Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Scott E. Hansen
Citation: 2009 WI 56
Docket Number: 2008AP000804-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: June 18, 2009

2009 WI 56 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2008AP804-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Scott E. Hansen, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Scott E. Hansen, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HANSEN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 18, 2009   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2009 WI 56
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2008AP804-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Scott E. Hansen, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Scott E. Hansen, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 18, 2009 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a report and recommendation 
filed by Referee John Murphy recommending the court suspend 
Attorney Scott E. Hansen's license to practice law for a period 
of six months consecutive to his present suspension for failure 
to pay Wisconsin bar dues, together with the imposition of 
restitution, costs, and certain conditions on reinstatement.  No 
No. 
2008AP804-D   
 
2 
 
appeal was filed so this matter is considered pursuant to SCR 
22.17(2).1   
¶2 
We 
accept 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law.  We agree that the recommended restitution 
is appropriate, together with imposition of costs and certain 
conditions on reinstatement.  However, we have concluded that a 
suspension 
of 
six 
months 
is 
inadequate 
to 
address 
the 
seriousness and scope of Attorney Hansen's misconduct.  His 
license will be suspended for a period of nine months. 
¶3 
Attorney Hansen was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1983.  In 1995 he received a private reprimand for 
misconduct consisting of failing to perform any work on 58 
collection matters for a period of six months, failing to 
respond to a client's telephone and written inquiries regarding 
collection matters, failing to render a full accounting of funds 
provided to him by a client, and failing to return a client's 
documents and the unearned portion of the advance on fees upon 
termination of the representation.  Private Reprimand of Scott 
E. Hansen, 1995-32.  In October 2007 Attorney Hansen's license 
                                                 
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. 
2008AP804-D   
 
3 
 
was suspended for nonpayment of bar dues.  His license remains 
suspended.   
¶4 
On April 1, 2008, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a complaint against Attorney Hansen alleging 28 
counts of misconduct involving four different client matters.  
Attorney Hansen claims a depression disorder contributed to his 
misconduct.  The factual allegations contained in the complaint 
were resolved when the referee granted the OLR's motion for a 
default judgment, resulting in a finding of misconduct on all 
counts alleged in the OLR complaint.  The parties then briefed 
the question of the appropriate sanction for the misconduct. 
¶5 
The OLR complaint alleged and the referee found that 
in May 2006 R.V. retained Attorney Hansen to represent him 
regarding an anticipated criminal summons.  R.V. paid an advance 
fee of $1,000.  In November 2006, after R.V. received the 
summons, he tried to contact Attorney Hansen regarding his 
initial appearance set for December 28, 2006.  After a number of 
unsuccessful attempts to make contact with Attorney Hansen, R.V. 
reached him the second week in December.  Attorney Hansen agreed 
to make an appearance on December 28, 2006.  However, Attorney 
Hansen failed to appear for the hearing.  The court rescheduled 
the initial appearance to February 1, 2007, and ordered R.V. to 
obtain new counsel.  R.V. had no further contact with Attorney 
Hansen.  R.V. filed a grievance with the OLR noting that he had 
to withdraw money from his IRA in order to hire a new lawyer.   
¶6 
Attorney Hansen then failed to respond to OLR's 
requests for information regarding this matter.  Neither the fee 
No. 
2008AP804-D   
 
4 
 
nor the promised interest was ever returned.  R.V. was 
eventually reimbursed by the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client 
Protection in the amount of $1,000.    
¶7 
The OLR's complaint alleged and the referee found that 
Attorney Hansen committed six counts of misconduct in this 
matter: 
Count One: By failing to take any action on behalf of 
[R.V.], or otherwise advancing [R.V.]'s interests, 
including failing to appear at an initial appearance 
in a criminal matter, Attorney Hansen violated SCR 
20:1.3.2 
Count Two: By failing to respond to [R.V.]'s telephone 
calls 
following 
[R.V.]'s 
receipt 
of 
a 
criminal 
summons, and, in addition, by failing to respond to 
[R.V.]'s requests for information following Attorney 
Hansen's failure to appear at a court hearing, 
Attorney Hansen violated former SCR 20:1.4(a).3   
Count Three: By accepting and keeping a $1,000 fee for 
representation that he did not complete, Attorney 
Hansen violated former SCR 20:1.5(a).4   
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.3 states that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
3 Former SCR 20:1.4(a) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
provided as follows:  "A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably 
informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with 
reasonable requests for information." 
4 Former SCR 20:1.5(a) (effective through June 30, 2007), 
provided:  Fees. 
A lawyer's fees shall be reasonable.  The factors 
to be considered in determining the reasonableness of 
a fee include:  
(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and 
difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill 
requisite to perform the legal service properly; 
No. 
2008AP804-D   
 
