, Attorney Lister's affidavit was 
unsupported by other documentation such as a police report, 
criminal complaint, or conviction record.  It was not a misuse 
of discretion to reject this "new" information. 
No. 
2013AP746-D   
 
6 
 
¶13 Similarly, it is hard to imagine how A.P.'s criminal 
conviction for drug trafficking, occurring after the evidentiary 
hearing, would have made a difference in the referee's report.  
The referee was well aware that A.P. had a criminal record at 
the time of the evidentiary hearing.  The referee was wholly 
within his discretion to deny both Attorney Lister's request to 
supplement the record and his request to reconsider the report. 
¶14 We turn to Attorney Lister's appeal from the findings 
and conclusions stated in the referee's report.  Attorney 
Lister's 
appellate 
brief1 
focuses 
on 
the 
findings 
and 
recommendations relating to three client matters:  A.P., D.W., 
and J.T.  This court will adopt a referee's findings of fact 
unless they are "clearly erroneous."  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Charlton, 
174 Wis. 2d 844, 
874, 
498 N.W.2d 380 (1993); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Swartwout, 116 Wis. 2d 380, 382, 342 N.W.2d 406 (1984).  We 
review 
the 
referee's 
conclusions 
of 
law 
de 
novo.  
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hetzel, 118 Wis. 2d 257, 
259, 
346 N.W.2d 782 
(1984), 
cert. 
denied, 
469 U.S. 857, 
105 S. Ct. 186 (1984); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Norlin, 104 Wis. 2d 117, 122, 310 N.W.2d 789 (1981). 
                                                 
1 Attorney Lister filed an appellate brief but did not file 
a reply brief.  After the court denied his request to postpone 
oral argument, scheduled for December 4, 2014, Attorney Lister 
opted to forego oral argument and rely solely on his brief.   
No. 
2013AP746-D   
 
7 
 
Matter of A.P. (Counts 1-8)2 
¶15 Attorney Lister contends that the OLR failed to prove 
he committed ethical violations in his representation of A.P.  
In 2009, A.P., who was incarcerated, hired Attorney Lister to 
explore possible sentence modification.  Throughout 2009, A.P. 
repeatedly wrote to Attorney Lister, asking about the status of 
his case.  Attorney Lister failed to respond to these letters.  
Attorney Lister did inform A.P. that he had talked with a Forest 
County District Attorney about an agreement regarding possible 
sentence reduction.  The amended complaint alleges that this was 
misrepresentation because, in fact, the district attorney was 
not willing to negotiate; indeed, he apparently told Attorney 
Lister that if A.P. successfully withdrew his plea, other 
criminal charges could ensue.  In November 2009, A.P. asked 
Attorney Lister to withdraw as A.P.'s attorney and to refund his 
fee.  Attorney Lister failed to either respond or return legal 
fees.  During the ensuing disciplinary investigation, the OLR 
repeatedly requested written responses from Attorney Lister and 
Attorney Lister failed to timely respond.  When he did respond, 
he misrepresented several facts to the OLR and to the OLR's 
assisting District Committee. 
¶16 The referee considered the evidence and determined 
that 
Attorney 
Lister: 
 
failed 
to 
communicate 
with 
A.P. 
(Count 2); failed to respond to the client's requests that 
                                                 
2 No party appealed the referee's dismissal of Counts 1 
and 3, so they are not discussed further. 
No. 
2013AP746-D   
 
8 
 
Attorney Lister withdraw, return all legal fees paid, and send 
the client's file to his new attorney, and also failed to submit 
the fee dispute to binding arbitration with the Wisconsin State 
Bar (Count 4); misrepresented to his client whether the district 
attorney was willing to consider some sort of deal (Count 5); 
failed to cooperate with the OLR (Count 6); and misrepresented 
several facts to the OLR (Count 7) and to the District Committee 
(Count 8). 
¶17 Attorney Lister's appellate brief focuses primarily on 
a factual dispute as to how often Attorney Lister met with the 
district attorney concerning the A.P. matter.  He contends that 
his own testimony, coupled with that of other witnesses, proves 
that when Attorney Lister told his client, A.P., that he was in 
Forest County, Attorney Lister was, in fact, in Forest County.  
He asserts that, to the extent the district attorney refutes 
Attorney Lister's testimony, the district attorney is not 
credible. 
¶18 The 
record 
reflects 
that 
the 
referee 
carefully 
considered Attorney Lister's proffered proof, including CCAP 
records, correspondence, and emails, and determined that the 
real issue was not the number of meetings Attorney Lister had 
with 
the 
district 
attorney 
but 
whether 
Attorney 
Lister 
misrepresented the district attorney's comments to A.P.  The 
referee 
determined, 
unequivocally, 
that 
Attorney 
Lister 
misrepresented the district attorney's position on a possible 
sentence reduction and concluded that the OLR had established 
the other alleged violations as well.   
No. 
2013AP746-D   
 
