Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Richard W. Voss
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2014AP002086-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: December 8, 2015

2015 WI 104 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2014AP2086-W 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against 
Richard W. Voss, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Richard W. Voss, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST VOSS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 8, 2015 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2015 WI 104
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2014AP2086-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Richard W. Voss, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Richard W. Voss, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
DEC 8, 2015 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   We 
review 
a 
stipulation 
filed 
by 
Richard W. Voss and the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), 
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12,1 which sets forth 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.12 (Stipulation) provides: 
(1) The director may file with the complaint a 
stipulation of the director and the respondent to the 
facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and 
discipline to be imposed. The supreme court may 
consider the complaint and stipulation without the 
appointment of a referee, in which case the supreme 
(continued) 
No. 
2014AP2086-D   
 
2 
 
findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding Attorney 
Voss's six counts of professional misconduct.  Attorney Voss is 
already under suspension pursuant to the 18-month suspension 
ordered 
in 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Voss, 
2014 WI 75, 356 Wis. 2d 382, 850 N.W.2d 190, which runs until 
February 22, 2016.   
¶2 
The parties' stipulation did not contain an agreement 
regarding the appropriate level of discipline to be imposed.  
                                                                                                                                                             
court 
may 
approve 
the 
stipulation, 
reject 
the 
stipulation, 
or 
direct 
the 
parties 
to 
consider 
specific modifications to the stipulation.  
(2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation, 
it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of 
law and impose the stipulated discipline.  
(3) If the supreme court rejects a stipulation, a 
referee shall be appointed and the matter shall 
proceed as a complaint filed without a stipulation.  
(3m) If the supreme court directs the parties to 
consider specific modifications to the stipulation, 
the parties may, within 20 days of the date of the 
order, file a revised stipulation, in which case the 
supreme court may approve the revised stipulation, 
adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law, and 
impose the stipulated discipline. If the parties do 
not file a revised stipulation within 20 days of the 
date of the order, a referee shall be appointed and 
the matter shall proceed as a complaint filed without 
a stipulation.  
(4) A stipulation rejected by the supreme court 
has no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to 
the respondent's defense of the proceeding or the 
prosecution of the complaint.   
No. 
2014AP2086-D   
 
3 
 
The parties agreed to brief the issue of sanctions before the 
referee, James R. Erickson.   
¶3 
The referee accepted the stipulation and found, based 
on the stipulation, that the stipulated facts supported a 
conclusion of misconduct on all six counts.  The referee 
recommended that the court suspend Attorney Voss for a 60-day 
period, consecutive to the 18-month suspension Attorney Voss is 
currently serving.  The referee also recommended that the court 
assess the OLR's full costs against Attorney Voss, which total 
$2,801.98 as of July 30, 2015. 
¶4 
Because no appeal has been filed from the referee's 
report and recommendation, we review the matter pursuant to 
SCR 22.17(2).2  We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of 
law to which the parties have stipulated and as adopted by the 
referee.  We agree that the seriousness of Attorney Voss's 
misconduct warrants a 60-day suspension of his license to 
practice law, consecutive to the 18-month suspension he is 
currently serving, together with costs. 
¶5 
Attorney Voss was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in 1976.   
                                                 
2 SCR 22.17(2) provides:  
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. 
2014AP2086-D   
 
4 
 
¶6 
Attorney Voss has been disciplined previously for 
misconduct.  In 2004, Attorney Voss was privately reprimanded 
for failing to provide competent representation and failing to 
keep 
a 
client 
reasonably 
informed. 
 
Private 
Reprimand 
No. 2004-24.3  In 2006, Attorney Voss received a public reprimand 
for various trust account violations.  Public Reprimand of 
Richard W. Voss, 2006-7.  In 2014, Attorney Voss received an 
18-month suspension for his conduct as the court-appointed 
guardian of the person and estate of an individual suffering 
from mental illness.  This court determined that Attorney Voss 
committed 11 counts of misconduct by, among other things, 
converting at least $48,791.73 of his client's funds either for 
his own use or to cover expenditures for other client matters, 
committing 
various 
trust 
account 
violations, 
and 
making 
misrepresentations to the circuit court regarding his client's 
assets.  Voss, 356 Wis. 2d 382.   
¶7 
This disciplinary matter involves six counts of 
misconduct, four of which concern Attorney Voss's work in 
bankruptcy matters, and two of which concern Attorney Voss's 
trust account practices.  We take the following facts from the 
parties' stipulation. 
                                                 