5 
 
Count 
Four: 
By 
failing 
to 
withdraw 
from 
his 
representation of [R.V.] when a medical condition 
impaired his ability to represent [R.V.], Attorney 
Hansen violated SCR 20:1.16(a)(2).5   
Count Five: By failing to refund any portion of the 
funds advanced to him for representing [R.V.] in the 
criminal matter, Attorney Hansen violated former SCR 
20:1.16(d).6 
                                                                                                                                                             
(2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, 
that the acceptance of the particular employment will 
preclude other employment by the lawyer; 
(3) the fee customarily charged in the locality 
for similar legal services; 
(4) the 
amount 
involved 
and 
the 
results 
obtained; 
(5) the time limitations imposed by the client 
or by the circumstances; 
(6) the nature and length of the professional 
relationship with the client; 
(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of 
the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and 
(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent. 
5 SCR 20:1.16(a)(2) provides as follows:  "[A] lawyer shall 
not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, 
shall withdraw from the representation of a client if: . . .  
(2) the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs 
the lawyer's ability to represent the client; . . . ." 
6 Former SCR 20:1.16(d) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
stated: 
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer 
shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable 
to protect a client's interests, such as giving 
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for 
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and 
property to which the client is entitled and refunding 
any advance payment of fee that has not been earned or 
No. 
2008AP804-D   
 
6 
 
 
Count Six: By failing to provide relevant information 
to OLR in a timely fashion, and in failing to answer 
questions fully in response to OLR's investigation 
until ordered to do so by the Supreme Court, and, in 
addition, in misrepresenting that within a few days of 
July 23, 2007, he would refund [R.V.]'s advance 
payment 
of 
fees, 
Attorney 
Hansen 
violated 
SCR 
21.15(4),7 SCR 22.03(2),8 and SCR 22.03(6),9 which are 
enforceable through SCR 20:8.4(f).10  
                                                                                                                                                             
incurred. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the 
client to the extent permitted by other law. 
7 SCR 21.15(4) states: 
Every attorney shall cooperate with the office of 
lawyer regulation in the investigation, prosecution 
and disposition of grievances, complaints filed with 
or by the director, and petitions for reinstatement.  
An attorney's wilful failure to cooperate with the 
office of lawyer regulation constitutes violation of 
the rules of professional conduct for attorneys. 
8 SCR 22.03(2) provides as follows: 
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. 
9 SCR 22.03(6) states: 
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 
No. 
2008AP804-D   
 
7 
 
¶8 
The OLR complaint also alleged and the referee found 
that in January 2006 W.G. was convicted and incarcerated for 
felony crimes against a child.  W.G.'s stepfather hired Attorney 
Hansen to represent W.G. on appeal and paid Attorney Hansen an 
advance fee of $5,000.  In March 2006 Attorney Hansen met with 
W.G. in prison.  Following the meeting, Attorney Hansen failed 
to file an entry of appearance, failed to secure a requested 
transcript, and failed to file any motion on behalf of W.G.  
Multiple attempts by W.G. and his stepfather to contact Attorney 
Hansen were unsuccessful.  After the prison visit Attorney 
Hansen had no further contact with either W.G. or his 
stepfather.  The $5,000 has never been returned. 
¶9 
W.G. and his stepfather filed grievances with the OLR 
in February 2007.  Attorney Hansen failed to respond to the 
OLR's 
requests 
for 
information 
regarding 
these 
matters.  
Eventually, he 
stated that he had "failed to take the 
appropriate actions to protect [W.G.]'s interests in this 
appeal, or to return the fee paid to me."  He cited "health 
problems" as the reason for not properly representing W.G.  The 
OLR complaint alleged and the referee found that Attorney Hansen 
committed seven counts of misconduct in this matter: 
                                                                                                                                                             
disclosure are misconduct, regardless of the merits of 
the matters asserted in the grievance. 
10 SCR 20:8.4(f) states 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; . . . ." 
No. 
2008AP804-D   
 