9 
 
¶19 Although Attorney Lister argues that the referee 
failed to give adequate weight to his evidence, the referee 
clearly weighed the credibility of Attorney Lister's testimony 
and found it wanting.  We will not reassess Attorney Lister's 
credibility.  We conclude that the record supports the referee's 
findings and conclusions pertaining to A.P. and we accept them. 
See 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Eisenberg, 
2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747. 
Matter of D.W. (Counts 15-25)3 
¶20 Attorney Lister also challenges the referee's findings 
and conclusions pertaining to his representation of D.W.  In 
April 2008, D.W. retained Attorney Lister to represent him in an 
ongoing property dispute pending in Marathon County.  D.W. paid 
Attorney Lister $2,000 or $2,500 in cash as advanced fees.  
There was no written fee agreement and D.W. received no receipt.  
Notably, Attorney Lister was aware that D.W had a history of 
fairly severe depression and anxiety and had sustained a heart 
attack and a stroke.   
¶21 In June 2010, the Marathon County case settled.  D.W. 
was entitled to receive settlement money from the defendant's 
title insurance company and from the defendant.  Each party was 
to pay $200 to the mediator, and D.W. also owed disbursements to 
a court reporter and for certain other court services.  
                                                 
3 The referee dismissed Count 15 (alleging that Attorney 
Lister failed to actively pursue collection of a due and owing 
balance from the defendant).  The OLR does not appeal the 
dismissal of this count and it will not be discussed further.  
No. 
2013AP746-D   
 
10 
 
¶22 For more than a year and a half, Attorney Lister 
failed to give D.W. his settlement funds, despite numerous 
requests.  Meanwhile, Attorney Lister issued a number of checks 
to himself, in excess of attorney fees he was owed.  Eventually, 
D.W. was forced to hire another lawyer to try to help him 
recover his settlement money.  
¶23 Based on his findings, the referee concluded that 
Attorney Lister:  failed to prepare a written fee agreement 
after receiving advanced fees (Count 16); failed to hold in 
trust D.W.'s settlement funds, while issuing checks to himself 
in amounts that exceeded the balance of any remaining legal fees 
(Count 17); failed to deliver to D.W. the balance of the 
settlement funds for a period of over one and a half years 
(Count 18); failed to timely deliver the mediation fee to the 
mediator (Count 19); failed to report a payment to the mediator 
or show balances following each transaction in the client ledger 
maintained for D.W. (Count 20); failed to respond to the OLR's 
requests for information about the grievance filed by D.W. 
(Count 21); stated to the OLR that he had paid the court 
reporter and expert from the settlement proceeds, though his 
account records did not reflect such payments (Count 22); made 
numerous transactions from his client trust account between July 
2010 and December 2011 (Count 23); made numerous deposits into 
his 
client 
trust 
account 
without 
including 
the 
proper 
identifying information on the deposit slips, and made numerous 
withdrawals without including the proper identifying information 
No. 
2013AP746-D   
 