3 The OLR's complaint and the parties' stipulation both cite 
Private Reprimand No. 2004-25, but that matter involved criminal 
conduct by a lawyer, which clearly does not fit the description 
of Attorney Voss's misconduct.  Private Reprimand No. 2004-24 
involved violations of SCRs 20:1.1 and 20:1.4(a). 
No. 
2014AP2086-D   
 
5 
 
¶8 
Attorney Voss was hired to file bankruptcies for his 
clients, J.M. and L.R.  In both cases, before doing any work, 
Attorney Voss had the client pay approximately $500 in attorney 
fees and approximately $300 in filing fees.  Attorney Voss 
placed these funds into his client trust account.  It is 
undisputed that while the funds remained in trust, they remained 
an asset of the client.  
¶9 
Attorney Voss, or his staff under his direction, told 
J.M. and L.R. that the firm would file a fee waiver application 
with the appropriate United States Bankruptcy Court.  Attorney 
Voss's office would prepare the fee waiver application, along 
with the bankruptcy petition.  When drafting these documents, 
Attorney Voss failed to disclose to the bankruptcy court that 
the filing fee had already been paid by the client and that 
Attorney Voss was holding the funds in trust.   
¶10 Attorney Voss, or his staff under his direction, had 
J.M. and L.R. sign the bankruptcy documents under penalty of 
perjury.  In signing the bankruptcy documents, J.M. and L.R. 
verified that the documents were accurate, including a statement 
that they could not afford to pay the filing fee, and including 
an asset disclosure that did not disclose the filing fee 
payments held in Attorney Voss's firm's trust account. 
¶11 In the J.M. bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy court 
denied the filing fee waiver application on September 25, 2013.  
The court ordered that J.M. pay the filing fee in installments 
beginning on October 25, 2013.  Neither Attorney Voss nor his 
staff contacted J.M. to let her know of the denial of her filing 
No. 
2014AP2086-D   
 
6 
 
fee waiver application.  J.M. first learned that the bankruptcy 
court had denied her waiver application and that her filing fee 
remained unpaid at the meeting of creditors on October 17, 2013.  
J.M. was upset upon learning this information because she had 
paid the filing fee to Attorney Voss months earlier and had not 
been told of the denial of her filing fee waiver application.   
¶12 On October 25, 2013——the date the first installment of 
J.M.'s filing fee was due——Attorney Voss's secretary paid the 
filing fee in full.  Before this date, Attorney Voss's secretary 
had experienced difficulties determining from the bankruptcy 
court's website how much was owed as a filing fee and how to pay 
it.  Because Attorney Voss's secretary did not inform him of her 
difficulties in paying the filing fee, Attorney Voss was unaware 
of the problems until he received a letter from the OLR about 
the matter. 
¶13 In the L.R. bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy court 
approved L.R.'s filing fee waiver application.  When Attorney 
Voss received the notice of the approval, he refunded to L.R. 
the filing fee which was held in trust.   
¶14 Attorney 
Voss 
has 
submitted 
filing 
fee 
waiver 
applications for bankruptcy clients other than J.M. and L.R. 
after having collected filing fees from those other clients.  In 
all of those cases, the filing fee held in trust was not 
disclosed as an asset of the debtor in the bankruptcy documents.  
If the bankruptcy court waived the filing fee, Attorney Voss's 
office returned the filing fee to the clients.  If the 
No. 
2014AP2086-D   
 
7 
 
bankruptcy court did not waive the filing fees, Attorney Voss's 
office paid the filing fee to the bankruptcy court. 
¶15 The remaining conduct at issue concerns Attorney 
Voss's continued inability or unwillingness to comply with the 
trust account rules.  Since at least 1986, Attorney Voss has 
used a particular bank account at M&I Bank (n/k/a BMO Harris 
Bank) as his client trust account.  Attorney Voss has designated 
this account as his client trust account.  However, the account 
is not an Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts (IOLTA) account and 
does not accrue interest to be paid to the Wisconsin Trust 
Account Foundation, Inc.   
¶16 Attorney Voss has long been on notice that he must 
rectify his handling of trust account funds.  In 2006, Attorney 
Voss received a public reprimand for misconduct that, in part, 
related to his failure to maintain accurate records of his trust 
account activity and his failure to maintain an IOLTA trust 
account.  In 2012, the OLR filed a disciplinary complaint 
seeking to discipline Attorney Voss for misconduct that included 
his failure to maintain an IOLTA trust account; this complaint 
culminated in the 18-month suspension which Attorney Voss is 
currently serving.  Attorney Voss continued, throughout these 
prior matters, and throughout the OLR's investigation of the 
present matter, to use the non-IOLTA account at M&I Bank (n/k/a 
BMO Harris Bank) as his client trust account.   
¶17 In late 2013, the OLR requested a copy of Attorney 
Voss's trust account transaction register for the period of time 
in which he was holding J.M.'s filing fee in trust.  Attorney 
No. 
2014AP2086-D   
 