8 
 
Count Seven: By failing to take any action on behalf 
of [W.G.], or otherwise advance [W.G.]'s interests in 
any meaningful manner, including failing to enter an 
appearance in a criminal matter, secure transcripts, 
or otherwise ensure that post-conviction remedies were 
protected, Attorney Hansen violated SCR 20:1.3. 
Count Eight: By failing to inform [W.G. and his 
stepfather] in any manner regarding Attorney Hansen's 
representation of W.G., and by failing to respond to 
[their] multiple telephone calls seeking the status of 
Attorney Hansen's post-conviction efforts, Attorney 
Hansen violated former SCR 20:1.4(a).   
Count Nine:  By failing to provide any meaningful 
information to [W.G.] regarding the post-conviction 
appeal process, thereby enabling [W.G.] to make 
informed 
decisions 
regarding 
Attorney 
Hansen's 
representation, including the need to meet certain 
deadlines 
to 
secure 
the 
right 
to 
appeal 
his 
conviction, Attorney Hansen violated SCR 20:1.4(b).11 
Count 
Ten: 
 
By 
accepting 
a 
$5,000 
fee 
for 
representation that he did not complete, Attorney 
Hansen violated former SCR 20:1.5(a).   
Count 
Eleven: 
By 
failing 
to 
withdraw 
from 
his 
representation of [W.G.] when a medical condition 
impaired his ability to represent [W.G.], Attorney 
Hansen violated SCR 20:1.16(a)(2).   
Count Twelve: By failing to refund any portion of the 
funds advanced to him for representing [W.G.] in the 
criminal matter, Attorney Hansen violated former SCR 
20:1.16(d). 
Count 
Thirteen: 
By 
failing 
to 
provide 
relevant 
information to OLR in a timely fashion, and in failing 
to answer questions fully in response to OLR's 
investigation until ordered to do so by the Supreme 
Court, Attorney Hansen violated SCR 21.15(4), SCR 
22.03(2), and SCR 22.03(6), which are enforceable 
through SCR 20:8.4(f). 
                                                 
11 SCR 20:1.4(b) provides, "A lawyer shall explain a matter 
to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make 
informed decisions regarding the representation." 
No. 
2008AP804-D   
 
9 
 
¶10 The OLR complaint alleged and the referee found that 
in November 1990 R.P. was convicted of a number of serious 
felonies, including first-degree intentional homicide.  He was 
sentenced to prison.  R.P. filed a number of unsuccessful pro se 
motions and appeals of his convictions.  In August 2005 R.P.'s 
wife, Robin P., retained Hansen to represent R.P.  A fee of 
$2,500 was paid to Attorney Hansen.   
¶11 R.P. asked Attorney Hansen to order a transcript from 
a March 2005 motion hearing.  Attorney Hansen did not order the 
transcript.  Attorney Hansen entered his notice of retainer with 
the court of appeals on October 14, 2005, and successfully 
obtained a briefing extension.  However, he did not ever file 
the brief or appendix.  He then failed to comply with the court 
of appeals' order to file a brief and missed a subsequent filing 
deadline imposed by the court of appeals.  On January 12, 2006, 
one of R.P.'s two appeals was dismissed.  On the second appeal, 
Attorney Hansen filed a statement on transcript but then failed 
to file the brief and appendix despite several extensions.  
Eventually, in August 2006, R.P. asked the court of appeals to 
discharge Attorney Hansen as his attorney and to allow R.P. to 
proceed pro se.  By order dated September 26, 2006, the court 
discharged Attorney Hansen and ordered him to return R.P.'s 
papers, property, and any fee advance not yet earned by Attorney 
Hansen.  Attorney Hansen eventually returned the files, although 
R.P. disputes whether all materials provided to Attorney Hansen 
were returned.  Attorney Hansen did not return any portion of 
the advance fee. 
No. 
2008AP804-D   
 