11 
 
in the memo line (Count 24); and issued a check from his client 
trust account to one of his office employees (Count 25).  
¶24 On appeal, Attorney Lister focuses on the allegation 
that he failed to give D.W. his settlement funds.  He claims 
that D.W. told Attorney Lister not to disburse any funds because 
D.W. disagreed with certain disbursements owed to a court 
reporter and other court service providers.  Attorney Lister 
admits that he violated trust account rules, but suggests that 
"said violation does not rise to the sanctions requested by the 
Referee in this matter."  The referee's thorough and careful 
analysis of this issue belies Attorney Lister's claims.  The 
referee found that months and years passed before D.W. ever 
received his settlement proceeds, and he received the proceeds 
only after he was forced to retain the services of another 
attorney to collect them.  Moreover, Attorney Lister pocketed 
money that should have otherwise gone for incurred expenses or 
returned to the client. The record supports the referee's 
findings 
and 
conclusions 
pertaining 
to 
Attorney 
Lister's 
representation of D.W. and we adopt them.  
Matter of J.T. (Counts 34-38) 
¶25 Attorney 
Lister 
also 
challenges 
the 
allegations 
concerning his representation of J.T.  In 2005, J.T. retained 
Attorney Lister to handle her divorce case and a pending 
disorderly conduct charge.  The two commenced a romantic 
relationship that lasted several years.  In February 2009, J.T. 
was cited for a traffic violation in Kansas.  She appealed, 
requiring her to file briefs in the Kansas Court of Appeals.  
No. 
2013AP746-D   
 
12 
 
Attorney Lister was not admitted to the practice of law in 
Kansas and was not admitted to practice in Kansas on a pro hac 
vice basis.  The amended complaint alleged and the referee found 
that Attorney Lister helped J.T. write and file the briefs with 
the Kansas court.  The amended complaint further alleged and the 
referee found that throughout his representation of J.T., 
Attorney Lister permitted her to be alone in his office, and 
disclosed details of other client matters to her.  
¶26 After the Kansas case ended, J.T. wrote to Attorney 
Lister on numerous occasions asking for documents from her case 
file.  Attorney Lister failed to respond to her requests or 
provide the documents requested.  The OLR eventually referred 
the matter to a District Committee.  Attorney Lister repeatedly 
failed to timely respond to inquiries from the District 
Committee, and when he did finally respond, he failed to provide 
the information and/or documents requested. 
¶27 Based on these facts, the referee concluded that 
Attorney 
Lister: 
 
revealed 
client 
confidences 
to 
J.T. 
(Count 34); engaged in a sexual relationship with J.T. while she 
was a client (Count 35); failed to provide the client's file in 
the Kansas case upon termination of his representation for a 
period of over two years and as repeatedly requested by the 
client (Count 36); engaged in the unauthorized practice of law 
by writing and submitting a brief on behalf of J.T. to a court 
in Kansas without seeking admission pro hac vice (Count 37); and 
failed to respond to seven inquiries from the OLR District 
Committee investigator (Count 38).  
No. 
2013AP746-D   
 
13 
 
¶28 On 
appeal, 
Attorney 
Lister 
maintains 
that 
his 
relationship with J.T. started after all the legal work ended.  
He denies writing the Kansas briefs for J.T., claiming that J.T. 
did the work herself.  He reiterates claims he made at the 
evidentiary hearing that after the relationship ended, J.T. 
pursued 
Attorney 
Lister 
and 
engaged 
in 
harassing 
and 
surveillance type behavior.  His appeal from the findings and 
conclusions related to J.T. is predicated on his assertion that 
J.T. is not credible. 
¶29 Our review of the record and the referee's report 
reflects the referee's careful and thorough analysis of the 
evidence.  In particular, the dispute as to the precise timing 
of Attorney Lister's intimate relationship with J.T. was 
scrutinized by the referee.  The referee found that the 
relationship began in January of 2006, as J.T. described, and 
that Attorney Lister was representing her in her divorce at the 
time the relationship started.4  The report is also replete with 
commentary as to the referee's assessment of the credibility of 
J.T. and that of Attorney Lister.  The referee deemed J.T. 
credible in her testimony.  As to Attorney Lister, the referee 
observed: 
The Respondent would like to portray himself as a 
person who helps the poor and downtrodden, who 
oftentimes works on a pro bono basis, and who puts the 
                                                 
4 The referee found that the relationship lasted three to 
three and a half years and encompassed the time period during 
which Attorney Lister represented J.T. on more than one matter. 
No. 
2013AP746-D   
 