8 
 
Voss provided to the OLR a list of deposits and a separate list 
of disbursements, which did not separately or collectively meet 
the requirements for compliant trust account documents. 
¶18 On the basis of these facts, the parties stipulated, 
and the referee concluded, that Attorney Voss committed the 
following acts of misconduct:   
 Count One:  By filing or causing his staff to file 
applications for filing fee waivers with the United 
States Bankruptcy Courts on behalf of clients that 
failed to disclose the amounts being held by Attorney 
Voss on behalf of the clients for payment of their 
filing fees, and thereby failing to comply with 
applicable Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, 
Attorney Voss violated SCR 20:3.4(c).4  
 Count Two:  By filing or causing his staff to file on 
behalf of clients applications for filing fee waivers 
with United States Bankruptcy Courts that failed to 
disclose the funds being held in trust by Attorney 
Voss on behalf of the clients for payment of their 
filing fees, Attorney Voss violated SCR 20:8.4(c).5   
                                                 
4 SCR 20:3.4 (c) provides that a lawyer shall not "knowingly 
disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except for 
an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation 
exists." 
5 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
No. 
2014AP2086-D   
 
9 
 
 Count Three:  By failing to adequately supervise his 
staff so as to ensure that documents prepared and 
filed by his staff on behalf of clients conformed in 
all respects with applicable law and court rules and 
were in all respects accurate, Attorney Voss violated 
SCR 20:5.3(a) and (b).6  
 Count Four:  By failing to take reasonable steps to 
ensure his staff timely informed him and/or clients of 
case developments, including the payment status of 
filing fees, Attorney Voss violated SCR 20:5.3(a) and 
(b).  
 Count Five:  By (i) failing to maintain a pooled 
interest bearing account; (ii) failing to participate 
in the Interest on Trust Accounts Program; and (iii) 
depositing client and third party funds that are 
nominal in amount and/or intended to be held for a 
                                                 
6 SCR 20:5.3(a) and (b) provide that, with respect to a 
nonlawyer employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer, 
(a) a partner, and a lawyer who individually or 
together 
with 
other 
lawyers 
possesses 
comparable 
managerial 
authority 
in 
a 
law 
firm 
shall 
make 
reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in 
effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the 
person's conduct is compatible with the professional 
obligations of the lawyer;  
(b) a lawyer having direct supervisory authority 
over the nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to 
ensure that the person's conduct is compatible with 
the professional obligations of the lawyer[.] 
No. 
2014AP2086-D   
 
10 
 
short 
period 
of 
time 
in 
a 
non-interest-bearing 
account, 
Attorney 
Voss 
violated 
SCR 
13.047 
and 
SCR 20.15(c)(l).8  
 Count Six:  By failing to provide the OLR with a copy 
of his trust account transaction register for the 
period requested of him by the OLR, Attorney Voss 
violated SCR 20:1.15(e)(7).9  In the alternative, by 
failing to maintain a compliant transaction register 
                                                 
7 SCR 13.04 provides, as relevant here, that "an attorney 
shall participate in the [Interest on Trust Accounts] program as 
provided in SCR 20:1.15[.]" 
8 SCR 20:1.15(c)(1) provides:  
A lawyer or law firm who receives client or 3rd-
party funds that the lawyer or law firm determines to 
be nominal in amount or that are expected to be held 
for a short period of time such that the funds cannot 
earn income for the benefit of the client or 3rd party 
in excess of the costs to secure that income, shall 
maintain a pooled interest-bearing or dividend-paying 
draft 
trust 
account 
in 
an 
IOLTA 
participating 
institution. 
9 SCR 20:1.15(e)(7) provides:  
All trust account records have public aspects 
related to a lawyer's fitness to practice. Upon 
request of the office of lawyer regulation, or upon 
direction of the supreme court, the records shall be 
submitted to the office of lawyer regulation for its 
inspection, 
audit, 
use, 
and 
evidence 
under 
any 
conditions to protect the privilege of clients that 
the court may provide. The records, or an audit of the 
records, 
shall 
be 
produced 
at 
any 
disciplinary 
proceeding involving the lawyer, whenever material. 
Failure 
to 
produce 
the 
records 
constitutes 
unprofessional conduct and grounds for disciplinary 
action. 
No. 
2014AP2086-D   
 