10 
 
¶12 Attorney Hansen then failed to respond to OLR's 
requests for information regarding his representation of R.P.  
Finally, on June 26, 2007, Attorney Hansen sent a fax to this 
court indicating that a "medical condition" prevented him from 
responding to the OLR requests.  Attorney Hansen filed his 
response to R.P.'s complaints on September 24, 2007.  By this 
time, the $2,500 had been returned to R.P. by payment from the 
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection.   
¶13 The OLR complaint alleged and the referee found that 
Attorney Hansen committed 10 counts of misconduct in connection 
with this matter: 
Count Fourteen:  By failing to order a transcript as 
requested by [R.P.] and by failing to properly and 
timely file Statements on Transcripts, briefs and 
appendices, and otherwise to comply with the order of 
the Court of Appeals, Attorney Hansen violated SCR 
20:1.3. 
Count Fifteen:  By failing to keep in contact with his 
client, [R.P.], and by failing to advise [R.P.] of the 
multiple orders of the Court of Appeals involving 
[R.P.]'s appeals and by failing to advise his client 
of his multiple failures to comply with the orders of 
the Court of Appeals, Attorney Hansen violated former 
SCR 20:1.4(a).   
Count Sixteen:  By failing to advise [R.P.] of his 
medical condition insofar as that condition interfered 
with his ability to properly represent [R.P.]'s legal 
interests, Attorney Hansen violated SCR 20:1.4(b).   
Count Seventeen:  By accepting and retaining a $2,500 
fee for a representation that he did not complete, 
Attorney Hansen violated former SCR 20:1.5(a).   
Count Eighteen:  By depositing the $2,500 advance fee 
into his business account and not into his trust 
No. 
2008AP804-D   
 
11 
 
account, 
Attorney 
Hansen 
violated 
former 
SCR 
20:1.15(b)(4).12   
Count Nineteen:  By failing to withdraw from his 
representation when a medical condition impaired his 
ability to represent [R.P.], Attorney Hansen violated 
former SCR 20:1.16(a)(2).   
Count Twenty:  By failing to promptly surrender all 
papers and property to which [R.P.] was entitled, 
Attorney Hansen violated former SCR 20:1.16(d).   
Count Twenty-One: By failing to refund any portion of 
the funds advanced to him for representing [R.P.] in 
appellate matters, Attorney Hansen violated former SCR 
20:1.16(d).   
Count Twenty-Two:  By providing false information to 
the Court of Appeals regarding the filing of a brief 
and appendix by May 30, 2006, and by providing false 
information 
to 
the 
Court 
of 
Appeals 
regarding 
compliance with Court orders regarding the return of 
[R.P.]'s files and fee, Attorney Hansen violated 
former SCR 20:3.3(a)(1).13   
Count Twenty-Three:  By stating in an e-mail to Robin 
P. on November 1, 2006, that Attorney Hansen would 
forward work product to [R.P.] with a copy of a brief 
when, in fact, no work product or brief existed, 
Attorney Hansen violated SCR 20:8.4(c).14 
                                                 
12 Former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) (effective July 1, 2004, through 
June 30, 2007) provided as follows:  
Unearned fees and advanced payments of fees shall 
be held in trust until earned by the lawyer, and 
withdrawn pursuant to SCR 20:1.15(g).  Funds advanced 
by a client or 3rd party for payment of costs shall be 
held in trust until the costs are incurred. 
13 Former SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
stated a lawyer shall not knowingly "make a false statement of 
fact or law to a tribunal; . . . ." 
14 SCR 20:8.4(c) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation; . . . ." 
No. 
2008AP804-D   
 