14 
 
interests of his clients before his own. To the 
contrary, in the cases that are the subject of this 
proceeding, the Respondent has shown himself to be a 
dishonest manipulator of the weak, unsophisticated and 
vulnerable, all of whom he willingly exploited for his 
own advantage.  
We defer to the referee's clearly stated and well supported 
credibility determinations.  We are not persuaded that the 
referee's conclusions of law are clearly erroneous and we accept 
the referee's findings and his conclusions pertaining to the 
matter of J.T.  
Other Misconduct 
¶30 Attorney Lister's appellate brief focuses on the three 
client matters discussed above, but the OLR's amended complaint 
alleged and the referee concluded that Attorney Lister committed 
some 13 additional ethical violations involving a number of 
additional clients.   
¶31 A number of the disciplinary charges filed against 
Attorney Lister involve his failure to cooperate with the OLR.5 
In his appellate brief, Attorney Lister peripherally challenges 
these findings and conclusions. He attempts to deflect and 
minimize responsibility for his noncooperation but ultimately 
offers no meaningful defense to the multitude of noncooperation 
                                                 
5 The OLR alleged that Attorney Lister failed to cooperate 
with the OLR in Counts 6-8, 11, 14, 21-22, 26, 28, 33, and 38-39 
of the amended complaint.  In some cases, the OLR alleged that 
Attorney Lister committed ethical misconduct in addition to his 
failure to cooperate with the OLR.  In others, the OLR did not 
find cause to proceed on certain grievances, but alleged that 
Attorney Lister violated ethical rules by failing to cooperate 
with the OLR investigation of those client grievances.   
No. 
2013AP746-D   
 
15 
 
charges, all deemed by the referee to have been proven.  We 
accept the referee's findings and conclusions pertaining to 
these matters.   
¶32 Attorney 
Lister 
has 
not 
appealed 
the 
referee's 
conclusion that he committed misconduct in several other 
matters, which are briefly summarized. 
Matter of A.B. (Counts 9-10) 
¶33 With respect to Attorney Lister's representation of 
A.B., the amended complaint alleged and the referee agreed that 
Attorney Lister failed to deposit a $100 check for filing and 
service fees into his client trust account, instead depositing 
it into his law firm's business account (Count 9), and then 
failed to refund the $100 cost advance for filing and service 
fees that were never incurred (Count 10).   
Matter of P.T. (Count 11) 
¶34 In May 2010, P.T. hired Attorney Lister to represent 
him in a Marathon County misdemeanor case.  P.T. subsequently 
filed a grievance with the OLR against Attorney Lister.  This 
grievance did not result in misconduct charges.  However, the 
amended complaint alleged and the referee found that Attorney 
Lister failed to respond to multiple requests for information 
from the OLR as it sought to investigate this matter.   
No. 
2013AP746-D   
 
16 
 
Matter of T.A. (Counts 12-14)6 
¶35 The 
amended 
complaint 
alleged 
and 
the 
referee 
concluded that Attorney Lister failed to return a client file 
upon request, and did so only after two requests were made by 
the client's new attorney (Count 13), and also failed to respond 
to repeated requests for information from the OLR (Count 14).  
Matter of H.V.N. (Count 26) 
¶36 A former client, H.V.N., filed a grievance with the 
OLR against Attorney Lister.  This grievance did not result in 
misconduct charges.  However, the amended complaint alleged and 
the referee found that Attorney Lister failed to respond to 
multiple requests for information from the OLR as it sought to 
investigate this matter. 
Overdraft Violations (Counts 27-28) 
¶37 The 
amended 
complaint 
alleged 
and 
the 
referee 
concluded that Attorney Lister failed to file an overdraft 
notification agreement for his trust account with the OLR, 
despite repeated requests from the OLR (Count 27), and then 
failed to timely respond to the OLR's requests for information 
pertaining to this issue (Count 28). 
                                                 