11 
 
for the period requested, Attorney Voss violated 
SCR 20:1.15(f)(l)a.10 
¶19 The parties briefed the issue of sanctions before the 
referee.  The OLR encouraged the referee to recommend a 
six-month license suspension of Attorney Voss's Wisconsin law 
license, to run consecutive to his present suspension.  Attorney 
Voss encouraged the referee to recommend a less-than-six-month 
suspension, to run concurrent to his present suspension. 
¶20 In his report, the referee recommended that the court 
impose a 60-day license suspension, to run consecutive to 
Attorney Voss's present suspension.  The referee wrote that a 
six-month 
period 
of 
suspension 
following 
Attorney 
Voss's 
18-month suspension, as the OLR requested, was unnecessary to 
                                                 
10 SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)a. provides that complete records of a 
trust account that is a draft account shall include a 
transaction register.  Specifically: 
The 
transaction 
register 
shall 
contain 
a 
chronological record of all account transactions, and 
shall include all of the following:  
1. the date, source, and amount of all deposits;  
2. the date, check or transaction number, payee 
and amount of all disbursements, whether by check, 
wire transfer, or other means;  
3. the date and amount of every other deposit or 
deduction of whatever nature;  
4. the identity of the client for whom funds were 
deposited or disbursed; and  
5. 
the 
balance 
in 
the 
account 
after 
each 
transaction 
No. 
2014AP2086-D   
 
12 
 
meet the goals of Wisconsin's disciplinary system——especially 
since, in the referee's view, Attorney Voss's misconduct has 
"more to do with sloppy office supervision and inadequate staff 
and 
self-training 
than 
it 
has 
to 
do 
with 
intentional 
professional misconduct." 
¶21 Because no appeal was filed from the referee's report 
and 
recommendation, 
our 
review 
proceeds 
pursuant 
to 
SCR 22.17(2).  When reviewing a report and recommendation in an 
attorney disciplinary proceeding, we affirm a referee's findings 
of fact unless they are found to be clearly erroneous.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 
305 Wis. 2d 71, 
740 N.W.2d 125. 
 
We 
review 
the 
referee's 
conclusions of law, however, on a de novo basis.  Id.  Finally, 
we determine the appropriate level of discipline given the 
particular facts of each case, independent of the referee's 
recommendation but benefitting from it.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 
660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶22 We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law 
to which the parties have stipulated and as adopted by the 
referee.  We agree with the referee that the stipulated facts 
demonstrate that Attorney Voss committed each of the six counts 
of misconduct alleged in the OLR's complaint. 
¶23 We further agree with the referee that Attorney Voss's 
misconduct warrants a 60-day suspension of his Wisconsin law 
license.  In imposing a 60-day suspension in lieu of a lengthier 
suspension, we note particularly the referee's determination 
No. 
2014AP2086-D   
 
13 
 
that Attorney Voss's mistakes were more a result of slipshod 
practices, as Attorney Voss claimed, than flagrant misconduct, 
as the OLR claimed——a determination from which the OLR has not 
appealed.  Even given that the events in this case were merely 
the result of sloppy lawyering, however, we have no difficulty 
justifying a 60-day suspension.  See, e.g., In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against McKloskey, 2009 WI 65, 318 Wis. 2d 602, 
768 N.W.2d 10 (60-day suspension for sloppy and careless trust 
account procedures and failure to keep a client informed). 
¶24 We further agree with the referee that the 60-day 
suspension should run consecutive to Attorney Voss's present 
18-month suspension.  We were concerned enough with Attorney 
Voss's practice habits to impose a lengthy 18-month suspension.  
Were we aware of the facts presented here, which further call 
into question Attorney Voss's trust accounting practices and 
forthrightness with courts and clients, we are confident we 
would have imposed an even longer suspension.  A consecutively 
imposed 
suspension 
is 
therefore 
in 
order. 
 
See 
In 
re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Woodard, 190 Wis. 2d 487, 488, 
526 N.W.2d 510 (1995).   
¶25 We note that Attorney Voss has filed no objection to 
the costs requested by the OLR, which total $2,801.98 as of 
July 30, 2015.  We therefore impose them. 
¶26 Finally, we note that the OLR did not seek restitution 
in this case.  None is ordered.  
¶27 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Richard W. Voss to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
No. 
2014AP2086-D   
 
14 
 
to run consecutive to the discipline imposed in 
In re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Voss, 
2014 
WI 
75, 
356 Wis. 2d 382, 850 N.W.2d 190.   
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Richard W. Voss shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this decision is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2). 
 
 
 
No. 
2014AP2086-D   
 
 
 
1