12 
 
Count Twenty-Four: By failing on multiple occasions to 
provide relevant information to the OLR in a timely 
fashion and in failing to answer questions fully in 
response to OLR's investigation until ordered to do so 
by the Supreme Court, Attorney Hansen violated SCR 
21.15(4), SCR 22.03(2), and SCR 22.03(6), which are 
enforceable through SCR 20:8.4(f).   
¶14 The OLR complaint alleged and the referee found that 
on June 6, 2006, Attorney Hansen entered an appearance on behalf 
of C.E. in a criminal traffic matter.  The initial appearance 
was handled by the filing of a written plea of not guilty.  
Attorney Hansen appeared on behalf of C.E. at the pretrial 
conference and appeared for a no-contest plea on September 25, 
2006.  The matter was set for sentencing on November 17, 2006.  
Attorney Hansen failed to appear at the sentencing hearing.  The 
matter was reset for January 25, 2007.  Attorney Hansen again 
failed to appear.  Attorney Hansen failed to advise either the 
court or his client that he would not be appearing at these 
hearings.  C.E. requested a new attorney.   
¶15 Attorney Hansen then failed to respond in a timely 
fashion to OLR inquiries.  He requested an extension of time to 
respond and did not respond until September 24, 2007, following 
an order from this court.   
¶16 The OLR alleged and the referee found that Attorney 
Hansen engaged in four counts of misconduct with respect to this 
matter: 
Count 
Twenty-Five: 
By 
failing 
to 
complete 
his 
representation 
of 
[C.E.], 
or 
otherwise 
advance 
[C.E.]'s interests in any meaningful manner, including 
failing to appear before the court in two matters, 
Attorney Hansen violated SCR 20:1.3.   
No. 
2008AP804-D   
 
13 
 
Count Twenty-Six: By failing to communicate with 
[C.E.] regarding Attorney Hansen's representation of 
[C.E.], Attorney Hansen violated former SCR 20:1.4(a). 
Count Twenty-Seven: By failing to withdraw from his 
representation of [C.E.] when a medical condition 
impaired his ability to represent [C.E.], Attorney 
Hansen violated SCR 20:1.16(a)(2). 
Count Twenty-Eight: By failing to provide relevant 
information to OLR in a timely fashion and in failing 
to answer questions fully in response to an OLR 
request until ordered to do so by the Supreme Court, 
Attorney Hansen violated SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.03(2), 
and SCR 22.03(6), which are enforceable through SCR 
20:8.4(f).   
¶17 As noted, the referee considered the appropriate 
sanction for Attorney Hansen's misconduct.  The OLR filed a 
detailed brief in proceedings before the referee on August 15, 
2008.  The OLR indicated it considered Attorney Hansen's 
depression a mitigating factor, but noted that there was 
insufficient medical evidence submitted in this proceeding to 
substantiate the scope of his condition.  The OLR observed that 
progressive 
discipline 
was 
warranted 
because 
of 
Attorney 
Hansen's disciplinary history.  It noted that sanctions in other 
cases ranged from revocation to a six-month suspension for 
comparable misconduct.  The OLR noted further that Attorney 
Hansen's failure to return unearned fees and his failure to 
cooperate with the OLR were aggravating factors not easily 
attributable to depression.  The OLR eventually recommended a 
one-year suspension of Attorney Hansen's license, citing several 
cases in support of this recommendation.  The OLR specifically 
cited three cases involving lawyers with health or depression 
issues.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Cavendish-
No. 
2008AP804-D   
 
14 
 
Sosinski, 2004 WI 30, 270 Wis. 2d 200, 676 N.W.2d 887; In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Shindell, 2002 WI 133, 258 
Wis. 2d 63, 654 N.W.2d 844; In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Cotten, 2002 WI 112, 256 Wis. 2d 1, 650 N.W.2d 551. 
¶18 The 
OLR 
explicitly 
asserted 
that 
a 
six-month 
suspension 
seemed 
"inadequate" "given the multiplicity of 
counts, the vulnerability of [Attorney] Hansen's clients and the 
need to protect the public from attorneys incapable of providing 
competent and diligent legal representation."  The OLR noted 
further that "aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors" 
in this case.   
¶19 In his report, the referee acknowledged that there was 
no independent corroboration for Attorney Hansen's claim that he 
has suffered from depression since 1994.  Attorney Hansen did 
file a letter from a nurse that states that he has had a "major 
depressive disorder" for the past "several years."   
¶20 Moreover, the referee stated that he failed to "see 
how [Attorney Hansen]'s disorder can explain Attorney Hansen's 
attempts to deceive not only his clients but also the Court of 
Appeals and the Office of Lawyer Regulation.  Nor can I see how 
this disorder would prevent Attorney Hansen from returning fees 
which he agrees were unearned and which he promised to return."   
¶21 The referee then recommended a six-month suspension of 
Attorney Hansen's license describing his depression as "a 
partial mitigating factor."  The referee also recommended this 
court order Attorney Hansen to make restitution to the Wisconsin 
Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection in the amount of $1,000 for 
No. 
2008AP804-D   
 