6 The referee dismissed Count 12 and no party appealed this 
decision.  It is not discussed further. 
No. 
2013AP746-D   
 
17 
 
Matter of B.S. (Counts 29-33)7 
¶38 With respect to his representation of B.S., the 
amended complaint alleged and the referee concluded that 
Attorney Lister:  failed to accomplish service of a summons and 
complaint on behalf of his client, resulting in the court's 
dismissal of the lawsuit, reflecting a lack of competent 
representation and a lack of diligence (Count 30); failed to 
respond to his client's requests for information regarding the 
status of his case (Count 31); failed to prepare a written fee 
agreement when he began representation of B.S. on a contingent 
fee basis (Count 32); and failed to timely respond to the OLR's 
requests for information (Count 33). 
Matter of Mr. and Mrs. E. (Count 39) 
¶39 No formal charges resulted from a grievance filed 
against Attorney Lister by Mr. and Mrs. E.  However, the amended 
complaint alleged and the referee found that Attorney Lister 
failed to respond to multiple requests for information from the 
OLR as it sought to investigate this matter. 
¶40 The facts of record support the referee's findings and 
demonstrate that Attorney Lister committed each of the 34 counts 
of professional misconduct determined by the referee. 
¶41 After making a determination that Attorney Lister 
committed misconduct with respect to the 34 counts summarized 
above, the referee evaluated the appropriate discipline for 
                                                 
7 Count 29 was dismissed by the referee and no party 
appealed this decision.  It will not be discussed further. 
No. 
2013AP746-D   
 
18 
 
Attorney Lister, recommending revocation.  On appeal, Attorney 
Lister argues that a public reprimand is sufficient.  Attorney 
Lister's opinion is apparently based on the notion that "none of 
the alleged actions by Attorney Lister were criminal in nature."   
¶42 We determine the appropriate level of discipline given 
the particular facts of each case, independent of the referee's 
recommendation, but benefitting from it.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 
660 N.W.2d 686.  After careful consideration of the report and 
recommendation and the record in this matter, we accept the 
referee's recommendation for revocation.  The scope and severity 
of the misconduct committed in this matter, Attorney Lister's 
extensive disciplinary history, and the numerous aggravating 
factors warrant revocation.  
¶43 The 34 proven counts in the OLR's amended complaint 
range from conversion of client funds to having engaged in an 
impermissible sexual relationship with a client.  Attorney 
Lister habitually refused to cooperate with the OLR, failed to 
keep clients reasonably informed, and has breached client 
confidences.  Moreover, as the referee observed, this proceeding 
is the latest in "a disturbing pattern of misconduct that has 
extended over many years."   
¶44 Attorney Lister's significant disciplinary history 
includes a 60-day suspension in 2010, a five-month suspension in 
2007, and a court-ordered public reprimand in 1986.  In 
addition, in 2012 he was the subject of an enforcement 
proceeding for intentionally failing to pay court-ordered 
No. 
2013AP746-D   
 
19 
 
restitution.  Moreover, a number of aggravating factors are 
present.  In addition to the significant disciplinary history 
noted, Attorney Lister's conduct reflects a dishonest or selfish 
motive; multiple offenses; intentional violation of the rules; 
submittal 
of 
false 
information 
to 
the 
OLR; 
refusal 
to 
acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct; and vulnerable 
clients.  
¶45 As the referee observed, Attorney Lister "has shown 
himself 
to 
be 
a 
dishonest 
manipulator 
of 
the 
weak, 
unsophisticated and vulnerable, all of whom he willingly 
exploited for his own advantage."  The record wholly supports 
the referee's recommendation for revocation. 
¶46 Concerning monetary sanctions, we agree with the 
referee's recommendation that Attorney Lister be ordered to pay 
restitution as follows:  Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client 
Protection ($8,548.89), D.W. ($3,151.11), and A.B. ($100.00).  
Attorney Lister does not dispute the referee's restitution 
recommendation and we award restitution accordingly. 
¶47 We further conclude that full costs in the amount of 
$28,200.86 are to be imposed on Attorney Lister.  Attorney 
Lister does not argue that there are extraordinary circumstances 
here that would justify a departure from the court's standard 
practice of imposing full costs against the respondent attorney. 
See SCR 22.24(1m).  
¶48 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Ryan D. Lister to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective February 27, 
2015. 
No. 
2013AP746-D   
 
20 
 
¶49 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Ryan D. Lister shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $28,200.86 as 
of December 18, 2014. 
¶50 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Ryan D. Lister shall pay restitution as follows: 
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection ($8,548.89), 
D.W. ($3,151.11), and A.B. ($100.00).   
¶51 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified 
above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation. 
¶52 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Ryan D. Lister shall comply with the provisions 
of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked. 
 
 
No. 
2013AP746-D   
 
 
 
1