15 
 
the R.V. matter, $2,500 in the R.P. matter, as well as 
restitution in the amount of $5,000 to M.H. and W.G., and $1,500 
to client C.E.  The referee agreed with the OLR's assertion that 
a professional competence assessment should be a "critical 
prerequisite" to reinstatement.  The referee rejected Attorney 
Hansen's request to select his own consultant to submit this 
assessment, but agreed that Attorney Hansen should be able to 
submit an "alternative report" at his own expense.  Finally, the 
referee rejected Attorney Hansen's request that the fees and 
costs of this proceeding be waived.  As of October 22, 2008, the 
costs of this proceeding total $2,412.53.   
¶22 We have carefully considered the record in this matter 
together with the referee's report and recommendation. The 
referee's report is thorough, but this court remained concerned 
that a six-month suspension is inadequate to address the 
extensive misconduct committed in these matters. 
¶23 Accordingly, on December 22, 2008, this court issued 
an order directing the parties to explain why a one-year 
suspension was not more appropriate discipline in this matter. 
¶24 The OLR submitted a written response reiterating its 
opinion that a one-year suspension is more appropriate on these 
facts.  Attorney Hansen filed a pro se written response asking 
this court to defer to the referee's recommendation.  He asserts 
that it is significant that the referee, who had the opportunity 
to observe the respondent's acceptance of responsibility and 
sincerity, recommended a shorter suspension.  He reminds the 
court that the OLR did not appeal this recommendation and he 
No. 
2008AP804-D   
 
16 
 
provides examples of cases in which the court imposed less 
stringent sanctions for comparable conduct.  See, In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Guenther, 2005 WI 133, 285 
Wis. 2d 587, 700 N.W.2d 260 (nine-month suspension), and In re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Jones, 
2008 
WI 
53, 
309 
Wis. 2d 585, 749 N.W.2d 603 (four-month suspension).  He also 
provided the court with a personal statement regarding the 
proposed discipline in which he expressed sincere remorse for 
his misconduct and its effect upon his clients.   
¶25 After having independently reviewed the record we 
adopt the referee's findings of fact.  We also agree with the 
referee that those factual findings demonstrate that Attorney 
Hansen 
committed 
each 
of 
the 
28 
counts 
of 
professional 
misconduct alleged in the complaint.  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.  After careful consideration of the 
report and recommendation, the record in this matter, and the 
written statements of the parties, we accept the referee's 
recommendation regarding restitution, costs, and conditions on 
reinstatement.  However, while we recognize that depression 
apparently played a role in Attorney Hansen's misconduct, we 
conclude that a six-month suspension is inadequate in light of 
the pervasive misconduct that affected four clients.  We have 
No. 
2008AP804-D   
 
17 
 
determined that a nine-month suspension is necessary to address 
Attorney Hansen's misconduct in this matter.   
¶26 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Scott E. Hansen to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of nine 
months, effective the date of this order. 
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Scott E. Hansen shall make restitution to the 
State Bar of Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection in 
the amount of $1,000 for the R.V. matter and in the amount of 
$2,500 for the R.P. matter, and he shall further make 
restitution of $5,000 to M.H. and W.G. and $1,500 to C.E.  If 
the restitution is not paid within the time specified and absent 
a showing to this court of his inability to pay restitution 
within that time, the license of Scott E. Hansen to practice law 
in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the 
court. 
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Scott E. Hansen shall 
undergo a medical evaluation by a medical professional selected 
by the Office of Lawyer Regulation and a copy of that evaluation 
shall be provided to the Office of Lawyer Regulation as a 
condition for reinstatement, with the understanding that Scott 
E. Hansen may also submit an evaluation performed by a medical 
professional of his choice.  If this condition is not met, the 
license of Scott E. Hansen to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
remain suspended until further order of this court. 
¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Scott E. Hansen shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
No. 
2008AP804-D   
 
18 
 
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 those costs within that time, the 
license of Scott E. Hansen to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
remain suspended until further order of the court. 
¶30 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution to the 
State Bar of Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection and 
the restitution to M.H. and W.G. and to C.E. are to be completed 
prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer Regulation. 
¶31 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if he has not already done 
so, Scott E. Hansen 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. 
 
No. 
2008AP804-D   
 
 
 
1